Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Added to Blogroll: Biblical Theology

    The new Biblical Theology blog looks like a good new source of things to talk about from posts written by highly qualified contributors. (HT: awilum.com.)

  • Anchor Bible for Logos

    In comments to my earlier post on the Anchor Bible for pastors, Kent notes that the Anchor Bible will soon be available.

    One of the best ways to avoid getting bogged down in details is to employ the search capabilities of an electronic version the ability to hyperlink from Scripture references to the Greek text and English translations. This is a far more useful way to use the Anchor Yale commentaries for preaching.

    You might be interested in a new, electronic edition of the Anchor Yale Bible Commentaries from Logos Bible Software. It’s much easier to use than print versions, and about $2,500 cheaper.

    and

    I forgot to mention the website:

    Anchor Yale Bible (83 Vols.).

    (There’s also an interesting discussion on the Logos Blog.)

    Thanks to Kent for posting this here. I wish I could afford it, but even at the wonderful price, it’s beyond me at the moment. Those of you who can, however ….

    I don’t know as this will solve all the problems I discussed regarding the value of the Anchor Bible for the busy pastor preparing a sermon, but it will certainly help in finding just the points that are relevant for current activity.

  • Well-Placed Faith

    I occasionally write something for my wife’s devotional list, and this morning she needed me to write. I had intended to post this one (Well-Placed Faith) here, but decided to use it as a devotional this morning. It’s some brief thoughts on faith, attitude, and commitment, from a Christian and devotional point of view.

  • All Comments Accidentally Closed

    I’m not sure what happened, but on this blog and two others all comments were suddenly closed. The only common element between the three blogs was one plug-in, and I’m checking to see what may have happened. If anyone tried to comment but was unable to do so, it’s not because I have altered my open comment policy, but rather because my software seems to have played a trick on me.

    It should be fixed, though I’m going to have to watch it to see if it happens again.

  • Denominationalism – The Disease

    Consider these situations:

    • A Sunday School class for young adults is growing by leaps and bounds. Many young men and women who are not members of the church are showing up just for the class. The church leadership shuts the class down because it is not using denominationally approved curriculum.
    • A speaker who is not a member of the same denomination is invited by a pastor. The guest has an extensive publication record, which the pastor has read. He has spoken to other groups of the same denomination, and even taught pastoral continuing education programs. Leaders in the church make such a fuss that the speaker cannot be allowed to speak at the church because of the divisiveness. (None of the objectors have read any of the speaker’s books, nor have they ever heard him speak.)
    • A leader claims that only denominational material can be used, because if it’s in print, the members will believe it, and so the leadership must make sure that nothing “wrong” appears before the members in print.

    I’m guessing that most of my more liberal readership is imagining that these are stories that come from my conservative upbringing. If that is what you assume, then you’re wrong. Now I could match those stories with ones about attitudes from my upbringing as a Seventh-day Adventist, a group that surely is infected with denominationalism, but I actually took those stories from my experience in United Methodist churches.

    It’s interesting to note that my experiences as a Seventh-day Adventist and those as a Methodist are not all that different. There is a difference of degree, there is some difference in the specific theological issues, but the attitudes are so similar that I can tell stories of what I experienced in Adventist churches to Methodist congregations without specifying the denomination, and they ring true, and similarly I can discuss Methodist experiences with my Adventist family and friends and they have no problem relating.

    I find it tremendously humorous in Methodist circles that the same people who criticize the denomination and the agencies in Nashville bitterly, will also act as though having “Abingdon” or “Cokesbury” on the cover of their book somehow makes it “safe.” One wonders if they have really considered that issue logically.

    This is one symptom of the disease–and I do think it is a disease–of denominationalism. By denominationalism I mean a view that suggests that one’s own denomination is really the true Christianity, that books written by folks in other denominations are dangerous simply because they aren’t from the same denomination, or even that people in one’s own denomination are somehow closer to God, simply by virtue of being a member of that denomination.

    I do not mean here loyalty to one’s organization. As a member of a United Methodist congregation I am obligated to support my church and to do things that build it up. I believe that denominationalism is actually destructive of my church congregation. I also don’t mean here that all selection of curriculum materials is bad, but rather that selection based simply on the “it wasn’t made here” criterion is dangerous and fear based.

    This type of denominationalism results in fear-based decisions. It tends to isolate people from other members of the body of Christ who worship across the street or down the road. It tends toward theological inbreeding. It produces sheep in all of the negative senses, and none of the positive ones.

