Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • A Difference in Agendas – John 11:1-16

    I noticed a theme in this passage that I think is important. If you look at the response of the disciples when Jesus proposes to go to Bethany (v. 7-8). They believe it’s too dangerous to go there. It appears to me that for the two days that Jesus delayed, the disciples assumed that he was not going to Judea because of the danger.

    It doesn’t say that explicitly at the beginning of the chapter, but since that is their immediate reaction when Jesus says he is going, I suspect they spent those two days in relief that Jesus had chosen not to go to Lazarus, even though he was sick.

    But when Jesus announces that he will go to Bethany, the disciples suddenly realize that Jesus is not on their program. He has a kingdom agenda. He is going to do the thing that brings glory to God. Ultimately, this trip is dangerous–so dangerous that it leads to the cross.

    The question for each one of us is this: When we come to that fork in the road, which agenda is first for us: personal safety or advancing the kingdom?

  • Respecting Elders and Adjudicating Church Property

    [Note: I’m fighting the flu, which is why I didn’t post at all yesterday. I’m up to reading again today, and found a few things to comment on.]

    Peter Kirk posts on the church congregation of which J. I. Packer is a member, which has voted to leave its diocese and join the southern cone. This is not in my denomination, but it is becoming a more and more common issue as various denominations turn leftward, and conservative congregations try to leave their denomination.

    There are two issues that concern me a great deal. The first is about the treatment of J. I. Packer. Now you don’t have to read more than a few posts to realize that I’m not very near J. I. Packer on the theological map. But I think those of us who are moderate to liberal in persuasion need to make sure that we treat people who disagree with us with a certain degree of respect. I am open to correction on this, but I fail to see where Dr. Packer has done anything to warrant this type of treatment. It appears to just be an attempt to silence him, and probably not a very effective one at that.

    But second, this reminds me of a number of cases in this country in which property issues have landed churches in court. Now I don’t see that happening here in this particular case, but in many cases here in the United States, congregations are winding up in court over church property. There is very little value, I think, if a denomination keeps a piece of property, but loses the members.

    When the dust has settled, and when we all stand before the great judgment seat of Christ, I don’t want to be the one who took a congregation to court over property issues. I can see some technical justification, but I think with Paul that we should say “It would be better to let yourselves be cheated and robbed” (1 Corinthians 6:7 CEV).

    Where we have to separate in terms of congregations and denominations, we should all be able to agree to make a maximum effort to do so in a Christ-like manner, at least as much as is possible when disuniting. (Christ-like schism? Is that possible? Maybe it’s the flu!)

    From a Christian point of view this treatment of Dr. Packer seems to come from the same angle. It looks like a rather unChrist-like attempt to score points because someone annoys you. Liberals should be in favor of openness. More importantly, Christians should treat one another with respect, and treat an elder with due respect. This looks like scoring cheap points.

    Update: Can I use the illness excuse again? I somehow missed the fact that there is a property issue in this case. So it is more precisely an example of the issue I’m talking about here.

  • Christian Carnival #213 Posted

    . . . at my Jevlir Caravansary blog. I note that I failed to include a post of my own or one from my wife, so I shall have to go over there and add them!

  • A Conservative Christian Republican for Obama

    I found this post via if i were a bell, i’d ring, and find the arguments used interesting. Not being as conservative as the the post author, I have less policy concerns with Obama than he does, but I find his arguments very interesting.

  • The Historical Virgin Mary – II

    In chapter 6 of his book What Have They Done with Jesus? Dr. Ben Witherington continues his discussion of the historical Mary, mother of Jesus. In general this is a harmonizing account based on all sources combined, though primarily it works from John and Mark.

    I have already discussed the issues I have with this approach to establishing the historicity of the specific material, so I will continue simply looking at the general outline Witherington is producing of Mary.

    He begins with he wedding at Cana, which he concludes is not the wedding of Jesus himself, which is probably a good conclusion, assuming the story is accurate as told in John. He also cites a number of incidents showing that Mary did not become a disciple until the crucifixion. He also finds no basis for the idea of the the perpetual virginity of Mary. He believes that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were indeed blood half-brothers and sisters.

