Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Welcome!

    I’m Henry Neufeld, and I have been blogging on Threads from Henry’s Web since September, 19952005. This new blog is specifically for me to follow my heart which is in critical and exegetical Bible study that leads to exposition and application. I’m the author of two study guides, To the Hebrews: A Participatory Study Guide, and Revelation: A Participatory Study Guide. I’m going to begin this blog by going through the book of Hebrews.

    I will be teaching a several week class at a local church using my study guide, and I will blog here about the passages first. You can follow the entire discussion here, although for those who want to learn the Bible for themselves, I strongly recommend studying the passages I am writing about before you read what I write. You don’t have to buy and use my study guide, but obviously I wouldn’t mind if you do! I will be discussing the major questions and projects mentioned in that book. My Bible study method is available briefly on the web at I Want to Study the Bible!, and in more detail at The Participatory Bible Study Method.

    Comments are open! Join me in this important study.

    Note: Nobody caught me, but let me correct “1995” to “2005.” I’ve been blogging since 2005. I have, in fact, been online since before 1995, since I first got online with a 300 baud modem in 1983, I think. It could have been 1984. 🙂

  • Escambia County Wins in Court

    In an article titled Park could face extinction, the Pensacola News Journal says that Escambia County officials have closed Kent Hovind’s Dinosaur Adventure Land because of their failure to follow county ordinances. County commission chairman Mike Whitehead was justifiably unsympathetic.

    The argument being used by Hovind and his ministry is one that is completely invalid, and is simply an attempt on their part to violate the law and cover it up with pious words. There is nothing holy about their behavior. It’s just plain ordinary lawbreaking and should be treated as such. Hovind is about to discover that “3Rulers are not a terror to good actions, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of authority? Do good, and you will have its approval. 4For it is God’s servant for good. But if you do wrong, be afraid! Because authority isn’t supported by the sword for nothing!” — Romans 13:3-4a [my translation].

    Hat tip: The Panda’s Thumb: Dino Adventure Land Could Face Extinction. I’m embarassed I had to get this from somewhere else, consider I live in the county and have been following the story for some time. 🙂 But I still can’t refrain from comment.

  • Home and Church Education

    As intelligent design (ID) propnents complain about censorship and freedom of speech, one thing is being ignored: They are getting their message out to the public, and any scientist who wishes to examine their data, should they care to provide some, can acquire the material should they desire to do so. In addition, high school students do not get all of their information in the classroom, nor should they. There are many other opportunities for us, as parents, to educate our children in things that are not part of the high school curriculum.

    I think that claims that ID materials are being censored are particularly empty. In this time in which internet publication is incredibly easy, it is practically impossible to keep an idea quiet. Acceptance is another matter. What the ID proponents crave is the opportunity to say, “See, we’ve been published in a peer reviewed journal.” It is unlikely that if the reviewers for a particular journal determine that an article is not sound enough to be published, the readers of that journal are going to be interested in it. After all, the journal has its customers as well, and if they are not presented with material that interests them, they will read something else. Thus creationists of various stripes create their own “peer reviewed” journals, that are read by those who are interested in such things. But the information is available to any scientist who finds it interesting.

    So it’s not that there is no way to make the information public that is the problem. The issue is really simply whether the high school students of the nation should be made a captive audience for ID. ID proponents are going to say, at this point, that right now these same students are a captive audience for Darwinism, but that is not accurate. They are a captive audience for science, whatever is the current consensus body of knowledge that represents. What every other new idea has had to do in order to get into the textbooks is to demonstrate through the scientific process that it is truly science, and to become the consensus view, it has to convince the key thinkers in the appropriate field that it (a proposed theory) represents the best explanation. ID propoents want to dodge this part of the process.

    But then there are those who, for religious reasons, believe that evolutionary theory is wrong, and they want it replaced with something. For the moment they are kind of united on the plan of getting their collective foot in the door, but be assured that once that is accomplished, there will be plenty of differences of opinion over just what variety of creationism should be taught. But I believe that these parents have a right, to a certain extent, to raise their children as they see fit. The limits of that right, in my view, involve avoiding abuse, and failing to prepare their children to live in the real world. I’d even go very far in allowing parents to determine to educate their children in ways I might find very counterproductive, though I do see a state interest in setting some standard of education. Within those limits, however, parents have many options, including home schooling, private schools, and supplementary materials provided at home or at church.

