Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • A Christian Officer and DADT

    Jesus is considered by scholars such as Weber ...
    Image via Wikipedia

    Lt. Col. Stacy L Maxey has written a letter to Stars and Stripes indicating that he has plans to violate military regulations following the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  Or something like that. Actually it’s hard to tell precisely what he plans to do. One paragraph of the letter reads:

    Here’s the truth: I will continue to witness to who I want, when I want and where I want. My commitment to my God supersedes my commitment to the DOD and, if officials are upset about that, then I guess they can “learn to deal with it.”

    Now it’s hard to tell precisely what he means by “witnessing” but it appears his plans include things that would violate regulations–regulations that exist for very good reasons. I was not a Christian while I was in the Air Force, and I encountered situations in which I was very glad there was protection from officers who felt their religious views could be forced on others appropriately.

    While I support the repeal of DADT, and am glad to see it happen after so many years (note to objectors: straight servicemen and women have been serving with gay servicemen and women for years, and often we knew it quite well; our unit cohesion did not evaporate), my post is not about that issue.

    There is one way in which I support Lt. Col. Maxey, and this is it.  He is absolutely right that his “commitment to [his]God supersedes [his] commitment to the DOD” and he must obey God first. I say that without any form of sarcasm. I believe it.

    But he also took an oath (or made an affirmation) as an officer in the U. S. Air Force, and that promise is also sacred. For those who may quote Jesus saying not to swear at all (Matthew 5:33-37), let me point out that Jesus was calling for a higher, not a lower standard of honesty, one in which a simple “yes” or “no” was your commitment.

    There is an option for someone who cannot carry out the duties of an officer in good conscience:  Resign your commission.  It comes down to this.  If you can’t obey Caesar’s laws, don’t take Caesar’s money.

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Book Review: Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament – James

    Blomberg, Craig L. and Miriam J. Kamell. James.  Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament 16.  Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008.*

    The Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series is aimed at pastors and teachers who are looking for a commentary based on the Greek text.  In addition, it aims to provide “expert guidance from solid evangelical scholars” (Series Introduction, 9).  These are just two of the seven possible reasons you might be interested in this commentary listed on the same page, but I think they place the commentary well in terms of two major questions:  1) What is the theological position of the commentary authors and editors and 2) What is the educational level of the audience for which it is written.

    I would say that the person who could make the best use of this commentary would be someone with a little bit of Greek, but who is not expert in the language.  At the same time, there is much here of value to someone who does not know Greek at all.  I would place it between something like the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, which is written for a less biblically educated audience and the Hermeneia series, which assumes a much greater level of knowledge of the biblical languages.

    Key features–those that stand out to me–are:

    • Translation with outline (or phrasing) in a graphical layout
      This makes it easy to follow the flow of the text, at least as understood by the authors.
    • Greek text included with the translation in the commentary
      Both the Greek text and the authors’ English translation is included in the Explanation of Text section
    • A Theology in Application section
    • A discussion of the structure
    • A substantial, though select, bibliography
    • Solid scripture, subject, and author indexes

    (Note that these do not occur in that order in the text.)

    There are also a number of excurses throughout the commentary.  I didn’t count them, and unfortunately they are not included in the table of contents or any other list that I could find.  These dig deeper into specific issues in interpretation.  For example, in the section on James 1:1-11 there is a discussion titled In Depth: Are the Rich in 1:1-11 Christians?, which digs more into detail on this thorny question (57-58).

    Excluding indexes and front matter, the commentary occupies 242 pages.  The print is clear and easy to read, and the page layout is attractive.  There is a good deal of white space for people like me who cannot keep from “adding to the words … of this book.”  Fortunately, unlike John the Revelator, the authors failed to provide a curse on those who do this!

    While the target audience would have at least some acquaintance with Greek, this commentary should be quite usable by those who do not know any Greek at all.  There are some sections that would be a bit obscure, particularly in the explanation of the text, as Greek words are not transliterated.  At the same time, the theological insights are generally written in such a way as to be accessible to the biblically aware layperson.

    I was happily surprised by the breadth of the audience that is potentially addressed.  Usually I find myself thinking that commentary writers miss the mark when aiming for the educated layperson.  In this case, I think the authors and editors did even better than they claimed.  At the same time, they provided material for those who do have some deeper knowledge.

    I would emphasize, however, that I think this book largely addresses those with a small amount of Greek rather than going into depth for the more advanced student.  Seminary graduates with one or more semesters, always assuming they haven’t forgotten all of it, should find it very helpful.

