Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Scientific Study of the Supernatural

    In a post a few weeks ago I commented that science could not study the supernatural. Regular commenter Lifewish, who blogs at Metasyntactic, brought up the expected and proper question in a comment:

    Please insert the usual question here about why precisely it is that “supernatural” effects wouldn’t be subject to science. Are we using a definition of “natural” that makes this tautological?

    Well, yes, it is. If we define science as a method of studying the natural world, and then we define supernatural as something other than part of the natural world, which seems a reasonable plan to me, then “science cannot (or does not) study the supernatural” would be tautological. But at the same time that means that to suggest scientific study of the supernatural, using those definitions, would be just a bit illogical.

    Now it would be possible to alter the definitions, though I think that would be a counterproductive plan, since any definition of science that would include study of the supernatural would make it less effective as what it is, while any definition of the supernatural that makes it more natural would, well, make it more natural, and less supernatural.

    But Lifewish includes an important word “effects” in his question that makes it more difficult to answer. Can we study the effects of the supernatural through science? To that I have to give a qualified “yes.”

    If it happens in the natural world, some method of scientific study should be able to observe it. Thus to take the classical Christian miracle story, the resurrection, were it to happen under the right circumstances, one should be able to observe that a corpse comes back to life (or not) or perhaps that it is eliminated and a new one produced as some interpret 1 Corinthians 15. If a person is healed, science should be able to determine whether they were, in fact, ill to begin with and whether they are now truly no longer ill.

    The problem comes in with studying the causes. If there “is” a supernatural, then things that were supernaturally caused outside of the natural order could be observed, but their natural causes couldn’t be discovered through science, even theoretically, because they would not be natural. If they are discovered through scientific processes, by definition they would have to be regarded as natural.

    To return to the example of healing, determining that the person was ill, but no longer is, would be quite simple. Determining why is a bit harder. That’s why we have terms such as “spontaneous remission.” But I know of nobody who would argue that all cases of spontaneous remission are divine healings. It is perfectly logical to say simply that this person became well through a process that is unknown. That is what I think science should say about such things. A scientist who is also a believer should be very clear what is science and what is faith. “This person is no longer ill,” can be a scientific statement. “God healed this person,” is not.

    This clearly paints an arrow in the direction of “god of the gaps” theology, suggesting that God might be the cause of things whose cause we do not know. And that far, god of the gaps is fine. God might be doing all kinds of things of which we have no knowledge, but lacking knowledge, we cannot be definitive about those things.

    I don’t build my theology there, however. My fundamental theological position is that everything that happens in the universe is ultimately an act of God, because God is the “uncaused cause” or the “ground of all being.” I prefer the latter phrase from Paul Tillich as more comprehensive. Now neither of those labels describes the Christian God. That is a limited subset. A deistic view of God fits the bill nicely. But that is nonetheless one jumping off point for my faith. If you convince me that God in no way and at no time intervenes in the universe outside of the course of natural law, I am still a believer in the sense I’ve just stated.

    Let’s try an example of a primitive tribe who discover that already prepared food appears at a certain point outside their village at irregular intervals. They don’t know how it gets there, but they make use of it. From our perspective there are many options. It could be a scientific study group providing this food to determine something about the tribe. One might theorize a random space warp connecting the village to someone’s pantry. Silly, I know, but do the villagers have any way to eliminate the option? Or one could imagine the ancestral gods supernaturally providing the food.

    Which has happened? Until the villagers have learned how to eliminate all natural options, they don’t know, but they can determine that the food appears. If we call the cause supernatural, we are stating that they can never truly discover the cause, because as far as they go in the natural world, no explanation will be adequate.

    It is a definition game. I believe that there is a supernatural, but I also belief that absolute proof is unavailable that the supernatural interferes. Even those things that appear to be miraculous from time to time may well simply have natural explanations so far beyond current science that we haven’t even imagined them.