    The fact is that these ideas are not suppressed at all. They simply fall outside of certain boundaries for discussion at certain places and times. We don’t expect the psychology teacher to discuss horticulture in class (except, of course, as therapy!), and we don’t expect the science teacher to discuss religion. This is very similar to the frequent arguments about prayer in school. I hear parents complain regularly that their children can’t pray in school. But that’s not really the problem. The problem is that their children are not directed in prayer by teachers or staff, or that prayer is not officially mandated or provided for. The children can, and do pray. What the parents need to do is teach their own children how to pray, and how to lead prayers, and the young folks can meet as much as they want. I think that’s a much better idea than asking the school to teach children.

    The same thing applies to things that are not taught in science class, but we think our children ought to hear. I have some suggestions:

    1. Turn the TV off one night and spend some time talking to your children about your faith and how it relates to science. If you think the earth was created in one literal week, tell them. Explain your reasons. If you don’t know much about the subject, get one of the many books on your particular view of creation and learn.
    2. Provide your child with books that support your viewpoint. (I recommend having someone read materials on all sides, and then critically examine them. That will probably require you to get involved again.)
    3. Ask your church education department, to offer a seminar, Sunday School series, Wednesday night program, or series of sermons on origins. It’s your church, and you and your fellow believers will get to decide what the content should be. As you might have guessed, I think such teaching should talk about all views that Christians hold on origins, but that’s just my view. (I offer just such a seminar for churches.) Now we’re talking about your church.
    4. Regularly communicate with your children about your faith and theirs, and let them express themselves on what they have heard at school and elsewhere. Get involved with their education, whether they are in public, private, or home school.
    5. Encourage your church to have a substantive Sunday School program for various ages, so that children can learn about their faith and how it relates to the world. There’s no reason for young people to be shocked when they get to college because they find out the world is so different from what they are used to at church. I have frequently encountered young adults who feel that their pastors and Sunday School teachers lied to them. (It is more likely that those individuals simply didn’t know, although I have heard pastors justify withholding facts from their congregation.)
    6. Make your home a place where learning is an expected part of life. Books, computers, and opportunities to learn about the physical world should be plentiful. Let them know that questions are good.

    You will do much more to build your children’s faith by these means than by any amount of political activity to include religious materials in public school.

  • Another Note on Deuteronomy 32:43

    In my previous post on this passage I stated that I was ignoring one textual issue that was really quite minor, but on thinking about it, it seems to me that it will illustrate one of the points that makes textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible different.

    We have relatively few Hebrew manuscripts, and most of those are quite late. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide us with fragmentary evidence that is much earlier and in Hebrew, but much of the evidence available is found in translations, Greek, Syriac, and Latin primarily, just because of languages that are most commonly known, but also Coptic, Georgian, Armenian, and so forth.

    Hebrew was written with only consonants in early times. Indications of the vowels came in two stages, first with vowel letters, and then with a system of pointings (actually more than one, but one became overwhelmingly dominant), dots, lines, and marks that indicated the vowels. Since these vowels were added long after the texts were originally written, based on an oral tradition of pronunciation, most scholars of the Hebrew Bible regard the consonantal text as more established than the pointing.

    In Deuteronomy 32:43 we have a case in which a textual variant involves only the pointing. There are two possible readings involved, and again I’m going to summarize the translations that use each option based solely on the Hebrew text they can be presumed to translate.

    • with him – CEV, ESV, REB, NLT, NRSV
      This is an alternate reading of the Hebrew consonantal text.
    • his people – JPS, HCSB, TEV
      This is the reading of the MT as pointed.
    • with his people – MSG, NASB, NCV, NKJV, NIV
      This reading is supported by some Hebrew mss, and would presumably result from haplography (writing something once when it occurs more than once), because in Hebrew with people-his, would have the same two letter combination twice at the start. Against this reading is the fact that it is both not the dominant reading in the evidence, it might have been created by dittography, and it tends to make the reading more comprehensible. In other words, nobody would want to correct this reading to any of the alternatives, but someone might well want to correct one of the alternatives to this one. Note that 4QDt32 does not have the additional two letters assumed by this reading.

    Just to illustrate, let me display the Hebrew text.

    Hebrew consonantal text for with him or his people, no vowel pointing This displays the Hebrew consonants that can be read either “with him” or “his people” depending on the vowels.

    Hebrew consonantal text for _with him_ with vowel pointing This displays the Hebrew consonants with vowel pointing for “with him.”

