Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Seeing Things Differently

    Reversal is a common theme in the teachings of Jesus.  The poor are blessed?  The persecuted are blessed?  How silly is that?

    And today we have another reversal in our gospel passage (Mark 12:38-44).  The widow who puts in two little coins that might, optimistically, add up to a penny, is the one who put in more than everyone else.  Again, from the human point of view, this is rather silly.  Even the most math challenged amongst us can figure out that all those rich people were putting in much more money than did the widow.  But God sees things differently.

    I prefer a different label for this, not “reversal” but “seeing things differently.”  God simply has a different way of looking at everything involved.  The scribes could count too, and they knew they were important, and that the widow mattered very little.

    This difference in the way God sees things reverberates through all the lectionary passages today.  In Ruth, we see the despised Moabite woman, who could not become a member of the congregation even 10 generations later (Deuteronomy 23:3), becoming the ancester of King David, only four generations down the road.  In Psalm 127 we see the possibility of having a house that looks great, has solid engineering, and is located in a prestigious neighborhood, but if it wasn’t built by God, it is vain.

    Finally in Hebrews we see the eternal nature of the heavenly sanctuary as opposed to all earthly ones, even divinely ordained sanctuaries.  You could say, in a way, that those earthly sanctuaries must be built by God and incorporate just a bit of the divine in them or they too would be vain, just like the house in Psalm 127.

    What exactly does a God-built house look like?  What makes the difference?  Can you tell by looking?  Is there a way to measure it?

    I don’t think so.  The real way to measure this success is to allow God to show you that heavenly perspective.  You can’t get all of it, but you can get a little bit.  Ask for that vision, and I believe you will receive it.

  • How Not to Make Your Point

    In his post next time, don’t invite the baptists, Bruce Alderman provides a link to a very unfortunate case in which a Lutheran pastor is put down by a local Baptist church because she is a woman.

    Let me note here that I am personally acquainted with Baptists who oppose women in pastoral ministry and are quite courteous. They have no problem recognizing what’s essential for interdenominational fellowship and what is not, nor do they have a problem conveying their views in a Christlike manner. So this isn’t about Baptists in general.

    Nonetheless, this particular church takes a different view. Go read it for yourself. I’m thinking this may not live up to Paul’s little suggestion:

    18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. – Romans 12:18 (NRSV)

    If they believe they cannot in good conscience be present at the installation, perhaps they should stay home quietly. I have to doubt the positive effect of rudeness.

  • Defining Inerrancy Yet Again

    Johnny Esposito, a KJV-Only advocate, states in a recent article (HT: King James Only?) that the basic premise of Harold Lindsell’s book Battle for the Bible can be summarized as:

    • When one questions the inerrancy of the Bible compromise is soon to follow
    • When one changes their position on the Bible compromise in other areas is soon to follow

    That wasn’t where I intended to start this article, but I want to observe here that in general when one holds a position that cannot be questioned, silliness is sure to follow.  I do not mean that one cannot be sure of any positions.  In fact, for me, the more certain I am of a position, the more comfortable I am entertaining challenging questions.

    “Entertaining challenging questions” is precisely what Darrell Pursiful did in a speech Why I Am Not an Inerrantist—Even Though I Am (or Vice Versa).  I found it easily the most helpful reasonably short article on the topic I’ve read.

    Way back when I was studying Biblical languages at the undergraduate level I rejected the doctrine of inerrancy.  I’ve stuck with that position since, but then I started to encounter some weird things, such as people who claimed to believe in inerrancy and yet took more liberal positions on many Biblical issues than I do.  While I understand how the definitions work, I still find it difficult to consider positions such as a late dating of Daniel or a view that early Israelite history is largely legend to be consistent with inerrancy.

    I’m not challenging the right of people to define terms and doctrinal statements as they find it necessary, and there is a certain value in letting experts define a term, but it seems to me that clinging to a term that has a much different meaning in popular circles, while denying that meaning is a bit linguistically perverse.  I can say that Daniel is apocalyptic and that pseudonymity is a characteristic of apocalyptic literature, and I can say that Joshua is some form of legend, and that legends are, well, not entirely historical, but what does it then mean to claim in turn that the Bible is inerrant?

    My own statement of inspiration would be simply that there is nothing in the Bible by accident.  God intends it the way it is.  I discover the way in which God inspires by reading the Bible and looking at what it is.  As a Christian what other standard do I have by which to determine inspiration?  Now I see how that can be defined as inerrancy, but it is not what people in the pews hear when they hear that word—not even close.

    Thus the following resonated with me from Dr. Pursiful’s article:

    The truth is, although all early Christians agreed that Scripture is truthful in all it teaches, formal doctrines of “biblical inerrancy” have only been around for the past 200 years or so. And as we shall see, not all inerrancies are created equal.

    We should note before we go any further that the early church was not naïve in its doctrine of inspiration. The church fathers were well aware of certain anomalies in the text that called for serious theological reflection.

