Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Myth of Galileo

    Joe Carter is debunking the Galileo myth. And a pretty reasonable debunking it is. I’ve read quite a few debunkings of the myth before, and such things are rather important, considering some versions of the story. I’m pretty sure someone in elementary school told me that Galileo was condemned for saying that the earth was round. That surely came from someone who misunderstood Columbus (who’s real issue was the circumference of the earth) and then confused him with Galileo. What stays in place through all these versions is that Galileo was discovering something new, and the church wasn’t anxious for him to do that.

    Now Carter’s debunking, while quite good, and while drawing some very appropriate lessons, reminded me of an incident in my freshman year of college. A sociology professor who professed communism challenged me in class when I quoted 66,000,000 people killed in the process of bringing communism to the Soviet Union. I forget who calculated the number of the details, but Solzhenitsyn cites a statistician who calculated that number in The Gulag Archipelago. My teacher, every mindful of defending good communists everywhere said, “Oh, that’s greatly exaggerated. More likely there were only 40,000,000.”

    The comparison here is not views of the cosmos versus killing people, but rather the idea that diminishing the damage tends to make people forget the essence of the claim. If one’s claim is exaggerated (or wrong), then even if a great wrong was done, people will start to ignore it. They remember that it was exaggerated. In the case of Galileo, I often see the result of debunking. “Oh,” says someone, “he was not treated as badly as the story indicates.” And they decide to give the Catholic hierarchy of the time a free pass.

    But when exaggeration is removed, Galileo’s lack of additional evidence is considered, and any amount of obnoxious behavior on his part is factored in, we still have a scientist who was told by the church to shut up. That’s not good. Now we need to keep in mind the times as well. Comparing the behavior of the church of the time with modern standards of academic freedom is an injustice to some extent as well.

    But as a Christian, I still have to ask if we shouldn’t be better than that. After all, we claim divine guidance. We claim great hope. I would not demand that reformation come instantly, or that the church be wonderfully far ahead of the world around it. I’d just ask that it be a little bit ahead, or more accurately a little bit better. (“Ahead” begs the question of whether we’re going the right way!) The same challenge faces the church today. Are we really doing anything but following cultural trends? In many cases, I think we are not.

    There is a further problem with views of Galileo, and that is the unfortunate idea that the Bible should be used to provide or to test scientific answers. I will repeat what I have said before–there is nothing in the Bible that cannot be adequately understood with the cosmology of the ancient near east. There is no advance of physical science provided by divine revelation. I would ask anyone who disagrees to point to such a thing in scripture. Testing cosmology by scripture is a colossal waste of time. We should no by now that theology is not the best approach to knowledge of the physical world.

    So that leaves me with two elements of the Galileo incident. First, there is a church (and state) that believes it can put someone on trial because they either believe what is false or are obnoxious. Second, that church is testing such ideas by a standard and using methods that are not capable of producing accurate results. Both of those things are terribly bad. They’re not friendly to science.

    Let’s not replace the myth of Galileo the pure and righteous punished by the church with a myth of a church behaving in a fully reasonable fashion. There was still an inquisition, the decision was still wrong, the place and the method was inappropriate to their purpose, and the decision made turned out, not surprisingly to be on the wrong side of history.

    Why does the myth persist? Simple. The victors write the history, and Galileo happened to be right, and the pope was wrong. He should have just sucked it up and let Galileo insult him. It would have provided a better legacy.

  • Is This Pastor Going to Hell?

    According to an e-mail received by the Rev. John Shuck, he is. And what is the great sin for which he may already be damned? He has signed the Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science. Thus, according to the letter, he is teaching a “damning doctrine,” and may actually be reprobate. On the off-chance he’s not, the writer does pray that God will grant him repentance.

    Now I have to just take a short side trip through the joys of soteriology, particularly views of the atonement and justification. Apparently, according to some, while you are justified by faith, apart from works, and you cannot earn your salvation through any good works, you can quite easily be damned by misunderstanding obscure points of doctrine. Apparently God’s grace is sufficient to cover murder, for example, but balks at failure to comprehend the true nature of the fall. This “salvation by correct doctrine” seems to me to me a new and damnable (gotta love that word!) form of salvation by works, only now the works are intellectual rather than spiritual. Pity the poor person who simply can’t work his mind around the precise doctrinal definitions required before one can receive God’s grace.

