Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Changing Churches

    My wife and I went to the front of the church last Sunday, declaring our decision to transfer our membership to a new congregation. Many people today are disenchanted with the idea of church membership. I’m a strong believer in membership and involvement. It’s a commitment you make to be an active and supportive part of a community.

    Our transfer was from Gonzalez United Methodist Church to First United Methodist Church (Pensacola). I list both churches, because we are going from a church we love to another church we expect to love. Gonzalez has been a place of service for us, and we are moving to First Church because we believe that we will be able to be of service there as well.

    So on Pentecost Sunday, with my former student Rev. Geoffrey Lentz preaching on the Holy Spirit, we made the move. It’s a bit uncomfortable. It’s a much larger church than I’m used to, but the idea is that there are more people there who are interested in the type of teaching I do, and I can perhaps teach more often at my home church than going out elsewhere. At the same time there is some excitement in this. A total of 52 people joined the church at the three services that day, 36 confirmands, and the rest transfers and some professions of faith. There was one baptism of a new member.

    For the summer, Jody won’t have a contemporary service, which is hard for her, but we love the sermons both by the senior pastor, Dr. Wesley Wachob, and by Geoffrey. I am looking forward to a great deal of learning as well as teaching.

  • A Teacher of Myths

    Ed Brayton promoted a discussion I had with another commenter on his blog, and that has generated yet another discussion of whether religion and science are incompatible. A certain number of folks believe they are not, and that religion should fade away as science rules all. For some unfathomable reason, I disagree.

    One of the commenters there, bernarda, stated:

    Sorry if I am a bit brutal, but what rational person cares about “theological systems”? Theology is entirely summed up by trying to count the number of angels on the head of a pin.

    “Henry is a Christian, a Hebrew scholar and the director of a Bible school;”

    So he believes mythology, he studies mythology, and teaches mythology.

    I often have a reaction to a comment that is clearly not what the author intended. My first thought was, “Yeah, that’s me!” My second was, “I’m going to steal that and use it next time I need to introduce myself to a class.” But then I remembered a post I had bookmarked a couple of days ago in the hopes I’d have time to write about it and respond to it.

    This article by Lifewish on the blog Areté, is beautifully titled The Art of Religion, and comments on a post of my own, Believing in Words and Symbols. I can hardly fail to respond to a post that starts: “Henry Neufeld is a really nice guy.”

    A little further on, however, he notes the following with reference to my post (already linked):

    . . . The underlying theme is that he really only has one core belief: that there is Something out there. Everything else – the Trinity, the Resurrection – is really just a language, a set of myths that seem to convey the feelings he experiences.

    Now note that Lifewish has said about me pretty much the same thing that bernarda did, though clearly with a bit of a different intent. Now it’s quite likely that I take the language I use more seriously than an atheist imagines, yet at the same time considering that I don’t believe I actually know, but rather use the best language available to describe an experience that is intensely personal, I will have a hard time quibbling.

    When you add it all up, just what does the doctrine of the trinity mean in terms of any sort of physical reality. Actually very little. It’s not supposed to. It is language that works very well for me in speaking about God. When I speak about my car I have a very clear referent. It’s sitting outside the window. I can look at it and verify my understanding. When I speak about God, I’m far out of that world. When I add to that and use the language of trinitarian theology, one can justifiably say that I do not truly know what I’m doing.

    Yet I believe that, I have faith that, I am somehow talking about something, even though I find the word “something” grotesquely inadequate. Thus the very obscurity of some of the language of the trinity helps make it work for me.

    So I think the description, presumably intended as negative is very good for me, though I would do it in a different order. So I study mythology, I teach mythology, and I’m so mentally primitive that I actually believe mythology. On some days I believe it more intensely than physical reality.

    But as for ever knowing it, I confess the doctrine of infinite ignorance. I, a finite person, am ever infinitely ignorant of God. No matter how much knowledge I gain, when subtracted from infinity, it leaves infinity.

    Ouch! Or Wow! (Hallelujah is “churchese” for Wow!)

  • Malpractice or Malpraxis?

    Here is another interesting view on the pastoral malpractice post relating to PSA.

  • Spirit Lite – Recommended Reading

    This blog post on seeking spirituality is excellent. Go read it! (HT: 42).

  • Guilty of Pastoral Malpractice

    Thom Rainer posted an article on Lifeway’s Web Site claiming that pastors who did not preach penal substitutionary atonement (he didn’t use the term, he described the doctrine in very strong terms) are guilty of pastoral malpractice. He used the word “treasonous.”

    Will, a United Methodist pastor and blogger pleads guilty in that case. I know a few other United Methodist pastors who would join him in that. I was talking to one the other day who regards PSA as a serious heresy that leads in turn to a heretical view of the trinity. Not being as interested as others in just what “heresy” is, I won’t go there.

    A commenter on the Lifeway post cheers on Mr. Rainer, and comments on how people are tired of a “watered down gospel.” What I’m wondering is this: Why is it OK to water down God’s love, but it’s somehow “treasonous” to water down his wrath?

    I wonder which is more important.

  • UMC General Conference Endorses Clergy Letter Project

    I’m a little behind the power curve on this one, but I found out about these via an e-mail from Michael Zimmerman of the Clergy Letter Project.

    The first resolution is #80990 (tracking) which includes the line:

    * endorses The Clergy Letter Project and its reconciliatory programs between religion and science, and urges United Methodist clergy participation;

    That one goes in the Social Principles, and the legislative tracking shows it as adopted.

