Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Christian Carnival Posted

    The latest Christian carnival is Ancient Hebrew Poetry.

  • Random Designer Wrap-Up

    I found the last several chapters of Random Designer quite attractive, I think partially because I’m from a Wesleyan background. We cross the “somehow” barrier and find that human beings, by whatever means that was accomplished, want to connect with their creator. In chapter 20, this is presented as “A Choice and a Chance.” The following quote (also used as an inset quote in the book) gives the flavor:

    An intimate, meaningful, and fulfilling relationship cannot be required. It can only be offered! Without the possibility of rejection, there is no opportunity for meaningful connection.

    Here I think Dr. Colling gets into one of the key potentials involved in looking at humanity from an evolutionary perspective, yet doing so as a theist, though I don’t know if he would go as far as I do. God takes risks by being the Random Designer instead of the complete dictator. There is the risk inherent in creation itself. Just what type of creature will arise that will think and connect? There is also the risk inherent in relationship. Will the person who seeks a relationship with God become a better person, or will he use the “specialness” of that relationship as an excuse to lord it over others? My own answers thus tend toward an “openness of God” theology. (Please be certain to distinguish my commentary here from Dr. Colling’s. Dr. Colling does not embrace the openness of God theology in the text.)

    Chapter 21, God’s Will: A Confusing Concept Becomes Crystal Clear promises clarity on a difficult topic, and here I have to express a bit of amusement. In general, once we come to an understanding of an issue, we think it’s crystal clear. I get caught here too. When teaching classes on the book of Revelation, I will inevitably be asked about some commentary in which the author says he has worked out the meaning of Revelation and it’s really very simple. I can point out that I have a row of commentaries on Revelation and several of them make a similar claim, yet do not agree on the meaning! So there are at least half a dozen crystal clear meanings to the book of Revelation.

    Understanding God’s will is rather similar, I believe. While I actually like Dr. Colling’s explanation, and I think he points in the right direction at least, it would probably take only a few minutes in a room with a Calvinist to get it all pretty confused again. Of course both Calvinist and Arminian would leave with a clear understanding–just different clear understandings.

    The chapter content is good. I think the subtitle is perhaps a bit optimistic, but then those who have no optimism don’t write books!

    Chapter 22, the rewards of perseverance builds on the spiritual view of humanity, while chapter 23 introduces the concept of “higher order random design.” I am not going to try to summarize this one. The key example is to be found in the human immune system. I think I followed it, but I am uncertain I can express it again myself. It does indeed express again the way in which randomness can produce order and design.

    Chapter 24 takes a step out into the unknown by suggesting that the genome may be as loaded as is possible and that we may well not move to greater complexity than human beings. It’s an interesting point, but one which I am woefully unqualified to analyze.

    Finally, chapter 25 deals with the call to relationship with the creator again. The form of expression and the theology here is very comfortable for me as it coincides closely with my own.

    Wrap-Up!

    This is the first time I have tried to blog through a book rather than read it completely and then write a few short notes or attempt a review. I see advantages and disadvantages. In once case, I re-read a section and commented on it further due to readers’ remarks. I think that second read had some value. So much for the process.

    What do I think of the book overall? I regard the first section as one of the best explanations of the basics of evolutionary theory for a layman that I have read. It does not involve the detail that a book like What Evolution Is includes, nor does it have the spice of Evolution, Triumph of an Idea, but it has substantial advantages too.

    First, I think it makes clear both the complexity of life and the power of the “random design” concept. Variation + Natural selection works. Dr. Colling is not afraid to look at abiogenesis and give us an idea of where the science is there as well. I think it is quite appropriate to separate abiogenesis from the biological theory of evolution for many purposes. At the same time, for many people the origin of life is the major question.

    Second, Dr. Colling is clearly an excellent teacher, and can explain complex processes simply. He apologizes to his colleagues in the scientific community for the extent to which he will simplify, and having read other materials, I know he is simplifying considerably, yet I do believe he gives an overall excellent picture. When looking at the forest one might misidentify a tree or two while still getting the shape of the forest.