    In any case, there is one other thing on which I wanted to comment. Rev. Shuck sees here an indication of the reason some people are so fiercely determined to make us accept Genesis literally as some kind of literal history of the cosmos. It’s because death, according to this view, must result from sin, so how could you have evolution before human sin? After all, it’s survival of the fittest, meaning some die, and that’s anathema (another word I can’t resist after reading the letter) to some Christians.

    But here is where many Christians need to pay close attention. There is, in fact, only one of the many interpretations of Genesis that has a perfect world, into which physical death of all types is introduced by sin–young earth creationism. Other very common Christian interpretations, even among evangelicals, allow physical death before the fall. They have to. Where, for example, could an old earth creationist imagine fossils to come from? Old earth creationists aren’t that stupid–they believe that living creatures died before the fall. Many of them, by the simple expedient of thinking “spiritual/eternal” when they read of the death that followed sin, don’t have any problem with the fall at all.

    Unfortunately many Christians who hold these various views other than young earth creationism are not aware of the various interpretations, and aren’t aware that young earth creationists aren’t arguing their view–that God is simply the creator, however he worked–but rather are arguing for a 6,000 year old earth, and some incomprehensible variety of ecology in which no living thing died. There’s a mental experiment for you. Design an ecology in which every living creature continues to live forever, and yet reproduces.

    I suspect that the problem of the atonement does drive a great deal of creationism, and the entire debate would probably become a bit less contentious if the young earth crowd was not involved. Nonetheless it is interesting to see such obscure points of doctrine create such heat.

  • Repentance and Rejoicing

    I’ve written a pamphlet, which I provide free on my Participatory Study Series site, titled Repentance and Rejoicing. With the current lectionary including Psalm 32, I thought I’d reprint it. It is outlined around Psalm 51, but much the same material can be taught using Psalm 32.

    But if we confess our sins to God, he can always be trusted to forgive us and take our sins away.
    – 1 John 1:9

    How can I confess my sins and receive forgiveness?

    Psalm 51 provides an example of repentance.

    1.  Acknowledge – verse 3

    I know about my sins, and I cannot forget my terrible guilt.

    Completely admit to what you have done wrong, without excuses.

    2.  Cleanse – verse 7

    Wash me with hyssop until I am clean and whiter than snow.

    Ask God to cleanse you and make you whole.

    3.  Restore – verse 12

    Make me as happy as you did when you saved me; make me want to obey!

    Ask to be restored to God’s favor.

    4.  Teach – verse 13

    I will teach sinners your Law, and they will return to you.

    You teach others by sharing your testimony about what God has done in your life.

    5.  Praise God – verse 15

    Help me to speak, and I will praise you, Lord.

    Praise God for what He has done. This has the additional effect of reminding you of what He has done and keeping you humble before Him.

    6.  Worship – verses 18, 19

    Then you will be pleased with the proper sacrifices, and we will offer bulls on your altar once again.

    Worship is the natural consequence of a relationship with God.

    I asked for forgiveness and still I feel guilty. What is wrong?

    There are several ways in which repentance can fail.

    • Making excuses instead of fully acknowledging guilt

    See the story of Saul in 1 Samuel 15, especially verses 20 and 21. Instead of acknowledging his guilt, he denies it and adds an excuse. Contrast David’s action in 2 Samuel 11.

    David vs. Saul
    2 Samuel 11-12 1 Samuel 13-15
    Murder and Adultery Disobedience
    Prophet sent Prophet sent
    Admits guilt Denies guilt and makes excuses
    Accepts punishment as just Complains about punishment
    Is accepted by God Is rejected by God

    Before I confessed my sins, my bones felt limp, and I groaned all day long. . . . So I confessed my sins and told them all to you. . . . Then you forgave me and took away my guilt.

    – Psalm 32:3-5

    • Not fully changing your mind about your actions

    To repent means to change your mind. If you are not determined to change, you have not really repented.

    • No desire for cleansing

    Forgiveness is followed by cleansing. If we don’t want the cleansing, we won’t receive the forgiveness.

    • Refusing joy

    Sometimes being sorrowful makes us feel important, so we refuse the joy of restoration.

    Repentance puts us back in line with the heavenly attitude. Refusing joy takes us back off the heavenly attitude.

    Jesus said, "In the same way there is more happiness in heaven because of one sinner who turns to God than over ninety-nine good people who don’t need to."

