Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Valuable Evidence Found in Debate on Hebrew Scriptures

    A tiny tablet has been found most likely confirming the name of one character in the Biblical book of Jeremiah. It is unfortunate that the Telegraph headlines it as Tiny tablet provides proof for Old Testament, though the text of their article is more accurate. Biblical archeologists generally do not go out attempting to prove that the Old Testament as a whole is true, and single connections to historical data do not prove the historicity of the whole.

    What this tablet does appear to do is provide some challenge to the Biblical minimalist position, and suggests that the setting of the book of Jeremiah is precisely what it claims it to be, a document contemporary to the exile.

    In the comments on the Telegraph story, one commenter asks how much third party evidence needs to be found to validate the Old Testament. That’s simply the wrong question. Historians and archeologists will continue to examine each document and each incident according to the evidence available.

    Peter Kirk also provided a good perspective on this discovery.

    HT: In the Word.

  • Sola Scriptura (Link and Comment)

    I am running late today, and may not get much of what I intended to post completed, but in the meantime, Mark Olson has a post on sola scriptura over at Pseudo-Polymath which is quite interesting. He has already been taken to task (only with the utmost courtesy, of course) by a commenter that the view of sola scriptura that he discusses is not one that would be recognized by most reformed or evangelical scholars.

    In a way, the commenter is right, but in another way, not so much. I think most evangelical and reformed scholars who reside somewhere other than the ivory tower will have encountered such an attitude in the pews of protestant churches, and most have probably endeavored to better educate those who expressed it.

    The popular perception, and one I even encounter from many pastors, is that sola scriptura somehow means that doctrines form sort of magically from scripture, without mental processes or influence from other sources. That caricature is very easy to knock down, but often needs knocking down, because there are so many people who thoughtlessly continue to hold it.

    Hopelessly this post, and a promised follow-up will help people better understand the various positions.

  • Christian Carnival CLXXX

    . . . is posted at Everyday Liturgy. Check it out! There’s even a post on nudity–well, sort of.

  • St. John Chrysostom Quote

    I’m reading the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Volume X, Hebrews, and I found this interesting quote from St. John Chrysostom:


    St. John Chrysostom

    We ought to receive all things with faith and reverence, and, when our discourse fails through weakness and is not able to set forth accurately the things that are spoken, then we ought especially to glorify God, in that we have such a God, surpassing both our thought and our conception. For many of our conceptions about God we are unable to express, and many things we express but do not have the strength to conceive. For instance, that God is everywhere we know, but how we do not understand. There there is a certain incorporeal power, the cause of all our good things, we know, but how it is or what it is, we know not. We speak and do not understand! I said that he is everywhere, but I do not understand it. I staid that he is without beginning, but I do not understand it. I said that he begot from himself, and again I know not how I shall understand it. And some things there are that we may not even speak–as, for instance, that thought conceives but cannot utter. [p. 13]

    Perhaps we could all (me especially) do with a bit of humility regarding our knowledge of God and divine things.

  • How NOT to Express Your Views

    I suppose it was inevitable, with all of the hype about the terrible evils supposedly caused by a belief in evolution, but it looks like some crackpots decided to express their views with threats.

    From the Denver Post:

    The first threat was e-mailed to the labs – part of CU’s ecology and evolutionary biology department housed in the Ramaley Biology building – on Friday. Wiesley said Monday that morning staff members found envelopes with the threatening documents slipped under the lab doors.

    I hope these just come from a prankster without serious intent. We’ve seen too many times recently how someone who is truly demented can nonetheless get hold of weapons and cause considerable damage.

    HT: The Panda’s Thumb. Further details will be posted there, though I will link to them from here as I notice them.

  • Churches other than Roman Catholic are not True Churches

    I always knew I was a heretic:

    Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches. (From MSNBC.com)

    Well, actually, I never regarded the Catholic church and the pope as having any authority over me in any case, but I expected this kind of nonsense when this pope was elected, and here it is.

  • Impeachment and Political Strategy

    I have long argued against the war in Iraq on strategic grounds. I don’t object to war when war is absolutely necessary, but I believe that when war is waged for the wrong reasons, conducted improperly, or for unattainable goals, however good those goals sound, that war is a tragedy and is immoral. Killing is such a terrible thing that one must weigh very carefully one’s decision to take that route.

    Now we have a situation of political strategy, and I think the various factions are taking just as little consideration for strategy in the political conflict as others have in the planning for war. Recent polls show a substantial amount of support for impeaching President Bush and even more for impeaching Vice-President Cheney. It would be nice if one could believe that most of those who favor impeachment actually knew what impeachment is, and for example which house impeaches and which tries impeachments. That is probably too much to hope. I suspect the answers in favor of impeachment include a large number of folks who simply want Bush and Cheney gone, and the sooner the better. One should also recall that this is the same electorate who once produced an approval rating for Bush in the 80s.

