Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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.

     

    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!

  • New Jersey Wants to Seize Gift Cards

    … if they’re not used after two years. What can possibly make this a good idea? (HT: The Agitator).

  • On Continuation of the Gifts

    I was interested to find this post by Craig Adams, looking at some quotes from John Wesley on the continuation of the gifts. I find myself in general agreement with what Wesley says here. The extraordinary gifts are possible, but not commonplace, nor are they required. The primary evidence of the Spirit is the sanctification of life, not some miraculous activity.

    Of course, in discerning the evidence of the Spirit through sanctification, one must always be careful of judgment (James 4:11-12).

    I’d connect this to what I wrote earlier on Speaking in Tongues and a Prayer Language.

  • Ephesians: A Participatory Study Guide

    I try to publish some reflections on each book that my company, Energion Publications, releases. Sometimes it takes me  few months after release, but I try to get to it sooner. Please be aware that while I will say some things I might say in a review, this is not a review, and is intended to be subjective. It’s my reflections on publishing this book, why I did it, and what I hope for it.

    This week, we’re releasing Ephesians: A Participatory Study Guide, by Robert D. Cornwall. Bob Cornwall is actually author of two releases in close succession, the other being Ultimate Allegiance: The Subversive Nature of the Lord’s Prayer. Note that while you will not see it in stock at Amazon.com on Monday, January 3, you should see it at some point during the first week of January.

    Ephesians: A Participatory Study Guide

    This book is a milestone both for Energion and for the Participatory Study Series, and it’s especially gratifying to me. When I first started the participatory series (for which this blog was named), it was a way for me to publish notes and handouts. I looked at what I was doing to provide materials for my classes, then at the costs involved in printing, and gathered the material together. I thought I could sell enough just for classes I taught to pay the expenses, and indeed I did. But I also sold quite a number more. (My study guides are to Revelation and Hebrews.)

    Then my former student, Geoffrey Lentz, now a minister at First United Methodist Church in Pensacola suggested adding a study guide to the book of Luke. As a publisher, this meant some considerable changes. I’d put the whole series on the back burner. I was much more interested in publishing things written by others than my own work. But after some thought Geoffrey signed a contract and duly produced the study guide to Luke.

    While Geoffrey followed the outlines of the method I had created and written about on the web, he also added some nuances, especially in terms of making the study guides reflect the emphasis on prayer. If anyone compares one of my guides to his, they will note that while I emphasize prayer while talking about the method, I don’t do as much to make it part of the structure of each lesson. Geoffrey also added a certain amount of art and iconography, amongst other things.

    To summarize, I was much happier with his study guide than I was with my own, and I invited Geoffrey to join me in writing a basic guide to the method used in the series. I’d had a manuscript gathering the cyber equivalent of dust for a couple of years, so I dusted it off, and sent it to Geoffrey. We passed it back and forth several times, added many pages of his work, deleted some of mine, and I think the results were good. The book is Learning and Living Scripture: An Introduction to the Participatory Study Method.

    The foundation was laid to make this a real series, with the vision of making guides that will help individuals, but especially small study groups dig into the Bible and study it for themselves, while at the same time not studying it in isolation.

    Besides Ephesians, there are currently two other study guides in progress, and we’re looking for more authors who would like to write one of these guides. The method gives considerable leeway for individual approaches, while setting broad boundaries in terms of the level and the overall approach. (If you’re interested in writing a guide contact me, pubs@energion.com.)

    Bob Cornwall has taken hold of the vision of the series and produced a study guide that is thoughtful and challenging. He’s set a new high standard for what this series should produce. I hope some time to revise my two guides, and I’m planning on borrowing ideas from him (as well as from Geoffrey) when I do so.

    Bob’s study guide plows head-on into the major issues raised by Ephesians, not in a destructive way, but in an open and honest approach that will allow groups to discuss and come to their own conclusions about many of the issues in the book. What about submission, gender roles, spiritual warfare, the demonic realm, and authorities in the heavens? They’re all here, and you’ll have a chance to think seriously about them and share.

    One of the great distinctive features Bob has added is a historical reflection with each lesson. I wanted this series to emphasize looking at the history of interpretation, i.e. not seeing the community in which one studies as just contemporary Christians, but rather as those who have read, interpreted, and applied the book since it was written. These historical reflections are an extraordinarily effective approach to accomplishing this goal.

    There is always a struggle in a study guide to decide what is included. Huge amounts of material ends up cut, either due to space, or because you don’t want to overburden or distract students who may be studying a book for the first time. In his introductions, Bob has chosen carefully and introduced issues that are profitable and more importantly that will tend to help build dialog.

    One of the elements of the participatory study method is sharing, by which we mean not just (or even primarily) telling other people what you learn, but also listening to the community of faith and to others throughout history. If you are going to conduct dialog across various denominational and theological lines, you have to know what the issues are. A good example of this is the issue of pseudonymity. Was Paul the author, and if he was not, does it matter? Many church members are not aware of the alternatives on this issue. Bob gives them a good introduction. Whatever you believe regarding this issue, it’s a good idea to be aware of the possibilities.