  • Dr. James White Declares me (among others) Evil

    No, he presumably doesn’t know who I am, and didn’t mention me by name. But I voted for Barack Obama on Tuesday, and I also voted against Florida’s amendment banning gay marriage. I am a Christian, a Bible teacher who normally spends hours daily studying the scriptures.

    I found this video by Dr. James White via Tim Ricchuiti. While I have always appreciated Dr. White’s defense of modern Bible translations in King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, I have also been well aware that we differ on many things. The most important of these things are contained in this video.

    Tim has already made some very good points, though I would quibble on the matter of defining Christianity. An apologist, which is Dr. White’s vocation, must define Christianity in some way, else just what will he defend? You cannot defend that which is not defined.

    The fundamental difference then is one of definition. I define “Christian” differently than does Dr. White. This is no surprise. The important thing is that it simply makes his accusation that certain people aren’t Christians, or that they are vile heretics of no importance whatsoever, unless one is trying to do some ministry in conjunction with Dr. White’s ministry or to work together with him.

    The important thing is just how well he supports that definition. One of the critical errors (not doctrinal, but logical) in the video is the claim that words have some meaning given to them by a transcendent God. Sorry, but no. Not so. Words gain their meaning from usage, as someone who has commented at such length on translation should know from experience.

    In this case, since Dr. White doesn’t define Christian precisely in his video–OK, it’s only 18 minutes so what do I expect?–we must take the definition implied from his usage. In that case, we must assume that a real Christian:

    1. Does not base theology on race
    2. Opposes same sex marriage even in the civil sphere
    3. Not only is against abortion, but must believe that the law is the best way to put a stop to it.
    4. Believes that people who disagree on these points are evil.

    I would say that I’m on the weakest ground on the fourth point, though it seems to me that he is making that part of the implied definition. The reason for this is that he challenges the Christian faith of people who disagree on any of those points. Again, I don’t challenge his right to have a definition of Christianity–I challenge the usefulness of this definition.

    It’s interesting that besides defining people who don’t agree on these points as non-Christian, he also declares them evil, evil which must be confronted. Having just been studying Romans 1, and especially verse 32, I’m guessing those who don’t confront these things as evil are also to be regarded as evil.

    How would I define Christianity? First, in conversation, I simply accept one’s self definition. If you say you’re a Christian, I’m going to go with it for purposes of discussion. That’s just a convenience. I don’t regard the label “Christian” as all that important. Go ahead and define it how you like. The issue is whether you are a follower of Jesus or not, and while I will list characteristics and discuss discipleship, the ultimate judge of that will be Jesus.

    But if I go a step further and use the term “orthodox Christianity” or perhaps the basis on which I would call myself a Christian it is this: I say the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed without my fingers crossed. So if someone believes in the incarnation, in the doctrine of the trinity, in the resurrection, and the final judgment of God, that sounds very Christian to me. Please note again that I’m not trying to tell you who gets to use a label. I’m simply saying how I use the label of myself. Were I to begin to need crossed fingers in reciting those creeds, I would cease calling myself Christian.

    If I share my Christian faith with others, those are the elements I’m likely to tell them about, and those are thing things I will tell them define me as a Christian.

    Thus the following statement from the TUCC web site means that I accept TUCC as Christian:

    The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior. It acknowledges as kindred in Christ all who share in this confession. It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world. It claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers. It affirms the responsibility of the Church in each generation to make this faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God. In accordance with the teaching of our Lord and the practice prevailing among evangelical Christians, it recognizes two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion.

    Now let me note a few points of disagreement other than the obvious ones with Dr. White’s video. He refers to it possibly not being God’s will that someone be brought to repentance. Of course this is a major Calvinist-Arminian divide, and I fall to the Arminian side. He criticizes the emerging church in terms that I would find quite unacceptable.

