Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Theme Change

    Some readers may not know that I do my blogging in three main locations. Here at Threads, Participatory Bible Study Blog, and The Jevlir Caravansary. I like the three to have a generally similar theme with some graphic differences, and so I have just changed them all to the Atahualpa theme.

    This is a theme that is extremely configurable, but it comes almost precisely like I prefer it to be. All I have to do is create and upload the headers, the logo, and my favicon.

    Those theme guys are due a donation, which they will definitely get.

    I still have some sidebar cleanup done. I am looking to remove things that often take too long to load, so some things will either be going away or will be moved to pages. Go ahead and comment if you have particular sidebar elements that annoy you and slow down your load time. I may not agree, but then again I might!

  • On Inerrancy – a Request for Short Definitions

    Darrell Pursiful at Dr. Platypus is requesting short definitions from those who accept or use the language of inerrancy in describing the Bible. Shorter, definitely, than the Chicago statement. Though I don’t qualify, even though my definition of inspiration has been called inerrancy, I thought I’d pass this on.

  • Word Study Reprise

    It’s very easy to go astray with word studies when one doesn’t know the languages in question.  Since I had a recent request for this material, I want to provide the links to my previous series (from early 2007) on word studies, dangers, and methods.

    1. Word Study Dangers: Overview
    2. Word Study Dangers: The Process
    3. Word Study Dangers: Glosses and Definitions
    4. Word Study Dangers: Your Dependence on Scholars
    5. From Word to Study
    6. A Simple and Legitimate Use for a Concordance Indexed to the Biblical Languages (This post is much later, but related)

    I hope these posts are helpful to those who are trying to get a peak at the Biblical languages.  Even better, set out to learn them!

  • It Was All God – Pride or Humility?

    The gentleman came to me with a sheaf of papers after a meeting at which I was speaking. “I’d like you to read this,” he said, holding them out to me.

    Now this was before I had started publishing, not that I haven’t had related experiences since. But even so, this gentleman wanted me to tell him whether he should seek a publisher. In our conversation, it actually became clear that what he wanted to hear was that his manuscript was great and he should urgently seek a publisher. He wanted affirmation, not discernment.

    He looked right at me and said: “God gave me all of this. These aren’t my words. I couldn’t have written them. It was all God.”

    There are at least two ways to take a statement like that. The first is that the man believed that what he was holding in his hand was something good. (For the record, it wasn’t. I can’t tell you it was wrong; it was simply too incoherent for me to be certain.) He might then be humbly saying that he could not do this on our own. It is good for us to remember that without God, we are not. Period!

    But there is another sense in which such a statement might be made, and I have sensed it in many cases, and this is to try to force someone to pay more attention. It might be that the writer is concerned about the quality and wants to catch the reader’s intention. It might be that the writer lacks credentials and believes that the claim that God did it is the only thing that will give the contents weight.

    When People Speak for God front cover

    I commit an entire chapter of my book When People Speak for God to this topic in a chapter titled Practical Considerations of Hearing. The problem is that we are all too willing to make the claim to be speaking for God in the church today without realizing how serious such a claim is.

    In charismatic communities this often comes out very directly, with people claiming to speak prophetic words frequently. Now I want to be clear that I believe God can and does speak. If I could summarize the thesis of my book in the size of a tweet, it would be, “God always speaks; we rarely listen.” (That line doesn’t occur in the book itself, but it does summarize the thought.) But in Old Testament times the claim to be a prophet was serious. The penalty for being a false prophet was death.

    When discussing someone’s claim to be a prophet, I have been told a number of times over the last few years that one cannot always throw strikes. Now when we’re praying for one another, advising one another, sharing what we believe we heard from God in our devotional time, that’s quite true. The key in each of those cases is that we’re talking about what we have understood and not claiming that we are directly passing on a message from God for the hearer. But the attitude that dismisses claims of false prophecy as unimportant cannot, in my view, be reconciled with any scriptural view of prophecy.

    Those who don’t believe in modern prophecy shouldn’t feel left out, however. A preacher in the pulpit, proclaiming God’s word needs to take that point very seriously. If I pridefully proclaim my own view as God’s view, not acknowledging that I am a broken vessel pouring out God’s word as I best understands it, and inviting you to search for yourself and hear God for yourself, I am in danger of the same fault. I could be said to “speak presumptuously” (Deut. 18:17-22) and one need not read far to find the penalty for that.

