Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Biblioblog #9 This Month

    Thanks to Jeremy for all the hard work in producing the Biblioblog Top 50 this month.  Even though I lost ground in my 30 day Alexa ranking, it was still good enough for #9.

    By the way Joel, writing a script is also work.  Few seconds?  It is to laugh!

  • BioLogos and Reasons to Believe in Dialogue

    While I am much more in support of the approach of BioLogos than Reasons to Believe, I’m glad to see that they are discussing. Perhaps laying out the details of each group’s approach may help Christians understand the issues more clearly.

    I see very little future, however, for the day-age theory, despite its strong acceptance amongst Christians. I think it’s rather an uphill battle to suggest that the actual intent of the writer of Genesis 1-2 was to portray the days as ages, and fitting geological history into a day-age theory seems to require some selective use of the evidence.

    I think the evidence is pretty good that the early Israelites would have heard this primarily as seven literal days. It is the progress of geology and biology, particularly evolutionary biology that makes us think otherwise. My position continues to be that God speaks to a time and culture in words and concepts that are understood by that culture. If we then listen in on their dialogue with God, as we do in reading scripture, we must translate the message into a new cultural context.

    Thus I see much more role for theology than for strict exegesis in the reconciliation of Genesis and science, though I believe that the process of reconciliation largely teaches us that such reconciliation is beside the point.

  • Quote of the Day – on Genesis 15:6

    … In the Tanakh, faith does not mean believing in spite of the evidence.  It means trusting profoundly in a person, in this case the personal God who has reiterated His promise.

    (from The Jewish Study Bible: featuring The Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation, page 35.)

    I think that’s an excellent statement of what faith is and is not, and might also tie the usage of faith between James 2:23 and Galatians 2:15ff as it relates to Paul’s use of Genesis 15:6 starting in Galatians 3:15.

  • Josh Mann Series on Existentialism and Hermeneutics

    I believe that as Christians, we need to think a great deal more about how we understand scripture. So I welcome this series by Josh Mann at for the Sake of Truth. I’m going to follow it, and possibly respond when it is complete.

    The first part deals with the definition of hermeneutics and the second with defining existentialism. We’re eating the elephant one teaspoon at a time!

  • Christian Carnival CCCXVI Posted

    … at Crossroads.

  • Answering a Question on Egalitarianism

    I already responded to one post by Michael Patton on this topic (Am I a Complementarian?), but he followed this up with a question. I have been so busy with the release of my latest book (co-authored with Geoffrey Lentz) that I have fallen well behind the progress of this topic, but I still want to respond, though briefly.

    I would note that I don’t agree with the common statement that there are no stupid questions, even though I use that in classes. “The only stupid question is one you don’t ask,” I intone. But then I contradict myself by teaching that often we get the wrong answer because we ask the wrong question. I’ll dodge that one by noting that “wrong” and “stupid” are not synonymous. So I’m not going to call Dr. Patton’s question stupid, but I think it’s the wrong one.

    My egalitarianism, or more simply belief in equal rights, is not based on a view of just what women are as a group. This applies both in church and in society as a whole. I do not advocate that women be permitted to compete for and take roles because I think they are the same, but rather because I think that the opportunities should be kept similar. I do believe that some women and some men will be found amply qualified for certain non-traditional roles, and in fact I think that we will find that the determinative differences are few, but that will be demonstrated, in my view, by what those people actually accomplish.

    So when Dr. Patton asks:

    Here is my question(s):

    * Is there any way for us to train boys to be “men”?
    * Is there any way for us to train up girls to be “women”?

    If so, what does that look like for each?

    * What does it uniquely look like to be a “man”?
    * What does it uniquely look like to be a “woman”?

    My response would be: What do those questions have to do with anything?

    Well, I can see the value of a negative response. If men and women are essentially different, why is it that you think you have to train them to be different?

    My suggestion? Just as I said with ministry, train and use people according to their gifts. Then if you find that God has not gifted any women (or men) to do a particular task, we can surmise that we are dealing with some kind of fundamental difference.

    How would I train a boy to be a boy or a girl to be a girl? I’d look at their individual personalities and gifts and flow with that.

    Bottom line? My egalitarianism does not require me to assume some artificial sameness of men and women, nor some arbitrary distinctions. I view each person as an individual, and I believe that is the best way to do it. If no woman qualifies as a pastor, then no woman should be a pastor. If God calls no woman as a pastor, then no woman should be a pastor.

    I will emphasize, however, that I do believe there are women who are called and gifted to be pastors, and I know some of them personally. I think there are many more. Too frequently I encounter a woman who is serving at less than her potential because someone told her that women can’t be pastors, or women can’t be theology teachers.

    Follow the gifts; follow the call. That’s my approach.

    PS: Scot McKnight has a letter on his blog today from a woman in seminary. I find its contents both saddening and quite realistic.

  • Christian Carnival CCCXVI Posted

    … at Crossroads.

  • Can the Bible Be Alone?

    Clayboy asks whether “the Bible alone” is an oxymoron.  Now I sympathize with the question, because I have been dealing in another forum (the issue arises in the last 100 messages or so) with someone who seems to think that a text can have meaning with no context at all, or more precisely that the obvious meaning of English words to a 21st century audience is somehow “the meaning of the text” as opposed to something built on the context in which it was actually uttered.  Using all that ancient language and culture stuff is changing what the text actually says.

    But that is a caricature of sola scriptura, but it is one which many people in the pews of our churches hold.  They believe that by sitting down with the Bible, and perhaps a concordance, they can discover what God actually said, and they don’t need to depend on anyone else–no tradition, no outside sources, no experts.  It’s an interesting view, but I don’t believe it is what the reformers intended by sola scriptura, and I’ve never encountered anyone who could be called “Biblically trained” who held that position.  (I responded on YouTube to someone who made that claim, and yet couldn’t get his English straight, much less his Greek.)

