Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Dynamic Range: Breaking Bread and the Eucharist

    This post is based on Acts 2:42 and 46. In the NLT of Acts 2:42 the phrase breaking of bread, admittedly a bit less than meaningful in modern English, is translated as sharing in the Lord’s supper. The NRSV reads “breaking of bread” but a note in the New Interpreter’s Study Bible suggests “Lord’s Supper,” and the New Oxford Annotated Bible has a note suggesting “Eucharist.” (These are in the study notes, not translator’s notes. The NLT does not have a note.

    I’m questioning the validity of this translation for the time in question. We might well ask just what this activity consisted of at the time, and whether “Lord’s Supper” or “Eucharist” will suggest the right idea to modern readers. Personally, “Lord’s Supper” brings up my youth as a Seventh-day Adventist, and celebration of the Lord’s Supper which happened every quarter and was a longer church service than normal. It would be hard to fit that concept in which an activity carried out daily.

    Eucharist is even more formalized and I would suggest that what is practiced in modern churches is very different from what would have happened at this time. I’m aware this wasn’t suggested as a translation but rather as a study note, yet even so is not the modern English reader misled?

    Most likely this breaking of bread was a common meal by which Christians offered fellowship. It is unlikely that there was much ritual beyond what would be normal at a Jewish meal. The thing that was special about these meals was the offering of fellowship. I’m having a hard time replacing “breaking of bread” with something useful, but I’m thinking of one of these:

    • sharing a common meal
    • eating together as a sign of fellowship
    • commemorating Jesus and their fellowship by eating together

    Perhaps, however, the CEV has the best of it, however, with “They also broke bread . . .”

  • Unlumping the Various Creationists

    . . . or not, as the case may be.

    Almost two years ago I wrote about my difficulties with the term theistic evolutionist. (I dealt with these definitions more recently here.) My problem was, and is, that the theory of evolution I accept is not different from that accepted by non-theistic evolutionists. The theory of evolution explains a variety of natural processes and brings them together in a theoretical framework. My theism doesn’t alter anything there.

    Today Ed Brayton has elevated a discussion between himself and commenter King of Ireland about this issue to a full post. In his case it’s kind of the opposing sphere, and the question is whether it’s right to lump together a large group of people from intelligent design (ID) advocates to young earth creationists and call them all “creationists.” Would it be useful to add those who believe in guided evolution into the same crowd?

    Let’s look at this just a bit. Evolution involves a group of concepts. I’m going to list them in the order of how thoroughly established they are. Understand that I regard all of these elements as well established; I require them in an order to deal with division of the creationists below.

    1. The earth is old, about 4.5 billion years old, in fact
    2. All life on earth is related (common descent)
    3. The relatedness of all life can be substantially explained by variation and natural selection

    I call anyone who accepts all these points an evolutionist. I don’t like the “ist,” but “someone who accepts the theory of evolution” gets clumsy after a few repetitions. There are a couple of variants that should be mentioned.

    First, there is the notion of guided evolution. There is an important divide here between those who think guidance can be detected, and those who do not. The latter are still generally evolutionists, and could carry out research within the theory. Guided evolution in that sense is a philosophical view, not a scientific one as I see it. Those who believe that the guided evolution is detectable, on the other hand, step outside the theory of evolution, and should be expected to provide hypotheses and test them.

    Second, there is that group of people who expect natural causes to explain everything, but don’t think the current explanations are sufficient. They might, for example, assume that life came here from outer space, but believe it formed elsewhere under unknown conditions. Aside from noting that the actual origin of life is not part of the theory of evolution, while this is a bit perverse, it is nonetheless a natural type of explanation. Lacking evidence for or against, it is simply speculation. Again, the proponents need to get down to the hard science.

    Now for creationists. There are several key breaking points, which I list below in less logical order:

    1. The Bible provides accurate scientific information
    2. The earth is young, 6,000 to 10,000 years old (young earth creationists who deny the great age of the earth)
    3. There is a substantial barrier to variation so that new “kinds” cannot be produced (generally old earth creationists, though the point is applicable to all)
    4. God has intervened repeatedly in the history of life to produce new kinds, and this interference can be detected, or at least the need for it can be demonstrated. (I regard “it might be a space alien” as just a silly attempt to distract us from the religious nature of the claim.)

