Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Hebrews and the Problem of Writing Introductions

    [ncs_ad pid=’0664239013′ adtype=’aer.io’]

    I’m reading through Luke Timothy Johnson’s commentary in the New Testament Library and have just completed the introduction. I have a couple of thoughts today, not least of which is to note the problem with writing introductions.

    For a reader to truly follow an introduction, it would best come after the commentary and some serious time reading the book, but (catch-22), the commentary is best understood in light of the introduction. For me this has often involved reading the introduction, then the commentary, and then reading the introduction again as a sort of conclusion.

    But often the introductory material is still quite illusive, if not illusory, and the author is left to construct the sort of fantasy realm in which the study will take place. This isn’t a particular criticism of Johnson, who is an excellent writer and makes some quite profound points about Hebrews and Bible study in general in the course of his introduction. His arguments on the dating of the book (45-68 CE) are interesting but not conclusive and he admits as much.

    [ncs_ad pname=’the-authorship-of-hebrews’ adtype=’aer.io’]

    On authorship he expresses the strong conviction that it is right that modern scholarship has abandoned the idea of Pauline authorship of the book. He gives us notice that this is coming a couple of times earlier in the introduction. And he provides a quite good set of reasons for why he believes this to be the case, though I cannot read references to Origen and “God only knows” with the same confidence after seeing Dave Black’s discussion of it in The Authorship of Hebrews (full disclosure: I’m the publisher).

    Then he begins to make his case for his own candidate as author, Apollos. Here he provides affirmation of my rule of biblical introduction: Authors are much better at critiquing the proposals of others than they are at establishing their own. I can’t quite say that there is no evidence whatsoever to support Apollos as author, but someone proposing Apollos should restrain himself from critiquing too vigorously the proposal of Priscilla as author (Johnson lays into it, admittedly with quite good arguments).

    The line I like regarding Priscilla is: “… the fact that everything supporting her candidacy would apply equally to her male partner, Aquila.” Just so. And further, pretty much every argument advanced in favor of Apollos would apply to any Greek speaking Jew who met Paul at some point. Some may object that Apollos was considered a good orator, and there is the elevated language of Hebrews, but if such an argument were advanced about a modern book (the book is well written, and so-and-so is a good writer), it would be laughable.

    I can, of course, leave the laughing to others more qualified than I, and there are plenty who will take up the cause. The fact is, that if you abandon Paul, you pretty much need to abandon naming the author. There is so little known about the candidates. Other than Luke, we lack any written material from them which can be used to compare to the text of Hebrews, and their biographies are so short that one can make up whatever story one wants.

    But such is the hardship of writing an introduction. How many paragraphs does it take to say “I don’t know”?

  • In Defense of the Ordinary

    In Defense of the Ordinary

    In preparing for my Sunday School lesson tomorrow I read some very high sounding words about settling for less: pleasure rather than joy, vengeance rather than justice, sentiment rather than beauty, and so forth. The source was N. T. Wright, quoted in the introduction to the  Cokesbury Adult Bible Studies Uniform Series for the Summer of 2016.

    The idea is not bad. But it is an idea that is easily corruptible. A pursuit of right-doing is a good thing until it becomes perfectionism, judgmentalism, self-righteousness, disdain, or any of a number of other ways in which doing good can become obnoxious and destructive. A love of learning is wonderful as long as it drives one to learn more and make use of that learning. When it leads to a superior attitude or an inability to hear the wisdom that may come from one less learned, it’s not so great. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but so is ugliness, at least when “ugly” is defined as “not living up to my personal standards of beauty.”

    We often express shock at the disciples, who constantly asked who was greatest in the kingdom. Why didn’t they get it? But we do very much the same thing. Constantly. A pursuit of excellence can become a pursuit of “more-excellent-than-ness” and can also result in a narrowing of vision.

    Any work is a vocation
    From OpenClipart.org.

    I was talking to my mother at the end of May, just after she turned 98. She mentioned to me the “sacred four” professions. We had a song in Sabbath School (this was the Seventh-day Adventist Church), and it went, using my name, “Henry can be a missionary doctor, a missionary doctor, a missionary doctor….” Or it could be teacher, nurse (for the girls, of course), and minister (meaning pastor/evangelist, for the boys). Those were the “great” vocations to pursue.

