Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • YOU Teach Your Children

    There are plenty of comments on the Dover decision going around right now. I’d like to recommend just a couple of them, though these are only examples of many good comments. Both provide some good links to more information.

    I believe that the result of this trial was pretty much a foregone conclusion. There was little doubt that the Intelligent Design (ID) movement was essentially a religious movement, and there was no doubt at all that there was no theory of ID, certainly not one that was ready for the High School science classroom. We need to teach basic science, well-established science in our high schools, and we have very little time to accomplish that. New ideas need to establish themselves, go through the rigor of scientific debate, and gain a consensus before they become part of the public school curriculum.

    But I want to address another issue. Many people who share my Christian faith are concerned tonight because they feel that religion is under attack. Those who accept one or another of the views involving special creation feel that their children can attend public school only at the risk of their faith. “Godless evolution” has won the day, and they don’t even get a hearing, not even a tiny disclaimer. I could tell them how well evolution is established as a scientific theory, and I would be right. I could tell them how bad an idea it is to trust religious education to the government, and I believe that’s a good point. I could point out the evil things that have taken place when government took distortions of faith and applied them by force, and that would be valid as well.

    But none of those things are likely to move that fairly large group of people right now. I think it’s unfortunate that more dialogue and education does not take place in this area. More people need to realize how many people of faith, such as myself, and how many church leaders do not see a conflict between evolution and faith.

    Let me suggest something that I think should strike home, not only for those opposed to the decision, but also for all other people of faith who support it. We need to look at reforming religious education. In our churches we have a substantial amount of time available in which to educate our children, to supplement the education that they receive in public schools or even in private schools. In many churches in my area we have Sunday School, one or two youth meetings per week, and a Wednesday night teaching program. That’s a great deal of time. Right now, we’re using most of that time to tell a few stories and make them feel good.

    Parents have even more time. They can get involved in helping their children with homework. If you believe that there is a place where faith needs to be introduced into the study of science, you have the power to do it. At the same time as you’re doing it, you will be spending more time with your children, building your bond with them, and increasing the chance that they will become productive citizens. I have some ideas of what should be taught, but even if what you teach is repugnant to me, you have a right and even a duty to take the time and effort to teach it.

    It’s very simple.

    You want your children taught intelligent design? Get with your church’s education program and get some programs on it. I teach such a program for those who hold to a theistic view of evolution through Pacesetters Bible School, and I have produced a tract on the subject called God the Creator. Those who object to any form of evolution will not like my programs, but there’s no shortage of folks willing to teach other viewpoints.

    You want your children to pray? Student led prayer is legal right now. Teach your children to pray–that is, after all, a function of parents and churches–and then release them to work and lead in their own way. You really aren’t prevented from any of this. (I teach this one too. See my book I Want to Pray! co-authored with Rev. Perry Dalton.)

    You see, I don’t think the courts are taking away your right to educate your children about your faith. Not at all! What they are taking away is your right to be lazy and to expect somebody else to do your job, whether you are a religious educator or a parent.

    So get out there, get active, and exercise the rights you have.

  • What God Gets in the Incarnation

    We’re so used to talking about what God gives in the incarnation that my title may almost seem sacreligious to some readers. God’s gift cannot have a selfish aspect, can it? Does the cord really have two ends in this case as well?

    First, at the simplest level, all relationships have more than one side to them, otherwise they could not be relationships. A mother loves her child, and in most cases will continue to love that child whether or not her love is returned, but she certainly wants, even needs to see her love returned. There will always be an emptiness if there is no response from the child.

    When we state that God doesn’t really need our worship or our prayers, it sounds like we are talking about how complete, absolute, and sovereign he is. But it also makes God seem distant and unreal. Worship and prayer are both part of our communication–our two-way communication–with God. And God needs to hear from us, as he needs us to hear from him. Isaiah 66:4 says that God is going to choose to mock the people, because when he called, “nobody answered!” God looks for two-way communication.

    In the same sense as the mother will always miss the love of her child if it is not given, so God will eternally miss our love, if we do not give it to him.

    Now in several essays I’m going to discuss the distance God crossed in the incarnation, but for now let me say simply that there is at least one thing that a being that is essentially infinite cannot have experienced, and that is being finite.