    I don’t really like either man. I didn’t vote for them, and I abhor their war policy. I think very often their domestic strategies in terms of home security have been crude and ineffective while unnecessarily threatening civil rights. I think Bush’s use of signing statements to ignore portions of the law is wrong. I think his efforts to continue the war right now are misguided. He’s missing an opportunity to at least control the mode of exit. One aspect of the strategy of war is the political support one has for the action. Ignore that portion, and you ask for trouble.

    Now I’m no legal expert. I’m not going to argue what congress can and cannot use as the grounds for impeachment. I’m pretty sure, however, that the final answer is going to be that they can use pretty much anything they can get a 2/3 majority of the Senate agree on for conviction. Violating the constitution is a form of violating the law, but it doesn’t have fixed penalties. “Abuse of power” is a rather hazy sort of concept. I actually think it’s quite reasonable to have 2/3 of the Senate agree on what it might be.

    But the question is just how valuable is this particular means of getting rid of a president? We’re already into the election campaign for the next presidential election. In a little more than a year we’ll be voting on who we want to succeed Bush and Cheney. Is it a good idea to go through the contentious process of impeachment right now? One question, of course, is whether 2/3 of the Senate would agree to convict on any particular charge. I suspect the answer is no.

    The impeachment talk is, I think, directed to the hardliners in the Democratic party and those who are to its left. It shores up the base, and provides a means to keep from losing those supporters to third party candidates. At the same time there are quite a number–a growing number–of people who are like me in one respect. We don’t have party loyalty. We believe both the Democratic and Republican parties have forfeited any right to our support as parties. When all the partisan bickering has played out (on this topic; there will be another by then), some one of you is going to need our vote, and we’d like to see you show some good strategic sense, an ability to see all aspects of a problem and to find the best strategy to get where you’re going.

    Cindy Sheehan has told Speaker Nancy Pelosi she’s going to run against her if she doesn’t work to impeach President Bush. I think this is a good opportunity for Pelosi to demonstrate some good strategic sense. Not statesmanship; that would probably be too much to ask–just good strategy. She can say, “No, that’s a bad idea. I’m interested in keeping and building a Democratic majority. I’m more interested in withdrawing from Iraq successfully than I am in scoring revenge points on the current President.”

    She’s played this one right so far; hopefully she’ll continue.

  • Notes on Mark 11:12-14

    Translation and Notes

    12The next day, as he was coming from Bethany, he was hungry. 13And when he saw a fig tree from far away that had leaves he thought he might find something on it, but when he got there he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs.

    Mar 11:13 – For it was not a season of figs – It was net (as we say) a good year for figs; at least not for that early sort, which alone was ripe so soon in the spring. If we render the words, It was not the season of figs, that is, the time of gathering them in, it may mean, The season was not yet: and so (inclosing the words in a parenthesis, And coming to it, he found nothing but leaves) it may refer to the former part of the sentence, and may be considered as the reason of Christ’s going to see whether there were any figs on this tree. Some who also read that clause in a parenthesis, translate the hollowing words, for where he was, it was the season of figs. And it is certain, this meaning of the words suits best with the great design of the parable, which was to reprove the Jewish Church for its unfruitfulness at that very season, when fruit might best be expected from them. — John Wesley

    I have to disagree with John Wesley on this. I think that the matter of in season or out of season was a difference between the illustration and its application. That is Jesus was using the show (leaves) versus the fact (fruitlessness) as a parable, and the season was not the issue. “Because it was not the season for figs” is an explanatory note by the gospel writer rather than an essential part of the parable.

    14And in response he said to it, “May nobody ever eat fruit from you again!” And his disciples heard it. — Mark 11:12-14

    The momentary condition became permanent. I wonder if it is possible that Jesus simply recognized that this tree was never going to produce and pronounced on it what he knew was already the case?

    These notes are a supplement to my podcast Cursing the Fig Tree – an Acted Parable.

  • Congratulations David Warnock

    . . . who is now ordained and received into full connexion by the Methodist Church of Great Britain. I very much enjoy David’s blog, and truly could link to it much more frequently than I do. He will be a great asset to the Methodist church and to the church universal.

    Rejoice with and for him!

  • Guard Your Mind

    20My child, pay attention to my words,
    Listen closely to my sayings.

    21Don’t let them escape from your sight,
    Guard them deep in your mind.

    22For those who find them find life,
    They bring healing to the whole person.

    23Above everything guard your mind*,
    Because from it flows your life.

    24Turn your mouth away from crooked speech,
    And keep lying speech far from your lips.

    25Keep your eyes looking straight down the path,
    And gaze only at what lies ahead.