    Further, he takes the stance that a belief in evolution is at the foundation of all this evil, misunderstanding evolution as necessarily atheistic and as stealing the dignity of humanity. I’m guessing this is another part of his definition of “Christian” but I’ll leave that out for now. The creation-evolution controversy can be found in many inappropriate places, and is rarely discussed with comprehension.

    I agree with him that Christians need to soak in the word, immerse themselves in the word. I would suggest, however, that Christians may soak themselves in parts of the word that are either not applicable or that are placed in the wrong priority. I have a prioritizing suggestion, and it comes from Jesus: Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two (Matthew 22:35-40).

    That will at least get your priorities straight.

  • Patience for the Nuts and Bolts

    Last night I attended a Bible study in which my pastor was teaching on Romans 1:22-32.  If that verse selection doesn’t fully make sense to you, consider that he was simply following up from the point at which he stopped the prior week.

    My pastor is Dr. Wesley Wachob, an accomplished exegete.  One of the joys of attending First UMC in Pensacola is that while I may occasionally disagree on some technical point, I never have to cringe while listening to the sermons.  Elsewhere I frequently have order myself to ignore exegetical problems or those related to Biblical languages while listening to otherwise uplifting sermons.

    So, being who he is, Dr. Wachob starting out by teaching precisely what Paul was saying.  It’s not relevant to my point here, but I happen to agree with that position.  I’m also not trying to proclaim Dr. Wachob’s position on all issues related to homosexuality, which is only a minor point of the passage, though it is the primary one for which it is cited.  (I eagerly await the sermon on how gossip and slander represents the true measure of human depravity as in verse 29-30.)  The issue I’m looking at is the starting point.  (For my Methodist readers, Dr. Wachob in no way violated the Methodist discipline in anything he said to the group.)

    In particular, Paul is not writing an essay either on what constitutes an appropriate list of sins, nor is he arguing for what things are sinful and why.  He is taking an assumption of what is sinful and tying it all to idolatry, i.e. anything that places anything other than God in God’s place.  Thus homosexuality is assumed to be wrong, based on the Torah, and this is something that Paul can count on as an agreement with his audience.

    Thus the point here is that while we can be pretty certain based on this passage that Paul thought homosexuality was wrong, it is as an underlying assumption, rather than as something explicitly explained.  When I say that, if you know my own view of inspiration as message embedded in surrounding cultural views, then you don’t know how I feel about homosexuality generally, gay marriage, or any related issue concerning how we respond to gays in our society today.

    The text does not immediately translate itself into modern context.

    If you doubt this, consider Numbers 31:15-20.  Does the command that Moses gives, couched in support for the moral preservation, not to mention the physical, of the Israelite people, represent a good standard for warfare?  I would, of course, argue that it does not.  How it can be a command of God in scripture is worthy of a bit more discussion, but that isn’t going to happen today.

    Last night in our class there was a gentleman who was clearly quite knowledgeable.  Throughout the discussion he kept asking our teacher to make the application.  His requests were resisted.  Now I understand his impatience, but at the same time I applaud the resistance.  The nuts and bolts of exegesis need to be done first.

    This doesn’t mean that we don’t later view the scripture in their canonical context or in the broader context of theology.  It doesn’t mean that we never get down to current, practical applications.  It just means that we have to do the hard work first.

    Dr. Wachob’s interpretation of this passage–and mine–will not satisfy many on any side of this debate.  The general desire is to somehow have Romans tell us directly what to do today.  And yes, there are interpretations that make this not address homosexuality as such in its original context.  But that is a very unlikely reading of what Paul is trying to say.  Paul is talking not about some isolated group of people, but rather is talking about all gentiles here (he’ll get to the Jews later) and making a case that all have failed.  That is is theological point.

    It may require some patience.  But it is worth it.

  • Christian Carnival #249 – Deep Breath Edition

    The U. S. election is over and we have a new president-elect.  No matter how happy, indifferent, or distressed you are about the result or not, take a deep breath and remember just who is in charge of all this.  I am thus taking my theme from Daniel 4.