    I think that this is another of those Christian paradoxes, however, like the incarnation. It is clearly impossible for Jesus to be 100% God and 100% human at the same time, yet that is precisely what I believe. It is (humanly) impossible to proclaim God’s word with full conviction and complete humility, yet I see that as the call to those who preach and teach.

    The canon of scripture as we have it consists of materials that were read many times over the centuries by God’s people with the resulting conviction that this is God speaking. Sometimes the prophets said specifically “this is what God says.” At other times we have extended writing that doesn’t make that announcement. In discussing canonization, we often fail to emphasize the fact that the body of believers that made the canon a formal canon was already using roughly those books. Why? I believe it is because they heard God speaking in them.

    Whatever the format by which I present God’s word, whether in a blog post, in writing, in teaching, in a sermon or a private conversation, the key issue will be this: Do people hear God through me? When I make the claim, I am in danger of pride. I don’t deny that God may call on a prophet to say “This is what God has to say.” He certainly has. I don’t deny that God may call on a preacher to say, “This is the word of the Lord” when he preaches.

    But the most important thing is that the preacher or teacher actually gets out of the way and lets the Holy Spirit work. If I get out of the way, people will recognize what God is saying to them, often when I have said it very poorly. As a friend of mine said in a recent sermon, it’s a miracle that people ever hear God’s word when he’s standing in the pulpit. And he’s a pretty good preacher!

    When I am weak, then I am strong! – 2 Corinthians 12:10

  • Could You Use This Video about YOUR Church?

    Though I think I might ask myself the next question. Will I grow spiritually after I get there? The atmosphere of grace is, I believe, most conducive to growth!

    (HT: Kouya Chronicle)

  • Christian Carnival CCLXXXVIII Posted

    … at the Jevlir Caravansary, which is one of my blogs.  It’s the “caravan route edition.”  Enjoy!

  • The Espresso Book Machine

    This is an announcement from my company, but the technology is very interesting. Books on demand has gone to a new level.

  • Media Heat or Light?

    I’ve long thought that the major problem of the media was not so much bias (though bias is evidence) but shallowness. Today Allan Bevere said it much better.

  • Reflections on Church and The Jesus Paradigm

    As a publisher I have the joy of spending a great deal of time with a book as it goes through the process of publication. I don’t expect you to read my thoughts on The Jesus Paradigm as anything like a review, but there are some special things about this book and the way it has influenced me as I worked on it.

    I like to think of my business as a ministry, which is “churchese” for “service.” It is my intent to serve both the church and the community with materials that challenge and educate. Now don’t get me wrong here. For a small publisher, signing an author who has written nearly as many books as the company has published is a sound business decision. I didn’t decide to sacrifice myself in service and publish this book contrary to my better judgment. It’s a good book; it’s a book that is likely to sell quite well; it’s also a book that is kingdom building.

    Now as I frequently must, let me warn you that I’m going to be writing quite a few words. I’ve been thinking about the concept “church” for a long time and struggling with many things. This is also largely addressed to a Christian audience, so it may well bore others. Read on at your own risk!

    What happened with this book was that a number of things I’ve been thinking about, things that have challenged me over the years, came into sharper focus while I was editing and preparing it for the printer.

    I traditionally point out about now that I disagree with some things in a book I’ve published, and that this is a good thing rather than a bad thing. That’s part of developing brand identity since in a company founded by one person, it’s easy to confuse the person with the company.

    But in this case I think anyone who looks at the header of this blog and reads a few essays, and then does the same thing on Dave Black Online will be in no danger of confusing the two of us.

    What I think I need to emphasize instead is just how much I agree with in this book, and the tremendous value I find even in the things about which I have reservations (ecclesiology) or differences in emphasis (hermeneutics-maybe).

    In my personal testimony I note how I left church after my seminary training (MA, not MDiv) because I then regarded Christianity as a total “one-way street” surrender. I note that at the time:

    Some Christians argued with me that such a total surrender as I described was not required, but I could not see a partial surrender to God at the time, and I still can’t do so.

