Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Looking at Form and Genre

    Awilum has a short post that makes a couple of good points related to literary genre, which I’ve been discussing in a couple of posts, and will discuss some more.

    You should go read his post, but let me highlight the points that caught my attention:

    1. Form and genre are not the same
    2. Form is not binary

    I would add that the classic and regularly abused literal vs figurative divide is not binary either. My observation has been that young earth creationists, and many old earth creationists see literal as equivalent to “accurate historical narrative,” while many liberals respond that the passage is figurative, and one shouldn’t take it so literally. Another alternative is to refer to Genesis 1-11 as “just a myth.” I find that pretty annoying, since myth is one of the most powerful types of literature, and has its own characteristics, not all of which are fulfilled in Genesis.

    I will get back to discussing these passages in more detail, but for now, I’d just like to remind folks on my side of the line (not taking Genesis as historical narrative) that simply saying “don’t take that so literally” is not adequate. One must at least make an effort to identify what type of literature a document is, and let the appropriate approach to interpretation flow from there.

  • Intelligent Design and Answer All Questions

    Through this week’s Christian Carnival I found two posts on science and religion that interested me. One I agree with completely, and I just want to underline a couple of points. The other, not so much, though it is still a good article.

    The first is An intelligently designed universe from Sun and Shield. Now since I scan Sun and Shield fairly often, I should have caught this one, but I didn’t.

    Here’s the key quote:

    I don’t believe that it is possible to prove that Intelligent Design occurred. (see here for discussion) I am also not persuaded that it is appropriate to teach about God’s design in the science classes of the public schools. However, it is certainly also not appropriate to teach that science proves that there is no God, or that there is no purpose in the universe, or that humans are only animals. Science has proved no such things, and can’t, as they are outside the scope of science.

    I agree entirely. I also think Martin has specified the question correctly. The issue is not whether the universe is designed. Theists generally and Christians in particular are bound to believe that God designed the universe. The question is the detection of design, and I would add, the detection of more design one place than another. My problem with Paley’s watch is not that the watch is not designed, but rather that the rocks, the grains of sand, and even the water are all where they are ultimately as products of design–ultimately. Distinguishing that sort of design is not a function of science.

    In addition, conclusions about what is beyond the scope of science are also not scientific. “I know X about the physical world,” is within the bounds of science. “I know the physical world is all there is,” steps outside those bounds. This doesn’t mean the person who says that is wrong. It merely means that their assertion is not scientific, any more than my assertion that God designed everything is scientific. Neither implies a measurable change in the nature of the physical universe.

    The other article is Science’s Overlooked Problem. Here’s a quote:

    Yet I have been a firm believer that science cannot, and does not, provide ample explanation for things such as life, purpose, or even God (despite rather poor attempts).

    Now Justin goes on to quote Huston Smith on the failure of science to answer the why questions. I don’t think this is a failure of science, however, but rather a failure of people who expect science to answer such questions. Science is well designed to study physical stuff. That it fails to comment successfully on other matters is simply a matter of its design. The problem occurs not because of the limitation, but because of the failure of some people to recognize that limitation. Thus they try to answer non-scientific questions using science with predictable results.

    In any case, I think it’s worthwhile reading Justin’s post and the Huston Smith quotes, because one way or another you’re going to need to think about that, either by recognizing the limits of science or by finding a way in which science can address those questions successfully. My observation thus far is that science is ill-equipped for the task.

  • Notes on Mark 10:23-31

    These notes supplement my podcast titled Last and First. The included translation is a working translation. Check out passages in your favorite Bible version.

    23Then Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How difficult it is for those who have possessions to enter into the kingdom of God.”

    I’m sure that the disciples were disappointed that they had not gotten such a valuable new addition to their ranks. They might have felt that he would be in competition for the best places, but each one would have assumed he would get the best place, and thus have this talented person in service.

    Jesus crosses their disappointment by suggesting that the rich, who were normally regarded as exceptionally blessed, would have difficulty entering the kingdom.

    For those who believe Jesus never taught righteousness by faith, this passage has to be a challenge. Jesus here is making it very clear that in order to enter the kingdom one must put one’s trust in him, and at the same time that those who have many other things to trust in will have grave difficulty doing it.

    The textual variant in verse 24, “those who put their trust in riches” is probably a scribal effort to blunt the message, but it also does see part of the point. It’s the matter of trusting others. Because I am not rich, I might say that this passage doesn’t speak to me. But I might easily place my trust in my education, my talents, or my strength of will. Jesus is making the harder point, however, that simply because one has some things to trust in, one will find it difficult to put one’s trust in God.

