Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • A Politician’s Past

    Barack Obama has been making quite a splash in the media, and while the general reaction is often annoyed or amused, my view is that the pressures of a presidential campaign are quite adequate to test the strength of a candidate. I have not decided to support him, and besides as a registered independent voter, I don’t participate in Florida’s closed primaries, but I’m going to keep paying attention.

    Thus, I read with interest the MSNBC.COM article, Obama’s past could be an issue, in which we are informed that “Senator admitted trying cocaine in memoir written 11 years ago.” Well, shock and amazement! We have a presidential candidate who overcame a past and has made himself into a fine citizen and political leader. Christians especially should have empathy with this story, because it is the quintessential story of redemption, part of the central story of our faith.

    When I heard that George W. Bush had been involved in a DUI, I hoped that it would not become a factor in his election simply because it was something he had overcome. I would have preferred that it had not been hidden, but I respect the right of a person not to publicize every aspect of his past. (I had many other concerns about George W. Bush, but that wasn’t one of them.) The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not that likely we’ll find a leader with no flaws in his past, though we may not be aware of them. Further, I suspect it is not a good idea to have a leader who has led a flawless life.

    In Obama’s case, however, rather than having somebody remember what he had done at the last minute, we have an excellent source. Senator Obama himself wrote a book and told about it. Again, Christians should be empathetic–he gave his testimony; he overcame the negatives and moved forward.

    I have no idea who I’ll end up supporting in the presidential election a bit less than two years from now. But this bit of the past for Senator Obama will be a point in his favor–not against him.

  • Principles of Interpretation or Conclusions?

    I’m always happy to see discussion about principles of interpretation of scripture, because in general when we have large differences of opinion between Christians they can be traced back to our approach to interpreting scripture and more broadly to our understanding of how doctrine is formed. Thus I was delighted to see General Principles for the Interpretation of Scripture listed in this week’s Christian Carnival.

    I’m responding here to a couple of potential points of disagreement, but I don’t want this to overshadow my appreciation for having someone lay out their principles so they can be discussed. It is so incredibly important that we talk about how we come to an understanding of scripture and acknowledge those principles. In pursuit of that, my own principles can be found in extended form in the participatory study method, and one of my key principles in Hanging Biblical Interpretation. The latter essay is subject to the same criticisms I’m expressing here–in fact, I’m not sure we can avoid these criticisms.

    The issue can be illustrated very simply. Quoting:

    The Scripture is infallible.

    John 10:35 (Very Literal)
    . . . the Scripture is not able to be broken.

    What we have done here is interpreted the text in order to produce a principle of interpretation. Now if you think about it, you are likely to believe I’m being quite unfair. If you read my own essay, listed above, you will be even more convinced I’m being unfair. How else does one proceed? It’s a fundamental of inductive Bible study. But at the same time it’s one of our problems.

    I recall a visit from a very earnest young couple who wanted to save my soul. Their ardor for this task was not dimmed when I told them that I was a Christian and involved in a church. I didn’t mind talking with them, so we settled in to talk about salvation and eventually the topic worked its way around to faith and works. (You can see some of my own thoughts at A Fruitful Faith.) At one point in the argument he separated out a single phrase in a text and said that it applied to a different dispensation. He further claimed that his dispensational view was totally derived from scripture. In my experience, however, what is derived from scripture through a fully dispensational approach differs quite a bit from what others derive from scripture.

    In the case of the particular argument before us, can one justifiably move from the text to infallibility and make that a fundamental principle of Bible study? I think one would have to ask precisely what the scripture was intended to accomplish and how. The phrase “broken scripture” cries out for definition. In the case of John 10:35 it was a particular application to Jesus that could not be broken. But how does that become a basic principle of interpretation?

    I would suggest that it has to go through testing. In other words, I don’t have to begin my approach to scripture with the view that it is going to produce no errors or contradictions, or that it will provide me with true propositions. I would take John 10:35 with me to many different scriptures and ask just how it functioned in those contexts. I’m assuming that Mr. Harvey Bluedorn, who wrote the article I’m referencing, has done precisely that, and has found through testing that this principle continues to apply. Some may think that is a bit circular, but I would suggest it’s no more circular than life. If I touch a hot stove and get burned (hopefully only when I was younger!) I may conclude that the single object in question is dangerous. Through testing of that principle, perhaps a bit more carefully, I’ll find out just how universal my insight is, and how it applies.

    But for those who are just starting out perhaps that principle will require some testing. I think I come to some different conclusions along the line. The key here, however, is to know the principles you are applying, and to test them, especially by interacting with others to test your conclusions. Can you back them up?

  • Continuing Series into 2007

    I have had several series going on for some time, and I’d like to update you on them as we start the new year.

    First, my series on Isaiah 24-27 is about to come to a close. In my list of drafts is the post Isaiah 27: Accomplishing Redemption which will be the final entry in that series. Right now quite a bit of it is in the form of marginal notes and a small stack of books with markers sticking out of them, but hopefully I’ll get it finished in the next few days and posted.

