Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Speaking Out on Darfur

    In his regular column in Newsweek, Rabbi Marc Gellman comments on the need to speak out about the situation in Darfur. I want to call attention to his column, Responding to Evil, and suggest you read it, if nothing else so that you will see this:

    The most important thing I have taken from Wiesel’s incantatory and luminous work is that we must speak out, not necessarily to change the oppressors of our world but so that the oppressors do not change us.

    This is good writing and to the point. I have little to add. Let’s tell our political leaders!

  • Hebrews 10:19-25: Why Meet for Worship?

    19Now then, brethren, we have boldness to go into the holiest place through the blood of Jesus, 20which he placed as a living way through the curtain, not previously available, which is his flesh. 21Jesus is also a great priest over the household of God. 22So let’s come with true hearts and full assurance of faith, our hearts sprinkled clean from bad conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold firmly the confession of our hope without wavering, for the one who promised is faithful. 24And let us pay attention to each other, so as to stir up of love and good works, 25not neglecting our meetings, as is the practice of some, but encouraging, and doing this even more as we see the day approaching. — Hebrews 10:19-25 (from my TFBV project)

    (OK, this one is way out of order, and is not arranged according to the lessons either. I just had some thoughts about worship.)

    Why do we need to meet for worship?

    I hear many answers to this question and I sense many more in meeting with people, both those who do meet regularly for worship and those who don’t. Some of us meet just because it’s habit. Our parents went to church, and they got us in the habit, and somehow we preserved that habit. Some go for social reasons. It’s a good time to meet friends and business associates, an opportunity for networking. Some go to get points toward their hoped-for ticket to heaven. Perhaps if their lives during the week were not quite up to standard, attendance at a worship service or so might make up the difference.

    The author of Hebrews has some specific, and he thinks compelling reasons to worship.

    1. We can!
      Since we can approach God boldly, why not do so? Much of the book of Hebrews deals with our access to God, and one of the assumptions of the author is that those who can approach God boldly will want to do so in worship. One of his concerns is that it seems his assumption might not be quite true. There seem to be some people who just don’t get the need.
    2. God is faithful! and we need to be reminded of that fact
    3. We need encouragement.
      What better place to get encouragement is there than with a group of people who realize the possibility of boldness before God and come together to claim that boldness? Of course, as our author again has noted throughout the book, not everyone seems to live up to the possibilities.
    4. Others need encouragement.
      And here’s one of the keys. When you’re feeling really good, filled up, and ready to go, and don’t feel the need of another church service, you may need to go in order to encourage someone else.
    5. It’s time to stir up love and good works.
      But do we? Is this what happens at your church on Sunday morning? Do we leave feeling that it is easier to do good?

    These are some of the key reasons the author of Hebrews sees for gathering together in worship. I’d suggest three areas for consideration. Ask yourself:

    1. Does my behavior at church and in worship services help encourage others to good deeds?
    2. Do I come home from worship motivated and energized in my love and my service for others?
    3. Is there something I could do about the worship service I attend that would make it more likely that all who attend would be energized and encouraged in their love and good works?

    Perhaps there are some reforms you could look into in your own life, your worship experience, and the way worship is practiced at your church.

  • Hebrews 4:12-13: God’s Word is Alive and Active

    Yes, but what does it do?

    I sometimes think that this passage should be our key passage for the inspiration of the Bible rather than 2 Timothy 3:16. After opening with the wonderful passage in Hebrews 1:1-4, and telling us how God has communicated in so many ways, he begins to close the circle on the Word of God, and the powerful work that it does. The word came in many ways at many different times, but now it has come through a Son, Jesus Christ. This word challenges us to its quality and nature (Hebrews 2:1-4). God not only has information for us; he has a plan. We don’t only need to know the contents; we need to let our lives reflect that content. When we “consider the apostle and high priest of our confession” it is not so that we can polish up our doctrinal statements, it is so that we will be faithful to our confession.

    Hebrews 4:12-13 brings a close to this part of the argument and launches us into a new phase as we discuss priesthood. To catch the emphasis, let me translate very literally: “Living is the Word of God and active/powerful . . .” There has been some debate over whether our author here is talking about Jesus (John 1:1-3) as the word, or is talking about the scriptures. Scholarly opinion centers on the second. But I think both are too narrow. I think he has seen the marvelous ways in which God, through his word, intrudes himself into our lives. He sees the benefits that will result from responding to this activity and makes a call for us to be faithful to that call.

