Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • My Reaction to the Da Vinci Code

    There are some things you just can’t get away from no matter how hard you try. The Da Vinci Code, book, movie, or simply passing comment, is one of these. I have a friend who is much more interested in these things than I am, and I’ve even promoted his willingness to talk about it, and his published materials (the Consider Christianity Series, by Elgin Hushbeck, Jr.). Today I got an e-mail from Christianity Today, wondering if I was making the most of it. (No, I’m not personal friends with someone over at CT–it’s an e-mail notification I’ve subscribed to.) Now Christian groups in Asia are protesting the movie, and in at least one country, Thailand, have gotten it cut.

    So here comes my short response to the DaVinci Code, book, movie, or casual comment. You may wonder how I’m responding this morning, when the movie is released today. Again, I have no special friends. I haven’t gotten a preview of the movie. In fact, let me confess–no, let me proclaim–I haven’t even read the book!

    I’m not in any sense trying to say anything bad about those who have read the book or seen the movie, or want to do so. My bottom line on this book is that it is entertainment, it’s fiction (wow! whoda thunk it?), it’s supposed to be fun. If you think it’s going to be fun, go see it. If not, stay home, like me. If you think you can share your faith through discussion of the movie, go ahead and do so. That’s not my style, but I think it’s good that people do so.

    So if I think it’s fine to read the book, watch the move, to discuss it both literarily and historically (to the extent one can), what’s my problem. Let’s see. Oh yes . . . it bores me. That’s all. I’m just not interested. I’ve read dozens of books on the historical Jesus, ranging from volumes by authors who claim Jesus never existed, to fundamentalist defenses of the finest details of the story. I’m interested in that type of thing, but over time I’ve gotten to the point where I need something that challenges me intellectually. Books as wide ranging as John Dominic Crossan’s The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant and Darrell Bocks Jesus According to Scripture have great interest for me, as they both challenge my way of thinking and my understanding. But it just happens that right now I don’t want yet another theory about Jesus presented as fiction.

    I don’t know how good of fiction it will be, but the indications I’m hearing aren’t all that good. I’m absolutely not saying, “This is a bad movie, which is why I haven’t seen it.” I’m just telling you it’s OK not to find the whole thing all that interesting and to just continue to live your life. If The Da Vinci Code is your kind of movie, enjoy it guilt free. Use it in witness. Discuss it historically or literarily to your heart’s content. If, like me, you don’t plan to bother, don’t feel guilty. There really are people who just aren’t that excited about it.

  • Adventists and Spiritual Gifts

    A friend of mine drew my attention to a blog entry about spiritual gifts and I think it provides some interesting fodder for thinking about gifts. The entry is Adventism, the Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, written by Paul Whiting. He was surprised, and perhaps dismayed that his class was largely unable to identify their own spiritual gifts and the way in which they were used. As an ex-SDA I’m always interested in this type of discussion.

    These days I approach this topic from another perspective, as a United Methodist with a substantially charismatic lean. I’ve even written a program for church members to use in discovering their gifts (Identifying Your Gifts and Service). But I find that many people in many churches either have trouble identifying their gifts, or are afraid to speak about them for fear of displaying pride. It can be very important, even critical for a church to identify and use the spiritual gifts of those members.

    Seventh-day Adventists have an interesting perspective here because of the ministry of Ellen White, or at least they could have such a perspective. It’s interesting that many SDAs have explained the gift of prophecy in the modern church as being limited to Ellen White, while some of the same arguments that were used against Ellen White are now to be used against other manifestations of similar gifts.

    Whatever your position and your denomination, I recommend reading Paul Whiting’s discussion as a help in thinking about this important topic.

  • Wife, Mother, and Daughters

    It’s mother’s day, and I just returned from a church service celebrating mothers. I was thinking during the service about the things I appreciate about the mothers in my life.

    I’ve been accused of having married a “girl, just like the girl who married dear old dad.” 🙂 And there certainly are some similarities. The comparisons usually start with both being graduates of a three year Registered Nursing program, something that is sadly no longer available in this country. Both are practical, giving, and dedicated. Both are firm in their convictions and love the Lord. Both have their families as the focus of their lives, but both have also experienced the work life outside the home as well.