    26Clear the path your feet must follow,
    and all your ways will be firm and safe.

    27Don’t turn to the right or the left,
    Keep your feet away from evil. — Proverbs 4:20-27 (my free translation)

    * Literally heart. In this case the seat of thoughts, wisdom, and rational processes.

    One of the things that I notice in American culture, and particularly in the church is that people are not discriminating in what they read, hear, and watch. I’m not pushing censorship, or heavy limitations on what you give a listen or look to, but rather with how you listen or look.

    Ads on television, for example, are designed to leave you with an impression. If you actually watch most TV ads, and analyze the words and the information content, you’ll find that there is very little there. A certain insurance company informs you that by spending 15 minutes on their web site, you could save 15% or more on your insurance. Now you really haven’t learned that much new, have you? It didn’t say you would. It couldn’t. The company doesn’t know how much you’re currently spending. But their intention is to leave you with the connection between their brand name and saving money. I don’t object to them doing that–it’s what advertising on television is about, and they’ve been very successful at it.

    Political and church ads are very similar. An ad from my denomination (United Methodist) informs viewers that our hearts, our minds, and our doors are open. What exactly does that tell you? Really very little. Again, the idea is to place in your mind a connection between the church and welcoming. In practice you will find somewhat varying levels of welcome in different United Methodist churches, which should be no surprise. Methodist churches, like all others, have people in them, and people aren’t always the same.

    Political ads are very much the same. Have you noticed how hard it is to find concrete information on a candidate? You have to go to a variety of issue related web sites, various journalistic sites, and so forth, then you have to evaluate your various sources, because they each have their own agenda, and finally, if you put in the effort, you may be able to get a substantial picture of a particular politician.

    Why is this? The politician is counting on a large enough number of voters not checking them out thoroughly. They want to create a particular impression. Why is it that negative political ads tend to work, even though substantial percentages of voters claim not to like them? Because the impression is left. Normally we take breaks during television ads. We see them out of the corners of our eyes, and we don’t concentrate on them. “Who could?” you say. True, but by looking but not thinking, we allow the impression the ad maker desires to get into our minds. The handsome candidate in front of his church with his perfectly angelic kids is giving us the impression that he’s a family man with family values. His opponent might show his image with various other scenes along with it–scenes of guys with cards in a smoke filled room, of money being exchanged in a furtive way, or of other negative images. It won’t matter if the man is really the someone who launders money and makes shady deals in smoke filled roooms, nor whether or not he actually is a church-going family man. The point is that his image is associated with that particular image in enough people’s minds. And believe me, if you don’t actually give full consideration to the candidate and factual information about him or her, you will be influenced by the image.

    I refuse to vote based on my image at the time. I look up each and every candidate and find as much hard data about him or her as I possibly can. I make lists. Then my wife and I sit down and compare notes. Sometimes one of us will have found information that the other missed, or will see a flaw in some plan that the other didn’t notice. We sit down with the complete sample ballot and look at each item. Sometimes we find we’re going to vote different ways. Sometimes we change our minds. But we guard our path carefully and keep focused on the right way, looking for the truth to the best of our ability.

    Christians face another trap–the piety trap. By this I don’t mean that you want to avoid candidates who tell you they are Christian. But as the saying goes you can walk into a garage, but it doesn’t make you a car, and you can walk into a church, but it doesn’t make you a Christian. Even further, we know that being a Christian does not make you perfect, and we have many fallen Christian leaders as examples. We also have many Christian politicians who have not behaved in an exemplary fashion. Claims and associations do not guarantee good character.

    I have seen this come up in business as well. I once was contacted by a man who was creating a Christian business directory for the area. He told me he thought that Christians should give their business to other Christians. He was quite put out when I told him I was all about being in contact with people who were not Christians. I had no problem doing business with people of other faiths or of no faith at all.

    But I’m most concerned with the reverse. There are many fads and scams out there, and they offend me, because they prey on people in need. Just join our marketing scheme, they tell you, and you will become healthy, wealthy, and wise. I do not mean to disparage all business opportunities for all people. You need to exercise judgment here as well. There might be that business opportunity that is just right for you. But check it our very thoroughly. Talk to other businessmen. Check small business support organizations in your area.

    What does this have to do with Christianity? Well, some scam artists know very well that there are vulnerable Christians who are in need, and if they just suggest that this is God’s plan, and that they are simply fine Christian people sharing God’s blessings with you, they will seem very safe. But many, many people have lost huge sums of money by investing it in supposedly “Christian” scams. The claim of being a Christian is not proof that one is honest; it is even less relevant to the claim of being wise.

    Don’t go with the impressions! Seek the facts. Apply wisdom. Let God’s wisdom into your heart and guard your paths. The book of Proverbs is in the Bible for a reason. God has given you a brain. Use it!