    There are two very interesting sidelines. First, Dr. Witherington says of the beloved disciple and Mary beneath the cross that “[w]e may perhaps also see a symbolic foreshadowing here of the equaity of man and woman beneath the cross” (p. 127). If it was anything but the gospel of John I would think he was reaching, but this is precisely the sort of symbolism that one finds throughout the Johannine narratives.

    Second, Witherington includes Revelation 12:1-6, the woman clothed with the sun, under references to Mary in the New Testament, but he sees the possibility in the symbolism of a reference to Mary’s activities here on earth, and not to her position in heaven. It’s quite worthwhile reading this section in particular. (I have previously written about Dr. Witherington’s commentary on Revelation, which I believe is the best currently available for the non-scholar.)

    I am generally less optimistic about the historicity of particular narratives, but nonetheless I found these two chapters on Mary fascinating and helpful.

    The next section discusses “the disciple whom Jesus loved.”

  • Christian Carnival #213 Coming

    . . . and will be posted here tomorrow. You have until midnight tonight eastern time to get your posts in. Come one, come all (qualified folks!) and submit your posts!

  • Would Jesus Do This?

    Ken Hutcherson, pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland seems to believe that Jesus would respond to courtesy with violence:

    On a Sunday when Tarico was present, Hutcherson was preaching on gender roles. During his sermon, Hutcherson stated, “God hates soft men” and “God hates effeminate men.” Hutcherson went on to say, “If I was in a drugstore and some guy opened the door for me, I’d rip his arm off and beat him with the wet end.”

    “That was a joke,” Hutcherson said Friday, when I asked him about the comment. But it’s not really funny, is it?

    This doesn’t seem like an appropriate, Christ-like statement to me, even as a joke. I think it’s important that men realize they can be Christian and be men at the same time. But we don’t need a concept of masculinity that calls for inappropriate violence.

    When I read that I thought of the many times I have opened the door for a man. Sometimes I do so because the man is elderly. Sometimes I do it because he is carrying a heavy load. Sometimes I do it just because it’s convenient. I don’t think it makes me any less masculine.

    It’s time we reject definitions of masculine that involve senseless violence. Defending my home, yes. Defending my country, yes. Running around attacking people because I don’t like their personality or the way they portray themselves, absolutely not. I can’t even see how it can be a question.

    Bill Engvall talks about handing out “Stupid” signs. Perhaps we need a “violent bigot” sign. Then I could be sure never to open the door for such a person.

    (HT: Dispatches.)

  • The Historical Virgin Mary – I

    After discussing Simon Peter, Ben Witherington, in his book What Have They Done with Jesus? proceeds to deal with the information we have available on the Mary, the mother of Jesus. This continues with chapter 5. (Previous entry in this series is Search for the Historical Simon Peter – II.)

    I should make it clear that while I have been complaining about some of the historical claims that have not been backed up adequately in my view, Witherington is doing an excellent job of covering the details and connecting them. I wouldn’t want to give the impression that this work is careless or poorly written. I have a certain tendency to focus on points of disagreement.

    Mary and the virgin birth is another point of disagreement. While I believe one can make somewhat of a historical case for the resurrection, or at least that something extraordinary did happen Easter morning that changed the disciples from cowards into courageous men. It’s harder to demonstrate just what that must have been. I don’t believe a miracle can be proven historically, but one can point to something that was not ordinary.

    But the virgin birth is much harder to demonstrate or suggest historically. Witherington makes the claim on page 99 that this is all too improbable not to be true. I think this is an odd claim. First he appeals again to the criterion of embarrassment. Why would the disciples make up a story that involved embarrassing information? This use of the criterion is quite good. Indeed, there must have been something to explain. Then Witherington suggests that an easier way to counter the charge of an illegitimate birth would be to propose Joseph as the father. But I’m guessing that Witherington hasn’t worked in politics. I doubt that suggestion would have done anything to counter the original charge.

