Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • The Proper Bounds of Political Correctness

    In my experience, political correctness is invoked more as a way to stifle requests for courtesy and consideration than it is to actually stifle freedom of speech. People here in the southern part of the country want to avoid the charge of political correctness at all costs. It’s sort of like being accused of being a whimp, lacking gun and pickup truck, and never shooting any deer.

    But for me courtesy is just that–courtesy. I don’t vary my holiday greetings to match with the person I’m addressing because the political correctness monitor is going to get me. I do it because I like to greet people in the way they would like to be greeted, not in the way I want to greet them. I don’t use racial epithets because I think they’re inappropriate, not because someone made a law or because someone is looking over my shoulder.

    There is an important line I’ve drawn here. I don’t want to make you use any particular greeting. I don’t want to force you to live and speak according to my standards or anyone else’s standards. In my view, free speech is not just the law–it’s a good idea! Besides the wonders that a free exchange of ideas does for truth-finding, it’s useful simply to prevent boredom. If everyone said precisely what I thought they should say at the time and in the manner in which I though they should say it, well, it would sound a lot like this sentence, and that would be dull.

    But there’s a very solid line that one can cross, and that is illustrated in some policies in place at Michigan State University. You can read about these in a report from FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) (HT: Dispatches from the Culture Wars) I doubt that Michigan State University is alone in this. Ed made a number of good comments on this policy in his post. I’m looking at it for just one thing: The line!

    What has happened here is simply that force has been added to political correctness, and the result is inappropriate suppression of expression. It would be fine for the university to make certain suggestions but to force the students to produce certain results is ridiculous and despicable. Hazy standards given the force of law have been the bane of religion for millenia, with an absolute certainty that when religion is given the force of law the result will be destructive of both religion and law. Now hazy standards in dialogue and discourse are similarly given the force of law, and the result will not be good.

    It would be a good thing for freedom in this country if we learned to distinguish between simple courtesy–the way I want to address people–and suppression of free speech. When the force of law is placed behind the words I want to hear, then free speech is being suppressed, and nothing good will follow. This is the liberal form of despotism. A private business can choose what to permit and not to permit. A government agency cannot.

  • The Wayne Grudem Interview – Reflections

    I’ve been responding at some length to Adrian Warnock’s interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem. He has now posted his Highlights and Reflections and I’m not going to respond point by point to that as it simply deals with issues I’ve responded to earlier.

    I think probably the best question to ask at this point is why on earth I took the time to respond to this entire interview. While Dr. Wayne Grudem is not completely at the opposite end of the spectrum from where I am, he’s far enough from me that it is often hard to engage. I disagree with him on Biblical inerrancy, on women in church leadership, and on the atonement. Just what do we have to talk about?

    (more…)

  • Grudem and Church Leadership

    In part 9 of Adrian Warnock’s interview with Dr. Wayne Grudem the subject turns to church leadership. While I disagree with much of what Dr. Grudem says about church leadership, I could wish he would show some similar sensitivity to different points of view on male-female authority issues that he does on church leadership. Certainly the Bible says at least as much about leadership among God’s peopple as it does about women in teaching or leadership positions.

    The problem comes down to the process of application. Those who claim a “clear teaching” on a particular topic in scripture, generally ignore the very serious process of determining just how one command becomes applicable and another does not. Because of this, while we can often agree on Biblical exegesis (in 1 Timothy 2:8-15 there is an instruction for women not to teach), we often tend not to be able to agree on whether and how such a command might apply in another time and place. Our explanations can be ad hoc, and are based on how we want to understand the passage rather than on how God would want it applied in our lives and churches. Dr. Grudem thinks this is true of egalitarians. I think it’s true of complementarians. Dr. Grudem thinks that slavery is a bad trajectory, and in fact is generally unhappy with looking at trajectories (see part 4), and yet we do, in fact, have to look at the direction in which scripture is going on a particular teaching, else we will apply scripture inappropriately.

    (more…)

  • Grudem Interview #8 – Arguing from Numbers

    I’ve had a day or so delay in responding to sections of Adrian Warnock’s interview with Wayne Grudem, so I’ll take on the last couple of sections and do my own reflections post today. This post takes a small sample from Part Eight – What Does the Future Hold for the Church? The main part of the post simply expresses Dr. Grudem’s hope and optimism that his side is going to win. He does kind of limit it a bit with the following:

    Yes, I have great confidence that this issue will eventually be resolved, and that the vast majority of God’s people who take the Bible as the Word of God will adopt and practice a complementarian position, and will put it in their statements of faith.