    Despite believing that, I have struggled with how to put that into practice, particularly in church life. The extent to which “church” doesn’t work, or perhaps doesn’t appear to be what it seems the Bible points to, has continued to bother me.

    Let me list some of the threads of thinking that have bothered me.

    (1) Again as I note in my testimony, I felt God’s call to ministry as I was registering for the second year of a pre-law program. I switched to Biblical languages. Unfortunately I found that while many people would talk about a lack of Biblical knowledge in the pews, the church had no place for a teacher who was not also ready to pastor a church. I observed that pastors got overloaded and rarely had a chance to actually teach.

    (2) If you look at most pastors and then write up a job description as you might for a business, you will see a job that nobody can actually perform. Our pastors cannot lead, teach, and equip, because they are so busy doing, and not necessarily doing the things that truly go with their calling.

    (3) I grew up with missionary parents who were truly dedicated to their work. By this I mean being willing to go out to serve God at risk of life and limb and at times depending on God for their next meal. I spent four years in southern Mexico, and then three in Guyana (South America) and while we were in the United States, they worked in underserved areas.

    In this process I experienced a number of things:

    • I experienced mission trips as loading up mules and backpacks and hiking to a village, or in Guyana getting in a boat and heading up river. This gave me a different view of “discomfort” than I have encountered in various short term missions in which I have been involved.
    • I experienced worship and teaching in circumstances that varied from outdoors under trees to small, simple churches that were no more than walls and a roof. I have felt the presence of God in places most Americans would regard as unusable.
    • I learned that “mission” was not necessarily something you did in somebody else’s country

    (4) By contrast, I have sat in American churches that would be inconceivably luxurious while people debated the color of the carpet for hours. Somehow I just couldn’t get into it. We’re replacing chandeliers that don’t look just right; Christians somewhere else are trying to do the minimum necessary to keep out the rain.

    (4) I have wondered just how we could create a church that would carry out the work of the gospel as its primary mission. I don’t like evaluating ministry purely on a numbers basis, but I believe that you can often calculate what real priorities are by looking at where the money goes and secondarily by looking at how time is used. By this measure the priority of American churches in general is neither social service nor gospel preaching but rather self-maintenance.

    Enter The Jesus Paradigm. In a sense it is almost fitting that the author, Dave Black, contracted Malaria while in Ethiopia and the book was released while he was in the hospital. As I have noted recently in writing about 2 Corinthians, the person can be inextricably linked with the written message. Paul didn’t want to boast, but he had to, while at the same time defending himself from the charge of weakness by claiming that he was weak.

    In some of the reviews and in comments brought to me personally there have been questions about a number of things that are either lacking in the book or that people question. I’m not going to try to defend this book by saying that every word is absolutely correct and will stand the test of time. I’m not trying to make Dave Black into a prophet or incorporate his book into the canon of scripture.

    These questions relate to ecclesiology and the lack of extended practical directions, both of which I will address, and the political commentary, which I will not.

    One major question has been the lack of detailed practical advice on how to put the message of this book into practice. I don’t like to criticize reviewers as a publisher, but I think that criticism misses the point.

    The way you put this into practice is by prayerful, constant surrender to Jesus. Read John 6:28-29. The problem is that we want a checklist, a program, or at least a detailed guide. The fact is that we have one–scripture brought to the moment by the power of the Holy Spirit.

    I recall from my experience here in Pensacola with the Brownsville Revival. Now please lay aside your issues with what was being done in that revival. I’m not pointing to Brownsville as an example. Pastors and church leaders would come from far away and they would want whatever it as they perceived that Brownsville had. So they would go back home and try to apply what they had seen at Brownsville.

    They would use the same music, not just the same style but the same songs. They would organize their services in the same way. They would try to style their preaching after the revival preacher Steve Hill. Then they would wonder why it didn’t work.

    It didn’t work because kingdom service is not a program, nor is it a checklist, nor is it an organizational manual. It’s a surrender.

    If you don’t know how to do this, dig into Acts and the Epistles, though only after you’ve thoroughly dug into the gospels. Spend your time in prayer and study and in listening to what God has to say to you. You will find ways to put the Jesus paradigm into action.

    Another issue is with ecclesiology. How can this material be applied to a different structure of church than just Baptist? Here we may certainly have many disagreements as to details. These are good to discuss with the proper spirit.

