Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Christian Music at Skating Rink

    One of the many e-mail newsletters I get is from the Traditional Values Coalition. Often it seems that the most traditional value from their point of view is overreaction.

    Recently I got an e-mail from them telling me of the perfidy of the New York Human Relations Commission, which has apparently decided to investigate a skating rink (SkateTime 209 in upstate New York) for holding a “Christian skate.” Attached is a letter that Rev. Lou Sheldon sent to the Human Relations Commission berating them for their action.

    Now let me get something straight here. If the New York Human Relations Commission actually thinks playing Christian music for a period of time at a skating rink is discriminatory, they bring new meaning to the word “stupid.” It really wouldn’t surprise me if they did have such a problem. Unfortunately many people involved in human relations do seem incapable of relating to actual humans. I’m not acquainted with New York law at all, but I’m fairly certain that if New York law can be construed to state that playing Christian music for a period of time is discriminatory, then a federal court case would take care of them pretty effectively.

    One good result from all of this has been the inclusion of “all are welcome” notices on the SkateTime 209 web site beside the “Christian Skate” notices. That is probably a useful advertising option and is likely to improve their attendance. It is not, however, something the government can have a proper interest in.

    But what interested me the most about this was the Christian response. For some examples see: NEW YORK INVESTIGATES SKATING RINK FOR PLAYING CHRISTIAN MUSIC and TVC ASKS PATAKI TO STOP HARASSMENT. Instead of seeing some bureaucrats overstepping their bounds, or some of the stupidity that infects pretty much all government offices, Christians are up in arms. The anti-Christian conspiracy is in action! Christians beware! One commenter even mentions that we can have a special time for gays, but not a special time for Christians. Ignoring the fact that the two groups are not mutually exclusive, I would have to note that very often Christians are involved in trying to deny various legal rights to gays. Here in Pensacola there is a regular effort every spring to prevent gays from celebrating here around memorial day. Would it not be discriminatory should they be successful in preventing this event?

    I would suggest applying the same standard to both situations. It is certainly appropriate to have a skate time designed for a Christian audience, or for any other audience at one’s private business. But it is also appropriate, by the same standards for Disney, another privately owned company, to offer a gay pride day, or for Ford Motor Company to offer benefits to same-sex couples, both of which have been protested by the religious right.

    Perhaps it’s time we realized that doing nice things for a group of people does not necessarily harm the rest of us. The New York Human Relations Commission is displaying astounding stupidity in this case. Unfortunately, it’s a form of stupidy that is reflected by too many Christians.

  • Establishment Clause Suits

    Ed Brayton has an excellent post over on Dispatches from the Culture Wars on a bill currently before the U. S. House of Representives, H. R. 2679. He argues, successfully I think, that this is an attempt by the religious right to tilt the playing field in their direction.

    Because they have failed so often to prevail in establishment clause cases, they want to make it much harder to sue because of the cost. In addition, this will reduce the penalty against government agencies when they are found in violation of the constitution.

    We need to oppose this bill.

  • Progressives, Minimum Wage, and Strategies

    I receive regular newsletters from the Christian Alliance for Progress, and I really appreciate that organization for its work to reclaim Christianity from the religious right. Christianity is about moral and ethical values, and about caring for our neighbor, and not about making small numbers of people rich or about right wing politics. None of what I am about to write is intended to put down that particular organization. In fact, I suggest you visit their web site, and let their view of Christianity challenge you.

    But Christianity is also not about left wing politics. Christianity can be described as a faith, as a relationship, and as a religion. Following Jesus will certainly have political and social implications. But it is very easy for those on the right, on the left, and even in the center to equate particular political strategies with the fundamental principles of Christianity. Thus right wing politicians today try to use scripture passages favorable to social order and law enforcement as a justification for excessive measures in enforcing immigration, while ignoring other scriptures about helping those less fortunate.

    But left wing, or progressive theologians and politicians are by no means immune to this same problem. In my e-mail today from the Christian alliance I am urged to support raising the minimum wage:

    The Christian faith is not neutral when it comes to financial matters. There are over 2,000 verses in the Bible that deal with issues of money and wealth, and many of them concern the economic well-being of people at the margins of society. So it is important that in a nation in which more than 200 million of our citizens profess the Christian faith that we who are believers advocate a Christian ethic in the way that we compensate the people at the bottomof the wage scale.