    Are there substantial differences between these views? Absolutely. The fourth option does not require one to accept that the Bible conveys accurate scientific information, nor does it expect one to deny the overwhelming evidence of the age of the earth. One might argue that it doesn’t even require one to deny common descent, as claimed by Michael Behe.

    So is it fair to group these people together as “creationists” and to exclude the people I described as evolutionists from the camp, even though they might believe in God as ultimate creator?

    There is, in fact, one huge common denominator between all of the groups of creationists: They believe that God has intervenes in the world on an ongoing basis in a way that can be detected. Generally this takes the form of claiming that certain levels of changes in organisms cannot be explained through natural means, thus requiring intervention of the intelligent designer. I’d be unsurprised if someone came by to tell me yet again that this designer need not be God, but I find that explanation so contrived that it’s hard to imagine it is being seriously presented.

    The ID proponents themselves, however, have contributed to this lumping, even though they regularly complain about it. In creating a big tent, they have brought young earth creationists, old earth creationists, and guided evolutionists into the same big tent. Then they complain if they are all called by the same label. The odd thing is that ID is a proposition that can sound good to people with such a wide variety of viewpoints. The sneaky part of it is that it manages this by failing to propose anything very substantial.

    Consider the vast differences there would be in nature if there had been a world wide flood. I can’t see how you get believers in a world wide flood under the same tent as those who propose a more local event. Actually covering the entire planet with water would leave such an indelible mark that it would be unmistakable, and no explanation of the geological record that didn’t take it into account would get anywhere. Yet supposedly both work together under ID.

    Someone might say that I have been terribly unfair, because ID says nothing related to a global flood. ID could be true, whether or not such a thing happened. And certainly ID would be true in all cases. That’s how in combines Michael Behe on the one hand and someone like Paul Nelson on the other. It doesn’t say very much.

    But what it does say is very, very powerful–to the creationist mind. It provides the one single thing that all these views have in common: God intervened repeatedly in the history of life in the world.

    All varieties of creationist agree that natural processes, whether or not one postulates they were created by God, are insufficient to explain the diversification of life on earth. ID is not merely creationism; it is distilled, bottled, and aged creationism.

    Based on this I believe it is entirely fair to refer to this entire group as creationists. They may distance themselves from one another, and it is also good to distinguish them from one another when that is signification, young earth, old earth, believer in a universal flood, and so forth.

    ID is the essence of creationism. It is creationism. It’s proponents have been careful to gather the widest variety of creationists possible under their umbrella. All we are doing in calling them creationists is going with what they, themselves have done. They’d prefer we didn’t, and that should tell us something as well. What sort of people like to disguise their identities?

  • Relating the Incarnation to Inspiration

    Yesterday I wrote a few notes about Dr. Peter Enns and his suspension by Westminster Theological Seminary. G. K. Beale, who reviewed Dr. Enns’ book, complained that Dr. Enns is not very clear about just what in the incarnation applies.

    Since I still don’t have my own copy of this book, a situation that will be remedied soon, I would like to comment myself on how the incarnation applies to inspiration in my view. Since I believe that the incarnation is central to Christian doctrine, and more specifically it is central to the way in which I think about God, it should be obvious even without my saying so that I find this doctrine central to inspiration.

    Starting from the view that Jesus is 100% human and at the same time 100% divine, and that the fact that this is possible is a mystery, I would identify three key points:

    1. Somehow it was possible both for Jesus to learn and grow, and at the same time be divine and sinless. Luke 2:52 would demonstrate this if nothing else.
    2. Though divinity is infinite, its revelation to us in the incarnation was located in space and time.
    3. Again though divinity is infinite, the amount that can be revealed to us is limited.

    Briefly, what is the importance of these three points?