    Third, Dr. Colling is talking about evolution in theistic terms, even when he is not talking about divine intervention. The recognition of God as the creator, and more precisely of God as the Random Designer underlies the entire book. The science is not divorced from theology, though science and theology are each given their spheres, their separate identity and their separate subject matter.

    Finally, these earlier points mean that this is a book for Christians and other theists who want to understand how one can still perceive God in an evolving world, as well as for those who want to understand how a theist can possibly manage that. One of my responses to the claim that nobody can be a theistic evolutionist is simply: And yet here I am. Well, now “here’s Dr. Richard Colling.” The second half of the book is a more explicit expression of the Christian faith that was always present even in the first half.

    One thing that struck me throughout was the basic honesty of this whole book. We have intelligent design proponents trying to pretend to do science without identifying their intelligent designer. Dr. Colling is unafraid to state from the start who he means by the Random Designer. That freedom comes with a lack of ulterior motives. This isn’t a sneaky way to get a specific type of “random design theory” into high school classrooms. It’s simply an expression of how one scientist who is also a man of faith sees God in random design.

    I would strongly recommend this book for any Christian who is considering the creation-evolution controversy, and also for anyone who wants to understand where many people of faith stand in terms of the relationship between science and theology. It is clear, informative, and challenging. I can’t ask for much more in a book!

  • New Year Blog Dressup

    I spent a good bit of time yesterday dressing up my blogs for the new year. This unseemly waste of time on the merely visual probably came to pass because I’m fighting a cold.

    I like to keep my three blogs, this original Threads blog, and the two I derived from it (Participatory Bible Study Blog, and the Jevlir Caravansary) similar in appearance. I’ve used the same theme on all three with a different header image and different sidebar arrangements.

    For those who may be new to Threads, I created the Participatory Bible Study Blog in order to separate material strictly on Biblical exegesis from the more general “religion and society” theme of this blog, and the Jevlir Caravansary to separate out my occasional flights into fiction or poetry writing. While Threads is my personal blog, I do stay closer to my professional work in religious education here. My life is divided these days between writing and teaching on the one hand, and continuing computer business on the other. As I’ve developed the teaching ministry, I’ve spent less and less time on the computers. In turn, the computer business is divided into managing networks for small businesses, which provides a steady income, and the occasional spurt of activity producing custom software. It will probably surprise nobody who is involved in any ministry work that while I spend probably 80%+ of my time on the writing/teaching, and 20% on the computer related business, a majority of my income still comes via technology. I call it modern tentmaking.

    As for the new year, my plan (business plan, not resolution) involves putting more time into writing, especially for print, and spreading the other work around.

    A blessed New Year to all!

  • Happy New Year!

    I’m starting the new year with a new theme for this blog. I’ll be using a similar theme for both my Threads and Jevlir Caravansary blogs. The basic design is from here. All I have modified is the header image.

  • My Theological Worldview

    . . . at least according to this quiz. (HT: Gentle Wisdom)

    What’s your theological worldview?
    created with QuizFarm.com
    You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

    You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God’s grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

    Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan
    		93%

    Emergent/Postmodern
    		75%

    Roman Catholic
    		61%

    Charismatic/Pentecostal
    		54%

    Neo orthodox
    		54%

    Classical Liberal
    		54%

    Modern Liberal
    		43%

    Reformed Evangelical
    		18%

    Fundamentalist
    		0%

    I suppose that settles it. Not!

  • Preachers: Respecting without Idolizing

    Eddie Arthur at Kouya Chronicle comments on recent debates about John Piper and justification. Amongst other things, he says this:

    It might surprise some of you that I recommend Doug’s articles because in his review of Piper’s criticism of Wright, Doug comes down fairly and squarely on the side of Wright, not Piper. For most Evangelicals John Piper has a status approaching infallible. However, on this question, everything I’ve read leads me to side with Tom Wright (though I will fully admit to not yet having read Piper’s book).

    (HT: Gentle Wisdom, in a related post, also well worth reading.)

