Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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.

  • Protecting Doctrinal Turf

    There’s a church I drive by pretty regularly. They have a quite prominent sign, and on the front of their building they have a list of doctrinal positions held by their church. I used to think it was a singularly unwelcoming sort of thing to put on the front of a church. During Hurricane Ivan, all the signs were apparently damaged by the wind and removed.

    Just today, I drove by and saw that the signs have been put up again. Here’s how they read:

    Fundamental Evangelistic
    Missionary Pre-Millenial
    Independent Traditional
    KJV 1611 KJV 1611

    Yes, KJV 1611 is there twice.

    Now this church, which I will not name, has every right to believe what they want and to put whatever they want on the front of their church. But by putting on the front of the church, they are projecting a message, and I got to thinking about just what that message was.

    Most Christians would notice a few missing items, I think. The word Jesus doesn’t occur. There’s nothing about God’s love, reconciliation, salvation, forgiveness, or service. I don’t imagine that’s for lack of space. They could, for example, have replaced one of the “KJV 1611” entries with “We love you” or “Grace is wonderful” or perhaps just “Forgiven!” But even so, I would have to wonder about their priorities. Somehow, the essence of that church has been boiled down to these eight entries, one of them repeated twice, and there’s really nothing very positive about those entries.

    Some of them seem quite contradictory. For example, we have “fundamental.” Now I am far from a fundamentalist, and I won’t speak for fundamentalism, but most fundamentalists I’ve encountered are interested in getting back to the basics of Christianity. In fact, I’ve rarely had a conversation with a fundamentalist that didn’t center around something about Jesus. I might well have disagreed with what they thought about Jesus and what he was really about, but they were definitely interested in trying.

    But how does “fundamental” fit with “KJV 1611?” The “1611” part should tell us pretty quickly that these people are not interested in any Christian fundamentals. They’re not particularly interested in finding out what Jesus said and did if they rely on a fairly ordinary translation of the Bible made nearly 1600 years after Jesus lived. What is fundamental about a translation anyhow?

    On the other side we have “Pre-millenial.” If I remember rightly, before the hurricane it included pre-tribulationist as well. If that is the case, I congratulate them on moving that little gem of doctrine down their priority list. But pre-millenial isn’t exactly all that fundamental or traditional either. It’s just one of many ways of interpreting Revelation, something people with very fundamentalist views can easily disagree on, and fundamentalists in my experience often agree to do just that.

    Then we have “missionary” and “evangelistic.” But again, this goes with KJV 1611. What’s missionary about forcing people to use a Bible that is in a language they barely understand if they do at all. Evangelism is the spreading of the good news. But what good news is contained in the eight items emphasized on this church’s front wall?

    In fact, these two words, “missionary” and “evangelistic” strike me as the least appropriate entries in the list. This list is inward looking. It’s self-congratulatory. It’s designed to bring in people who agree with the congregation on complex doctrinal details. There is nothing particularly missionary about it. There is no good news here. There is only an invitation for the “in” crowd to come join the club.

    There is indeed very little independent about this. There may be no external denominational control, but that may well be for the worse, because there is no way to correct a self-destructive tendency of doctrine.

    Now I do spend some time attacking the teachings of the KJV Only crowd. I think the KJVO movement is pretty silly. I’ve talked about it a good bit before. (See my Bible Translations FAQ for more information or my book What’s in a Version?.)

    What I want to point out here is that it is very easy for us, as Christians, to put our doctrines on our sleeves, and let our doctrines determine who we will fellowship with. We let our doctrines replace our discernment. We let the “stuff” we believe replace the need to serve other people. We need to not only proclaim good news, but we need to be good news. One can get doctrines get in the way whether one is liberal, moderate, conservative, charismatic, pentecostal, evangelical, or fundamentalist.

    The real question is not what your doctrines acutally are. It is whether your doctrines allow you to put people first.

    I believe it is quite possible for people to be “saved” or “in right with God” or “in good spiritual health” with a wide variety of doctrinal positions.

    Doctrines can be good. They can keep us pointed in the right direction. But as soon as you find your doctrines getting between you and other people, perhaps you need to check them out. After all, Jesus said of people, “You will know them by their fruit” (Matthew 7:16). He said it of people. I would suggest it’s one test you must apply to doctrines as well.

  • Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals – New York Times

    Evolution Slate Outpolls Rivals – New York Times

    Intelligently designing voters designed a new school board. Though many votes were close, the sweep was apparently universal. I’m very pleased to see that the voters can make an intelligent decision like this. It is my hope that this becomes an example for the rest of the country.

    The whole community, especially parents, needs to get involved in the process of education. We pay big attention to presidential races, but often very little attention to school board races. Turnout is low, and people with very questionable ideas and programs can get elected without most of their constituents even being aware of it.

    That’s not the fault of the politicians, folks. It’s the fault of constituents who don’t research about their candidates and make their choice on election day.

    See some more of my views on education and politics in Make Education a Priority.

  • Must I Give My Life?

    Your browser must not support the IFRAME tag!

    Does the command of Jesus to love one another mean that I have to give up my life?

    I’ve been involved in debating that issue over the last couple of weeks on the Compuserve Religion Forum.. It seems to me that the issue is not very debatable, that it’s clear that a faith that was founded by someone who gave up everything, including his life, and underwent the greatest possible humiliation in doing so, would regard giving up one’s life as the highest ideal.

    But is it a command? Is it something we’re expected to do? Is it a sin if I don’t?

    First let me make some distinctions. I don’t think Jesus is telling his disciples they need to run into every burning building. Nor is he telling his disciples they need to abandon all wisdom. Sometimes no life can be saved, and the risk is not appropriate. Sometimes you will just die without accomplishing anything. But when the you get to that final case, the one where you are quite certain your life will be lost, but you can save someone else, Jesus is giving you an example.

    I’m not saying that Jesus expected us to be perfect. He knew we weren’t. Paul said that he had not attained (Philippians 3:12-16). The author of Hebrews said we should go forward toward perfection (Hebrews 6:1). That doesn’t mean we’re always going to live up to it. But it does mean that providing excuses for doing less is not an option. We need to hope and pray that we can live in that manner. Probably you, like me, are not 100% certain of what you would do. Unless you’ve faced that situation, I’m not sure you can be. But the example has been given, the ideal portrayed.

    Most particularly, I think, this applies to situations in which one is faced with the necessity of compromising with evil in order to save one’s own life. The standard scenario for discussing this is the holocaust. To put it simply, most of Poland’s Jews died; most of Denmark’s were saved. Why? Because in Denmark people stood up to the Nazis as a nation, together. Each person contributed what little they could. In Poland, there were many, many individuals who made an effort, but for the most part, people chose to save their own lives.

    Their position is easy to understand. Each one might have felt that they would only lose their lives if they took action. But each action in standing up to evil can help generate actions by others. Good can grow and multiply, just like evil.

    Thank God for those who do stand up, who live up to the ideal.