Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Condescension on Creationism

    A recent comment by seeker accuses me of condescension:

    It would be hard for us to have a conversation on this, because your condescension is so thick it would be like climbing uphill through dirty axle grease.

    What interests me is that if a moderate or liberal remains quiet or speaks tolerantly of another position, he or she is regarded as wishy-washy, a typical liberal who won’t take a stand. On the other hand, if a liberal is so gauche as to take a stand on something, he is condescending. This sort of accusation often comes from people who have made a habit of being condescending, usually in a moral of spiritual sense. This is no exception.

    Seeker refers me, amongst other posts, to this one, in which he accuses the vast majority of the scientific community of being deluded. He even titles the post Mass Delusion. There must be some special gift of chutzpah given to someone who can write such a piece, and then accuse someone else of being condescending.

    In fact, Seeker invited me to critique a post he had written, and in that post there were a number of accusations raised against those of us who are Christians and also evolutionists. Apparently the only option he wishes to leave us is to acknowledge the great wisdom of his post and become convinced creationists. But unfortunately he fails to provide any reason to do that.

    If it’s condescension to point out where one disagrees with another, then I’m guilty. If it’s condescension to require that someone provide some sort of evidence, then I’m quite guilty. My liberal tolerance allows me to say that I’m fine with having a variety of views on origins in the Christian community. At the same time, simple honesty calls me to point out that I believe that creationists, whether of the young earth, old earth, or intelligent design varieties are wrong. The extent to which they are wrong differs. At the same time, I have no problem with them telling me that they believe that I’m wrong. We can both take those comments for what they’re worth.

    Now for just a couple of points of non-response in seeker’s comment:

    1. One of seeker’s original accusations was that I was using “evolutionary thinking” rather than “scientific thinking.” I called him on it, and how does he respond?

    Perhaps you can do a little self-examination, and, using your impressive intellect, postulate on what ideas might be evolutionary thinking rather than scientific? Are the two synonymous in your opinion? Then what do you think a creatoinist would say?

    So I am supposed to provide my own accusation and then defend myself against it. That’s not how it works. You tell me how my thinking is not scientific, using examples from things I have actually written, and then I’ll be glad to defend myself. Otherwise your accusation is simply yet another unsubstantiated claim.

    2. Seeker states: “Creationists HAVE proposed full orbed models for origins.” Great! Point out where these models are, what they predict, and how this is being scientifically tested.

    3. And then,

    – you appear to assume evolution to be fact, which to me is intellectual suicide
    – you fail to recognize or separate the philosophy of Darwinism from the scientific model

    On what possible basis would you suggest that I assume evolution to be fact? At what point did I say that, imply that, or give any reasonable person a reason to suppose it? No, it’s just a standard creationist attack line to see if an opponent will fold to a bluff. I believe that the theory of evolution is the best theory we currently have to explain the data. None of the potential explanations by creationists have anything like the explanatory power and the confirmation by numerous lines of evidence from various branches of science. This “philosophy of Darwinism” is a figment of some people’s imagination. There are those who draw unjustified philosophical conclusions from the theory of evolution, but calling them “Darwinists” is a slur on Charles Darwin and his tremendous scientific accomplishments.

    4. Finally, in an attempt to appear prophetic, seeker announces that I will not accept any of his arguments.

    I’m sure you’ll find none of this satisfactory, and find all kinds of supposed faults with my answer. Why am I sure? Because I’ve argued with evolutionary believers before, and you sound like one of the faithful.

    I presume this is because he knows they are so weak. Or, NO! It couldn’t possibly be! Is he being condescending?

  • Links on Biblical Inspiration

    A discussion of my book When People Speak for God is taking place on the Compuserve Religion Forum. At the same time, Amazon.com has dropped the price to $12.23 ($17.99 suggested retail).

    I have also just written some notes on Justin Holcomb’s book Christian Theologies of Scripture over on my Participatory Bible Study blog. While this book didn’t have an impact on mine, as I received my copy too late, I consider it an excellent resource for those interested in studying the inspiration of scripture.

  • Notes on Mark 9:30-42

    The following notes and references expand on the material I presented in today’s Bible Pacesetter podcast on this same passage, Discipleship the Hard Way. This includes my working translation (not to be mistaken for a polished and final one), some notes, and some additional quotations and references.

    Translation and Notes:

    Teaching about the Cross

    30When he had left there, he traveled through Galilee, but he didn’t want anyone to know.

