Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Agreeing with Piper – Twice!

    Laura has a good post with some material from Dr. John Piper. I have previously disagreed with Piper on PSA, whilst joyfully and vigorously agreeing with him on hearing God’s voice.

    In this case, I agree with him on both items, even though my placid nature would probably have resulted in a less vigorous use of vocabulary WRT the prosperity gospel. Nonetheless I agree with what he said about it. In particular I reject the notion that the prosperity gospel is the result of advanced revelation. I believe that there can be modern revelation, but if the prosperity gospel is “advanced revelation,” it’s the advanced revelation of a new and different faith, not the next step for Christianity.

    His article on Ayn Rand is also worth reading. I found much to agree with there as well.

    Thanks to Laura for pointing us to these items.

  • Dino-fied Children’s Bible?

    OK, this is just too funny. I have to link to it: Daniel in the Dino’s Den. No comment is actually necessary. HT: Dispatches.

  • Interviews, Journalism, and Blogging

    I’m generally positive about the influence of blogging on the flow of information. I think it’s valuable both in terms of news and commentary and even in academic discussions. It provides a new possibility for minority ideas. It’s a good place to test ideas and to get comment on them without doing the full research that would result in an academic paper, for example.

    Blogging obviously has its limitations as well. Let the reader beware. A blog entry such as this only takes a few minutes, and you don’t have any substantial way to check how accurate it is. In general, the modern age has made information much more accessible, and has also made media in general more accessible. That means that the reader has more choices and has to exercise those choices, hopefully intelligently.

    Journalist Steven Levy, writing in Newsweek/MSNBC, is concerned about the retreat of some people from face to face interviews. A recent interviewer was turned down for phone interviews by several bloggers, who asked for e-mail interviews. When the journalist objected, these bloggers wrote about it on their popular blogs. I can’t help but get the feeling that a major part of the problem here was that the journalist was annoyed that he couldn’t keep the topic under his control.

    Even more, however, I believe that face to face interviews, much beloved by journalists, often are not the best way to get a good idea of what’s going on. There are so many topics that require much more serious examination of the facts and a much more thoughtful response. Face to face interviews, and to an even greater extent the confrontations so loved by television journalists have a tendency to get off-the-cuff remarks, and they favor the person who can turn a catchy phrase the fastest, not necessarily the one who actually has the most in-depth knowledge of the subject, or the best judgment.

    Levy concludes:

    We in the journalism tribe operate under the belief that when we ask people to talk to us we are not acting out of self-interest but a sense of duty to inform the population. It’s an article of our faith that when subjects speak to us, they are engaging in a grand participatory act where everyone benefits. But these lofty views don’t impress bloggers like Rosen. “You have to prove [you represent the public],” he says. Yes, we do. But every time we lose the priceless knowledge from those essential, real-time interviews, our stories are impoverished, to the detriment of our readers: you.

    Well, no, not exactly. We are not impoverished. Rather, we are enriched by the availability of new options. It takes a very tribal mindset (and Levy is right to invoke the phrase “journalism tribe”) to assume that the addition of new options and new ways for information to flow results in impoverishment.

  • Slippery Language on the Atonement Debate

    Adrian Warnock is again posting on the penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) issue, now about an interview with the authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions.

    Now I’m not going to post on PSA today in detail. But Adrian manages to demonstrate some aspects of this discussion from his side of the fence that annoy me-no, that’s not strong enough. I think these statements are just plain wrong.

    At the end of his post Adrian says:

    Where do you stand? Will you join arms with Andrew, Steve, and a whole generation of those of us who feel this issue is quite literally one of life and death?

    Or will you seek to compromise, maybe downplay the importance of precisely how Jesus saves us, and adopt a gospel message that, whilst sounding more acceptable to the modern ear, is in the opinion of many of us nothing less than “another gospel.”

    The stakes couldn’t possibly be higher.

    I’m willing to allow most of the first paragraph. My answer to that would be a resounding NO!. I do not in any sense stand with them on this issue. But I do think that for some people it may be an issue of life and death. Those who malign the character of God through their doctrine may well have to answer before God for those they have driven away. I don’t want to overplay that point, however, because as imperfect humans I suspect we all have those moments and even years when we do not perfectly represent the gospel of Christ. Nonetheless, grace abounds! Where is there evidence that such grace is comprehended on the PSA side of the debate?

    But my major concern here is with the second paragraph: “Or will you seek to compromise . . .” This is the method of extremist madness. You dismiss the opposite extreme, and divide the rest of the world into people who are right and people who have compromised. The compromise, of course, is with that unmentionable evil that has been cut out of the spectrum. It’s “us good guys” versus the compromisers.

