Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Feeling Wonder, Wanting to Know

    This is one of those Sunday morning quick posts, because I’m feeling it right now. As a note to my critics, I’ll be off to church in a bit, and that’s partly what got me thinking about this topic. I have been gravitating more and more toward a service at a church downtown that offers weekly communion. Over the years I’ve migrated from a church that celebrated communion quarterly, to the standard United Methodist monthly, to the point now where I find that too rare. Once I found a church service that offered the Eucharist on a weekly basis, I felt the pull!

    Since I am often visiting other churches, I get to take advantage of this from time to time, and now it looks like I may be doing some teaching there, so that will be great. Why? As the incarnation has become more and more firmly placed at the center of my theology, the Eucharist has gravitated toward the center of my liturgy. I think most Christian theologians will understand that. It’s not that the incarnation was ever unimportant, but in my personal theological reflection it has become the antidote to more and more potential problems and the answer to more and more questions.

    There’s a mystery and a wonder in this celebration that becomes greater as one both reflects theologically and dives into the event spiritually. Even when the liturgy is badly done, an unfortunately frequent occurrence in Methodist churches, I feel the sense of mystery and wonder. There is nothing quite like trying to wrap one’s mind and spirit around the concept of infinite God combined with human flesh in that 1+1=2 event to open one’s spiritual awareness.

    Yesterday I blogged about an “unseemly glee”, and it appears that I may have been less clear that I would have wished. Commenter Larry B notes:

    I think you bring up a good point here, but I also think you overstated your case a bit here. Christians aren’t the only ones guilty of the type of feeling you describe here. I would postulate that all religions revel in the mystery of the unknown. Any encroachment on that pulls a little bit at a core sentiment for religion.

    First, I had no intention of suggesting that only Christians have such feelings. I comment on Christianity because I’m a Christian, and that’s what I know. While I have studied other faiths, particularly in the ancient near east, I cannot claim a similar level of knowledge. But to the best of the knowledge I have, Larry is quite correct here. The feeling is held in common over a broad range of religions. But there is a divide amongst adherents of religions, and here I want to comment on Christianity only again, between those who sense wonder and react negatively to exploration and discovery, and those who embrace both wonder and knowledge.

    Skipping a paragraph, let me quote again:

    I think you have just touched a little bit on common human nature hear where we have a yearning for mystery.

    True, but it is not the yearning for mystery that I deplore, but rather the sense of glee against those who seek knowledge. The seekers are often filled with just as much wonder as anyone else; they simply don’t let wonder and yearning for mystery stop the seeking.

    Larry posted a third paragraph between these two that provides an excellent illustration. Go back there and read his comment to get the full connection.

    Let me illustrate my feeling of wonder and desire for knowledge. Of all the sciences, I probably understand geology the best, followed by astronomy. This is purely amateur knowledge gotten by personal reading and “informal field study” (read, I had roadside geology guides and went and looked at the stuff they pointed out). So when I go to Niagara Falls, I have a pretty fair idea of the geological history and a great deal of the geological future of the formation. For some reason, that knowledge doesn’t prevent any of the feeling of awe and wonder that I get in looking at it.

    To try another example, I have a little Shih Tzu dog named Barnabas. He’s quite a character, and he often fills me with quite a sense of wonder. I believe on the one hand that he is the product of hundreds of millions of years of evolution, and many thousands of years of domestication and breeding culminating in the formation of the breed I have. Professional breeders matched his parents. But I do not have a moment of problem calling him a gift of God or wondering at the creator. Barnabas was our son’s companion throughout his illness, encouraging, entertaining. James used to comment that it was hard to stay sad or angry when that dog was around.

    The two things are not in any way incompatible. That’s why I believe that those who try to throw mystery up in the face of scientists are missing the point. Many of those same scientists feel a sense of mystery, but at the same time they keep right on investigating. I believe what I missed in my post yesterday was drawing the line between mystery and wonder, which is quite compatible with seeking knowledge, and either the fear that mystery will go away, or the glee in throwing mystery in the face of those who seek knowledge.