    As a point of faith, one can accept a virgin birth. For those who accept Jesus as the Christ, it becomes much easier to accept the idea of a virgin birth rather than an illegitimate birth. But as a matter of historical probability, I think we must admit that, even for the mother of an extraordinary person premarital sex is a more probable explanation than a virgin birth. This seems to me to be a place where one must clearly separate the “faith view” from a simple statement of historical probability.

    Witherington continues with some excellent material correcting common misconceptions about the meaning of the early chapters of Matthew and Luke, and the early life of Jesus. He quickly and effectively outlines the material we have, and notes the things that we don’t know.

    Of course the goal of the chapter is to place Mary as an eyewitness to Jesus, and thus to find what we can learn about Jesus from what we have heard about Mary. Witherington even notes that if Luke 1 & 2 comes from any witness, that witness must most probably be Mary.

  • Regeneration and Baptism of the Holy Spirit

    OK, readers, this is a strictly Christian type of argument. Is regeneration and the Baptism of the Holy Spirit the same thing?

    Since I haven’t link to him in so long, some may think I no longer read Adrian Warnock’s blog, but that is quite incorrect. I still subscribe to his RSS feed, but he’s been reposting his most popular articles from last year, and I had already commented on the ones I wanted to. Today, however, I read his post Lloyd-Jones on How to Grieve the Holy Spirit. To quote briefly:

    “There is nothing, I am convinced, that so ‘quenches’ the Spirit as the teaching which identifies the baptism of the Holy Ghost with regeneration. But it is a very commonly held teaching today, indeed it has been the popular view for many years. It is said that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is ‘nonexperimental’, that it happens to every one at regeneration.Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones So we say, ‘Ah well, I am already baptized with the Spirit; it happened when I was born again, at my conversion; there is nothing for me to seek, I have got it all’.” [Please read the larger quote from Adrian’s blog.]

    Since I have published previously on this topic, let me start my response with a quote:

    I believe that the baptism is an experience God intends for all Christians, and that ideally it should occur in connection with initial conversion and water baptism. There are ongoing opportunities for the Holy Spirit to ‘infuse’ us with more gifts and increases in gifts throughout our spiritual walk. There is ALWAYS more!”

    This is from a summary of the pamphlet I Want the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. The pamphlet expands on it, but is still very brief. Essentially, I deal with two concerns. The first is the possibility that any singular experience can be used to divide Christians into classes. Thus we have “Spirit-filled” Christians and ordinary Christians. The second is that we decide that a singular experience is all there is of Christianity. There is a variant on this that would suggest that once one has received the baptism of the Holy Spirit as a specific, identifiable event, then that is the end of one’s experience.

    My friend Dr. Bob McKibben, in his book Holy Smoke! Unholy Fire!, holds a somewhat different view. (Note that my company publishes Dr. Bob’s book.) I begin my quote after he has referenced four texts in the gospels about the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

    Each of these passages refers to the same setting. John the Baptist is making reference to Jesus Christ and in each case the baptism of the Spirit is something that is yet to come. John is referring to a future event, which most scholars contend is the day of Pentecost. Let’s move from the gospel references to the Book of Acts:

    And while staying with them he [Jesus] charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father, which, he said, “you heard from me, for John baptized with water, but before many days you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 1:4-5)

    In this passage, our Lord is speaking to the disciples sometime after His death and resurrection, but before His ascension into heaven. Like the verses found in the gospel accounts, Jesus is speaking of an event that is yet to happen. Again, like the gospel accounts, this text is looking forward to the Day of Pentecost.

    There is a reference in Acts 11 that looks back rather than forward, but again you will find that it refers to the ministry of John the Baptist:

    As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, “John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 11:15-16)

    The seventh and last verse which refers to the baptism of the Spirit, without using the exact phrase, is found in I Corinthians 12:13. This verse clearly speaks of unity within the church, which is the Body of Christ. This verse also makes clear the point that there are not two different groups or categories of Christians. As you read this verse, do so prayerfully, discerning what Paul was desperately trying to impress upon his beloved in Corinth:

    For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free – and all were made to drink of one Spirit. (I Corinthians 12:12-13)

    Paul used the metaphor of the human body to explain the principle of unity within the Church. Just like the body, the Church is an organic whole made up of many different members. But Paul is making it painfully clear that even with the plurality of members, there is only one kind of Christian. The church – body of Christ does not possess two different kinds of Christians, some with the Holy Spirit and some without, or some with more of the Holy Spirit and some with less.

