Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Panic in the Temple of Darwin?

    A friend forwarded a link to an article on Dr. Albert Mohler’s blog titled Two Irreconcilable Worldviews. I would note, incidentally, that Dr. Mohler’s blog doesn’t allow commenting, a practice I deplore. Nonetheless, in his position I imagine it is to be expected.

    There are so many things I could comment on in this post. The first is the use of the term “worldview.” “Worldview” has become a shorthand way of referring to one’s complete view of life, the universe, and everything. It is an unnuanced approach to information. There are some appropriate and valuable uses of it, but in general I think it merely simplifies something that is complex, and thus misrepresents it. As a moderate, I tend not to like large packages. I’d prefer to pick my own viewpoints, thank you!

    Now if Dr. Mohler said merely that evolution was irreconcilable with Southern Baptist theology, I would have little problem. The Southern Baptist convention has done a good job of pushing moderates and liberals to go elsewhere, and thus it is very likely that evolution cannot be reconciled with what is left, though there are some who would differ. And it’s their denomination, not mine, so I shouldn’t try to tell them who is in and who is out.

    But Dr. Mohler feels free to make that same sort of comment with regard to mainline Christians. Now I fit into the “mainline protestant” category fairly well. I also have to confess that there is a good deal of confusion amongst mainliners with regard to just what we believe. At least there’s confusion amongst the few who think about it. I was shocked when I joined a United Methodist congregation just how few even knew what the doctrinal stands of their denomination actually were. I was asked by my pastor after I had been Methodist for only a year, to teach a class on the doctrine of Christian perfection. Now this doctrine is in the Methodist Book of Discipline. I expected people to argue about it or at least to have questions. On the first day of the class, however, I found that only the pastor and I were aware that there actually was such a thing.

    When you go further afield into things that are only in resolutions or in general consensus of opinion, it’s not surprising that people truly don’t go deep into the theological implications of what they believe. But many mainline theologians have done so, and they have found that their faith and the theory of evolution are not irreconcilable at all. I would urge mainliners to actually read up on some of the theology. There’s John Haught’s God After Darwin, Howard J. Van Till’s The Fourth Day, the evangelical Dr. Richard Colling’s Random Designer, on which I blogged here some time ago. From a scientists perspective, yet still theologically aware, we have Dr. Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God. And I’ve only touched the surface. I’m sure someone will mention a really good book in the comments and I’ll think: “I should have thought of that!”

    But the part that struck me the most about this blog is the ending:

    Tellingly, Michael Zimmerman sees the public status of evolutionary theory endangered by the fact that so many Christians resist the theory. As he admits, “I believe that most people, if forced to choose between religion and evolution, will select religion.” He is right, of course — and that is why there is such panic in the temple of Darwin.

    There are so many problems with this. First, we have the inability of a religious leader to see the difference between a scientific theory and a religious institution such as a denomination. “Panic in the temple” is when a bunch of United Methodists get around and start talking membership loss statistics. The concern is for our community and how it functions and grows. A scientific theory, on the other hand, is and must be constantly under examination. Every time a scientists in a relevant field collects experimental data, whether he is digging up fossils, or culturing bacteria in the lab, the theory of evolution is there to be challenged. The fact that it keeps coming back confirmed, merely tells us how valuable it is. But note at the same time that it has been modified any number of times to meet new challenges. Unlike a denomination, however, all the scientists would remain scientists were the current theory of evolution overturned. They would merely have to adjust their theoretical framework. Yes, it would take a long time. It should take a long time for such a shift.

    Second, is there any panic involved? In the United States there is certainly a high level of concern. I’m highly concerned when I see that a narrow majority of the people in my state, 45%-43% (see poll) reject a thoroughly confirmed scientific theory, and that quite a number of those who accept it think it’s not all that well confirmed. Why is this? Would I be disturbed because a favorite theory of mine is not accepted? (Remember that I have been fascinated by the debate over creation and evolution since I was a child, even though I accepted young earth creation until I was in college.) Actually it concerns me only because we need science to solve many of our technical problems.