    I found the discussion of critical issues and methodologies, whether textual criticism or any historical-critical methodologies rather light.  This isn’t necessarily a criticism.  This commentary aims at pastors and teachers, and it is rare that such details are going to find their way even into the background of Sunday sermons.  I want them, but then I’m not at the center of the target audience.

    I should mention at this point that I normally review a commentary on my blog in two phases.  The first phase is providing basic information about features and style.  I do this after spending some time with the commentary, but before studying through it in detail.  In this case, I’m in the process of reading this commentary through alongside the Greek text in a verse by verse study.  I will post further notes as I study through the commentary. But because of the blog tour, I looked at a number of passages throughout the book, so that I could discuss some themes and the perspective of the authors during the blog tour.

    These days it’s not enough just to say that someone is evangelical.  There are so many differences in perspective within the evangelical community.  Let’s look at a few specific issues to get a feel for the authors.

    Authorship and Date. The authors accept James the brother of Jesus as the author and propose an early date for its writing.  They even say it’s “…probably the first NT document written and the first existing Christian writing of any kind of which we know” (35).  I’m not going to go over their arguments for this position, but pages 27-35 are occupied with discussing the circumstances of writing.

    Gender Inclusive Language. The authors both use it and argue for it in the footnotes.  This includes both anthrôpos and anêr (1:8), where note 53 states that “Tellingly, Poythress and Grudem (The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy) include no discussion of this verse (53).  They carry this further regarding the translation of adelphoi in 3:1, including an excursus title In Depth: Were the Teachers Only Men?, which concludes they were not.  While not challenging a fundamentally complementarian position on teaching, they simply note that 1 Timothy 2:12 should not be read as prohibiting women from all teaching activities that involve men (154-155).

    In James 5:13-16, the authors do an excellent job of summarizing the various elements of the prayer for the sick and the associated anointing with oil.  While one may disagree, I don’t think anyone would regard the discussion as unfair with regard to any view on these verses.  I may not be the best judge of this, because they conclude that the prayer is for physical healing, that the anointing is symbolic rather than medicinal, and that this is not an instance of the gift of healing–all positions with which I agree.

    Finally, the authors emphasize that there is no tension between orthodoxy and orthopraxy, noting that “…faith in action, especially in social action, remains central…” for James, and that he “…sees no tension between … orthodoxy and orthopraxy.  This final note comes into play in discussing faith and works in James 2, where, not surprisingly, the authors do not see substantial theological tension with the teaching of Paul on the same subject.

    I will blog on specific topics as I work my way through this commentary in more detail.  As it stands, I commend it to anyone who needs to teach on the book of James in the church, whether from the pulpit or in Sunday School.  If you have a little bit of Greek, you will get more from it, but you will benefit from its insights even if you do not.


    *I received a free copy of this volume from the good folks at Zondervan in order to review it as part of their blog tour for the series.

  • Linguistics and Exegesis – a Link

    A Living Sacrifice provides a link to some material on linguistics and exegesis, particularly word studies.  The articles are by Benjamin Baxter and are in the McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry.  One is The Meaning of Biblical Words, and the other is Hebrew and Greek Word-Study Fallacies. I highly commend both.

    The key element in the Fallacies article is that the author provides substantial examples in Hebrew, Greek, and English for each fallacy.  I was already acquainted with these types of fallacies, yet I am certain I will find myself using the examples in this article frequently.  It’s the sort of thing you keep on file for ready reference.

  • Am I Too Picky?

    This Jimmy Dean commercial gets on my nerves.  I know it’s supposed to be humorous, but but the whole idea of the sun commenting that it’s 10 am just goes beyond my ability to suspend disbelief and laugh! It’s 10 am in reference to what? Where?

  • Nobody Recognizes Fake Doctor

    … and he was teaching continuing education.  Doesn’t it point to a problem if a roomful of doctors can’t tell that the person teaching them never completed medical school?

  • I got goosebumps

    … during the closing song at church today, Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee.  Perhaps this explains it!  Or perhaps not.

  • Biblical Studies Carnival and Biblioblogs Top 50

    The Biblical Studies Carnival has been posted at Bulletin for the Study of Religion, and the Biblioblogs Top 50 is out.  I’ve moved up in the world to #35, probably as the result of actually blogging (what a concept!).