    And this is where I see God “getting something” in the incarnation.

    14Since we have such a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the son of God, let us grasp our confession. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, since he has been tested in all things in the same way we have, but without sin. 16Let us approach the throne of grace with confidence, so that we might receive mercy and we might find grace in time of need. — Hebrews 4:14-16 (TFBV)

    If we take seriously the concept of Jesus as God in the flesh–the fundamental Christian doctrine of the incarnation–we also see here God taking on the testing and trials of finite humans, living with our limitations, experiencing what it was like to be human. Now I admit this concept is a bit hard to grab hold of. It keeps my concept of the trinity pretty seriously stretched out. But nonetheless I think it follows directly from our doctrine of the incarnation and trinitarian theology.

    I want to warn you where I’m going with this. Because there are two sides to the conversation and two sides to the relationship, I think that the incarnation is a challenge to us in our daily lives on earth. God gave, God crossed over, God experienced our life. As those who received the benefits of this (on this end), we are challenged in the way we think and act.

    I’ll expand on that in my next entries, as I look at how the incarnation challenges us to God-like activity in worship, prayer, relationships, and charity.

  • The One-Ended Cord

    Some years ago I worked for Radio Shack. One function of a salesman is to match the customer to just the right item or part. An elderly lady, clearly not too comfortable with technology, came in to buy a “telephone cord.” Now at the time, “telephone cord” could mean any of a number of things. One type of cord would connect the handset to the base unit. A few different types of cords could connect the telephone to the wall jack as well. It took a few minutes for me to get it clear that the cord she wanted connected the phone base unit to the wall jack. I was hoping both ends would be RJ-11 or 14 plugs, but just to make sure I said, “What does the other end look like? Let me show you the possibilities.”

    “It doesn’t have any other end,” she replied.

    Now I want you to know that I did figure out the correct “other end” for her cord, and she went home as a satisfied customer. But I think that many people tried communion with God, whether through personal prayer, meditation, or the scriptures, as a sort of one-ended cord.

    I’m going to post a few entries about the Christian doctrines of the incarnation and salvation this Christmas, but first I wanted to examine this problem with our understanding of communication with God, as I see it.

    I think we often see God’s action in relation to humanity as a one ended cord. On the one hand, many conservative Christians see the one and only critical element to be the sovereignty and power of God. In the Calvinist position, God chooses who will be saved and then saves them. We talk about human activity, but there is no point in the process at which Calvinism allows human activity to be significant. The cord has just one end! It may be people who are saved, but the people don’t really matter.

    On the other hand, many liberal Christians put the focus so thoroughly on humanity that the only thing that matters is what a human being can do and become. God is again effectively outside of the loop. The cord has one end–it’s just the opposite end.

    Now please don’t remind me that many Christians, Calvinists, conservatives, liberals, and others, are not at the extremes I’ve described. I know that. That’s why they are extremes. But I do know that the extremes exist, and I believe there are many who might not like the description who nonetheless behave as though the cord has only one end.

    In terms of Biblical inspiration, the doctrine of inerrancy tends to the treat the cord as having only one end. Inerrancy is attributed to the autographs, but we have no autographs. Errors are OK in the text of the Bible, just so long as they were not introduced by the original writers. Anyone can make a mistake except for them. Why are errors more important if they are introduced when God speaks to a prophet, than they are if they are introduced by a copyist? I believe the reason is simply that inerrancy is designed more to protect the doctrine of God than it is to protect the integrity of God’s communication with humanity. God’s communication must be perfect.

    But communication involves two persons. The cord has two ends. God cannot communicate perfectly if the message is not received perfectly. And if the message is only received perfectly by the original prophet (conveniently unavilable to check), but not by later readers, than how is that perfect communication? That, in my view, is the weakness in this doctrine. It does not deal with how we can know God’s will specifically, but rather deals only with God’s side of the equation. The only people assumed to know God’s will are the original recipients.

    Likewise salvation can be seen entirely as divine action, as simply part of our definition of who God is, or it can be seen as a way in which God interacts in people to produce a new kind of fruit.

    In my next entry I’m going to talk about the doctrine of the incarnation in terms of two ends for the cord. What did God accomplish through the incarnation?

