Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Red State Rabble on Enemy Recognition

    I really appreciate the post Uniting Against the Common Enemy. As I said in an earlier post, I don’t expect others to back off about their positions on various issues. But we also don’t need to have those additional disagreements prevent us from cooperating on issues about which we do agree.

    I particularly like the following:

    RSR is fighting against those authoritarians who would impose their religious views on the rest of us. We don’t believe giving church-goers two days to dismantle the entire apparatus of their religious belief — or else — constitutes a workable strategy.

    We’re not interested in philosophical purity, either.

    Bravo! And as a religious person I’m with you 100% in preventing anyone from imposing religious views on anyone else. I know that there are some other Christians who do want to impose their beliefs through the law, and I will fight against them both inside the “large tent” of Christianity, and in the political arena.

    We want to work closely with activists like Ken Miller to defend science education in public schools. Moreover, we respect him for his many contributions to that struggle. In fact, it’s hard to think of many people who’ve done more. We frankly don’t care what his religious views are. It’s his actions that count in our book.

    Excellent point again. I just had to quote it to emphasize it.

    For our part, RSR is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with people of faith who want to defend America’s secular institutions from attacks by the radical right.

    And I’m happy to work with you on that. The radical right doesn’t like people like me any more than people like you. We can stand together to defend freedom.

    In the discussion of sides, I think we should consider two substanstial positions: Freedom–free inquiry, freedom from compulsion in religious and philosophical issues, and authoritarianism, especially of the religious sort. In that fight, those who are interested in freedom share a common interest that I think overpowers everything else, and we need to stick together on those points.

  • More on Bible in Public Schools

    Ed Brayton calls attention to a Texas Freedom Network report on the teaching of the Bible in public schools. Not surprisingly, the report is not good. Bible teaching is constitutional under certain specific circumstances, largely amounting to requiring that it be taught as an academic subject in a non-sectarian way. The recommendations by the Texas Freedom Network, available at the link I provided, are good ones, if public schools are going to teach Bible courses.

    I have previously commented, however, and I continue to believe that it is not best to have Bible courses in public school. I still continue to believe that is the best policy. That doesn’t mean that the Bible shouldn’t be mentioned. I think it will find an appropriate place in literature, history, and comparative religions, for example. But a class specifically in the Bible presents problems.

    From the point of view of a conservative Christian, the possibility that Biblical criticism will be taught is a serious issue. What view of the Bible is to be taught? Should it be taught as inspired? Inerrant? Mythology? Each of those issues will differ depending on the particular religious view of the teacher. It will be difficult to find teachers who can teach the Bible in a neutral manner. I am practically certain, for example, that I could not give fundamentalists a fair hearing in class. In my view, academic study of the Bible makes such things as Biblical inerrancy and a literal understanding of such material as the antedeluvian material so improbable that I would have a hard time presenting them as having any kind of validity outside of faith. A rational person might believe they were historical material, but that would come from a faith position.

    From the point of view of any non-Christian, I think there is an overwhelming probability that a course will be taught from at least a generally Christian viewpoint. Even thought I think the Texas Freedom Network’s suggestions are good, as far as they go, but even though such a Bible class would be constitutional, I think it would be better to leave teaching of the Bible as a separate subject at the Elementary and High School level to churches, synagogues, and religious schools.

    As a part of other classes, I think it could and should be done appropriately. The Bible is involved in a substantial portion of our history and literature, and that background shouldn’t be lost. But that can be accomplished effectively as part of classes in those other subjects.

  • The Impact of Context

    The other day I was reading an article on the practice of prophetic ministry–I’m not going to say where; it was in print and not on the web–in which the author claimed that a prophet does not have to get it right. In fact, he said, a person with the gift of prophecy may get it wrong early in their career as they are “practicing.” The reason I’m not concerned with the specific source here is that I’ve heard this a number of times amongst those involved in the modern prophetic movement.

    Before I go on, let me note that I do believe that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit continue to the present. I don’t, in principle, have any problem with someone exercising the gift of prophecy today. I write a bit more about this in the pamphlet Spiritual Gifts: Prophecy. But I do think that the modern prophecy movement has become very careless with the concept of “the word of God” and runs a serious risk of driving people from the church.

    (more…)

  • Christian Carnival #138 Posted

    Christian Carnival #138 has been posted over at Thoughts of a Gyrovague. Again, it looks like some fun stuff. Last time I only managed to link to and comment on four posts, I believe, but I read and intended to comment on lots more. Does that count? 🙂

  • More on Religious Battle Lines

    Ed Brayton has written an excellent post on this topic over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, titled Drawing Religious Battle Lines. I’ve already said my piece on this one, so I’m just going to send you over there to read this excellent essay.

