Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Is it a Homeschooling Case?

    By “it” I refer to the the case of Vanessa Mills v. Thomas Mills in Wake County, North Carolina. Timothy Sandefur has written on this, and we also have a short response from Doug on Stones Cry Out. Under a large number of conditions I might agree with Doug, but on reading this ruling, I think the judge did a pretty good job of balancing things out.

    Let me note that I was homeschooled 8 out of 12 years before college, and I currently have a granddaughter who is being homeschooled. I do not in any way regret being homeschooled. In fact, I think I would have been something between bored and horrified to have attended public school. Never having actually attended, I’m not in a good position to be certain. I’m terribly proud of my daughter who is homeschooling my granddaughter, and doing very well. So please don’t think I’m against homeschooling.

    But having read the judge’s decision, and his findings of fact, I think this is being read wrong by much of the blogosphere. I will comment only that when such an issue comes up in a divorce case, there is almost always much more involved than meets the eye, and that appears to be true in this case.

    I would strongly suggest reading the actual ruling [PDF], and Timothy Sandefur’s comments. I think this has little to do with homeschooling, and much to do with the kind of issues that come up in divorce, especially when one party has very controversial religious beliefs.

    I think the judge did well, for example, in #3 on page 8 of the ruling, in ordering that the two parents are not allowed to disparage one another in the presence of the children, and they each can practice their religion as they see fit during their portion of the joint custody time.

    There are plenty of unreasonable actions taken against homeschoolers. Outrage should be reserved for those, in my view. This case is about a nasty divorce and competing religious beliefs in it, not about homeschooling.

  • John 3 and the Jesus Message (Lent 4B/John 3:14-21

    Darrel Bock (430-433) combines John 3:1-21 into one section, titled “What Do the Signs Show?  Jesus and Nicodemus”.

    John’s next account is of an evening visit by a leader of Judaism.  Here, outside the tensions of a public confrontation, in the quiet of table talk, the two eras meet, one old and the other emerging. …

    I find the word “emerging” in those circumstances as kind of interesting, though I doubt Bock meant by it what I tend to hear.  Very often we don’t understand just how revolutionary Jesus was in his impact.  Even those who think he meant nothing more than a bit of reform of Judaism must admit that his followers went on into some very revolutionary changes, probably less acceptable than those “emerging” leaders plan for Christianity today.

    We look at the changes Jesus brought, and we would like those to be the last changes, the ones that bring us to precisely where we should be.  But Jesus is more radical than we give him credit for.  God is not as tame as we would like him to be.  The whole new birth thing, while it is rooted in various ideas that would have been familiar to Nicodemus, is revolutionary in its results.  We always focus on the way in which Nicodemus misunderstands the who new birth/birth from above part.  But I suspect what he was trying to avoid was this idea of the person led by the Spirit who could not be completely comprehended.

    Didn’t God bring people out of bondage in order to get them to live righteous lives according to a set of instructions, instructions that God himself had given?  Was not that the essence of righteousness?  But here Jesus sounds so much like any instruction set along the was perhaps part of the way out, and not the destination.

    Having set the scene, we can look at our passage for today.  With Nicodemus in a bit of shock about people led by God’s Spirit being incomprehensible, going like the wind, led by God’s wind (Spirit), Jesus turns to Torah (Numbers 21:4-9), which is something that Nicodemus should understand.  But he picks a very difficult passage and he uses it in a very difficult way.  Whether you hear this section as part of the speech to Nicodemus*, or one to the disciples following, and whether you see the context as the confrontation between a nascent Christianity and Judaism, or more literally set in the ministry of Jesus, I think the two are intended to have a connection.

    Jesus, the Spirit-led person goes to the cross.  Moses the Spirit-led person lifted a serpent up on a pole.  In both cases people were required to look up.  In the first, this was to the serpent on the pole.  In the second to Jesus on the cross.  To quote Vincent Taylor as cited in Leon Morris, “There could be no vainer controversy than the disupte whether in those passages (i.e. John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32) the crucifixion of the exaltation is meant.  The death is the exaltation” (p. 200n67).