    I’m taking the posts in order rather than trying to organize them in sections, so note that the texts that precede and follow each section are not intended in any way as comments on the posts.  Translations are my own, slightly paraphrased, except where indicated.

    [Clip art from Barry’s Clipart.]

    4 I, Nebuchadnezzar, was living calmly in my house and prospering in my palace. 5 I had a dream that frightened me; what I saw while in bed and the visions in my head terrified me. — Daniel 4:4-5.

    FMF presents Accountability Partners in Financial Matters posted at Free Money Finance, saying, “You need someone to keep you honest in money matters.”

    andriel presents Word of Faith Atonement: Jesus in Hell posted at ReturningKing.com, saying, “As noted in the last section, the WOF teaching concerning the nature of Jesus was not the traditional church’s position, namely that Christ was man and God, but rather that Christ relinquished his divinity when he came to earth as a man. While this is a poor beginning for an atonement doctrine, it gets much worse. In accomplishing the work of salvation, according to the WOF movement, Jesus also took on the very nature of Satan.”

    Chris presents Trust God with your Career and your Finances | ProsperingServant.com posted at ProsperingServant.com.

    Allen Scott presents Touched by the Master?s hand posted at A View from the Nest, saying, “Men like George have a great love for all things classic and spend untold hours and thousands of dollars to restore these relics of the past. Jesus, like George, specializes in restoration as well. Unlike a classic car, a broken life requires far more than a new paint job and a few new parts.”

    Doug Forrester presents Christian horror movie posted at Bounded Irrationality.

    Big and Beautiful

    The tree grew big and strong.
    Its top reached heaven.
    It could be seen all over he world.

    Its branches and leaves were beautiful,
    its fruit plentiful,
    and it provided food for everyone.– Daniel 4:11-12

    Trevor Watkinson presents Blogging in a New Direction posted at SaveYourSweat.com Blog, saying, “Why I expanded the theme of my blog to include the Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Diane R presents R.T. Kendalll and the Lakeland “Outpouring” posted at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet, saying, “There has been a lot of discussion of the Lakeland ‘outpouring’ with Todd Bentley. Now R. T. Kendall weighs in and his remarks are very welcome.”

    Annette presents How does one Mature? posted at Fish and Cans.Lop Off the Branches!

    Cut down the tree!  Lop off its branches! — Daniel 4:13

    A Sower presents They Never Saw It Coming posted at A Sower’s Heart.

    ChristianPF presents Biblical retirement posted at Money in the Bible | Christian Personal Finance Blog, saying, “A look at what the Bible says about the “American Dream” of retirement”

    Chasing the Wind presents Responding to Loss posted at Chasing the Wind, saying, “When Saul died, David has reason to celebrate, but he mourned deeply. What is it about David’s heart that God loved? What can David teach us about mourning? A study of 1 Samuel 1,2.”

    Brian Niece presents The ShadowPath of YHWH’s Open Story — Part 4 posted at Sacramental Living.  Get ready to concentrate a bit here, this is not light reading talking about some themes in the Psalms.

    25 You will be driven from civilized society, and you will live with the wild animals. You will have to eat grass like oxen and you will be bathed with dew until seven times pass over you, that is, until you learn that the Most High is sovereign over human kingdoms, and gives them to any one he wills. — Daniel 4:25

    Jeremy Pierce presents Voting and Calvinist Prayer posted at Parableman, saying, “Taking a page from Calvinist discussions of prayer, this post argues why it’s good to vote even if your vote will almost certainly have no effect on the outcome.”

    Richard H. Anderson presents Communal Meals in the Book of Acts posted at dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos.

    Raffi Shahinian presents 5 Reasons I’m Not on Twitter, and 5 Reasons I Should Be posted at parables of a prodigal world.