    There are a number of positive things about denominational churches:

    1. Accountability to some higher authority. Completely independent churches can have accountability problems and are even more subject to inbreeding of ideas than are denominational churches. But note that the variation by congregations is pretty wide. I’ve encountered very open independent churches and denominational churches that were closed to other congregations in their same denomination.
    2. Stronger connections to other Christian churches. Within the denomination this is obvious, but it is also possible that the denomination, through programs of outreach and cooperation with other groups, can help the local church be more connected.
    3. “Brand” identification. When I’m visiting a town and looking for a place to eat, if I have no local recommendations, I’m likely to go for a chain restaurant, simply because I know where I’m going. For some people, being able to identify the general focus of a local congregation through the denominational label can be helpful.

    There are certainly more points that can be made. Take the inverse for independent churches. Remember, of course, that all generalizations, including this one, are wrong! If you are looking for a congregation in which to worship and serve, you may need to look for the symptoms of denominationalism even in the smallest independent congregation.

    My suggestion? While being loyal to any organization to which you have offered your loyalty, work actively to build connections and understanding. Understanding your neighbor does not mean necessarily agreeing with your neighbor. If you think church members believe everything that’s in print, instead of trying to limit what they see, try to educate them to realize that this is not so. I actually believe you’ll find that church members aren’t as stupid as you think.

  • NLT Study Bible – Initial Reaction

    I intended to get started on my response to the NLT Study Bible (Bible Nlt) written a bit earlier, but several things have kept me from getting started.

    I’m going to write two posts today and tomorrow. This first one is simply a quick, preliminary reaction to this new study edition based on the NLT 2nd edition. The second will compare the introductory information to the gospel of Luke with that of several other study Bibles I use regularly.

    I need to note first that this is an evangelical study Bible and I am not an evangelical. That doesn’t mean that I’m not going to like it, of course. The basic combination of scholarship involved and the quality text of the NLT makes this a useful Bible whether you are evangelical or not. Thus far, I have found it to be the best I have seen to get a quick view of the evangelical understanding of a book or passage. Names like Tremper Longman III, Philip W. Comfort, and George H. Guthrie are just three names that caught my eye. Contributors such as those suggest that this will be a useful resource.

    I am, as almost always, disappointed with some of the marketing style claims. Lines like “revolutionary breakthrough in study Bibles” or the slogal “The Truth Made CLEAR” don’t resonate well with me. But these are elements of the cover, and they are common to the marketing material. The NLT is good and this study Bible is good, but I wouldn’t go as far as “revolutionary.”

    And indeed some of the major concerns I have with any study Bible, as well as the marketing language (indirectly) are addressed starting on page A17 (How the Study the Bible with the NLT Study Bible), where we find:

    No feature of the NLT STudy Bible is more important than Scripture, the text of the Bible itself.

    I wish all users of study Bibles would recognize that fact. Too often Sunday School class or study group members read the notes in their study Bibles as the one interpretation of the text, and don’t bother to think about how that note might have been derived. Now if I could just get them to read this “How To”!

    In addition, this same section suggests reading the Biblical text first, and “. . . leav[ing] the notes and other features for later.” This entire section is outstanding, and one hopes that all Bible students who use this Bible edition will read it and follow its advice, including this note:

    Please do not treat the NLT Study Bible study notes and other features as the full and final word on any topic of passage. (p. A19)

    I’m going to get into more specific features in my next post, in which I will compare and contrast the NLT Study Bible five other editions, but overall my impression is a very useful edition. My teaching work is mostly in United Methodist churches, though not exclusively, and focuses on the educated lay person. I have lacked a single edition that I can unreservedly recommend for evangelical Bible students, one that gives them an overview of scholarly information available, but doesn’t fall into either excessively technical language or oversimplify. At the same time such an edition should refrain from providing the one true interpretation of a text without adequate support. Tall order, no?

    Thus far, I think this one will do. My wife is using it as well and giving me her input. She is an educated person and has done a good deal of Bible study, but has not pursued this study academically or professionally. She finds it more useful than The Learning Bible, one that is quite helpful to beginning Bible students in my experience. Thus far, she thinks its language is clear and it addresses topics that are of interest to her. I’m going to urge her to blog some about it herself.

    I’m embedding the video provided by Tyndale House on the features, rather than reciting them myself. I will then go into specifics one post at a time.

  • Georgia and Ossetia – Asking the Right Questions

    I am not proposing answers at this point, because I haven’t had time to study the situation in any detail, but it seems to me the right time to point out some problems with the questions.

    It appears to me that almost everything I read about the situation with Georgia, Russia, and Ossetia involves ad hoc justifications for something someone wanted to do in any case. One of the major problems with American foreign policy, in my opinion, is that we really don’t have one, that is, other than attack the people we don’t like (sometimes), support the people we do like (sometimes) and blather a lot about everyone else.