    Eddie is to be congratulated on his attitude of respect for John Piper, while at the same time being willing to recognize where Piper is not quite so strong. After reading Eddie’s blog for some time, I would have expected no less. But many Christians find it difficult to both hold a preacher or teacher in high regard and disagree with them. If we shift the cultural and religious context, and refer to leaders instead, I suspect it is a strongly human characteristic. We like to either like or dislike someone, and to do so without qualification.

    There will be those who think I don’t respect Piper at all. After all, I have criticized him recently. But I have also appreciated what he has to say on many topics, including prosperity theology, though I differ there in the details. Mark Driscoll is another preacher I have criticized, but also one from whom I have much to learn. My theological perspective is very, very different from these two men, yet I find myself continually blessed by interacting with what they write, even–or especially–when I dislike it.

    The other day my wife and I were watching 60 minutes on Joel O’Steen. Now if you want to find a preacher who gets on my nerves there he is. There’s all the glitzy, prosperity oriented, shallow, showmanship that I dislike most. When the segment was over my wife and I discussed it. We frequently do this, because we both teach, and often do so together. We found that there were things we could learn from the work in ministry, as well as many things that we both deplore. I look, for example, at the time he spends on his sermons. Wouldn’t it be great if more preachers spent that kind of time and effort on their proclamation of the word each Sunday!

    My wife frequently gives a portion of her testimony when we’re teaching. She was greatly blessed and had a life-changing experience with the Holy Spirit at the Brownsville Revival here in Pensacola. Now many readers will again be surprised that I have any connection with Brownsville, given the more rationalistic tone of my own faith. But those who have read my own testimony will perhaps remember this. She tells of how she was powerfully changed and for many weeks continued attending the revival and drinking in everything that evangelist Steve Hill had to say. Then came the night when he read a text and made a point and she said, “That’s not right! That’s not what that text said!” With a bit of thought she realized that two things were compatible. Steve Hill could be wrong. Steve Hill could be God’s instrument in a powerful change in her life. The two things were not incompatible. She tells that as an important point of maturity in her Christian faith.

    I blogged yesterday about being willing to live with uncertainty. Just as we like certainty about the facts we use in living our daily lives, we also like certainty in our leaders. A preacher is either good or bad, not quite good but fallible. But that is the wrong perspective. We are all human, all fallible, all less than perfect. I can often learn from people whose behavior I do not like, or whose teaching grates on me in many ways. At the same time, I must always be aware that even people I truly appreciate may be in error.

    I need to respect preachers, teachers, and leaders, without making the mistake of idolizing them.

  • The Quest for Absolute Certainty

    When I was a teenager, I was very involved in electronics, something that has stuck with me. My first real efforts at understanding science came in working with electricity. One day I was discussing the theory of electricity, and specifically how it “moves” through a circuit with my father, also an electronics hobbyist. We had gone through electrons moving from one atom to the next, and the reasons why some things are better conductors than others, and why some things are so bad as conductors that they are insulators. This all applied to some circuit or another I wanted to build.

    Then my father dropped a bombshell. “You know this is all a theory,” he said.

    “What do you mean by theory?” I asked. To me at that point a theory was something not so well established. There were facts and then there were theories. Facts were good, theories were not so good.

    “Well,” he continued, “we don’t actually observe subatomic particles in motion. We don’t know that an atom looks like those drawings you have.”

    “So we don’t really know any of this? What good is it then?” Of course I well knew that I could build circuits based on it, but teenagers aren’t required to be logical with a parent.

    “The theory does what it’s supposed to. It explains what we observe. It works. That’s all it has to do.”

    “Oh.”

    But somewhere deep inside I was upset. I liked my little pictures of atoms. I wanted to believe that they were just that way, and that if I could get a good enough microscope, I could actually observe those little electrons doing their thing. Now electricity is based on very good theory, and it does work. My dad was himself a young earth creationist, though we never discussed that much. I suspect now that he was more along the Kurt Wise type–there may be substantial evidence for evolution, but the Bible says otherwise, so we must believe–only he never felt the need to work on a real theory.