    But was this all?  In the case of the bronze serpent they were to look to God who provided the sign.  One has to ask whether God understood the potential difficulties of this situation, even though one knows the answer.  With the serpent as an object of veneration but also of terror, there was every chance that the people would worship it, and indeed that eventually happened (2 Kings 18:4).

    But John’s upward look includes everything there is about Jesus.  He’s lifted up on the cross, out of the grave, to the right hand of the Father, and when his Spirit lifts the believers from their fear, lethargy, even apathy and into their mission.  When one looks at the cross one should see both death, the death of sin (2 Corinthians 5:21) and life, the life of one whom death cannot keep, the life of one who is willing to face death so that the world can be saved.  To quote Vincent Taylor as cited in Leon Morris, “There could be no vainer controversy than the disupte whether in those passages (i.e. John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32) the crucifixion of the exaltation is meant.  The death is the exaltation” (p. 200n67).

    If you tie the “born from above” of John 3:1-13 to the “lifted up” and the place to which the Israelites are called to look, I think you will get some more of this idea.  In very broad strokes, as long as we look to this world, we cannot be redeemed from it.  Even the good things of this world are failures.  We have to look to something “lifted up,” something that is beyond this world in order to be redeemed from it.

    All of our human plans of salvation that involve earning God’s favor are a failure.  The Israelites demonstrate this level of missing the point when the worship Nehushtan, the serpent (2 Kings 18:4), by burning incense to it.  They’re trying to gain the serpent’s favor; God is saying to look up and out.

    John 3:16 is called a very simple summary of the gospel, and it is.  At the same time it is part of one of the most theologically deep statements of the gospel.  You can run through this passage time after time, follow the symbolism, and come back to something simple, but if you go back and let the words of Jesus work on you some more, you’ll find some more “simple” lessons, that put together show the depth of the gospel as well.  That’s the genius of John’s gospel, but more importantly, of the Word made Flesh.

    *Let me note one more thing.  It is likely that the division of the passage comes between verses 15 and 16, so that the reference to the serpent is made to Nicodemus, while v. 16ff is a reflection on the passage.

  • Christian Carnival CCLXVIII Posted

    … at Crossroads.  You can check out the carnival archive here, and consider getting involved by submitting posts and hosting.

  • A Note on Types and Antitypes

    If you aren’t acquainted with the concept of types and antitypes, you will find it much more difficult to see a connection between the lectionary passages and to build sermons that connect the overall story of the gospel.  I’m just providing a brief note here, because I saw a good working definition in the Orthodox Study Bible, p. 190:

    …In each case, the type–the first event–is linked to its corresponding future event, called the “antitype.”  It is a relationship that begins with a promise and ends with a fulfillment in Christ.

    The OrthSB then quotes St. John Chrysostom, but I prefer quoting a bit more, even though the source I’m using is in archaic language:

    Seest thou how grace comes by Him? look also to truth. His grace the instance just mentioned, and what happened in the case of the thief, and the gift of Baptism, and the grace of the Spirit given by Him declare, and many other things. But His truth we shall more clearly know, if we understand the types. For the types like patterns anticipated and sketched beforehand the dispensations which should be accomplished under the new covenant, and Christ came and fulfilled them. Let us now consider the types in few words, for we cannot at the present time go through all that relates to them; but when you have learned some points from those (instances) which I shall set before you, you will know the others also.  (Homilies on the Gospel of John #14)

    Especially in the case of Numbers 21:4-9 and its connection to John 3, this concept can be very helpful.  See my note today on the Participatory Bible Study blog.

     

  • Doxologies in Psalms

    On my Participatory Bible Study blog I asked a question and linked to Bob McDonald (Bob’s Log) in the hope he would answer. He did, in the comments. Read the post for the question, the comments for the answer and supporting data.

