Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Evolutionary Links

    James McGrath has an interesting crop of evolutionary links from the blogosphere today.

  • William Barclay Commentaries Dangerous

    So declare the Catholic bishops of Vietnam. I find it hard to see why, but that’s because I don’t think books that teach doctrine different from my own “dangerous.” I would call a couple of paragraphs in Barclay less than fully accurate, but there are some paragraphs that are positively brilliant, which is all one can expect from a popular, largely devotional book. If you’re wondering what I might call inaccurate, I do think he smooths the rough edges of some of the more difficult passages, and not always in full accord with the intent.

    But my point here is neither to criticize the Catholic church, nor to criticize or praise Barclay and his series of commentaries, but rather to note that this isn’t about any one denomination. Despite a slogan that includes “open minds,” I’ve encountered a number of cases in United Methodist churches where material from other denominations was deemed dangerous. In one case curriculum material written by a Baptist was deemed dangerous, because it, well, it was hard to tell. Mostly because it was Baptist.

    In another case, a young adult class was disbanded because they were reading and discussing dangerous books. A replacement class was formed that would hold the young people to the straight and narrow. The result? The class went from a full room to an empty room (yes, zero attendance) in less than a month.

    What I would say is dangerous in Christianity is a mindset that would consider Barclay’s commentaries dangerous. Debate the views, consider some of them wrong–absolutely. That’s good experience in discerning (Hebrews 5:11-14).

  • Approaches to Bible Reading

    I want to list some attitudes to Bible reading and some approaches with a brief discussion. I may choose to post some more on this. I think there is too much of an either-or approach to how one goes about reading the Bible. Different times may call for different methods and attitudes.

    • Fast Reading (Overview)
      When I returned to active church membership some years after I left seminary, I chose this approach first. I had kept up some reading so as not to use my language skills, but that was always short passages with focus on grammar and vocabulary. I chose to read the entire Bible (NIV at the time) as I would a novel. It was the book I kept by the bed. I completed the reading in 11 days. I find great value in this approach to help orient oneself in the canonical text, though it would be excessively confusing for someone not already acquainted with the text, I think.
    • Detailed reading (outlining, exegesis)
      This involves slower reading and spending time over specific texts. Most of my reading ends up here. I’ll read longer passages quickly, but some specific text will drag me in and then I’ll spend time dissecting the passage from all points of view.
    • Passage Overview, Multiple Readings
      One of my own approaches to studying shorter passages is to read the passage multiple times. This differs from the fast reading in that I choose a reasonable length passage along with a more temperate pace. Sometimes I read the passage in other languages (not original, usually modern, Spanish, German, French) to slow my reading. The longest passage I’ve done this was was the book of Ezekiel. Normally I choose something more like the Sermon on the Mount.
    • Original Languages
      Obviously this method is for those who know the languages. Here I vary my reading speed and approach much as I do in English. At the slowest level, I’ll go through the scripture indexes in the Greek or Hebrew grammars I have on my shelf and read the sections that cite the verse I’m reading. I might also prepare a personal translation. At the faster level I try to read several chapters in succession, and mark words or constructions I want to go back and look at in more detail.
    • Devotional Reading
      This is simply reading my Bible prayerfully, listening for what God has for me. This is one of the more difficult options for me; I slide into a more technical reading very easily.
    • Historical Reading
      Reading biblical books either as history or from a historical point of view. I find that Samuel-Kings and Chronicles reads very differently when seen devotionally rather than historically.
    • Literary Reading
      This is a fairly broad category. Think of Samuel-Kings. One might read this to study the history of Israel (historically), one might read it looking for theological points, one might read it devotionally (What is God saying to me here?), or one might look at it as literature, looking for characters, plot, and so forth. What type of literature? That’s part of the fun!
    • Critical reading
      Reading the text looking for sources, redactional issues, genre, canonical connections, and so forth. I don’t specialize in one or another of the tools of biblical criticism. I think they all have their place, and they also all have places where they don’t work so well. In my view Form Criticism is probably the most abused by being applied where it just doesn’t apply.
    • Liturgical reading
      Reading as worship or as preparation for worship. In my experience, this is largely lectionary reading. I like to read the lectionary passages for the week several times, and I also have occasionally, but not consistently, read from one or another daily lectionary. I would see this as an attitude to reading as well–reading the Bible as part of the church’s heritage and as part of the church’s worship.
    • Bible Year, or Reading the Bible Through
      Other than my 11 day thing under the first point, of course! Right now I’m trying a year’s reading from a booklet by Robert Murray McCheyne, More Precious Than Gold: READ THE BIBLE IN ONE OR TWO YEARS (Didasko Files),which tends to line up a chapter each from four different places in the Bible. I haven’t warmed to it very much thus far, but I’m going to try it for a while before I decided it doesn’t work for me.