    So when Dr. Mohler seems to suggest that it’s a good thing when people choose religion over science, I have to question his good judgment. It sounds to me much like a carpenter rejecting his hammer in favor of his saw.

    Consider global warming. My faith and ethics tell me that while I put people first, people need a world in which to live, so I must be careful. Religion cannot tell me whether we are suffering from global warming or cooling, or how much of that effect is due to man-made emissions, or what is the best strategy to deal with whatever it is. Only science can do that.

    Consider biotechnology. Science can discover how to create various genetically engineered products, and what they might be useful for. I go to my faith to see just how I should apply these things to my real world. (I do not mean here to put down those who would prefer a humanist ethics to faith. I’m speaking for myself.)

    And biotechnology is closely tied to evolutionary theory. If we want to have a solid idea of what is going on in these areas, we will have to understand evolutionary theory. Our children will have to understand it. Despite desperate efforts to claim otherwise, evolutionary theory is foundational in biology, with an impact that extends into our everyday lives through advances in medicine. If we want to understand and continue to advance in medicine, we will need to understand this.

    There is indeed cause for concern amongst those who support science. Science education has lagged for two long in this country. It is that weakness in scientific education that has permitted the current situation to exist.

    But I think there is, perhaps, more of a panic in the halls of religion. As a Christian this concerns me substantially. More and more young people are turning away from the church and from traditional religion. There is a certain panic amongst religious leaders as they see this happening. They are afraid that morality will slip away at the same time.

    There is a time to take a moral stand, but when you do so, you have to do so on the right side. To take a stand against the theory of evolution right now as a moral issue is to take a stand on the wrong side of history. Religion can be severely impaired should we choose at this moment to try to force people either to avoid education in this topic, or to ignore the evidence in front of them. I believe that evidence is strong, and that to force this issue over the next decade or so will result in more and more brilliant young people leaving the church. They will do so not because they cannot accept Christian morality. In fact, many of them will have firmer moral principles than us older folks. They will do so because they will refuse to regard it as right to ignore clear and overwhelming evidence.

    I hope that Dr. Mohler’s choice is not the one presented, because I think if we present this as two worldviews, then no matter which one chooses he or she will be terribly impoverished. My firm choice is both.

  • What Have They Done with Jesus? – III

    I continue blogging through What Have They Done with Jesus by Ben Witherington with chapter 2. In the first chapter we were introduced to two women, Joanna, whom Witherington connects with Junia (Acts 16:7) and Mary Magdalene. This second chapter focuses on Mary Magdalene and what we can know about her, not to mention things we can know are not so.

    This is a long chapter, beginning on page 27 and ending on page 51. The reason for this is that Witherington has to provide the background of the documents that are used in fashioning various stories of Mary Magdalene. Few characters in literature have received the type of attention that she has. She is seen as everything from a prostitute to the wife of Jesus.

    It’s interesting that I just read Bart Ehrman’s book on Judas, and he also says that pretty much everything said about Mary Magdalene in literature is false. Note that on other points Ehrman and Witherington would disagree substantially.

    So what is Witherington’s approach? First he goes over the background of the gnostic documents and makes his case that they are largely later than the canonical materials. He also contends that they are much too different from the canonical gospels to come generally from the same source. I think he is on fairly solid ground in maintaining that the gnostic materials are late and have little claim to be good sources for the historical Jesus. The one exception here is the Gospel of Thomas, which I think has some value.

    Second, Witherington presents a highly negative view of gnosticism in general and asks why so many modern scholars, and particularly feminists tend to like it. I honestly find many negative things about gnosticism, but there are two potential problems here. First, we can just as easily judge gnosticism unfairly by modern standards. Second, most readers today will have a perspective that is more sympathetic to the orthodox viewpoint as it has been passed down. If we got the orthodox viewpoint in a more raw form, we might be less sympathetic. Asceticism and patriarchy were characteristics of both.

