Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Bible Study and Sharing

    In the method of Bible study that I teach, the last element is sharing. Now sharing is last on the list because you have to dig into your Bible study in order to have something to share, but not because it is the least important.

    Recently I have been impressed again with how important sharing is to our Bible study. I occasionally get blank stares when I start to talk about this. Surely sharing is a result of Bible study and not a part of it. But the fact is that when you share effectively, you will also enhance your own Bible study. What happened to me recently was that my wife, who maintains a devotional list, needed some rest from preparing a devotional every weekday morning. We discussed taking a bit of a vacation from that list, but then I suggested that I try seeing what I might write out of my morning devotions. And thus I’ve been contributing to her list for the last couple of weeks.

    Now I teach that one should share and I know from experience that sharing expands learning, but I have really enjoyed the benefit I get from thinking about a passage while asking the question: What can I get from this passage might be helpful to others in their Christian walk?

    In addition, stopping to write down my thoughts makes me read more slowly, and that helps me learn more from the passage than I would otherwise. I recommend both fast and slow reading; fast reading to get an overview, and slow reading with time taken to ask yourself questions about the text.

    The biggest threat to learning about the Bible, or any other subject, is the assumption that you already know. One of the best ways to counter that threat is by engaging in dialogue with others. They will surely teach you that you don’t already know.

  • Consumer Reports Viruses for Testing

    Bob Sullivan has a post on The Red Tape Chronicles about Consumer Reports creating viruses for the purpose of more accurately testing virus software. In particular, these viruses allowed CR to check how capable the programs were of catching new viruses and new variants.

    The antivirus community is up in arms, because they have made it a practice not to do this. I think in this case that their approach and their fear is not well founded. Indeed, a virus created in the lab could leak. But many viruses do get out on a regular basis because people put them out there. The advantage to creating new variants is that you can test and improve your software with them without them being released onto the online community.

    Compare the risks: 1) A virus is released from Consumer Reports labs or 2) A new virus variant, similar to one that Consumer Reports produced, is created and released intentionally. I think the extra preparation and testing is worthwhile. The computer industry needs to become more responsive to the public. The time is past, or at least fast passing, when software developers are the priesthood of an obscure cult, and the rest of humanity just has to take what they dish up.

    Keep up the creative testing! Oh, also be sure to keep those CDs with the new viruses locked up. It might only be a few hours advantage to the virus creators to have them, but let’s not give them any help.

  • Gender Accuracy Fun

    Adrian Warnock has responded to his perceptions of the approach taken by the folks over at Better Bibles. Since this is a topic that interests me, I thought I’d call attention to it. I don’t have anything to add at the moment, as I think Peter Kirk, both in comments on Adrian’s blog, and in a posting on Better Bibles, has brought up all the points I might have noticed.

    It appears that Adrian is accusing the Better Bibles folks of holding a position that I know they don’t hold. I also think Peter Kirk is asking an excellent question when he wonders what political correctness has to do with it.

    My eyes are glued to my comment trackers. 🙂

    PS: I would possibly be more properly accused of political correctness than any of the folks at Better Bibles. See my essay Gender Neutrality and Bible Translation.

  • Bible Puzzlers Anyone?

    There’s a new wind over on Lingamish, and this one brings us The Bible Puzzler. I’m waiting with interest to see what this is going to be, and watching my schedule with interest to see how much time I’ll have to get involved. But this can’t help but be a good thing. If at all possible, watch Lingamish for the first puzzle and get involved.

    How do you read? What do you think it means? Can you back that up?

  • Change to Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator

    This is only a minor change. I wanted some software that would aggregate the way I wanted to, and make it reasonable to include a couple of online forums as well. The result was that I wrote my own software, built on MagpieRSS and really very simple otherwise. At the moment it orders the blogs randomly and goes from most recent back for each blog. I am thinking of adding a simple reverse date order mixing the entries, but that favors blogs that update regularly, and that includes favoring myself, so I’m holding off to see what people like.

    Check this out. Any suggestions are welcome. Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator.

  • A Poll Too Far

    OK, just yesterday I wrote about the mob mentality and how technology is just technology–it’s how we use it that matters. Then today I find This article on MSNBC.com about changing the definition of a planet. The article itself is interesting, though hardly earthshattering (planetshattering?). But right next to the headline we have a live vote.

    What do you think? Yep! What do the masses, lacking any basis for making a judgment, think?

    I’m not going to start decrying the technology involved, but sensible journalists ought to start thinking about the value of polls such as this. It’s clearly a marketing idea to make people feel like their participants, but it generates no real information, and it makes people think their opinions on subjects about which they are uninformed, are more important than they really are. Actions such as this do have consequences, and responsible journalists ought to make that clear.

    Let the astronomers decide how many planets there are and what will be a workable definition. They will in any case, and the rest of us shouldn’t have a vote–including me.

    Live vote on what should be called a planet.