    Note that the secrecy here gives a clue to the secrecy theme in Mark generally. Jesus is keeping control of the agenda.

    Barclay comments on the importance of teaching the disciples:

    “He [Jesus] had to leave behind him a band of persons on whom these propositions were written.” — Barclay on Mark 9:30-31

    As Barclay notes here, while Jesus didn’t leave us written words, he left us these disciples. This was the critical importance of his spending time with them and teaching them. They would be the human means–accompanied and aided by the Holy Spirit–of getting the word out to all of us.

    31For he was teaching his disciples and telling them that the Son of Man will be betrayed into the hands of people, and they will kill him, but when he has been killed, after three days he will rise again.

    There is good indication that the teaching took place over some period of time. Wuest goes so far as to suggest different groups of disciples, traveling separately so as to be more secretive, but I think that goes well beyond the implication of the text.

    Barclay notes:

    “The human mind has an amazing faculty for rejecting that which it does not wish to see.” — Mark 9:30-31

    Often a lack of understanding does not result from our inability to understand, but rather from our unwillingness to understand. We can even deceive ourselves into thinking we don’t understand when actually we do. Jesus will be able to tell the difference!

    32They didn’t understand what he was telling them, yet they were afraid to question him.

    Barclay suggests they simply didn’t understand the meaning of the upcoming resurrection, but I would suggest that with many other commentators that the problem was that the understood what Jesus said very well, but couldn’t integrate it with their view of the Messiah.

    John Wesley comments:

    Mar 9:32 – They understood not the word – They did not understand how to reconcile the death of our Saviour (nor consequently his resurrection, which supposed his death) with their notions of his temporal kingdom. — John Wesley, Commentary

    The following quote from the Interpreter’s Bible on Mark 9:32 (Exposition) is enlightening:

    Consider how reluctant multitudes in the modern world are to accept the Cross of Jesus as the supreme revelation of God. Other conceptions and idealizations fit so much better into our “onward and upward” thought forms. The serene teacher of Galilee, the persuasive expounder of wise and helpful axioms of living, even the Jesus of Palm Sunday, acclaimed and honored, is so much simpler, more attractive, more congenial to our culture, to our reliance on education, to our disparagement of extremes. Many prefer an intelligent, reasonable Jesus, an inspiring example, the counterpart of a broad-minded liberal, a leader of all good causes. They too find it hard to understand the saying about crucifixion and death. And because so many do not understand it, the Christian faith, instead of being conceived and presented to the world as God’s act of redemption, has dwindled down into another set of moral maxims, impotent to face and subdue the tragic evils of life and of history. When we think of the gospel in any such fashion as that, we make a detour around the Cross, and so miss the way. — IB exposition on Mark 9:32

    Who is the Greatest?

    33And they entered Capernaum, and while they were in the house he asked them, “What were you discussing on the way?”

    Hate it when this happens. You’ve been going along happily living your own life and ignoring what Jesus teaches, and suddenly he asks you what you’ve been up to!

    The Interpreter’s Bible notes:

    What a disconcerting question! How would we like to have it suddenly put to us? There is always danger of great embarrassment when Jesus joins the conversation and asks quietly, “What were you talking about?” — IB exposition on Mark 9:33

    34But they were silent for on the way they had been discussing who was greater among themselves.

    This is a complete contrast to what Jesus has been trying to teach them, and demonstrates the point of verse 32—they simply didn’t get it!

    35And he sat down and called the twelve and said to them, “If anyone wants to be first, let him be the last and servant of all.”

    Servant leadership—it’s something we talk about a lot, but it is very hard to practice. We are very much programmed as human beings to desire position and power. Sometimes servant leadership puts one in a position of power. When that happens it’s even harder to maintain the servant attitude.

    Barclay comments:

    “It is strange how a thing takes its proper place and acquires its true character when it is set in the eyes of Jesus.” — Barclay on Mark 9:32-35

    “If we took everything and set it in the sight of Jesus it would make all the difference in the world to life.” — Barclay on Mark 9:32-35 [these two sentences come a few lines apart in the same paragraph — HN]

    36And he took a little child, he put it right in the middle, took it in his arms, and told them, 37“Whoever receives one of these little children in my name receives me, and whoever receives me, doesn’t receive me, but the one who sent me.”

    Often even in service we want to serve the person who is most important. If we can just follow the biggest person in sight around, perhaps we’ll get somewhere. At least we can bask in some reflected brilliance. But Jesus asks us to serve people who are unimportant, who can’t reward us, and in many cases can’t even thank us. He’s asking us to make service the object of our efforts, and not the means.

