Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • What Holds us Together?

    I was reading this story about American Episcopal bishops and their response to the Anglican communion, and it struck a cord in me because of my own experiences. Here we have a conservative Episcopal bishop providing a response to a challenge that primarily resulted from the actions of liberal bishops.

    What is making the Episcopal Church USA hang together? I could, however, just as well ask the same thing about the United Methodist Church, of which I’m a member. Why do we all hang around and duke it out year after year and General Conference after General Conference?

    I recall a study that suggested that there were really four camps in the UMC on the issue of homosexuality. There are those who believe homosexuality is a sin, and who do not believe we can remain as a unified church with disagreement on this issue, there are those who believe homosexuality is sin and yet think we can get along. On the other hand those who believe homosexuality is not a sin are similarly divided between those who think we can co-exist in a denomination that with those who believe the opposite, and those who think we can’t. Yet year after year the debate goes on.

    But I’m wondering again just what keeps us working together. How many of the goals of my local church here in Pensacola match those of more liberal churches in the Northwest, for example? Are we really in community or is it just on paper? Those who know me may be surprised to realize that the congregation of which I’m a member is really quite conservative, for a United Methodist Church. It’s not at the hard right, but it’s right of center. I think I’m somewhere in the center range of United Methodist belief right now myself, and I feel that I could work together with some reservations in most of the churches I know. I’m afraid I would have to make an exception for the one church that I know of that removed the cross as a symbol of death.

    I’m thinking that a great deal of the glue is simply tradition, whether for the Episcopal Church, with a somewhat longer tradition, or the United Methodist Church, which has certainly had enough history to become respectable. Denominational loyalty goes a long way for people who have lived in a community and gone to a particular church for years and years, or been multigenerational members of the same denomination.

    But the current generation isn’t buying that, whether they are liberal or conservative. They want a church community that is going where they are going and in which they can be wholehearted, active, members if they want any church at all. “We’ve always been Methodists” or “We’ve done it that way for years” doesn’t really work for them.

    I know I keep revisiting this topic, but it seems still to be a very live one. The membership of the United Methodist Church seems to indicate that we’re not finding the popular answer to these questions whether or not we are finding the right answer. The Episcopal Church has a similar problem.

    I think we need to find the glue, on a personal, congregational, and denominational level. If we can deal with the glue, we should be able to deal with the rest. For me, the central message of the love of Jesus who came and died for me is a driving force. I’m interested in social activism because I think Jesus called us through the incarnation to the ministry of reconciliation. Simply being redeemed drives me to want to be with others who feel the same way. That drives other issues into the background.

    But I think the question of whether even Jesus and his mission are the central position of our faith is subject to serious debate in many places. I find people both to my right and to my left who, redeemed by the blood of the lamb want to go out and share the gospel through word, deed, and sign as led by the Holy Spirit. Others, well, not so much. I’m not referring to different theories of the atonement. I’m referring to various views that make the atonement less than a central topic.

    If it weren’t for the atonement, I’d be carrying out whatever social action I have through a civic organization. I wouldn’t need a church. A church doesn’t just need to serve the community; they need to serve the community driven by Jesus Christ and filled with his Spirit.

    When I first thought of writing this I was thinking of a kind of moderate split–let’s take everyone who can exist together out of the center instead of continuing to head toward a left-right split. But I don’t think even that would put together the right combination. I’m looking for a community that wants to carry out the “royal law” and do so driven by and in the name of the royal person–Jesus Christ. So far, in spite of disagreements I have found that I can do that in three different United Methodist congregations. The denomination as a whole? Well, not so much.

  • Bibles: Turning a Blessing into a Curse

    I have blogged a number of times on the benefits of having multiple English Bible versions to use in Bible study, especially for the student who does not know Biblical languages. I did so most recently in my post From Word to Study, in my series on word studies.

    Yesterday I got an e-mailed link to a blog post titled all these translations, arrgh in e-mail in which the writer narrated a journey through confusion to some sort of solid ground with reference to Bible study. It’s not his conclusion that causes me to disagree, but rather the fact that he and so many others have to go through such a journey. I do disagree with his preference for formal equivalence versions for study, but that’s another topic. Others may be less careful than he was and get stuck in some very dangerous places.

    Why is it that the blessing of having the Bible readily available in English can so often be turned into a curse. Here are some of the common complaints I hear:

    1. I can’t follow the pastor’s scripture reading. It’s not the same as in my Bible.
    2. I like the rich language of the KJV
    3. The differences in versions causes confusion. Nobody knows what to believe.
    4. There are missing/added passages in that Bible!