  • Your Unforced Choice

    A few days ago my wife and I were showing books at a church craft show, when I was approached by a gentleman about my book What’s in a Version? “What was the right version to use?” he asked. Now when someone starts talking about the “right” version, rather than the best, I’m fairly certain where we’re going in the discussion. Usually the person is an advocate of the KJV Only position.

    This gentleman rolled out most of the major arguments for KJV Only. It’s translators were the most dedicated. More people have been brought to Christ through the KJV than through any other Bible version. (I’m not sure this number is even correct any more, but it wouldn’t be a valid argument even if the number was right.) Various modern versions water down the gospel. (I discuss many of these issues in my Bible Translations FAQ.

    But the key question for him, one to which he returned repeatedly was just this: “What is your final authority?” I needed to have a physical object, a text that was my final authority, or I was wide open to any wind of doctrine or any sort of moral failure.

    My answer to this question is this: “God.” He pointed out that anyone can claim that they heard from God, or that God said something was true, and anyone else can challenge it on the same basis. “What’s the standard?” he repeated.

    Now the problem I have is not with any particular answer, so much as with the question. Is there such a thing as an external standard that will hold us to the truth, to what is right? When I think about that question just a bit I consider the standard that this gentleman proposed: The King James Version of the Bible. If we froze the text of the Bible at the printed English of the current KJV, would we have a single standard by which everyone could check their doctrine and behavior and return with objective, verifiable data?

    We need only observe the doctrinal differences amongst churches who have used, and still use the KJV as their standard to realize that this is not the case. Limiting oneself to a single text does not guarantee agreement or certainty, because of the very nature of the Bible itself. Without an interpretive framework, it’s impossible to say precisely what is Biblical and what is not. Modern schemes include the notion that God is the author of every word, and that portions can be strung together at will (a method that generates a variety of interpretations itself), the dispensationalist view that divides texts that might otherwise conflict between different dispensations or periods of time in which God used different ways of dealing with people, and covenant theology, which tends to create a more coherent theological framework and progression in God’s revelation. It is quite clear that these widely different approaches to Biblical interpretation might well produce equally different results, and we see this in practice. Debates between people using the different schemes become quite heated.

    I believe the problem is simply that there is no meaningful, external standard that everyone of good faith can be guarateed to agree on. We are each called upon to choose right or wrong. We make these choices individually, and with the input of our community. We use different sources. I can say the standard is God, but you might also say that the standard is reality. I wouldn’t differentiate, because in my view God is the creator and maintainer of reality, the ultimate reality.

    Now we may choose wisely or poorly. We may get our input from good sources or bad. But no matter what we do, the choice is ultimately ours, and we have to take responsibility for it. “In my opinion” shouldn’t be a dodge by which we avoid taking responsibility to support that opinion. It should be the standard claim. What I say is my opinion. The question is whether I can support that opinion and communicate it to someone else. I even have to make the choice of how to communicate what I believe. I may accept, for example, that one should not commit murder because I believe it is God’s law. That doesn’t mean I have to claim that basis when communicating with someone who doesn’t believe in God. I can then discuss why a society in which murder was legal would have severe problems.

    Because I have this choice, I also have the responsibility to make it in the best way possible. No, I can’t force anyone to believe that. But I believe that reality will ultimately catch someone who violates its standards too much. Before that time, some of the rest of us may catch such persons before they get that far, so we can protect others from their stupidity.

    Each of us makes the choice. Each of us would do well to take responsibility for it.

    For some more information on my view of the Bible see What is the Word of God? and on choice, see Seven Kingdom Principles of Choice.

  • Highway Memorial Crosses

    In scanning through news today I watched a segment on Fox News about a lawsuit asking that crosses erected as memorials in Utah be removed from the roadside. I did not find the story on their web site immediately; perhaps it will be posted later. But I did find two other links that I think make the story fairly clear.

    First, from the Salt Lake City Tribune, the article Atheist group wants memorial crosses removed, which can be pretty much consider “pro-crosses” though it does provide the basic claims of the opposing side. Second, the story of the lawsuit from the American Atheists site, THE (UNCONSTITUTIONAL) CROSS BY THE SIDE OF THE ROAD — ATHEISTS IN COURT TO REMOVE CHRISTIAN HIGHWAY MEMORIALS, which includes a link to the actual petition as filed.