    There is plenty of mystery in the universe. We have learned many things, but we are in no danger of running out of mystery even if we assumed that all sense of wonder was drained from a topic when it was investigated. Both fear and glee are not indicated. Wonder and seeking are.

  • Unseemly Glee at the Unknown

    What is it that makes Christians frequently rejoice when told that something is unknown?

    I received an e-mail today from Breaking Christian News, which discusses odd coincidences or perhaps weird happenings amongst organ transplant recipients. Now bluntly I don’t see that there is enough here to get excited about. I think the writers grossly underestimate the potential for personality change when one undergoes a traumatic experience, such as a major surgery. The illness before, the concern, and then the effort of recovery all make a very large impact. If one assumes changes in the personality of recipients, it would then not be all that unlikely that in some cases these changes would find some connection to the organ donor.

    But all of that could be studied. My hunch that this isn’t outside of the range of reasonable probability could be proven right or wrong. If proven wrong, one could study the process and the potential exists to determine just what is going on and how it works. In other words, this set of observations might either prove not to be significant, or could provide the basis for further research.

    The BCN article cites Dr. Danny Penman:

    In his article entitled, Can We Really Transplant a Human Soul? Penman writes, “Virtually every doctor and scientist will tell you the heart is a mere pump.” But now, “A few brave scientists have started claiming that our memories and characters are encoded not just in our brain, but throughout our entire body. Consciousness, they claim, is created by every living cell in the body acting in concert…Our whole body, they believe, is the seat of the soul; not just the brain. (BCN source is this article in the Daily Mail

    Now my point is not my personal feeling about this, which is admittedly not an educated opinion. I know very little about this field. My secondary point is that a scientist with one of the proper specialties, when confronted by this information would either use his existing knowledge to dismiss it if that was proper (for example, he knows the broader statistical picture, and thus knows that this is not significant) or he would find it significant, and then ask, “How does this work?”

    My primary point, however, is that many Christians, represented here by Breaking Christian News, have quite a different reaction. They don’t seem to think of the possibility that this represents a question to be answered. Rather, they hope it’s a mystery that science cannot solve.

    While as Christians we know how God created man in His image, it is nevertheless fascinating to see the scientific world confront the mysteries of life in a way that points to the power of an Almighty God.

    But this article doesn’t describe science confronting anything. It reveals speculation. At best, it would reveal questions that research ought to answer. This is the attitude that lies behind the God-in-the-gaps argument. It puts spirituality and religion where our ignorance lies. There is little reason to complain when skeptics describe religion as anti-knowledge if we place our most important ideas in areas of ignorance.

    This particular case is only an example. I’m confronted regularly with claims that science cannot possibly discover some particular thing, such as a natural explanation for the origin of life. These claims are not made in a neutral tone, nor are they made with disappointment that there is a boundary to knowledge. They are made with glee. Those who make them are glad that they have found something that science cannot do.

    I think there is a ignorance, fear, and envy represented by this type of claim.

    Ignorance, because people don’t understand what science does. Science explores the natural world. As long as something is in the natural world, don’t put up a stop sign. It won’t work. But science is not the study of everything. Excluding the supernatural, science cannot, as such, tell us what our ethical goals and standards should be. It can enlighten us as to the side effects of our decisions, and thus help us make ethical decisions. Science is also not designed to study the supernatural.

    Fear, because people don’t understand science. Scientists constantly discover and explain things that appear to the uninformed to be things that ought to be true mysteries. Ignorance reacts to what it does not know with fear. This is a good example of the difference between “is” and “ought.” We ought to investigate the unknown rather than cower away from it with fear. The instinct of many people is to avoid the danger as long as possible, a course of action that often results is greater disaster later.