    My high opinion of it has nothing to do with the fact that Ed talks about me a bit in the post. 🙂

    (Hmmm! Posting gremlins seem to have kept me from posting this earlier, so even though it’s a bit behind times, I’m going to post it for the link. Ed’s post is still excellent!)

  • Biblical Criticism Resources

    Since I’m talking so much about critical theories in my discussion of Genesis 1-11 (now on chapter 6), I wanted to call some attention to material I have already posted concerning Biblical criticism. The best starting point for this information is the following pamphlet from the Participatory Study Series:

    That pamphlet provides answers to some of the basic questions that many lay people have about Biblical criticism. I sometimes criticize conservative scholars for ignoring critical study and methodology, although many do take it into account, such as the authors of the New International Commentary on the New Testament, New International Commentary on the Old Testament, or the Apollos Old Testament series. Liberal scholars and teachers, on the other hand, often seem to simply assume critical results without giving people the chance to evaluate the methods and any assumptions behind them.

    To help lay people understand better what is being said when people present conclusions from critical scholarship, and do so very likely with excessive confidence, I wrote a series of entries over on my Threads blog. Some time I’ll gather them together and make them more accessible, but in the meantime, here’s a list.

    While it is not part of the criticism series, I have continued discussion of Isaiah 24-27 here on this blog, and intend to continue working slowly through that section of Isaiah.

    The main point here is, as always, to evaluate claims for yourself, and not simply accept what others feed you.

  • As Christ Loved the Church

    Lingamish has a wonderful post about Ephesians 5:22ff (if you don’t know about the part that is “ff” be sure to read his post!), and what this can mean in our relationship with our wives. (I do intentionally use purely male references, referring to the Lingamish and myself. You can adjust as necessary!)

    This reminds me of what my mother did at my wedding. I married late in life and acquired three step-children, who have now brought 4 grandchildren (working on 5) into my life. (Note: Never miss a chance to mention the grandchildren.) Because of the unique circumstances, we arranged to have my mother speak a blessing (and read one from my father, who could not attend), and also the children. The children built their blessing around the text that was featured in the wedding service, Ephesians 3:14-21. They didn’t realize that reference is also inscribed inside our wedding bands.

    When my mother spoke, she began with Proverbs 31. Jody got tense. She’s not really excited about Proverbs 31. But after reading a selection from it, she said, “Henry, I feel that this is really addressed to you. You have to deserve the Proverbs 31 wife.” That made Jody relax and turned the verse on its head. But I didn’t mind.

    Anyhow, it must be the day for “improve your marriage” texts!

  • Pro-Evolution Event at University of North Florida

    The Biology Department at UNF and the First Coast Freethought Society will sponsor a panel discussion on evolution and education titled Science Under Siege: The Attack on Evolution. The discussion will take place Monday, November 13, 2006, 7:00 – 9:30 p.m. at the UNF University Center. You can find more information and directions to the meeting location via the links above.

    This is probably too far away for me to get to, but if you live nearer it looks like a good thing. I also note that all the panelists are professors in the biology department. I hope this indicates that we are developing more scientists who are not only good in their field, but are able to communicate with non-specialists.

  • The Church that is Always Emerging

    God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. 2 Corinthians 5:19

    Do you feel the depth of that statement? Can I recommend that you stop now and read 2 Corinthians 5, or at least verses 11-21 before you continue this?

    I often think that we Christians don’t nearly get the meaning of this passage, which is one of the better scriptural expressions of the meaning of the incarnation that we have in scripture. But then it goes on to bring it home to us, by saying that God has given us the ministry of reconciliation.

    To parphrase a question I was once asked after a sermon: If this is the message that we were given at the start, whatever happened to Christianity? Why do we have such a terrible time getting along? Why have we had such a long history of persecuting one another? We easily forget that we are a religion that results from the ministry of a man who spent his time breaking up traditional ground, who found extraordinary ways to make God’s message and God’s kingdom have an impact on a world that was not anxious to receive it. More than 2,000 years alter, we act a bit more like warring tribes protecting our precious doctrinal turf from the heretics down the street, often from people whose positions can only be distinguished from our own by theological experts.

    Enter the emerging church. I’ve not really spent much time on the emerging church, though I’ve read a couple of books and have generally liked what I see. I think part of my problem is that I’ve never called myself an evangelical, and so I don’t quite full feel the issues and the call that they do. Nonetheless I have felt that the movement was a good one for Christianity.

    Via MSNBC I found a Washington Post story on Brian McLaren, a leader in this emerging church movement. The article is titled Evangelical pastor challenges tradition. The emerging church movement does indeed challenge tradition. It tries to make the message of Jesus relevant to the modern world. And while I often wonder about some of their doctrinal positions, which sometimes are to my left even though they use the term evagelical and I don’t, they have one thing that is very traditional: Challenging tradition.