    (more…)

  • On Being Moderately Sheeplish

    Joe Carter has had a salubrious encounter with the human mind, such as it is, and has discovered that conservatives are sheeple too. “I have to confess that I’d always associated sheeplishness with the Left,” he starts out, but then notes how, in his new role with the Huckabee campaign, he has found sheeplishness amongst conservatives as well. He thinks he should have known this all along.

    Well, give yourself a break, Joe. It’s easy to assume that people who agree with one’s well thought out opinions are obviously brilliant and agree only because, having thoroughly examined all the evidence, they are impressed with the brilliance of those opinions. Then one encounters the so-called “popular mind” in action, and one finds out that this isn’t precisely so. And I’m not trying to be particularly sarcastic here about Joe. It really is easy to do, and quite natural. (Oh, and I had considered writing something about Huckabee’s foreign policy, as I thought it was getting badly treated, but since I’m not a Republican I never got up the energy to do the necessary research.)

    The addiction to secondary and tertiary sources is becoming (if it hasn’t already become) endemic in our culture. For many of us the facts come from purveyors of opinion without regard to references, sources, context, and logic. It’s not a particular failing of the left or the right, no matter how much each side would like to think it is. Much of public discourse occurs without fact checking. We believe what is said by folks we regard as authorities and we choose authorities based on how sympathetic they are to our own viewpoint. Often we avoid reading those who may disagree, and thus reinforce our feeling of rightness. How could those other folks disagree, given the overwhelming array of authorities (the six people whose blogs I read and who agree with me) who support our position.

    Now since I call myself a moderate, I need to add here that moderates are by no means immune to the problem. There’s a particular form of the problem that afflicts moderates in which we look for the extreme positions on an issue, not so that we can study the evidence for them and determine our position without excluding any option, but for the purpose of avoiding the extremes. Moderate sheeple make sure that they can in no way be regarded as extreme. That doesn’t mean that they are resistant to following leaders. Rather, they look for leaders who stay well away from the edges on any issue, and follow them.

    It’s very difficult to avoid this problem. I know I have caught myself following someone’s lead on a point without checking a few times, and it’s embarrassing. The answer, of course, is to check your facts, then check your logic, then check them both again. The only way to avoid simply following one’s impressions and feelings is to explicitly look at the foundations of one’s positions. But this is hard work, and modern journalism and popular writing is not helping us carry out the task.

    The tendency now is to cite a number of viewpoints. Balance in journalism means that one gives the various views on the topic. In politics, you get a Republican and a Democrat to tell you what they think, and you have balance. You get a Christian and an atheist to express their views on religion, and you have balance. Evaluation of the issues involved don’t matter.

    I’m sure we’ve all seen documentaries such as those that come out just about every Easter on the historical Jesus. Several scholars are interviewed, and as the material is narrated, we get short clips of what those individuals may say. But we never get their actual evaluation of the evidence in enough detail to judge for ourselves what they are saying. I rarely watch one of those shows all the way through, because I become agitated. In general I will have read at least something by every scholar they cite, and as they take abbreviated quotes from those authors and charge forward I become more and more agitated until I must choose between changing the channel and damaging the TV when I throw something at the narrator’s head.

    We have people getting the impression that they know something about the search for the historical Jesus when most couldn’t identify a pericope, or define what is meant by form, source, or redaction criticism, or identify one or two criteria which any group of scholars might use to determine historicity.

    Of course, they believe the documentary is balanced, because they have shown a variety of viewpoints. We’ve gotten to the place where people don’t think it’s nice to evaluate ideas. But some ideas are really stupid. Some ideas are really dangerous. Are we to expect journalists to simply present all sides without giving any kind of evaluation? That seems to be the way that we’re going, and I hear these complaints from people all across the spectrum of political and religious beliefs.

    I would suggest that we don’t want neutral media. We want diverse media. These days we have no reason to believe we won’t get diverse viewpoints because there are many sources available. Of course, those sheeple who are looking for a leader to follow will get their information from the easiest source, but in the modern world it’s very difficult to actually exclude an idea from discourse. Just consider the intelligent design movement. Never has a “suppressed” idea been so loudly and constantly proclaimed.