    Yet none of those 2,000 verses in the Bible actually advocate a minimum wage. They do advocate economic justice. What progressives often miss is the steps between a good principle and its related goals–economic justice–and the process of both defining those goals in a realistic way and creating a strategy to accomplish those goals. It is a failing of politicians of all stripes to assume that the stated goal of a piece of legislation is what that legislation will actually accomplish.

    We have passed repeated laws on drug enforcement, and made our foreign policy hostage to drug policies in other countries even to the extent of invading another country to arrest its president, and yet we still have drugs on the street. As in Vietnam we counted the bodies (or even imagined bodies) of the enemy killed in battle and thus tried to paint a picture of accomplishment, so we now have press conferences in which drug enforcement officials show us the huge amounts of narcotics they have seized. They don’t talk about what’s left behind. Many pieces of legislation that were supposed to make the situation better have been passed, but where are the real results?

    We have passed repeated laws on immigration, claiming that they would solve this problem or that, or make things better. But for some reason–generally just because there are employers ready to hire and pay them–people keep coming across the border. The legislation has failed, yet we keep planning to do more of the same.

    And that brings me to the minimum wage. I’ve had people tell me that I’m pretty reactionary when I regard it as counterproductive to oppose a Walmart store moving into the neighborhood. The jobs are low wage! Who cares? There’s a comment on one of my earlier posts asking how many employees are going to get $12.00 an hour or better. Not many! But there will be people who were getting less before and are getting something now. That’s why people line up to get the jobs at Walmart–they’re available.

    And thus I come to the minimum wage issue. I believe in economic justice. I believe workers should get a fair wage. But my previous two sentences cry out for definition. What is “economic justice?” What is a “fair wage?” The problem is that the legislature can’t create those wages. It doesn’t create jobs. It doesn’t produce any additional money. It merely redistributes it. Now I’m not entirely against redistribution. I think it is quite appropriate that taxes are collected and that they pay for infrastructure.

    But every time you try to redistribute through legislation, such as by raising the minimum wage, you need to ask about additional consequences. How will this effect employment generally? Those who think that people would generally rather be unemployed than receive a sub-minimum wage job are generally people who haven’t had to live on very little. What about those forced into a sort of unofficial economy?

    The e-mail I received cites the following report: State Minimum Wages and Employment in Small Businesses. It’s interesting to note what is not covered here. What is the economic and population growth rate of those states as opposed to others? In other words, rather than “post hoc ergo propter hoc” what are the combined causes of economic growth in those states with the higher minimum wage? I’m not going to try to do a full analysis of this data, but I’d like to provide a couple of references, first Sense and Nonsense on the Minimum Wage, which deals with data before the above report, though in very similar conditions (1991), and second another report dealing with the number of those who are either not covered by the minimum wage, Below the Minimum Wage, which covers data after that time.

    My primary argument here is not against the minimum wage, though I do oppose any minimum wage, but rather simply that Christians can oppose the minimum wage as a strategy while nonetheless supporting Christian principles of economic justice. Believing that we are to take care of the poor and needy does not entail the notion that legislatures can somehow create money.

    In conclusion, let me quote Ludwig von Mises, from Human Action (p. 769-770 in my 3rd Revised Edition copy):

    The very essence of the interventionist politicians’ wisdom is to raise the price of labor either by government decree or by violent action or the threat of such action on the part of labor unions. To raise wage rates above the height at which the unhampered market would determine them is considered a postulate of the eternal laws of morality as well as indispensable from the economic point of view. Whoever dares to challenge this ethical and economic dogma is scorned both as depraved and ignorant. . . .

    The market wage rate tends toward a height at which all those eager to earn wages get jobs and all those eager to employ workers can hire as many as they want. It tends toward the establishement of what is nowadays called full employment. Where there is neither government nor union interference with the labor market, there is only voluntary or catallactic unemployment. But as soon as external pressure and compulsion, be it on the part of the government or on the part of unions, tries to fix wage rates <em at a higher point, institutional unemployment emerges. . . .

    I believe the second paragraph and I suffer from the attitude described in the first. I think the greatest economic justice is accomplished through free markets. No, Jesus didn’t teach free markets. He didn’t teach economics at all. But I think his principles will be best implemented through freedom at the governmental level, and through voluntary charity on the personal level.