    Hebrew consonantal text for _his people_ with vowel pointing This displays the Hebrew consonants with vowel pointing for “his people.”

    The only difference is the straight line under the first (rightmost) consonant. The pronunciation changes from something similar to an English ‘i’ as in ‘bit’ to something like an English ‘a’ as in ‘bat’.

    I think a good case can be made for either of the first two options. I think the case for the third option “with his people” is much weaker.

  • Textual Issue: Deuteronomy 32:43

    Previously I listed a couple of doubtful translation choices
     in the Hebrew Bible and gave my preferences on them. Here are a couple more that I regard as much more certain. I also gave an extremely brief introduction to textual criticism in Textual Criticism – Briefly.

    Praise, oh heavens, his people*,
    Worship him, all you gods.
    For he will avenge his servants’ blood . . .

    *his people also has a variant reading with him. The change is only to the vowel pointing and is quite likely. I did not consider this variant in listing the versions supporting each reading for “oh heavens.”

    There are two textual problems in this passage, and they tend to distinguish the most recent set of translations from those that went before. The key element in both variants is that the reading accepted by these versions is supported by the LXX along with a reading from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

    In the first line the Masoretic text reads “oh nations” rather than “oh heavens.” Modern versions that show each reading include:

    • Omit – JPS, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NCV, NIV, NKJV, TEV
      In support of omitting the line, we have the MT, supported by the Syriac and also the Vulgate. It is to be expected normally that those two versions will support the MT.
    • Worship him, all you gods – NRSV, REB, CEV, ESV, NLT (angels)
      In support of including this line we again have the LXX and 4QDt32. The LXX varies from 4QDt32 by reading sons of God rather than gods.

    (Note that the English text cited for each variant is mine. I include any translation in support of that text that translated the Hebrew text behind that variant. Each translation may still vary in its English rendering.)

    4QDt32 is a fragment from the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) that include this verse. The number of modern versions that have included this verse, from across the spectrum theologically, indicates the strength of the combination of any witness from the DSS with the LXX. There is still a certain conservatism, however, as indicated by those few versions that do not include the added line especially.

    In favor of including the added line is this strong testimony of the Greek LXX translation, along with a DSS fragment. In addition, it is plausible to suspect the removal of the line for theological reasons, though as the LXX shows, it is not necessary to interpret it as polytheistic. A scribe might nonetheless have intentionally dropped it.

    For more information on Bible translations see:

  • The Danger of False Assumptions

    Every so often it’s fun to look through an ICR document or so. It’s so nostalgic, considering that this was the sort of stuff that I found very convincing when I was young. I would like to emphasize that this is not by any means the definition of Christianity. It’s just some of the noisiest.

    Yesterday I took at look at Impact #81, Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory, and I think it deserves some comment on the methods of Biblical interpretation involved. But first, I must note that it is a bit bizarre, in that it tries to respond to theistic evolutionists on a “proof-text” basis, something that very few theistic evolutionists, if any, would find relevant. This approach to debates about the Bible is not uncommon. The only productive discussion that can be held between people with contradictory approaches to interpretation is one that deals with the methods of interpretation themselves. It is likely, however, that ICR’s Impact #81 is actually written to reassure the troops, and actually is not intended to respond to actual theistic evolutionists.

    The basic approach to interpretation taken in this article is literal, and the specific variant is proof-texting.

    The first is illustrated by the following statement: “The biblical text, at least to the unbiased observer, indicates a universe and earth that were formed in six days . . . ” (emphasis mine). It is this idea of the “unbiased observer” that is the problem. Biblical literalists follow a rule of interpretation that says that a text is to be taken literally unless it cannot be, and only if it cannot be taken literally should figurative explanations be considered. This is a principle stated by Tim LaHaye, amongst others and underlies a great deal of fundamentalist, conservative, and charismatic Biblical interpretation, though charismatics should know better. (See my review of LaHaye’s book, How to Study the Bible for Yourself for more information.)

    Now this is clearly a bias, and that bias is toward literal interpretation. I would suggest as an alternative that one always look at every passage of scripture and allow the nature of the passage, its setting and context, statements about it by the author, and comparison to similar literature help you to decide whether it is to be taken figuratively or literally. I’ve been told this is also a bias, and I will allow that it can be, although it is a quite neutral bias. The actual opposite bias to LaHaye’s (and the ICR’s) approach would be to assume everything is figurative and only take it literally if I can’t find a figurative interpretation.