    This guide shares with the other guides good exercises and challenging thought questions. I think it’s “further reading” section is again exceptionally good.

    I hope many church education coordinators and other leaders and teachers in the church will give strong consideration to using this guide in their teaching. I’m gratified and blessed that Bob Cornwall has been willing to offer his expertise to this series, and I am excited about seeing new volumes as they develop.

    I should write one final general note about the series. This isn’t your “Bible in five minutes a day” series. Members of the class need to commit to reading the material in the guide and the scriptures for each lesson. It is also useful if they study the questions and are prepared to discuss. These questions are not designed for a quick sharing of existing opinions; they’re designed to challenge your existing opinions. I hope that you’ll come away from sharing with a group using these questions and reflections better informed, and better able to express and support your understanding.

  • Responding to Adrian Warnock on Arminocalvinists

    Jacobus Arminius
    Image via Wikipedia

    I’ve had Adrian Warnock’s post, An Arminocalvinist Spectrum, sitting in my starred items for some time, but I do want to write just a few words about it before I move on. But first, I want to note that Adrian Warnock is one of the Five Sites I Read Because I Disagree, and I’m on his list of top 60 referrers for 2010, even if only at #56. Glad I could contribute, Adrian!

    I’m also happy to see this issue divided into a spectrum rather than viewed as a simple, two-sided issue, because there are, indeed, substantial differences between various positions all along the line. I would personally have to say that I accept some points from #5 (Reformed Arminian), #6 (Strong Arminian), and #7 (Open Arminian), though not all points from any of them. But that is part of defining points on any spectrum–there are always people who fall between the points.

    As a follow-up, I would suggest reading Spectrum or Divide? A Response to Adrian Warnock, and Adrian’s response in turn here. Matt O’Reilly of Incarnatio, is a neighbor here in the Alabama-West Florida Conference of the United Methodist Church, though I have never actually met him.

    While I understand that some Arminians are embarrassed by open theists, I do think open theism at least grows out of Arminianism. I am attracted to, but not certain of, some elements of open theism. I think there are scriptures, particularly those that refer to God repenting, which sound quite open.

    What always bothers me in these discussions, though to his credit Adrian doesn’t bring it up until his point on open theism, is the belief that this is largely a debate about the sovereignty of God. I don’t even believe it deals with the nature of God’s sovereignty. It actually deals with the way in which God exercises his sovereignty.

    I’ve encountered this same issue in creation-evolution debates. The argument is that God is more glorified if he created the world in six literal days than if he used some mechanism that took more time, or in which God appeared more distant. But the question is not about God’s power, or about who has the choice. God clearly has the choice. God is sovereign no matter how he chose to create. Finite human beings have no concept of the power involved no matter what the method.

    When God works in salvation, it is totally a divine choice how to act. Whether God created human beings with the power to choose good, some of which remains, or God empowers them to make the choice through prevenient grace, or simply makes that choice in predestination, it is nonetheless God’s action in God’s time and it’s God’s sovereignty.

    It seems to me that the argument that God gets greater glory if he predestines all who will be saved actually tries to force a very human view of sovereignty onto God. Similarly, a claim that God is more glorified if he gives his creatures freedom is to force our human perspective onto God’s actions.

    The only question, it seems to me, is how God actually has acted. To be more precise, I should say how God has chosen to present his actions. Because I don’t think any of us understand this. Deeper than any conviction I have about Arminian soteriology is the simple conviction that we don’t really know–none of us.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Righteousness of God Redux

    Just over three years ago I wrote a bit about the New Perspective on Paul, and particularly the interpretation of the righteousness of God in 2 Corinthians 5:21. I would still call my understanding of this a work in progress. There are many things I should read and assimilate yet.

    At the moment, however, I’m working my way through the Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament volume on James and I came across this same phrase in James 1:20. The authors comment:

    … when James talks about the “righteousness of God” … he may mean something quite different than Paul’s characteristic subjective genitive (“the righteousness produced by God”; cf. Ro 1:17; 3:5, 21, 22, 25, 26; 10:3; 2Co 5:21; Php 3:9). Here the genitive “of God” … seems objective, because James is insisting that human wrath does not create the righteousness that can be offered or directed to God, the righteousness that we are called to live out on earth and that he demands from his followers (86, Greek text left out).

    Now “may mean something quite different” is not an extremely strong statement, but if Wright is correct on the meaning of “righteousness of God” in 2 Corinthians 5:21 (and I have correctly understood him), “covenant faithfulness” might work quite well on both sides. God’s righteousness is his covenant faithfulness, and the righteousness to be produced in us is also faithfulness to the covenant. Thus we can “become” the righteousness of God, or become the bearers of God’s covenant faithfulness in the world, and that righteousness can be produced in us. The theology of James and Paul would not, on this point at least, be as far apart as often assumed.

    I would add the note that in either case, we should not be talking about human-produced righteousness. James 1:5, receiving God’s wisdom, should be as clear on that point as are the many statements by Paul regarding righteousness by faith. I have been impressed in my current study of James with the parallels between receiving God’s wisdom and receiving the Spirit. I might write a few notes on that later.