    I can look at this from my Seventh-day Adventist background and now as a United Methodist, and I think that the most critical thing here s the way church leadership thinks of themselves and behaves. I believe a Methodist church pastor could spread the Jesus paradigm through the committees of teams of his church structure just as boards of elders can do so in other church structures.

    But the bottom line, in my view, has to be more revolutionary, but again I think it applies to all different structures. The issue is this: Where do our resources go? Do they serve our desires or do they serve others? As I have looked at the church budgets of the churches I have attended over the last few years, the vast majority of the budget goes to buildings and staff salaries, and the staff is largely charged with maintaining the members that are already there.

    As long as we’re spending the majority of our money on maintenance, we’re not going to be reaching people as we should either in social services or in proclamation of the Christian message.

    This is why I’m so delighted to have the opportunity to publish The Jesus Paradigm, and yes, to have the opportunity to market it as well. It will challenge us to apply this “downward path of Jesus” (also a phrase from the book) to our circumstances wherever we are. It will direct us to Jesus himself and the early church to find ways of doing that.

    I don’t think this will necessarily be simple, but I think it’s time for us to be praying, thinking, and listening for the Holy Spirit in regard to how we can accomplish it. Otherwise, our churches are just an extremely expensive and annoying form of social club.

  • Incredibly Irresponsible YouTube Video

    … and given the quality of some YouTube videos, that’s saying something. In this case the WorldNetDaily is also pushing the idea, though they give some weak lip service to responsibility by noting that there are other ideas out there, and being sure to credit it all to the anonymous producer. If you want to watch the video, you can go to their site–I’m not going to embed it here.

    Basically, by loosely translating some Greek words from Luke 10:18 into Hebrew, mixing them with a bit of really poor exegesis (I shudder to even use the word to describe this), pretending that all this relates to Jesus speaking Aramaic, and then comparing their sounds with yet another language, the producer of the video suggests that Jesus gave us a clue to who the antichrist is, and he is–drum roll please–President Barack Obama. He covers this by reciting some data about these ancient languages that is largely not relevant to his point, but makes him sound like he knows what he’s talking about, always assuming the listener does not.

    Amongst the myriad problems are:

    • The “heights” interpretation of “from heaven” in Luke 10:18 is by no means established, and actually unlikely.
    • Back translating is always dangerous
    • Even if all translations are allowed as valid, there is no form of this statement in which Jesus would have uttered something that sounded like “Barack Obama.” In order to get that combination of sounds the speaker had to use “lightning and a high place” which would be something like “baraq ubamah” with the ‘u’ being “oo” and not “oh.”
    • Even if the speaker was not completely off base at that point (though he is), there is no contextual indication suggesting that a set of unrelated sounds in here should be taken as a name. Outside of context, many relationships can be found between sounds of different languages, none of which mean anything except that some sounds are similar to other sounds.
    • The claim that a Rabbi endorses the video is not supported by the banner on which it is printed, since the Rabbi only confirms the translations of two phrases, and the second of those phrases is incorrect. I suspect miswording/misunderstanding on the part of those who created the video, assuming they contacted the Rabbi mentioned at all, because no Rabbi would make the error in question.

    I’ve already given this guy too much time, but I did one more thing just for fun. Since he emphasized the Aramaic relationship, I looked to see how some folks who used a similar language–Syriac–actually translated the verse. Recall the dangers of back translation. The Peshitta reads “shemaya”, a reasonably close equivalent and cognate of the Hebrew “shamayim,” the very word the video produce rejects in favor of “bamah.”

    I suspect some Christians are spreading this as a joke, but it’s not a good joke. It is improper use of scripture from start to finish. It constitutes innuendo and gossip, as people are disturbed by the implications. I wish I could say that the Christian community is well enough educated Biblically to simply reject this out of hand, but I’m afraid that’s not the case.

    There’s a disclaimer saying that the video is not intended to suggest that Barack Obama is the antichrist. That’s much like the church gossip who says, “I saw our pastor out with X from the choir. I’m not suggesting there’s an inappropriate relationship, but …”

    The producer says he’s remaining anonymous but he’s “not ashamed of what he put there.” He should be.

    (A secondary hat tip goes to Dispatches, though a friend pointed this video out to me last night.)