    The simple fact is that this common rule of Biblical literalists comes close to guaranteeing that they will misinterpret the Bible. The reason is that there is a substantial portion of the Bible that is intended figuratively. Let’s consider, for example, applying this rule to the plays of Shakespeare. I could quite easily construe many of the plays as portrayals of actual history on that basis. The signs that we have a dramatization would likely not be enough to convince me that they were fictional or fictionalized. In a previous entry, I indicated that one of the strengths of the young earth position is simply that if one assumes literal interpretation, it accords with the Biblical data. But that assumption of literal interpretation is the key.

    Now let’s go forward to the ICR’s response to the day age interpretation in Genesis. The first 10 objections to the day-age interpretation are simply reiterations of the literalistic and proof-text style interpretation. They could have simply said, “If you take all this literally, you will take all this literally. Note also that the day-age interpretation is normally used by old earth creationists. Theistic evolutionists normally take a different view. (See my comparison in Creation, Evolution, and Genesis 1-11.)

    Their entire approach to the definition of the word in Genesis 1 reads as though it was written by someone without a basic knowledge of linguistics. To allow you to compare, let me give you the basic steps for studying the meaning of such a word:

    1. You collect examples of usage. In the Bible, this often means at least looking at every usage example.
    2. You divide these up by definition and construct tentative definitions.
    3. You take note of the particular constructions, contexts, and types of literature in which the word is used.
    4. You look at the particular example, and see where it fits best, or you may even find you need to construct a new definition.

    This is generalized somewhat, but it makes the basic point. The procedure followed in the article is to see if there is a proof text available that says that a day is long enough to suit the needs of evolutionary change and the established age of the earth. Since there is no such text–why should there be?–the author concludes that the day-age theory is wrong. But the specific type of argument he is refuting is not the type of argument that the day-age proponents use. (For a discussion of the day-age theory, see Consider Christianity, Volume 1: Evidence for the Bible, pages 119ff.)

    The 11th point relies on the previous 10, that is, if a day is 24 hours in Genesis 1, it must be 24 hours in the 4th commandment. At the same time, if it is not 24 hours in Genesis 1, it would not be 24 hours in the fourth commandment, which simply refers to that passage. In a quotation or allusion, one first assumes that the meaning of the word is unchanged from the original. Out of context quotations, or intentional adjustment or paraphrasing. Thus there is nothing new here.

    Now the oddity is that we go from the beginning to the end of the article, and we find that the entire argument is simply that the days of creation are 24 hour literal days. This argument is one designed to challenge old earth creationism, though it does so very ineffectively, but not theistic evolution.

    What they are missing is the simple discussion of literary genre. What type of literature is Genesis 1? This is the question that most theistic evolutionists (and for that matter old earth creationists) answer differently than do young earth creationists. And every single argument presented in Impact #81 is totally irrelevant to this question. The young earth creationists make the assumption that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are narrative history to be taken literally. But how do they come to that conclusion?

    Well, it is simply their bias. If you assume that everything is to be taken literally, if possible, then provided one isolates oneself completely from the scientific evidence, Genesis 1 can be taken as narrative history. Otherwise, it bears practically no resemblance to it at all.

    How do we recognize a type of literature? Here are some normal clues:

    1. Labeling – we buy a book that is labeled as a novel, and we expect it to be a novel. If it is labeled “mystery” or “historical novel” those additional elements will impact how we understand the literature. This labeling is only rarely applicable in the Bible. Ancient literature was not commonly labeled as to genre.

    2. Literary characteristics – there are certain characteristics of various types of literature, such as key phrases like “once upon a time” or the presence of footnotes. One doesn’t expect reference footnotes in a novel, and one doesn’t start a scientific paper with “once upon a time.”

    3. Fantastic events – if we are dealing with a literary type that includes fantasy, we may find fantastic events that we know don’t happen every day. For example, in C. S. Lewis’s The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe even if we didn’t know the book was fiction from the label, we would assume it was fiction when the children go into another world through the wardrobe. In the Bible, the parable of the trees (Judges 9:8-15) is clearly a parable, even without a label, and we know it from the moment that it starts “The trees once went out to anoint a knig” (NRSV). Why? Trees don’t do that.