    Envy, in that science explains things that used to be in the field of religion. Now they appear to be the province of very intelligent people. I see this type of rejoicing whenever people perceive that religion has “gotten a point” against science.

    The bottom line here is that ignorance is, well, ignorance, and thus is in constant danger of being overthrown. If we, as people of faith, truly believe that God is the ultimate creator of everything, that reason behind all the reasons, the “uncaused cause,” then we ought to rejoice at those who use their divinely created brains to discover more and more about God’s creation.

    I’m certain that God isn’t threatened. If he’s big enough to be the final cause, he can handle people figuring out where the seat of consciousness is in one species of creature on one planet in one solar system in one rather unexceptional galaxy. So it must be that some people of faith feel threatened. That, I suspect, can only come from not trusting God to be God, in other words, from seeing God as less than the creator of everything, as someone who might be dethroned by the next discovery.

    Or perhaps it’s just personal envy that someone else knows more than we do. Could be!

  • Historicity of Genesis 1-11

    I think those of us who are not all that conservative, as in moderates and liberals, do everyone a disservice with the admonition, “Don’t take it so literally.” Unless, of course, we break down “not literally” a bit further. The word “literal” has gotten muddied in the public understanding, and is often taken to mean “true,” so “not taking it so literally” is “not taking it so truthfully.” But more importantly, literal is (or should be) a fairly narrow category and “not literal” involves quite a number of possible types of literature.

    But there’s another question that non-scholarly readers of the Bible have pretty regularly: Just what is it that I’m supposed to get out of this? I’ve heard this many times teaching groups of United Methodist laypeople, well educated folks, but not Bible scholars. They’re pretty well convinced they shouldn’t take it too literally, but they are often uncertain where to go from there. Then they hear anyone who doesn’t take it literally condemned as one who doesn’t believe the Bible at all.

    To narrow that down again, just what historical information might one get out of a non-historical passage of scripture? In the case of Genesis 1-11, I have frequently noted that it is not narrative history. But “narrative history” is not necessarily equivalent to “no historical value at all.” There is more of a continuum (one of my favorite words) of possibilities for historical values, and a number of twists and turns.

    For example, I could say that a book is a work of fiction. Does that mean that it has no historical value? Consider these examples:

    • A fantasy novel/series, not set in the real world, such as Lord of the Rings
      One might extract information on the time of the writer, but vanishingly little information about the real world. Even extrapolating to the time of the writer based on his themes would be a difficult proposition.
    • A generic novel set in the real world, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged
      This book is intentionally set in an indefinite future (from the time of writing) with generic titles for government officials such as head of state rather than president, for example. There are incidental references to real historical figures, numerous references to real places, but also numerous references to things that don’t exist. One would get a very skewed view of the United States if this is one’s source. Yet one would find historical data embedded in it.
    • A novel set in a realistic historical period, Rand’s The Fountainhead, for example.
      I’m distinguishing this category from historical novel in that presenting historical information is not part of the author’s intent, yet the setting is intended to reflect a specific period.
    • A historical novel
      Often a fictional story intended to present a realistic view of a period of history. While the actual characters and character-specific events are fictional, the background and the major historical events are generally intended as accurate.
    • A biography
      Generally this is intended as true, yet dialog and information about the subject may limit the general historical value.
    • A history with a mission
      Portrayal of a period of history intended to present a particular philosophy of history, or the viewpoint of a particular group or something similar.
    • An objective (wishfully) history
      In this case, the author intends to write a sequence of events from an objective point of view in order to correctly portray those events, not accomplish some philosophical goal. Absolute objectivity is impossible, I believe. I’m speaking about the intent.

    That gives a kind of summary of some of the levels of historicity that one might find. Consider the gospels briefly. It is fairly common in a course in the gospels (or one particular gospel) to note that the gospel writers did not set out with the intent of writing history. They are presenting a picture of Jesus. Many things that an objective historian (remember: intention!) might present are subordinated to the picture the writer is trying to portray. Some people here this comment as a statement that the gospels contain no historical information, or no reliable historical information. That is certainly never my intent in making the statement. I’m simply pointing out that we should expect the needs of the historian to be thoroughly subordinated to the needs of the biographer and even more so to the theologian.