    The One Who Doesn’t Follow With Us

    38John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a certain man casting out demons in your name and we hindered him, because he’s not following right along with us.”

    Notice how this man is carrying out the work of the kingdom. Throughout the gospel of Mark, the sign that the kingdom is advancing is that the demons resist and then flee. But since this man is not part of the “in” crowd, the disciples want him stopped. What’s special about them any more if just anyone can do it? But Jesus again emphasizes the fact that service is to be our object, and not a means to importance. The important thing was that the kingdom was advancing and people were being set free.

    John Wesley comments:

    Mar 9:38 – And John answered him – As if he had said, But ought we to receive those who follow not us? Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name – Probably this was one of John the Baptist’s disciples, who believed in Jesus, though he did not yet associate with our Lord’s disciples. And we forbad him, because he followeth not us – How often is the same temper found in us? How readily do we also lust to envy? But how does that spirit become a disciple, much more a minister of the benevolent Jesus! St. Paul had learnt a better temper, when he rejoiced that Christ was preached, even by those who were his personal enemies. But to confine religion to them that follow us, is a narrowness of spirit which we should avoid and abhor. — John Wesley, Commentary

    39But Jesus said, “Don’t hinder him. For there is nobody who will do a miracle in my name and will be able to speak evil of me right afterward. 40For whoever is not against us is for us.

    Note the contrast to the similar statement in Matthew 12:30 and Luke 11:23. Both have their appropriate viewpoint. In this case, pride caused the disciples opposition to this man.

    John Wesley notes:

    Mar 9:39 – Jesus said – Christ here gives us a lovely example of candour and moderation. He was willing to put the best construction on doubtful cases, and to treat as friends those who were not avowed enemies. Perhaps in this instance it was a means of conquering the remainder of prejudice, and perfecting what was wanting in the faith and obedience of these persons. Forbid him not – Neither directly nor indirectly discourage or hinder any man who brings sinners from the power of Satan to God, because he followeth not us, in opinions, modes of worship, or any thing else which does not affect the essence of religion.

    Mar 9:40 – For he that is not against you, is for you – Our Lord had formerly said, he that is not with me, is against me: thereby admonishing his hearers, that the war between him and Satan admitted of no neutrality, and that those who were indifferent to him now, would finally be treated as enemies. But here in another view, he uses a very different proverb; directing his followers to judge of men’s characters in the most candid manner; and charitably to hope that those who did not oppose his cause wished well to it. Upon the whole, we are to be rigorous in judging ourselves, and candid in judging each other.

    And Barclay, on the same passage:

    “It is necessary always to remember that truth is always bigger than any man’s grasp of it.” — Barclay on Mark 9:38-40

    41Whoever gives you a cup of water in the name because you are of Christ, I tell you he will definitely not lose his reward.”

    We don’t work for the reward, but God will reward.

    References

    These are some references I consulted:

    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

  • New Bible Format

    The IBS is producing a new Bible, available in August, 2007, which will reorganize the books of the Bible, removing verse and chapter numbers. This is intended to provide a new and more original feel in reading the Bible.

    I suspect that such a format will annoy some people, but I’ll say bluntly they should chill. We live with the constant tension between the Bible as a unity (a book) and the Bible as diversity (a collection). While verses facilitate conversations about the Bible and references to specific passages in other documents, they tend to first treat the Bible as a unity, and then chop it up into potentially unrelated pieces. They certainly distract from simply hearing the message.

    At the same time the book order, which is in many cases arbitrary, keeps modern readers from getting their bearings in the historical context. While there are bound to be disputes over where various elements fit, the structure of this new Bible is a good start to starting to balance Bible study in the other direction–more toward hearing the message in its literary, cultural, and historical context.

    I strongly commend the IBS on this effort, and look forward to having a physical copy in my hands as soon as it is released. In the meantime, check out their web site for this project, complete with sample books of the Bible, and a blog. Currently the staff there is blogging about why they would carry out such a project.

    For those who use my participatory study method, this Bible will be particularly valuable in the overview reading portion of your study. It removes distractions and some of the elements of Bible reading that tend to make one feel that one has read more than one has. The TNIV is also simple enough in language to make it easy to read large amounts of text.

    HT: radical renovation via TNIV Truth.

  • Book: Christian Theologies of Scripture

    Note: This is a repost due to the database crash. I believe this is the only post that was not part of the restored backup, so we should now have all entries.