    1. The first would suggest that revelation can grow, i.e. be progressive. I would understand from Luke 2:52 that Jesus came to greater understandings of many things than he had as a child. The scriptures parallel this process to some extent. Note that I don’t hold that revelation is progressive in the sense that every later passage is better or supersedes all preceding passages. Rather, the whole of revelation grows.
    2. Jesus, though being divine and drawing on infinity, had to communicate to people in the place and time where he was revealed. Thus he gave teachings directed at Jewish people living under Roman rule mostly in Galilee. We learn from that revelation, but we don’t see it in the same way. The revelation doesn’t provide infinite knowledge to the local people. Rather, it must be contextualized within the matrices provided by their language, culture, and understanding.
    3. Jesus may have had access to infinite knowledge. I don’t know. That’s part of the mystery. Just how did that work? But the people whom he taught had a finite time to learn, and so do we.

    Scripture, I think, partakes of all these elements. I join with Dr. Enns in avoiding the term “error.” Rather, I think the things we would call errors from our perspective were intentional from the point of view of communicating with that culture. So while I would call the cosmology reflected in Genesis primitive or pre-scientific, I don’t think it’s in there by mistake. It’s in there because it was the best way to communicate the spiritual truths contained there to that audience.

    To understand it properly, we have to recontextualize it without losing the message on the way.

  • Continuing the Health Care Conversation

    Mark has started responding (crossposted to Stones Cry Out) to some of what I have said on health care, though I have said very little and done so with many words!

    Mark describes his post as a bit critical, but I would describe it more as vigorously advancing the conversation. If there was an award for most constructive response, his would get it. I like the rewrite of my story. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen that way, which was part of my point. There were certainly things done wrong in my story.

    I do want to make one correction. I am not the priest or minister of my parish. I lead a parachurch ministry (Pacesetters Bible School) which is a small ministry dedicated to helping local congregations with religious education. I have to do my “tentmaking” which involves both earnings from my writing and some computer work. Thus I have contact with several congregations, and I have a congregation to which I belong, but I am not the pastor of any.

    The question on which I’d like to contact as I go forward is simply how do we get from my story to the story that ought to be? That’s easier said than done. I recall one occasion when our son was having surgery that we were supported by four pastors (remember the multiple church contacts) and a crowd of helpful church members. I know of a number of cases, however, in which people have been lost in the system somehow, and they do not get the pastoral care. There are a number of reasons for that, and I’d like to discuss them. (I commented some on a related topic on my Running Toward the Goal podcast today.)

    In my emergency room case some people were aware, but little was done. I don’t blame anyone for that. My suspicion is that 20 people found out at once and each assumed somebody else had called prayer chains and so forth. Again, a good topic as we continue is how we change that situation in congregations where this happens.

    I’m often more of a story teller, and find it hard to get to the point, but let me mention one more thing. I was thinking this morning of my father’s funeral. Our family (I’m the out of town guy in this place) was unable to contact his pastor, and so finally asked me to preach for the funeral. After consulting a pastor who is a friend on whom I can rely for honest counsel, I agreed. The question I had in my mind this morning was how does it happen that a retired missionary dies, and the family can’t locate his pastor? But then another question came to mind. Why should it matter whether he was a retired missionary? Why should any church member be unable to contact a pastor at such a time?

    Yes, I’m very well aware of pastors being busy, having vacations, and problems with communication. But in many churches I know any pastor who was going to be out of touch for more than an hour or so would have an alternative option provided. When on vacation, there are always ministers of neighboring churches to cover for the pastor. Further, I think we depend too heavily on the pastor in circumstances like these. Who in the church is prepared to take action?

    As you can doubtless see, I’m not answering many of these questions, but I do intend to post on many of these as time goes on. In the meantime I think it would be wonderful if other Christian bloggers would join this discussion. Surely the role of the church here is of interest to many of us, and something on which we can converse productively.

  • Sabbath Rest

    Yesterday I wrote a post about the Sabbath. John, at Locusts and Honey, found a LOLCat that says it better.

  • Is Sunday my Sabbath?