    – Luke 15:7

    • Unworthiness

    Feeling that you cannot possibly be cleansed or be fit for God’s kingdom. But God has made us fit for his kingdom.

    All of this shows that God judges fairly and that he is making you fit to share in his kingdom for which you are suffering.
    – 2 Thessalonians 1:5

    • Unbelief

    Either you don’t believe that God can forgive you or will forgive you. (See 1 John 1:9)

    If you forgive others for the wrongs they do to you, your Father in heaven will forgive you. But if you don’t forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.
    – Matthew 6:14, 15

    • Unforgiveness

    Unforgiveness includes holding onto our resentments and grudges. We can fail to forgive because we have been hurt to much. We can also fail to forgive because we refuse to admit that we have been hurt.

    You know that you have been taught, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you.” – Matthew 5:38, 39a

    What is the unpardonable sin?

    One of the tasks of the Holy Spirit is to convict of sin. If we turn away the Holy Spirit so much that we no longer hear His voice, we will no longer ask for pardon and it will, in fact, be too late.

    I’m still having a hard time. Do I have to rejoice?

    One of the rewards of an ongoing relationship with God is a trust in what God is doing. When we trust God for the final result, we can have peace and joy even in trouble. (Romans 5:3-5)

    We gladly suffer, because we know that suffering helps us to endure. And endurance builds character, which gives us a hope that will never disappoint us.
    – Romans 5:3b-5a

    Scriptures marked “adapted” were translated and adapted by Henry E. Neufeld for this pamphlet.

    All other scripture quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 buy the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved.

    (This material is available in the form of a pamphlet in PDF or Word format here.)

  • Mississippi Legislator Wants to Play Nanny

    His bill would require restaurants not to serve certain things to people who are obese. You know, those teenagers behind the counter at McDonalds would determine whether you are obese or not. More here at Junk Food Science with hat tips to The Agitator and Dispatches.

  • The Need for Church Politics

    No, I’m not talking about the church getting involved in politics in general, nor about politicians speaking in church. I’m talking about the politics that goes into actually running the church. There’s a great deal of politics involved in the way churches are governed. But I’m not going to call for less–I’m going to call for more.

    You see, I believe that politics can range from the greatest curse to the greatest blessing in a church. One thing is impossible, however–to make the church free of politics. When people get together and make decisions in a group, politics happens. It’s not a bad thing; it’s the way we work together.

    What can be a very bad thing is when politics is left to go its own way and simply develop naturally. Then church Machiavellis, sometimes known as spiritual leaders, get to take over just because nobody else is involved. Now don’t intend either to put down real spiritual leaders or spiritual leadership qualities. The problem is when we don’t pay attention to how people get into leadership and how people lead after thay are in leadership, we often get people who think they are great spiritual leaders into positions where we need actual spiritual leaders.

    I have spent some time with folks involved in the charismatic movement within the United Methodist Church. I’m a bit of a charismatic myself, and have been dubbed a “liberal charismatic.” Now folks who are charismatic are much more interested in the work of the Spirit, in spontaneity, and following the guidance of the Spirit than they are in church rules, policies, and procedures.

    I noticed two things, and I think they both result from this attitude. First, committees in the church tended not to favor the charismatic position. Some of the charismatic folks would refuse to serve, some would miss meetings, and some simply couldn’t stand all the debate over details. It all has so little to do with being spiritual! Second, charismatic activities would nonetheless take on a certain order. The “spontaneous” worship services very often had quite a precise order, and someone who came from another charismatic church could get caught by that. This order came from the folks who gravitated into leadership in the charismatic group. Thus politics happened whether people wanted it to happen or not, and whether they thought it was happening or not. The actual difference came in who made the decisions and how.

    Complaining in a church can also, like politics, be anything from a great curse to a great blessing. It’s the church politics that often makes the difference as to which it is. If the various boards, committees, work teams, or whatever you call them are doing their job, church members are complaining to the right people, and those people listen, then it can be a blessing. If people are just complaining to one another, then it’s just gossip, and it will tear the church down. If people complain when things are bad and pass out praise and compliments when things are going well, that is also a blessing. Some people only come out of the woodwork when they are really unhappy.

    My basic point is that church politics will exist. The one thing we can do is try to make it happen in such a way as to build up rather than tear down. In order to make it build up we need to all get involved in some way, we need to graciously call people to account as necessarily, but also provide positive feedback as necessary. We need to take up positions as we are called by God, and try not to miss God’s call because we really don’t want to be in the position.