    Adrian continues with “maybe downplay the importance of precisely how Jesus saves us . . .” Downplay? Who’s downplaying? I reject absolutely and utterly the notion that precisely how the atonement is accomplished is a critical piece of knowledge. I call that view “salvation by correct doctrine” and I reject it along with all other human based systems of salvation. However Jesus did it, he did it.

    And again: “and adopt a gospel message that, whilst sounding more acceptable to the modern ear, is in the opinion of many of us nothing less than ‘another gospel.’” Of course I adopt what Adrian and many others regard as “another gospel.” Why? I regard what they are preaching as dangerously close to “another gospel.” The only reason I don’t call it another gospel outright is that I think many people sincerely grab hold of the message of PSA and are saved, never understanding any other aspects of atonement. The preachers of PSA are grabbing a part and making it the whole, and it gets twisted on the way. But even further, I do not adopt my view because it is “more acceptable to the modern ear.” I adopt my view because I believe it is right. I believe scripture teaches a multifaceted understanding of the atonement and I also believe scripture teaches that we should realize that we don’t fully comprehend any doctrine, but most especially the incarnation and the atonement.

    I’m not heading again into writing on PSA in detail right now. I’ve written a few things before. My response here is simply to the dismissive type of language that tries to pretend opponents are not working from conviction, but rather from a desire to be more acceptable to the modern world, and to “compromise,” that compromise being with something that is dismissed without discussion.

    Almost Instant Update: Just after I hit the “Publish” button, my RSS feed showed a new post by Peter Kirk which is well worthwhile reading.

  • Christian Carnival CLXXV

    . . . has been posted. Check it out!

  • Voters are Real Arbiters of Ethics

    According to the Washington Post, Rep. William Jefferson, now indicted, is getting the attention of the house leadership. Republicans moved quickly to be part of the act, though I don’t see too much delay on the part of Democrats either. But here’s why the voters are the real arbiters of ethics:

    In short order, the House last night approved a Democratic motion that would make an ethics investigation automatic upon the indictment of any House member and then approved a Republican motion that could lead to Jefferson’s expulsion.

    Nice, fast work. Later we see the following:

    GOP leaders made no moves to expel Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) from the House after their indictments last year, going out of their way to try to preserve a path for DeLay’s return to the leadership and saying Ney would have to decide whether to resign.

    Now various partisans will argue about whose activities are worse, and when everyone should have acted, but I will suggest that the reason Republicans didn’t move quite so fast prior to the election was that they had been in power too long and had gotten a bit arrogant. Any politicians feel they can get away with it, they’re going to protect their own, whether they are Republican or Democrat.

    But this also demonstrates the potential power of voters. I commented before on the re-election of Rep. Jefferson even under an ethics cloud, though one should notice the first comment on that post in which Laura makes some good points on that election. But nonetheless, in the long term the voters have their say, because a certain laxness on the subject of ethics helped lose the Republicans their majority, and that same fact holds the current Democratic leadership somewhat accountable.

    It’s not a perfect situation, but if the voters don’t give up too quickly, they have the power to change things. Two keys: 1) Don’t lose interest. Make ethics part of your voting decisions. 2) Don’t get the idea that one party or the other has a monopoly on clean government. They will govern as cleanly as you make them.

    Hold the politicians accountable!

  • The Difficult Message of Hebrews

    Hebrews 5:11-14 describes the message of the book as difficult, chides the readers/listeners for not being ready for a meaty message, and then goes on to the more difficult message nonetheless. So what is basic, what is difficult, and what is it that makes the difficult message difficult? (OK, I take the 1,000 point deduction for using the word “difficult” too many times in one sentence.)

    Since I believe that the first 14 verses of Hebrews 6 are the heart of the message of the book. Once a person has been enlightened and set off on the Christian journey, can they turn back? Once they have turned back, can they repent yet again? This is a complex way of stating the more basic point: Endurance is required for the walk of faith. (For some previous thoughts on this topic, see Hebrews 6:4-6: Can Those who Fall Return?.)

    The author outlines these basic foundation items in 6:1–repentance, faith, baptism, laying on hands, resurrection, and eternal judgment. All of these elements are, of course, in the early stages of the proclamation of the good news. I’ve been reviewing material in the gospel of Mark, and one can find all of these elements, though the very specific “laying on of hands” is only fully developed in the early church. Nonetheless Jesus identifies people, empowers them and sends them out (Mark 6:6-13). These basic elements identify the key points of coming to repentance believing in Jesus and in turn going out to make disciples.

    To many of us in the church today, I’m sure this sounds like it’s not so basic. One of the biggest struggles I encounter in churches is getting members past the point of just being there and on to the point of making disciples. I wonder if the audience didn’t have a similar reaction to this letter when they first heard it.

    I can hear the chatter out in the congregation now. “What does he mean, ‘basic.’ That’s a serious message he’s preaching there. What more do you need if you’ve gone from repentance to being sent out again.”