    My mother said she added farmer, janitor, housewife, and so forth. I remember her doing that. She’ bring in tools for each trade, and we’d have a hoe or rake for the missionary farmer, broom for janitor, etc. These were considered ordinary professions, but could be vocations as well. Why talk to your child about being a farmer or a building custodian, or perhaps a garbage collector? Because each of those things is an important vocation, as are many, many more. The real question is whether the person doing them will do them to the best of their ability and be a witness while doing so.

    And that is the question for the “important” professions as well. A seminary professor can be a missionary, but so can every other person out there.

    But we want a comparison scale.

    Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not against pursuing excellence. That’s a good thing. What I’m against is creating these hierarchies as to who and what is the more important thing. Does your pursuit of your concept of beauty mean that you can’t appreciate something simple? Does your pursuit of better theology mean you can’t listen with appreciation to a Sunday School class taught by someone who worked in the fields all week? Does your desire to hear the perfectly-formed, homiletically brilliant sermon mean that you can’t listen to a speaker who wasn’t trained in those things but has a real-life walk with God to testify to?

    I would suggest that a healthy pursuit of excellence leaves one appreciating excellence wherever it is found, not just in one’s little corner. A pursuit of beauty leaves one appreciating beauty in a wide range of places, seeing more beauty than others because one has beauty in one’s eye.

    I like the sentiments from N. T. Wright I noted at the beginning. We do lose when we accept vengeance in place of justice. We need to pursue justice. We need to pursue those great things. But we also need to recognize greatness everywhere. The clerk who rings up your groceries and does it well is absolutely a great person.

     

     

  • Let the Children Interrupt

    Let the Children Interrupt

    Children under a tree
    From OpenClipart.org

    This past Sunday the lesson was from Luke 18:15-17, Jesus blessing the children. Saturday evening, as I was thinking about this, a local church was promoting their variety of children’s programs and how that showed their care for the children. I know it’s probably unkind of me, but I was not impressed.

    Yes, having children’s programs is better than ignoring the children. Having something for the children to do while their parents carry out the activities of the older folks is better than doing nothing. When we were overseas, my mother was often asked to donate to church building projects. She would always ask to see the plans. Frequently those plans would involve a church sanctuary and no educational rooms at all. She’d ask where was the space for the children’s programs, and was told they could meet under the trees until the church had the money to build their facilities. She’d suggest instead that the adults meet under the trees and that the space be given to the children.

    Yes, it’s good to provide for the children. But the interesting thing that Jesus did is this: He let the children interrupt the activities of the adults. He didn’t appoint a “children’s apostle” or create a children’s “blessing room” where appropriately gifted leaders could work with the children. No! He invited them to where he was, right to the center.

    I think we are too concerned with having our busy routine interrupted. Perhaps if we let the children get involved some of the super-sacred elements of the order of service might be skipped. Perhaps some of the adults would have to listen to something simple and repetitive.

    Those with special gifts for teaching and for connecting with children and young people are to be treasured and  their talents used in ministry. But children need to spend time with the adults as they learn, and not always be separated out into age segregated groups where six-year-olds learn from six-year-olds and teens learn from teens. Church should be a place where they can practice and learn. I’m in favor of having children and teens give testimonies, speak, and even present the message. Where better to learn than in their own community? Of course, all these activities should be done with the help of people of experience who can mentor and guide without controlling and suffocating.

    I was visiting a small house church overseas and was asked to present a children’s story and also the message for the adults. I hadn’t tried a children’s story in many years. But I gave it a try. For the adults message I had carefully taken a passage and prepared an expository message. It was really pretty good since I say so myself! [Yeah, right.] I was uncomfortable with the children’s story. After I had presented both, and was chatting with my translator immediately after our time together, I noticed the head elder copying my illustration from the blackboard (yes, the old-fashioned slate kind). Then he asked me a few questions through the translator, all about the children’s message.

    The children’s story had caught his attention and had met a need in the church. It was clear from our conversation that he was fine with my expository preaching. It just hadn’t connected. The children’s message had.

    Is it possible there isn’t such a difference between our needs as older members and those of the children and young people in our churches?

  • Quote of the Day

    Messages are only as useful as the audience they reach … — Joshua Darr, FiveThirtyEight.com

    Just so! And even though that comes from a post about politics, I’m not thinking politics here.