    I chose to comment on this story because I think it shows some of the problems with the debate about separation of church and state, both in the actual petition and in the public response to it. Please read the linked stories (both of them, please!) to get more details. I summarize the positions as follows. Plaintiffs: Any religious symbol on public land is bad. Respondents: We like it, so it’s good.

    The latter response results in ideas such as that the cross is not really a religious symbol, just a symbol of comfort. The former can easily be challenged, as it was on Fox News, by simply showing crosses on public land in Arlington cemetary. Crosses are, in most cases, religious symbols, and religious symbols do occur legally on public buildings and on public land. (Note that I’m going to ignore Utah law, which may, in fact, forbid this type of display. That could be dealt with in a legislative way. I’m more interested in the general principles.)

    I believe that we need to distinguish a wall of separation between church and state, which I believe is a good thing, and a wall of separation between church and the individual, which I believe is a problem. Often, those who do not value religion (and I think American Atheists would qualify as an organization), see any presence of religion as some kind of violation of church and state boundaries. Religious folks, particularly Christians, on the other hand, see anything that limits whatever we want to do in some particular circumstance as anti-religious, and an attack on our faith. If we want to pray at a public meeting, we don’t want to be reminded that we’re not in our home or our church, and that we have a duty to be open and inclusive. I’ve seen this same attitude in online forums in which Christians feel that they should be free to post copyrighted material that promotes Christian values and become quite irate when they are thwarted. The fact is that whether the law is one of copyright, or whether it is one of appropriate public behavior, we need to behave in an appropriate manner. Obeying God rather than men doesn’t mean violating every law that seems to inconvenience us.

    So how do I see this particular case as illuminating these issues? Let me first look a bit at the case of the ten commandments display at the Alabama supreme court. This was found, correctly in my view, to be a form of promotion of religion. The response of both Judge Moore himself, and of the public, made it very clear that it was widely seen as a promotion of religion. The comparison was made to the U. S. Supreme Court building where the ten commandments are also displayed. What was the difference? In the case of the U. S. Supreme Court, the ten commandments are displayed as part of a broad panorama of historical lawgivers and law codes. Thus it is not promoting a particular form or religion, unless we are to believe that it’s also promoting Babylonian religion with the code of Hammurabi. The Mosaic law and more specifically the ten commandments are doubtless a substantial part of the history of law. But if the government singles out that particular code from all the laws of the world that have contributed to our modern system of law, then that is definitely a promotion of religion.

    Again, on another topic, when someone complains that President George Bush is a very religious man, and is quite open in confessing that he is, and then claims that is a violation of church and state, I believe they are crossing this line. Now I don’t support everything President Bush has done or has said. But it is both appropriate that he is a religious person and that he is open about that. Nobody was in any way deceived about his religious faith when they voted for him. It is quite possible for him to intrude specifically religious views into public life, and that might require some other action, but that’s why we have a legislature and courts. The simple fact that he is a religious person, and that he speaks of his faith, is not a violation.

    At the same time, he and his staff are behaving quite appropriately when they produce generic holiday greetings. Whatever his beliefs, he is the president of the entire United States, and it is not political correctness run amuck, as I’ve heard it called, for him to be inclusive in his holiday greetings. To the extent that these greetings are privately financed, it would also be legally acceptable, in my view, for him to send out purely Christmas greetings–legally, but I think not a good idea either from a Christian perspective or from a political perspective.

    So, what about those crosses in Utah? I would ask simply this: Were all of those officers who died Christians? If they were Christians, would they have wanted their death in the line of duty memorialized with a symbol of their faith, as the crosses doubtless are? Finally, if any officer dies or has died in the line of duty who is not a Christian, or whose family would prefer that something else be used in a memorial, would the organization that sponsors these memorials provide the appropriate symbol? If we can answer yes to this, I think it is crossing the line into an anti-religious bigotry to oppose this particular type of memorial. On the other hand, if only crosses are contemplated, even if an officer who is Jewish, Muslim, or secularist is memorialized, then I would have to ask if the purpose is really simply to memorialize the officers, or if some sense of promotion of religion is not involved.

