Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Sensible Candidate Selection

    I found this article on ethics and choosing candidates while preparing Christian Carnival #179 over on my Participatory Bible Study Blog.

    Jeremy is discussing the issue of voting for a candidate who holds a position you might regard as immoral, for example a pro-lifer voting for a pro-choice candidate such as Rudy Giuliani, because the alternative would be worse. Many Christian pro-lifers would say that they could never vote for someone like that, but Jeremy thinks there is a good ethical basis to choose otherwise.

    I found his reasoning both interesting and helpful, because I so rarely find a candidate I actually like. There is always a question of who is better, or perhaps who is “less worse.” Jeremy formalizes and makes sense of the ethical reasoning involved.

    Check it out.

  • Christian Carnival #179

    Celebrating Independence Day, July 4 in the United States and Canada Day, July 1 in Canada (where else?).

    I’ve loosely grouped the posts under these quotes from the Federalist Papers. If you can’t find the connection, don’t overwork your brain on the matter. It’s just an excuse to print some of my favorite quotes on July 4! I may have moved a post simply to balance the numbers.

    Quick Administrative Notes: Speaking just for myself, it would help if everyone either used the submission form or included “Christian Carnival submission” in the subject line. My involvement in internet activities results in a huge amount of e-mail, most of which is sorted automatically. Some submissions that did not include “Christian Carnival” ended up where they didn’t belong, and I’m only assuming that I found them all.

    As a further point, I did not include some posts. There were submissions that were good, but substantially out of the date range, as in months out. There were also submissions of interesting articles but from sites with no Christian identification that I could find. If your site is Christian, and you submitted a post that was not included, you’ll need to take your virtual light out from under the cyber-bushel-basket thus allowing readers to be aware of the fact.

    That said, it was a joy to prepare this Christian Carnival. I always intend to read more entries, but hosting allows me to make it a duty to read them, and it’s a real pleasure. I’ve already selected several posts to comment on myself.

    People

    If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #51

    Justin Merth presents Dealing with theological questions from your kids posted at In The Word.

    Kathryn presents Church is Too Formal for Today posted at The Peculiar Club. Is the Church getting too casual?

    Martin LaBar on Sun and Shield presents Immigration questions. It was written just before the apparent (second) death of the immigration bill in the US Senate, but the questions remain. Here’s his key point: “What is there about this issue that has galvanized some Christians into making this issue even more important than abortion? I really don’t understand this, or I’m afraid I do.”

    Allen Bethea presents Expected End » Faith: The Sine Qua Non of God’s Blessing posted at Expected End. He says, “I have been studying the ‘Law of Attraction’ and I see some things in this way that resonate with my understanding of Christianity. Faith is the ground of our relationship with God.

    Discernment

    In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of the convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution; and as far as it is true, is equally applicable to most, if not to all the State governments. There can be no objection, therefore, on this account, to the federal judicature which will not lie against the local judicatures in general, and which will not serve to condemn every constitution that attempts to set bounds to legislative discretion. — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #81

    Nathanael presents The personally customizable Jesus, part 1 posted at Despair and Coffee.

    Michael presents Waiting on God?s Timing posted at Chasing the Wind. Ever feel as if you’re prayers go unanswered? We have to learn to trust in God’s perfect timing. Wait for it, it will not linger. A study of the book of Habakkuk.

    Mick presents Independence Day – July 4, 2007 posted at Romans 15:4 Project. Happy Independence Day America! “A nation ashamed of its ancestry will be despised by its posterity” Is America heading in the right direction, or is America despised because it has been ashamed of its Christian heritage?

    Everyone knows what a “Dead End” sign looks like, and what it is for. But what about “dead end” signs in life? This week John pens a few thoughts about recognizing the wrong paths in life in his post Dead Ends at Light Along the Journey.

    Debates

    The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. James Madison, Federalist #10

    Weekend Fisher starts with Jesus’ words “pray for those who persecute you” and continues with a liturgical responsive prayer for our enemies … and wonders why there isn’t a prayer for our enemies in our hymnals in Litany: for our enemies.

    At Bounded Irrationality we find How Christians Should Vote in which Doug Forrester examines whether Christians should vote (briefly) and then how they should they decide their vote.

    Jeremy Pierce presents Moderate Deontology: Voting for Giuliani posted at Parableman. If a pro-lifer votes for a pro-choice candidate, it is not necessarily a violation of the moral principles at stake.

    Matthew Anderson presents Three Cheers and a Jeer: In Defense of Praise Songs posted at Mere Orthodoxy.