    34 When that period was over, I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me.
    I blessed the Most High,
    and praised and honored the one who lives forever.
    For his sovereignty is an everlasting sovereignty,
    and his kingdom endures from generation to generation.
    35 All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
    and he does what he wills with the host of heaven
    and the inhabitants of the earth.
    There is no one who can stay his hand
    or say to him, “What are you doing?” — Daniel 4:34-35 (NRSV)

    Read the whole chapter for yourself.  It’s worth it!

    That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of the Christian Carnival using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

  • Expect Christian Carnival #249

    . . . sometime this afternoon.  Thanks for the submissions!

  • Christian Carnival 249 Coming UP

    . . . right here!

  • Biblical Studies Carnival XXXV Posted

    . . . at Abnormal Interests.  Besides the fact that I have a post from my Threads blog listed, there are a couple of major sections that are particularly worth taking a look.

    First, there are numerous posts relating to recent discoveries relating to the history of Israel.  Duane did a great job of showing the diversity amongst the Biblioblogs and you can follow links from those to get a fairly complete current picture.  Much of this material needs further study (what doesn’t?) and it’s going to be fun to watch.

    Second, there’s a pretty good roundup of the rather good recent discussions on the historical Jesus.  I’m behind on reading these myself, even though my current reading from good old fashioned books is on the same topic.  Or perhaps it’s because.

    In any case, check the carnival out.  It’s worthwhile.

  • In Which God do we Trust?

    They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I’m never one to shrink from producing a thousand words–or ten! I wonder what a video is worth? A certain number of words per frame?

    In any case, I wrote earlier about God being mocked in the campaign and I even commented on how “In God We Trust” on our money must be some sort of national joke, considering that we don’t really trust God as a nation, and we do so in our financial affairs least of all.

    Now comes an image that’s worth every bit of it:

    A Golden Calf?
    A Golden Calf?

    You can find some more pictures and even video of some singing and (almost) dancing (Exodus 32:17-19) around the calf here.

    In relation to this, consider the following ad from the Liddy Dole campaign in North Carolina. Hear the part about “In God We Trust” on the money? What on earth is “godless money” anyhow, other than, of course, money that we put ahead of God and thus make into an idol.

    Well, that was probably easy to go through than a few thousand words!

    HT: One Thing I Know. Also to Dispatches from the Culture Wars for the video.

  • The Advantages of Stoning False Prophets

    Yesterday I was listening to the radio in my car and heard a woman caller inform the host that God had told her who to vote for in the election. She hadn’t been sure, and she had been inclined differently herself, but the good Lord told her to vote for Obama, and she trusted God above all, so that’s what she was going to do.

    It should shock nobody that it only took a song and a commercial break for another caller to inform the host that she had heard from God as well, who had told her to vote for McCain. I would be willing to bet it was faster than that, in fact, and that she was on hold through that song and commercial! (It was a DJ exchanging views with listeners, not a talk show.)

    Now neither of these women stated that they felt someone should regard them as “speaking for God” and commanding everyone to vote, though I suspect most would assume they thought they had found the right and godly think to do. On the other hand, I have received at least one e-mail telling me that someone had seen parts of God’s plan in vision and that McCain being president was part of it. For unknown reasons, the implication was that I should diligently go out and vote for McCain so that God’s plans would not be thwarted rather than that God could make sure his choice was elected. (God may have more than one vote, assuming he wants one. I’m not so sure.)

    Now I would distinguish all of these incidents from the many advocacy e-mails I get from friends and from political lists in that it’s very different to say that you regard certain things as righteous, and that those correspond best with a particular candidate than it is to say that God specifically gave you the right name. It’s a favorite topic of mine. In fact, I wrote a book about it, When People Speak for God. (Potential readers of this blog be aware that about 1/3 of the 246 pages of text was adapted from here.) In that book I dedicated a chapter to dealing with the manipulative claim that God told you something.