    That is the weakness of the Fox News picture of the field of crosses. The military has marked graves of Jewish soldiers with stars of David, and to me that makes a vast difference. If someone who professes no faith, or a Muslim, or someone of any other faith that might not identify with a cross desires a different memorial, that should be supported. But when the cross represents the faith of the person memorialized, I believe it is entirely appropriate. The faith needs to be separated from the power of the state, not from the person.

    Let me add one note to my Christian friends. I probably annoy more people with my view of separation of church and state than I do with any other view. But these political considerations are not at the root of my support of separation of church and state. My faith is the most fundamental issue there for me. I believe that any time the church becomes dependent on public money, public power, or any form of public promotion or duress, that church will be inevitably and quickly corrupted, and if it is not quickly separated from the state’s power, it will become completely corrupted. My bottom line on separation of church and state is that it is most important for the church. Our method of spreading Christian principles should be through the proclamation of the gospel and the transformation of individual lives. I believe strongly that any attempt to transform people by force from on high is doomed to failure and will do more harm than good.

  • My Current Reading

    OK, those of you who are looking for an essay can wait for another post. I just want to talk about a few books that I’ve been reading lately.

    My reading tastes are quite varied, and normally I surprise someone. I include fantasy, science fiction, mystery, and occasionally some more current fiction in my pleasure reading. In more serious topics, I tend toward religion, Biblical studies, politics and philosophy, though I’m not sure of any order of priority.

    Since this is the first time I’ve blogged about reading, let me make a couple of comments. I get asked frequently why I read certain things. Since I’m a Bible teacher, one topic is fantasy. Now in recent years, this question has gotten less common, because Christians have started to get involved in fantasy through works for Tolkien and Lewis. Thus there is the argument that I must read fantasy that is of some spiritual value, and do so in order to be spiritually enriched. But I would have to say that though I am often enriched mentally and spiritually by fantasy reading, that’s not the cause.

    Alternatively, I might be looking for ideas. People usually get this idea because I tend to use elements from movies or novels as illustrations in sermons and teaching. Recent references have included “A Fish Called Wanda,” “Bruce Almighty,” and “The West Wing.” I’ve been threatening to build a prayer conference around “Bruce Almighty.” But even though I do use illustrations from fiction, I don’t believe I’ve ever picked up a book because I thought it was going to give me great illustrations. The process is much more that I read so much fiction that it’s surprising I don’t have more illustrations.

    The reason I read fantasy or any other form of fiction is simply pleasure. Entertainment. I enjoy it. I think that’s a sufficient reason. Imagination is a good thing. We don’t want to confuse reality and fiction, but use of our imaginations is both fun and constructive.

    So down to current reading. Some years ago I read An Oath of Swords, by David Weber. Now Weber is one of my favorite sci-fi or fantasy authors, but somehow I lost touch with the series. Recently I re-read Oath of Swords, and then continued through the series, reading The War God’s Own and Wind Rider’s Oath. If you’re looking for subtlety, don’t go to this series. On the other hand, if you’d like some just plain fun adventure, with plenty of risks, but eventually good guys beating up bad guys, you’ve got it here.

    I could tell you that I got a little tired of anticipating blue glows (if you’ve read the book, you probably know what I mean, otherwise enjoy looking for it), and many confrontations were quite predictable. The series doesn’t involve any political complexity–there are good guys, bad guys, and innocents. Only a few people are in a gray area. But I nonetheless had great fun reading these and recommend them.

    In science fiction, Timothy Zahn is another of my favorite authors. I have previously enjoyed Zahn’s Conqueror series. This past week I read Zahn’s Night Train to Rigel. I have to admit I found the premise of the book pretty weird, but nonetheless Zahn stuck consistently with his weirdness and managed to make an enjoyable novel and also combined the science fiction and mystery successfully. This isn’t standard science fiction, whatever that may mean, and I notice that the reviews on Amazon.com are a bit low for a Zahn book, but I would recommend it.

    After some months of trying, my wife convinced me to read a book by J. D. Robb (Nora Roberts), Purity in Death. The book features Lieutenant Eve Dallas, and she’s after a substantial conspiracy that starts with one bizarre murder. I don’t find the mystery in here to be overwhelmingly mysterious. The book is best read as an adventure, but there were some surprises, and the action and characters are interesting. Robb doesn’t go to the top of my list, but I will certainly be reading some more of her books at some point.

