Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Sacrificing for Joy

    The Old Testament Lectionary passage for the first Sunday in Lent, cycle C is Deuteronomy 26:1-11.  It’s kind of an odd text for this season.  You might almost use it as a text for Fat Tuesday.

    I’m going to comment more on the lectionary texts this week, if for no other reason than because I’ve been asked to teach the weekly Lectionary at Lunch group at First United Methodist Church of Pensacola for my friend Rev. Geoffrey Lentz.  I plan to provide another set of comparisons between various study Bibles and what they contribute to the study.  But first I want to note two things from this passage.

    First, Christians often assume that grace is our contribution to religion and that the Israelite religion was one of works and rituals.  But in the confession of faith in this passage, Israel’s faith and worship is clearly rooted in God’s gracious acts to Israel.  God reaches out first and people respond.

    Second, the people bring a sacrifice of first fruits, and it’s not just given in thanks, it’s given for the purpose of having a celebration together.

    It’s easy for us to look down on rituals and ceremonies or on good works in general.  Often this reflects a lack of such works on our own part.  But the real issue is not whether one worships in high or low liturgy, or whether one engages in good works.  Rather, it’s where those acts of worship and good deeds are rooted.  When we are expressing God’s grace through our deeds, and responding to God’s grace in worship, our worship will tend to be filled with God’s presence, and truly be good.

    Without being rooted in God’s grace, we will engage in empty rituals and deeds done for the purpose of earning God’s favor.  Such acts are dead and do not lead to joy.

    Note that the confession comes before the party, just as God’s salvation comes prior to the response.  That is a pattern that is repeated in both the Old Testament and the New.

  • Affliction as Our Schoolmaster

    St. John Chrysostom on affliction as our schoolmaster at Classical Arminianism.  After reading it, ask yourself how much affliction deepens your Bible study.

  • Lent with Lectionary and the Mosaic Bible

    It’s been some time since I posted on the Mosaic Bible in connection with lectionary reading, but we’re entering an excellent season for using these tools together.  (For what it’s worth, I use The Text this Week for the lectionary passages.)

    While the passages don’t match for the first week of Lent, the Mosaic Bible reading does include Psalm 51 which is one of the Ash Wednesday passages.  But this isn’t the most important issue.  The readings are valuable and will provide an additional resource, including the scriptures (Gen. 2:15-17 3:1-7, Psalm 51, 1 Peter 3:13-22, and Matthew 4:1-11, which parallels Luke 4:1-13 from Lectionary year C).  There is a good reading from John Charles Ryle, a discussion of sacrifice and how it runs counter to our culture by Eileen Button, along with a couple of meditations that could be useful in your worship service.

    Again, I find the Mosaic Bible an exceptional devotional resource and frequently an aid to study following the lectionary as well.

  • Learning and Living Scripture

    … is the title of my latest, and forthcoming, book, with co-author Geoffrey Lentz.  Geoffrey is associate pastor of First United Methodist Church in Pensacola, FL and has become a regular collaborator on the Participatory Study Series, whence comes the name of this blog.  He also has an Energion Publications author page.

    Learning and Living Scripture is the basic guide to the method, the book that should have come before the study guides we’ve released.  For those bibliobloggers who come by to read, let me note that this probably isn’t the book for you.  It is aimed at the new Bible student or small group that would like to get started in Bible study.  It aims at the same audience as LaHaye’s How to Study the Bible for Yourself (link is to my review) but doesn’t take the literalist view that is taken in that book.  Fee & Stuart, How to Study the Bible for all its Worth (again link to my review) would be more advanced, and is on our recommended reading list.

    The book is currently available for pre-order from Barnes & Noble (link at left).  As of February 13, 2010, B&N was offering this for 9.74 or 8.76 to members, which is 32% off the cover price of $12.99. Amazon.com will let you sign up on a notification list (Learning and Living Scripture: An Introduction to the Participatory Study Method).  I suspect Amazon will have it for pre-order soon.  You can also pre-order from Energion Direct, my company’s direct sales store.  Delivery will be about the same as from other sources, but we’re currently not charging shipping or handling.

    Bloggers or other reviewers can request free review copies.  You can use the free copy request form, or simply e-mail Energion Publications with your name, your review outlet (blog, magazine, etc), and the name of the book you would like to review (Learning and Living Scripture).  We reserve the right to be selective, but we have yet to turn a blogger down for a free book.

  • La Sierra Board Makes a Statement

    I would say it’s a statement on creation and evolution, but I’m not quite sure what it is.

    Earlier (Seventh-day Adventist Education and Evolution) I wrote about the concerns about the teaching of evolution in biology classes at La Sierra University, a Seventh-Day Adventist school in California. (I was raised in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church and educated in its schools, though I am no longer SDA.)

    The Spectrum blog has a link to the Board of Trustees statement (PDF), which does not seem to me to answer any questions. After declaring “whole-hearted support” for the SDA statement of beliefs, which includes an article affirming a literal seven day creation week, it includes the following two paragraphs:

    The Board of Trustees is committed to a spirit of open inquiry and discussion in the university’s classrooms and laboratories. The Board intends that when varying viewpoints are raised they will be heard with due respect.

    In its commitment to the integrity of the university’s mission, the Board of Trustees is dedicated to inspire, challenge, encourage and support the faculty in their sacred academic work. Further, the Board embraces its responsibility for ongoing evaluation and assessment.