    There are a few pages in which it almost seems that Witherington is trying to give us a negative view of the value of the gnostic literature by means of giving us a negative view of gnosticism itself. That is not, in fact, his argument, but you have to read through the section to get to the point, which is that these folks were not primarily concerned with historical events.

    The one gnostic document that requires more discussion is the gospel of Thomas. I could wish Witherington had spent more time establishing the priority of ‘Q’ over the gospel of Thomas. As it is, the case is reasonable, even though Q is hypothetical. If Q did exist (something of which I’m not 100% convinced), then it would necessarily be quite early, and there is little likelihood that Thomas would be older.

    At the same time it is worth considering that if there were sayings collections, Thomas could also go back to an older source. That would be hypothetical, but certainly not out of the question. I personally would treat Thomas as largely independent source for sayings, though I wouldn’t accept it as sole evidence, and it certainly appears to be a 2nd century compilation.

    It’s a bit odd to discover at the end of this chapter that all this discussion results in the simple conclusion that we know remarkably little about Mary Magdalene. Witherington then makes a number of strong statements about the historicity of the canonical statements about her, and based on those statements about the historicity of the resurrection itself. On this point I think he is on less solid ground. He is right to apply a full measure of skepticism to the gnostic gospels.

    I find it remarkable that so many scholars regard them as highly as they do with reference to the historical Jesus. Yet a historian must use similar skepticism on the canonical gospels. Witherington himself says much the same thing. Yet I don’t see it in practice up to this point. (Please remember that I’m blogging through and not reviewing. I am reporting my state of mind at this point, not my final conclusions.) I will be watching for a similar level of analysis of the canonical sources as I continue to read.

  • Not Keeping Hyperbole Straight

    Some folks on the right are apparently having trouble keeping their hyperbole straight. I’ll let Ed Brayton, of Dispatches from the Culture Wars carry it on from there with OMG! Obama is a Fascist!, referencing a post on STACLU and his next post No, Wait: Obama is a Communist!, referencing a post on WorldNetDaily. Ed, those two sources give you way too much fun! And some of those folks on the right need to learn to keep their hyperbole straight.

  • Psalm 95 and 81: Interrupting Praise with Prophecy?

    A few days ago I blogged about Psalm 95 and how I felt that Matthew Henry had missed the emphasis. I’ve mentioned before that my current devotional exercise is to read the lectionary texts for coming Sundays starting two weeks ahead until the Sunday in question. Thus I’m continually reading two sets of lectionary texts. These tend to lead me to various interesting sources of study.

    Today, I read Psalm 95 from my New Interpreter’s Study Bible, which has an interesting note. On Psalm 95:8, the point at which the Psalm turns the corner from praise into a call for repentance, there is this note:

    . . . In the very midst of Israel’s worship, it seems, prophets would occasionally interrupt the proceedings and call the people to repentance and amendment of life.

    On consideration of just Psalm 95, I didn’t find that very convincing. I felt (and to some extent still feel) that the combination of praise and a willingness to listen and obey went well together in a context of worship. However, if one reads Psalm 81, to which reference is made earlier in the same note, there is an even more abrupt transition between praise and the call to repentance. There the praise seems almost to be only an introduction to the meat of the Psalm, which is strong admonition.]

    I find this an interesting concept, considering that obedience is scripturally placed above various acts of worship, 1 Samuel 15:22-23 being a good example. Obedience is seen in scripture as an act of worship. I have only seen this sort of thing rarely in modern charismatic worship. Most congregations would regard such a prophetic word as an unseemly interruption of the flow of the service of praise. I have even heard pastors express a strong preference for “words from the Lord” that are positive over those that involve rebuke. I think if one were to survey prophetic words in scripture, one would find that the balance is precisely the opposite.