    Even though the letter tells me the following two were passed, I don’t see them adopted or placed on one of the consent calendars according to the tracking. Perhaps one of my more politically savvy UM readers might comment on the procedure or where I may have looked in the wrong place.

    Resolution #80050 (tracking)added the line:

    We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology.

    … to ¶160 E in the Book of Discipline, amongst other changes.

    And finally, #800839 (tracking) added the following to the Book of Resolutions:

    WHEREAS, the United Methodist Church has for many years supported the separation of church and State (paragraph 164, Book of Discipline, 2004, p. 119),

    THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the General Conference of the United Methodist Church go on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools.

    I should probably pay more attention to my own church’s politics, especially since I regard church politics as necessary. But to be honest, I’m just terrible at keeping up with these things. Nonetheless, I am pleased by this result, even if it is only the first of the three.

  • Pelicans Win 5-2

    The Pensacola Pelicans won 5-2 against the Lincoln Salt Dogs tonight. Our son John Webb was not pitching. I understand he’ll be starting in Sioux Falls on Tuesday night, but our guest Brandon Sing hit a 2 run homer as well as a double, going 2 for 4. Following the double he reached third on a wild pitch and then scored on a fly ball to center (if memory serves). I may post a picture/clip or two tomorrow.

    This makes the Pelicans 3 of 4 in the series. I missed the nasty loss (14 to 8) because I was attending a wedding, so I’ve gotten to see three straight victories.

  • Ken Miller on Expelled

    Dr. Kenneth Miller has a review of Expelled! in the Boston Globe, and it’s a good one. It’s short and to the point. (Hat tip to Dispatches where I also commented.)

    Dr. Miller goes directly to the issue of associating the theory of evolution with atheism, a piece of propaganda work that the movie accomplishes by failing to interview key theistic evolutionists.

    Puzzled, the editors of Scientific American asked Mark Mathis, the film’s co-producer, why he and Stein didn’t interview such people, like Francis Collins (head of the Human Genome Project), Francisco Ayala, or myself. Mathis cited me by name, saying “Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily.” In other words, showing a scientist who accepts both God and evolution would have confused their story line. [emphasis mine]

    To translate the bolded portion: The truth would have gotten in the way of our lies.

    I want to emphasize again that the reason I work to dissociate the theory of evolution from atheism is not that I believe atheists to be immoral, nor do I believe thoughts that atheists think are somehow inferior. The theory of evolution is science. It should be judged be scientific methods. Whether it works best with the theological systems of theists or with atheists is quite irrelevant. The only relevant thing is how well confirmed it is as a scientific theory.

  • Some Examples of Participating in the Bible

    I use the term “participatory” to describe the method of Bible study that I teach. To be more precise I might say that’s the umbrella concept under which I teach any number of different methods, while urging people to also find their own.

    When people first hear the word “participatory” they either say “huh” or quite often think of a study group in which each person participates in the study. That is a form of participatory study. But I’m subtly altering the use of the term. I use it to refer to becoming a part of the Bible story yourself.

    There are many ways to do this. I like to do it through stories, such as those I post on my Jevlir Caravansary blog in poetry and short stories. I don’t claim these are professional. What they do is help me express the feeling of a Biblical passage or of the time and place it happened.

    Recently I’ve been starting to follow David Ker’s Cyber Psalms. His latest one is Cyber Psalm 37. These Psalms are an example of “participating in the Bible” though I’m certain David didn’t work on them because of any method I proposed. I’m just claiming them as a useful example. My idea is hardly original. It actually has substantial echoes of lectio divina in it.

    My challenge to any Bible students out there is to find the method that lets you personally get inside the story. Much of this isn’t about exegesis; it’s about getting on board. Of course, the ultimate getting on board is getting out and active accomplishing the gospel commission. That’s one aspect of the final stage of the method as I propose it–sharing. Your approach doesn’t have to be the same as anyone else’s.

    My pastor today, preaching on Pentecost, commented that if the Holy Spirit gets hold of you he may send you around the world, or he may send you across the street. Saying yes to that call to get involved is participating, becoming part of the story.

  • Science vs. ID Redux: Lampreys

    One characteristic of creationist debate over the last few decades has been moving the goal posts. Every time a new fossil is discovered that fits into the evolutionary pattern for some lineage we hear the “it’s still an X” litany, followed by pointing to yet more gaps. Each new fossil, it seems, creates new gaps rather than filling them, according to creationist logic. Those are goalposts on wheels–motorized, no less.

    Well, intelligent design proponents carry on this characteristic as well. (Is it any wonder so many of us just call them creationists?) In the case of “irreducible complexity” the goal posts also continue to move. If one supposedly irreducibly complex thing is explained, ID proponents do three things. First, they claim they weren’t really certain that one thing was irreducibly complex. Second, they try to claim it really still is. Third, they point to other irreducibly complex things that have yet to be explained.

    Enter the Lamprey, cause of tap-dancing in the halls of IDism. Ian Musgrave has posted on this on The Panda’s Thumb (Behe vs Lampreys), and it’s very interesting. It seems that in nature–you know, the place where we observe what actually happens rather than what we wish would happen–there are a number of simpler clotting systems. The complexity is quite reducible.

    Those who have read Darwin’s Black Box will appreciate this line:

    To put it in Behe’s imagery, the clotting system of the Lamprey is a mousetrap without a spring.

    Hmm! Just so!

    Guess who did all the work? The evil, conspiratorial evolutionary scientists who always insist on messing things up by looking at the data. Can’t let that happen, can we? [/sarc]