    That’s the list for today. I’ve probably left out plenty, and have certainly left out details. I may blog some more about Bible reading. In the meantime I recommend two things: 1) Find and use a Bible reading method that is comfortable for you and 2) Make sure you use some methods other than the one you found in #1.

  • Alden Thompson: SDAs and the Charismatic Experience

    Ellen Gould White vor 1900
    Ellen G. White
    Image via Wikipedia

    Since I grew up as an SDA and later got involved in a somewhat charismatic stream within Methodism, I found this article by Alden Thompson pretty interesting. It’s not surprising, however, that the SDA movement, which arose in the mid 1800s, had some charismatic elements.

    The funny thing for me in reading this is that I did actually read the passages from Ellen White’s Testimonies when I was younger, and simply didn’t understand what some of those phrases meant, so I never made the connection.

    One thing that has puzzled and interested me since I left the Seventh-day Adventist church is the way in which Adventists tend toward the respectable side of religion even though they’re a bit out of the Christian mainstream. It seems as if SDAs prefer that in everything except their specific doctrinal distinctives they be seen as solid and respectable. Those who do not seek distinction from other Christian churches (and interesting split in the church in my view), tend to seek acceptance with conservative evangelicals, not mainline Christians who might be more willing to listen.

    (Note: I’m publisher of Dr. Alden Thompson’s book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?, which will soon be released in a new edition. [Some slightly damaged copies are still available.] I’m also publisher of another book on the SDA experience, Finding My Way in Christianity: Recollections of a Journey by Dr. Herold Weiss.)

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • How Certain is Science?

    US Navy 090121-N-6326B-103 Melissa Canedo scan...
    Image via Wikipedia

    Rationally Speaking has a great article on the uncertainties in scientific research and what they mean about science. I think a good deal of the problem here is that people expect certainty, and science doesn’t provide this. Occasionally one can get near certainty, but absolute certainty is elusive. On the frontiers of medicine, especially, you’ll find lots of uncertainty.

    In the article the problem is dealt with as one of replicability, but I think that in the public’s eyes that amounts to the same thing as certainty. What cannot be replicated isn’t certain.

    I was raised in a medical family. My father was a doctor (general practitioner and proud of it), and my mother is a registered nurse. We talked medical things around the dinner table, so I got used to the terminology. One of the things I learned from my father, in particular, was uncertainty. He was fanatical, I believe, about knowing the latest research, yet he emphasized to me the uncertainties of science, especially his science.

    That balance between awareness of the uncertainties, and yet full use of the best knowledge we have, is something that escapes many of us. We either want to worship science or deride it. We choose historically to view it as a series of dominant theories overthrown, or a series of triumphs of new knowledge. In fact, those two views are not incompatible.

    I recall early in my time in the U. S. Air Force I was referred to the dietitian to straighten out certain numbers having to do with my cholesterol and triglycerides. I would note that I was quite a number of pounds lighter then than I am now, and didn’t look like I had a problem with fat. So I followed some good dietary advice and got the numbers under control.

    A few years later at my annual flight physical, I noticed the numbers from my blood test and was disturbed by one of them. (I always looked through all the test results myself. I found them interesting.) At the end of my consultation with the doctor, who had said nothing of this particular number (and I now forget which it was), I mentioned the number and that perhaps I should do something about.

    He said, “Oh, that’s no problem, we have new guidance, and the range for your age is …” The new number put me just within the permissible range. Oh! New study. My old numbers from back in training would have fallen within the range he gave me. (I’m telling this all from memory, so don’t hold me to which number of just how far it changed!)

    My personal choice at the time was to do a little more diet watching because I was close to the line, and it seemed a good thing to do. In fact, even now, more than 20 years and an unfortunate number of pounds later, my lab results still don’t scare the friendly family doctor.

    My point is that even though the science changed, the general idea of what was a good way to live and eat didn’t change all that much. I was able to work with it, and under either set of criteria, I was better off after I did some work on my diet.

    I would suggest that it’s important to realize two things simultaneously: 1) Science is not perfect, and in some cases is very imperfect; and 2) Science is still better at all of these pesky fact things than any other approach we have.

    In other words, while my doctors may have had some differences of opinion over the precise levels of certain substances in my blood, they were all much better at giving me guidance than someone from times past who might have told me that fat was a sign of good health.