    In more “serious” topics, I have been reading the epistles of John in Greek and drafting translations for my Totally Free Bible Version project. Well, call it a “project” may be a bit pretentious. Basically I’ve been putting the translations I regularly make for my own study online so others can use them. I’m hoping some other folks who often study from the original languages will help me. Often I translate myself simply in order to avoid copyright issues. The point in presenting them on the web is that others can adapt them for use, since I’m not placing any copyright or licensing restrictions on them. Links to John’s epistles can be found on the main page linked above.

    I’m also currently teaching a Sunday School class using Paul Stroble’s What Do Other Faiths Believe? A Study of World Religions. Stroble is a pleasant change from many study guides about world religions designed for Christian study groups in that it isn’t a checklist on how to convert people of the particular faith. It has numerous thought questions and exercises to use in a group setting, and provides good basic information. Stroble took the approach of interviewing lay members of each particular faith. His book is a little short on scholarly detail, but very strong on the material that a Sunday School class will want to work with. Some conservatives will object because Stroble concludes that one can be saved without being a Christian, but I’d suggest that he provides a good foundation for discussion even for conservative groups.

    I can’t skip the editing work I’ve been doing for my company Energion Publications. November found me finishing editing work on three books, Holy Smoke! Unholy Fire!, Consider Christianity, Volume II: Evidence for the Christian Faith, and I Want to Pray!.

    Holy Smoke! Unholy Fire! and I Want to Pray! are both directed specifically at Christians. The first deals with the work of the Holy Spirit and was written by Dr. Bob McKibben. Church leaders and pastors will find this book interesting. I’m the co-author of the second. It’s a basic guide to prayer, with the emphasis on basic. I’ve found that many Christians are looking for just such a guide, but I don’t want anyone to buy this little booklet (84 pages) thinking that it will be filled with profound new insights. Rather, it’s designed to lay a foundation.

    Consider Christianity, Volume II: Evidence for the Christian Faith is a work of apologetics. Now I really don’t do much that could properly be called apologetics, but I certainly enjoyed editing this book. Elgin Hushbeck, the author, is a friend, and he is somewhat more conservative than I am. I think that he provides some of the most serious challenges to those to his left that I’ve seen. In particular, he calls for those of us to his left to take seriously conservative scholarship. But that’s a sideline. His major aim is to support the claim that Christianity is a faith that is reasonable and relevant. I have requested a review for publication on Energion.com by someone not involved, and I will post here when that review is available.

    Finally, I’m just starting on the book Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul, by J. Louis Martyn. It thus far appears to be a moderately conservative, positive view of Paul that takes a serious look at some critical issues. It’s vocabulary is pretty intense. I’ll blog some more about it when I’m finished.

    That’s not exactly all I’ve read, but that will do for now!

  • Reacting to the Word

    My wife asked me to write a devotion for her devotional list and I thought it would make an excellent entry for this blog as well.

    26Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee named Nazereth, 27to a virgin who was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28And when he had arrived he said, “Greetings, favored woman! God is with you!” 29At this word she was troubled and wondered about this sort of greeting. 30And the angel said to her, “Don’t be afraid, Mary. For you have found favor with God. 31Now look! You will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and will call his name Jesus. 32He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give him the throne of David his father. 33And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and his kingdom won’t have an end.” 34But Mary said to the angel, “How will this happen, since I have never had sexual relations with a man?” 35And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the highest will overshadow you. That’s why the son to whom you will give birth will be called Son of God. 36And Elizabeth your kinswoman, who was called barren, is also six months pregnant with a boy in her old age, 37because nothing is impossible for God.” 38Then Mary said, “Alright! I’m the Lord’s servant! Let what you have said happen to me.” And the angel left her. — Luke 1:26-38 (Totally Free Bible Version Project)

    Now what one usually expects a Christian writer to do at this point is to talk about the virgin birth and what that means in Christian doctrine. But what I want to do instead is talk about people and how they react to new revelations of God’s will and his word. Let’s just think about the process here.