    Rey from the Bible Archive addresses Justin’s “Christianty’s Downfall” series by answering a few of his earlier points with his post Dangerous
    Fundamentalism

    Business, Life, and Leadership

    There are appearances to authorize a supposition that the adventurous spirit, which distinguishes the commercial character of America, has already excited uneasy sensations in several of the maritime powers of Europe. They seem to be apprehensive of our too great interference in that carrying trade, which is the support of their navigation and the foundation of their naval strength. Those of them which have colonies in America look forward to what this country is capable of becoming, with painful solicitude. They foresee the dangers that may threaten their American dominions from the neighborhood of States, which have all the dispositions, and would possess all the means, requisite to the creation of a powerful marine. Impressions of this kind will naturally indicate the policy of fostering divisions among us, and of depriving us, as far as possible, of an ACTIVE COMMERCE in our own bottoms. This would answer the threefold purpose of preventing our interference in their navigation, of monopolizing the profits of our trade, and of clipping the wings by which we might soar to a dangerous greatness. . . .

    If we continue united, we may counteract a policy so unfriendly to our prosperity in a variety of ways. . . . — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 11

    Alli Diller presents Business Lessons from the ‘Wife of Noble Character’ posted at God & Mammon.

    Brian Russell wrote Key Transitions for Missional Leaders on the Real Meal blog. In this essay, Brian describes key shifts that communities of faith need to make to embody a missional mindset in the 21st century.

    Amanda presents A Simpler Way posted at Imago Dei. Get ready, because I’m going to start repainting what I know and do regarding Christianity.

    Daniel Condurachi presents How To Stay Stong posted at Daniel Condurachi’s Blog.

    Adam Faughn presents Why I Like “The One Year Bible” posted at The Faughn Family of Four.

    And for our neighbors to the north . . .

    Americans should never underestimate the constant pressure on Canada which the mere presence of the United States has produced. We’re different people from you and we’re different people because of you. Living next to you is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, if I can call it that, one is effected by every twitch and grunt. It should not therefore be expected that this kind of nation, this Canada, should project itself as a mirror image of the United States. — Pierre Trudeau

  • Smartypants Notions Like Cosmic Child Abuse

    Somehow it seems as thought advocates of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) as the key model of the atonement (I’d prefer metaphor) can’t stay kind and respectable. I wonder why it is that those of us who think that one needs to consider the character of God in terms of love, mercy, and forgiveness as well as justice, and who are concerned with careless formulations, are somehow less pious.

    I was really not planning to post any more on this topic for awhile, but then Adrian Warnock quoted this from J. I. Packer:

    Since all this was planned by the holy Three in their eternal solidarity of mutual love, and since the Father’s central purpose in it all was and is to glorify and exalt the Son as Saviour and Head of a new humanity, smartypants notions like “divine child abuse”, as a comment on the cross, are supremely silly, and as irrelevant and wrong as they could possibly be. [emphasis (color) from Adrian’s quote]

    But it’s not theologically educated opponents who are generally missing the point here. It is careless formulations that are being heard regularly in the pews as something very similar to cosmic child abuse. Some people like it, because it allows them to proclaim a tough God. They want the God of justice to put fear into the next generation. Others are driven away by it. It’s not the critics who have a problem here. It’s the proponents.

    I understand the trinity and the incarnation quite well. That’s why I’m disturbed by formulations that do sound very much like cosmic child abuse. It’s pointless for theologians who are writing for a lay audience to say things like “God’s wrath was poured out on his innocent son instead of on the guilty people who deserved it” and then complain that if people really understood the trinity, they’d realize it is really God pouring his wrath on himself. If people don’t understand the trinity–and you’ll find a crowd of folks in the pews who don’t–then they’re going to hear that sentence incorrectly and get the wrong idea about God.

    In fact, if they really do understand the trinity, I think they’ll have to see that PSA must be a metaphor. It elucidates part of the problem, but if you try to make it stand on all four, it just doesn’t fully make sense. Now not fully making sense isn’t entirely a bad thing. That just shows that a full understanding of the atonement remains outside our human grasp.

    If you want to call that a “smartypants” response, that’s your privilege and also Packer’s. But I think that dismissive attitude is dangerous. (Note that much of Packer’s article itself avoids the difficulties in phraseology to which I’m referring. He simply seems to ignore the problem of other formulations to which critics may respond. Of course, I still do disagree with him on making PSA central, but I do think he formulates PSA appropriately.)

