Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Seventh-day Adventist Education and Evolution

    I recently wrote with appreciation about my Seventh-day Adventist education in Biblical studies over on my Participatory Bible Study blog. Today a friend sent me an e-mail directing me to a post on Inside Higher Ed, discussing a problem with the teaching of evolution at La Sierra University, a Seventh-day Adventist school. I didn’t attend La Sierra myself, but do have some family connections there.

    In the story we see a fairly common complaint, a biology (or other science) professor teaching evolution in a Christian classroom where the school constituency does not support it. In some cases, we find a very divided constituency. In a Seventh-day Adventist school, such teaching is directly contrary to the church’s statement of belief.

    From Adventist.org:

    In its statement of fundamental beliefs the Seventh-day Adventist Church affirms a divine creation as described in the biblical narrative of Genesis 1.

    – God is Creator of all things, and has revealed in Scripture the authentic account of His creative activity. In six days the Lord made “the heaven and the earth” and all living things upon the earth, and rested on the seventh day of that first week. Thus He established the Sabbath as a perpetual memorial of His completed creative work. The first man and woman were made in the image of God as the crowning work of Creation, given dominion over the world, and charged with responsibility to care for it. When the world was finished it was “very good,” declaring the glory of God.–Gen 1; 2; Ex 20:8-11; Ps 19:1-6; 33:6, 9; 104; Heb 11:3

    In this case, a student asked to present a paper that included his creationist beliefs, and was permitted to do so provided he first showed a full understanding of the mainstream science involved. In the end, the professor decided that the paper did not fulfill that requirement. From an e-mail quoted in the Inside Higher Ed story:

    “The paper you sent me is unacceptable in its present form,” Gary Bradley, a professor of biology, wrote to Cerna May 12. “You said you would address the geological issues presented in class, demonstrating that you understand the data and the mainstream interpretations. Only then would you attach a paragraph taking issue with that interpretation. You have not done this. You have demonstrated only superficial knowledge with what was presented in class and even that was done with clear apologetic skepticism.”

    This is the sort of story that provokes mixed emotions for me. First and foremost, I am an advocate of free speech. It is a topic on which I come very close to extremes, especially for someone who calls himself a moderate, even a “passionate moderate.” But freedom of speech doesn’t require other private persons to provide one with a platform for that speech. As a publisher, I am very well aware of this. There are many things I think should be legal that I will not publish myself.

    Education is similar, in my view. A teacher must obviously set some bounds on what is allowed in the classroom, and a student must work within those bounds to fulfill an assignment. While I would certainly commend any teacher for making those bounds as broad as possible, consistent with accomplishing the educational goals, I don’t think a teacher is obligated to allow free speech full reign in a classroom—certainly not by law, and I don’t think even ethically.

    But here we take a step further. A church establishes a school, such as La Sierra University, and presumably expects it to serve the educational needs of its constituency. What happens if it does not do so? I remember in my days as a student at Andrews University, seeing an ad offering research grants for people who would do research to demonstrate that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago. Could those be considered scientific grants? Would the money be paid if the research proved that the earth was, in fact, 4.5 billion years old? These grants were not offered by the university, but they do demonstrate the feelings of the constituency.

    Is it acceptable for a church-related educational institution to control what is taught in its classrooms? I believe this should be the case for the most part, with exceptions for accountability which I discuss below. I may disagree. I may choose not to go to that school or send my children there, but a church institution has additional accountability to the folks who created and maintain it.

    I want to make clear here that I believe that the best protection for freedom of speech in education is through competition from multiple educational institutions pursuing their own policies and goals. Accreditation provides some accountability, but I would personally prefer that accreditation dealt with the minimum requirements, and not with the details of what else might be taught. (Note that La Sierra is a fully accredited school, and I would be very surprised if they did not meet, and continue to meet and exceed standards.)