    That’s why the next section of this passage talks about knowledge. God’s word not only enlightens us and informs us, it discovers all that there is to be known about us. You can get a picture almost of dissection, but that wasn’t on our author’s mind. He was probably looking more at a combat metaphor of the skilled swordsman whose sword finds the precise mark. But in this case the purpose is not to wound, but to lay it all bare before the eyes of God. All creation is open to him because, after all, he is the creator of all creation. It’s all laid bare.

    The word of God is both informative and formative. It provides us with knowledge of God. It is God, knowing all there is to know about us. It is the motivator of our actions and the empowerment to do them.

    By the word of YHWH the heavens were made,
    By the breath of his mouth, all their host! — Psalm 33:6

    But then perhaps 2 Timothy 3:16 is not so far off after all. In fact, as I read it, I see much the same thing. “Every scripture is God-breathed, and is useful for teaching, for rebuke, for correction (straightening out), and for instruction in righteousness.” Isn’t that pretty much what this is saying? I find that this verse gets quoted more often to tell us what the content of scripture is. The Greek term “theopneustos” is analyzed to tell us how inspiration works, and what it must do to the words of scripture. In fact, the Revised English Bible translates, “All inspired scripture has its use . . .” and many people have told me that this takes all meaning from the verse. Not at all! What Paul is getting at here is how to put the scripture to practical use. The word is active, and we need to get active with the word. We need to let the word change us.

    One particularly important point I like to emphasize in Bible study is the need to let the word correct you personally first. It is so easy to read the Bible, or hear the word in any context, and find all of the things that other people need to hear. There is correction there for my wife, for my children, for my pastor, for my Sunday School class. But the real question is this: When that sword cut to the heart of the matter, what did it find?

    That should be the focus of our Bible study!

  • The Best Place to Teach the Bible

    See You in Bible Class says the MSNBC/Newsweek headline on a story that informs us that the state of Georgia has decided that having a Bible class is a critical part of the public school curriculum for their state. They’re going to mandate that it be added. The story is headed by the picture of a woman praying while officials in Odessa, Texas debate a similar proposal. Then from The Lady Speaks (Oh, Here’s a surprise, we have the comment that the Bible is OK in public school, provided that it is in the mythology section of the literature class. And therein lies one of the problems with having a Bible class in public school.

    Now let me provide a couple of links. The Newsweek article refers to two different groups that have prepared materials for use as Bible curriculum in public schools. One is the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which is endorsed by numerous Christian conservatives. There is also a review of their curriculum, done by Mark A. Chancey, Assistant Professor, Department of Religious Studies at Southern Methodist University. I strongly recommend reading Dr. Chancey’s review of this curriculum. I haven’t had a chance to look at it, but assuming that he has read the material fairly, I would be extremely concerned about some of the content issues he raises. Moderate and liberal Christians need to be careful how they are counted in political issues. Frequently supporters of marginal positions claim the large number of people who are members of Christian churches as a reason to support their very particular Christian position, irrespective of the likelihood that all those people would support such a position.

    Alternatively, the Newsweek article mentions the The Bible Literacy Project, which has apparently received some criticism from conservatives. I don’t have any outside review of their material at hand.

    Personally, I oppose the use of either of these options in the public school. The Bible, as such, is a faith document. It collects a particular set of literature, known as the canon which is regarded as authoritative by a particular religious community. Not only does this canon differ for Jews and Christians, but it differs substantially amongst Christian groups. Whatever selection of literature you choose to call “The Bible,” on which to offer classes, it will be the faith literature of a particular group, and not be precisely the faith book of another group.

    I understand that the courts have ruled that this type of Bible course is legal, though I would note that the material from the National Council on Bible Curriculum could well face significant problems in court. I am not arguing here that having a Bible class in public school is illegal. I’m arguing that it is a bad idea. It is not a good way to advance the appropriate activities and function of government, and it is not a good way to advance the cause of religion. That picture of a lady praying for the action of the school board that heads the Newsweek article troubles me. There was the time that we, as Christians, prayed that the government would leave us alone, and not persecute us, so that we could carry on the work of the gospel. Now we are praying that the government will use the force of law to do our job for us.

