Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • The Bible, Christianity, and Me (Briefly)

    I have seen a few comments lately from both sides of the spectrum about just where the Bible should stand in relation to Christianity and to a person’s personal beliefs. It seems that not only are Christians willing to define the role of the Bible for other Christians, but non-Christians try to explain to Christians, especially those who are not conservative, just how they should view the Bible.

    Basically, if I don’t take a very literal and direct view of scripture, these folks believe that I am not sincerely and really a Christian.

    Now the first answer to that, of course, is that it’s really not their decision to make. I don’t have to prove to anyone else that I’m a Christian. To the extent that I do so, I do so to the congregation of which I’m a member, and none of them are in any doubt on the matter. But ultimately, the only person to whom I must give account for my spiritual state is God.

    But there are a couple of simple facts involved as well. First, there is no Bible without a community. The Bible doesn’t define and create the community. The community defines the Bible. Inspired by God, in fact, the community creates the Bible. There are really no Biblical Christians, just a Christian Bible.

    There is no external way to determine just how one should take the Bible. One has to look into the Bible, as well as at the communities that have formed and interpreted it to discover that. Modern fundamentalism has tried to pretend that they are somehow historical Christianity, but they are not. They’re just another community using the Bible in their own way.

    Nobody does everything the Bible says. Nobody can. It is a document that reflects and in some cases records a history of belief, not a systematic belief system. Nobody can make good use of it without intelligently applying experience and their own reason. Unreasonable people with a Bible will tend to become more unreasonable. It really helps much more with the process of asking questions than in finding final answers.

    Some will suggest that only the extreme literalist approach is valid. I hear this even from those who have left the Christian faith entirely after rejecting that approach. I understand how they could reject that approach, I do not think such an approach has any hope of making sense out of scripture at all. I fail to see where they imagine that they get a mandate to take that approach. Normally, they present me with texts interpreted their way to prove that I should interpret the Bible their way. Having rejected their way, however, I am unimpressed. My preference is to discover from scripture just what it is and how it has come to be, and to learn from both the experience it records, and the experience it reflects in the history of its text.

    It’s what makes sense to me, and that is all it really has to do.

  • Which Theologian Am I?

    Always presuming, of course, that I’m not myself. I can’t resist these quizzes. This one is Peter Kirk’s fault.

    Which theologian are you?
    created with QuizFarm.com
    You scored as Paul Tillich

    Paul Tillich sought to express Christian truth in an existentialist way. Our primary problem is alienation from the ground of our being, so that our life is meaningless. Great for psychotherapy, but no longer very influential.

    Paul Tillich

    67%

    Charles Finney

    67%

    Friedrich Schleiermacher

    60%

    Jürgen Moltmann

    60%

    John Calvin

    53%

    Martin Luther

    33%

    Augustine

    33%

    Karl Barth

    33%

    Anselm

    20%

    Jonathan Edwards

    13%

    I’m not surprised by either Tillich or Finney. I’m surprised that I’m that high even for Augustine, Calvin, and Luther.

  • Apes, Lies, and Chick Tracts

    There’s a propaganda piece that has been showing up in Florida, possibly as part of the fight against evolution in new proposed educational standards. It comes from a site with which I’m fairly well acquainted–Chick Publications. One sickening piece of propaganda from that organization is titled Apes, Lies, and Ms. Henn.

    It is obvious that the intention of the publishers is that we see evolution, and particularly the idea that, as the tract says, people “come from monkeys,” but the real lie is in the tract itself. And as we will see, this is not the only such publication produced by this same organization.

    Dirty politicians could learn lessons from this material, though they would probably endanger their own careers if they used too many of these techniques. There’s a line beyond which politicians are seen as negative, and I’m afraid these would qualify.

    Look at these elements:

    We start with a substitute teacher. Did you notice that “Mrs. Tucker is replaced by “Ms. Henn.” In this way one sweeps various elements of modern life, such as women’s liberation, along with the teaching. Of course, Ms. Henn looks like everyone’s notion of a witch–demonic even–which is clearly not accidental. We’re supposed to see her as the embodiment of evil.

    There is no actual teaching of evolutionary theory portrayed, and all questioning is shut down. This is, of course, what a control freak like Ms. Henn would want to do, and is, of course connected to evolution. The tie-in is quite intentional, of course. Propaganda against the theory of evolution frequently suggests not merely that there is insufficient evidence, but rather that there is no evidence. In their view, the only reason people accept the theory of evolution is that they are desperate to find a way to avoid God. Scientists like Dr. Kenneth Miller or Dr. Francis Collins don’t fit into their universe. A Bible teacher who accepts the theory of evolution, such as myself, would certainly be beyond their grasp.