    At the same time I am in sympathy with the professor in this case. Your freedom of belief and freedom of speech does not give you the right to a particular grade from a particular professor. If the assignment involves understanding the way mainstream science understands the fossil record, for example, you should demonstrate such understanding. Briefly, my ideal is that a professor requires understanding but not belief, and does not penalize one for belief. (That ideal should require a great deal of definition and support, don’t you think? Well, it must wait for another post.)

    Also, just to cover the bases, I am an advocate of mainstream science, and that alone, being taught in public school classrooms, both because I think we have little enough time to cover the basics in a high school education these days, and because I am tremendously unhappy with government employees, teachers in this case, getting into material that is largely religiously driven, much less actually teaching religion. (I apply the same standard to public school Bible classes. I don’t like them.)

    But in this case, I’m more interested in the best way for a church group to educate its own young people. Growing up SDA I was thoroughly indoctrinated with young earth creationism. If you look back at the SDA statement of belief, I was required to memorize every single one of the scriptures–yes, whole chapters–as part of the process of making sure I understood just how God created the world. Most of this education was in what were called “self-supporting institutions” in those days, the “self-supporting” denoting that they were not financially supported by the denomination.

    I learned only science that was consistent with this view. Since I dodged biology and took chemistry once I was in the regular Adventist educational system, I continued to avoid biology, geology, and related topics. To the extent that I challenged this view, it was from a biblical perspective, as I looked at the text of the early genealogies and became convinced that the earth was much more than 6,000 years old, and that this view was scripturally sound. But I was thinking maybe 100,000 or so years. Thus I left school with an MA degree without any understanding of evolution.

    Again, I do not say this as an assault on Adventist education. There are plenty of other groups who struggle with the same material, and they often have similar problems. Had I attended a mainstream SDA secondary school, I would likely have encountered a bit more of evolutionary theory. As it turned out, I simply started reading material on evolution, especially in astronomy and geology, on my own. Now people will often think I was somehow brainwashed, but what struck me most in my reading was the number of cases in which my indoctrination had misstated what science intended to teach. (Hold that thought a minute.)

    I recall teaching a class in Genesis, covering the prehistory (1-11) shortly after joining my first United Methodist congregation. I had no idea what the range of beliefs in the pews actually were. As it turned out, there were two ladies, one who sat at my right as we gathered around the table, and the other at my left. The lady at my right was a theistic evolutionist, thoroughly convinced that anything else was nonsense. The lady at my left was a young earth creationist, thoroughly convinced that evolution was at least the first step on the road to hell. Both were Methodists in good standing and leaders in the church. So I learned that changing denominations hadn’t changed some of the basic issues. Yes, there was no similar Methodist statement to the SDA statement, but all the viewpoints were there, and they were contentious.

    So where is this leading me? I think we have a serious educational weakness in the church in general. I heard it in SDA circles–let’s just teach “the truth,” let’s use only SDA literature. Now I hear it in Methodist churches–we have the cross and flame on the sign, we need to use Methodist literature in all our classes. But it wasn’t possible to do a solid indoctrination when I was growing up and it has only become more difficult as information science progresses. Isolation from all other ideas isn’t possible.

    It’s not that all Methodist literature is bad. Neither is all SDA literature. In fact, I like a great deal of both. Considering I grew up and was educated SDA and then became Methodist, I have quite a bit of both on my shelves. But we have a wonderful opportunity through Sunday School (or Sabbath School for any SDA readers!) and small groups, and I don’t believe we use it very well. We have an opportunity to really study subjects in depth, to discuss them with people holding various viewpoints and learn to truly understand opposing viewpoints. But so frequently we just rehash the list of major doctrines or major social issues without getting serious.

    When should children and young people learn to understand a topic like evolution? I’d suggest it happen at the earliest opportunity. If you don’t accept the theory of evolution, you also have the time to give your reasons. Shielding them from the information, or from having to express an understanding of it, will not help you.

    This little ramble was triggered over the subject of evolution, but I would add to this hermeneutics in the broadest sense. While I was required to memorize hundreds of verses of scripture, very little time was spent on how one would understand those scriptures. I had no idea how someone could come up with a different view of the scriptures than I had, because I had no idea how we had come up with our view, which in turn became my view. That is an approach that is bound to fail in the long run.