    The simple fact is that any curriculum on the Bible us such will be religious in nature. It will be perceived as religious. It will function as a religious exercise. In those states that adopt a more liberal curriculum, conservative Christian parents are going to be angry when they find a more liberal approach taken in the curriculum than the one they prefer. In some more conservative areas, the class will become little more than a Bible class based on the views of the dominant group in the area.

    I believe that some elements of the Bible can be introduced in public school, and not just in the mythology section of literature class. There is some material in the Bible that belongs in a class studying mythology. But there is also material that could be involved in studying general poetry, history (with proper attention to historiography), and also as an example of religious literature in a comparative sense. This allows various elements of Biblical literature to be used without the government committing itself on the boundaries of the Bible as such.

    The Bible as a book of faith should be taught in church, at home, and in private religious schools. If you want the Bible as the basis of your child’s education and you want the Bible integrated into every day in the classroom, private school is your option. You can choose the school according to the curriculum it offers. On the other hand if you support the public school system, as I do, keep your public schools out of these controversies. Use the wonderful Sunday School, Wednesday night, and retreat opportunities to teach your child religion. This will be good for religion, for the quality of public education, and for religious freedom in this country.

  • Isaiah 24-27 – Overview

    Many of the issues of Biblical criticism are illustrated in these four chapters from the book of Isaiah. The book of Isaiah as a whole is fertile ground for such study, but one has to take a reasonable sized bite for an illustration. What I want to do with these chapters is discuss how various critical tools apply, or do not apply, to the text, and what can be learned from applying those tools. I will focus my attention on tools that are available to those who do not read Hebrew, looking for ways in which they can evaluate various critical claims for themselves using easily available materials.

    To accomplish this I’m going to post on the following. (I may break some of these items into multiple entries or combine them where one element is very short.)

    1. The text, applying textual criticism to get an idea of the state of the text.
    2. Literary criticism, probably combined with elements of genre criticism. Are these four chapters a unit that can be studied independently as a whole? What type of literature are they?
    3. Form criticism, a look at the individual units, if any, in the text.
    4. Source and Redaction criticism, how we got to the state of the text.
    5. Tradition criticism, summarizing 3 & 4.
    6. Genre and canonical criticism, taking us back to #2 and tying this back together.

    If you want to follow the procedures, you can start by reviewing the book of Isaiah as a whole, and then by reading these four chapters several times–at least enough times so that you have a mental picture of the passage as a whole. As you do this, you can look for your own answer to the question of whether this is itself a literary unit as part of the book of Isaiah, whether I have drawn the boundaries of the unit I’m going to study correctly. At the same time, you can prepare for the state of canonical criticism, which will ask how this fits into the overall message of Isaiah as that message fits into the message of canonical scripture.

    The book of Isaiah contains 66 chapters. Conservative Christians generally believe that it was written by one prophet, Isaiah, who lived in Judah starting late in the reign of Uzziah and possibly continuing his ministry into the reign of Manasseh, Hezekiah’s son and successor. Critical scholarship, however, has generally divided the book into at least two parts, chapter 1-39 as First Isaiah and 40-66 as Second Isaiah. Chapters 36-39, no matter what the scheme, are a historical interlude telling the story of Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah and his eventual defeat. The vast majority divide that further into 40-55 as Second Isaiah and 56-66 as Third Isaiah.

    General readers often get the idea that the critical view of Isaiah is that simple (or quite possibly complain of its complexity) without realizing that the critical view of the book is many times more complicated than that. Form critics will look for a life setting and date of composition for individual prophetic oracles or other literary elements in the text. Source critics may provide a variety of dates for individual sources, and so you can have material from any date in the general period of the Isaiah tradition. To get an idea of the dates and their spread, see Isaiah Timeline. This gives the broad outlines of this scheme of dating.