    Now, the first of these can’t be applied to Genesis 1, but the second and third certainly can, and they should be, and that’s precisely what the young earth creationists are never going to do, because the moment you apply these principles without the assumption that it is literal, then there is plenty of evidence that it is not. For example, the description of day and night prior to the creation of the heavenly bodies (and yes, I’m aware of the explanations), suggests that the author lacks a concern with that literal detail. The events of the sixth day, if one takes Genesis 2 seriously as well, are simply too much for one 24 hour period, no matter how much one tries to word around it.

    But there is something further that young earth creationists are not going to do, and that is comparing this literature with other similar literature, such as creation myths from the ancient near east. And there we will find both similarities and differences, but we will certainly find similar literary characteristics. (See my essay Genesis Creation Stories – Form, Structure, and Relationship.)

    Is it better to assume what type of literature Genesis 1 is based on our twentieth century knowledge and attitudes, or would it not be better to look at it in comparison to other literature that is contemporary to it?

    One last point, going back to the beginning. The author is not able to correctly state evolutionary theory either.

    Two elements are essential in any evolutionary scheme, whether it be theistic or atheistic: long periods of time and the assumed validity of the molecules-to-man evolutionary scenario.

    Of course, long periods of time are not assumed, they are demonstrated by excellent scientific evidence. Biological evolution is not a “molecules to man” theory either. Biological evolution operates on existing life. Abiogenesis is another matter.

    Theistic evolutionists, however, profess a certain allegiance to the Scriptures and must attempt to harmonize the biblical account with the evolutionary scenario. The biblical text, at least to the unbiased observer, indicates a universe and earth that were formed in six days; evolutionists suppose at least six billion years. The mechanism by which theistic evolutionists harmonize the two is known as the day-age theory.

    Actually, as I’ve pointed out, few theistic evolutionists take Genesis 1 literally enough to care one way or the other about the day-age theory. I certainly do not, though I find it interesting as a point of interpretation. It is essential to most old earth creationists and their case is, in fact, quite good, assuming one takes Genesis 1 even that literally.

    Thus, ICR’s Impact #81 manages to fire a dud at the wrong target.

  • Consider the Alternatives

    Is Extreme Makeover: Home Edition some kind of exploitation? This seems to be the best thing some in the media could think of to ask of this positive reality show. I don’t like reality shows in general, but I do like this one.

    Joe Scarborough interviews Melissa Caldwell of the Parent’s Television Council on his show, and there are excerpts and comments on MSNBC titled Extreme Makeover or Extreme Exploitation?. Scarborough’s problem seems to be the idea that ABC and the show’s producers are looking for people with particular types of problems in order to make the show entertaining. Some problems are better subjects for television than others. Caldwell points out, quite correctly that they could hardly look for middle class families with no problems; they’d be criticized for ignoring the needy.

    Frankly, I think it’s obvious that there would be a selection process, and that the process would not involve simply asking how needy the person was. It’s a reality show, after all. It has to be entertaining to attract viewers, and it has to attract viewers to attract sponsors, and if anyone out there still thinks reality shows are real, then somebody needs to hand them their “stupid” signs (with a nod to Bill Engvall, via Snopes). Of course they edit it to make it more entertaining. But the media can’t really have fun unless they’re looking for scandal.

    Frankly, I don’t really watch many shows on ABC. At the moment this is one that I do watch from time to time, and my wife watches regularly. Why? It’s positive, and even if they look for families who will make good television, they do pick families who need the help. So the help is a drop in the bucket. Habitat for Humanity provides housing for more people. But as a positive activity for a television show, both in terms of helping people, and in terms of positivie influence, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition is pretty good.

    Just think of how much money was spent on Temptation Island on Fox. How many people did that help? The money’s going to be spent. Let’s not get picky when some of it is going to a good cause.

    UPDATE COMMENT: I forgot to mention the original source of the story was Smoking Gun.

  • Christians and Defamation

    One who covers up hatred by lying,
    And one who spreads defamation is stupid.     — Proverbs 10:18
    (my translation, but try any version you like)

    I’m often interested in the portions of the Bible that some Christians think they must follow, and what portions many Christians think they can avoid. For example, right now many conservative Christians seem to think they are more bound by Leviticus 18:22 (you shall not lie with a male as with a woman: it is an abomination) than they are by Leviticus 19:34 (The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you).

    But when it gets down to lying, slander, and defamation of character, it seems that the Biblical mandate is pretty clear. Christians definitely should not be engaged in slander or defamation. But how far can one go in “misunderstanding,” shall we say, and still fall within the bounds of Christian behavior?