    In addition, of course, one wonders just how one is to get one’s desired balance of positive and negative words from the Lord. If they are, indeed, from the Lord, one would assume he would set the balance!

  • Gov. Bobby Jindal Interview

    I enjoyed Wolf Blitzer’s interview with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (transcript). Here’s a rising star in the Republican party. He also knows some of the importance of not only having a message but communicating it.

    I was interested in his comments on Barack Obama:

    But I will say this about the other two major candidates. Senator Obama, I agree with those that find him inspiring. I think he does bring a genuineness and enthusiasm. I think he’s an inspirational speaker.

    I don’t agree with him on a lot of the issues. I do think he is more liberal than I am. But I think there is something that explains the large turnouts and enthusiasm he’s generating.

    …. [skip several paragraphs]

    And what I think people find so inspirational in the senator’s rhetoric — and I certainly think what resonated with voters when they voted for me — was that they are tired of all the ideological fighting, they are tired of the partisan fighting.

    In a democracy, we should disagree. We should have debates. We should stand up for our principles. But it isn’t about winning or losing, it’s about finding common ground and enacting common sense (inaudible)…

    I could say a very similar thing about Jindal that I say about Obama. I disagree with both of them on some policy points, but I think they both have a very positive impact on the political process from everything I’ve seen thus far. I will never be able to vote for a candidate with whom I agree on everything. But I’m seeing some leaders here with whom I disagree, but who are nonetheless people I can respect.

  • Review: The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot

    Bart Ehrman’s books tend to get quite a bit of hype around them, but when one actually reads them, one finds the work of a fine, generally balanced scholar. This is true of The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot, as it was of Misquoting Jesus, which I reviewed early in a series of posts. Ben Witherington is fairly hard on Ehrman, referring to that same book, and stating that he goes well beyond his evidence (What Have They Done with Jesus?, pp. 6-7). If one goes by he cover, that is likely true, but I would say that the actual contents are much better, both in terms of nuanced claims and of evidence. (I’ve begun blogging through Witherington’s book here.)

    The bottom line is that this is a well-written book, easy to follow, and covering the most essential material. I rarely read a book on a discovery like this one without wishing that the author had spent less time on some things and more on others. Ehrman manages to include enough of the story of discovery to give the flavor. He summarizes the document well, and then looks at its implications.

    Many popular discussions–by which I mean non-scholars discussing the Gospel of Judas–get the focus and implications entirely wrong. It is natural for 21st century westerners to immediately turn to issues of the historical Jesus, and of course the historical Judas. But the fact is that the Gospel of Judas gives us very little additional information on that issue. It is later than the canonical gospels, though earlier than most non-canonical gospels, and it has even less emphasis on historical events.

    But it does have a significant impact on our understanding of early Christianity in its various forms and on gnosticism. That is what could be expected, and it is also what was actually found. Ehrman makes these facts pretty clear.

    He starts by providing us a narrative framework for his own exposure to the gospel which serves to help us understand the process of discovery and preservation (or lack of it) that goes into bringing this type of manuscript to publication. This preface and first chapter illustrates some of the difficulties in dealing with ancient artifacts. Fortunately, unlike most items such as ossuaries, pieces of pottery, and so forth, a printed text retains a good deal of its value even without a well-established provenance.

    The second chapter continues by telling us what is already known about Judas Iscariot and how this is known, as well as discussing the various perspectives on Judas. This is followed in chapter three by a discussion of later Christian literature and its perspective. These two chapters are valuable in demonstrating how a story can grow and change shape over centuries of use. Chapter 4 then tells us what was known previously about the Gospel of Judas in order to prepare for the discovery of the actual text, and chapter 5 finishes the story of the discovery.

    Chapters 6-8 get to the heart of the matter and tell what we learn from the text itself, and how that fits into our understanding of early Christian gnosticism. Ehrman provides good context and well done summaries. He also covers a variety of views on gnosticism. The result is about the best one could hope for in the space allotted.