    Individual portions of the text, may have been spoken, written, or added to the collection at any time, however. Let’s look at an example from outside our narrow range of chapters. In Isaiah 14, we find three separate sections that are clearly defined: 14:1-13, 24-27, and 28-32. The first is against Babylon, and appears to assume a situation with Judah in exile. Some would suggest, however, that the dirge (3-21) could have been written at any time, and then the prose introduction (1-2) and conclusion (22-23), which are the only parts that mention Babylon by name, are added by a redactor in the exile. That redactor could be second Isaiah (the author of chapters 40-55), or even someone after that time. Trying to answer such questions wouldl involve form and redaction criticism. Verses 24-27, however are addressed to Assyria. By the time of the Babylonian exile, Assyria was long gone as the primary foe of Judah, but in the time of First Isaiah, Assyria was the primary enemy. The third oracle is against the Philistines, and it would be much harder to date. My point here is that this chapter is one of the simpler ones in which to discuss dating. If one accepts the composite authorship of Isaiah at all, one will find plenty of complexity and a considerable number of cases in which one admits one doesn’t know.

    Let’s turn our thoughts back to chapters 24-27. If they are a unit, then when was that unit written? First, we will have to ask whether there are elements of this unit that were written separately and then combined, or whether the passage was written as a unified whole. As I noted above, Isaiah 14 is relatively simple to deal with, with specific enemies addressed, and clear beginnings and ends for the three sections of the chapters. But the absence of that sort of clarity in 24-27 has not prevented commentators from presenting a number of divisions. As a Bible student, don’t simply take a scholar’s word for the divisions. Each and every one of these items is controversial; test it all, accept what convinces you. We’ll look at the possible divisions when we discuss form criticism.

    But is there anything that can be said about date? One of the easily available tools I will follow through this study is the Oxford Study Bible (REB). This Bible provides some pretty good notes and introductory articles on many topics. In its note on chapter 24 it says, “The literary style with the tendency thoward apocalyptic (24:21-23) and the theological perspective of final judgment (v. 21) indicate that this collection originated long after Isaiah of Jerusalem (see Introduction)” (page 727). Here’s where you need to put on your own critical glasses and think seriously about the claim made.

    There are some assumptions here:

    1. Apocalyptic developed in a generally linear fashion so that one can place a particular example of it on a continuum.
    2. Apocalyptic started late
    3. This passage is an example of apocalyptic literature
    4. Final judgment is a late element in Hebrew literature

    One critical piece of this puzzle would be the dating of Daniel. I’ve called attention to a number of commentaries in recent blog entries, and one should note that such scholars as Gleason Archer and Joyce Baldwin maintain that Daniel was written in the 6th century BCE, while Ernest Lucas allows such dating. Hartman & Di Lella along with Porteous solidly supported a late dating (2nd century BCE) for Daniel. If one assumes some sort of linear development for apocalyptic, then Daniel is probably somewhere toward the early middle part of that process. It’s not quite up to the book of Revelation, but it’s more apocalyptic than some chapters in Ezekiel and perhaps more similar to Zechariah. Those four centuries of difference in the dating of Daniel could make a substantial difference in how one dates these chapters. In addition, there are those who regard Daniel as a composite itself, with some elements being quite early (5th-4th century BCE) and some later. Some strongly apocalyptic elements (Daniel 7, for example) are considered by these scholars as quite early.

    Whether apocalyptic was a linear development or not is hard to say, partially because we are not so sure just what apocalyptic was, and as is the case here, we aren’t too sure when to date it. If you are interested in testing this element of dating, try reading Ezekiel 37-39 and the book of Zechariah and comparing them to these four chapters. Some elements of apocalyptic generally include symbolic visions, emphasis on eschatology, judgment, and angelic guides or interpreters. If there was a progression, where do you think these chapters would fall? You can hold that thought as we study them and see if you change your mind.

    My next entry will be a survey of the text of these four chapters as we see them in English translations. I will discuss textual issues uses some original language resources, but I will focus on what you can learn from the text and footnotes of a few English Bible versions.

  • Gleason Archer on Daniel

    I’ve just run through another commentary on Daniel, in this case the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 7, section on Daniel, by Gleason Archer. (See my notes on this commentary.)

    You can review my more detailed view in those notes, but I would simply state that this is one of two carefully conservative, scholarly commentaries on Daniel that I have read. Those who would like to preach from the book will find it particular useful. Let me list these major commentaries on Daniel in order, from most conservative to most critical.

