Speaking of swearing in on relevant books, the new Governor of Massacheusetts chose to take his oath on a Bible that was a gift of freed slaves to John Quincy Adams who had fought for their release, according to the Boston Globe (Hat tip: Breaking Christian News (e-mail).
I like the symbolism involved in that.
Joe Meert, vice-president of Florida Citizens for Science has an excellent post on the current controversy about a creationist book sold in the Grand Canyon National Park bookstore and allegations that have been made that park rangers are not permitted to give an honest, scientific answer to questions about the age of the canyon.
He has found that the charges that park rangers are muzzled are false, and that the book is currently carried in the spirituality section of the bookstore. I would agree with him when he says:
In my opinion, we do a disservice to the community by making false claims to forward an agenda (either political or scientific). There is a book in the spirituality section of the Grand Canyon bookstore that has some nonsensical science and that is true. My feeling is that if people want to buy nonsensical books in order to lift their spirits, have at it. As long as the book is classified correctly (i.e. NOT science) I see no reason for trying to ban the book. Book banning should be the sole realm of despot leaders and religious fundamentalists.
there is a link in his comments that I would like to note as well:
Don’t Believe Everything You Read, written by a former park ranger.
It appears that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to congress, is also quite an effective politician. He wants to be sworn into congress holding a copy of the Qur’an, to which a number of “traditional” Christians have objected (on which more in a moment), and has chosen to do so on a copy previously owned by Thomas Jefferson. (Hat tip: Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)
I was commenting on this story to my wife and she said her first impression was that she would rather have the newly elected congressman swear his oath on a book he considers sacred thus giving it more weight. Her second thought was yet more interesting. “Didn’t Jesus say something about not swearing oaths?” So perhaps the most traditional Christians should go with “swear not at all.”
Again you have heard that it has been said by the ancients, “You shall not swear falsely, but you shall fulfill your oaths to the Lord.” But I say to you, “Don’t swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool, neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king, neither shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your word be clearly yes or no. Everything more than that is from the evil one.” — Matthew 5:33-37
So maybe the answer is: Nothing!
To keep this blogroll clean and current I will be removing blogs that are not active for over 60 days from the roll and aggregator. I think this is appropriate because the aggregator lists the last five posts from each blog. If your blog disappears from the list and you become active again, please let me know and I’ll promptly add you back to the list.
Now we return to our irregularly scheduled programming. . . .
Evolution Sunday is coming up February 11, 2007. Some folks may be a bit concerned, or even seriously annoyed with the idea of an “evolution” Sunday. Is the theory of evolution going to become a point of Christian doctrine? Shall we celebrate evolution for a day?
Well, I can think of several subjects right off hand that would make good sermons that relate the theory of evolution to relevant topics in Christianity, and I would have no problem with preaching them, should I have the opportunity. (My venue is more commonly the classroom, but who knows?) But the real point of Evolution Sunday is to discuss the relationship between religion and science. Evolution seems to be the topic most commonly used to drive a wedge between the two, and the event is scheduled as near as possible to Charles Darwin’s birthday because he is made the focus of the controversy.
I have no greater desire to see evolution become an element of a Christian doctrine of creation than I do to see young earth creationism in that position. I would like Christianity to deal doctrinally with the doctrine of God and his relationship to his creation, and to leave the how to those who employ the scientific method. Getting those physical facts and coordinating them is what science does well. It is also something that religion generally does poorly.
So what I would suggest to churches is that they focus on the topic of science and religion, with an emphasis on living respectfully together as Christians in spite of our disagreements on the details of how God created. Let the congregation know that we can live together even when we disagree on matters of science. Believe it or not, young earthers, old earthers, ID advocates, and evolutionists can and do exist in the same congregation without immediate war breaking out.
This respect doesn’t mean that we have to give ground in debate or discussion. A vigorous exchange of ideas is important in seeking the truth. Too often respect is equated to agreement or even to the idea that what we believe doesn’t matter at all. What I would hope for is that members of Christian congregations could debate these issues without fear of being thrown out of the church or cut off from positions of authority.
So on February 11, 2007, consider talking about science and religion working together, about how we can both disagree and communicate our disagreement, and how we can place our focus on the essentials.
(For some ideas on the doctrine of creation, see the Energion Publications tract God the Creator.)
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.
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?
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 has been posted at The Wittenberg Gate. Start the new year off right by checking in with some of your fellow Christian bloggers.
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.