  • Technology is Just Technology

    Over and over I’ve heard the refrain, “The invention of the _________ is causing the deterioration of society because it _______.” The technology may be rapid transport, from the steam driven train to the airplane, or communications from radio to television to the internet, or any other form of technology.

    The internet is a favorite target these days. Child pornography, predators, bad ideas, unreliable information, crackpot theories, even though policing are blamed somehow on the internet. Now Jason Lanier, in an essay on Edge.org, calls the polling and other “mob” aspects of the internet “Digital Maoism” and refers to the result as the “hive mind.” Some of us who think Wikipedia is somewhat less than reliable are nonetheless hardly likely to equate it with the mobs of the cultural revolution in China. I discovered his essay via MSNBC.com, in an article by Steven Levy titled Poking a Stick Into the ‘Hive Mind’.

    Now my problem is not precisely with the problems that Lanier points out, nor even with some of the counterpoints quoted by Mr. Levy. In his final paragraph he makes an excellent point:

    [Author Kevin] Kelly’s point is well taken

  • Capitalization and Translation

    One of the categories on which I rate trnslations for my Bible Version Selection Tool is on capitalization of divine names. This has resulted many times in people asking me if I’m not being a bit nitpicky in making an issue of something like that.

    Wayne Leman has posted about Psalm 2 and his arguments illustrate my point well. Comparing Acts 13:32-33 with Psalm 2:7 in the NET, Wayne comments:

    Notice that the NET translators, theological conservatives who believe that Jesus is God’s Son, the promised Messiah, uppercase “Son” in Acts 13:33, but not in Hebrew Bible passage which this verse quotes, Psalm 2:7. I personally believe that the NET translators have translated accurately in each passage and indicate appropriately authorial intent with this differing typographical notation.

    Wayne also shows a list of translations that, he says, “Christianize” the Hebrew Bible in this verse. Included among them are the NIV, NASB, ESV, HCSB, and GW. All of this is accomplished by means of the capitalization–something that is a choice of the translators and can be merely stylistic, or can, as in this case, be very meaningful. The choice whether or not to capitalize any pronouns referring to the deity is, in itself, stylistic. But if one chooses to follow that practice, then a verse like Psalm 2:7 cannot be neutral because whether you capitalize certain words or not, it will be taken as an indication of your interpretation.

    Now the indication that I give in my selection tool doesn’t test this level of detail, but it can give you an idea. And I think that the better choice in modern English is to lose the capitalization of the pronouns throughout.

    Wayne concludes:

    Better Bibles should use the least amount of “interpretive translation” necessary for conveying the original meanings of the biblical authors accurately to translation audiences.

    I couldn’t agree more.

  • Examining Matthew 7:1

    “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged.” — Matthew 7:1 (NRSV)

    I have often called this little verse the most violated verse in the New Testament. Christians regularly take it upon themselves to judge one another and also to judge non-Christians. At the same time, this is one of the most misinterpreted verses on the New Testament, and perhaps those two factors come together. When we cannot be sure just what a text means, it’s quite possible we’ll find it hard to obey.

    Some Christians treat this as a command to shut down their brains. No judgment, no opinion, no decision can be criticized, especially when made by someone else who claims to be a Christian. In the eyes of this group of Christians it is especially wrong to judge whether someone is or is not a Christian. Thus if a politician claims to be born again, they are likely to provide support. How can you question this person’s sincere testimony? It is also wrong, according to this view, to make a judgment about a ministry and whether it is serving God or not. Any form of criticism is called “going against God’s anointed” and is regarded as a dangerous sin.

    Under this view, church pastors and leaders of ministries can often get by with very dangerous teachings and grievous sins because the membership feels that they cannot come to a decision, cannot judge, and cannot come to a verdict. Often people will continue to support a ministry concerning which they have serious questions because they are afraid of violating the command not to judge.

    On the other hand we have a group of folks who go straight to Matthew 7:15-20. “Not so,” they say to the first group. “You can’t judge, but you can inspect fruit.” And it turns out that in this view there is really nothing that is actually forbidden; you just have to rename it. Am I judging a pastor when I accuse him of heresy? No, I’m not. I’m just inspecting the fruit. Is the church board judging when it removes someone from a church office because of an offense? No, they are just exercising their job and inspecting the fruit. Is the church congregation judging when they hound someone caught in sexual sin out of the church? No, they just inspected the fruit and then made sure that the body of Christ in their congregation was pure, that the sin was eliminated.

    Many readers will likely complain at this point that I have mixed good and bad examples together on both sides, and I do believe that I have done precisely that. The point is that we have two ways in view here of missing the point. The first group makes Matthew 7:1 an absolute, irrespective of other commands, and if they carry their view to its logical conclusion (fortunately few do), they can make it impossible to act either as individuals or as a church congregation. The second group really can’t live with Matthew 7:1, so they have found a ready made excuse in “fruit inspection.” The result in their case can be dissension and destruction of spiritual lives, and may even extend to the destruction of physical lives.