    That “God’s people who take the Bible as the Word of God” phrase is theological code for “those who agree with me.” I know this will be seen as disrespectful, but this is the kind of qualification one uses on a statement when speaking for publication with a political aim–in this case, to make it appear one’s position is strong. The easy response to opponents is then, as has been demonstrated in this interview, simply to claim that they aren’t really taking the Bible as God’s word. If you allow me to define the terms, then I take the Bible as God’s word, and Dr. Grudem might not. The point is that as qualified, the statement doesn’t convey factual knowledge, but rather simply tries to comfort a particular audience.

    (more…)

  • Developments on the Plagiarism Front

    There have been a couple of very interesting posts about the flap over Judge Jones’s alleged (falsely it turns out) plagiarism in the Kitzmiller decision. I pointed out previously that I saw this as essentially a broad scatter ad hominem attack that reflects no credit on those who perpretrated it.

    In the meantime, if there are any of my readers who do not also read The Panda’s Thumb, they might like to look at Now That’s Video to Look Forward To for some fun notes from Dr. Kenneth Miller (via Wesley Elsberry). This was, of course, in response to Dembski’s video caricature of Judge Jones. There slightly more informaiton on this in Dembski’s Motive, which simply illustrates what I said earlier. This is a simple case of an ad hominem attack designed to leave a bad feeling behind. Whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter in the least to those who take this approach.

    I think that’s all for me for now on this topic.

  • A Practical Application of Grace Before Law

    In an earlier post on salvation I mentioned that I would try to expand on some of the points I had only briefly mentioned. I have followed up with an extract from my earlier essay A Fruitful Faith. I encountered an excellent example of the grace before law principle in my devotions the other day to which I’d like to call attention.

    (Those who want to complain about the grace before law pattern based on passages such as Romans 5:20, I’ll simply note that the perspective there is a bit different. Wesleyans will probably recognize discussion of varieties of prevenient grace.)

    The first verse I noted was a turning point in the speech of Moses to the Israelites in Deuteronomy:

    (1) And now, Israel, listen to the statutes and judgments that I am teaching you to follow, so that you may live, and may enter and possess the land that YHWH, the God of your fathers, is giving to you. — Deuteronomy 4:1

    The reason this verse caught my attention is that Moses has just completed a review of the way in which Israel was rescued and what God has done for them. Having recited God’s prior actions, he then turns to the teaching of commands. The right to give the commands and the reason to hear them is rooted in God’s saving activity–the grace that was given before the law. (An extension of this principle is that God’s grace is truly undeserved, that is it comes before anyone has done anything to deserve it.)

    (more…)

  • A Fruitful Faith

    As I mentioned in a prior post on salvation, I plan to make a few more comments over the next few months filling out my views. In support of some future posts, I want to post an extract from a previous essay, A Fruitful Faith. You can read the remainder of that essay by following the link, but this essay describes the pattern, to which I will refer multiple times in future posts.

    There are many views in Christianity on the details of salvation and the various terms, events or processes that go into it. I would like to survey some Biblical material which I believe suggests that one always becomes right with God through a relationship mediated by faith, i.e. by the grace of God, but that the faith must always be a faith that bears fruit. No simple set of words, no transaction, no non-productive faith will do. A few of the texts that I will quote go a little farther than that, but I am interested right now in a broad survey rather than the details.

    Let me clarify some terminology. The word “salvation” can refer in scripture to redeeming someone from the rule of evil, to a process of spiritual healing and growth, and also to the final entry into the kingdom of God. Looking at texts from this perspective would constitute another essay. I will simply assume it here. Second, I will use the term “Old Testament” for the Hebrew scriptures for the most part, because I am looking at that body of literature from a primarily Christian point of view.

    I will proceed in seven parts (this extract includes only the first section):

    1. The original pattern from creation through the end of the flood
    2. The pattern of the Exodus
    3. Messianic prophecy and the new covenant
    4. Jesus
    5. Paul and fruit
    6. General Epistles
    7. Revelation and the coming kingdom

    (Since each of these is a rather large topic I’m simply going to outline the main points. This is a topic in which I believe one can say that the notion of salvation by a non-producing faith is unscriptural because it goes against the grain of all of scripture.)