    As an ex-Seventh-day Adventist I get this question frequently. This fine Sunday morning while I’m playing with my computer, let me answer both yes and no!

    There are several ways in which ex-SDAs deal with the Sabbath. The first is to accept the Sunday as the Sabbath in accordance with the letter of the commandment, with the day changed by authority of Jesus or the apostles. I find this change unsubstantiated. The second is to apply the Sabbath command in some other way, but nonetheless explicitly, such as to the command to “rest in Christ.” I take neither of these approaches, though I think the second of them has some merit.

    For me, Jesus presented the ideal that all commands were to be taken in spirit and from the heart rather than in terms of simply following the letter. In fact, the letter could get in the way of living right if one didn’t find a way to soften it from time to time. The difference would be between an employer giving one employee a list of work rules, while telling another employee to work as he pleased, but to make sure to get certain tasks done.

    Thus for me the fourth commandment simply provides a guideline. That was how sacred time was delineated for a specific time, place, and group of people. I do not live at that time, nor in that place, nor am I part of that group to whom the specific command was specifically addressed. (However you read this, don’t assume I think I’m better than that group of people. Just different.)

    So in answer to the immediate follow-up question: Do you discard the rest of the commandments? Yes and no, and in the same sense. The ten commandments were part of Jewish law. They express principles that would be part of any divine law, but they do not apply as letter to all of us.

    Sunday is time I set aside to spend with God, along with many other specific times during the week, but it’s not a fulfillment of the letter of the commandment. Rather, it’s the application of the principle of time set aside for God as I believe it applies to my life, my place, and my time.

  • Dr. Peter Enns Suspended

    I wrote a brief post on the suspension of Dr. Peter Enns, tenured professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary on my Participatory Bible Study blog. I put the article there because it relates to Biblical inspiration and interpretation, but I wanted to link from here because it deals with academic freedom.

  • Peter Enns, Incarnational Inspiration, and Seminary Authority

    In 2005 Peter Enns, a professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary, published a book titled Inspiration and Incarnation, and it is likely going to cost him his tenured position. I’m writing about this on this blog because of the implications of his incarnational view of inspiration for Biblical interpretation. I have not yet read this little book. I found out about it through this controversy. Let me comment to you the Christianity Today news article, and this review in JETS by G. K. Beale. The review is not particularly favorable, but it follows the kind of standards for writing and citation that would suggest it’s fair. (HT: Everyday Liturgy)

    What am I writing about, if I haven’t even read the book? Primarily I’m writing because of the impact on good education of seminary policies such as this one. Secondly, I know of other cases in which discussion of inspiration leads to this kind of reaction, to the detriment of serious consideration of the issues. Often the people in the pews are left without any sort of answers, or better any sort of structure in which to discuss answers because the theologians are avoiding them. Thirdly, I publish a book that uses the incarnational metaphor, Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?, by Dr. Alden Thompson, who has also elicited some controversy due to his view of inspiration. Finally, I hold an incarnational view of inspiration myself, as espoused in my book When People Speak for God.

    If you were to take the quotes and summaries by G. K. Beale in his review, not do any contortions to try to put a good face on them, i.e. take the more liberal interpretation, then you would have something like my own position. I will have to see when I get a copy of the book myself whether I think these things are fair with reference to Dr. Enns. I would simply note at this point that none of the material quoted appeared at all shocking to me, but then I’m not an evangelical.

    The problem I have here is with the seminary. First, let me say that I fully accept that a seminary belonging to or sponsored by a confessional body, has every right to control what is taught there. At the same time, the rest of us have every right to criticize their choices. The value of that criticism has nothing to do with changing the seminary. They’re not going to listen to me, and I wouldn’t even argue that they should. I’m not evangelical, I’m not Calvinist, and I don’t like the Westminster Confession.

    I criticize nonetheless because I believe we need to be aware of the problem of education that is constrained by a specific confession and that won’t allow anyone to question or work around the boundaries. The area of inspiration is one that has many lay members confused, and it is one where our young people who go to secular universities find themselves generally unequipped. When we constrain the playing field so thoroughly that we can’t discuss the type of issues that Dr. Enns raises, then I question the quality of the education that results.