    Having just turned from a book which I did not find very helpful, I’m happy to present one which I consider an exceptional gift to the Christian community, Justin Holcomb’s Christian Theologies of Scripture.

    I wrote a short blog entry immediately after hearing about this book, promising that I would read it and then comment further. Well, that time has come. This book is everything I had hoped it would be.

    I have read selections from most of the authors referenced, but with my specialty in Biblical languages, grounded in ancient near eastern languages, I often miss things that happened after about 100 CE. I’m more likely to know the name of an Egyptian or Babylonian king than one from Medieval times. It’s easy to get an unbalanced perspective on a theologian by reading only selections of his work. I’d mention Aquinas as a good example. It’s exceedingly difficult to acquire a passing acquaintance with his work–he’s just too complex for that.

    For people like me, who are very interested in the topic, but who need some overview, Holcomb has managed to provide a superior learning opportunity. I would go so far as to recommend that anyone who takes discussion of Biblical inspiration, or who thoughtfully considers inspiration in connection with Bible study, should read this book. Part I, dealing with patristic and medieval theologies is worth it by itself. There is an overview followed by overviews of Origen, Augustine, and Aquinas. The reformation/counter-reformation section is worthwhile if for no other reason than to correct the common misconception of “sola scriptura” as understood by the reformers, and its twin misconception that Roman Catholic Bible study of the period was dead.

    I found Part IV, Contextual Theologies of Scripture least helpful, but that is not the fault either of Holcomb as editor nor of the selected authors. I just have to admit that for me, many of these views of inspiration just get a bit too wild, and so I have a hard time understanding why one bothers. Scripture in the African-American Christian tradition was an exception to that assessment–I found that chapter extremely helpful, and I think many preachers could learn something about preaching and applying scripture from that chapter. I must warn white guys like myself, however, that using African-American approaches to scripture can be hazardous. I was teaching once in an African-American church, and I was using some liberation vocabulary and applying some Old Testament stories to modern situations. One lady became more and more agitated until she raised her hand and interrupted me. “That’s all good enough,” she said, “But when are you going to deal with what it actually says?” She did have a point!

    In any case, I rate this one a clear 5 on my numerical scale.

  • Book: God’s Secretaries

    If you’re looking for a history of the KJV, you are likely to be disappointed by this book. There is a history, and considering the very sparse information on the topic, it’s a pretty good one, but it is concealed in the incredibly wordy prose of this ponderous document. Considering my own propensity for long words and complex sentences, I would suggest that I be taken seriously when I call someone else’s prose “ponderous.” Nicolson really likes the rich language of the KJV. He seems also to like much of the culture of Jacobean England, though he is capable of criticizing it.

    There is a great deal here on culture and the feel of the times. There is very little on Bible translation and its characteristics. I would call it more of a story than a history, but then it is a story that moves so slowly.

    Having said all of this about style, there is one characteristic that truly annoys me. Nicolson apparently belongs to that group of people who has decided that a particular literary style is better than any other, and who criticize anything else as inadequate. If one comprehends the Jacobean prose, and if one appreciates that sort of thing, then it will have the effects Nicolson credits it with. But that determination is subjective. I personally find the Revised English Bible a much better read. I like its sound better when read aloud, and I believe it is both more comprehensible and more faithful to the literary values of the source texts it purports to translate.

    Nicolson holds that sometimes the KJV is more majestic than the source. If one assumes that majesty is the proper quality of all prose, then perhaps that’s a good thing. As a reader of the source texts in their original languages, I don’t feel the same way. And “feel” is the appropriate term. There are some objective values in literary quality–good proofreading, for example. But much of literary quality is a matter of taste.

    I recall one of my professors who was a great fan of Dostoevsky. He also thought much of the science fiction I read was of poor quality and low literary value. Some of it was, some of it wasn’t. But under no circumstances would I recommend to anyone to read Dostoevsky at any time. I know that there are those literary folks who will regard my tastes as pedestrian and popular. They’re welcome to that opinion. I like what I like.

    What I dislike is the notion that those who like something different than I do are somehow objectively on a higher literary level. The KJV uses a language that was already in the past when it was translated. I do believe it is of high literary quality, though I wouldn’t want all that many works written in that style. (I like but do not love Shakespeare.) On page 234, Nicolson quotes T. S. Eliot of the NEB, saying that it “astonishes in its combination of the vulgar, the trivial and the pedantic.” I like T. S. Eliot, but I disagree with him here.