    The trouble with lists like this is that it seems to reduce the whole relationship to some “stuff.” It’s good stuff, but it really doesn’t seem to paint the whole picture, and I don’t suppose it can.

    There’s a story I tell about the days when my wife and I had just started dating. She came to my office as I was starting a work day. Now I am perhaps the least organized of people, at least amongst those who can manage to get through a day without a serious accident. I really have a hard time organizing tasks. I was in my office that day, stressed over the number of tasks I was trying to organize. All of them needed to be done that day, and I had no idea how to get one or two of them done, much less all. She listened to the list and said, “Why don’t you _________.” Fill in the blank with a clear, organized list of how to structure the tasks so that they could all be fitted into the available time. I was silent for a minute or so. She started to apologize for intervening in my work day which was, she said, none of her business at that point. “No,” I said, “just say it again so I can get it clear. I think it will work!”

    She’s probably tired of hearing that story, but it makes my point today. Sometimes when she’s killing herself being helpful, I’ll remind her that I did, after all, live with reasonable success for more than 40 years before we met. She wonders how I did that. The answer is: Not nearly as well as I do it with her. I tend to forget things as I’m preparing to leave for a job or for business in town. She’ll remind me and make a list. What happened before? I usually went out to the car several times, and sometimes got out of the driveway and had to return to get something that was missing. My runs to town would take more time, because I wouldn’t organize them as well according to distance and traffic.

    She was able to make it on her own as well. There have been times when I have tried to help juggle things with family, home, work, and ministry, and I have wondered how she did it alone with three children and an army of others that she just seems to adopt on sight. The key is that whatever we do, we do better together. But today is the day to remember that whatever I do, I do it better with her.

    I can look now at three generations.My mother, who not only raised four of her own, but had the same tendency that Jody does to adopt extras, my own wife, and now a daughter and daughter-in-law. I’m tremendously proud of the women of this family. I couln’t possibly be happier with any of them. I say to all the men involved here–dad, myself, son, and son-in-law: Whatever you do, you do better because of them.

  • Book: 52 Weeks of Ordinary People – Extraordinary God

    Let me warn you that I’m all kinds of biassed on the subject of this little book, just 68 pages long. My wife wrote it, and I publish it. In addition, it fulfills a niche that I think is very important in devotional books–materials designed for study, action, or prayer groups that meet on a weekly basis.

    It grew out of an experience at our home church at the time. There was a group of ladies who met on Wednesday nights, but did so very informally. They called themselves the “pointless sisters,” but they weren’t really pointless at all. They were some of the Martha’s of the church, busy with many things. Jody discovered that they were normally printing out one of her e-mail devotionals, and reading it as the devotional part of their gathering. For them, the study and prayer portions of their time were fairly short. They needed something to charge them up and get them started, and Jody’s devotionals were just the thing.

    My wife is the master of the five minute devotional. I find it tough to work within a small time frame. Those who read this blog can testify to that! But Jody can get right to the point, heading straight for where the rubber meets the road. In fact, she says that if you are convicted reading one of her devotionals, you can be sure that she was convicted by it first. She tells you what God has been telling her as she studies.

    Nearly 18 months ago now, we published the big book, Daily Devotions of Ordinary People – Extraordinary God with a year of daily devotions selected from the ones she had sent out of the last couple of years. After this experience of seeing how some devotionals were used, I asked her to select just 52 weekly devotions for use by small groups. She then added thought questions to each one, along with some suggestions for additional reading, to provide some material for discussion. The result was 52 Weeks of Ordinary People – Extraordinary God.

    The advantages are simple. It’s a bit much to expect all the members of a small group to buy a $19.99 devotional book. But a $7.99 book is another matter. Further, precisely because of my commitment to small groups, Energion Publications offers quantity and non-profit discounts, and there are a number of retailers who also discount from the retail price.

    If you’re not spending devotional time with God each day, consider starting. If you have a small group looking for a way to start their meeting with a challenging devotional thought, consider this book.

    (I also wrote about devotions in my series on your very own continuing education program on the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter Blog.)