    There is here a great gulf fixed between a secular, academic education, and an education at a confessional institution. I’m not sure how one should draw the boundaries if one belongs to a confessional church, but if one’s convictions are to be sound I think one has to have honestly explored alternate possibilities without the fear that stepping across the line will ruin one’s life.

    The combination of those elements is very difficult, and perhaps even impossible for a very confessional church, which is why I avoid such a thing. I am jealous of the ability to explore, to be wrong, and perhaps later to correct my course.

    In the final analysis, however, those who want to explore real answers to questions of inspiration will probably have to break the bonds in a more serious way, finding a less constrictive environment. The problem for many is that they have a firm faith and a strong commitment to their faith community, so it is hard to just move on. Such is the tragedy of the right of the seminary to manage itself, versus the need for thinking people to explore.

    While I found it necessary to step out of the community in which I grew up, I understand those who find that difficult, and who then spend years or decades in conflict with a community that they love.

    One final note–these are the folks who want to “teach the controversy” in public universities and in our high schools. The real goal is to put science within confessional boundaries, a straightjacket that will certainly not fit it.

  • Book: Evolution and Christian Faith

    I’m constantly on the lookout for books on evolutionary theory aimed at the general public rather than specialized audiences, so when I saw this little book on the shelf of the local university library, I took it home to check out.

    My response to it is a bit mixed. There are a number of good things about it. It’s simple, it presents most of the basics of evolutionary theory at the most basic level, and it deals with intelligence design briefly and vigorously. On the other hand, its approach to Biblical interpretation is vague, its theology is a bit soft, and its assumption that these arguments have any hope of reaching fundamentalists or even conservative evangelicals is frankly just a bit naive.

    The author, Dr. Joan Roughgarden, is an evolutionary biologist who is also a Christian and a member of the Episcopal church. She begins by discussing the relationship between science and religion. She suggests that the conflict between religion and science is fostered by the fact that we don’t discuss the two together. Her favorite topic of research is lizards, and she laments that evolutionists rarely discuss God and anti-evolutionists discuss God and rarely discuss lizards (p. 6).

    Unfortunately she really doesn’t do very much of discussing the two together. She does draw a few lines of connection between the Bible and science, but these can be divided between the naive and the distantly metaphorical. I don’t mean to be too cruel here, because there are a number of wonderful passages in this book, especially in describing the basics of evolutionary theory in non-specialists terms.

    In this early chapter she also intends to draw a distinction between what is solid and what is still questionable or “squishy” in evolutionary theory. That promise is very interesting, as is her distinction between the “real” controversies, which are in the details and in the leading edge of evolutionary theory, as opposed to the fake controversy created by intelligent design.

    In the second chapter, Dr. Roughgarden discuss the first “solid” element of evolutionary theory which she rightly calls a fact, common descent. She argues that there is nothing in a literal reading of Genesis that would deny this. The then continues in the third chapter with variation, which again she says does not contradict a literal reading of Genesis. I happen to agree with her on this point, as I state in my earlier blog post An Evolutionary Understanding of Kinds. The problem, as most people who have discussed this issue will see, is that with these two elements we’re pretty much out of literal readings of Genesis 1 and 2 that will support evolutionary theory, and most conservative Christians will not even agree to those.

    Thus it is no surprise that chapter 4 deals with reading the Bible literally, and suggests essentially that Jesus came to change a rule-based approach to one based on principles and relationships. Most interpreters would have some trouble using that point to suggest that we now have permission to read certain things literally or not literally based on whether they agree with our scientific understanding. The connection there is a bit vague. Further the dividing line is also a bit vague. How do you decide?

    Dr. Roughgarden doesn’t tell us. She leaves us with the literal reconciliation of common descent and variation without a “kinds” boundary in living things, while suddenly rejecting such a literal reading of the days of creation based on the changed approach brought by Jesus. I don’t think this will provide a consistent approach to hermeneutics, and I don’t think it will impress the fundamentalists.