    1. Daniel, by Desmond Ford.
      This is no longer in print, but it is available from some libraries, and occasionally used. Desmond Ford was a Seventh-day Adventist scholar and he did quite a good job of summarizing the evidence from a conservative perspective. His key to interpretation is the apotelesmatic principle, suggesting multiple fulfillments for predictions.
    2. Daniel and the Minor Prophets (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), by Gleason Archer.
      This is a solidly evangelical commentary. There is no give on historical or prophetic/predictive issues.
    3. Daniel (Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries), by Joyce Baldwin. Conservative but with a lighter touch.
    4. Daniel (Apollos Old Testament Commetnary), by Ernest Lucas
      Allows either a 6th or 2nd century date, while affirming a high view of scripture.
    5. Daniel (Anchor Bible), by Hartman and Di Lella
      Affirms a 2nd century date while also affirming inerrancy.
    6. Daniel (Old Testament Library), by Norman Porteous
      A good example of a fully critical commentary, though it is a bit short for my taste.

    I may spend some time on literary criticism of Daniel after I present a series of entries on Isaiah 24-27 as an example of critical methologies.

  • Believing Stuff is not Enough

    My early morning reading brought two things together that led me to this post. The first was a blog entry by Shane Raynor on The Wesley Blog, titled What’s Missing from Our Christianity?. In it Shane makes a very important point:

    Many of us intellectually believe all the right stuff. Or at least most of it. And those of us who believe in a physical resurrection waste a lot of time fretting about liberal scholars who try to “reinterpret” this event so that it never really happened. But then I caught myself thinking, “Which is worse? Not believing in Christ’s physical resurrection or believing in it and not allowing ourselves to be changed by it?” Given the choice, I’d choose none of the above. I want to believe, both intellectually and with my actions. And I want to be part of a Christian community that believes Jesus is alive- not only in theory but because we really know him.

    I’ve heard many times how we can reform the United Methodist Church (I’m a member of a United Methodist congregation) by correcting doctrinal problems with our seminaries. But it seems to me that one can be liberal and dead, conservative and dead, or (horrors!) moderate and dead. The fact is that any group of people is capable of making themselves, their doctrines, and their priorities more important than spiritual life. (I define “spiritual life” as their relationship to God.) Now I’m not trying to say that any set of beliefs will do, provided we just have life. I believe that while we are less than fully capable of knowing all the truth about God, and thus full correctness of doctrine will always elude us, we can and should seek to understand the truth as much as is possible to us. But such a seeking after truth involves first dropping our own agendas in favor of God’s agenda. N. T. Wright (I don’t have the book at hand to give you a reference) translates the call of Jesus to “repent and believe the gospel” as “drop your agendas and trust me for mine.”

    Indeed, I’m not even saying that Methodist seminaries don’t need some reformation. I am saying that just fixing the doctrinal positions of seminaries to whatever state you desire, and believe me all groups have an agenda for what seminaries should teach, is not going to make the students spiritual persons, operating in relationship to God, and leading congregations in spiritual life.

    The second thing that tied to this was from the book of Hebrews. I’m reading that book through a few times, along with other studies (I’m blogging through it for the benefit of students or others who might be interested), and in chapter 13:15-16 I came across the following:

    15Through him we offer up always a sacrifice of praise to God, which is the fruit of lips confessing his name. 16And don’t forget the doing of good, and fellowship because such sacrifices are pleasing to God.

    Look at the elements:

    1. Sacrifice of praise
      This is our continuous response to God; not merely an acknowledgement of historical facts, but a response of praise. I have to tell you that I got goose bumps several times during the easter service. I had prayed with our pastor before the service for resurrection power in his preaching, and I felt it.
    2. Fruit of lips confessing his name. Not just confession. Not just the monotone “the third day He arose again from the dead,” but a confession that includes the fruit.
    3. Doing of good
      That’s more fruit.
    4. Fellowship
      That’s bearing fruit together!

    The result: Pleasing to God!

  • Creation by Command

    In my earlier post on the Biblical Doctrine of Creation, my second element of a Biblical doctrine of creation was that God creates by simple command, in other words, God’s word and will is reality.

    This is commonly used as an argument against theistic evolution, and even in some cases against old earth creationism. Duane Gish used it against Hugh Ross in debate by questioning the continuing process of stellar evolution, something that Hugh Ross acknowledges. The transcript that was on TalkOrigins is currently unavailable online, but there is a copy at ASA.