    I’d like to recommend my essay on wisdom literature, and particularly the part about the toolkit. I recommend that when you find two passages of scripture recommending radically different courses of action, you check to see if the toolkit metaphor will help untangle the situation.

    Those who try to solve the problems of Matthew 7:1 by using Matthew 7:15-20 as an exception have some difficulty here. If you look at the context of Matthew 7:1 by reading on into verse two, you find the reasoning behind the command in the first verse. You’re going to get judged in the way that you judge. So how do you want to be judged? But you could apply the same reasoning to fruit inspection. According to the standards you use in fruit inspection, you’re going to have your fruit inspected. Do you like this second possibility any better than the first?

    Then you might consider the skeptical position. Isn’t Matthew 7:1 an example of moral cowardice? If you just don’t pass judgment on anyone else, they’ll let you by with everything too. Do you think that is what Jesus was aiming at here? Especially considering the rest of the chapter, I think not.

    That’s why I brought up interpreting proverbs, even though this isn’t precisely a collection of proverbs. A proverb states something briefly, but doesn’t have time or space to deal with all the circumstances, the possible exceptions, and the nuances. It provides a general rule. When we come upon this, we have to first consider the precise meaning of the statement, then look at the circumstances, and then see what task this tool fits.

    Now if you’re following through on some of my study methods, this would be a good time to read through the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5-7) a couple of times, and then also to compare several translations of Matthew 7:1. The CEV and The Message both have interesting perspectives on this verse. I have looked at the uses of the Greek word for “judge” in this passage, but I’m not going to use them in my discussion.

    I think we can get what we need simply by using the context and being careful with our definitions of English words. Let’s start by looking at the word judge. What options does this word bring to mind? What are the various things we migh call “judging?” What we’re doing here is getting the range of meaning that the word has. Amongst the common uses you may think of are:

    1. Acting as a judge in a court.
    2. Making decisions between different actions or courses of action
    3. Criticizing
    4. Condemning
    5. Passing out punishment
    6. Discriminating
    7. Choosing

    We should notice that item #1, acting as a judge, generally involves all of the activities I listed.

    So what is it that Jesus is telling us not to do? If we continue reading verses 2-4 we’ll find first that we are going to receive judgment in the way that we judge. Then in verse 3 and 4, we are pointed to the odd situation of how small our own defects can seem beside what appear to us huge defects in our neighbor. Jesus very quickly provides the context for his short, pithy statement. He’s talking about criticizing and condemning one another. So we eliminate the options of simply acting as a judge or making decisions about one’s life; these are not what Jesus is talking about. We’re specifically concerned with how we relate to one another in our community.

    That still leaves some questions. We get to verse 15, and we find that we are to be wary of false prophets. OK, in this case, if someone in the community claims to be a prophet, and they are not, then there is an action that we must take. We are now required to be critical–use critical judgment on–a member of the community and keep away from them under a particular set of circumstances. If I might call in an Old Testament context here, Deuteronomy 13 comes to mind, in which one is commanded to pass judgment on a false prophet, defined there as one who tells you to worship other gods, and to condemn such a person to death. Jesus doesn’t specify any penalty here, other than to be wary of them.

    He also tells us how we are to locate them–by their fruits. The specific example of false prophets is used, but do you think this might apply to other people who are bringing a false message? Jesus is telling us that there is a need to be wary. In fact, if you continue through the chapter, verses 21-23 tell us that there will be people who show signs of being followers of Jesus, and who turn out not to be followers. Their fruit does not include obedience to Jesus.

    Time to bring out the toolkit again! I think we can all recall circumstances in which the ministry of a church was severely damaged by either extreme that I’ve mentioned. But I would suggest its not merely an extreme; it’s not merely that you need to find some sort of balance between forgiveness and criticism. What’s needed is wisdom and discernment to appy the right tool at the right time. And I would suggest that Matthew 7:15-20 provides us a way to discover which tool is to be used. Simply ask the question, which is going to produce the best fruit?

    It may be that sin needs to be removed from the congregation in order for the kingdom to be built. But beware of using condemnation to make your life more comfortable. What will forgiveness accomplish? What can be done by taking a stand? To belabor my point about definitions, before you decide whether your tool is tolerance (judge not) or fruit inspection (be very careful), you need to judge the situation wisely.

    God has given you a toolkit, but you have to judge the right tool for the job.

  • Essay on Interpreting Wisdom Literature Posted

    I have now added an essay on interpreting wisdom literature to my set of very basic interpretation essays. This essay was already supposed to be there, and had links to it, but it hadn’t been posted. One by one I’m filling the holes in the participatory study method files. I have quite a bit of information to add to the Isaiah and Acts outlines as I get time to polish it a bit, format it, and get it online.