    How do we respond to this? Well, it’s valuable to educate people on the process of translation and the reasons why translations differ. I try to do this in my book What’s in a Version?, which is actually simply the lesson materials for a seminar I’ve taught several times. I’m looking at extracting from this a shorter version titled “Choosing a Bible” with additional material on choosing Bibles with study notes, and then expanding the current book, which only has a couple of paragraphs on the major issue of gender language, for example. Such education is good, and of course I like to sell books! 🙂

    But let’s look at these objections and some things we can do to help people understand through what we do in church, Sunday School, and other such studies on a daily basis.

    1. Have a pew Bible.
      We like people to bring their Bibles to church, but the one way to be sure everyone can read together is through use of a pew Bible. Then identify the translation you’re using and let the congregation know that it is in the same version as the one in their pew. This can also help with unison reading and responsive reading. People can still choose to use their own Bibles, but then they’re on their own. Consider also preaching about Bibles, and perhaps also sponsor a missionary who is translating the Bible. Bring your missionary to the church to speak.
    2. It may be difficult to deal with the “rich language” issue. In some churches, the answer may be a Bible that has more majestic language, though in modern English, such as the REB or the NJB. In other cases you may simply have to explain to some members that in order to reach the unchurched who don’t understand “churchy” language, you’re reading from a more modern version. To those who love the KJV, I suggest setting up a small study group of those who are of like mind, and using the KJV in your group. This will have the added advantage of adding a Bible study event to your week.
    3. Differences in Bible translations are generally only a major problem to those who use the proof text method. The best answer to this is to train your congregation (whether you are a pastor or other leader) in how to study and to lead them to base their beliefs on a broader range of scriptures and a more secure foundation of interpretation.
    4. It’s a bit more difficult to deal with the whole passage differences simply because you need to deal with how texts are copied, but again, educating people to broaden their scriptural base will help, because no major doctrines are based solely on disputed passages. Education and study are still the key.

    More important than any of the specifics is to constantly celebrate the availability of the scriptures in your teaching, preaching, and in your daily life. Be aware that even very good technical criticism can drive people from the Bible. My own dislike for the Living Bible had to be sidelined just a bit when I found that it was the first Bible my wife had read, and resulted in her coming to the Lord. What if someone had gotten to her first with a charge of corruption? Criticism of Bible versions is healthy, and often required. There is no Bible version that cannot be justifiably criticized. But such criticism should always be put into context.

    The abundance of Bibles is a blessing–let’s strive to keep it that way!

  • Protecting Rights and Fighting Terrorism

    In a comment on her blog, Laura of Pursuing Holiness drew my attention to this story in the New York Times about the posse comitatus and related material about the insurrection act of 1807.

    First let me note that I consider the posse comitatus to be a good idea, but my primary point in posting about it is not to argue that point. Go ahead and read the article and study that one out for yourself.

    But the thing that worries me primarily about all of these actions is the way that we allow freedoms to be eroded without due consideration in the face of danger. There is a strong potential for trouble in both directions. If those on the libertarian side simply argue in favor of civil liberties without looking at safety issues, then eventually safety concerns will get out of hand, and popular support for certain stronger–and potentially dangerous–measures will continue to grow. We’d like to think that we can somehow get the people of the country to stand on principle though the heavens fall, but in reality, many people will give up a great deal of freedom in exchange for security.

    Amongst those who are not so libertarian (and there are people in both these groups on the left and the right), there is often a tendency to take hold of any rule that looks like it makes the law tougher and imagine that it will, in fact, increase safety. That is also very dangerous. If you pass a tough law, and safety doesn’t result, then there’s an automatic drive to get tougher and tougher until it works. I think this is part of the reasonw why we have in the United States one of the toughest criminal justice systems in the free world, and yet we also have one of the highest crime rates.

    The question, I think, is one of effectiveness. We are coming to believe our own spin. If someone on TV says that a certain action will improve our security enough times, then we become convinced that it will. If a law has a title like “Law to Increase the Security of Air Travel” or “Law to Make Everyone Smarter” we assume that each law will accomplish its goal. But when we look into those laws we may find that very little of the bill actually has to do with the topic.

    One way these things happen is when various projects are offered to particular districts in order to secure votes on some other issue. Such things are happening right now in the Iraq war vote, as Laura notes in another post. (You can follow her links to the source stories.) You might like to think that primarily your congressman is deciding whether to support or oppose a bill on principle, but that is often not the case. Why are congressmen susceptible to such pressure? Primarily because that’s what we, the people, will vote for. The key to having a strong hold on your district is bringing home the bacon, or to be more direct, the pork.