    Now I’m not trying to make fun of all people who hear from God. I will confess to believing that I hear from God as well. What concerns me is statements such as “God told me to tell you . . .” or the obvious implication. I have had people claim that what I told them came from God, i.e. that it was so on target for their situation that it must have.

    There are three explanations I can think of. First, I might be exceedingly insightful. Second, I might actually be speaking for God without knowing it. Third, it might be random chance. I would vote for the third option. If I were actually to consider all lines of advice I have ever given, considering uncertain items, items that were just plain bad, items that were good but pretty obvious, and finally items that were unusually on target, I’m certain you would find it would be very dangerous to equate my words with God’s will. My own decision making, while perhaps not truly horrible, is certainly no example of what I hope God’s wisdom would reflect!

    In ancient Israel, false prophecy was taken rather seriously. Deuteronomy 18:15-22 provides that the prophet who makes a false prediction should be put to death. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 suggests that even if he’s right, if his theology is too far (preaching rebellion against God), he must be put to death as well. My point here is not to present a theology of prophecy, but rather to point out that under those circumstances, it would be likely that far less people would want to proclaim something that they claimed God had said.

    The Biblical prophets actually make a fairly small number of predictions, and only a small percentage of those are very specific and unconditional. Most are more like warnings. “If you do X God will do Y to you.” It’s interesting, however, that a key element of prophetic speech is rebuking and challenging the cultural mainstream of their time. For some reason we do not have the writings of prophets who preached that everything was going well all the time. Second Isaiah (40-55) is one of the most positive and there is still a good deal of rebuke.

    I recall one pastor who, after hearing me discuss the nature of prophecy with a group of his parishioners, informed me that in their church they preferred “positive” and “encouraging” prophecy and were not so much into rebuke. But in the Bible one of the strong characteristics of the prophets is that they do not come to encourage us to stay as we are. They come to persuade us to change.

    Since I have both claimed that there is a great deal of “speaking for God” that is clearly false (it’s unlikely both the callers on the radio show heard from God), what is the point of “hearing from God” in the first place?

    Personally I find that those times I identify as hearing from God are ones that challenge the way I’m thinking and that provide the greatest insights. I have to sift them, because, as I said in my book and here on this blog, a telephone cord has two ends. There’s a speaker and a listener. I tendency when someone claims they heard from God is to focus on the word “God.” God is omniscient and won’t lie, though one should remember that he might send a strong delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11). So what we hear must be true, right?

    Hardly! Even if one admits, as I do, that God speaks, there is always the listener. I confess that my biases get into what I hear other people say. If I’m getting loose impressions of divine things, things I understand much less clearly that the topics of human conversation, how accurately will I understand and report those things? Thus hearing from God is a good way for me to push the envelope in my understanding, but everything must be tested.

    This is also scriptural. Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21ff to test everything, hold onto what is good and keep away from every kind of evil. This doesn’t tell us to go back to stoning prophets, but it does tell us to take consideration, testing, and discernment seriously. I think this passage is misread in many ways, or at least it would seem so based on actions.

    • Test everything, keep what is good, but don’t say anything about what is bad.
    • Test everything, hold onto what is culturally acceptable and discard the rest.
    • Test everything, accept everything as generally valid because you don’t want to be arrogant and tell someone they’re wrong.
    • Discard everything because it’s not possible they heard from God in any case.
    • Test everything, keep what you like, discard what you don’t like.

    Bottom line here, however, is to take responsibility for what you think and say, and also for what you hear, whether or not someone claims it comes from God. Try to find ways to find out if it’s true, moral, and useful (not moral or useful, the and is intentional).

    I really don’t suggest we stone false prophets. I simply suggest we should be more careful invoking the name of God. Personally, I’m prepared not to do so, but rather to let others decide if something I say is of that profound a nature, and to live happily in that vast number of times when they are saying, “Not so much.”

  • Next Christian Carnival (#248)

    . . . will be at Fish and Cans.  You have a couple of hours yet to submit your best work!