    There are some Biblical points, however, that I believe overturn this argument. There are multiple creation accounts. We have a simple command in Genesis 1:27, but is described as a process in 2:7. Then we have a description of the constant creative activity of God in Psalm 104. Even futher, God states that he created Israel (Isaiah 43:1). This is both the accomplishment of his word and his will, but it is also a very long process. Again, God’s word in prophecy promised and predicted the Messiah, and the fulfillment is the accomplishment of God’s word. Nonetheless there was a lengthy process involved.

    The key is that God’s word “does not return empty” (Isaiah 55:11). Even now Christians hold to just such a promise. Jesus promised to return, and yet he is not here. Much time has passed, yet we still wait. Why? Because we believe that ultimately God’s word is sure.

    Thus I would suggest that all of the views of origins that I have described in this series fulfill this doctrinal requirement for a Biblical doctrine of creation. Each has its own view of the way in which God’s word is fulfilled in creation, but each is certain that God’s word is and will be fulfilled.

    I would note that if God’s word is certain, and if we can see God’s word in action when we observe the processes of evolution, we are justified in deriving some of our understanding of the character of God from these observations. Theology may not make science, but by virtue of the fact that it is so good at collecting data, science can impact religion.

  • Creationist Boilerplate

    I was reading the entry The Ignorant Credulity of Creationists on Dispatches from the Culture Wars, where Ed Brayton quotes the following from a creationist response to Tiktaalic roseae, and then comments:

    . . . or those who are more of a six-day creationist stripe, the finding poses no threat either. Discovery Institute scientists have observed that Tiktaalik roseae is not an intermediate, but rather, “Is one of a set of lobe-finned fishes that include very curious mosaics–these fishes have advanced fully formed characteristics of several different groups. They are not intermediates in the sense that have half-fish/half-tetrapod characteristics. Rather, they have a combination of tetrapod-like features and fish-like features. Paleontologists refer to such organisms as mosaics rather than intermediates” It is simply not evident that this find is even an evolutionary link. I guess the “missing link” is still missing. (From The Latest Fossil Find: Fact or Fiction — HN)

    Here McDowell credulously repeats this idiotic argument from the ID without giving it a thought. Any thinking person would recognize that the DI’s statement above is simply gibberish. What on earth do they think an intermediate form would look like if you found one? It would have a combination of features from the ancestral group and a combination of features from the descendant group, and it would be found in rocks that date to the time such a transition was believed to have taken place. When those things are present, as they are here, the distinction between a “mosaic” and an “intermediate” is totally meaningless.

    Now while I might tend to use slightly gentler forms of expression, the point is pretty clear. In order to be viewed as an intermediate form, this creature must have some characters from the forms it is intermediate between, yet in this paragraph, Sean McDowell claims that this mix of characteristics doesn’t make it transitional. This is some pretty remarkable reasoning. When I read that comment, the terms and “logic” sounded so familiar that I just had to look up some material about Archaeopteryx. I immediately found the following quote from Answers in Genesis. Does any of the logic look familiar?

    In summary, it may be said that Archaeopteryx is truly unique, and appears to exhibit a mosaic of characters, sharing some in common with the class Aves and some with the class Reptilia. It seems to have been suited to a lifestyle of short flights and agile crawling in trees, and those features which make it unquestionably a bird for classification purposes are uniquely and completely present and perfect. The feathers are not halfway transition from scales to feathers, an assumed transformation of the most astounding complexity. If for no other reason, this would disqualify it as a transitional form. . . . (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v1/i1/archaeopteryx.asp, note that the omitted portion discusses bats and the platypus as examples of a “mosaic of characters.”)

    What’s really remarkable here is the demand that a transitional form show specifically the halfway point between scales and feathers. It is not enough that there is a mix of characters in the creature, we want to catch one specific character in transition. Now I’m not saying that would be an impossibility, but it is definitely not a requirement in order for a form to be transitional.

    But let’s not stop there. ICR also has a comment on Archaeopteryx, and lo and behold, they don’t agree with Answers in Genesis.

    It has been asserted that Archaeopteryx shares 21 specialized characters with coelurosaurian dinosaurs.4 Research on various anatomical features of Archaeopteryx in the last ten years or so, however, has shown, in every case, that the characteristic in question is bird-like, not reptile-like. . . . (As a Transitional Form Archaeopteryx Won’t Fly (Impact #195))

    So what would it take to convince a creationist that a form is transitional? They really don’t say. If being found in rocks of the right age, based on a prediction that such a form should be found, and falling into a good sequence of transitional forms is not good enough, what is?