  • Creationism vs Anti-evolutionism

    The Creation of Adam
    Image via Wikipedia

    According to Todd Wood there’s a real difference, and I agree, although I think real creationists are a bit thin on the ground.  He writes about this on the Center for Faith and Science International web site. One of the requirements, in my view, is the admission that the foundation of young age creationist thinking is accepting Genesis 1-11 as history and building from there.  To claim that one accepts young age creationism based solely on current scientific evidence is simply no believable.

    That is precisely where Todd Wood and Kurt Wise (author of Faith, Form, and Time–the one creationist book you should read if you want to understand it) are refreshingly honest.  They admit they start with their conviction about what the Bible says and that there is much science to be done to back up such a view.

    What caught my attention in this article is the reference to George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist who pioneered modern day creationism and flood geology.  I got to Price’s writings by starting with Frank Lewis Marsh and his small book Evolution or Special Creation.  Marsh was somewhat more accessible than Price.

    Despite the fact that I believe that to read Genesis 1-11 as history is generally to misread it, I appreciate the faith stance of Todd Wood and Kurt Wise and their honesty in admitting their starting point in faith.

    (I’m experimenting with Zemanta.  I may have overdone the linking!)

    Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Wesleyan-Arminian vs Calvinist Self-Identification

    I found this interesting article at Baptist Press via the Methoblog’s Twitter feed. The article discusses an apparent divide between the Southern Baptist Convention and other denominations on how many pastors, particularly young pastors, are identifying themselves as Calvinists. One interesting note is that while identification as Calvinist outside the SBC is not increasing, identification as Wesleyan or Arminian is decreasing over this same time period.

    Now I have to confess that my first question regarding such a report is just what the methodology was. Usually when you dig down to the actual questions, you find out that a survey doesn’t produce quite as much information, or at least the type of information that reports indicate.

    In this case the human tendency is to say that this indicates there are more Calvinists and less Wesleyans or Arminians around today. And that may indeed be true, especially including all denominations. But it’s important to realize that this report didn’t define any of its terms; it simply asked about self-identification.

    That’s important. I’m wondering how many of those questioned are knowledgeable enough to properly classify themselves. I’ve encountered a few United Methodist pastors who couldn’t identify all of the five points of Calvinism, and thus would have a hard time determining whether they were Calvinist or not. And considering that there are five points of Arminianism, which actually predate the five points of Calvinism (as a form of expression, not as theological beliefs), I have to wonder how many pastors (not to mention lay members) could actually tell an interviewer just what it means to be Arminian.

    I have found even more in the charismatic and pentecostal streams who don’t acknowledge any connection to their Wesleyan roots, if they are actually aware of them. This results in some interesting theological mixes in charismatic and pentecostal thinking. One that I find most interesting is that eschatology derived from dispensationalism is quite popular, while other views associated with dispensational theology, such as cessationism, are excluded.

    I’m not saying one cannot produce a similar eschatology without resort to dispensationalism, but I certainly have not seen it done very well in most Wesleyan, charismatic, or pentecostal writing or teaching. (Caveat: I have not done a thorough survey of the literature. That’s something I’d like to do at some point. This is anecdotal.) It is nonetheless interesting to watch people grab random pieces of Daniel, Isaiah, Joel, and other books, mix them with 1 Thessalonians, Matthew 24/Mark 13/Luke 21, and mix them with Revelation, without any real framework for just how the text should be interpreted in its original context, and what is the proper framework to use in connecting them. While I do not accept classical dispensationalism (more modern progressive dispensationalism seems hard to reject outright–it says so little!) I must admit that it does provide a fairly stable framework on which to hang these various texts.

    I recall one class I was teaching on Revelation, in which the students insisted I dedicate a class to teaching about the tribulation. While I do believe there will be troubled times before the end, I do not believe in a “Tribulation” in the sense of a seven year period. In any case, I made my best effort at bringing in the texts while not actually lying about what I thought of the relationship between them, and the class got pretty glassy eyed as we looked at each one. I would note that most of them still accepted the tribulation at the end. They were well steeped in the “Left Behind” series.

    But I must reign myself in and return to topic, or at least somewhere in the vicinity of the topic. I’m wondering what others have experienced. Is self-identification accurate in terms of Calvinism and Arminianism? How many people who identify themselves as “neither” might simply not know enough about the roots of their current theology? How many are identifying with more modern movements derived from one or the other? (I think this latter idea would be more likely for Wesleyan-Arminians than for Calvinists.)

    Finally, how many think they have transcended this debate in some way? I’d be interested in comments or links to blog posts on the subject.