Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Bible Memorization and Reading

    When I wrote about different approaches in reading the Bible I left an important one out–memorization. I was reminded of this when writing an e-mail to some friends and quoting scripture. I quoted the KJV and wasn’t even aware of it until I’d completely quoted the text.

    So what does quoting the KJV have to do with the value of memorization? It goes back to my school experience. For four years of elementary school I attended a small Christian school that required regular Bible memorization. We didn’t do memory verses–well, we did a few of those two–but the bulk of the program was memorizing chapters or groups of chapters. These included Matthew 5-7 (The Sermon on the Mount), Psalm 78, Genesis 1:1-2:4, and Psalm 119 (all 176 verses). All of this memorization was from the KJV.

    Since that time I’ve learned to read Greek and Hebrew, and I include both in my daily devotional reading. I’ve read the Bible through numerous times in a variety of translations, and I’ve written any number of working translations of verses I’m studying. But I still remember most verses, even ones I never memorized, in the KJV.

    I’m not making an argument in favor of memorizing the KJV specifically. Rather, I’m suggesting that memorizing scripture and doing it early will tend to keep that scripture with you later in life.

    There was one aspect of this training that didn’t stick. They hoped that by making us memorize all this carefully selected scripture, they would guarantee that we’d stick with the doctrinal positions they held. That was one of the major reasons they included texts as well as chapters. We had four texts on the Sabbath, four texts on the state of the dead, and various other Adventist doctrines. It was also hoped that having memorized Genesis 1 we’d be protected against the wiles of evolutionary theory. They didn’t consider that one might love those words, and yet understand them very differently.

    Nonetheless I recommend memorization. In fact, to Greek and Hebrew students I recommend memorizing texts in those languages. I have much better memory for both words and constructions that are in passages I have memorized than I do otherwise. Even better, when I’m discussing the meaning of those words of constructions, I can easily cite the memorized text. I wish I had memorized more back when I was a student, but I still can remedy that.

    So I recommend memorization of selected texts as an aid to your Bible study, whether in English (or your native tongue, whatever that is), or in the original languages.

  • Ephesians 3:1-12 – To the Rulers and the Authorities

    This is from the Epiphany 1A lectionary.

    This passage interested me because of the reference to revealing God’s wisdom to the authorities in the heavenly realm through the church (Eph. 3:10).  The reason for this interest is the “great controversy” theme that I grew up with as a Seventh-day Adventist. The foundation for this is Ellen G. White’s book The Great Controversy, and it has been taken up by a number of Adventist authors.

    One of these was my professor Dr. Malcolm Maxwell, and another is Dr. Alden Thompson, author of Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?, which is published by my company.

    This great controversy theme essentially sees the world as a theater with heavenly beings watching the way good and evil plays out. Amongst the texts on which this is based are Job 1 & 2, which has God demonstrating his righteousness to the waiting heavenly court, and of course this passage, in which the church shows the heavenly powers God’s wisdom.

    It is one explanation for the reason that sin has to run such a long course. Why doesn’t God step in if he can and if he cares? There are many, many explanations for this, but this explanation suggests that if God wants to deal with sin permanently, the entire universe must see just how evil sin is on its own, and also see how good God is in redeeming fallen creation.

    Alternatively one can connect this with ancient cosmology. To quote the just released Ephesians: A Participatory Study Guide (also by my company):

    However, we should remember that according to the ancient world view what happens on earth mirrors what is also happening in heaven (Matt. 6:1 0). Therefore, even as the church delivers this message ? concerning the mystery of God ? on earth, the church is also delivering the message that God is sovereign over all things to the rulers and authorities in the heavens. This message is rooted in the belief of the church that in the resurrection of Christ, these powers that be, which seek to block the purposes of God, have been defeated (40).

    Come to think of it, the two aren’t really in opposition, though they look at the issue from different angles.

    I wonder how many pastors will have the guts (or lack of good judgment) to preach on the authorities in heavenly places?

  • My Wife Comments on Arizona Shooting

    Link.

  • Why is This Translation Important?

    Because obviously the most important thing about being a man is the way you use the bathroom. Potty training issues, maybe?

    (This is the second time there’s been a video of this guy preaching this. I blogged about it earlier here. Hat tip for this round: Abnormal Interests).

  • Listening to Whose Voice(s)

    Quote of the day:

    The sin of the church too often is to listen to the voice of those already in it. We let the comfortable voice of the familiar become the voice of God. Breaking free of that sin is necessary. But replacing one human voice with another is not the same as following Jesus.

    From: John Meunier

     

  • 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