    In addition, the justifications for what we do seem to have very little relationship to the actual reasons. Publicly, during the first gulf war, we heard about atrocities and about defending poor little Kuwait. I’m not denying the atrocities, nor am I even saying that Kuwait was undeserving of defense, but we did not similarly take a military position on East Timor, where atrocities were also happening. Unfortunately for the folks on that piece of an island, they lacked oil.

    In the case of Ossetia, I suspect that if we moved some of the players a bit, but kept all other factors the same, our reaction would be substantially different than it is.

    Here are some questions:

    Just how small does a territory have to be before we no longer think it deserves independence from the surrounding country? Will we apply the same standard here?

    What conditions must exist before one portion of an existing country can declare independence and receive support? (In this case, differentiate Kosovo wanting independence from Serbia and Ossetia wanting independence from Georgia.)

    Do the conditions for independence of some region change if it’s the Russians that back up the breakaway region rather than the United States?

    How big does a country have to be before it can be regarded as an oppressor?

    How long ago must a territory have been conquered before it can be considered an integral and essential part of a country? (Remember that Kuwait was once part of Iraq, sort of, Georgia was part of Russia, while Ossetia was also a conquered territory. Then there’s that other Georgia that was once largely Cherokee country, because a British colony, became part of the United States, attempted to separate, but was forcibly kept in the union with military force.)

    I don’t know the full history of Ossetia, and it will probably be some time before I might even imagine, probably incorrectly, that I understand the situation, but it seems to me that we are not working on the same set of principles in all of these various places.

    It sounds to me like atrocities are military actions carried out by the other guys, and invasions are when other people’s armies enter a country that is not their own.

    If we did that sort of thing, of course, we would demand that one consider the fact that we were merely defending the just desire of the local population for self-determination. Or something like that.

    Some background from the BBC.

  • Amateur Extra

    No, not an extra in a movie, Amateur Radio Extra class license.

    This post should fall under the category of “personal” and “bragging”, but yesterday evening I took and passed the text for my Amateur Extra class license.

    What does this let me do? Well, pretty much nothing that I couldn’t do already, and wasn’t anyhow.

    The story is this. My brother, N3AU, wanted me to inherit my father’s callsign, KT4B, which I could only do with an extra class license. Since it was 35 years ago that I passed my Advanced class, a license that is no longer available, and I was also inactive, I wasn’t all that anxious to study up and take the text, but with pressure from him and from my mother (WB7OIU), I finally went and did it. My head is currently filled with stuff like semiconductor materials, antenna radiation patterns, and resonant (or not) circuits. But that is already fading rapidly.

    So anyhow, I have proven that I can still remember a few formulas, regulations, and other assorted electronic data, at least for several minutes.

    I now return you to our regular programming.

  • Todd Bentley’s Marriage

    I had thought about writing something on this, but I think this post says most of what I would say, only better.

    Especially considering that there has been no marital infidelity reported, and folks have been upfront in with this, it doesn’t seem to me to provide any new basis to judge Bentley’s ministry. I still object to the same set of things, hold judgment on the same set, and tentatively approve of the same things.

    Marital unfaithfulness, as I have said about politicians and ministers before, is a valid consideration in determining someone’s integrity. But a person’s sin, before or after, does not, in my view, invalidate ministry. I’ve known of pastors who have fallen into serious transgressions. It often damages the fruit of the ministry they have done, but it doesn’t invalidate it.

    In this case, it should be noted, we’re looking at a couple working through difficulties in their marriage. We have not yet seen–and should not predict–divorce or other negative outcomes. It is unfortunate that, because of the level of publicity involved in his ministry, Todd Bentley and his wife have to deal with this with extraordinary publicity. That makes things harder.

    Whatever the outcome, however, we judge the ministry, teachings, and fruit by, well, the ministry, teachings, and fruit, and not by whether the minister is a greater sinner than the rest of us. That latter one is a judgment we have no right to make.

  • How Incarnational?

    Well, it seems to be my day for linking, which is not surprising. (For those who wonder why I’ve been blogging less, though I think I’m still blogging quite a lot, it’s because I have to file a form 990EZ for a non-profit with which I’m involved. It is really not that complex, but I’m a bit accounting challenged.)

    I’ve been following The Crowded Handbasket nearly since it’s inception, but this is the first time I’ve linked. There’s a rather good article there asking the question just how incarnational you are. Since I make a point of using the word “incarnational” regarding just about everything, I thought I should look and answer the question.

    As for my own position, I would have to use a descending graph line from points 3 to 5. I’m definitely “in” at 3, and then less and less so as I go. My own phrasing is that God was uniquely present in Jesus of Nazareth, not that God cannot manifest himself in any other way, but that he did so in a special way in that case. I also accept the “fully involved” term. Otherwise I’m a bit less exclusive than is defined by #5.

    Perhaps that will make for some discussion!