    A choice made in ignorance cannot be very good, even if the choice is technically correct.

  • Garage Sale? Watch out for the Feds!

    They’re looking for people who resell recalled items. To be fair, I must note that they’re paying the most attention to the big boys, like Goodwill. (HT: The Agitator)

  • Am I a Doubter?

    Bruce Alderman has written a post that is making me think. That’s a good thing!

    He thinks that we are misusing the word “doubts” when we suggest that believers may have doubts. To quote:

    Questions can and do lead to a more mature faith. Genuine doubts do not.

    Hmm! I must say that I have few to no doubts about the basics. I have, in fact, attempted to truly doubt that God exists, a foolish effort if one actually believes, but I have doubts about many secondary things.

    As I said, this one is making me think. If it’s making you think as well, head over to Bruce’s blog and comment.

  • Is Seminary Necessary?

    Sky McCracken thinks we may not, and has some good thoughts on the matter.

  • MyBibleVersion.com Update

    It has been some time since I discussed the MyBibleVersion.com site, and indeed it has been some time since I updated it.

    Today I added Google FriendConnect and the ability to comment.  Comments are active on the index page and on each of the Bible version detail pages.

    I believe this will give me the facility to have decently secure login, which is a prerequisite for my planned personalization.  If I am successful in implementing this, each user will be able to enter values for the various translation attributes and compare versions using the same system I do.

    Don’t hold your breath–this has to be done in my spare time.

    In addition, I plan to add the ISV within the next few days.  I delayed doing the ISV because the Old Testament was scheduled to appear.  At this point I have enough material to work with.

  • Beware Friends Bearing Manuscripts

    That’s something every editor should have laminated and stuck on the wall. There is nothing to make me cringe like a friend or relative telling me that they have a manuscript they’ve been working on for a long time. Inevitably this leads to the question, “Would you be interested in looking at it?”

    Depending on how good a friend, or if the relative is in the part of the family you’re speaking to, you really can’t say, “No, I suspect your manuscript stinks, and I really don’t want to have to make that opinion official.” On the other hand, once you have the manuscript in your possession, your only defense is your power of procrastination.

    You see, when you have to pay the bills, you can’t accept the manuscript for publication just because the author is a friend. You can’t lie and say, “This is a wonderful manuscript, but I can’t publish it right now,” because the author will doubtless continue to hound you after receiving such encouraging news.

    All this is my round about way of telling you that while I always look at manuscripts brought by family and friends, I do so with serious reservations. I don’t want to be the bearer of bad tidings, but I can’t afford to publish something I can’t sell.

    So when I found out that Nick May, who was my son James’s best friend (without prejudice to several other best friends) was writing a book, I received the news with mixed emotions. “Sure,” I said, “I’ll be happy to look at it.” And really, truly, I was happy to do so. I just wasn’t happy at the possibility that I would have to say, “This just won’t do for us” much less “you need some more writing practice!”

    But when I read the sample chapters he sent, I knew I was saved. His writing was excellent, his subject controversial. It was possible I would even lose some friends by choosing to publish his book, and such a book is always of interest. After all, if someone isn’t angry about a book, it’s probably not accomplishing anything.

    So just what is Megabelt, and why did I choose to make it our first fiction title for Energion Publications? (Press release.)

    Well, you can follow the links for details on the book itself. I can simply tell you this: I laughed hysterically at points while reading it. At the same time it held up a mirror to my life and ministry and made me think. A book that can make you laugh and think seriously at the same time has something important going for it. Laughing and thinking are excluded from church far too often.

    Just try changing the order of service in the bulletin of many churches and listen to the complaints. People didn’t know what to do. They were confused! They couldn’t handle having another prayer before the scripture reading, or two songs at the beginning, or perhaps being asked to stand at a moment when they had been sitting. The problem for them is that church is a habit. It’s not that going to church is a habit. It’s that the elements of church itself are habitual. Heaven forbid they should be asked to participate!