    But again my study of Mark reminded me of the parable of the sower (Mark 4:3-9). It’s interesting that the author of Hebrews brings in plants as well (verses 7-8), though in a somewhat different context. I don’t want to suggest interpreting Hebrews 6 according to the parable of the sower, but there are some similar points. I do, however, think that the seed metaphor can be used to help understand the point in the Christian experience described by Hebrews 6. It’s not just the seeds that never sprout at all that fail in the parable. Out of the four categories of seed, three sprout. Only one fails completely (the birds eat the seed), while one succeeds completely (grows and produces fruit). The other two raise some of the same questions we have here. Can you fail after you receive the word? If you do fail, can you return? The parable of the sower makes no attempt to answer the second one.

    Two categories of seed start to grow but don’t finish, and both fail because of the hardships of the journey. It seems to me that this illustrates that the advanced material has to do with advancing on the Christian walk. The entire book of Hebrews bristles with the challenge not to give up, turn back, go off track, or fail to enter God’s rest. Most of us have experienced this sort of thing. We hear the gospel message and are excited, but we then encounter the actual church, warts and all and we become a little less enthusiastic. All too often, the cares of this world, or even the cares of Christian ministry choke us off, and there is no fruit.

    This is a hard saying. We can get into some terrible debates over the perseverance of the saints, or the perseverance of Christ on behalf of the saints. I discussed this once with a Calvinist student. We were discussing a person who had left the church after having been an enthusiastic Christian. I was interested in our vocabulary. We both agreed that this person had once publicly confessed Jesus Christ as savior. We both agreed he had set out on the path of discipleship. We both agreed that his love had grown cold and that he had forcefully rejected the life that he once knew. Where we differed was on vocabulary. I used the vocabulary of accepting Christ (being saved) and falling away. He stated that the man had apparently accepted Christ, but as it turned out it must not have been for real, as demonstrated by his falling away.

    It seems to me that those two positions are separated by vocabulary and not by practical reality. What apparently happens is the same. How we describe it is different. The author of Hebrews seems to me to describe this much more as a present danger to every believer. “Keep on going toward maturity (or perfection),” he says. “Don’t fall back!”

    Good advice, but advanced advice. It’s much easier to start a race than to finish it. The author of Hebrews knew that, and thus challenged Christians to run the race to completion (Hebrews 12:1-3).

    [This post deals with the answer to question #6, Lesson 7, Page 41 of my study guide to Hebrews]

  • Deciding to See *Knocked Up*

    It may be a symptom of insanity, but amongst the 20 or so blogs I read constantly are both Pandagon (from the left) and the evangelical outpost (from the right). Generally those two blogs are so far apart that they cannot be regarded as in conversation, so I was quite surprised over the past couple of days to see reviews of the same movie–Knocked Up!–from both blogs (Pandagon Review and evangelical outpost review). What was even more interesting was that while neither was unreservedly positive, both had some good things to say about the movie.

    I don’t generally like movies that are sprinkled excessively with the F-word, which is one of Carter’s main complaints, but both reviews seem to think that the decision of the main character to have the baby rather than taking the alternative of abortion is presented with sensitivity.

    Perhaps I’ll have to go see it after all.

  • Interesting Bible Study – Listening to Scripture

    A friend e-mailed me a link to Listening to Scripture, and though I live nowhere near the church involved, it looks like some fascinating material and a very useful Bible study class. The principles listed in the blog are all worth consideration and application.

    I plan to follow these folks “afar off” as they work through this study and as their leader blogs about it.

  • Taking [Part of] the Bible Literally

    It appears that some young earth creationists take Genesis very literally, but are perhaps a bit less literal in their understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:1-7. The Australian Creation Ministries International is suing the American Answers in Genesis over a number of issues.

    For those who might not know, here is the passage from 1 Corinthians:

    1Do some of you dare, when you have a dispute with another, to have it judged by the unrighteous and not by the saints? 2Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you then unworthy of judging even the smallest issue? 3Don’t you know that we will judge angels, not to mention the issues of ordinary life. 4So if you have a lawsuit regarding ordinary matters, will you then seat as judges those who are disdained in the church? 5This is shameful! Is there not one among you who is wise, who can judge between brothers? 6Must one of you Christians go to the law against another and before unbelievers at that? 7You’re already defeated when you have to go to the law at all. Why would you not rather be injured? Why would you not rather be defrauded? — 1 Corinthians 6:1-7

    Now I understand how to apply time and circumstances to that passage, but then I’m one of those near-heathen liberals who doesn’t accept the literal creation story. I wonder how literalists justify such behavior? Well, here is where they do it, though I think if I got that much liberty to play around, I could find a way to get past the literal interpretation of Genesis as well.

    HT: The Panda’s Thumb