    That’s why, while I am pleased with progressive Christian groups that are trying to reclaim Christianity from the religious right, I also must keep them at arms length. It’s too easy to be harmless as doves while failing to be wise as serpents (Matthew 10:16).

  • Public Opinion and Policy

    I’m fairly critical of the war in Iraq on a strategic basis, not merely on the strategy of executing the war, but the political strategy that somehow suggested that there was a good outcome to this. But Craig Crawford, in a post titled Opinion-Proof Policy on CQPolitics.com, has a different problem. George Bush, he says, is stubborn, and is ignoring public opinion.

    He says:

    One wonders what would happen if the president made a wrong turn on a road trip. Is there a chance he’d double back to the right path? I think not. Instead, he gives the impression of someone who would circle the globe before admitting he was lost. He is the stereotypical belligerent male that women often complain about, preferring to stay lost rather than stop and ask someone for directions.

    Now I happen to be a male who sees great value in asking for directions, and I think it would be very wise to reconsider both where we have been and where we are going with regard to the war in Iraq. I think some changes in both our tactical and strategic–especially strategic–thinking would be in order.

    But who is it that Crawford is proposing that President Bush should ask for directions? Well, it’s from me and from you, or rather from the American public. The opinion polls. Part of the evidence he cites for the claim that the president is stubborn (a point on which I agree with him) is that he ignores opinion poll after opinion poll.

    Now while I disagree with the president on many things, on this one I agree. The proper way in this country to shift political policies is through elections, not opinion polls. We need to elect statesmen who will use their good judgment to carry the nation through their term of office. We could have a constitution that mandates referenda on various issues. We could even have policty guidance on a daily or hourly basis with the current technology. But that’s not what the constitution mandates. Even more importantly, if you think that policy changes course on a regular basis now, think of what would happen based on opinion polls. Somewhere along the line we had around 80% approval for what Bush was doing. People apparently missed the nature of middle eastern politics, and thought that one could easily wipe of Saddam Hussein’s government, replace it with something else, and depart with a stable Iraq. Months later, long before anyone should have imagined, even at their most optimistic, that such a goal could have been accomplished, people started to get tired of it. That’s public opinion.

    Public opinion is generally irresponsible, not because most of the people are irresponsible. In their daily lives they are likely intelligent, competent, and responsible. But they are not directly connected to the decision making process, and neither the reward nor the blame for the decision falls on them individually enough. It does fall on the persons we elect to office. Often we make bad choices in electing people, and we regret the choices we made, but that is the purpose of elections. Elections are the way to guide policy, not the daily shifting of opinion.

    None of this excuses the Bush administration for any policy shifts, or failure to provide adequate resources, or failures of planning. The only point I disagree with Crawford about is, in fact, that the public opinion polls should have anything to do with it. I suspect that many Democrats are now regretting following those opinion polls in originally supporting the war. It was hard to go against the president’s policy when 70-80% of the public was in support of his policies. But at a minimum, the strategy and the resource level involved needed to be adjusted at that point.

    We need to put our efforts in this country into electing responsible leaders and holding them responsible. I know that’s probably dreaming on my part. Name recognition seems to have more to do with election than policy. But that is the only way we can get the country on track to behave responsibly in the world. We owe it to ourselves to try.

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Interpretation

    Now that we’ve looked at various critical issues about this passage, and I’ve discussed the dangers and difficulties involved with Biblical criticism, I’d like to summarize some of the things we can learn by examining the passage critically.

    We have identified a number of elements in the passage that have been strung together to form a whole, overall message. If we read the passage through without carefully looking for the various sections and the various breaks between sections, we might try to pull the entire thing into a single theme. You can try this as a study experiment for yourself if you like. Try to make a coherent outline of these four chapters that organize the subject matter coherently in the sense, for example, that you might organize a college research paper.

    What you’ll notice is that it is very difficult to find any coherent timeline, or to find any good geographical or historical “hooks.” In the previous chapters, especially 13-23, there are numerous references to historical events, locations, and people, and it is normally fairly easy to date a particular oracle and tie it to some particular set of events. These identifications are not without controversy, but there are at least some facts to deal with.

    In chapters 24-27 in contrast, there is very little. But if you look at the passages they all deal with material that is somehow related to the end of the age, to God’s judgment on the whole world. That is why this passage is often called an apocalypse, as it deals with material similar to that of Daniel, Revelation, and some of the other apocalyptic literature. But it differs both in that it does not have the same symbolism, and again because it does not tie easily to specific historical events.

