Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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]

  • Intimidation by Divine Wrath

    Some Christians resort to an argument of intimidation by divine judgment and wrath when the going gets tough. I read this most recently in a comment on YouTube, in which the writer simply quoted Bible texts implying first that people were wrong, and second that God was going to do something about it.

    Those texts didn’t specify that I was wrong, or that my accuser was right; taken out of context as they were, they didn’t specify the topics on which God would get you if you were wrong; they simply suggested that people who were wrong might well be in trouble.

    This method is intended to make the person who is less sure of himself give in because of the fear of divine retribution. On the surface, the person using it is so absolutely certain he is right, that he believes the other person will flinch, being less certain. But there’s another element to it. He must also believe that the other person secretly knows he is wrong and is simply holding onto a position out of sheer perversity.

    Our hypothetical debater believes that the atheist with whom he is arguing is really a closet theist who refuses to acknowledge belief in God because he doesn’t want to obey. Perhaps if he is threatened with judgment enough times he will come to acknowledge how wrong he is. The more liberal Christian, in his view, truly knows that fundamentalism is true, but has been deceived by the spirit of the age. Again, he will flinch if confronted with the potential wrath of God.

    This isn’t a conservative/liberal type of approach, however. Many very conservative Christians are attacked by other seekers of absolute certainty who regard them as liberal, or just plain wrong in some other way.

    I’ve heard this approach to debate many times. Sometimes it comes in the form of “doubting your salvation” because your theology isn’t correct, at others in the more direct form of telling you that you will have to face God’s judgment.

    What I was thinking today, however, is that despite its surface appearance, this approach doesn’t come from a position of supreme confidence, but rather one of profound doubt, but doubt which cannot be admitted. Those who believe that they have to have certain doctrinal positions correct in order to be right with God, or to gain some eternal reward can become quite tense about the possibility of being wrong. After all, the penalty for an error here runs all the way to eternity in hell!

    And please don’t remind me of salvation by faith. I had a young man question my salvation after he had spent an hour preaching to me about salvation by grace through faith without works of any kind. Then because I didn’t quite understand the words that he did, he said he was concerned about my salvation. I guess it wasn’t just grace and faith, but also a full theological understanding of them!

    Being both uncertain and terrified of the penalty of being wrong, such people would have to get into the habit of never thinking they are wrong. I, on the other hand, have been wrong so many times, it is certainly no remarkable event. I suspect the people who have used this on me cannot imagine that I am unconcerned with being wrong, and that I’m simply waiting for someone to actually show me that I am.

    I think this one works a bit like an insult. When someone you don’t respect insults you, you are hardly hurt by it. When someone threatens you with something you do not fear, it also doesn’t concern you.

  • Pensacola Pelicans Opening Day

    Well, patient readers, you will have to put up with some baseball. My son, John Webb, was the opening day pitcher for the Pensacola Pelicans, and he looked pretty good. His mother and I were a bit concerned to see the trainer go out to the mound in the fifth, but it looks minor and they’re expecting him back in five days.

    He went 5 innings and allowed three earned runs. Several of us in the stands thought the umpire wasn’t giving pitchers the lower part of the zone. Of course my opinion on this matter is totally unbiased! It’s not an excuse John would use. He left the game with the Pelicans ahead 6 to 3, and the final score was 10 to 7.

    Some early season rough edges were showing on both teams. There were a couple of plays in the first that I know those guys are capable of making, yet they didn’t go well. They weren’t scored as errors–correctly–but they just looked a little bit rough. Overall, however, the Pelicans look like a very promising team.

    Our “other” baseball player, Brandon Sing, who is staying with us here, had an excellent night, though as he mentions in the PNJ story (see below), they weren’t throwing him much. He walked twice and hit a bases-loaded double that was a thing of beauty.

    Read some more in the Pensacola News Journal story Pelicans Cruise in Season Opener.

  • Responding to the Evangelical Manifesto

    I never refer to myself as an evangelical, but occasionally others do for reasons that are largely unfathomable to me (except a few from across the pond that make some sense), so I usually take a look at documents that come out relating to evangelicalism. I’m always interested in the potential for finding one of these documents that I could go along with 100%. Of course, I realize that if that happened, there would also be a number of evangelicals who would say that the document, statement, or in this case manifesto was inadequate.

    I have read the entire manifesto (HT: evangelical outpost) and not just the summary, and I find very little in there to which I would want to respond. First, very few evangelicals of my acquaintance would accept that manifesto as adequately expressing their own confession of faith. The few who would are in the United Methodist Church and go a bit light on some of the elements, such as penal substitution. (Note that I am using “evangelical” as a reference to those who would self-identify as such.) I would expect that the expression on the inspiration of scripture would be considered a bit weak by many. One can read inerrancy there if one tries, but it’s not terribly clear. If I wanted to interpret with great latitude, I could fit my own view of scripture in there. I imagine there will be some who will do so.

    Second, I think the idea of rescuing terms is a very hazardous business. The statement from page 4 illustrates this point. “There are grave dangers in identity politics, but we insist that we ourselves, and not scholars, the press, or public opinion, have the right to say who we understand ourselves to be.” The problem here is that I have to first decide who is a “real” evangelical before I know who to ask for a definition. You may think this is nitpicking, but I know evangelicals (by their self-identification) who believe that most evangelicals aren’t really evangelicals any more. Personally I take as a starting place those who are in the majority of a group, and thus break out of the circle, but it does create a problem. I’m left to wonder if evangelicalism as stated in this manifesto is similar to an older evangelicalism. Are they defining a new position, returning to an old one, or something between?

    Such expressions as “Yet we hold to Evangelical beliefs that are distinct from the other traditions in important ways — distinctions that we affirm because we see them as biblical truths that were recovered by the Protestant Reformation, sustained in many subsequent movements of revival and renewal, and vital for a sure and saving knowledge of God — in short, beliefs that are true to the Good News of Jesus” (pages 4-5), equivocate between recovering something old and latching on to something new at some point.

    I would have to say that if I read the affirmations on scripture and salvation as I believe the authors meant them, I could not adopt this statement as my own. I could be wrong on the way they meant those statements. They could even be trying to provide latitude to someone like me. That’s just not how I read it.

    I would add simply that I find the description of liberalism (pages 8-9) to be largely a strawman, though I’m afraid I would not be very likely to persuade evangelicals of that. I often think conservatives are just going along with the culture, while liberals are arguing against the tide, but part of each position seems to be a different perception of the tide.

    In any case, this is an interesting manifesto, as much for what it doesn’t say as for what it does. Whether it will accomplish any of the goals its authors set out to accomplish is another matter. I’m doubtful that it will.

    Here’s some reaction links from Moderate Christian bloggers. Most of it is more positive than mine.

    * = updates after initial post

    Any other members of the Moderate Christian Blogroll can leave comments if I missed your post, and I’ll promote the links to the body of the post. My observation thus far is that the bulk of the moderate bloggers are responding more positively to this than I am.