    Now I went on that detour to make this point: Because of this complex system of dealing, and because bills are often passed with many unrleated provisions attached, it is very difficult to tell in detail just what a congressman supports. Voters guides can often be accused of partisanship precisely because they have to pick and choose so carefully. John Kerry got on the wrong side of this one with his “I voted for it before I voted against it” issue on body armor. The issue gets very tangled because of the combinations of provisions.

    It was in just such a way that the provisions that weaken civil liberties in a dangerous way were tucked into a defense appropriations bill, and passed without making congressmen stand up and be counted on the specific issue. Even opponents sometimes give up on such amendments, letting them ride through because you don’t want to hold up a big bill such as defense appropriations over a minor issue. But we elect our congressmen to do just that kind of watching.

    One of the reforms that I support in connection with this issue is the Read the Bills Act (RTBA). You can find a good blog post on the reason for this bill and its intent here. This is not my central point, although it would make it considerably easier to do the things I’m about to suggest. (Hat tip on the prior post to Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

    (more…)

  • Added to my Blogroll

    I’m adding Bob’s Log to the Bible study blogs section of my blogroll. Bob deals with a great deal of Hebrew poetry, especially the Psalms, and is very interested in structure. I think it will be valuable to look over his shoulder as he works on this interesting material.

  • Consider Christianity Week

    Consider Christianity Week is an idea conceived by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., author of the Consider Christianity Series. Note that I don’t come to this event completely without ulterior motives as I publish Elgin’s books and related study guides (Energion Publications).

    For me, Consider Christianity Week is an example of the kinds of principles presented in Philophronos Blogging, and we use a similar key text (1 Peter 3:15-16). This past year, Elgin asked Pacesetters Bible School, Inc., of which I’m president, to provide the umbrella for this event, which we gladly did. Pacesetters is sponsoring a series of events here in the Pensacola, FL area, and you can find a list of those here. In addition, Elgin will be recording some programs for the Running Toward the Goal podcast, also from Pacesetters Bible School.

    If you live in the Pensacola area, or within reasonable striking distance, consider dropping by for one or another of these events. We’re going to have fun and learn a lot, I think. If you’re a Christian blogger, consider posting a blog entry sometime during the coming week (March 25-31) on the essentials of the Christian faith, on Christian unity, or on apologetics. If you will trackback to this post, or send me an e-mail, I’ll be glad to post links to any related posts from here and also from the Pacesetters Bible School newsletter blog. So besides the value of posting on an excellent topic, you get a couple of links.

    We are going to have an online chat with Elgin on the 26th or 27th, sponsored by the Compuserve Religion Forum, but that date and time is not final yet. I will announce it here when it is.

  • Philophronos Blogroll Growing

    Laura has a good post welcoming the latest member of the Philophronos Blogroll, Pen of the Wayfarer. I join in welcoming a new member, and I’d also like to remind readers what this idea is about.

    But first, it is not about hiding your light under a bushel, diminishing your witness, or glossing over what you truly believe. If you look at Laura’s blog and mine you’ll see that she supports the war in Iraq while I oppose it. We haven’t changed our minds, nor do we pretend to think that the other position has more merit than we used to. What Philophronos blogging calls for is that you express your opinions about the facts, and much less about people’s character. Of course there are times when it is appropriate to talk about character, but when you do, it should relate to evidence and not just innuendo.

    There is no Philophonos police force, who read your blog to decide whether you have lived up to some set of rules. Rather, this is something you take on yourself, and your readers get to judge whether you’re living up to your claim. I think there is an enormous amount that we can learn from one another, which is one reason that I read more conservative blogs each day than liberal ones. My moderation tilts a bit leftward, so I balance my reading a bit rightward. And no, I don’t expect that conservative readers will believe that I have given their views adequate attention even so, but that’s not the point. The point is that I do learn from people who disagree with me.

    So if you’re a Christian blogger, consider the Philophronos Blogroll.

    Note: The text Laura quotes, 1 Peter 3:15-16, is also the theme text for Consider Christianity Week, concerning which I will blog next. (See also Consider Christianity Week 2007 on the Pacesetters Bible School, Inc. web site.)

  • Christian Carnival CLXVI

    . . . has been posted. More fun for all of us! Thanks Dory!

  • Better Bibles on Translating Idioms

    A couple of days ago I blogged about the idiom “brokenhearted” and closely related phrases, particularly in Isaiah 61:1. I’ve been collecting additional information via e-mail, and I may blog further on that one, though I am still pretty much looking at something like “give courage to those in despair.”