  • Uncommon Descent and a Bad Report

    I earlier commented (Christians and Defamation) on the behavior of the folks over at Uncommon Descent in their treatment of Eric Pianka. I still regard what was done as completely contrary to Christian principles. Nothing that developed in that story in any way justified their behavior.

    They, on the other hand, have started in on a new target: Kevin Padian, of the National Center for Science Education. Apparently it is not sufficient for them to consider him wrong; they have to be able to call him wicked. In a post titled Kevin Padian – The Archie Bunker of ID Critics, they accuse him of being a racist. Their basis for doing so is ridiculous. I cannot imagine from reading what they have written that they even believe the charge themselves. It appears that they prefer to start the rumor and hope they’ll get some people to believe it. In addition, they post A Suitable Image of Kevin Padian. To see the history of this, and the previous KKK related image they used, follow the link below to the Panda’s Thumb.

    Nick Matzke discusses the details on The Panda’s Thumb, here, and the comments get fairly humorous.

    Not content, however, with one rumor, these guys have to go and start another one, and this time they have a letter. This one’s most interesting because with the context provided one can tell without reading beyond the bounds of their own post that their charge is bogus.

    This behavior is not only morally wrong, it’s a good warning sign that we’re dealing with supporters of a theory without merit.

    (For the record, I’m providing a trackback, though based on prior experience, I doubt it will be posted.)

  • Let Gas Prices Rise

    While I’m at linking to Steve Reuland’s Blog, let me call attention to his entry on gas prices, and note that I agree 100%.

    But let me add a few of my own comments. We need to develop alternative sources of fuel. There is no single technology that solves all things, and there is no technology that is yet fully developed. Research and development requires money, and there has to be an incentive. The easiest way to provide that incentive is to allow gas prices to rise. This encourages people to conserve fuel, by driving less, using more public transportation, and looking for more efficient household appliances, amongst other things. In addition, it provides an incentive to those who can provide alternative sources of energy.

    This may sound insensitive. But if we continue to behave the way we have been we are going to keep seeing larger and larger problems in the future. The time to get started on this was at least 30 years ago; now is hardly to early to get to work. The new sources of fuel will not be developed, combined with the infrastructure to produce, store, distribute, and use them, without the expenditure of resources, and those resources have to come from somewhere. In addition, efficient options for reducing our use of fossil fuels also require development, production, and distribution. Again, all that requires money. In economics, there really is no such thing as a free lunch.

    We can continue to be irresponsible and pass the problem on to our children (though it probably won’t wait that long), or we can behave like responsible adults and deal with it now.

  • Does the Explanatory Filter Explain?

    I stopped by Uncommon Descent the other day and found scordova talking about Genetic-ID, which he thinks is an application of the so-called explanatory filter. This looked pretty unlikely to me, but I figured that surely someone more intelligent that I am had gotten to the issue first, so I looked around. Seek and ye shall find! Steve Reuland on his Sunbeams from Cucumbers had already dealt with it pretty thoroughly in a post titled How to Really Detect Design. In the process he reviews the explanatory filter. His post is worth a read.

    The only thing I have to add is that the explanatory filter, which does not explain and does remarkably little filtering, could actually be reduced a bit. The first two elements are instances of “I know how it happens,” while the final one is “I don’t know.” Thus the EF could easily be summarized by the question, “Do I know?” “Yes” means we exit the filter, no means we assume design.

  • Baptized Foolishness

    I often hear 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 applied to the issue of whether one needs to know Greek in order to comment on certain translation issues. It’s difficult to see how anyone could imagine that this passage applies to such a situation. Certainly there are spiritual things which a Christian will understand differently than others, but you either read Greek or you don’t.

    First, let’s look at the broader context of the passage. (I will quote portions, but I assume that everyone can look this up in their Bible.)

    The first epistle to the Corinthians is, as the word “epistle” denotes, a letter, written by the apostle Paul in response to problems in that church. It is often treated as a kind of random collection of advice to that church, but that is not really the case. There is a very important unifying theme. That’s why I won’t limit my discussion to the verses you specified. In particular, verses 10-17 set the scene for the entire book.

