Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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.

  • I’m Much Worse than That

    . . . from their point of view, that is.

    This is a kind of “take-2” on my Conscience of a Christian Publisher post. Centuri0n had a brief spurt of posting comments, but seems to have been silent since accusing me of deleting them at the very time I was restoring them from backups following a server glitch. The only really annoying damage from that glitch was that I didn’t have a backup for one of my own posts.

    Now his “sidekicks” have added a reference to me in another post, and I’ve got to say that if they really understood what I’m saying, they’d like me even less than they do. In a post More on Publishing–A Cautionary Tale, poster Gummby makes some rather odd statements.

    Referring to the publication of a particular book by the PCUSA publishing house, they ask the following questions:

    First: does the author, David Griffin, have a right to be heard? Well, the First Amendment says he does.

    We’re rather reluctant about freedom of speech, are we not?

    Second: does Presbyterian Publishing Corp. have an obligation to publish him? If you’re Henry, perhaps you think that it does. But unlike the Blogosphere, in the publishing world, just because you’ve written something doesn’t mean it is entitled to be printed.

    You know, I try to credit my opponents with good intentions, but there are moments when that is very hard. I challenge anyone to point out what I have said that would imply that a publisher would be obligated to publish a particular manuscript. In fact, in my prior post, I indicated quite clearly the boundaries of the material that I would publish. And anyone involved in publishing knows that just because one has written something doesn’t mean it’s entitled to be published, although modern technology makes it fairly easy to manage if one is determined enough. I myself have rejected manuscripts, even in the short history of my own company, and will certainly reject more. Right now as a small and new publisher, I’m more in the process of soliciting than rejecting, but soliciting is also a very selective process.

    Clearly the real problem for centuri0n and his sidekicks is not that I would accept anything, but rather that I would accept things that they would reject. Having read their blog, I admit their complaint is quite correct. It’s clear that we don’t see the same things as valuable, and we may not even see the same things as Christian.

    Third: why would a publishing house knowingly publish something that, in the words of the moderator of their own general assembly, is “too over the top to be taken seriously”?

    Well, I can’t speak for this particular publishing house, but if I was making the choice I would ask the following:

    • Is this within the subject and mission range of my company?
    • Are the questions raised worth considering?
    • Is the research properly done?

      • Is it well enough written?

    I personally don’t have much sympathy with the position of the book referenced in Gummby’s post, but I would not reject it simply because I don’t find the position taken very probable on the face of it.

    But those are just the questions I would consider if I were publishing the book myself. There are many books I would not print (would that I had a chance at such high quality manuscripts!) that nonetheless I would hope to see published, would read, and would recommend to others. A couple of examples are The Blind Watchmaker and Atlas Shrugged. Neither are Christian books, and they don’t fall into my range of materials, but both are, I think, excellent and challenging reading. Nonetheless I don’t agree with significant portions of either book. The key is that I don’t have to agree with something–and disagreeing means I don’t think it’s true, does it not?–to think something is worth reading.

    Thus I found the following statement false, shall we say.

    In other words, the ends justifies the means. The “end” of provoking a “discussion on substantive issues about faithful citizenship in this country,” justifies the “means,” which is publishing a book whether or not the claims will be convincing or are even true.

    Well, actually, the end does justify the means, when the means is the best and most appropriate way to accomplish those ends. And the free interchange of ideas is the best way to provoke “discussion on substantive issues about faithful citizenship in this country.” Apparently Gummby would prefer that people only discuss ideas approved by him, an attitude normally taken by tyrants. Fortunately, he lacks that sort of power in this country.

    A book might be convincing without being true, and it might be convincing to one person, but not convincing to another. That is the point of promoting the free interchange of ideas. Now there is nothing here that forces me or anyone else to publish anything. If Gummby submitted a manuscript to me, I could reject it based on the criteria listed above. If I rejected it on some other basis, that would be dishonest of me, because I have said I will publish things within that particular range.