    If I am helpless, and my only possible option is to trust another person, I may make that leap. If I still think I can fix a situation myself, I’m strongly tempted to fix it myself. It isn’t just those who knowingly and openly trust; it’s all those who have that temptation who need God’s grace even to be willing to enter the kingdom.

    24Now his disciples were amazed at his words, so Jesus answered them again, “Children, how difficult it is to enter into the kingdom of God!

    Mar 10:24 – Jesus saith to them, Children – See how he softens the harsh truth, by the manner of delivering it! And yet without retracting or abating one tittle: How hard is it for them that trust in riches – Either for defence, or happiness, or deliverance from the thousand dangers that life is continually exposed to. That these cannot enter into God’s glorious kingdom, is clear and undeniable: but it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a man to have riches, and not trust in them. Therefore, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom. — John Wesley

    25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”

    Camels are large animals used to transport heavy loads of valuable merchandise long distances. Jesus’ outlandish statement emphasized the point he was making. — Learning Bible (CEV) on Mark 10:25

    “The verse means, strangely enough, what it says.” — IB Exposition on Mark 10:25

    With the comment from the Interpreter’s Bible I thing enough said!

    26They were even more amazed, saying to one another, “Then who can be saved?” 27But Jesus, gazing at them, said, “For men it is impossible, but not for God. For all things are possible with God.”

    Because they believed that prosperity was a sign of blessing, the disciples would have thought that the rich were the most likely to enter the kingdom not the least. Thus if those who have the special mark of God’s blessing cannot enter, who possibly can?

    Barclay says of prosperity: “It is an acid test of a man. For a hundred men who can stand adversity only one can stand prosperity. Prosperity can so very easily make a man arrogant, proud, self-satisfied, worldly. It takes a really big and good man to be worthy of prosperity. –Daily Study Bible on Mark 10:23-27

    28Peter said to him, “Behold, we have left everything and followed you.” 29And Jesus said, “Truly I tell you, There is nobody who has left household or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for my sake, and for the sake of the good news, 30who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, households and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and fields with persecution, and in the coming age, eternal life.

    Mar 10:30 – He shall receive a hundred fold, houses, &c. – Not in the same kind: for it will generally be with persecutions: but in value: a hundred fold more happiness than any or all of these did or could afford. But let it be observed, none is entitled to this happiness, but he that will accept it with persecutions. — John Wesley

    God’s blessings can, in themselves, become temptations. There is the temptation especially to spiritual pride, but also to fall back from our complete trust in God and begin trusting in the material blessings he has given us, rather than in the one who gave us those blessings.

    Often God denies us “blessings” because he knows we are not ready to receive them.

    31But many who are first will be last, and those who are last will be first.” — Mark 10:23-31

    Whatever you think God is going to do, whoever you think has the inside track with divinity, be prepared to be wrong! God doesn’t look at things as we do.

    For a list of references I’m using regularly, see my previous notes entry.

  • Christian Carnival B2

    . . . has been posted at Chasing the Wind. Why B2? Because Michael presented the number in various formats, and I chose that one. Nice break from Roman numerals, eh?

    There’s a good deal of material here I’d like to read and comment on. I wonder how much I’ll get to?

  • Government Regulated Media != Free Media

    The following from YouTube illustrates why I simply don’t trust politicians for anything. There being a perceived imbalance in talk radio in favor of conservatives, to which I say “Who cares?”, a number of liberals are now calling for government control, obviously because we all know that the government is always fair in the way it handles information.

    Here’s Sen. John Kerry:

    Sorry, no points for you Senator. It’s still free speech, even when people say things you don’t like. It’s still free speech, even when people pay for speech you don’t like. Get over it!

  • New Philophronos Blogroll Member

    I join with Laura in welcoming Discovering the Heart of God as a new Philophronos Blogroll member. Go check out his blog.

    I’m going to link to a specific post from the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter to which I’m the primary contributor.

  • Great Moments of (choose your label) Hypocrisy

    Fellow philophronos blogger Laura has made a number of excellent points in a post titled Great Moments in Conservative Hypocrisy. Now I’m not linking back so I can crow and say, “See! Those conservatives were hypocrites all along, and finally one of them is recognizing it!”

    First, I would have to note that I can’t bring up a case of Laura herself being hypocritical about any of these issues. That aside, however, I can mirror image most of her points. Let me just note one on abortion and one on free speech. I believe abortion should be legal. But others who would agree with me on that point tried for years to use the RICO laws (note libertarian Ed Brayton’s comments) against those who opposed abortion. It was an illegal trick to prevent legal protest. I don’t want to take the time to mirror every one, but I’m pretty sure I could. Many liberals are strongly in support of free speech when pornography is involved, but not so happy with it when hate speech is involved. (Let me note that I support free speech in all cases short of incitement.)