    There is just such a defamation going on right now, defamation of the character of Dr. Erik Pianka. I’m not breaking this news. I’m going to provide you with some blog entries so you can research it for yourself. These blog entries contain both opinion on the topic, but also links to other sources of information so you can research this for yourself. I would simply note that the accusations made against Dr. Pianka are of such a nature that any reasonable person should question them, and should research very carefully before making such accusations or repeating them. This is a very clear case from the Christian biblical point of view of slander.

    Let me just list some sources:

  • Zimmer: The Sixty-Million-Year Virus

    I only do this every few weeks, but I wanted to make sure that “Threads” readers noticed this wonderful article on The Loom. (Hat tip to Dispatches from the Culture Wars, where I saw it first.)

    I really don’t have anything to add on this one, but I do challenge young earth/old earth creationists to produce a credible scientific explanation for this data under their models.

  • Some of my Best Friends are Atheists

    . . . but I wouldn’t want my daughter to marry one.

    You can replace “atheists” with any of a number of groups, and that’s a saying that underlines a manipulative approach to human relationships. There’s exploitation on the one hand because such friendships are often solely for the purpose of getting something out of the “friend.” On the other side there is exploitation because the person is using the claim of friendship with members of the group to get social points with someone else.

    Ed Brayton has picked up a column by John Allen Paulos (Who’s Counting: Distrusting Atheists), where Paulos notes, in part:

    Atheists are seen by many Americans (especially conservative Christians) as alien and are, in the words of sociologist Penny Edgell, the study’s lead researcher, “a glaring exception to the rule of increasing tolerance over the last 30 years.”

    Ed notes:

    There isn’t a shred of evidence to suggest that atheists are any different from theists in terms of unethical or anti-social behavior . . .

    And of course Ed is quite right about this.

    But for many Christians, it is necessary to conclude that atheists are immoral and generally reprehensible because they reject the very core belief of our faith, and do so, as many of us see it, contrary to overwhelming evidence. How could it be possible that someone has been presented with overwhelming evidence for the existence and sovereignty of God and still rejects God absolutely? Is it possible that such a person could be anything but morally depraved?

    In case you think I’m making this attitude up, let me first refer to the common Bible texts: “Fools say in their hearts, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is no one who does good” (Psalm 14:1, NRSV). That one pretty much covers it. Then there’s Paul’s statement, “20Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; 21for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened” (Romans 1:20-21, NRSV). So there it is! They reject the overwhelming evidence and therefore become totally depraved morally, and thus one really oughtn’t to want one’s daughter to marry one.

    Based on these scriptures some Christians have justified despising those who do not believe, and basing their relationships with them solely on the desire to convert and reform them. Before I respond to that, let me take a moment to discuss the background of those scriptures.

    In the case of Psalm 14:1, the passage comes form a time when a philosophical atheism was hardly an option. Everybody believed in some god or another, and the idea of believing in no gods at all, simply because one couldn’t find evidence for the gods was not a live option. I would guess there might have been some folks who abandoned a belief in any real sense, but they were not so numerous as to occasion much comment. The basic charge of atheism, in the ancient world, normally meant that one was rejecting the gods of a culture, and the consequent moral system that the culture lived by. Early Christians were called atheists. Why? Not because they had formed a philosophical conclusion that there was no deity, but because they rejected the deities that undergirded the Roman system of government. (As an aside, let me note that use of this text as an argument for the existence of God is quite useless. You use the fact that a book that your opponent does not accept calls him a fool. That would only matter if he already accepted the book as authoritative.)

    It’s very hard for some people to transfer Christian ethical principles into a secular society, because so much of the Biblical literature was written in a culture that assumed one religious and cultural framework. In a secular society, we generally agree to follow a set of laws and principles that we can agree upon irrespective of our particular religious viewpoint, and we allow the spiritual decisions and thus sometimes the reasons for adhering to those principles, to be an individual matter. Christian reconstructionists run hard against this tradition in America, trying to restore something like the Old Testament covenant, only with the United States as “God’s country” inhabited by “God’s people” and blessed as we obey “God’s laws.” They are a group that should frighten Americans from all across the spectrum. That’s not how we do it.