  • Pastor Searches and Job Interviews

    Pastor Searches and Job Interviews

    Church politics is necessary. Even those who most avoid it live with it. What we must work toward is a way of making decisions in the church that isn’t just a pale reflection of the way things are done in the world.

    One of the ways we create a pale reflection is by doing what the world does, only doing it less effectively. Growing up, I was informed regularly that the church functioned democratically. I could see, however, that it was much more of an oligarchy. Why? Because while the church wanted to carry out activities by vote, they didn’t want the discussion and potential acrimony that went with it. For a church such as the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which I grew up in, or the United Methodist Church, of which I am a part now, this “peaceful” approach, in which members vote for what the leaders have decided, generally breaks down as you move up the chain. In that breakdown, local church members see a great divide between what they would have wanted and what their church is doing.

    ThriveThe form of democracy, without a lively dialogue and exchange of ideas on issues, doesn’t really function much like democracy. There are doubtless many reasons why we might not want actual democracy in the church, though the priesthood of all believers does tend to imply that more people have influence.

    Thom Rainer, in a post titled FIVE QUESTIONS PROSPECTIVE PASTORS RARELY ASK SEARCH COMMITTEES (BUT SHOULD), perhaps unintentionally highlights this problem with a pastor search. A pastor search is like a job search, only with  spiritual veneer. So we sometimes avoid talking about the things that we really should be interested in and pretend the situation is other than it really is. (I should note that businesses are also very much subject to doing the job badly, though usually for different reasons than the church.)

    In her book Thrive: Spiritual Habits of Transforming Congregations, Ruth Fletcher discusses discernment frequently. She says,

    In transforming congregations, leadership teams meet frequently to talk about what the Spirit seems to be doing in the congregation and to notice where the Spirit seems to be guiding the church to go. They keep their own sand moist by engaging daily in the spiritual habit of prayer, and practice the spiritual habit of discernment in their personal lives. They discipline themselves to open their minds to new understandings, to open their hearts to the plight of their neighbors, and to open their wills by setting aside their own agenda in order to seek God’s new creation. (p. 119)

    Provided the church congregation believes it should have a paid pastor at all, this would seem like a good approach. Talk about what the Spirit is doing. Engage in the “spiritual habit of prayer” and the “spiritual habit of discernment.” Set aside “their own agenda.”

    What would it look like in a church if the process of filling roles or offices in the church was a process jointly of congregational leaders and candidates setting aside their own agenda and discerning what the Spirit is saying to their church?

  • Questions and Parables: Grace in Luke 17

    Questions and Parables: Grace in Luke 17

    From openclipart.org
    From openclipart.org
    Today Pat Badstibner of World Prayr published a post on the World Prayr Devotional blog picturesquely titled The Law Is Not Soggy Cornflakes. In it, Pat finds a number of purposes for the law, even, and perhaps especially, for those living under grace.

    If we look to the law as the means of making ourselves perfect (or even better), or perhaps as a guide to what we must be in order to win God’s favor, it’s going to be bad news. The rules don’t make one good. Making rules doesn’t cause people to live by them.

    The law doesn’t change when it is seen as a mirror. It is our perspective that changes. For one living under grace, the law can be very good news indeed.

    I used this in a sermon two weeks ago at my home church (Chumuckla Community Church), when I preached from Hebrews 12:1-3. I have frequently heard this passage presenting in sermons or Sunday School lessons as a sort of big stick to persuade us to work harder. In my sermon I called this the “Santa Claus gospel.” By this I don’t mean a Jesus who comes down chimneys and leaves gifts, but rather the picture of Santa who is “gonna find out who’s naughty or nice,” who “sees you when you’re sleeping, and knows when you’re awake,” “knows if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness’ sake!” (Pardon me for ripping the song up a bit!

    This view suggests that all the saints of the past are watching, and Jesus did a good job, so we should get with the program and do a good job as well. They’ll see us if we don’t! (My wife summarized some of the message in a blog post if you want more. I titled the message “How Chumuckla Community Church Can Be Perfect.”)

    The very same day my Sunday School lesson was from Luke 17. When I read Pat’s post, I was struck by the viewpoint issue. I think a number of these parables are commonly read and taught in a “law as bad news” mode.

    Luke 17 starts (vv. 1-3a) with talking about anyone tripping up any of these little ones. Bad news in action. But it’s followed (3b-4) with the injunction to forgive.