    If I have an obligation, as centuri0n suggested earlier, to publish those things that I present at the truth, then I cannot foster any dialogue or conversation at all. The only thing I can contribute is my ideas as owner and editor. That idea is silly.

    I do not present things that I publish as the truth, but the author’s best effort to present the truth, and my best effort to choose things that will promote conversation.

  • The Two Flood Stories Updated

    I’ve just reposted my essay The Two Flood Stories, correcting some links, improving the notes a bit, making some verse numbering a little bit clearer, and adding a section concluding the flood story. This editing was in preparation for continuing my Genesis series here by discussing the flood story. Thus far, I’ve discussed through Genesis 5. Probably later today, I’ll make a general post on Genesis 6.

  • Reasons for Belief

    It seems that this week’s MBWR has produced an excellent crop. Bruce Alderman, whose blog is also in the Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator, wrote a post titled Why I Believe. His approach is strongly but not exclusively experiential, and in many ways resonates with my own.

    It also ties in with the current book discussion I’m hosting here on Threads on Elgin Hushbeck’s Consider Christianity books, which I publish. Elgin’s view is much more evidential, though he admits experience, and I’ve invited Chris Eyre, who is even more experiential than I am to criticize Elgin’s books. (Note that I publish Elgin’s books, so I’m not quite neutral on their value. Regard this as due alert of bias!) Chris has posted first, second, and third. I’ve also indicated that I’m willing to send free copies of the books to a reasonable number of bloggers who’d like to chime in, but that hasn’t proved popular.

    Whether you have an interest in the discussion here or not, you would do well to go and read Bruce’s entry. It should generate some good discussion.

  • Don’t Judge Discipleship by Numbers

    This post is to call your attention to a post by Beth Quick, Mark Driscoll, Mainline Churches, and The Numbers Game (Hat tip: MBWR #82, with strong second to the Best of the Methodist blogosphere! note). I’m also closing the comments here so that any additional discussion will be centered around her blog.

    I want my church to grow. But I also think people can be simply attracted to what is new, flashy, easy, convenient, socially fulfilling. I think some churches, both mainline and other, can grow for wrong reasons too.

    How do we assess growth in discipleship, really? I’m not sure we can do it by the numbers, the stats.

    Go! Read! Think!

  • New Florida Citizens for Science Web Site

    The new Florida Citizens for Science web site is now up and running. Check it out at Florida Citizens for Science.

    Not too surprisingly, the blog can be found at http://www.flascience.org/wp.

    Check out the new format and the interesting information. Florida Citizens for Science will be watching closely as Florida begins to revise science standards.

  • Allies for Evolution, not Everything

    Update: Jack Krebs has now posted a longer summary of the talk and links to audio files. I haven’t listened to the audio yet, but I don’t see anything in the summary that would alter my view on this. I’m glad Jack and Kansas Citizens for Science made sure to get good audio of this. (2nd update: I somehow left out the link to Jack’s post, and have now added it.)

    I’m regularly annoyed by angry recriminations that occur when someone discovers that the various people in favor of sound science education and specifically on the teaching of evolution don’t actually agree on all aspects of life, the universe and everything. Currently there is a flap about remarks by Kenneth Miller. Since I don’t have a transcript of those remarks I’m not going to try to critique those remarks. PZ Myers, however, has a rather angry post on Pharyngula calling Ken Miller a creationist because he suggested that creationists’ attacks were misdirected, and should be directed instead at folks like Dawkins.

    (more…)

  • Witnessing and Proselytizing

    Continuing my run through the Christian Blog Carnival, Laura has a good post Witnessing – Proselytizing – Defending the Faith.

    I think there are two important points to keep in mind:

    • Listening to the other person(s) in order to find out what their interest is. I’ve found that many people are interested in discussing my faith while I’m not trying to convert them.
    • Remembering, as Laura points out, that it’s not our mission field, and it is not up to us to “convert” people in the first place. Much rudeness results from people getting desperate to accomplish conversion. Christians are to be witnesses, not to render verdicts.

    I’d like to tie in a reference to my post Being a Witness without Being a Pest.