    Inerrancy is a bit difficult to pin down sometimes.  First there is the debate over whether it is a new doctrine or not.  The distinction between the long-held conviction of the church that the Bible is true and modern formal doctrines of inerrancy (and there are many) is important.  Secondly, I really like the phrase “anomalies in the text that called for serious theological reflection.”  That’s really good.  I often say that the contradictions are what I like most in the Bible.  After all, as a Christian I believe that Jesus was both totally divine and totally human; I should be able to handle anomalies in the text that call for serious theological reflection!

    Later, Dr. Pursiful defines this change to more formal doctrines of inerrancy:

    Now remember, the new thing that happened in the 1800’s was not that somebody invented the idea that the Bible is “free from error” or “utterly reliable.” What was new was the way this affirmation came to be defined and defended. In particular, “inerrancy” came to serve as a theological shorthand for the idea that the Bible was error-free not merely in terms of what it taught about the life of faith, but what it taught in any area in inquiry: not merely theology but history, geography, science, psychology, and so forth.

    Again that is admirably clear and, I think, correct.  Our Christian congregations, marinated in the enlightenment, naturally think that Bible should give them accurate information on the stuff that is most important to them–history, geography, science, psychology, and so forth.  When the Bible writers actually try to tell them that those things are not the most important things in one’s life, they are not well equipped to hear it.

    My own note here is that when we assure them that the Bible is factually accurate in those areas, we may often be simply reinforcing their belief that those human ways of looking at things are just as important as they thought, and making it harder for them to find the truths of eternal value.  After all,  all of our history, science, and psychology are but instant’s in time and drops in the ocean to what God has to say to us.

    I am not going to comment point by point on the article.  I’d simply recommend reading the entire thing.  The title really reflects what is going on quite accurately.

    There is an affirmation that must be made about biblical inspiration and authority.  The question in my mind is whether that statement is best made with the word “inerrancy” or whether we need to start again and shed the baggage that word carries.

  • Christian Carnival #301

    … at Fish and Cans.  Lots of interesting stuff.

  • A Note on Independent Voters

    I’m sure it’s a requirement that political commentators try to discover trends in voting patterns. It’s also not surprising that they try to make those trends deal with either the Democratic or the Republican parties. But I think that they simply don’t comprehend the meaning of “independent.”

    I’m just one independent voter. I won’t register as a member of either of the major parties, and I truly vote independently. I examine everything I can find about each candidate in a race. (Have you ever tried to discover anything useful about candidates for the district utility board?) When I vote, it is a decision that the particular candidate is the best person in that race and in that race only. It doesn’t mean I’m likely to vote for the same person next year. If that candidate is a Democrat is doesn’t mean I’m suddenly leaning Democrat. If he or she is Republican, it doesn’t mean I’m leaning Republican.

    For me, the meaning of being an independent voter is that those labels don’t impact the way I vote, except with reference to how party connections might impact the way a particular candidate will govern. I cannot be counted on for a trend. It’s back to a clean slate in each election.

    I don’t know how well that applies to independent voters in general, but the unscientific poll of the independent voters I know, including a few who are registered with a party so that they can participate in primaries, but are no more loyal to the party label than I am, indicates that it’s a pretty common feeling. Party endorsement of a candidate means nothing. Each candidate must earn respect.

    For myself, I will add that I don’t favor or disfavor the incumbent. Since I go out of my way to study the candidates, I will know the names of all of them. I’m never voting on name recognition.

    So don’t seek a trend. I’m not starting to lean one way or another. If the candidates of the major parties–or any party–want my vote, they must earn it 100% for each candidacy.

  • Of Apportionments and Stewardship

    Bishop Willimon has a post about pastoral leadership and stewardship, with the particular aspect of stewardship being apportionments. I like the framing that goes on in our church, as apportionments are called “fair-share giving.” I know that sounds better, but I still call them apportionments.

    I think the general finding is unexceptional. Pastoral leadership has a large impact on how a church responds to apportionments. My question is just what it says about an organization that the pastors have that much of an impact. Apparently the members in the pews are often not all that dedicated to apportionments. One major reason could be that very few United Methodist members really understand how apportionments are assigned (though that knowledge might make the less happy), or how they are spent.

    I have yet to attend a United Methodist church that pays all of its apportionments. At the same time, the way in which the denomination spends the money that is sent up the line tends to make me want to go find an independent church. Unfortunately, I am also well aware of the potential problems of independent churches. For some reason, all churches and denominations consist of people, and thus all forms of organization have problems.

    My own answer is that as long as I’m a member of a United Methodist congregation I must support the payment of apportionments and continue my stewardship, including giving to the local church as the Lord leads. But if there comes a time when I choose to become a member of a church of another denomination, the use of money at the conference and denominational level will doubtless have something to do with it.

    What disturbs me here is to hear stewardship discussed specifically in the form of apportionments, and secondly to see how much Methodist churches change with pastoral assignments. The leadership pattern displayed in Bishop Willimon’s post is something I have observed (much less scientifically, of course) in other areas. I have also seen leadership changes do great damage to a church. I know of a church where the pastor went from pro-charismatic to not-so-much pro-charismatic, and then back to charismatic. With each change the church shed members and while it continues to struggle along, it is not thriving, and many pastors are not very anxious to be sent there.