    Paul first says that the problem in Corinth is a division into factions (1:10-12) then he asks pointedly whether Christ has been divided (13). He continues by asking whether they were baptized into his (Paul’s) name. He then takes one of his famous detours to explain who he did, or did not baptize, on which his memory is not terribly clear (14-16) but verse 17 sets the state for his discussion of 18-31. He was not called to baptize but to preach. It is the proclamation of Jesus Christ that is the focus of Paul’s work.

    This is a thematic statement for the epistle. As we read through the entire letter, we see that Paul sees a central problem in the factions of the church. People are dividing themselves up over different evidences of how spiritual they are. Not only that, they are questioning Paul’s leadership, because he doesn’t fulfill their particular tests of spirituality. Some see the truly spiritual person as one who bears wisdom. Others see those who ignore deeds of the flesh as truly spiritual. Others test their spiritual state by their wealth, and even bring such wealth into the communion service. Yet others see the mark of their spirituality in the various gifts of the Spirit, and especially in the gift of tongues. Thus for them, the one who speaks most in tongues is, in fact, the most spiritual person.

    Paul challenges this view in chapters 12-14, and then in chapter 15, he returns to this initial point—the preaching of Jesus Christ, crucified, dead and also resurrected. He makes clear then that the only true completely spiritual state comes with the resurrection or transformation when this corruptible puts on incorruption and this mortal puts on immortality (15:54-55). Until that time, our spirituality, whether manifested in knowledge, prophecy or tongues is still partial and limited. I note here that any idea that the canon of scripture constitutes perfect knowledge is in direct contradiction to Paul’s message to the Corinthian church. We absolutely do not have perfect knowledge. That is reserved to the kingdom of God.

    Now having set this context, I return to 1:18-25 (with further reference to 26-31). It’s interesting to me that this passage is brought up frequently when someone is losing an argument. “My argument may look foolish,” is the cry, “but it’s really divine wisdom!” I have seen this used again and again in opposition to serious study, whether that is through study of the original languages, or simply a careful look at a passage in context. “If it isn’t simple, it must be false,” is the war cry of some.

    I will suggest that this attitude is actually one of the things Paul would oppose, based on the principles in this passage.

    18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,
    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

    1 Corinthians 1:18-19 (NRSV)

    We immediately see that Paul has a specific type of “foolishness” in mind—the foolishness of the cross. Paul’s argument here is that the world finds the idea of a savior who died on a cross to be foolishness, and the notion that such a savior rose from the dead impossible (see chapter 15), but that this is God’s wisdom and the core of Paul’s preaching.

    Paul’s intent here is to place the cross—and specifically the foolishness of the cross—at the center of the proclamation. When someone takes this point and then tries to apply it to just any form of human foolishness, that seems to me to border on blasphemy. It is not that God has taken all foolishness and made it wisdom; rather, through Jesus Christ, God has taken a specific thing—the incarnation—and cancelled the human wisdom of the world with that. Notice verse 19. It is the foolishness of the cross that destroys the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning. Was it all wisdom and all discernment? Hardly. Paul speaks of a spiritual gift of discernment. Paul speaks with respect of the Hebrew scriptures which place a great premium on wisdom.

    Verse 21 puts further emphasis on this. It is through the foolishness of the proclamation, which Paul has already alluded to in verse 17 as the focus of his ministry, that God has chosen in order to save people. For Paul, opening the good news of a relationship with God, one which he believed would culminate in a resurrection-transformation, to everyone was a very critical proclamation. And it was made possible, in his view, not through words of wisdom, but through the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

    Now verse 25 is also critical. “For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength” (1:25 NRSV). It is not that human foolishness is greater than human wisdom, it is that God’s foolishness (relatively speaking) is greater than the greatest of human wisdom.

    Now does this say that any foolish thing someone can say about scripture is alright and that nobody should challenge it? No. Even Paul wished to use words of wisdom in speaking to the Corinthians. He wished they were mature enough to hear them (2:6-10). Did he say that someone who doesn’t know a language actually does? No, he simply elevated the foolishness of the cross above the wisdom of the world. I repeat that trying to carry all forms of human foolishness past logical objections by trying to ride them in on the “foolishness of the cross” at a minimum borders on blasphemy to Christian ears.