    Finally, in chapters 9-10 we get what many were probably looking for in the first place–a discussion of the historical Judas, and it turns out that the Gospel of Judas has practically nothing to say about this at all. Ehrman follows with an excellent summary of how historical study is done using ancient manuscripts and other material, and then applies those methods to Jesus and Judas Iscariot. He finds frustratingly little that one can say with certainty, but he is very clear about how he comes to those conclusions. Those interested in the historical Jesus could do worse than to read his summary of the methodology involved.

    Despite the limited historical conclusions about Judas, Ehrman regards the Gospel of Judas as very historically important. Its importance is to the history of early Christianity. In the final chapter he kind of rounds up what has been implied earlier. There are two extremes in views of the history of early Christianity. One holds that a single orthodoxy came from Jesus and the apostles. There were numerous heresies that broke off and threatened the true faith, but ultimately truth (orthodoxy) prevailed. Thus while there may have been disputes, these were either minor ones amongst friends, or fights between truth and error.

    The other extreme represents Christianity as spreading from its origin point in Jerusalem and presumably Galilee in many variations as various groups of disciples did their best to understand Jesus and what he meant. Orthodoxy is “orthodox” because it represents the winning viewpoint, not because it has some ultimate claim to being the most genuine. Ehrman plainly represents the second of these views and sees the Gospel of Judas in that light.

    While I am not fully in agreement with Ehrman on all points, I think this is an exceptionally good popular level book and a good introduction to the meaning of the Gospel of Judas. It doesn’t require any substantial background, because Ehrman provides a clear context throughout.

  • What Have They Done with Jesus? – II

    It has been some time since I wrote my first post on this book. I have been distracted by other matters.

    The first chapter really builds very little on the principles I described in my first post. Rather this deals with the historical clues we have in the gospels about two women: Joanna and Miriam of Migdal, more commonly known as Mary Magdalene.

    Working from a few historical clues, Witherington proposes to identify Joanna with Junia of Romans 16:7, who was prominent among the apostles. Having seen how annoyed some complementarians get at the suggestion that this Junia is a real apostle, I have to wonder what their reaction will be to Witherington’s proposal that she is actually the Joanna who traveled with Jesus, witnessed the crucifixion, and then, he says, was likely present at Pentecost. For the arguments in favor of this, you’ll have to get the book and read the chapter. I will just say that I have always been convinced Junia was an apostle in the fullest sense of the word, and Witherington has added to that conviction. The connection with Joanna of the Gospel of Luke is more tenuous, but not implausible.

    As for Miriam of Migdal, Witherington says several things which I had just read in Ehrman’s The Lost Gospel of Judas Iscariot. Basically both point out that most of the things we believe about her are simply not present in the text. There is nothing to suggest she was a prostitute, nor that she was Jesus’ wife. Other than the statement that seven demons had been cast out of her, none of these details are even suggested. Witherington focuses on the story of John 20 which makes her a witness to the resurrection.

    I would agree here that the story of the women as the initial witnesses to the resurrection has the ring of truth to it, if on no other basis than the criterion of embarrassment. Had the disciples not run away, it is doubtful they would have invented such a story, and had they not first heard the story of the resurrection from women, it is doubtful they would have created that story either.

    So much for chapter 1. I’ll keep blogging chapter by chapter.

  • FAQ on Theistic Evolution

    This is a reminder that even though I truly dislike the term “theistic evolutionist,” I’m continuing to develop my FAQ on Theistic Evolution. Besides listing the FAQ (far short of the number I need there) it provides links to my most recent posts here and on the Participatory Bible Study Blog that relate to theistic evolution.

  • Science Education Problem for Florida

    In today’s News Roundup from the Florida Citizens for Science blog, there is reference to a poll taken in Florida. This poll suggests that 50% of Floridians would like to see only faith-based views of origins taught in public schools.