    But there is a more serious issue with the actual sola scriptura position, part of which has been raised in other discussions around the blogosphere.  Without tradition we do not have a Bible.  It is the tradition of the church that produced the canon as we have it, and there is not a 100% agreement even now with respect to just what books should be included in the canon, and whether the canon should be (or is) open or closed.

    But there is also the question of inspiration and just what can demonstrate that a book is inspired by God–God-breathed.  There are numerous ideas, but the question I would raise is just where those standards came from.  For example, why did the early church think there should be apostolic authority behind those books to be included in the New Testament canon?  To a certain extent I can accept the standard, though not completely.  For example, I don’t care whether Hebrews was written by Paul or some other person, whether Revelation by the apostle John or some other John, or whether the pastorals are genuinely Pauline or not.  I regard them as authoritative scripture in any case.

    Why?  Tradition.  It’s as simple as that.  I don’t even regard the books of the Bible as the only ones that are inspired, nor as the only ones that give me guidance.  They are the books that God guided the church to accept as the general authority for the church, and I submit myself to that general authority.  (The sense in which I do so is another topic!)

    There’s a sort of chicken and egg debate as to whether the church or the Bible comes first.  I don’t really see the answer to that as either possible or important.  The Bible and the community of faith grew together, with one supporting the other.  People lived as followers of God for many centuries without the complete canon, and yet somehow they managed.  Abraham believed God, as our lectionary passage for the coming week says, and it was counted as righteousness (Gen 15:6, loosely).

    Somehow Abraham managed to recognize God and believe him without a canon and also with precious little tradition.

    I do believe that the Bible is foundational, but one of the reasons I believe that is that it is the most tested source of tradition and experience–the experience of the community of faith with God passed down from generation to generation.

    It should be no surprise to anyone that one of the things that attracted me to the United Methodist Church was the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.  When I came to that in reading the United Methodist Discipline (and yes, I read the first hundred pages or so before I joined) I was hooked.  I do emphasize, however, that the quadrilateral should be more of a four layer filter than a four lane highway.

    In any case, my answer would be that the Bible cannot be alone, but more importantly is not, and has never been, alone.  We should not be afraid either to drive people back to the Bible as the source or to to admit that the history of our faith, God-guided I firmly believe, was the instrument God used to produce it.

  • Notes on Leviticus Commentaries

    A few weeks ago I compared two commentaries on Leviticus.  One of these was Samuel E. Balentine’s volume in the Interpretation commentary series.  In that review I noted that I was only half-way through my read of Balentine, but thought I could still make some valid comments.

    I have now finished my read, and I still stand by what I wrote earlier.  This is a very strong theological commentary with a very useful emphasis on liturgy.  While I have learned more nuts and bolts elsewhere, I got some of the best ideas on how one might teach and apply Leviticus by reading Balentine.  This is, of course, the intention of the interpretation series, so it’s nice to know that they do it well in this case.

    I have read through several commentaries on Leviticus over the last few years, and they vary greatly in purpose and approach.  I thought I’d include some very brief comparison notes.

    My all-time favorite commentary on Leviticus is Jacob Milgrom’s three volume commentary in the Anchor Bible series (my review).  While it’s my favorite, it has a number of drawbacks for the average preacher or for a lay person.  It makes extensive use of both Biblical languages and other ancient near eastern materials, and one may be quite confused if one doesn’t already have some understanding.  The material is translated, however, which alleviates the problem a bit.

    The sheer volume of material, which is very attractive, also makes it a bit difficult to use for any sort of quick reference.  You really have to dig in to get the benefit.  When I studied, for example, I would read the chapter first in Hebrew, then go through the commentary text, after which I would read the Hebrew text again checking my notes.  This is not a sign of great diligence on my part; Milgrom does enough work with word definitions to make one feel that one didn’t really get it on first read!  Nonetheless, the experience is very rewarding.

    The commentary to which I compared the Interpretation volume earlier is David W. Baker’s portion of the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.  I’m now about half-way through Numbers in this volume, and the quality remains quite even despite different authors.  It may seem a bit unfair to compare one book out of a volume that covers three books to a single volume commentary, but I think the Cornerstone volume comes out rather well considering its purpose.

    I think Christians may not pay enough attention to Baruch Levine’s commentary on Leviticus in the JPS Commentary on the Torah series. Actually, I am really referring to this entire series, which provides substantial information on how the text is read in Judaism (admittedly not from an Orthodox perspective), but does so clearly and simply.  I enjoyed the entire set.

    If you can still lay hold of it, which you probably can in a decent university library, there’s always Martin Noth’s commentary in the Old Testament Library series.  It may, however, be one to avoid.  Doubtless Noth was a great scholar, and I enjoyed his commentary thoroughly, but if you’re looking for material to preach or teach from to a lay audience, it’s not going to be nearly as much help.  Noth is quite thoroughly occupied with critical issues and much less so with theology and application.

    On my immediate future reading list is Gordon J. Wenham’s Leviticus (New International Commentary on the Old Testament). I’ll have to wait for it to arrive via inter-library loan. I’ll post on it after I’ve had a chance to read it.

  • Christian Carnival Call for Submissions

    I’ve been a bit delinquent in that I occasionally host the Christian Carnival, but I haven’t regularly announced it. The carnival is posted each Wednesday, and submissions are due by midnight Tuesday, though they are welcomed earlier.

    The next carnival will be hosted by Crossroads, and the best way to submit your entry is by using the submission form at blogcarnival.com.

    Check out the requirements for inclusion, and then submit your best work from the week.