    Above all we shouldn’t be afraid of an intense, but constructive discussion. Too often we regard a vigorous debate as contrary to church unity. Normally, the failure to carefully examine something simply protects vested interests in the church. Yes, people build little empires in church organization too. Of course, I must add a caveat here too–vigorous debate means constructive vigorous debate in which all are looking for solutions.

    Politics is. Get involved. Make it a blessing.

  • Book Meme

    I’ve been tagged by C.Orthodoxy with the book meme. Here’s the meme:

    • Pick up the nearest book (of at least 123 pages).
    • Open the book to page 123.
    • Find the fifth sentence.
    • Post the next three sentences.
    • Tag five people.

    I don’t usually do these, and this is going to be funny, because I happened to be sitting on the couch where I had gone to read a commentary on 2 Corinthians, and had taken a break to look at the blog when I saw the tag. Thus this may not make a lot of sense. I can’t think of a book less likely to produce sense from a random location. 🙂

    Update: Via a comment I came to realize I hadn’t specified which commentary on 2 Corinthians. It is Victor Furnish, Anchor Bible: 2 Corinthians.

    If Phil was indeed written from Ephesus, then it is possible that Paul has the same imprisonment in mind as he writes now of the affliction . . . in Asia (2 Cor 1:8). The following points of correspondence between the present passage and Phil 1 and 2 may be noted: (a) Both passages refer to a life-threatening experience (2 Cor 1:8-9; Phil 1:20-23; 2:12-18; cf. Georgi 1965:46). (b) The presence of Timothy (Phil 2:19-23) could account for the use of the first person plural in 2 Cor 1:8ff., even though Timothy himself was probably not a prisoner.

    I suspect this may be in the running as the least comprehensible extract resulting from this meme!

    I tag:

  • Florida Science Standards Petition

    The proposed new Florida standards give evolution its proper place in science education. The petition is posted here, and you can find further information on it on the Florida Citizens for Science blog.

    Whether you are in the state of Florida or not, please go and sign. We will give separate counts for the in-state and out of state signers when the petition is presented.

  • An Evangelist for Evolution

    The Rev. Michael Dowd is preaching a surprising message: Evolution is real and science points to the existence of God. (Source: .)

    Rev. Dowd also joins the growing group who acknowledge that accepting evolution does impact one’s theology in some ways. I find his specific take interesting.

    One theme that seems to get someone entry into Christian venues is the idea that science can help support faith. Those who say, “Evolution is true, live with it” don’t get so much of a hearing. Unfortunately, while I believe that scientific evidence can be seen as consistent with the existence of God, I see nothing that forces or drives the conclusion that there truly is a God. Often the evidence makes one drop some definition of God that one had held before.

    In a comment to a previous post Larry B. writes:

    In the same (but different) way, I honestly feel that evolution for a lot of people has unmoored more than a few christians from their foundations.

    (I don’t want to copy the whole comment here, but it is worthwhile reading the entire context.)

    I agree with this statement, but would ask what is the proper response? If people have faith that God will heal everyone for whom prayer is offered, they will very possibly be “unmoored” from that faith when reality doesn’t accord with their expectations. In the case of evolution, I suggest that there is more education needed amongst Christians about the implications and possibilities, so that people can make intelligent decisions.

    I do think it is important to note the real challenges to theology, and to welcome, rather than fear questions. Christianity is ultimately doomed if it cannot find a more friendly way to co-exist with challenges. There’s the “fall over and play dead” option and the “circle the wagons option.” We need more folks in the “let’s have fun with this” camp!

    Or at least that’s my take on it.

  • Republicans for Obama

    There’s an interesting article in Newsweek on Republicans supporting Obama. These are not people who are angry that it appears the nomination will not go to someone who is regarded as soundly conservative. They are inspired by Barack Obama.

  • God is not that Vulnerable

    I had a short conversation with a friend and client the other day and I thought I’d share the key point. This man is a professional with a substantial scientific education, and also a devout Christian. On his desk was the book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. That got us chatting about evolution, and how so many people were bothered by it. He wasn’t even aware that Dawkins was an atheist, nor did he care.

    He said something very interesting that would have taken me several convoluted paragraphs to get across. Referring to those who feel their faith threatened by evolution he said, “God is not that vulnerable.”

    Hmmm! That works for me.