    What is most interesting to me in the poll, however, is how it shows that increased education makes acceptance of evolution more likely. In fact, if you went outside the boundaries of the poll, you’d find that the more evolution is involved in someone’s professional or academic specialty, the more likely they are to accept the theory of evolution.

    Now conspiracy theorists suggest brainwashing. I’m sure scientists are subject to social pressure, but often less so than anyone else. In science, the opportunity to overturn a dominant theory is the road to success. People speaking against the science standards here in Florida talk about the series of dominant theories that have been overturned (see commentary at Dispatches). What these comments seem to miss is the fact that it is scientists engaging in science who have overturned those theories, and that the culture of science favors overturning.

    In addition, these same folks miss the Sunday School and church brainwashing that is possible on the other side. I know that I heard nothing until I was well into college other than young earth creationism. While I encountered evolution in a high school biology text, I was immediately also introduced to “the truth” in other materials. But all that supposed brainwashing doesn’t take. I would certainly be willing to discount the church based brainwashing if the creationist crowd will back off the the science education brainwashing.

    Those who oppose evolution have a fully valid way to attack it–get out there and do the science. Instead we have PR statements, popular books, and political maneuvering to get content that does not pass muster as science including in science courses. Let creationists do the hard work of demonstrating their view. Right now it’s not happening, and thus it is appropriate that such views are shut out of the science classroom. Please note that I say “shut out of the science classroom” and not out of public discourse or scientific discourse. Anyone should be able to engage in public discourse–and creationists are doing so. Anyone can attempt to overturn a scientific theory, but they need to present it to scientists first, not to school children.

    There are those who will argue that the majority of parents should be able to set the public school curriculum. I disagree. I think we would be appalled should the majority of the public be permitted to set curriculum in medicine or health, and even in various shop classes. What the general public knows about auto mechanics, for example, is somewhat questionable. But nobody believes they should write curriculum unless they are fully acquainted with the field. In the area of biological sciences, parents are in effect trying to write curriculum, or to get their state representatives to do so, without any qualification.

    I would hold that parents should have the ultimate control, in the form of home schooling or the use of private schools. Public school curriculum should be written by the consensus of those qualified in the field, something that has already happened with the Florida science standards. The Board of Education should approve the standards as written.

  • Need for Moderate/Liberal Hermeneutics

    It is sometimes difficult to discuss scriptural issues involved in many modern debates simply because there is so little explicit liberal hermeneutic. It’s not that there is no liberal hermeneutic; it’s simply that so few people are aware of such a thing, and it’s so badly communicated to people in the pews. Moderates have succeeded in producing something they can use with varying degrees of success, but often this is simply exceptions made to the fundamentalist or conservative evangelical hermeneutics we encounter.

    The problem, I think, results from simply telling people not to take the Bible so literally. In many churches, “literal” and “true” have become almost synonymous, and this statements sounds like saying not to take the Bible so seriously. Mainliners end up hanging between Biblical literalists on the one hand, and critical Biblical scholarship on the other, and are uncertain just what to do with scripture. Now I have no problem with critical methodology, but it has a major limitation. Once you’re done discussing the prehistory and history of the text in great deal, just what are you going to do about it?

    This is where many of us fall flat in communicating what we’re doing. The Bible is important to me, but why is that so, and how do I manage to communicate that importance to others? More importantly, just what role does the Bible play in my life, and specifically in the way I answer life’s questions? It cannot play the same role as it plays in the life of a fundamentalist who is looking for specific commands in specific verses. That’s not the way I study or understand it.

    To get a bit more specific, I am frequently asked about Genesis. How can I possible be a theistic evolutionist and still believe the Bible? Is what I practice “Biblical” Christianity?”