    Now let’s look at 26-31. Here Paul points out that many of the members of the Corinthian church were not terribly important, rich, or wise by the world’s standards when they were called. This is one of a number of places in this letter in which Paul makes the effort to put everyone on an even footing before God. Later, in chapter 12, Paul will point out that all gifts come from one and same Spirit who gives them out as he wills. Again, all stand on a level field before God. After discussing those gifts Paul switches again to the calling (12:12-13). Again, he speaks of equal footing.

    Chapter 13 makes this more explicit, and also gives us a key principle. What if I have various gifts, even all knowledge? If I don’t have love, I am nothing. That’s because the principles of love as expressed in 13:4-8a all tend to keep me from making a faction out of my particular talents or gifts. They take the pride out of those gifts.

    In chapter 8:1-2 (and following), we see a misapplication of knowledge. Someone who knows that an idol is nothing can use that knowledge to hurt another brother or sister. Knowledge puffs up. But does Paul suggest we need no knowledge? Not at all! He refers to knowledge as a gift. I love verse two and use it frequently. Anyone who thinks he already knows doesn’t know the way he should.

    I recall a youth pastor who had listened as I spoke about the scriptures and answered questions from his youth group. At the end he said he had a question. “I’ve been studying the Bible now for four or five years and I feel that I’ve pretty much got it. What do I do now?” he asked. I admit to being pretty close to speechless. When we quit looking for more knowledge, when we allow the idea that we have attained to stop us, we are truly in a pitiable state.

    So what does my knowledge of Greek do for me? It allows me to read Greek and to comment on Greek words. Does it give me special status before God? Absolutely not. Does it give me the inside track on salvation? On sanctification? Absolutely not. All it does is allow me to read and understand Greek. Can my understanding improve? Absolutely. I pray continually that it will improve.

    On the other hand, does Paul’s statement here suggest in any way that someone who doesn’t know Greek can read it anyways? Again, not at all. The one who reads and the one who doesn’t are not to judge one another spiritually because of that.

    There is the reverse error that I also see in the church. Because of this passage many Christians celebrate ignorance. They figure that God has chosen the simple things to confound the wise, so let’s be as simple as we can. That is precisely the same error—believing that the state of my knowledge gives me a special place with God. There is only *one* foolishness which is elevated here: the foolishness of the cross.

    I leave you with a text from Hebrew scriptures, in which wisdom personified is crying out in the street:

    22 “How long, O simple ones, will you love being simple?
    How long will scoffers delight in their scoffing
    and fools hate knowledge?
    Proverbs 1:22 (NRSV)

  • Was Jesus a Lawful Priest and Sacrifice?

    I’m going to post next on the nature of the priesthood of Jesus, by looking at the major passages in the book of Hebrews. These especially chapter 2, 4:14-16, and 7. Obviously that list is not exhaustive, as priesthood is fundamental to most of the book, but those passages will get us started. First, however, I want to address the question in the title: Was Jesus lawful as either a priest or a sacrifice? I’ve seen this discussion between Jews and Christians, and a great deal of confusion was generated.

    The short answer is no. Jesus was not of the tribe of Levi, much less of the family of Aaron. He was not qualified according to the Torah to be a priest. Neither was he qualified to be a sacrifice. Humans are not kosher animals, and they are nowhere specifically authorized as sacrifices. Indeed human sacrifice is specifically forbidden.

    But none of this should be a surprise to a Christian Bible student, though unfortunately it seems to be for some. Indeed, the author of Hebrews is not only aware of this point; it’s a key element of his argument. Recall that he has been establishing Jesus, and the witness to Jesus, as superior to the Torah as a revelation. I have noted how this is completely contrary to the Jewish approach to scripture and its interpretation. (Note that I am in no way trying to tell Jews how to approach scripture; I’m addressing this to Christians, but the difference needs to be understood for interfaith discussions.) Having made such an argument he continues by establishing Jesus as a new kind of priest, on which he spends almost all of chapter 7, and then chapter 8 introduces the concept of a new covenant. If Jesus were here, he would not be a priest. There already are priests, but more importantly, Jesus comes from the tribe of Judah, and there is no privision in Torah for such a priest (Hebrews 7:14).