    After having been annoyed by that quote, I also read this one by Peter Kirk. I think he deals well with Carson’s material. I would simply add that I prefer the word “metaphor” to “model.” “Models” need to be worked together into a single whole, or at least that is the feeling I get with the word. Metaphors can illustrate different parts and need not necessarioly stand on all four feet.

  • Adrian Warnock has a new URL

    I’ve updated my blogroll, and now y’all need to know that Adrian Warnock has a new URL (adrianwarnock.com).

  • Libby Sentence Commuted

    According to the Washington Post, President Bush has commuted former Cheney aid I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. He left intact probation provisions and the fine.

    I greet this news with mixed emotions. On the one hand I’m tired of lengthy investigations in Washington that produce nothing but convictions for lying to investigators and grand juries. Consider what happened to President Clinton under those circumstances. At the same time, lying to investigators is a pretty serious problem, and what’s more, in this case the issue is the leaking of an important piece of classified information. With Cheney’s office right now behaving as though they are above the law on that point, I dislike sending the signal that this type of behavior is OK.

    For the most part, it appears that nobody will be held responsible for the actual crime.

  • Divine Child Abuse and the Use of Scripture

    It has probably seemed a little odd that I, as a non-evangelical, would follow the atonement discussions as closely as I do. To the extent that I have managed to do so, it has been for two reasons. First, no matter what stream of Christianity one belongs to, the atonement comes out somewhere near the center. If it does not, then I have to wonder if we’re talking about Christianity at all. Second, some of my best friends are evangelicals. Seriously, they are! I have been frequently told that I could be an evangelical if I wanted to, and I have even met people who call themselves evangelicals who are somewhat more liberal than I am.

    Nonetheless I prefer not to try to defend my use of a label for myself, so I’m going to stick with the twin “passionate moderate” and “liberal charismatic” labels that make so many people crazy, and allow others to define just what an evangelical is.

    I was interested in two posts by Adrian Warnock today. The first one dealt with the emerging church and the Emergent Village. There are a couple of points I want to engage in that post. The first is simply the statement of penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). Bluntly I think advocates of this position are either a bit careless with their vocabulary, or they do believe in a doctrine that is dangerously flawed.

    Adrian is doubtless right that this problem is one that is not limited to the UK. While it was not so public an issue, I was part of a discussion group in seminary in which we debated some of these issues, and my seminary days are more than several years ago.

    Since Adrian’s post consisted largely of an extended quote from an article by Brett Kunkle on Resurgence, I will quote and work directly from that article. I am operating on the assumption that Adrian quoted this article approvingly. The article covers a great deal of ground and does so very carefully and so far as I can tell, fairly. I should note that in making my own judgment of fairness, I am working from what appears to be a weaker knowledge of the Emergent Village (EV) than Kunkle’s. My response is to his comments, and not intended either as a critique or endorsement of specific EV views.

    Here’s the first key quote:

    . . . Carol, a Christian, answers with a summary of substitutionary atonement: “Well, I believe that God sent Jesus into the world to absorb all the punishment for our sins. That’s what the cross was all about. It was Jesus absorbing the punishment that all of us deserve. He became the substitute for all of us. As he suffered and died, all our wrongs were paid for, so all of us can be forgiven.” . . . [quote footnoted to Brian McLaren, The Story We Find Ourselves In (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2003), 101.]

    Please note that I have grabbed a piece of a paragraph. In order to limit the size of the quotation, I’m making the dangerous assumption that you will check the broader context. My reason for quoting this is that, as stated by Carol, the fictional character in McLaren’s book, PSA would, in fact, be divine child abuse. This statement of PSA ignores the doctrine of the Trinity, in my view, and carelessly states the doctrine of substitution as though God found some other person, an innocent person and had that person absorb the punishment for the rest of us, making forgiveness possible.

    At the same time, the idea that such “absorption” made it possible for all of us to be forgiven is troubling, at best, in terms of theology. Do the advocates of PSA truly believe that God is universally locked into this Medieval sense of punishment and satisfaction, so that he will somehow believe that justice has been done when an innocent person has been punished? Do they believe that he is unable to create the universe in any other way? That short statement, without a broader context, displays an impotent God, caught off-guard by our sin, and unable to resolve the matter except through this odd mechanism of killing an innocent person. Yet this is a description I have frequently heard in churches. It is precisely how many older Christians understand atonement. I am in no way surprised that McLaren would have the character in his book find injustice here–it would be hard to miss–and would look for better formulations.