    And that’s not how Jesus advocated doing it. His commands were clearly designed to allow his followers to exist peacefully in a world that did not accept their value system. In fact, it was their goal to stand contrary to the surrounding value system, but to do so peacefully, and not as political revolutionaries. The Christian mode of revolution was individual, that is, the conversion or changing of people one at a time through living as the “salt of the earth.” “Christian” reconstructionism thus is not Christian at all, at least assuming that part of Christianity is following Jesus of Nazereth. But some of those attitudes have crept through into the daily activities of Christians who don’t accept Christian reconstructionism. These include the idea that our nation is cursed because of toleration of homosexuality. This is an insidious invasion into our general thinking of the idea of Christian reconstructionism. It results from belief, conscious or unconscious, that blessing or curse is a national thing, and is upheld by behavior according to the covenant with God. But there is no evidence that God has made any kind of covenant with the United States of America, or that God wanted to make any such covenant.

    In Paul’s case in Romans, we need to be aware of the flow of Paul’s argument. Romans 1 is so commonly taught alone that often Christians are not aware of the overall flow of the argument. Paul is building his case that all of humanity is in need of salvation. In Romans 1 he says that the gentiles have fallen into sin. In Romans 2 he adds to this that the Jews have also fallen into sin. Each has enough revelation, according to him, to understand who God is, but neither has successfully lived it out. Note thus that Paul’s intention here is not to single out those who don’t believe from those who do; rather, it’s to point out that believers and unbelievers have both fallen short. Romans 3 then continues by saying that thus we are all in need of the grace of Jesus. One should be careful using a small portion of an argument that Paul uses to place believers and unbelievers on common ground in order to demonstrate that unbelievers are, in fact, more reprehensible. For those who will point out that Paul is talking about Jewish believers, let me simply note that Paul does not argue that those who believe in Jesus are morally superior, but rather than those who believe in Jesus receive grace in spite of the fact that they do fail. But that’s a whole other topic.

    So neither of these common texts really point to what some modern Christians use them for. But now let me step out on the ice a bit, because some of my best friends are atheists, and I’ve had some interesting conversations about that fact. There are really two groups that have produced conversations of this nature. First, atheists and agnostics, and second, the local Unitarian-Universalist congregation. I feel free to mention these conversations because I’ve discussed them with members of both groups.

    First, there is surprise that I get along with such people. Just reverse the statement, and add a good bit of shock in the tone: “Some of your best friends are atheists!” That’s about got it. The point being that it is very surprising to them that I can enjoy myself in the company of such unbelievers. But the second reaction is one of great sympathy in that I am called to witness to atheists and agnostics. Now I believe that a Chrsitian is always witnessing. It’s just unfortunate that so many of us feel that we must witness by talking when shutting up would be so much better. So yes, I am a witness of one person, myself, who is a Christian. That witness will be either good or bad. But nonetheless, I note the tones of sympathy that I get, the offers of special prayers, and the desire that I report back when I’m “finished.” There is a hidden assumption here that my interaction with atheist, agnostic, or Unitarian-Universalist friends is a episode that needs to be completed and then reported on.

    There’s the hidden assumption as well that my purpose must be to change these people into something else, and thus my friendships are strategic. Now my friendship with members of the Unitarian-Universalist church has resulted in numerous opportunities to speak there (see my sermon Fences: Mending or Rending, from September 11, 2005), but the question of my motivation remains. You see, for me, this is simply another group of people, wonderful people in fact, with whom I can share some thoughts that I hope will help them on their journey. I’m not there to convert them. I do appreciate prayers, but I would ask people to pray that I will be a good example of a follower of Jesus Christ, not that I will change some other group of people. Change in them is their personal choice.

    I have found, however, that this attitude is very hard to convey to other Christians. That’s the problem. Do we, as Christians, make such an assumption that it is our job to fix other people that we have difficulty entering into non-manipulative relationships with those not of our faith? I know many Christians who do think as I do, and many who are less conscious of it than I am. I’m made very conscious of it because every time I go speak anywhere there are people praying for me. I want them to pray for me. I ask them to pray for me. But the atmosphere is a bit different when I’m going to speak to a group that is not Christians.

    Jesus was known for associating with those that the religious folks didn’t approve of. He was criticized for it. It didn’t seem to stop him. If you asked Jesus “Who is my neighbor?” do you think he would include atheists? Could you retell the story of the good Samaritan and have an atheist be the one who rendered aid? Whether you can do that or not will tell a great deal about how much of the “Jesus attitude” you’ve absorbed.