    In addition, there is the matter of procedural issues. For example, partisans on both sides are much more favorable to the electoral college (it’s the law!) when their party will benefit from an electoral college with combined with a popular loss, but they don’t like it when their candidate loses (it’s unfair!). Thorough senate review of judicial candidates is good when the other side is nominating, but the senate should only consider qualifications when your own side is monitoring. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by both conservatives and liberals, resulting, I believe, in a number of mediocre choices, folks whose decision and publication record was minimal, and thus provided less of a target during confirmation hearings.

    So Laura’s point is well aimed, but I want to help aim it at both sides of the aisle. We need to be consistent on all of this.

  • Notes on Mark 10:13-16

    These notes accompany my podast Children and Divine Priorities.

    Translation and Notes

    13And they brought him children so that he might touch them. But the disciples rebuked them.

    Notice again that the disciples are not on the same agenda as Jesus is. They haven’t gotten kingdom principles. To Jesus children are important both in themselves—they receive the kingdom with the right spirit—but they are also important as an example to others. His disciples could learn from children. But instead they turn them away.

    There is a common picture in people’s minds about this incident with the children. First, we see it as singular. Some children, once or twice, make it in to have Jesus bless them. It’s a nice little “bless you, bless you” kind of scenario, sort of like a politician kissing babies. But I think that children were attracted to Jesus and that this was a constant sort of scene. Jesus enjoyed talking with them, listening to them, and pointing to them as examples.

    This beautiful little episode, expressing an attitude so unlike the academic rabbinical attitude toward women and children, and yet so characteristically Jewish, can scarcely have been invented. — IB Exegesis on Mark 10:13-16

    14But when Jesus saw what had happened he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me, don’t prevent them, for the kingdom of God is made up of this sort of people!”

    Back in Mark 9:42 Jesus has warned against being a stumbling block. Just as the disciples didn’t “get it” about the crucifixion, so they didn’t get it about not putting a stumbling block in front of other people. The children referred to in these two passages can include both those young in the faith and those young in years. What happens when we get up on our eminence based on years of experience or years of education and turn away those who lack the majesty of our own position in the church?

    We need to be prepared to learn from children and youth. I have had frequent conversations with people about church services and why the young people or children don’t like them, and have to be forced to attend. Once they get old enough to resist, they no longer go. Why? Well, don’t ask me! Ask the children and young people. What would you like to do on Sunday morning that would truly excite you? Now you’re going to get answers that you can’t use, but you’ll also get many sincere answers that you can.

    What do you do if the adults are offended by what is done in order to work with the youth? Good question. What did Jesus do? He was angry with those who turned the children away, but he received the children.

    This matter of the indignations of Jesus throws a clear light on his spiritual greatness. He never showed indignation over personal affronts. All through the scourging and crucifixion “opened he not his mouth.” The only reference he made to his executioners was, “Father, forgive them.” It is a humbling experience to compare his indignations with our own. What most quickly rouses ours as a rule is some injury done us, real or fancied, some slight, some rejection. Then we blaze like a freshly lighted fire. While many of us continue to look out on evils that engulf vast numbers, or on injustices that cry to the skies, with undisturbed equanimity. — IB Exposition on Mark 10:14

    15I tell you truly, whoever doesn’t receive the kingdom of God as a child will never enter into it.”

    Jesus could never resist the opportunity to provide a lesson. Here he repeats his lesson from Mark 9:37.

    16And he called the children, placed his hands on them, and blessed them.

    Jesus suits actions to his words. He takes the children in and blesses them.

    — Mark 10:13-16

    References

    For your convenience, here again are the key references I’m using:

    Commentaries

    Barclay, William. The Gospel of Mark (Daily Study Bible). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956.

    Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.

    Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Via Logos Bible Software.

    Wesley, John. John Wesley’s Commentary, from eSword.

    Wuest, Kenneth S. Mark in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1950.

    Bibles:

    The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV)
    The Learning Bible (CEV)
    The Oxford Study Bible (REB)
    UBS Greek New Testament, 4th Edition

  • Being Other Worldly or Being Christian

    The Evangelical Ecologist has an excellent post titled Closing Credibility Gaps. I think that I’m in a good position to underline his post, as a member of a congregation of the United Methodist Church, one of those declining mainline denominations. Just so the error seekers know that I saw it, I will quibble slightly over the use of an example statement from the Anglican Church (UK) followed by an example of decline from the Episcopal Church (USA). The Anglican church does indeed have its share of problems, but it is a beast of a different color from the Episcopal Church. They fall under a larger umbrella together in the Anglican communion, but that doesn’t make them of the same denomination. Nonetheless, I don’t think that vitiates the overall point of the essay.