    Second, my long running series on Hebrews will probably continue off and on for months. It’s my favorite book of the New Testament. I read it through frequently, and each time I read it I see more. I also have many, many notes that I have never attempted to put into a blog entry before. No end in sight here! 🙂

    Third, my series on the first 11 chapters of Genesis is at chapter 9, and I have started to make some notes for an entry on that chapter.

    The problem is finding time to write. I’m constantly attaching notes to verses in my Logos Bible software, and then literally forgetting about them. I wrote a post for my wife Jody’s devotional list yesterday based on one such note. I was reading through Deuteronomy and hit chapter 20 using Logos on my laptop, and there was an outline for this devotional, so I promptly wrote one!

    Speaking of which, besides my wife’s devotional list, we’ve now taken a series of 4-5 minute radio broadcasts we made between 2001 and 2004 on a local radio station and started to post one daily as a podcast. Today’s entry is by Jody, and is titled The Word, Light, and You.

  • Christian Carnival for Epiphany 2007 Posted

    Christian Carnival for Epiphany 2007 has been posted at The Wittenberg Gate. Start the new year off right by checking in with some of your fellow Christian bloggers.

  • I Hope This is True

    The Christian Science Monitor reports that Uncle Sam wants US Muslims to serve and is taking positive steps to make them feel welcome in our armed services. We should do this simply because we are a society that values freedom of religion. But there is a practical side, indicated in the article–Muslims in the military have valuable language skills and knowledge of the culture in countries in which they may be called to serve. Lack of human intelligence (HUMINT) is one of our weaknesses in the war on terror.

    Hat tip: Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

  • Heat, Light, and Comments

    This morning I awoke to start my early morning blog and e-mail work only to find that co.mments.com had supplied me (at my request) with seven messages alerting me to comments on Ed Brayton’s most recent blog entry on the Richard Dawkins petition debate, representing 27 comments. I only worked my way through a few of the comments which seem quite repetitive.

    What struck me initially was simply that it seems like the least central of issues easily get the largest number of comments. My largest blocks of comments generally don’t come on the posts in which I feel that I’ve made a thoughtful contribution, but on those posts in which I got emotional on reading a news story or someone else’s blog entry and batted out a few paragraphs worth of annoyance.

    It’s worth considering why that is. I think my own commenting often reflects a similar trend. When I read a good, thoughtful post, I go think about it and often by the time I have anything to say, I’ve even forgotten where I read it. That’s one of the reasons I signed up for co.mments.com in the first place.

    Now I’ve already commented on this issue as such. I wrote about how I think that indoctrination, as I understand the term, is not a good thing. As a Christian, I don’t want people indoctrinated into my faith. I want them to learn about and choose it. That choice is up to them, not to me. I think the petition Richard Dawkins signed was not a good idea, and I’m glad he’s repudiated that signature. In fact, he has risen in my estimation by his response. I have realized from my first exposure to his work (reading The Blind Watchmaker [link is to my review]) that he and I are not going to see eye to eye on many things, and that he has some contempt for my liberal Christian perspective (or moderate perhaps). At the same time his writing on science is truly exceptional and challenging, and I must continue to recommend reading it. Further, I think my fellow Christians should climb down off the ceiling, especially hear in the United States. I’d be much more concerned about the religious right getting power than the “atheist left.” There is, in fact, so little “atheist left” out there, that your expectation should not be that atheism is going to take over. Probably you should be more worried about me. 🙂 The woods are full of us moderate and liberal Christians, and we’re beginning to get really annoyed at what the hard right is doing to our faith. (Note that I use “moderate” as a very broad term that actually includes most evangelicals.)

    As I was thinking up all these exciting things to say, I saw in my feeds Nick Matzke’s post Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position. It doesn’t make me want to go beat up on Ed for his reaction. Many Christians will react even more forcefully and will not be satisfied with the explanations. After reading the petition, and based on my own experience living overseas, I still think that petition reads very badly and implies some inappropriate things. But what Richard Dawkins is saying in the quoted e-mail is very rational and forms a good basis for discussion.

    I think Christian education, specifically what goes on in churches in Sunday School classes, Wednesday night classes, and even many weekend retreats fails because it is shallow, repetitive, and intended for indoctrination. We want our children to be like us, and the programs are designed to make them like us. What we need is a next generation that knows how to consider, think critically, and decide. Now there will be some both non-Christians and Christians who will think I’m being foolish here, in both cases because they think children educated in that way won’t grow up as people of faith. I understand the possibilities, and I’m willing to risk it. In fact, risk is not the best word. An unthinking, knee-jerk Christian is just as much a loss to the faith and possibly more so than the person who leaves because of their best judgment.