    Today, Wayne Leman blogged about another idiom from Hebrew scripture, “in the eyes of.” He has provided a range of translation options for this into English and I think it’s worthwhile checking those out.

    What is the best approach to translating an idiom such as this one? How important is it to you to transfer the source language idiom, if it is important at all?

    One thing I have found is that the more I study idioms, the more important it seems to me that we get a clear and natural rendering in the target language. We are frequently unaware of the idioms in our own language, and for best effect, an idiom should be just that subtle, not something that makes you stop and wonder about its meaning.

  • Enormous Possibilities for Distortion?

    Yes, indeed, but also for correction.

    After writing my previous entry, I found this column by Howard Fineman on MSNBC. Rather than hide it as an update to that post, I wanted to highlight it.

    Fineman concludes:

    As for Obama, he was benefiting from events. But he should be sobered as well. What the Viral Campaign gives, it can take away — fast. The possibilities for distorting reality, and not just reflecting it, are enormous — and uncontrollable.

    Yes, indeed, the possibilities for distorting reality are enormous and uncontrollable–by the media. But the options for correction are also wide open, and people will become more critical simply because they will see more different options and will have to ask themselves just who is right. The campaigns can’t control the information, the media can’t control it, and the FEC won’t be able to control it.

    Freedom, y’all! What a concept!

  • Setting Political Speech Free

    One of my very unliberal positions is on political speech. I very much believe that controlling money spent on speech, whether that speech is in a commercial ad for a product, or in an ad for a candidate, in that candadate’s own speech, or in a journalist’s article is the same as controlling the speech itself. That controls on campaign spending are, in my view, very similar to the idea of controlling the budget of a newspaper. “Oh,” say the lawyers, “we’re not controlling what they print, just what they spend.” I know that current law is largely against me on this point, with the FEC charged with controlling campaign spending and even watching independent groups that spend money on behalf of candidates.

    Thus I am delighted with a new YouTube video that completely bypasses all of this. It’s just a free, independently made ad, and it has spread across the internet. You can read the Washington Post story about it here, and see the video itself here. (I didn’t see a link to the actual video from the Washington Post story.)

    Why am I delighted with this video? It’s great content? No, though I do like the challenge to the status quo just a bit. Do I particularly dislike Senator Clinton? No. The point is that this is an ad that has massive circulation and more viewers than the standard ads, and its not under the control of the election watchers.

    The great benefit of the internet to the spread of information is that it removes control, and provides a free market in ideas. Candidates are already finding that they cannot stay “on message” as their consultants would have them do, because people are interested in other messages. With free information flow, candidates will have much less control over their image.

    Of course all of this comes with dangers. Information on the internet is much less filtered than print and and other media. The barriers to entry into this market of ideas are all but nonexistent. We have to be careful to check our facts and get good, basic information to support what we choose to believe. But were we not responsible to do the same thing before? The difference is that it is now also easier to check that information. I find tremendous value in things like online article and book searches, for example, that let me locate information even when I can’t get it all on the internet. That reduces the time for me to get the right interlibrary loan book in my hand if nothing else. Often I can even check the facts of a news story from several sources online.

    Whether they are liberal or conservative, the folks who want to control the information you get are not trying to make you more free, nor to guarantee that you get accurate information. They’re trying to keep you on track. That’s why I have always supported the maximum possible free speech, and it’s also why I welcome the internet and services like YouTube to the political arena. There’s another revolution going on, and I think it’s a good one.

    As the Washington Post article quoted David Weinberger, former senior Internet adviser to Howard Dean and a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School:

    “It’s expressing frustration and unhappiness with the level of control that her campaign is exerting. It’s no more controlled than any other traditional campaign. It’s not especially controlled by previous standards. But it’s tightly controlled by the standards of the Web. And for a big part of the population, the standards are the Web standards,” Weinberger said.

    To regain her footing online, the New York senator “should go off-message and her talking points” and post videos and blogs that show “that she doesn’t have the answer to everything, that she’s made mistakes, that she can talk like another human being.” As such the video, Weinberger added, “is particularly effective because it draws the parallel that’s apparent to so many people — that Hillary is to the campaign as PCs are to computing.”

    I’m there. Most of my information on the campaigns will come from the internet. I’m not going to believe attack ads. I’m going to check wth everything from regular media to the candidate’s web sites. But I am delighted with how much is becoming available. The standards of control should be those of the web.