    I commented tangentially on this issue, though not in direct relation to ecology, in my post Christian Essentials: Incarnation at the Center:

    Christianity can’t retreat into being simply a system of ethics. It involves ethics, but it also involves redemption and empowering, the means of creating ethical people by redemption, but even more the means of bringing people into touch with God.

    I could rephrase that as Christianity cannot retreat into being a system of politics, or of science, or of any similar thing. Whatever positions we may take as Christians on anything at all, it has to start with being Christian. Why is this so?

    Christianity takes a good deal of work. Even if you drop most of the doctrines, take away the servant leadership and the discipleship, and make it essentially a social club, you still have to maintain the club house (the church), pay the leadership and staff, and people have to go to meetings. Now if the church is merely a social club, why wouldn’t one find a cheaper way to accomplish those goals. I guarantee you that church architecture is not the most economical way out there to construct a clubhouse.

    Now if you’ve been a member of the club all your life, you may feel inclined to remain a member. But what about new people? If your selling points on your church are entirely made up of political and social goals, why should somebody join the church? What you’re telling the potential new member, or the person you are trying to keep as a member is this: “Come join our social and political movement. We cost more, we’re less effective, but we have the traditional label ‘Christian’.”

    I believe this has been the major failing of Christian liberals. We (I’m called liberal often enough to use an inclusive “we”) have kept all the social goals, but in order not to put anyone off, we have been afraid to pursue any sort of spiritual or doctrinal standard whatsoever. I commented in an earlier post that when I first decided to join a United Methodist congregation I checked out two different ones. In the first one the pastor kind of chuckled at my interest in the church’s doctrinal positions and said, “We don’t really worry that much about what you believe. If you enjoy fellowship with us, you can join.” The other pastor asked me about my experience and relationship with Jesus. I joined the second.

    Being inclusive can eliminate the barriers to people entering the congregation but at the same time it can remove all identity from that congregation and thus any positive reason to join.

    The Evangelical Ecologist is absolutely right. We can talk and talk about this as churches, but why is it that anyone should listen? Are our councils of clergy more knowledgeable about climate change than various scientific groups? Do we have some extraordinary expertise in administration so as to help implement all this legislation? If you’ve participated in church councils, I suspect you already know we have neither of those elements. What the church could have, and should have is the moral impetus to challenge and empower people to implement change. But that moral impetus can only come from conviction that is part of an active spiritual life.

    Though I believe there are particular doctrines that are better than others, I don’t think the primary problem of mainline denominations is that we believe the wrong things on specific doctrines. It is that we don’t, as denominations, believe anything at all enough to care about it. As Christians I believe the incarnation should be at the center of all we do, but that doctrine has to be a living thing in our lives so that we cannot imagine being without it. It has implications in our lives (“Christ in you, the hope of glory” – Colossians 1:27), and those implications must be important.

    If we don’t have Christ at the center, then we are simply another social service organization, with a bunch of excess religious baggage to make us less efficient. Why should people get on board?

    The place of Christianity in this kind of social activity is redemptive, empowering, life-giving, and motivating, a body filled with the breath of the Holy Spirit, ready to act. That must be the case for Christianity to have a great impact. Personally I haven’t tried to take a position on global warming as such, because I don’t know the science well enough to defend any position I take. But I do know that there are good things that I can do, things that make sense whether global warming or global cooling is correct.

    In doing those things, “the love of Christ urges me on” because I am called to live a life empowered by the incarnation, guided by the two laws, one of which is love for my neighbor.

  • In Memory of Dr. Brevard S. Childs

    For those who do not read scholarly works it may seem strange to feel bereaved when someone whom you have never actually met dies. I discovered via Levellers that Dr. Brevard S. Childs has passed away. He will be missed in Biblical scholarship, and though I never met him, I am deeply sorry that he will no longer be on the scene.

    I encountered his writing first in his wonderful commentary on Exodus, and then in his even more enlightening commentary on Isaiah, both in the Old Testament Library. He manages to bring a balance to Biblical criticism that allows one to enjoy discovering some of the history of the text, but yet leaves one able to wrestle with the canonical form. He wrote with a great interest not just in the historical understanding of each text, but also in how those words had echoed through the communities that read them and passed them on.

    I cannot be more personal, as I only knew him through his work, but the depth, breadth, and balance of his scholarship has been a breath of fresh air in my reading.

    R.I.P. Dr. Brevard Childs, 1923-2007. (See the obituary at Yale Divinity School.)