    In response, however, Kunkle quotes two scriptures:

    Let me say three things in response. First, does McLaren actually think Jesus did not know why he had to die? What about Matthew 20:28? “…just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Or what about Jesus’ words to his disciples at the Last Supper? “And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.’” Surely Jesus knew why he had to die. One cannot read the New Testament and conclude otherwise.

    Now this is one of the things that disturbs me in these debates even more than someone’s position on the issue of the atonement. Texts are trotted out, and we are told to assume they mean a certain thing when they don’t mean anything of the sort. Matthew 20:28, for example, is not a PSA text at all, it speaks of a ransom. Discussing to whom the ransom was to be paid has generated a whole string of weird theories over the years, which illustrate the problem when an illustration or a metaphor is extended beyond its intended use.

    Barclay comments eloquently in the Daily Study Bible on the parallel passage in Mark 10:45. His whole comment is worth reading, but let me just quote briefly:

    He had come, He said, to give His life a ransom for many. This is one of the great phrases of the gospel, and yet is is a phrase which has been sadly mishandled and maltreated. People have tried to erect a theory of the atonement on what is a saying of love. It was not long until people were asking to whom this ransom of the life of Christ had been paid? . . .

    . . . Suppose we say that freedom can only be obtained at the price of blood, sweat and tears, we never think of investigating to whom that price is paid. . . . [Barclay, Daily Study Bible: The Gospel of Mark, pp. 268-269]

    The second text likewise simply tells us that the blood is poured out for the forgiveness of sins, but fails entirely to tell us why this was necessary, or even that the pouring out of blood was absolutely necessary, or how such atonement would work. The advocates of PSA are trying to make the mechanism of the atonement be the key issue, when it should be the fact of the atonement. God, however he did it, has made reconciliation possible. Certainly, the two texts Kunkle has cited do not challenge McLaren’s approach (or mine) in any way.

    It seems to me that there is a greater concern amongst certain people about not merely understanding the mechanism of atonement (a task I believe we human beings will never accomplish this side of heaven), but in making sure that the mechanism is understood in a specific way. In so doing, they are happy with statements that include the mechanism, Jesus dying for our sins, even though those statements impugn God’s character.

    In his second post, Adrian makes quite a number of comments. I simply want to look at two:

    As we finally draw near to the conclusion of this long-running series on the atonement, it has struck me just how the lines are being drawn. On the one hand there are those of us who feel PSA is essential to the Gospel. It’s not that we think it’s the only thing—or indeed that every Gospel presentation must major on it. It’s just that we think it’s essential, and that Gospel presentations can’t deny it.

    This is succinct, and I must state my disagreement. The mechanism of the atonement is never an essential. The fact is. There is no requirement for theological understanding as a part of salvation. Thus, while I can state that PSA, carefully phrased, is a valuable metaphor for atonement, I believe it is also a very dangerous one, because it can so easily be stated in such a way as to look like injustice and abuse.

    I would say that my position on this issue has hardened, because I truly had not been aware that there were so many careless, and in my view dangerous, statements of substitutionary atonement from people who ought to know better.

    Wherever you stand on all the debates that fly around the blogosphere, I hope we can journey together for awhile and learn from each other—if nothing else, we should at least be able to gain an accurate view of what we both believe. I do believe that if we each focus on moving from where we stand one step closer to the God of the Bible, we will find ourselves gradually drawing closer together in what we believe.

    I have been far out on the periphery of what seems to be more a conservative evangelical debate. Nonetheless I have enjoyed the opportunity to interact even in a small way with this debate, and to hear what my more conservative brothers and sisters (I am an egalitarian after all!) are saying on an important topic.

  • Notes on Mark 10:32-52

    These notes accompany my podcast titled A Time to Seek Healing.

    Translation and Notes

    32Now they were on the road going up to Jerusalem, and Jesus was walking ahead of them, and the disciples were amazed. But those who followed were afraid. And taking the twelve aside again, he began to tell them again about things that were about to happen to him.

    Jesus is resolutely moving forward to his destiny, but as we shall see, the disciples are still unable to comprehend just what that destiny is. So for the third time, Jesus tells them what is about to happen.

    The border between Galilee and Jerusalem is the most important borderline in any life. It tests the reality of our profession. When we cross it in our lives and actions, we go from comfort into pain, from ease into jeopardy, as Jesus did. But if we do not cross it, we leave the road which leads to fullness of life, and to power. — IB Exposition on Mark 10:32

    33“Look, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the son of man will be betrayed to the high priests and the scribes, and they will condemn him to death, and hand him over to the gentiles, 34And they will strike him, spit on him, whip him, and kill him, but after three days he will rise up from the dead.”