    Using these seven Biblical references to Baptism of the Holy Spirit, I believe that there is only one Baptism of the Holy Spirit and it occurred on the day of Pentecost as described in Acts, chapter two.

    I fully understand Bob’s concern here with only one class of Christians, but I also share the serious concern expressed in the quotation that Adrian has provided. In the end I’m probably more concerned about the latter. Too many Christians see only a singular experience, and see no possibility for growth or change. I see sufficient scriptural evidence to suggest that we are talking about two things in the life of the believer, yet that the two elements should ideally happen simultaneously. Unfortunately, we tend to believe that if both happen together, we have no need to stoke the fire after that, and on the other hand if the two occur separately, we have an excuse to divide Christians into classes.

    I’d suggest one class–Christians who have entered the gate (regeneration) and are following the path. But if you are on that path and have not experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life, seek it out. It doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit hasn’t worked in you–you would hardly have entered the gate without the Holy Spirit’s work. It does mean that there is more to experience in your life with God.

  • Search for the Historical Simon Peter II

    This post continues from this one and is part of my series blogging through Ben Witherington’s book What Have They Done with Jesus?

    This chapter continues the theme of the previous chapter. Witherington is creating profiles of the various claimed eyewitnesses in the New Testament and then using them to tell us about Jesus. With certain assumptions, this isn’t a bad plan. It makes for engaging reading. The problem for me is that I don’t accept all of the assumptions he uses, and without those, the procedure can look fairly silly.

    If I’m not convinced on the face of it that the book of Matthew, for example, is a totally reliable witness to the life of Jesus, then how will I be convinced that I know Peter based on that book, and that I can rely on the testimony of this “Peter reconstruction” to establish facts about Jesus.

    I should make one proviso here. Witherington has a number of chapters, most of the book, to go, and may do a better job of establishing the historical basis for accepting the source documents as reliable. I simply don’t see that he has done so yet.

    To illustrate my point, let me refer to pages 82-87 which discusses the incident with Cornelius. Early in this process Witherington makes this statement:

    … We can pretty much rule out the possibility that he made it up: it is hard to imagine Luke, who idolized and was a one-time companion of Paul, making up a story about Peter being the first missionary to the gentiles. … (p. 83)

    Now I see several problems here. Witherington makes the assumption that Luke-Acts was written by the companion of Paul, which implies a certain interpretation of the “we” passages in Acts. That’s a good possibility, and I’m inclined toward it myself, but it is not a consensus position. But then he makes the assumption that Luke would want to make Paul the initial apostle to the gentiles. I think even if the first assumption is good, Luke (whoever he was) shows that he wants to connect Paul more closely with the Jerusalem church than Paul does himself. What better way to legitimize Paul’s mission than to claim that Peter actually opened the door?

    I see a much more favorable view of Jerusalem in Acts than there is in Paul’s epistles, and this would suggest that whether or not Luke idolized Paul (an uncertain statement), he apparently also wanted to present Paul as being on good terms with the Jerusalem church.

    There is a subtheme of these chapters that I do appreciate a great deal, and that is the place of women in the early church. Luke-Acts is a good place to find this theme presented. One shouldn’t be surprised that we occasionally have to read between the lines. For those who pay attention it is clear that Luke is giving a greater place to women and to non-Jews. Witherington tracks this theme very carefully.

    My negative comments should not be taken as meaning I’m not enjoying the book. Witherington writes quite well and it’s very interesting following his logic. As a presentation of one way of providing a profile of Jesus, it’s quite good and thorough. Thus far it has been instructive and interesting.