    So let’s briefly look at some historical options in Genesis 1-11 now that we have some loose collection of ideas to which to compare.

    The first option, of course, is to regard this portion of scripture as narrative history. Many Christians have done so. This assumption leaves a number of details to be discussed. How detailed is that history? Is it chronological? This latter question can come in two parts: 1) Is it intended as sequential or descriptive in another sense? and 2) Is it intended to portray the passage of time accurately?

    Young earth creationists (YEC) would answer that it is narrative history, that it is intended to be sequential, and that the passage of time is intended as an accurate portrayal. This involves two aspects of the text. First, we have the days of Genesis 1 & 2. In the YEC position, these are literal, 24 hours days. But secondly we have the years in the genealogies of Genesis 5 & 11. Here the YEC position is that the years are real years, are accurately portrayed, and that there are no gaps in the genealogies, in other words they are complete.

    That’s a substantial number of claims. I would simply note that if you start from level ground, looking at the story in the context of ancient near eastern literature, none of these things is obvious. Nonetheless it is not my purpose to evaluate, so much as to point out the possibilities.

    Old earth creationists (OEC), differ from this in that while most of them would hold that the sequence is intended as true, the flow of time in the narrative is not even. For example, between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:6 there would be nine billion+ years, while between Genesis 1:6 and 1:11 there would be a bit less than 4 billion years, while starting with verse 14 we have some difficulties with sequence. The genealogies are assumed to contain gaps so as to provide a longer history following Adam and Eve.

    Some OECs read the passage more symbolically, i.e. it contains valid historical information, but this information is presented in the form of symbols. Thus sequence, consistency of timing, and referent can be adjusted substantially while still maintaining that there is historical content.

    Finally, Christians who accept evolution, but not all theistic evolutionists, most commonly see the passage as mythology, i.e. God presents truth through the medium of the cosmology and the way in which such information was presented in that culture. Now one might think this means there is no historical information in the passage, but again that is not the case. It will still present information about how the world was understood in its time, and how the authors understood themselves and their relationship to God. That is historical information, even though that is not what is intended.

    Note that there are some Christian theistic evolutionists who would also see these passages symbolically and find some sense of a presentation of the way it happened in the passage. Thus there are a variety of views on the historical content of the material, and those views don’t precisely match. I have been extremely brief here and probably have left some holes. Hopefully readers will quibble with me in the comments to some can get filled in.

    Two additional notes:

    1. I don’t regard any of this as an issue with inerrancy. I know folks who accept Biblical inerrancy who have no problem with the idea of regarding a passage as symbolic or as myth, provided that one is assuming that was the way God intended it to be presented. Then the portion that would be inerrant is whatever message God intended to present in that medium. I don’t accept inerrancy, but I like my debates over the topic to relate to actual disputes!
    2. I distinguish here Christian theistic evolutions as there are numerous other options for those who are theists but not Christians, including ignoring the Bible completely. Deistic views of evolution similarly have no need of discussing how Genesis is understood. This is strictly a Christian or Jewish enterprise, and is different in nature for each of those groups.

  • MyBibleVersion.com: User Configurable Still Coming

    I was actually planning to work on it starting in about an hour, but I just got a service call that’s likely to take a couple of hours. I am really still planning to do this, so be patient!

  • If You Want to Pray, then Pray!

    I worked with a pastor a few years ago who was frequently called up to counsel and pray with other pastors and church leaders. I won’t go into the reasons. In general, he was a bit impatient with talking about the problems, and just wanted to get praying. Normally he’d get a couple of the folks who worked with him to join in praying for the person, and I was often one of those.