    Jesus provides more details here than he has before. Why don’t the disciples see? For the same reason that we often do not—they had their own agenda.

    “Many a man has become a hero in the heat of the moment. But there is also the courage of the man who sees the grim thing approaching far ahead, of the man who has plenty time to turn back, of the man who could, if he chose to do so, evade the issue, and who yet inflexibly goes on. There is no doubt which is the higher courage.” — Barclay, DSB on Mark 10:32-34

    35And James and John, the sons of Zebedee approached him and said, “Teacher, We want to ask you something and have you do it for us.”

    Here is the disciple’s agenda—personal power in the new kingdom. This doesn’t mean that they were totally selfish and seeking only their own good. I’m certain that they were working on the best motivations. They thought that if they could just get into the right positions, they would be able to serve the victorious Messiah.

    This is the final form of unacceptable prayer. It was sincere; it was earnest; it was wrong. James and John were asking Jesus to fit into their plans. They had no concern at the moment over fitting into his plans. Prayer is always unacceptable when it says to God, “You do whatever I want.” — IB Exposition on Mark 10:35

    36So he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37They said to him, “Appoint us [to positions] so that one of us will sit at your right hand and one at your left in your glory.” 38Jesus said to them, “You don’t know what you’re asking for! Can you drink the cup that I am drinking or be baptized with the baptism that with which I’m being baptized?”

    Mar 10:38 – Ye know not what ye ask – Ye know not that ye ask for sufferings, which must needs pave the way to glory. The cup – Of inward; the baptism – Of outward sufferings. Our Lord was filled with sufferings within, and covered with them without. — John Wesley

    39They said to him, “We can.” Jesus said to them, “The cup that I am drinking you will drink, and you will be baptized with the baptism which which I am being baptized. 40But to sit at my right or my left is not mine to give, but is for those for who it was prepared.”

    “Jesus’ rule still takes place in the context of the Father’s sovereignty.” — Bock, p. 309

    It’s easy to read this as predestination, but I don’t see it in this passage. Jesus is simply leaving the positions in the kingdom to his Father’s sovereignty, and not making appointments early. The disciples still needed to prove themselves in service.

    41Now when the ten had heard this they became indignant at James and John. 42And Jesus called them and told them, “You know that those who consider themselves rulers of the gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43But it is not to be this way among you, but whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant. 44And whoever wants to be first among you must be the servant of all.

    Again, we see the concept of servant leadership. One can get quite tangled in this whole issue, and assume that there is no place for leadership. Each person must abase themselves and never step to the front. But Jesus is simply putting things in the right perspective. Serve first, then lead, and your leadership is itself about service. Leading and serving at the same time is difficult, because it gives one the greatest opportunity for selfishness and for “lording it over people.” Those who have no power cannot be tempted by it. Jesus is looking for people who can lead and serve simultaneously, people who can be trusted with power because they will use it appropriately

    45For the Son of man didn’t come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many people.”

    See Isaiah 43:3-4, 23-24. Many scholars believe this saying was built on those passages. Some also cite Isaiah 53:10. See Bock, p. 309n15. Compare also 2 Corinthians 5:15.

    46Now they came to Jericho, and as he was coming out of Jericho with his disciples and a sizable crowd, the son of Timaeus, Bartimaeus, a blind beggar sat by the road.

    A seemingly chance encounter becomes the opportunity both for a healing and for teaching.

    47And when he had heard that Jesus the Nazarene was coming, he cried out and said, “Son of David, Jesus, have mercy on me.”

    The opportunity must be taken. We are left with the implication that had this man not cried out, he would have been missed.

    48And some folks began to rebuke him so that he would shut up. 49But Jesus stopped and said, “Call him.” And they called the blind man, saying to him, “Calm down! He’s calling you!” 50But throwing his outer garment off he stood up and went to Jesus.

    Opposition doesn’t stop him. He keeps on crying out. Jesus hears, cares, and calls out to him. Can you be stopped by individual need?

    There is sometimes a disdain for “meanwhile” ministries even on the part of those working for the reorganization of society. Acts of mercy and charity tend to become only “palliatives.” They contribute nothing to a new social structure. The individual need is lost sight of in the glow of the far, shining horizon. — IB Exposition on Mark 10:49

    51And Jesus answered him and said, “What do you want me to do?” And the blind man said to him, “Rabbi! I want to see!” 52And Jesus said to him, “Go! Your faith has healed you.” And immediately he began to see and followed him in the way.