    Rather than trying to argue against this obvious fact, the author of Hebrews bases his argument for the superior priesthood of Jesus on that fact. He was not a priest like the old, Levitical priests. He was a priest of a new order, based on a new covenant, and new regulations. (We’ll discuss the priestly order of Melchisedek in a later entry.) He argues this superior priesthood on the same basis as he has argued the superiority of the revelation that comes through Jesus–he maintains that in all ways Jesus’ ministry is superior. Note that he does not start by establishing the ministry of Jesus from the Old Testament scriptures. (Those who recall how much Old Testament he quotes, hold your exclamations and questions.) Rather, he starts with the superiority of the established testimony of Jesus (2:1-4) and of his priesthood and sacrifice (7-10 passim), and then looks for pointers to something superior that is to come in the Old Testament scriptures.

    Thus the correct answer to the title question is, again, no. Under the Torah, Jesus was neither lawful as a priest nor as a sacrifice. Further, he was not offered according to the law. Does this mean that Jesus is not a priest or a sacrifice? Well, according to the book of Hebrews, he is. He is lawful because he inaugurated a new law.

    I would two other points. The first is the nature of metaphor. Jesus was not killed as a sacrifice from the point of view of those who did it, or from the point of view of those who watched. The Romans crucified Jesus as a routine act of political intimidation. The observers were, well, intimidated. One of the ways in which we can understand this is as a sacrifice–and indeed it was. But we will neither understand everything about it by this means, nor will we be able to connect it to a sacrifice at every point.

    The second is the idea of type and antitype. This is expressed in Hebrews 8:5. The earthly things are a sketch and shadow of heavenly things. Those who understand this passage as indicating that there is a building in heaven proportional to the tabernacle or the temple, and that in the most holy compartment of that temple there is an ark of the covenant miss the point. The ark of the covenant was the shadow, the representation, the physical expression of God’s presence. The heavenly reality is God’s actual presence. To read about the antitypical most holy place, read Revelation 4, and the experience of worship around the throne of God.

    Beware of getting two little or two much out of these types of parallels.

  • Are You a Priest?

    A key element of the participatory study method is getting up close and personal with the application. Since God indicated in Exodus 19:6 that his intention for Israel was that they should be a nation of priests, and that a similar goal was expressed for Christians in 2 Peter 2:9, the question I want to ask is how this applies to me.

    Let’s make a more extensive list of activities of a priest:

    1. Teaching to distinguish holy from unholy, clean and unclean, right and wrong (see my previous post on priesthood)
    2. Bearing sin (High Priest particularly)
    3. Presenting sacrifices
    4. Judging issues based on their knowledge and divine instruction
    5. Leading in worship

    This list isn’t exhaustive, but it gives us some idea.

    Many people have a hard time seeing themselves in this role, but God presents it as an ideal. I think if we clean out the theological terminology, there is nothing here that we can’t all do.

    First, though not all of us are teachers by office (James 3:1), all of us have something to teach. At a minimum, we can share our own testimony. (I wrote some notes on this for the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter blog.) We do not ourselves carry other peoples sins, but we can help them find forgiveness. We can all present sacrifices–in the modern Christian sense with our gifts, our service, and our praise of God. We do not all serve as judges, but we can all participate in the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:16-21). Finally, we may not all see ourselves as leaders in worship, but we all can be. It’s easy to lean on the worship leader to get us into the attitude of worship. How much better would it be if each person in a worship service was helping to lead their little corner of the church into worship?

    But there is one major difference when we are all part of the priesthood. While we are called to do all of these things as a member of Christ’s “royal priesthood” we are also called to receive from one another. Today you may be the leader, helping someone else get closer to God. Tomorrow it may be you who needs the help. The benefit of a nation of priests or a priestly kingdom is that we are all equipped to help one another.

    That is the call of the priesthood.