    But even more, we have many ministries that are also habits. Now some of these habits are good things. Visiting the sick or shut-ins. But what happens if the pastor asks some other members to visit someone who is sick or shut-in? Oh the misery! Oh the insult! They have been treated as lesser beings because they received a visit from the wrong person.

    Youth ministry is another area of habit. There are certain things that you do, and if you don’t do them, you’re not really “reaching” the youth. If you try something new it will doubtless be dangerous, or you’ll find members of the church who remember a time long, long ago when someone tried that and it didn’t work.

    My friend and pastor Geoffrey Lentz likes the following quote:

    “Tradition is the living faith of dead people to which we must add our chapter while we have the gift of life. Traditionalism is the dead faith of living people who fear that if anything changes, the whole enterprise will crumble.” – Jaroslav Pelikan

    While, as the description says, Megabelt doesn’t have an agenda, nor is it a story with a moral, it takes aim at our traditionalism by highlighting it in action. Like me, I suspect that you will find that the mirror shows you in a less than flattering light at some points. The question, of course, is what one does after one looks in the mirror.

    23For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man looking at his natural face in a mirror; 24for he sees himself, and goes away, and immediately forgets what kind of man he was. 25But he who looks into the perfect law of freedom, and continues, not being a hearer who forgets, but a doer of the work, this man will be blessed in what he does. — James 1:23-25 (WEB)

    So what about publishing a book without a moral? I told Nick that if he had written a story with a single moral, I would have been less likely to buy the manuscript. Since bedtime story days, when we had an endless supply of children’s stories with a moral, I have despised the story written with one single purpose in mind, that inevitably leads to that one moral.

    You may say that Jesus told such stories, but if so, I would suggest you read Jesus more closely. My wife borrowed a devotional from me today, The Work of Being a Disciple. I grew up with the notion that a parable had one meaning and you should ignore everything else in favor of that. I found later that parables have a multistage punch–the longer you go on thinking about them, the more they do to you.

    I’m not calling Megabelt a parable, nor am I nominating Nick for the role of Jesus–I doubt he would thank me! But I am suggesting that sometimes we will hear in story what we would miss otherwise. In other words, while no moral is pushed in your face in this book, you may nonetheless get many morals from it–if you’re willing to think while you laugh, and after you laugh as well.

    I can’t ask much more of a manuscript, even when borne by a friend!

  • The Bad Name of Evangelism

    Via Shane Raynor on Twitter and the Wesley Report, I found this article on UMPortal about early Methodist evangelism. What struck me, was how many of the ideas there could be found in Acts.

    Here’s a key quote:

    She [Rev. Laceye Warner of Duke] defined evangelism as preaching the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ and “living it out.”

    I think we can trace the bad name of evangelism to two things:

    1. We have separated evangelism from discipleship, i.e., we equate evangelism with persuading people to say a particular prayer
    2. We think evangelism is about talking people into joining our particular church

    While the symptoms are varied, including much obnoxious behavior, I think at least most of the symptoms can be traced back to one of those two points.

    A return to the long term, often difficult work of making disciples would be rather valuable, I think.

  • Bibles with a Viewpoint – The Green Bible

    Those who read this blog regularly are probably already aware that I have mixed emotions about study Bibles.  I would say “love-hate relationship” but none of my feelings about study Bibles attains the level of “love.”

    Via Sun and Shield I found a review on First Things of The Green Bible.  I recommend reading the review.  I have not purchased, nor have I read, the Green Bible, and I don’t plan to.  None of my comments here are based on anything specific written in the notes to that Bible.  It is to the very idea that I object, not this particular implementation.

    Now let me state for the record that I am not offended by the idea of discovering reasons for taking care of the earth properly in your Bible.  I think that much of that is covered under the theology of creation, if one pays attention.