    Next we have the request for more faith (5-6). How many times have I heard from this verse that because I cannot tell a Mulberry tree to be planted in the sea, I must have a truly minute amount of faith? You’ve heard it. Don’t worry. The preacher can’t do it either.

    Then we have the “we’re worthless slaves” passage (7-9). After a whole day of working, we should call ourselves worthless. We’ve only done what we were asked to do.

    Now in the Sunday School curriculum, that was the last passage for the week, but I think it’s important to note that the very next passage is the healing of the ten lepers. Luke claims to present things in some sort of order, and I think this positioning is important.

    So we could summarize one set of messages as:

    1. Watch out! If you trip somebody up, God’s going to get you.
    2. You better forgive your brother or sister.
    3. Your faith is miserably small.
    4. No matter what you do, you’re just a worthless slave.

    But let’s try changing our viewpoint here. Go to the cleansing of the 10 lepers and work backwards, then forwards again.

    What precisely did the lepers do to receive healing/cleansing? All they did was ask. Let’s put aside what happened to the one leper for a few moments. All the lepers are cleansed.

    So no matter what you do, you can’t earn God’s favor, because doing good things is just that. You’re doing what you were supposed to do. I’m surprised that we often think we should somehow earn God’s favor. If God doesn’t want to do something God doesn’t have to. In what way would it be unjust, for example, for God to create creatures whose life is limited to the frame of their mortal existence? We don’t like it, but what is inherently wrong with it?

    Yet, without doing anything, the lepers were cleansed.

    We have so little faith. Yet without demonstrated any more faith than was needed simply to ask, the lepers were cleansed. Perhaps Jesus was telling the disciples that the quantity of their faith wasn’t the key. (And yes, I’m aware of the cases where Jesus commends faith and of the one leper.)

    We should forgive, yes, but is it not possible that our heavenly Father is capable of forgiving much more than we are able to forgive one another? God’s grace is greater than ours.

    And perhaps the biggest scandal, as we’re back at the beginning of the chapter, is to push someone away from God by telling them they need more faith, greater ability to forgive, or more diligent effort in order to come to God.

    All ten lepers were cleansed, even the ungrateful ones. Yet one came back to Jesus and he gained something more. Seen from within God’s grace, faith, action, gratitude, and yes, the law, can be good news. But the grace came first.

    The call was to bathe in it.

  • No Study Tonight and an Explanation

    No Study Tonight and an Explanation

    Sunburst in clouds with faint Christ figure emanating from center

    I will not be continuing my eschatology study tonight. I will be giving the final session of the eschatology series next Thursday night. At that time, I will take a break and will return June 23, 2016. I will announce what I’ll be studying as we move forward.

    The reason for this hiatus is that I have become less and less happy with using Google Hangouts on Air as the basis for these studies and for the videos we do for Energion Publications. In fact, we’re taking the same hiatus for Energion. When we return, we’ll be using livestreaming, and probably using more than one outlet. We can now livestream on our content on Facebook, Periscope, and YouTube, though we have no problem with YouTube.

    For my study, at a minimum, I expect I will livestream it and also provide it in a video and audio podcast.

    In the final episode of my eschatology study next week I will discuss the book of Revelation, various ways of reading it, and also some valuable insight that can be gained that has nothing to do with writing or drawing end times charts.

    Join me next week, May 19, at 7:00 pm central time. I’ll provide links on this blog.

  • Science and Replication (or not)

    Science and Replication (or not)

    Credit: OpenClipart.org
    Credit: OpenClipart.org

    An article today on FiveThirtyEight says it’s possible that the simple awarding of badges to those who follow certain procedures (openness of data, revealing methodology, etc), may have sparked an increase in these good practices. Or not, of course. The correlation is pretty clear. The causation is somewhat less so. It could be that all the publicity regarding replication has been more conscientious scientists choose more rigorous and open approaches.

    What’s interesting to me is some of the popular fallout and commentary that I’ve heard on this. Completely unscientific quacks and nuts use the errors made by scientists as a cover for their own ridiculous claims, while ordinary people decide they can ignore scientific evidence because it might be wrong. If it might be wrong, why should I bother?

    Projects such as the one awarding badges for certain practices can help with the public perception as well as the actual practice of science, and that will be a good thing.