    I believe that the reason Christianity has failed so many times in accomplishing its purpose is that the principle of self-sacrificing love is not something that can be produced by indoctrination, it can only be chosen. What indoctrination produces is a simulation of self-sacrificing love, thus hypocrisy, and soon after that judgmentalism. The fruit of unrestrained judgmentalism is persecution.

    Hopefully with Nick Matzke’s nifty contribution, and Richard Dawkins well-considered words (unlike the initial petition signing), we can work toward some light here coming out of a great deal of heat.

    Update: I don’t want to write another post on this subject, but I want to add a link to Ed Brayton’s excellent letter to Richard Dawkins that was posted after I wrote this.

  • Is Waking Up Always Good?

    John Meunier (Trouble Enough) has been reading William Abraham’s book Waking From Doctrinal Amnesia and making a few comments. Since the Wesleyan Quadrilateral was one of the things that attracted me to the United Methodist Church in the first place, I’m not sure that this is an amnesia I’d like us to wake up from.

    John has a few interesting comments in two posts: Why Not Divorce and The Incarnation and the Ad Council. Sorry John, I don’t have an answer to your main question in this one. I have heard so many forms of church organization taught as scriptural that I’m beginning to think that the most unscriptural thing to do is to claim that the structure of your congregation or denomination is “scriptural.”

    Both posts are worth reading.

  • Indoctrination and Religious Education

    In the course of the discussion of typology of ID opponents the topic of Richard Dawkins and his claim that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse came up. Now since I’m a religious educator, and particular one who works in churches and other voluntary organizations, you can imagine that my response to Dawkins and to the petition referenced in Ed’s post, is not positive.

    I agree fully with Ed that this is not an area for governmental regulation. I also understand the difference between the British system and ours here in the United States. Thus I would support any effort to remove government support from religious education, while opposing any attempt for the government to regulate what is done in private.

    Update: Richard Dawkins has repudiated the signature on that petition. See post here with a link to the comment in which Dawkins repudiates it.

    (more…)

  • Why I Oppose ID

    . . . and how I oppose it.

    There has been an interesting flap that started when MikeGene at Telic Thoughts proposed a typology of ID critics, and Ed Brayton responded, with further response again from MikeGene.

    I think most of what needs to be said has already been said in those posts and the comments attached to them. I have to note that while I find Telic Thoughts a much more thoughtful and useful blog to read than Uncommon Descent (Translation: I now read the former, but not the latter!), my initial reaction to the typology was much less positive than Ed’s. There is, however, a point to the whole thing, which MikeGene makes. After quoting the following from Ed’s post:

    There are several things that unite all these factions. Already mentioned is their inability to contemplate the issues related to ID without relying on the “ID=religion/God” stereotype. Furthermore, I would argue that all groups entail a very strong tendency toward closed-mindedness: Types B, C, D for metaphysical reasons and Type A for political reasons. Also, all groups are united in their strong tendency to label ID proponents as “Creationists” and “threats to Science.”

    He then says:

    Yet he then spends the rest of his blog demonstrating that my description was on track, as he tries to justify his broad brushed approach that includes stereotypes and labels. I have dealt with all his arguments before, and may rehash them again. But for now, I can simply point out that while I am willing to make a distinction between someone like Ed Brayton and Richard Dawkins, Ed apparently wants to lump me with Duane Gish and Philip Johnson, where, I suppose, the TT contributors are all nothing more than players in a “PR campaign to place a thin veneer of scientific-sounding terminology over good old-fashioned religious anti-evolutionism.”

    Will the critics of ID ever break free of their stereotypes and realize that not all proponents of ID can be painted with the same broad brush?

    There is a good point here, but it is one that is not carried through.

    (more…)

  • A Dead Tyrant and Mass Murderer

    Nations welcome, condemn Saddam execution says the MSNBC.com headline, and the story reflects that dual reaction. There’s a large part of the world that believes Saddam Hussein is certainly deserving of punishment, but who condemn all instances of the death penalty.

    As an opponent of this war from before it started, I’ve found it interesting to hear what war proponents say about me and about other opponents of the war. Some have suggested that I’m some sort of apologist for Saddam Hussein and for his regime. The one sense in which I might approach this is in saying that under Hussein, Iraq and Iran tended to neutralize one another. Both were ruled by brutal regimes, yet the rest of the world got some peace because they had to watch one another so closely. Yet I think that the one clear thing in this war is that removing Saddam from power was justified–in a vacuum–and that allowing him to be executed was appropriate, in the context of the war as it has developed.

    In terms of results, there will probably be an upsurge of violence at the execution of Saddam, but I really doubt it will make the situation substantially worse. There were no terrorists just biding their time until Saddam was executed, saying, “We’ll leave them alone unless they execute him!” They already hate us and already want to blow us up. In the end, though I think it was justified, I don’t think this execution is going to make much difference.

    But outside of that vacuum, it doesn’t justify the war.

    (more…)