  • St. Gregory the Theologian on Ransom and the Bronze Serpent

    I was delighted to find this quote via the Orthodox Study Bible, though I must add to my complaints about that edition the fact that they cite church fathers by name, but without providing a reference to the particular work.  A visit to the St. Pachomius Library and then ewtn.com resolved the latter question.

    The quote is from St. Gregory the Theologian’s Second Paschal Oration, XXII:

    TWENTY-TWO

Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most
people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into.  To Whom was
that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was it shed?  I mean
the precious and famous Blood of our God and Highpriest and Sacrifice.
We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and
receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness.  Now, since a ransom
belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this
offered, and for what cause?

If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage!  If the robber receives
ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself,
and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for
whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone
altogether.

But if to the Father, I ask first, how?  For it was not by Him that we
were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His
Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even
Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the
sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim?  Is it not
evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor
demanded Him; but on account of the Incarnation, and because Humanity
must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us
Himself, and overcome the tyrant, and draw us to Himself by the
mediation of His Son, Who also arranged this to the honour of the
Father, Whom it is manifest that He obeys in all things?

So much we have said of Christ; the greater part of what we might say
shall be reverenced with silence.  But that brazen serpent [Num. 21:9]
was hung up as a remedy for the biting serpents, not as a type of Him
that suffered for us, but as a contrast; and it saved those that
looked upon it, not because they believed it to live, but because it
was killed, and killed with it the powers that were subject to it,
being destroyed as it deserved.  And what is the fitting epitaph for
it from us?  "O death, where is thy sting?  O grave, where is thy
victory?"  Thou art overthrown by the Cross; thou art slain by Him who
is the Giver of life; thou art without breath, dead, without motion,
even though thou keepest the form of a serpent lifted up on high on a
pole.

    There are two elements that particularly attracted me to this quote.  The OrthSB quotes the final section about the serpent, which goes well with this week’s lectionary texts.  I like the idea that it was precisely the fact that the serpent on the pole is dead that provides the healing.  He is a defeated serpent.  It would also provide some interesting context to the worship of the serpent up to Hezekiah’s time, that is until Hezekiah broke it up (2 Kings 18:4).  This differs from part of the interpretation I provided yesterday in my lectionary notes.

    If you’re missing out on the eastern church fathers regarding the atonement, you are missing out on a lot.

  • Brothers at War

    Irrespective of one’s view on war, I think we should strongly support our troops and those they leave behind.

    While I was in the military I was single, but I had close friends who were married and left children behind. One of my best friends was away for the first gulf war for about three months longer than I was. I used to go over and play some with his kids. (Their main conclusion about me was that, unlike their dad, I couldn’t build any kind of sewer using building blocks–the teenage mutant ninja turtles was all the rage.)

    His wife told me that when their son saw a parade welcoming troops coming home he started crying and asked, “Why isn’t my daddy coming home?” Eventually his daddy did come home, and that was a happy ending.

    Today I saw Gary Sinise interviewed about Brothers at War. I haven’t had an opportunity to see more than the trailers, but this looks like a movie that is worth watching. I plan to see it as soon as I can.

  • When a Sign Goes Bad (Lent 4B/Numbers 21:4-9)

    Yesterday I wrote about the equivocal nature of the sign of the serpent lifted up in the wilderness, and how it was both a symbol of death, and a symbol of fertility and life in the ancient near east.

    Today in my reading I checked the notes in the The Jewish Study Bible and found an interesting note.  It seems the Rabbis were uncomfortable with this use of the serpent, which seems to be an apotropaic symbol (symbol that turns something away).  In magic, such a symbol might be an object that is particularly resistant or harmful to what is to be turned away (garlic with vampires, for example), or, as in this case, something that looks like the danger itself.  The Rabbis preferred to think that it was turning to God that provided heal.  While doubtless theologically correct, we are left with the fact that God’s command was to look at the symbol.

    Now what’s more interesting is the later history of this serpent in Israel.