    What bothers me about the frequent response is that people who are actually much less careful and accountable than the scientific community use the misbehavior as some to both denigrate science as an enterprise and to open the door to completely untested ideas and theories.

    Even though the scientific community has its problems—and I strongly commend those organizations working for greater transparency—your odds are still better working with material produced by a community that at least aims for sound methodology. Sure, some science may be wrong, but I’m willing to bet my life on my doctor’s views over those of someone who guesses and goes by their feelings.

  • They’re Bad so We’re Good

    They’re Bad so We’re Good

    Conflict
    Credit: openclipart.org

    Recent political discourse reminds me of the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:

    9 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous and regarded others with contempt: 10 “Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11 The Pharisee, standing by himself, was praying thus, ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people: thieves, rogues, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12 I fast twice a week; I give a tenth of all my income.’ 13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast and saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ 14 I tell you, this man went down to his home justified rather than the other; for all who exalt themselves will be humbled, but all who humble themselves will be exalted.”

    The Holy Bible: New Revised Standard Version. (1989). (Lk 18:9–14). Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers.

    It has been interesting to read articles by partisans of one party or the other explaining how unelectable the candidate of the other party is, and how that party is truly in trouble and going down in flames. “They’re so bad that we’re good,” seems to be the subtext.

    I’m not primarily interested in the politics, however, but in some things in shows about human nature. These articles and conversations point to a dangerous, perhaps even fatal way of measuring ourselves. We do it in church just like we do it in the broader society. If I can point out enough negatives about a church or a group, I will surely have demonstrated the value of my preferred group or position.

    Thus comes the Pharisee. Now I think we should be careful about how we talk about the Pharisees. In many ways they would make excellent Christians. They were good people trying to fulfill God’s law. Nonetheless they suffered from one of the many failures of the righteous—self-righteousness. It’s interesting that when we look down on the Pharisees for their flaws, we generally are participating in the same ones. We’re not Pharisees. Aren’t we special?

    Jesus is here bringing in a character who will be considered righteous by his audience and putting him up against one who will be considered wicked. Note the prayer. “I thank you that I am not like other people.” Face it! We thank God that we are not like other people on a regular basis. We may pretend to be the tax collector who went home justified. But more often we’re looking for the position of the Pharisee. However much contempt we may put into saying the word “Pharisee,” it’s his position we long for. It’s just that we want to thank God that we “are not like other people … or even like this Pharisee.”

    I believe the root, however, is our bad approach to measurement. We want to be “better than.” We want a church that is less unfriendly, more mission minded, more biblical, better structured. If we can say with any justification, even just enough to convince ourselves, that we are better than the church down the street, then we can be happy. As a Methodist, I can give thanks to God that I’m not the frozen chosen as are the Presbyterians or self-righteous like the Baptists.

    I’ve been on the receiving end of this, as someone points out to me the flaws of the United Methodist Church, which are doubtless legion. How can I be a member of a United Methodist congregation? Surely all of these flaws mean that I should instead be a [Baptist, Presbyterian, Reformed (some variety), charismatic, pentecostal, house church, high church, etc.].

    Here’s what experience has taught me: Don’t look at the church down the street. Ask this question: Am I doing God’s will by being where I am? Where can I best do God’s will?

    Every church I have been in has had flaws. If it didn’t have them before I got there, it definitely did after! One of the most dangerous things we can do is determine our value before God by comparing ourselves to other churches. This works in many ways. The church down the street can provide us with an excuse for continuing to behave badly. My Methodist congregation may be comforting itself by noting that it’s better than the Baptists while the Baptists are comforting themselves that they are doing better than we are. We can follow that spiral right to perdition as our errors give others an excuse for theirs.

    On the other hand, we can become extremely discouraged by comparing our performance to others. If the church down the road is growing by 10% per year, what’s our problem? If they have money to build  a new Family Life Center why can’t we?

    We need instead to take the parable to heart. What is God’s will for us? Let’s seek God’s will and God’s mercy as we work that out.

    Here’s a video of a sermon I preached many years ago. I wonder if it’s still relevant.

  • No Eschatology Study Tonight

    Sunburst in clouds with faint Christ figure emanating from center

    I will not be presenting my study on eschatology via Google Hangouts on Air this evening. I will continue on May 12 and May 19 which will conclude this study. I still haven’t decided what my next topic will be. I’m open to suggestions.