    No, my problem is more general.  Think of it this way.  Supposing someone took one of my books, sliced it up, and then inserted comments about some particular theme everywhere.  Let’s say, for example, that these comments had to do with the ecology.  I support recycling.  I support reducing carbon emissions.  I think we’re doing too little.  But that’s not really my field of study, so there would be a few sentences here and there, just like the ones in this paragraph that indicate what I believe.  So instead of focusing on the topic I intended the book to focus on, the new book, whilst being anchored by text I had written, would be focused on something that was quite incidental to the earlier work.

    How would I react?  Easy question.  I’d say, “Go write your own book.”

    The Bible is different in many, many ways from one of my books.  It is a collection, it is ancient, it comes from a different culture than mine, and it is regarded as sacred, which nobody has or likely will do with mine.  There are reasons to apply commentary to the Bible.  But when that commentary is interspersed with the Bible text, it becomes easy to confuse the reader and slant the result toward a particular topic.  That’s as true of The American Patriot’s Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America
    as it is of The Green Bible.  It doesn’t matter which of them is more compatible with my own views (The Green Bible, for what it’s worth).  Both Bibles are offensive to me.

    Some may not believe that anyone would be confused.  Surely they know the difference between the Biblical text and the commentary.  But I have found in Bible studies that when people use study Bibles they very often take the notes as the true word of God, while spending little time on the text.  Even more frequently they take the theme of a passage from the introduction and notes rather than, again, reading the text itself.

    Simply the fact that a single theme is taken and emphasized throughout is enough to introduce unbalance.  I believe that’s a substantial problem.

    My suggestion to people who want to emphasize that the Bible is green as green can be, or that every word of scripture supports American patriotism?  Write your own book!

    There is good reason to have study Bibles, but I think those who write notes for such Bibles have a great responsibility to point back to the text.  Thus providing background information, interpretational options, and structural notes can be very helpful.  The problem comes in when the notes begin to direct the study and its emphasis.

  • Lazy

    … Bible study that is.  Food for thought from for the Sake of Truth.

  • Sexual Attraction and Divinity

    Two of the lectionary passages today, at least if you go with the United Methodist selections, involve romance and sexual attraction.  One, of course, is Song of Songs 2:8-13 and the other is Psalm 45, which has a foreign princess marrying the king of Israel.  The second involves romance at least as far as an arranged political marriage, probably into a harem, can do so.

    I think there are two major pitfalls in interpreting these passages, and these apply especially to Song of Songs.  The first is that we will miss the spiritual lessons because we are enjoying the story and the poetry.  Literature that involves sex is both popular and controversial. I’m guessing that after some time on the internet, when I check the stats for this article, there will be a correlation between the number of times I mention “sex” in it, and its popularity.  So one can read these passages as simple, physical attraction.

    The other pitfall, however, is that we will quickly spiritualize the passage and miss out on the physical connection.  In my view sexual attraction and romantic love provides us with the best metaphor we’re going to get for God’s love and passion for us, and how diligently God seeks to provide his grace.  At the same time, it provides us with a pattern for our own behavior with respect to God.

    One common view of Song of Songs is allegorical.  Now I won’t deny that some good things have come out of reading this book allegorically.  But I do believe that reading it as allegory and denying its value as a simple and passionate love story diminishes the book.  It is not written as allegory.  It is written as love poetry.  It is not necessarily to be understood, but to be lived.

    And there is where we can also tie James 1:17-27.  Perhaps we don’t really understand something unless we have lived it.  Notice God’s own example in Jesus Christ.  God came and lived among us in human form in Jesus Christ.  God obviously knew, but in Jesus he shared the experience of human beings living in an imperfect world and day by day facing the challenges of being very, very finite.

    Despite our unfortunate tendency to regard anything sexual as dirty, and requiring that it be separated from spirituality, human attraction relates very closely to God’s longing for us, and our search for God.  In romantic love, no amount of factual knowledge of a partner would suffice, if learned apart from personal experience of that partner.

    So it is with God.  I cannot study theology for years and expect that this alone will let me truly know God.  I need to experience God, to be sought passionately by God, and in my turn to seek God passionately.