    Many today seem to think that “all men are created equal” somehow means that “everything is equal.” We want equal results, equal time, and so forth. But not everybody deserves the same amount of attention. Not every idea deserves the same amount of exposure and proclamation. A few more facts, a few more references, and a little more evaluation would go a long way.

  • Random Designer VI – Take 2

    After some comments that followed my post Random Designer VI, I decided to go back and re-read those chapters to try to make sure I was reading Dr. Colling correctly. I have also finished reading the book and thus am no longer in danger of responding to something which will be clarified in later chapters.

    I want to emphasize that I believe Dr. Colling is full orthodox in his expression of Christian faith in these chapters. The problem comes in when he tries to express how the material in the first part of the book, in which he has expressed a purely natural view of the evolution of life on earth, from abiogenesis through human beings. Human beings, by this account, are biologically related to all other life forms. Now while he expresses a natural view of evolution, God is always on the horizon, as the source of the laws and processes that are involved.

    When he turns to the relationship between God and these people who have involved, we have what appears to be a disconnect. Somehow we have been created to connect with our creator, at the same time as we have evolved as biological entities. I think that the place where many people have a disconnect with evolution is right there, with the word “somehow.” (“Somehow” is my term, but I believe the gap exists in the book as well.)

    I can’t blame some people from taking my description as expressing an unjustified dualism. God kind of pops in and makes man special at the very last moment, so we have an act of spiritual, not physical creation. But Dr. Colling doesn’t express it that way in the book. That element results from my abbreviation of the story. It’s true that he does not propose any sort of detail in terms of how God would accomplish that goal, but in so doing he seems to leave the “how” question here open. There’s this human creature that evolves, and then he desires to be in connection with his creator, the “Random Designer.” How did this happen? Well, we’re not precisely sure. Dr. Colling provides some metaphors.

    In a sense I’m much less excited with the second half of the book than I was with the first. Don’t take that as sharp criticism. I’m ecstatic about the quality of the first part, and it would be some accomplishment to keep me that excited about the second part as well.

    The first thing I would like to see is some better connection between evolutionary theory and the Genesis account, i.e. some explicit discussion of the scriptural passages. Dr. Colling does not do that. There’s an excellent excuse, in that one wants to keep a book like this to a reasonable length. But of the many hundreds of questions I’ve been asked regarding evolution, that is always the first one–how can I believe in evolution and read Genesis? Indeed, I recall me teacher in elementary school (during the 4 years out of my first 12 I was not homeschooled) informing me that we memorized Genesis 1 & 2 (and we did, every word in the KJV), because it would then be so ingrained in our minds that we would never accept evolution. Nonetheless is is not surprising that there is not extended discussion of these issues. One could write a separate book on that topic.

    The second issue is in dealing with the image of God, what it is, and how one gets the image of God. Perhaps someone whose training is primarily theological (or more precisely in Biblical studies/languages) would be hungry for more detailed theological integration of the material about humanity, where we fit, and how we connect with God. But despite a good deal of discussion, I still feel the “somehow” gap.

    For a non-theologian, Dr. Colling does a good job tackling the issues involved. I’m wondering, however, if there are not more theologians to the more conservative end of the spectrum who would look at this. We do have some good scientists from the evangelical camp working on it, and they are generally pretty good at theology, but I haven’t seen much in the way of solid work on science and religion from the evangelical side. This may reflect my reading habits more than availability of the material. I would welcome comments on what is available.

    From my own perspective, John Haught does quite an excellent job, but I’m not so sure that this would satisfy those in the evangelical community.

    As a final note, I personally believe that the creator would enter into communion with any creature who developed consciousness. I think it highly likely that he does so with many, many creatures elsewhere in the universe. I don’t think anything special is needed except God’s willingness to communicate. I think it is inevitable that if this universe is contingent, and thus there is a creator, that we would reach out to that creator. Thus I don’t envision any separate, special act of creation. That may, however, be too far out there for some of my more conservative brethren.

    I will finish this series with one more post on the final chapters of the book. I do intend to recommend it strongly. It’s a great contribution to Christian understanding of the theory of evolution.