    The response to Tiktaalik has amply demonstrated the simple fact that creationists are not interested in doing science; they are simply spinning the work that others do in any way possible to make it appear not to damage their case.

    I’d be interested to hear two things from creationists. First, I’d like “scientific” creationism to specify just what it would be that they would accept as a transitional form, as a disproof of the special creation of each species. Second, just how many species were there simultaneously in the antediluvian world?

    I don’t think I’m going to get anything resembling answers to those questions, because I think that creationists know precisely what they will do; they will reproduce the spin that they have used with each new discovery. That is because they have a prior commitment to a particular interpretation of scripture. I suggest they just admit it and quit trying to claim they are doing science.

  • Belshazzar Plays Pretend

    Read the story of Belshazzar’s feast in Daniel 5.

    The stories of the book of Daniel all have something to do with worship. Often we read them as unconnected stories about Daniel and his friends, but they have a common theme. Daniel 1 shows us the faithfulness of Daniel and his friends to their God, and their God alone and the rewards. Chapter 2 shows not just God’s control of knowledge in interpreting the dream, but his control of history and the fate of nations. Chapter 3 shows God triumphant over idolatry and the king’s order to worship other gods. At the same time Nebuchadnezzar’s attempt to pretend that he would rule forever (he was the golden head in chapter 2, but he tries to be the whole image in chapter 3) is defeated. Chapter 4 shows Nebuchadnezzar humbled and finally acknowledging God as ruler.

    This was all history surely known to Belshazzar as he arranges his feast. The story is told in chapter 5. For many years scholars thought that Belshazzar was a fictional character because he was unknown outside the book of Daniel and literature that depended on it. But eventually records were found of his existence, and it turns out that Belshazzar was not a king. He was a regent appointed by his father Nabonidus who was elsewhere doing some fairly odd things. Belshazzar also must have known that the Persian armies were invading his country, and unless he was particularly unobservant, he must have known the enemy army was approaching the city of Babylon itself.

    So what did he do? Make preparations to defend the city? Call a meeting of high officials to plan? Pray? Put his trust in the God Nebuchadnezzar had learned to respect?

    None of the above! Belshazzar decided to pretend. He called a party. He brought in the temple vessels that had been dedicated to God and brought by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon and ate and drank from them. He behaved like he was a powerful king with nothing to worry about, and as though he had no need to behave respectfully toward any gods, much less worship them. He even had to pretend that he was from a more important family. Though Daniel 5 calls Nebuchadnezzar his father (verse 2), that actually wasn’t the case. It is most likely that Nabonidus, a usurper and Belshazzar’s actual father, claimed that title in order to make himself seem to be the true successor.

    And what was the result? God intervened to show that he saw through the pretense, and that Belshazzar’s time was up. When confronted with the real power of God he was terrified and his face was changed. He could no longer pretend.

    Can any of this apply to us?

    For several years here in Pensacola we experience the Brownsville Revival. People, especially pastors, came from all over the country to see what was going on at Brownsville Assembly of God. Often they were tired of the day to day dreariness of their home churches, of declining memberships, and a sense of futility. They came and they watched a church filled with excitement and energy, where people actually wanted to be.

    Some of those pastors and church leaders went home and decided that they wanted their churches to be just like Brownsville. So they tried to do all the same things, use the same phrases, plan the same activities. Like Belshazzar, they figured if they claimed a great king as father, drank out of the right vessels, and put on the right show, God would show up. But a show is just a show. The one and only way to have God’s presence was to do God’s will. No amount of pretense would do. Pastors who went home and sought God’s will for their own church, who prayed and studied and carried out their plans wisely had success. Those who pretended failed. Like Belshazzar, they were holding a party on the edge of destruction.

    Our own lives are much the same. We can claim to be spiritual people. We can claim to pray and to seek God. We can claim knowledge we don’t have, or skills we cannot back up. We can dress up and show up and play pretend. But the only thing that will hold up is actual character, and that is developed by honestly facing trials and overcoming obstacles.

    Are you developing that type of character today?