    Some commentators, as I have noted before, simply think this passage is incoherent. But let me suggest another option. Our author has taken a variety of elements, including hymns of praise, oracles of judgment, and promises of victory, and has strung them together. (To see my previous comments on this passage, start with my entry Isaiah 24-27 – Overview.) This seems to offend our sense of order. Surely a prophecy should be more coherent!

    But will the end times be all that coherent? I’m often struck by the extreme order of prophetic timelines presented by many preachers. The end of the world will happen on a precise, easily perceived schedule. If you follow the particular preacher’s interpretation you will be OK, because you will know what is going to happen. But times of God’s judgment and of his redemption, such as the time of the exile to Babylon and the restoration under Cyrus and his successors often does not work in that coherent of a fashion.

    I think that rather than being incoherent or accidental, these chapters portray the feeling of being in the midst of the end times. There will be times when it seems victory is in sight, and we will sing songs of praise. There will be times when it will seem that all is dark. There will be times to recite the oracles of judgment: God will deal with the wicked. At other times we will need to remember promises of praise. (Please note that I am not a pre-tribulationist, in case you couldn’t tell!)

    Isaiah 24-27 presents an excellent picture of that time, and if you read it out loud, and let the changes of attitude sweep over you, you may come to better understand some of the nature of living in a time when God is coming both in judgment and in redemption.

    [This conludes my series of blog entries on Biblical criticism. There is obviously much more that could be said, but I have to draw a line somewhere. I mentioned in an earlier post that I might post some on critical issues in the book of Daniel, and I probably will, but I will do so over on the Participatory Bible Study blog.]

  • Episcopal Church Elects Woman as Presiding Bishop

    I’d like to congratulate the Episcopal church on electing a woman as presiding bishop. While the normal complaints about declining mainline membership are brought up, I do not believe that the membership problems that the mainline churches have are due to upholding the rights, and more importantly the divine calling of women. Further, no Christian should be determining policy based on numbers. Inclusion is right, whether it makes one popular or not.

    In a story on MSNBC.com, Episcopalians elect 1st female national leader, noted that “gasps could be heard throughout the vast convention hall when Jefferts Schori’s name was announced.”

    What is there to be shocked about? It’s long past time that we, as Christians recognize that God can call women to any level and type of ministry that he desires to. This should be a non-issue, but unfortunately it isn’t.

  • Genesis 4: The Two Lines

    While Genesis 1:1-2:3 (or 4a) comes from the Priestly source and continues with Genesis 5, our first dose of the Yahwist begins with Genesis 2:4 and goes through the end of chapter 4. We have plenty of opportunity to see the difference between the two sources. The Yahwistic story will pick up with the description of a world totally overcome by evil in Genesis 6:5 (6:1-4 are added from another source).

    Thus while we often call Genesis 3 the story of the fall, it would perhaps be more proper to call Genesis 3, 4, and then 6:5-8 the full story of the fall, the descent of the earth from “good” to “totally evil.”

    Genesis 4 thus provides the link between the initial separation from God and the resulting fear that is told in chapter three, and the near total corruption of chapter 6. In chapter four we see that there are two types of people, which are presented as two successions. One group is God-pleasing, and the other is in rebellion.

    1Adam had sex with his wife Eve, and she got pregnant and gave birth to Cain, because she said, “I have produced a man with YHWH’s help.” 2Again she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Able was a shepherd, but Cain was a farmer.

    This is the simple introduction. Hebrew narrative is sparse, and you have to pay attention. We have two boys and they follow different professions.

    3After a time Cain brought some of the fruit that the ground produced as a gift to YHWH, 4and Abel brought something as well, from the firstborn of his flock and from their fatty portions. And YHWH favored Abel and his gift, 5but he did not look with favor on Cain or on his gift. So Cain became very angry and his face fell.

    There are a couple of hints here, but no definitive statement of why God favored Abel’s offering, but did not favor Cains. Some would claim that Cain needed to bring a blood sacrifice, and his fault was bringing agricultural products. But there has been no command up to this time about what to sacrifice. Another suggestion is that Abel is said to have brought the firstborn, whereas that is not specified about Cain. But considering the normally sparse nature of Hebrew narrative, I’m not sure that is significant. I think the intent of the story is that each brought an offering from the results of their profession.