    I wish I knew how to solve this, other than better pastor placement, and I must be honest when I say that I would do much, much, much worse than the bishop and cabinet in our conference. (Amongst a multitude of other things, this explains why I am neither bishop nor even pastor.) But I do believe this is something that should be of concern. It fits the “shepherd and sheep” model, but doesn’t sound much like the “body of Christ.”

  • Idolatry of Apologetics

    Todd C. Wood, a baraminologist (he studies “kinds” as in Genesis 1), has written an excellent post about how we Christians often make idols of our particular arguments (HT: The Austringer).

    Now as far as I can see, Dr. Wood and I would find ourselves on the opposite side of most debates about origins, but we can make, and believe, our arguments without also making them idols.

    If I might summarize my own view on it, it’s a matter of priorities. Often we make so many issues critical that we have no time to focus on the essentials. One lesson of military strategy is that often when you try to guard everything you end up protecting nothing.

    When Dr. Todd says:

    I greatly fear that our faith in Christ has been replaced with an idolatry of apologetics. I fear we’ve stopped believing in Christ and started believing in arguments about Christ (or the Bible or creation or what have you). I fear we’ve bowed to the world’s demand that we believe only that which is rational. We’re certainly no longer content with merely saying “I don’t know.” We have to have answers, and endless (and often pointless) argument has become our substitute for simply telling unbelievers what Christ has done for us.

    Now I’m not saying that logical arguments are not important, nor am I saying that apologetics is not a valuable Christian activity. It is not that evidence and arguments are unimportant. In my own view the problem is that we make many things essential that are not actually essential parts of the gospel. We make the way we see things the norm, and expect others to see them the same way. In this way we make things ultimate that are not, in fact, ultimate.

    There is a time to debate, but there is also a time to “know nothing but Jesus, and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2).

  • Interesting NRSV-ESV Gender Usage

    The text is Psalm 127:3 –

    Sons are indeed a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.  (NRSV)

    Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. (ESV)

    The KJV also reads “children.”  I’m suspecting that the author of this Psalm was indeed talking about sons, because of the culture in which he wrote.  At the same time it’s interesting that NRSV switched to “sons” against most of the English versions, while the ESV stuck with “children.”

    Perhaps not too terribly significant, but interesting.

  • On Receiving Copies of Megabelt

    Megabelt - a story about growing up in the Bible Belt

    It’s always great to receive cases of new books, and yesterday was no exception as our first copies of Megabelt arrived.

    I wrote earlier (Beware Friends Bearing Manuscripts) about receiving the manuscript for this little book. Since then we have done considerable work with it, produced what I think is a truly unique and creative cover (by Robert J. Hill of InnerLight Productions), and added illustrations.

    In this case it was especially enjoyable to receive the books, because within an hour of their arrival, I had author Nick May visiting to get his hands on copies, even if it required special mental powers to do so. He has done an extraordinary job of publicizing his own material. (Note to aspiring authors: You are your own best salesperson!) I really enjoy having authors come to me and say, “I think we need to do such and such, will you pay for it?” rather than waiting for me to come up with the ideas.

    Of course for a first time author, such as Nick, getting your hands on that first copy of your book is a special occasion. So we got to talking about reactions to the book.

    I summarized my reaction thus: There are many things in Megabelt that I have done myself. Many of them, I’m not going to do again. A few of them, I’m going to do anyhow, but I’m going to laugh while I do them. I got a chance to laugh a bit while pulling out my church bulletin and claiming the 10% discount at a restaurant, even though I fully empathize with the fun that Megabelt has with this and some other practices that happen in the Bible belt.

    Nick’s response was simply that this was precisely what he hoped. He wanted to hold up a mirror and get people to think about church culture. I like that idea.

    I sometimes sound like a broken record when I talk about books offending people. But I have to remember the time when a young man spent half an hour berating me at a show because my book What’s in a Version? doesn’t tell people that the KJV is the one and only true Bible. I had another person inform me that he had discarded one of the books I publish because he wouldn’t have it contaminating his book shelf. I have been criticized because I would not declare that I would publish only books that contained only the truth. The problem there, amongst other things, would be the notion of setting myself up as the final arbiter of truth. I could publish only books that I believe to be the truth, but that might result in a narrow list.

    What I hope I’m doing is publishing books that will send readers forward on the search for truth. I can say it about Megabelt, because it was intentionally written as a sort of mirror. But I hope the same thing happens elsewhere. Let the things I publish drive you to the source. A Bible study guide should just be a way station on the way to studying the Bible for yourself. One on prayer of the gifts of the Spirit should be a way station on the way to your own process of listening to God and being led by the Holy Spirit.

    But I digress into excessively serious reflection. Megabelt is fun. Have fun, but don’t be surprised if you feel impelled to change some of your churchy behavior after you read.

  • Blogging Contest about the Church

    My company, Energion Publications, is sponsoring a blogging contest, which provides you with the opportunity to win Barnes & Noble gift cards and books from Energion Publications for doing what you do anyhow – blogging!

    Entries are open until November 2, 2009, the day that Dave Black’s new book Christian Archy is released.