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Guns in the Home

    Unconventional warfare (United States Departme...
    No, not that kind of gun!
    Image via Wikipedia

    In general I support gun ownership rights, though I think these rights are easy to carry to excess. Are reasonably thorough background checks really a form of denying someone their rights? Does one really have the right to carry a gun almost anywhere? I think there are a number of quite reasonable weapons limitations.

    Despite the fact that I have the basic skill, I do not own, nor do I intend to own a weapon. My reason for this choice is simple. I think the odds are vanishingly small that I will get to the weapon in time and use it successfully to defend myself, and the odds are high that I will do so in error if it’s accessible, especially if I’m caught waking up. I’m not that guy in the movies who sees the threat, evaluates it, draws his weapon, and shoots the bad guy all before the rest of the world knows anything is wrong.

    There is a problem, however, in that not everybody who thinks they’re safer with a gun actually is safer. Idiots will doubtless possess weapons and will, being idiots, do idiotic things. What’s more dangerous, because it’s less obvious is that reasonably intelligent people who are easily distracted, or who are not always fully aware of the immediate situation, are likely to do dangerous things, and not necessarily recognize their weakness. There’s a study that suggests that 90% of American drivers believe they are above average. But make sure to read the funny stuff about people who think they understand statistics! Then be aware that more than 50% of a sample can be above average. But I digress–at least 57% of the time!

    I was set on this line of thinking this morning by this post at Greg Laden’s blog. He provides some statistics, but also gives two anecdotes that are worth thinking about. Into which category do you fit?

    My personal view is that this is an area in which we need to err just a bit on the side of freedom. People should be free to choose some dangerous behaviors. While there are places guns should not be allowed, and circumstances under which safety should be first, in one’s home one should be able to choose which risk to face.

     

    Related articles
    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Searching for the Antichrist

    …or not. David Ker’s random chapter for the day was Ezra 1, and he has a great quote:

    Let me go out on a limb here and say that Christians spend too much time looking for the anti-Christ when they should be looking for the Messiah. We do well to remember that God is the author and architect of history….

    I wonder what might happen to our mission and discipleship if we spent less time looking for the Antichrist–and might I add “trying to construct precise end times charts to wrap around the Antichrist–and more time looking for Christ, and of course following Christ.

    Avoiding evil is good, but seeking the good is better, or so it seems to me.

  • Time Spent in Bible Study

    I’ve created a new poll. I’d like to get an idea of how much time people spend in Bible study, average, per day. This is not really aimed at Bible professionals (teachers, preachers, and such) and many of my readers come from those classes, so that will probably skew the answers again.

    This came up for me when we were discussing various things to study in our Sunday School class. One of the criteria class members specified was that they wanted something that didn’t require them to read during the week.

    I’ve had similar responses in Bible study classes and in various series I’ve taught for quite a number of classes. Class members will buy a study guide, but often need to get a Bible from the book case in the classroom, and the vast majority won’t read during the week, either from the study guide or from the Bible itself.

    With that attitude, there really isn’t much chance of alleviating Bible illiteracy.

    The poll is posted in the lower left-hand corner of this blog, as well as in this post.

    [poll id=”3″]

  • Do We Need More English Bible Translations?

    Allan Bevere suggests we don’t, and we need to stop making them.  I’ve had a poll about this on this blog for over a year (now on the lower left of the footer), and the results are interesting:

    [poll id=”2″ type=”result”]

    I will be closing that poll and substituting another one.

    I would prefer that we cut down on the production of new English Bible versions, though I’d be more interested in seeing less editions of the Bible. The problem is deciding who doesn’t get what they want.

    I suspect that what is needed is a simple change–simple in concept but difficult to effect–in our attitude in the American church. This isn’t about us, it’s about the world. We need to be looking outward, to get a mission attitude. That might well bring us into more balance on many, many topics.

    I have a great appreciation for those companies that dedicate part of their revenue from printing English Bibles to producing new translations.

  • David Ker is at It Again!

    David Ker has started an interesting series. As usual, he’s doing something very different, and the result is some interesting posts. He uses a spreadsheet to randomly choose a chapter from the King James Version and then he writes a post about it.

    He has an announcement about the series, and I’d suggest his post For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses (Ezekiel 23) as a good example of the new post genre:

    When I was a little boy in Sunday School this was one of our favorite chapters. My buddies and I, we gravitated to this chapter, verse 20 in particular, and snickered. How did we even find the verse? Maybe like dirty jokes, naughty bits of the Bible are passed down from older boys to the younger.

    Read the rest and follow the series!