    God’s displeasure is not specified, but Cain’s response, I think, suggests the reason. Cain’s heart was not in the right place.

    6And YHWH said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? 7If you do well, you will be lifted up, but if not, there is sin waiting at the door. It desires you, but you must take it under your rule.”

    I see this as an indication that God was not implacably opposed to Cain, but rather that Cain was opposed to God. The rejection of the sacrifice was a symptom, but the disease was the sin waiting at the door. As we see from the continued story, Cain does indeed let that sin rule over him.

    8Cain spoke to Abel his brother, and when they were in the field, Cain rose up and kill his brother Abel.

    There is only a small distance between the sin lying at the door and death, in this case murder. I like the economy of the Hebrew text. Some translations try to supply what Cain said, but the Hebrew is simpler. I could have translated “Cain had words with Abel” but I’m not sure that even that not an addition to the thought. This may simply be an indication that Cain’s action in murdering Abel was premeditated. He set it up.

    9And YHWH said to Cain, “Where is Abel, your brother?”

    But he said, “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

    People are famous for different things. Cain is famous for this response to God’s question. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” In this way Cain seeks to deflect God from the real issue–premeditated murder on Cain’s part.

    10Then YHWH said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is calling to me from the ground!” 11Now you are cursed from the ground because it has opened its mouth to receive the blood of your brother from your hand. 12When you cultivate the ground, it will no longer give you its strength. You will be a fugitive and without purpose in the land.”

    13And Cain told YHWH, “My punishment is more than I can stand! 14Look! You’re making me leave the very surface of the ground, and I will be hidden from your face, and I will be a fugitive and without purpose in the land, and anyone who finds me will kill me.”

    15But YHWH said to him, “So let anyone who kills Cain suffer sevenfold revenge!” And YHWH put a mark on Cain, so that he would not be killed by anyone who found him, 16and Cain left the presence of YHWH, and he lived in the land of Nod to the east of Eden.

    God is not deflected from the issue. Since Cain is a farmer, he is sentenced to harder work for less results. Note the relationship between this curse and the curse put on Adam in chapter 3:17-19. But contrary to later practice, Cain does not pay for killing his brother with his own life.

    What happens is a separation. Questions such as where Cain got a wife, and how there was a land of Nod where he could build a city, and who would live there all miss the point of the story. What we are seeing is the early explanation of why there are two lines of people–those who are obedient to God and those who are in rebellion. The myth is powerful even if the story leaves historical holes.

    The mark of Cain, which is sometimes used in popular speech as a curse is actually a protection. It says that Cain, though a murderer, must not be killed because of the vengeance that God has decreed will follow. For Cain, the mark is a blessing, an amelioration of his punishment.

    17Then Cain had sex with his wife, and she got pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain built a city, and named it after his son.

    18Enoch had a son named Irad, and Irad had a sone many Mehujael, and Mehujael had a son named Methusael, and Methusael had a son named Lamek.

    19Lamech married two wives named Adah and Zillah. 20Adah gave birth to Jabal, who was the progenitor of those who live in tents and keep cattle. 21His brother’s name was Jubal, who is the progenitor of those who play the zither and flute. 22And Zillah also gave birth to a son named Tubal-Cain, who was a smith, working bronze and iron. And Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

    As we have genealogies of the patriarchal line (Genesis 5 & 11), so here we have a genealogy tracing the line of evil back to Cain. The victory of Cain’s line is emphasized in Genesis 6:5ff. For those who believe in a universal flood, it’s interesting how Genesis 4 can specific people of the non-patriarchal lines as the ancestors of those with certain professions, surely something that could not be if their line died out in the flood. I believe this supports my contention elsewhere (The Two Genesis Flood Stories) that the Yahwist source does not tell of a universal flood, and thus there is no perceived contradiction between Genesis 4 and Genesis 6-8.

    23Lamech said to his wives:

    Adah and Zillah, hear my voice,
    Lamech’s wives, pay attention to what I say.
    I have killed a man because he wounded me,
    And a child because he brused me.

    24If Cain will be avenged seven times,
    Lamech will be avenged seventh-seven times!

    The interesting thing here is the way evil multiplies. Lamech, with Cain’s example, continues the pattern of murder, but he expects to get by with it.

    25Adam had sex with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son, and she named him Seth, because she said, “God has given me seed instead of Abel whom Cain killed.”