    I used to enjoy watching him, because you could tell as the conversation went on that he was getting less and less interested in hearing about the problems. Suddenly he’d break in and say, “Why don’t we just pray about it?” Now whatever you think about the balance between receiving good counsel and having someone pray for you, you can tell from his actions that this pastor was really focused on prayer. Prayer was what was important to him. When prayer is important to you you pray.

    I was reminded of this as I read this post which tells about some reaction to the settlement in Odessa. Now that issue was about teaching Bible in public schools. Personally, as I have said before, I think we would be better off without specific Bible classes in public schools largely because of the difficulty with prescribing a good curriculum and finding qualified teachers. I think the Bible belongs in public schools, but it should come up appropriately in literature, social studies, history, and even music classes. But it is constitutional to have a Bible class.

    Yet when we get into court things get tangled. That’s because the NCBCPS curriculum that many schools are using is not very good and is quite sectarian (read a report by a professor at Perkins School of Theology). It’s interdenominational only in the sense that a number of very conservative denominations would find it acceptable. It doesn’t deal with a broad range of academic issues, and certainly doesn’t handle interfaith issues properly.

    Now if you really wanted to teach a Bible class, it would likely be easier to find or design a curriculum that would pass constitutional muster (there already is one that’s quite good). Then you go ahead and have your Bible class. People like me can object and suggest this is better done at home and at one’s place of worship as part of religious education, but there’s really nothing I can do to stop it.

    On the other hand if you want to make trouble, and get publicity waging some kind of culture war, well, you choose a curriculum that is likely to be challenged, and you use that.

    Similarly with prayer in public schools, if you want your children to pray, they can. There are a number of legal ways to do this, while not disrupting the classroom. You can’t have government mandated prayers, or prayers led by school officials. But if you want to pray, you can quite easily work it out and go ahead and pray. One key element here would be teaching your children to pray so that they could do so without needing an adult to make it happen.

    On the other hand if you want to fuss about praying, and try to make points in the culture war, you find a place where you can’t pray, and you do it there. On the other hand, administrators who would like to make points might just order you not to pray, or not to include religious references in art, or might try to make a music teacher eliminate sacred music from the repertoire. In that case they are making trouble instead of doing their job. Of course, in many cases it’s just ignorance, but the law is not that hard to follow. You can get pamphlets that will cover easily more than 90% of the questions that might arise.

    I’m beginning to believe more and more that the vast majority of these cases arise from a combination of stupidity and the desire to fight, and not from the desire to pray or study the Bible.

  • Handing School Administration to the Courts

    In a previous post I mentioned that the proposed Academic Chaos Bill here in Florida was cowardly in that it created a very confused situation which others would have to navigate. The Florida house analysis of the bill says much the same thing:

    Finally, if a principal, the district school superintendent, or the school board determine that the information a teacher is presenting is not objective, relevant, or scientific, then the administration must prove its case prior to any action against a teacher. This may result in case-by-case determinations which, based on the propensities of the science teachers in the district, may prove frequent and challenging. This bill will affect costs of administering the science curriculum and, although indeterminate, may increase litigation expenses for the school district. (page 4, source: here, hat tip: Florida Citizens for Science Blog)

    With this clear analysis provided to the legislators, there is every reason that any who vote in favor should be made to regret their decision. They have chosen a few political points over the good of the children of Florida, and if they are not stopped, will have put a great burden on teachers, principles, and administrators throughout the state.

    Hopefully, since the house voted out an amended version, this thing can be killed at least for this session.

  • More on the Original Text

    I’m not going to link to every post in Tim’s series, but he has just posted his first substantive one, and I’d like to note a couple of things and then quote part of one paragraph.

    If you read his first post you will know that Tim is planning to make an argument for the reliability of the original text of the New Testament. Now depending on just what he means by “original” that could vary from difficult to impossible. In fact, he has taken on a difficult, but in my view not impossible task because he understands the nature of the task.