    These paragraphs, including phrases like “spirit of open inquiry and discussion” and “support the faculty in their sacred academic work” sound to me like a certain amount of support for the science faculty. In the end, one still has to wonder just what the faculty will be expected to teach and how this will be evaluated. “ongoing evaluation and assessment” seems to indicate the board will be watching (as they should) but doesn’t really tell anyone just what they’re supposed to do.

    It will be interesting to see how this works out in practice. It appears to me that the board has given the ball a vigorous kick down the field without any obvious destination in sight. This may be more comfortable for them, but it is very uncomfortable for students and faculty.

    (Note: My interest in this case may appear odd. There are two reasons for it. First, I follow issues in creation and evolution closely. Second, besides my own education in SDA institutions, family members have taught at La Sierra University and currently do teach in other SDA institutions.)

  • Claims and Actions about the Bible

    The surest sign that somebody doesn’t read the Bible that much is that they claim to do everything it says. Now there are lots of ways to nuance that statement, but I’ve found that in general those who make the claim are unaware of many commands of the Bible, and don’t have an explanation for why they don’t follow those commands. (There are plenty of commands given in the Bible that don’t apply to you.)

    Unfortunately many people regard claiming to follow the Bible or do all the things it says is a sign of piety, so whether or not they know what the Bible says they make the claim.

    Via Twitter I found this post at Coram Deo, in which some such ignorance is documented. I think Matt makes many good suggestions for dealing with this Biblical ignorance.

    I would add two things:

    1. Address controversial issues in the church, rather than sticking with questions that permit “Sunday School answers”
    2. Remember those commands in the Bible that deal with honesty and integrity, and don’t claim to value the Bible if you don’t actually read and study it.

    Check out Matt’s entire post.

  • On Mythicist Views of Jesus

    For those who may not watch all these things the term “mythicists” refers to those who believe Jesus never existed, that the stories about him were made up at some point and were not even centered on a minimal historical figure. There is a near alternative which holds that there were so few valid words of actions of the historical figure that he might as well have just been some random figure. But that’s a different argument.

    James McGrath has an excellent short post on this, which will go into my library of links to use in response to such questions. I think he makes his case well and does so in easily understood language. He gets us away from “proof arguments” which dominate so much amateur discussion of history. Very little, if anything, can be absolutely proven about history even if it happened yesterday. One deals with probabilities. Sometimes these probabilities are overwhelming, but even so we should remember they are probabilities so as to deal reasonably with the less probable events.

    In any case, read the whole post at Exploring Our Matrix.

  • On Measuring Results – World Prayer Blog

    I have a post today at the World Prayer Blog that discusses measuring the results of prayer.

  • On Etymological and Anti-Etymological Fallacies

    Clayboy has an excellent post on preachers who say “What the Greek really means…” or words to that effect.  I was drawn to this one because of my own experience.

    My wife tells me that when we first got married she quickly got used to watching me during sermons.  I need to tell you that my wife is extraordinarily observant and will catch people–especially me–trying to conceal feelings and reactions.  She told me that I was very good at concealing my reaction, but she would see me get a certain fixed expression on my face whenever a preacher said “What the Greek really means …”  (They rarely do it with Hebrew, but for what it’s worth, the comments on Hebrew are generally less accurate than those on Greek.)

    Often the preacher is simply replacing he word in his English translation with one that is possible, though not necessarily probable, but which better supports his point.  Besides the inaccuracy, I dislike the implication that someone with a couple of years of Greek can correct the work of translation committees in such an authoritative fashion.

    I also, however, understand the reservations expressed by Bob MacDonald in the comments in reminding us that etymology has value.  It can be useful in studying the history of words or in suggesting meanings for derived forms for which we have too few examples in the literature.  Of course, the context of the word in actual used, studied as synchronically as possible, governs, but the etymology can be very useful.

    I’ve encountered a few people who have heard of the etymological fallacy, and some of the very careless uses of etymology, especially in ancient near eastern studies, and have therefore determined that any use of etymology must be a fallacy.  There are legitimate uses.

    My suggestion to preachers and teachers has always been to use whatever skills they have in the original languages for they’re worth in preparing to teach, but to avoid making the sermon into a language lesson.  There are, after all, many factors other than the structure of language in understanding a text.

    I recall one professor I had in graduate school who was incredibly good at the structure and vocabulary of a language.  I took readings in Biblical Aramaic from him and I value highly the time I spent in his classes.  But while he could analyze the nuts and bolts better than anyone I have encountered, before or after, I would not rely on him for the exegesis of a passage.  The only thing he cared about were those nuts and bolts.  Which is fine–I’d build on his foundation any day.

    The problem, as I see it, is that when we use the language to give a single word for “what the Greek really means” or provide a few synonyms, we imply that getting the right gloss for the word is what using Biblical languages is all about.  It’s much better to learn to express the result in good English–assuming that’s the language in which we’re preaching.

  • Justice Thomas on Citizens United

    I don’t find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with Justice Thomas very often, but Allan Bevere calls attention to remarks he made in Florida (NY Times), and I think he makes some very good points.

    Allan says:

    Interesting, isn’t it? In the fear over the corrupting influence of lots of money, some folk haven’t even considered the corrupting influence of regulating speech.

    Just so. Head on over to Allan’s blog and comment. I’m going to close comments here.