Author: henry

  • Notes Elsewhere on Advent 2C

    I have written a couple of articles this week for my Participatory Bible Study Blog that relate to the week’s lectionary passages.

    1)  Translating Philippians 1:9-11 comparing three translations of the passage and discussing the difficulties of getting a clear English rendering

    and

    2) The Mosaic Bible and the Lectionary – Update discussing the use of The Mosaic Bible (NLT) from Tyndale House in connection with the lectionary.

  • Another Honest Creationist

    … and he really is a creationist. His name is Todd C. Wood, he teaches at Bryan College in Dayton Tennessee, and he blogs at the creatively named Todd’s Blog.

    Now for reasons that may have something to do with the college’s name and location, Bryan College often strikes people as an obscurantist sort of place, determined to set education back by a century. My own experience belies that reputation. I was introduced to Bryan College by a Hebrew student who was a Presbyterian Church in America youth pastor. He needed a year of Hebrew for ordination and took it from me. During that time I also heard the president of Bryan College speak and explain some of his views on education.

    Through those connections I became aware of Dr. Kurt Wise, author of Faith, Form, and Time (link is to my review), which is the one book on young age creationism I recommend if you are only going to read one on the topic. (Dr. Wise prefers “young age” to “young earth” as he is in fact dealing with the age of the universe.)

    Now my main reason for calling Dr. Wise, and now Dr. Wood “honest creationists” is not how they deal with the scientific evidence, though that is good to see. In fact, I read quite a number of posts by Dr. Wood before linking to this one, because I don’t like to pile on with the “how honest of this poor creationist to say that we’re right” line. At that point it’s like saying “This creationist is a good guy because he sees the evidence for evolution, but stubbornly refuses to believe it.”

    But I believe it’s very much different when we understand just why these men will stand up to what they acknowledge is a large body of evidence. Their epistemology starts elsewhere. They have a higher source of knowledge. They believe that revealed knowledge, as in scripture, has precedence. I may disagree, but it’s nice to have it laid out in plain words.

    The particular point of honesty–and I know there are a number more creationists that will agree here–is that both Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood acknowledge, or better proclaim that their starting point is scripture, and what’s more a particular understanding of it. Quoth Dr. Wood:

    It starts with going back to the most basic convictions about origins that I have. For me, that starts with my convictions about the mode of scriptural inspiration, i.e. verbal, plenary inspiration. I don’t believe that the Bible is merely a human book that contains the word of God. I believe it is the Word of God. I also do not accept the modern and popular doctrine of accommodation, which basicallys says that by putting His revelation into human language, God was forced to use terms that were not precisely accurate. As a result, science takes an active role in interpreting the Scripture, since any part may be accommodated and therefore not literally true.

    Now I profoundly disagree with that, but what I find dishonest in the work of some creationists is that they try to claim that simply doing science, starting from its current state, one can conclude that the universe was created recently (6000 or so years) and quickly. In order to make a political point and get creationism in the public school curriculum, they cut their view off from its foundation.

    Now as I understand it, both Dr. Wise and Dr. Wood maintain that with the proper research and time and effort to produce the necessary body of scientific work, a sound scientific foundation can be made. In his book which I previously mentioned, Dr. Wise makes a point of listing things that need to be researched in order to produce such a theory.

    Now I profoundly disagree with their understanding of scripture and of the relationship of scripture and science. I don’t even see my view as accommodation. I believe scripture does not address science, and that this is because God never intended to address science through scripture. But it’s nice to have that out at a start. That’s what I call being honest.

    Two people can say that they believe the Bible, yet that is really meaningless until we know just what each one believes about the Bible.

    So I’ve added a subscription to Todd’s Blog to my Google reader, and I’m enjoying his posts.

  • Consumer-mas

    A while back I wrote The Real War on Christmas. Now Thomas at Everyday Liturgy has called this stuff what it is–idolatry.

  • Top 3 Weak Consensus Views

    OK, I’m going to get into trouble (perhaps) for linking to the same guy twice in a row, but I starred two of his posts in a row in Google reader, and that’s out of 281 subscriptions, so something must have clicked.

    In any case, Doug Mangum lists three weak consensus positions, Q as the source of Matthew and Luke, the association of Khirbet Qumran with the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Chicago Statement as the final word on inerrancy.  Commenters have questioned all three of these, but I think the choices are fairly good.

    I’d probably have put source theory of the Pentateuch (JEDP) on that list. Though I would actually favor some sort of similar scheme with a major revision of the dating, it is hardly one that should be assumed as firm.  I think there is no doubt that each of these 3 (now 4) items should be questioned.  The difficult question is whether they are a consensus at this time, and that depends on just who is said to form the consensus.

    I think even the best consensus should be challenged from time to time, if nothing else to make folks dust off the reasons it became a consensus in the first place.  Then we can examine just how well those reasons hold up.

  • Biblioblog Top 50 Demise (or Not) Bears Good Fruit

    If the demise of the monthly Biblioblog top 50 bears more fruit such as lists like this one from Doug Mangum, it could well be a good thing.  At first I thought we had such a thing from Jim West, even including “pazang” in the rating, but now in the comments he says it’s based on Alexa rankings, just over a six month period.  Let’s face it–subjective is more fun!

  • Professors are Liberal and They Translate the Bible

    Just in case you thought reinventing Jesus was just a liberal project …

    I haven’t said much about the conservative Bible project, mostly because I suspect everyone can guess quite accurately what I think, but this article on Yahoo! News lays out the ideas, such as they are.  I keep thinking this must all be tongue in cheek, but nobody has jumped out and said “boo!” yet.

    HT:  Better Bibles

  • Of Strategies and Goals

    As if it isn’t bad enough that we Christians many times cannot agree on what is essential and thus get carried away with arguments about minor details, we also sometimes have a problem distinguishing talking about a strategy from the actual goals. So we sometimes condemn brothers or sisters for disagreeing with the goals, when actually they simply differ on strategy.

    Because I don’t knock on strangers’ doors in order to hand them gospel tracts, does this mean I don’t care about evangelism? To many people it means precisely that. If you don’t pursue their goals with their preferred strategy, you don’t actually believe in the goal.

    Polycarp of The Church of Jesus Christ blog experienced just that when he wrote in opposition to the Manhattan Declaration.

    Because he opposes a declaration that opposes abortion, he must therefore support abortion, right? Well, not so much. You’ll find, in fact, that there are many reasons one might opposed this particular declaration, other than disagreeing with its goals.

    For my part I pretty much dislike declarations and such documents, few of which have any real impact. They just become another opportunity to impose litmus tests.

    In the meantime, just remember that opposing a particular way of accomplishing a goal doesn’t mean that one thinks the goal undesirable.

    Personally, I think that we Christians should consider the gospel the primary solution to moral problems. In fact, I think that when we go straight at moral problems with another strategy it’s as though we chose to try to crush a boulder with one of our bare hands whilst holding a jackhammer in the other.

    The gospel is the jackhammer. And no, I don’t believe those who disagree with me are necessarily opposed to the gospel or to various moral goals.

  • Death of Newspapers = Death of Objective Journalism?

    As if objective journalism was the rule before blogs came along to “steal” newspaper content. I agree with Ed Brayton, who also quotes Radley Balko on this one.