    Let’s start with the term “Biblical.” I believe it is horribly abused as an adjective. One cannot answer the question of whether something is Biblical or not without establishing an interpretive framework–a hermeneutic if you please. Thus if someone asks me whether my views are “Biblical” or not, and they are dispensationalist, odds are that I will not appear Biblical to them. Frankly, were I as tense as they are, they would not appear Biblical to me, simply because I see dispensationalism as something imposed on the text from the outside without adequate justification. From my perspective, I’m quite Biblical, but to the dispensationalist, who does believe that dispensationalism is Biblical, and the appropriate way to understand the Bible, I don’t look much like it.

    In response to the question about Genesis and theistic evolution, I don’t see any problem at all, because I simply do not see Genesis as narrative history, or any other form of literature that would make be believe that the events it narrates are historical. Thus I’m reading Genesis differently because of the type of literature it is. If I respond to this question by saying, “I don’t take Genesis literally,” then I really haven’t given much information. There are few literal interpretations that will work, but many non-literal. I have to be more specific.

    So I would say that in order to interpret any piece of ancient literature correctly, you need to find out what type of literature it was, and hopefully what types of questions it was intended to answer, and then read it in that light. In the case of Genesis 1-11, we have largely the language of an origin myth, and these were written in the ancient near east not to preserved historical fact but to establish social order and legitimize governments.

    Today I’m just going to make a few remarks about my view of hermeneutics. I may blog further on individual elements. I believe liberals and moderates need to be more clear about the way in which we get from text to action. If the Bible is important in my life, in what way is it important? How does it change the way I would otherwise act. Obviously I’m not talking simple exegesis here. It is not sufficient to determine what Paul meant to his first audience, but also to determine just how that can be applied in life now.

    My understanding starts with seeing the Biblical literature as the result of a community living their faith. This doesn’t exclude divine inspiration, but divine inspiration operates amongst real people at a specific time and place. Communication with these people must occur in a way that they can understand. Since the literature results from a faith community, the way it is received and created and the way the community handles and transmits it become relevant to understanding it. If the Pentateuch is built from sources that grew up over centuries, I think this is significant. It tells us something about God and the way he works just as the actual text does.

    A corollary to this is that I do not take God’s knowledge or God’s context as the basis for understanding the literature. If it was communicated to and in a community, it lived in that community and was understood by that community. I don’t believe they had a God’s eye view, and I know I don’t.

    But the understanding of that community may not be of value to me today. For example, I believe the community that heard the stories of Genesis first was comfortable with a flat earth, round like a dinner plate, with the dome of the sky above it. That was their cosmology. I know better. Later generations may improve on my understanding. I do not suddenly reread the stories from my new perspective (without other necessary adjustments), on the basis that God already knew the earth was spherical.

    Since the Bible was produced in and by a community, I am also interested in the continuity of community from that time to this, such as it is. In this way I keep connection and continuity in a changing world. I also bring in tradition in this way.

    At the same time I recognize that I understand this through my own experiences, and that my connections to my modern community, especially my spiritual community (a United Methodist congregation) provide a framework in which I understand it. There are, however, ways other than revelation from which I get knowledge, and these are added in as well, by means of science.

    Finally there are two elements that I believe work closely together. First is reason (also part of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral which some may recognize here in parts), which doesn’t seem to me to be a separate source of knowledge but rather the means by which we comprehend all the rest. Some Christians disdain reason, but you will form doctrines using your reason in any case. The only question is how well you do this. The second of these two elements is the Holy Spirit, guiding us into all truth. I think the Holy Spirit is more active than we often believe, and I think we need to be open to continuing guidance.

    The result of this is often nothing at all like what a fundamentalist or conservative evangelical would get from the text. Yet in order to understand that difference we have to look at how we interpret and apply what what we read.

    I hope to discuss these elements some more. This is such a brief look. As I said there is a great deal of quite good moderate and liberal hermeneutics out there. It just doesn’t seem to filter down to the pews as well as I would like.