    1. The pattern

    The “sin” pattern starts in Genesis 3 or 4, but can be most clearly seen, I believe, in the contrast between Genesis 1:31 (God saw everything that he had made, and behold it was very good!) and Genesis 6:5, (God saw . . . that the pattern of the intentions of his [man’s] heart was only evil continually.) Here we see the simple statement of the state of the world. It is good to recall that we are reading a story here with the moral points made through narrative. If we grant the situation as described in the story, the world is already in serious trouble before God brings on the flood. The focus in this story from the teller’s point of view is not the destruction of the rest of the world, but rather the saving of the eight people.

    Note here that the problem is not that everyone is running around bothered by guilt. It is also not that they are afraid of death and of hell fire. Rather it is that the entire tendency of their thinking is evil. Thus an atonement that simply removed guilt would not meet the need. An atonement that left their thinking in the same state in which it was before would not be a response to the problem indicated.

    This establishes the pattern that I believe is frequently seen in scripture, in particular in narrative form, which follows through all discussions of salvation–grace comes before law and instruction. Let’s look at that pattern as it occurs following the flood. Recall that for the eight people described here, they have just survived a harrowing experience–they have experienced a form of salvation from the situation.

    1. God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.
    2. The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered.
    3. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.
    4. Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.
    5. For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.
    6. Whoever sheds the blood of a human,
    by a human shall that person’s blood be shed;
    for in his own image
    God made humankind.
    7. And you, be fruitful and multiply, abound on the earth and multiply in it”
    (Genesis 9:1-7 NRSV).

    First, there is a blessing which is the result of a rescue, then there is instruction. We will see the pattern repeated further on in the same chapter.

    The same pattern occurs with Abraham who is called out without any particular request of good action recorded on his part, but who simply believes God. But his belief also results in action (Genesis 12:1-4; Genesis 15:6). One might even say that, beyond simply accepting that what God said was true, he put it into action–he put his trust in God. God’s act of rescue occurs first, followed by God’s promise of blessing, followed by the obedience of the person.

    Read more . . .

  • Inerrancy and Liberal-Conservative Dialogue

    In a comment at , Adrian Warnock says the following:

    Dr Grudem has expressed regret for the use of the word “blasphemy”, and as far as the quote from his systematic theology goes you have to understand that his aim is explicitly to build a theology based on the assumption that the bible is inerrant – I am not too sure how you think a liberal theology would help in that aim…

    (See also Dr. Grudem’s retraction of his agreement to the use of the word blasphemy.)

    (more…)

  • Critical Thinking and the Attack on Judge Jones

    In my Bible Translations FAQ, I respond to a common question about Bible translation and about the NIV in particular. Let me quote my basic response first, and then I’ll discuss why I’m bringing this up now. No, this is not a post about Bible translation, though I’m going to use a translation issue as an illustration.

    (more…)

  • NASB to NASB95 in Isaiah 27

    In my materials for my Bible Translation Selection Tool, I only have one entry for the New American Standard Version even though that version was revised in 1995. The major change was the removal of archaic language in prayer–no more thee’s and thou’s. A few other changes were made.

    In preparing an entry on exegesis of Isaiah 27 I noticed some differences between the two editions. There are three changes for the NASB95, and one phrase that it seems odd was not changed.

    Here are the four items:

    Verse NASB NASB95
    3 Lest anyone damage it, So that no one will damage it,
    The change is minor, but perhaps it makes God’s activity in guarding the vineyard more positive. I’m not sure if modern readers would hear any difference unless it was pointed out to them.
    8 Thou didst content with them by banishing them, You contended with them by banishing them,
    Changes language that addresses God to modern forms.
    12 It will come about in that day, that the LORD will start His threshing

    		In that day the LORD will start His threshing
    This is what I would call a “student exercise” type of change. This translates a common Hebrew idiom often translated “It came to pass” or just “It happened” but when translated into modern English it is more of a form of punctuation. Generally modern translators count on English punctuation to translate this idea adequately. Thus it has been removed.
    13 It will come about also in that day, It will come about also in that day
    This is the non-change that I noted. Verses 12 and 13 start identically in Hebrew. I’m uncertain why one was changed to a more natural English rendering, while the other was not.

    The changes here are not terribly significant, but this little review will give you an idea of the extent, or lack of it, of the changes to the NASB95.