    He [Hezekiah] removed the high places, shattered the standing stones, cut down the Asherah poles, and broke up the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until that time the Israelites were burning incense to it.  It was named Nehushtan. He [Hezekiah] trusted in YHWH his God, and there was no one like him among the kings of Judah who came after him, nor among those who were before him. — 2 Kings 18:4-5

    As you see, Hezekiah is commended for his actions.  Moses was commanded to make the serpent and did.  Hezekiah destroyed it, and was commended for it.  What made the difference?

    “Well,” you may say, “that’s obvious.”  And it is.  But have you considered the implications?  The people’s use of a divinely mandated symbol results in the need for it to be removed.  A thing that was once good becomes a source of temptation because of the way people react to it.

    Now let’s think about prayer for a moment, just as an example.  How can prayer turn into idolatry?  When we act according to God’s will and then we decide that it’s our method that brings healing.  We take a particular set of actions that result in someone being healed, and then we assume that if we repeat those actions, healing will result every time.  When it doesn’t we will often simply pursue it more diligently as if we are trying to cast a spell but haven’t got the wording just right.

    But God isn’t a magic object that we can control.  He may command a particular action, as with the serpent, but if the symbol is turned into an idol, as it was in Hezekiah’s time, it’s time for it to be broken up to release some perfectly good metal for a proper purpose.

  • Psalm 107 and Artificial Divisions

    I did the Old Testament/Psalms portion of my lectionary reading today from the Jewish Study Bible.  The notes draw attention to the difficulty in separating Psalm 107 into the next book.  The division between books 4 and 5 of the Psalms occurs between Psalm 106 and 107.  But these divisions are later than the text itself.

    One should be aware that the Psalms are a collection, and that they are individually composed.  This makes their context within the book somewhat different in nature than the context of a particular chapter in another book.  For example, when I look at a chapter in Samuel-Kings, I look for it’s place in the overall scheme of the history presented.  In Isaiah or Jeremiah, while I realize that individual oracles were written at different times, I look for some sort of thematic arrangement.  The Pslams are a bit looser than that, or at least we are less certain of just why the collection was arranged.  Certainly, it is a collection of material by more than one author.

    The Jewish Study Bible points out that Psalm 107 fits into the theme of Psalms 103-106, and indeed resembles them more than it does Psalm 108.  They also suggest moving the word “Hallelujah” from the end of Psalm 106 to the beginning of Psalm 107.  I would need to look at this further, but I am less impressed with that suggestion, even though I suggested that the Hallelujah at the end of Psalm 104 be moved to the beginning of Psalm 105 when I wrote on it in graduate school.

    That change would result in an envelope of Hallelujah around Psalm 105 and again around Psalm 106, while Psalm 103 and Psalm 104 have an envelope of “Bless the LORD, O my soul.”  I think that single move I suggested back then works very well.

    The thematic difference is more impressive, but I do see some thematic ties that point in both directions.  I’m not certain this division should actually be changed, though we should realize it’s later than the original collection, if “original collection” is even valid in reference to the Psalms.

    I’m going to link to Bob McDonald at Bob’s Log,who has done much more work on the Psalms than I have (and that’s an understatement!), in the hopes that he will comment.

  • On Publishing a Conservative Book

    First, let me alert all my readers that this is about my business even though this is a personal blog. Second, for those who read my business blog, it will be, to a certain extent, repetitively redundant.

    Several months ago I decided that I would expand my publication efforts into the area of politics, though I continue to look for a faith overlap in what I publish. This is simply a new category; nothing so dramatic as a new imprint. In doing so, of course, the new political book would be from some perspective or another. If it had been a liberal book, I would want to write a post on publishing a liberal book, and even if it were a moderate book, this might be titled on publishing a moderate book.