    In the fifth chapter she carries this point to the other extreme, using the vine and the branches (John 15:1-6) as an illustration connecting natural breeding (which she prefers to natural selection) in the Bible. This is such a metaphorical connection that it strains my reading a bit, and I’m quite an advocate of metaphorical readings. But she goes on in chapter 6 using Mark 13 and the parable of the sower as a connection to random mutation (p. 45). The explanation of random mutation is pretty good, however.

    Chapter 7 is a discussion of direction in evolution which, in my opinion, doesn’t deal adequately with the challenge presented by the theory of evolution to the older Christian understanding of the way in which the universe works. This is followed by chapter 8 which is occupied by a discussion of Roman Catholic theology. In it, Dr. Roughgarden acknowledges that the challenge to evolutionary theory and the impetus to teach intelligent design in the science classroom are not largely driven by Catholics. Those who are pushing it are, to a large extent, not going to be moved by statements by the Pope, however good those statements are.

    Following this is a chapter on the things that evolution has not accomplished yet which is largely dedicated to discussing the definition of an individual, and where natural selection operates, individual or group.

    The chapter on intelligent design was quite good. I was surprised that after a call largely for peace, this chapter is a pretty vigorous attack. On page 94 Dr. Roughgarden provides four things that intelligent design proponents need to do in order to get their views examined scientifically (p. 94). These are good criteria that would require the ID folks to do some actual science, an unlikely prospect. She further describes the controversy proposed by ID (as in “teach the controversy”) as “concocted” (p. 95), and finally calls ID “junk religion” (p. 101). She says it should be discussed in religion classes in order to point out just how bad it is as theology. She doesn’t think it has any place in science classrooms. On this, of course, I agree!

    Chapter 11 is given to sexual selection, and I have a hard time seeing why it is in the book. It makes little sense to me, but I’m not an evolutionary biologist. If it does have a purpose, that would seem to be to suggest that we shouldn’t present natural selection in such a competitive fashion. I’m not sure just how this works. Natural selection does involve a fairly heavy competitive element.

    The last chapter points to new directions. These could be summarized by saying that scientists should present themselves less like Richard Dawkins, and theologians should avoid referring to a wrathful God so much. I’m pretty much in agreement with that, but I don’t think either Dawkins or Falwell and Roberts (who she uses to illustrate what’s wrong in religion) will follow the suggestions.

    My overall impression is that Dr. Roughgarden is a good scientist who has a liberal view of religion, but has a limited understanding of the type of theological ideas that drive evangelicals and fundamentalists. She expresses a peaceful and experiential faith that I can truly appreciate. If my review sounds rough, it’s because I don’t think that she has engaged the controversy that is actually going on. She’s hoping for peace.

    I enjoyed this book, but I don’t feel I can add it to my list of recommended reading for those who are trying to get acquainted with the creation-evolution controversy.

  • The Value (and not so much) of the Anchor Bible

    At this point I’m nearly half way through my study through 2 Corinthians with Victor Paul Furnish’s Anchor Bible Commentary, on which I made introductory comments earlier.

    This note is not so much about 2 Corinthians as about the series in general, and especially some of the newer volumes. I absolutely don’t recommend this series to preachers. They are good and detailed, though often involving leading edge rather than well established scholarship, but they are so detailed that it is very hard to get to the point. A scholar preparing for a lecture to a seminary class on a passage wants this kind of detail. Few preachers that I know would like it.

    Note that “half way through” means page 252 of 588, and I’m just into chapter 4. I find it necessary to have my Greek testament open to the passage throughout because it’s hard to remember what word or phrase I was reading about last by the time I get to the next comment.

    At the same time, the level of thoroughness is something I welcome, that linguistic and textual issues are covered in great detail, and that the commentary on critical theories regarding the book is good. If you are willing to wade through the extensive other content, there are some useful theological applications as well. It’s just that if you want to really get the value, you have to dedicated hours to a few verses, and that’s rarely possible for sermon or Sunday School lesson preparation.

    This volume, and the whole series are extremely useful, but you need to keep your purpose in mind.