    If you choose to read this book, be prepared to cull the valuable material from the midst of the trivial and pedantic load of superfluous verbal baggage.

    My numerical rating: 2.

  • Database Problems

    I had some database problems and I’m temporarily on a backup. This backup is missing two posts from June 22, but I will be able to restore them soon. Please bear with me as I work on it.

  • Quotes on Imputed Righteousness

    The translator’s difficulty with this passage arises from the lack of a single English verb to express both “do right” and “be right with God”; of a noun that means both “righteousness” and “acceptance with God as righteous”; and of an adjective to describe the man who is both “righteous” and “accepted as righteous,” or to use the Latin, both “just” and “justified.” The resulting obscurities and inconsistencies give aid and comfort to human nature–Paul would say “the flesh”–in its habit of divorcing faith from faithfulness and justification from righteousness. The interpreter has to guard against basing “justification by faith” upon a fictive or imputed righteousness rather than presenting it as an actuality inseparable from the Christian’s present life in Christ. When Paul says that the righteous man who is both just and justified is to live on the basis of faith, he is describing a way of life that is present as well as future. His faith is the determinant of action which makes righteousness actual even now.
    — The Interpreter’s Bible on Galatians 3:11

    But to him that worketh not – It being impossible he should without faith. But believeth, his faith is imputed to him for righteousness – Therefore God’s affirming of Abraham, that faith was imputed to him for righteousness, plainly shows that he worked not; or, in other words, that he was not justified by works, but by faith only. Hence we see plainly how groundless that opinion is, that holiness or sanctification is previous to our justification. For the sinner, being first convinced of his sin and danger by the Spirit of God, stands trembling before the awful tribunal of divine justice ; and has nothing to plead, but his own guilt, and the merits of a Mediator. Christ here interposes; justice is satisfied; the sin is remitted, and pardon is applied to the soul, by a divine faith wrought by the Holy Ghost, who then begins the great work of inward sanctification. Thus God justifies the ungodly, and yet remains just, and true to all his attributes! But let none hence presume to “continue in sin;” for to the impenitent, God “is a consuming fire.” On him that justifieth the ungodly – If a man could possibly be made holy before he was justified, it would entirely set his justification aside; seeing he could not, in the very nature of the thing, be justified if he were not, at that very time, ungodly. — John Wesley on Romans 4:5

    Note that I’m not quoting these as authority for the position, but rather as expressions of this view of imputed and imparted righteousness to spark thought. I do consider both of these statements very good expressions of my own view on the matter.

    I would place these expressions alongside what Adrian Warnock quoted from Wayne Grudem.

    If I could add my own note, God counted (not “thought of”) Jesus as one of us (sinners), to bring an end to that reality. He counts us as righteous upon our justification, in order to begin bringing an end to the reality of sin in our lives. This is one of the problems I see with making PSA the central metaphor of the atonement. One almost has to see God in error. He sees Jesus as sinful, even though he is not, and he sees us as righteous, even though we are not. I would say that God intentional mixes the categories–counting Jesus as one of us, and then us with Jesus–to bring about the reality. He always knows what he is doing, and I think it’s better to express it in that way.

  • Transformed Daily

    I’m adding another site to my blogroll, Transformed Daily. I got an e-mail from blogger Eric Jones on this one, thinking there might be some synergy, and after reading a bit, I think there is.

    A couple of entries that really caught my eye:

    ARE YOU A TRAINED FLEA CHRISTIAN OR ARE YOU A FREE FLEA CHRISTIAN? — this is really good. Read it and think about it!

    I Said the Prayer – Now Make Me Happy. This is an exceptionally good short piece on our reading. Now why would I, a Christian writer and publisher, promote a blog entry that talks about reading too many Christian books? I do so because Eric is absolutely right here. My experience as a Bible teacher (and my publishing started and still continues primarily in support of that ministry) has put me in contact with many, many Christians who are thinking about Bible study or playing around with it. But what they do primarily is read books about the Bible or books that they think go more directly to the answer. But there’s a reason Jesus spoke in parables, and there’s a reason why the treasure–knowledge of God–is not strewn over the surface. So if you’re going to buy that Christian book in place of studying your Bible, even if I’m the publisher or author, think twice.

    I expect to enjoy keeping track of Eric’s postings in the future.

  • Two Cows

    I think I first saw this thing about two cows several years ago, but there have been several more instances added in this version. Some of the new ones are even funnier than the earlier ones. It looks like people have just been tacking examples on the end. (HT: 42)