    Do you see the contrast here to the disciples? Jesus is teaching a lesson here through the miracle. The most important thing the disciples needed from Jesus at that point was not a change of direction, greater intelligence or the promise of eventual power. They needed to see where they were going. They needed to be prepared. They eventually received that healing, but only after experiencing the depths of despair.

  • Book: In Discordance with the Scriptures

    Though it would be a slight exaggeration, one could call this a history of Bible translation for post-moderns. Rather than focusing heavily on the technical issues as do most books on this topic, it focuses on the political and social elements and emphasizes that Bible translation is not a purely objective and scientific process. Any translation is influenced by the social and theological values of the translators.

    After briefly providing the background on how English Bible translation developed, the author begins looking in detail at the English Revised Version, the forces that shaped it, and the reasons for its successes and failures. The text really comes alive with chapters 4 and 5, dealing with the translation of the RSV and the liberal-conservative controversy that resulted.

    From the historical point of view, this is the key watershed in the history of Bible translation. Before that, even though there were a number of translations, the King James Version was overwhelmingly dominant, and the only competitors that came even close were the ERV and the ASV. The RSV was intended as another general, standard, authorized English Bible to replace the KJV, but Thuesen documents the reasons why it didn’t work. There simply was no organization that could authorize the Bible that would be accepted by all protestants.

    The fight over the RSV also tended to focus on theological more than technical issues. It is these social and theological issues that often drove other Bible translations, such as the New American Standard Bible and the NIV.

    This book is well-researched, extensively footnoted, and well written. The author does ramble just a bit, in my opinion, but generally less than I do, so that’s OK!

    My numerical rating is a 4.

  • More on the Cheri Yecke Story

    Wesley Elsberry has posted some additional information on this story on The Panda’s Thumb, and on his blog in which he states he believes the story is confirmed.

    . . . As far as I am concerned, the Princeton Union-Eagle is vindicated in this matter; at the time that they reported, Cheri Pierson Yecke was indeed saying that teaching “intelligent design” was a decision that local school districts could undertake. Both the quote from the Princeton Union-Eagle and the subsequent criticism I made of Yecke’s position on the issue are upheld by this source.

    Wesley is quite right to point out that Yecke has only to hold a press conference and state her change of view if she no longer supports teaching intelligent design in high school classrooms. If she does still believe it should be taught, that is information the public has a right to know.

    Since this whole issue resulted from Yecke’s use of ReputationDefender to look for negative material, I would like to call attention to this article on MSNBC, which reports on the other side of such activity. There can be a problem with negative information overwhelming the positive. It’s also quite possible for positive information to overwhelm necessary and important negative information. Search providers such as Google are right to battle spammy methods that try to get positive information into the highest search slots.

    There is an apparent bias in the MSNBC story toward “cleaning up” negative information. But there is no guarantee that the negative information someone wants to clean up is actually inaccurate. Accurate negative information, especially for those involved in the public sector, is important. The search engines cannot guarantee accuracy; they can only aim for relevance.

    In an age when information can be readily disseminated by just about anyone, and accessed just as easily, each reader needs to beware of lies.

  • Scientists Thinking about Intelligent Design

    In an extraordinarily inane post over on Uncommon Descent, titled The best evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design, S. Cordova tells us that, well, as the title says, the best evolutionary biologists are thinking about intelligent design. This strikes me as rather like the child who provokes his parents into punishing him just because he wants attention. He is getting attention after all.

    Here’s why it looks like that to me.

    1. He references “Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, and Michael Ruse.” Why? Well, as he continues, they have all reviewed Michael Behe’s new book. Their reviews? They systematically demolished it. You will find links to Jerry Coyne’s review, Behe’s ineffectual response, and Coyne’s response along with some dot connecting info here. Yep! Evolutionary scientists are thinking about intelligent design and they think it’s not science.
    2. He references an article in Medical Systems Biology, in which he places ellipses right after the line “intelligent design is making headway in the laboratory…” Guess what the next sentence is in the article. “In this case, though, the designer turned out to be just some clever scientist.” Wow! It’s hard to even consider this deception, it’s so weak.
    3. The last one? Well, they have found a copy of Darwin’s Black Box on the shelf of John Maynard-Smith. Hmmm! You’ll find that I have a considerable library of young earth creationist literature. Does that mean I think it’s serious? No. It simply means I believe that many people are led astray by it.

    Rather an odd way to “defend” ID, isn’t it?