    1. An angel comes with a revelation. Matthew doesn’t mention an angel’s name, nor a specific appearance to Mary. I believe that Luke does so to try to emphasize the importance of the message and the shock that Mary must have felt at his appearance. Sometimes we can get a much better idea of what a gospel author is trying to emphasize by comparing details like this between the stories in each gospel.

    2. Mary is surprised when she is greeted as an important person. This is a common reaction to a divine messenger in the Bible. Mary can’t imagine that she is that important. This is a good thing to consider as you face the day and your work. You may not receive your work from an angel. You may not receive it from somebody important. But you may see a challenge that requires your response. Will the challenge trouble you, or will you be ready to face it?

    3. The angel tells Mary not to be afraid. No matter what the challenge or where it comes from, fear isn’t going to help. Fear isn’t going to do anything for you. The first thing to do is to overcome your fear. “Fear not!” is a good message for life.

    4. Mary is told that she is more important than she thinks. You too, may be more important than you think. No, I’m not talking to the arrogant folks and those with big heads. I’m talking to the people who are slogging through their days doing the things that are set before you. You’re more important than you think. There are no unimportant jobs; there are just people who insist on doing them as though they are unimportant.

    5. Mary finds out that she is not really going to be the central character. Sometimes we think that the only way we can be important is to be front and center, to be the person that everyone is talking about. But Mary finds out that she will be important because of her son. Sometimes our important work is simply to make it possible for someone else to do something. Perhaps others will get most of the credit. But just because you’re not in public getting the praise doesn’t mean that you’re not an important person.

    6. Mary wonders how it’s all possible. The answer to this is simple. God’s power is going to come over her. Now we often think of God’s power as earthshaking or always miraculous. But God’s power is at work in your body and in your mind as long as you can breathe and you can think. It’s all possible because the power of God is on you–not in causing daily virgin births, but in making it possible for you to fulfill your calls and tasks.

    7. Mary comes to acceptance. Let it happen! When you have realized who you are, when you have heard the task, when you realize what a wonderful creation you are and that God’s power works in you, you can say, “Bring it on! I’m ready for the call!”

    How about facing this Monday with the words of Mary: “Alright! I’m the Lord’s servant! Let what you have said happen to me.”

  • The Clergy Project

    Wesley Elsberry, on The Panda’s Thumb reports that the Clergy Project is nearning its goal of 10,000 signatures. As I write this, I see that it has attained that goal. I encourage all of my clergy friends to sign this document. It is not only protecting the teaching of science; it is protecting religious education as well. I encourage all of my friends and readers who are not clergy to pass this on to any clergy they know and urge them to sign it.

    But now a quick note: You won’t find my signature here. Why? Because contrary to popular opinion, I am not clergy. I am not ordained. I am a writer and religious educator. I received my MA degree at a seminary (actually the graduate school granted it, but the classes were taken at a seminary). I study and teach Biblical languages and Biblical studies, but I’m not an ordained minister, and thus don’t qualify as “clergy.”

    Why is this so important?

    Both “creation” and “intelligent design” are essentially religious or theological doctrines. They are not science. Things are not necessarily bad because they aren’t science, but they should not be taking up time in the science classroom. Further, we should be very concerned if science teachers, chosen and employed by the government, trained to teach science are instead asked to teach religion.

    Often Christians look at separation of church and state as a barrier to sharing their faith and even to living their lives as Christians. Separation of church and state is not about keeping you from being a Christian. It’s not even about keeping our leaders from being Christians, leading Christian (or better Christ-like) lives, and even testifying to their faith. It’s about keeping the government from promoting religion. We, as Christians, should want to keep the government out of the business of promoting religion.

    Let me give two major reasons. First, the government tends to get things wrong many times. If I let the government prescribe prayer for my child in school, I have no guarantee that this prayer will be appropriate, in accordance with my beliefs, or in accordance with what I want my child to be taught. That’s my selfish reason for keeping the government out of it. Let me teach my child spiritual things. Let me choose a church, synagogue or other organization to teach my child about religion. Second, for me as a Christian, religion cannot be forced. When we place a person in authority in front of our child, someone who represents the state, however indirectly, we tend to imply a force of law to their faith. I believe that is damaging. Spirituality needs to be voluntary. Separation of church and state has given us that. This means, in addition, that we Christians, as the majority, need to be sensitive to the pressure we put on those in the minority, such as Jews, Muslims, or those who reject religion entirely when we attach our spiritual beliefs to the power of the government. I don’t believe we do ourselves any favors by doing so either.