    26Seth also had a son, and he named him Enos. At that time people began to call on the name YHWH.

    This is the Yahwist’s way of telling us that there is also a patriarchal line, a line dedicated to obedience to God. The priestly source will provide us with more details in chapter 5.

  • T4G: Interpretation and Egalitarianism

    In searching around the blogosphere, or more accurately taking a quick glance, I note that many bloggers are responding to the Together for the Gospel statement as though Article XVI (about male leadership in ministry) was a single aberration in an otherwise good document. In fact, for some, the tragedy of women being excluded from the conference (though not completely) was that they would be denied the otherwise wonderful Bible teaching involved.

    (Let me note a few entries that I read and that provide good links to others. These are not all examples of the tendency I noted above, but they will help you get the flavor of the discussion. Dave Warnock discusses this issue especially in his post Together or Divided?, and Michael Bird wrote an excellent post from a generally conservative viewpoint, but focussing on the complementarian/egalitarian issue in Together for the Gospel . . . Not Quite. Adrian Warnock has been blogging extensively on this from the conservative point of view. A good wrap-up can be found at Adrian Warnock’s blog.)

    I’m afraid I can’t agree with this viewpoint, however. I think that the issue of gender roles in church leadership is the single clearest example of a divisive viewpoint in this statement, not to mention one I believe is wrong. But I believe that the complementarian view comes directly from the statements on scripture and the approach to interpretation that is represented here. Now I don’t call this approach “conservative.” There are genuine conservatives who don’t accept the complementarian position, and even more important, there are complementarians who are not divisive.

    The reason I see this statement as divisive is simply that it claims that all these elements are part of the genuine gospel, and the clear implication that those who disagree are teaching a false gospel. This level of detail when defining essentials is very troubling to me. Now it may appear that I am creating an equally detailed statement by opposing this statement point by point. But let me emphasize that I do not regard my beliefs on Biblical inspiration or on egalitarianism are a part of the essential definition of the gospel. I do believe that inclusiveness is more consistent with what is fundamental than is exclusiveness. Exclusiveness is not worthy of the doctrine of the incarnation and the sacrament of communion. But that’s another post.

    The T4G statement places one’s theology, the data that one accepts as true, at the center of the issue, and even in doing this it fails to place the focus on the incarnation, in the instance of God’s reconciliation, and especially on his giving us the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). This emphasis is more dangerous than the complementarian attitude reflected in Article XVI, although that article does follow naturally from the doctrinal nature of the whole statement.

    There is a serious need here to define what truly is essential, and what is optional. My most fundamental problem with the T4G statement is that I believe it is almost all about non-essentials (other than statements on grace and salvation by faith, and even those are flawed), and skips many essentials.

    I’ll return to my article by article discussion in my next post on this topic.

  • CD: Leah Taylor, Faithful Friend

    In my personal testimony I speak of returning to the church in a United Methodist congregation (Pine Forest UMC), I note that I attended an evening service first where some young people gave their testimony. One of those young people was Leah Taylor (then Leah Bridges), at that time involved in soccer, music, and the Christian youth group at Pine Forest under Linda Smith. One of the things I kept my eyes on in those days was the impact that the church had on its young people, and over the years even more importantly the impact the young people had on their church. Leah is an example of the impact a young person can have on the church, if the church will only permit it.

    A few weeks ago I was priveleged to attend an evening service at Olive Baptist Church in Pensacola, FL, and the worship music and special music were provided mostly by Leah Taylor. She was also introducing her newly released CD, Faithful Friend. Leah is now a bit older than when I first heard her testimony in words, and she has a husband and three children. This time she gave her testimony in music. My wife and I would have been there just for friendship. But Leah’s passion, her worship, or the quality of her musicianship meant this was a concert I would have wanted to hear whether or not I already knew the artist.

    If you want to hear the gospel presented in music, more clearly than any sermon, you’ll want to buy this CD and listen to it. You won’t be disappointed.

    Leah’s song “Falling Up” was chosen to be in a competition for the best new song, which will be performed at the Praise in the Park concert. The first competition will be this week, Thursday the 16th at 6:15pm on Power 88 FM. The DJ will play the three songs that were selected then people can log onto www.goforth.org to
    vote for their favorite of the three. I invite my friends to listen and vote–for Leah, of course! 🙂

  • T4G Article II: Canon within Canon

    In a previous entry I discussed the inspiration of the Bible in response to the Together for the Gospel statement, Article I. Since I disagreed almost entirely with that article, and Article II also deals with the Bible, it is no surprise that I find much to disagree with in this second statement as well.