    What’s more traditional than doing what Jesus did? Some of the criticisms sound very much like the criticisms of Jesus. Emergent people don’t teach enough doctrine. They’re giving up the basics. They’re question non-negotiable doctrines. But of course we’ve been negotiating these doctrines for centuries, with some of the current basics being quite recent in their current incarnation. At other times we’ve been negotiating such doctrines with the stake and torture implements.

    It’s a conversation. That’s what the emergent church people say. And I agree. The one thing that has to continue is the conversation. It’s a conversation between various Christians, churches, groups, and ministries. It’s also a continuing conversation between each Christian and God. It’s also a conversation between us and the world. I would suggest that the greatest thing we can do as Christians is get other people listening to God–listening to the Spirit of Truth. We think that teaching them a set of doctrines is going to give meaning to their life, but there are thousands, probably millions of people who live in quiet despair with an evangelical theology.

    It’s not the fault of the evangelical theology. There are also many Christians who live fulfilled lives with an evangelical theology. The problem is that any theology that doesn’t get you into the big conversation is still going to leave you dead.

    Thank God for the emergent church. The church ought to always be emerging. It can’t be any harder than Jesus, emerging from heaven, and coming to earth.

  • Genesis 6:1-4: Sons of God and Human Beings

    These four verses provide a rather unusual interlude, coming between the genealogy of the patriarchal line in chapter five, and the story of the flood that truly begins in verse 5. I’m attributing them to the redactor who combined the J and P sources of the flood, though I think they work better with the P source. This is not the standard interpretation. The reason I suggest it is that:

    1. The style is neither that of J or P, despite the use of YHWH as the divine name.
    2. The instance of YHWH could well be the work of the redactor.
    3. The J source has explained the presence of evil in the world through the fall of chapter 3 and Cain’s sin of chapter 4.

    I could easily be wrong about all that, but it’s just a quick suggestion. Now to the interpretation.

    Wherever it started, this passage fits quite well into the final form of the story, giving us a reason for God’s action in sending the flood.

    1Now when human beings began to get numerous all over the land, and they gave birth to daughters, 2the sons of God {or “sons of the gods” or “divine beings} saw the daughters of the human beings. They saw that they were good looking, and they took wives for themselves from whomever they chose.

    There are three major suggestions for the meaning of “sons of God.” Before I list those, let me note that the translation could be “sons of the gods” as well, and that this would present the option of “divine beings.” The three major options are:

    1. The sons of the gods are divine beings such as angels. (The New Bible Commentary)
    2. The sons of God are the descendants of Seth and followers of God (Matthew Henry)
    3. The sons of God are human beings who are possessed by or under the control of demonic powers (The Bible Knowledge Commentary)

    (Commentary listings are just examples. There may be many more commentators who hold the same position.

    If the “sons of the gods” are divine beings, then the “sons of men” should be translated “human beings” or something similar, as I have done. If they are the descendants of Seth, then the “sons of men” would be the Kenites or descendants of Cain. If you take the third option, that they are human beings controlled by demonic forces, you would reverse the situation in option three, and in terms of physical form, at least, the sons of God would be the Kenites, while the sons of man would be the descendants of Seth.

    I think that the best parallel to the use of the term in this passage is Job 1:6, in which it is clear that supernatural beings are intended. In this case, the marriages between these supernatural beings and the human women result in ancient heroes and the “nephilim.” At the same time, wickedness increases, with very little in the way of limitations, because people live for so long. The long lives, as noted in chapter 5, help with passing on the patriarchal tradition, but this long life also allows some pretty incredible planning for evil.

    3Then YHWH said, “My spirit will not always work among human beings, considering that they are flesh. Their lifespan will be 120 years.” 4There were giants {Nephilim} on the earth in those days, and also after the sons of God went to the daughters of the human beings and bore children by them. These were heroes, the famous men of ancient times.

    God quickly reminds everyone that he is the one that is in charge. There’s to be a reduction in the lifespan, but don’t miss the way it happens. God withdraws his spirit, his breath of life.

    (29) You hide your face, and they are disturbed;
    You bring their breath to an end,
    And they return to their dust.

    (30) You send forth your breath, and they are created;
    So you renew the face of the ground.

    — Psalm 104:29-30 (from my paper Psalm 104: God, Creator and Sustainer

    It’s easy to forget as we rebel against God that all life, and even all existence depends on him. So rebellion against God, while it may seem to be a liberated way to live, is actually simply the way to death. As we look at the flood, we will want to consider this option of God withdrawing himself, and at the same time withdrawing his protection.