    What I have found before, and has inevitably come up again, is that people assume that I started publishing in order to publish books with which I agree. I have probably helped nurture this idea by publishing my own books through my company. That is something I will just have to live with, because the sales of those books have been an essential part of growing this business in a very competitive market. None of my books are massively popular, but all of them have helped the bottom line.

    Thus I was led to write a post on publishing books with which I disagree a couple of months ago, and now I’m writing this one. The first instance of this problem came up when I responded to a post suggesting that Christian publishers needed to publish “the truth”. This goes way back to 2006, but I find that the posts are still there so one can examine the discussion at the time.

    I do, in fact, regard my business as a ministry, or to put it in secular terms, a service. I have specific goals and a specific audience I hope to reach. My interest is in broadening Christian education for what I call the “broad Christian center” and especially in mainline protestant churches. Education doesn’t involve hearing just one set of ideas, and neither does my publishing effort.

    In order to accomplish that, I’m seeking to publish books that are both challenging and dialogue-seeking. What I mean by that is that they express their viewpoint well from within their particular perspective and also reach out to communicate with those from other perspectives. I’m not seeking the literature of compromise, i.e. people who water down what they actually believe in order to build dialogue. I posted a view on this, which can be found here.

    In connection with this new book on politics, this issue has come up in two ways, first by people who assume that since I’m publishing and marketing it, I must agree on all points. While I don’t feel the call to fight with my own authors, I have no need to agree with everything they say. Second, I hear it from people who question why I would publish a book with which I don’t agree fully.

    That leads back to the question of publishing “truth.” Should I limit my publications to those that express precisely the view that I hold on each and every topic? If I did, I would have to remove books of my own from the market each and every time I change my mind on a detail. What about a broader level of truth? No, not so much. What I look for in manuscripts–and trust me, getting good manuscripts that fit my goals isn’t easy–is a point of view that is worth hearing expressed in a way that it can be heard.

    If my company were not individually owned I would have less trouble with this. Large companies are expected to produce a variety of ideas. But as it is, many people are surprised each time I publish a book that doesn’t entirely agree with what I have said or written.

    So what is this conservative book that I’m publishing? It’s Preserving Democracy, and it’s by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. I’ve published two books and two study guides by Elgin dealing with Christian apologetics (Evidence for the Bible and Christianity and Secularism. I like Preserving Democracy, because Elgin has done thorough research, referenced the book extensively, and has argued his points well, in my view.

    No, I don’t agree with everything in this book, but that is really not the relevant point. I think this is a book that expresses ideas that should be considered. If you don’t agree, you should know why, and be able to support your position.

    It’s possible this sounds like damning the book with faint praise. Not true! I’m extremely delighted to have it as the first Energion Publications title in the Politics category. I hope it will challenge people, start debate, and create action. One course of action might be proposals or manuscripts. (Are you interested in the approach I’m taking? Do you have a manuscript or an idea for one? Contact me.)

    But I’m also using it to establish my brand identity, so you may hear me talk a bit about my ideas here from time to time. Conversation between people expressing clear, uncompromised ideas can be a powerful force.

    Elgin expressed this in his book:

    A good healthy democracy depends on a healthy debate that includes both pros, cons, and ramifications of each side and their proposals. But when debate exists primarily in slogans, bumper stickers, and thirty second TV spots, true honest discussion and debate is impossible.

    Furthermore, with so many outlets for information, groups are increasingly becoming more insular. Democrats talk primarily to Democrats, Republicans to Republicans, and Libertarians to Libertarians. Each group looks to its sources and insulates itself from others, effectively becoming self-reinforcing, feeding on their own rhetoric rather than on reality. (pages 165-166 in advance copies)

    I think he is absolutely right. I believe his book is a step in the right direction. Many more are needed, but you can’t take a second step until you have taken the first. It’s my first step toward strengthening the political debate as a publisher.

    Note: If you are interested in reading an advance copy, and you are a blogger, involved with other social media including Twitter, or a political leader, please e-mail me at pubs@energion.com. There are still a few advance copies available, and I’d be delighted to send you one while they last.