    Responding to a claim that it is futile to try to reconstruct the first century text, he says:

    . . . Most assertions, scientific, theological, or otherwise, are hypotheses, attempting to explain as much of the evidence as possible. One theme we will come back to again and again is that possibility is not the same as probability. That a hypothesis exists at all is not an argument in favor of its viability. That a hypothesis cannot be proven 100% true by reason or evidence does not mean that it can’t be maintained with a reasonable degree of certainty.

    That is absolutely correct, and something that needs to be said repeatedly. People are constantly asking for absolute certainty in historical matters, and it cannot be provided. The only way we could be completely certain about the original text of the New Testament would be to actually have the autographs. Then we could compare what we have to them. As it is, we will always be dealing with probabilities.

    But we must resist the temptation to assume that a probability is the equivalent of the absence of knowledge. We live with probabilities every day. Right now I’m using my computer even though I know there’s a 30% chance of thunderstorms. I’m generally protected, but in our worst storms I will shut the system down. I’m quite functional even though I don’t have absolute certainty.

    With that, I look back at the earlier part of Tim’s post. My only problem here is not with the data, which he summarizes quite well, but with the context. I think it is very difficult for laypeople to understand the meaning of these manuscript numbers. They sound impressive, but what do they mean? That requires some context in terms of how many manuscripts we normally have for ancient documents (many less), and just what one can do with manuscripts.

    Herewith a quibble. Manuscripts are weighed, not counted, and that can mentally skew these numbers. Those approximately 5,500 mss are not all of equal weight. At the same time they do have some weight, which it is easy to forget when one is busy weighing fragmentary papyri and key early manuscripts.

    In any case, I’m enjoying reading Tim’s series, and look forward to continuing. I have also demonstrated my verbosity, having written at least as many words commenting on Tim’s post as he put into it. It is unlikely, however, that at half a century I will change that much!

  • Defending the Originals

    Keep an eye on if i were a bell, i’d ring for more on this. He just attended a conference and has those intellectual juices flowing.

  • Notes on Scot McKnight – Teaching the Bible to Emerging Generations

    Gavin has his rather useful sounding notes here. There are many aspects of postmodernism, especially as it looks when it gets to where I live, but there’s also a great deal of good in it. This is some of the good.

  • Threads Comment Policy

    I was going to update it to emphasize comment moderation, but I see I already did that. The key point to note here is that I use comment moderation with as careful of filtering as I can. Inevitably it catches legitimate comments and puts them in the moderation queue. Since I work in front of my computer normally at least 10 hours a day, moderation is usually very fast. I do sleep at night, however, so it takes a bit longer!

    The bottom line on my comment policy is that if you’re talking about the subject, it’s hard to get deleted. But if you can’t insult me without constant use of the f-word, your comments won’t be kept here. Polished insults are acceptable, and often even get me to laugh.

    I’m copying the policy here, with some emphasis added:

    I have resisted posting a comments policy, because I pretty much allow any comment except for obvious spam and things that would be illegal. I don’t delete comments for criticizing me or my positions.

    Recently, however, I have had an influx of spam, and posters should be aware that I have added a substantial number of terms to my moderation list. This means that inevitably some comments will be held for moderation. I will get to them as soon as I can. Thus far, the vast majority of legitimate comments are still getting through.

    Other than eliminating the spam, I do intend to keep an open comment and trackback policy, which is simple. I will remove any spam comments, any comments which are illegal or advocate illegal activities, any comments which are likely to get me sued, and any comments that threaten the family nature of this blog. In the last category I include posts that use excessive profanity, “excessive” being my subjective judgment. That does mean that comments can be insulting and quite annoying, but I prefer to keep the discussion out in the open where I can. On the other hand, abusive posters need to learn how to insult without resorting to profanity to any substantial degree.

    The only comments I have removed thus far have been spam. I do, however, reserve the right to interpret my rules according to my own subjective judgment.

    You can read it again here at its normal location.