  • Christian Carnival CCIV

    It’s the day after Christmas and what a mess! I bet that’s what many are saying, anyhow. Our Christmas has been very quiet this year. That’s because my wife ended up taking all the traditional holidays working, and our grandchildren don’t arrive until the end of the week. We’ve done a little bit, but the excitement starts when the grandkids arrive!

    To divide up today’s carnival, I’ve chosen to use a phrase from the membership vows for the United Methodist Church. I don’t intend to be denominational on this, though I am a member of a United Methodist congregation. But I like the elements here. Each member promises to support the church through his or her “prayers, presence, gifts, and service.” As is usual, I’ll be using a bit of creativity in dividing the posts in order to create some balance. There wasn’t much on prayer, for example, but I’ll slide a couple of extras into the category. I’ve arbitrarily put the more theological posts under “presence” as when else would you hear about these things?

    Prayers

    Ched presents A Christmas Nightmare . . . posted at Says Simpleton.

    James DeLelys presents Look with your Heart! posted at Author James DeLelys.

    Jody Neufeld presents Oh Holy Night! a Christmas meditation based on the song at Jody Along the Path.

    Presence

    Don Bosch presents Divorce hurts the planet – II posted at The Evangelical Ecologist. “I’m hoping this will stimulate some thinking on the deeper impacts of human tragedies like divorce and abortion on Creation. The Catholic Church teaches that ‘Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law.’ It also states that ‘divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society,’ a disorder that it states ‘makes it (divorce) truly a plague on society.’ Protestants (including garden variety evangelicals) aren’t used to considering marriage and divorce in such ‘natural law’ terms, but maybe we should. Folks from all parts of the Body of Christ have an important opportunity here for love and social influence through ecology that goes much deeper than recycling our plastic bottles. A shame if we continue to drop the ball on that. Would Jesus call our hearts hard too?”

    Therapydoc presents Internet Pornography- Part One posted at Everyone Needs Therapy.
    It’s a problem in every community. This is the first post in a series.

    Steve Bishop, of An accidental blog, starts his review of J Mark Bertrand’s (Re)thinking Wolrdview: Learning to Think, Live, and Speak in this World (Crossway, 2007).

    Jeremy Pierce presents Sex as a Condition for Marriage posted at Parableman. Some Christians have seen marriage as initiated by sex. The case of Joseph and Mary seems at odds with this view.

    Martin presents Light upon the Earth posted at Enigmania.

    Tom Gilson presents James Corbett “Taught Us How To Think”? posted at Thinking Christian. Whether James Corbett, accused of a strong anti-Christian bias in his high school history classroom, is guilty, we don’t know; but it certainly appears that he failed to do what some of his students claim he did: to teach them how to think.

    Henry (Honzo) Imler presents The Basis for Belief: Part 1 posted at Theology for the Masses.

    Gifts

    FMF presents What is Your Attitude Toward Giving? posted at Free Money Finance. What type of giver are you?

    Keyboard Culture Sales Training Expert Alan “Sell More” Altmann presents Fear and Faith are Incompatible posted at Alan Altmann Sales Training Expert at Keyboard Culture Expert Community, in which he reminds us that we have the choice of responding to situations in fear or in faith.

    I present Not a Christmas Carol, a Christmas short story that’s not really like the famous Dickens story, at The Jevlir Caravansary.

    Service

    John presents Philophronos Blogging posted at Brain Cramps for God. A reminder, as we enter the intensity of the political season and celebrate His birth, about our requirements to show Christ’s grace and mercy even to our adversaries. And to tie in with his post, Laura rounds up the Philophronos blogroll.

    Tom Fuerst presents Christian Discourse and Subverting the Rhetoric of the Empire posted at Theology for the Masses.

    Roger Carr presents Share Your Faith posted at Everyday Giving Blog.

    Keep Thinking about Jesus

    There are reasons why that baby was in that manger. Amongst those is this, part of this week’s lectionary readings:

    “Because he himself has passed through the test of suffering, he is able to help those who are in the midst of their test.” — Hebrews 2:18