    But what if you disagree with what is taught in the classroom? No problem! If you are willing to get involved with your children, you have much more influence on them than the school does in any case. Get them some books on your point of view. Let them learn your beliefs from them.

    Why can’t your child pray during those school hours? Actually, your child can pray. If you teach your children to pray, they can be involved in prayer and religious activity throughout the school. Student led prayer and student led religious activities are protected forms of free speech. Here the law forces us to do what we should have done anyhow–educate our children, and then trust them to lead.

    Keeping science the subject of the science classroom will be good for both science and religion.

  • Hanging Your Interpretation

    I have just added a new essay to my collection on Biblical interpretation, entitled Hanging Your Interpretation. I have needed to write this essay for some time, as I often suggest using the procedure described, but have never presented any sort of detail about how it should be done.

    I am often asked for quick tips on interpretation and even quick methods for interpretation. The desire for a method that will allow one to be a Biblical scholar in five minutes a day is a pretty natural one. We are, after all, pretty busy.

    I don’t know any short cuts to Biblical interpretation. But what I’ve found is that most people want some way to avoid making errors in the way in which they use their Bible. This fear can lead them to surrender their own judgment and their own hearing from God to others. But that is simply a way to replace your own errors with someone else’s.

    In answer to this need, I present the “hanging rule.”

    Read more on the Energion.com web site . . .

  • God’s Wrath and ID Rejecters

    Robertson warns Pennsylvania voters of God’s wrath

    Robertson is just too easy a target, but I do want to take this opportunity to point out that the situation in Dover is a bit more complicated than acceptance or rejection of God.

    For example, I’m a Christian who believes that the entire universe and everything in it was designed by God. Nonetheless I don’t think anyone has established a scientific basis for detecting more and less design in specific pieces of the universe. My theology, in fact, suggests that one should not find that God is less present in one part of the universe than in another. But that isn’t my reason for opposing the teaching of ID in the high school science classroom. Rather, my concern is that consensus science, the stuff that’s accepted broadly in the scientific community should be taught. Further, I think that theology should not be taught in public school, and indeed shouldn’t be taught by the biology teachers. So I certainly accept God, I believe God is the designer, but I don’t believe it should be the task of public schools to teach this.

    There are, however, a number of other positions that would also reject the position of the Dover school board, and still not reject God. Some believe that ID might well be science, it might well be developed into a valid scientific theory and be accepted by scientists, and thus become a valid topic for the high school science curriculum. If so, great. I don’t think that’s going to happen, but then I’m not a scientist, and I’m also not a prophet. Others might believe that ID is a fine theory, but that due to a strong commitment to separation of church and state might still object to it becoming a topic in science classes. I know quite a number of people who believe in young earth creation and would nonetheless reject its inclusion in public school curricula. Why? They believe that freedom of religion depends on keeping government out of it, and so they would reject including something religious in the public school curriculum.

    But there is a further problem here. Robertson seems to feel that God’s wrath will fall on the people who disagree with him. There is no reason to believe that he is right. In fact, there is no evidence that various places he has condemned have been any more subject to God’s wrath than other places he hasn’t noticed. That’s not a big surprise.

    I suspect, however, that some Christians will try to excuse what Robertson said as excessive rhetoric. I don’t think it is excessive rhetoric; it’s a dangerous belief, and it’s coming to be the belief of many conservative Christians. Again, I don’t want to attack conservative Christians in general. There are plenty of conservative Christians who take the love of Jesus seriously. I don’t think they’re better or worse than other people as a group. But they are being fed a line about creation, evolution, and intelligent design that tends to make all those who reject ID into some kind of nasty, dangerous people.

    At a minimum, Christians who talk about this issue need to make it clear that folks can disagree without bringing down the wrath of God.

    Don’t worry Dover. God can still hear your prayers. Keep right on voting your consciences and your good sense, which was given to you also as part of God’s design.