    Article II says:

    We affirm that the authority and sufficiency of Scripture extends to the entire Bible, and therefore that the Bible is our final authority for all doctrine and practice.

    We deny that any portion of the Bible is to be used in an effort to deny the truthfulness or trustworthiness of any other portion. We further deny any effort to identify a canon within the canon or, for example, to set the words of Jesus against the writings of Paul.

    I agree that the authority and sufficiency (whatever that means) of scripture extends to all of scripture, but for reasons I have previously stated, I do not agree that the Bible is our sole source of doctrine. The key to this article, however, comes in the denials, which show that it is intended to respond to the idea of a “personal canon” or a “canon within a canon.” Now I think the notion of a “personal canon” is logically questionable. A “canon” is a set of writings held by a community to be authoritative in some formal sense, such as church law. Thus a “personal canon” can be held to be oxymoronic. But there is a very practical point that is intended by the term; individuals build their spiritual life with different emphases on different portions of the scripture.

    As an example, other than the gospels, which I regard as central, I spend more time on the average reading the Pentateuch from the Old Testament and the general epistles, especially Hebrews from the New Testament. My wife tends to read more of the Psalms, some prophets, and her New testament reading other than the gospels generally comes from Paul’s less theological letters such as 1 & 2 Corinthians. But neither of us would deny that what the other is reading is inspired. This is a sort of “practical” canon within a canon.

    But I agree with the statement here to the extent that someone who defines a separate canon while denying the inspiration of other writings separates himself to some extent from the community. When the “canon within a canon” becomes more than a practical choice for my own spiritual walk and I start denigrating the authority of other scriptures for other people, then there is a cause for concern.

    But setting the words of Jesus against the words of Paul is another matter. First, there is the simple point that God chose to give the scriptures through different writers at different times and in different places. There is evidence of these differences in the writings. I believe a greater danger is the homogenizing of these differences that God put into scripture. It is not honoring scripture, or the God of scripture, to pretend that it is not constructed the way it is.

    But more importantly, this phrase is a code-word for those who build a theology out of Paul’s writings and use it as a basis to ignore the words of Jesus. Jesus talks about holiness of life and obeying the law; Paul speaks against the law. It is essential to their theology to keep people from setting the words of Jesus against their interpretation of Paul. It is common in discussion or in theological writings for them to use the words of Jesus and Paul equally because both, they say, are inspired.

    But to truly honor scripture, one must note that Paul’s words were written to a different audience than were those of Jesus. If one takes the differences seriously, then one will have to deal with what Jesus says brings salvation, and what Paul says brings salvation. One will need to deal with issues of behavior and holiness. When you homogenize scripture, on the grounds that it all comes from God, you immediately lose these nuances, and will form a theology that may be more systematic, but is less faithful to the experience of God reflected in scripture.

    In addition, those who form theology from Paul in this way tend to form their theology largely from the more theological books of Romans and Galatians, and particularly from the parts where Paul expresses his theological foundation. But salvation is also discussed in 1 Corinthians, with much less theology and much more practical application, and in both Romans and Galatians, when Paul gets down to application, he sounds much more like Jesus. One possibility that must be examined here is that modern readers have misunderstood Paul’s basic theology and its application, and may need to check their application against Paul’s.

    For example, the conclusion of some that one can be saved without the fruit of faith is clearly challenged starting with Galatians 5. Theologians have found many ways to work around this, but all of these ignore some aspect of the text. (I apologize for making broad statements with little support, but I’m trying to work through this in a reasonable amount of time. I have discussed a good deal of this material in my essay A Fruitful Faith.)

    Thus while I have some agreement on the point of a canon within a canon, I must reject what I believe is the real thrust of this statement. One cannot simply combine texts from Jesus, Paul, and other writers on the basis that all come from God. One must understand the overall view of each one and then see how they mesh. One must not limit what Jesus can say based on what he must be saying because of some theological principle gleaned from Paul.

    Let me also repeat one last time: If you are a Christian who believes the incarnation, you must logically believe that Jesus is more important than any other person, whether a writer of scripture or not. Jesus is central.