    There’s the standard misuse of the word “prove/proof” when Ms. Henn claims that “scientists have proven it.” She shouts this, of course. Now there’s little point in vetting this whole propaganda piece for facts–there really are none there. It’s not intended to convince anybody of such mundane things as facts; rather, its purpose is to smear those who teach evolution at the same time as one tries to scare people with the fires of hell.

    Yes, as you continue to read, this gets worse. As a Christian Bible teacher, I am appalled to see this go forward into what apparently is intended as a gospel message. Lie first, then threaten, then pretend to be preaching good news. Nobody with the slightest knowledge of the facts will actually be impacted by this kind of thing, except, perhaps, for some nausea. But people who are uncertain of what they believe will be threatened by the fires of hell, because, you see, people who believe in evolution are definitely going to hell. In fact, Susy informs her little classmate that “most people are going to hell.” You have to close your eyes and your mind, or you’re headed for the hot place.

    Frankly, I must tell you that the first part of this was standard. I grew up with jokes and smears about “evolutionists” who ignore God, ignore all facts and evidence, because they are just so determined to believe evolution. As I studied actual data, I found that this picture was completely false, so blatantly false that I have a hard time believing that people teach it honestly.
    But to tack onto that a supposed teaching of the Christian gospel message made it even worse. The intent is to impact young and impressionable minds with the idea that the vast majority of scientists, and even most Christians are part of an evil conspiracy, are lying to themselves and everyone else, and are therefore going to hell. Which is, of course, precisely what these people believe. It almost makes me wish I took hell a bit more literally myself. There would surely be a special level of hell for liars of this caliber.

    But let’s go forward. The folks at Chick are not satisfied merely to tell us that all those who accept the theory of evolution are going to hell. They’re careful to make sure that folks read just the right Bible. Notice at the end that you are advised to “read your Bible (KJV) every day.” They have a number of pages filled with misinformation in support of their position on the KJV. In fact, if you read this, you might get the idea that all those who use any other Bible version are preaching “another gospel.” Probably they’re all headed straight for hell too. (For more information on Bible versions, see the tract What’s in a Version? and my Bible Version Selection Tool.)

    Then we can try this tract in which a Catholic dies and finds out he’s in hell, because he wasn’t a real Christian, at least as defined by the folks at Chick publications. He’s part of “most people” who go to hell. Unfortunately for him, he believe his priest, and you know that won’t do. In fact, he is even depicted tearing up a Chick Tract. (One could almost suspect that’s the unpardonable sin!)

    We find out here that the American Bible Society is also corrupted because they produce the CEV, which, in the twisted logic that applies in the very special world of Chick Tracts, turns out to be much more favorable to the Catholic Church. So an organization of dedicated people who have spread the Bible far and wide are, in fact, not serving God at all, but that other guy.

    There are very few Christian ministries that I will attack outright as I have done here. I try simply to go for statements and not the group as a whole. Doubtless, even at Chick publications, there are people who sincerely believe they are defending the faith. But this type of publication is not a blessing to the church, it is not the right way to reach people for Jesus, and it is not sound doctrine. It needs to be exposed as precisely what it is.

    I do not permit the use of Chick tracts, even the less offensive ones, at any ministry event in which I am involved, and that will continue to be my policy. There is simply too much danger that someone will go further, and be turned aside in their spiritual journey by hate-filled propaganda. That would be a tragedy.

  • Origen Censors Scripture Reading

    In the prologue to his commentary on the Song of Songs, Origen recommends that certain portions of scripture, in particular the Song of Songs, should not be read by people who are not sufficiently mature:

    “But solid food is for the mature” and requires such people as listeners who “have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” [Hebrews 5:14-HN] Thus, if those we have called “little ones” come to these places in Scripture, it can happen that they receive no profit at all from this book or even that they are badly inured either by reading what has been written or by examining what has been said to interpret it. . . .For this reason I give warning and advice to everyone who is not yet free of the vexations of flesh and blood and who has not withdrawn from the desire for corporeal nature that he completely abstain from reading this book and what is said about it. . . . [Source: Ancient Commentary on Christian Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews, p. 79]

    Now I have frequently thought that a number of passage might be restricted, though I’m uncertain just why the first chapters of Genesis are considered that way, unless the issue is the first couple naked in the garden. I’d wonder about Judges, especially starting with chapter 13, and even more especially with chapter 17. Ezekiel 16 might be a good candidate, along with Numbers 31.

    One might not want children to get too clear a picture of what goes on in those chapters. I suspect, however, that new believers will be a different matter, and that converts will be much less likely to submit to censorship of their reading of Christian scripture.

    In addition, this provides an interesting application of Hebrews 5:14, one I had never thought of before. I have considered that certain scriptures could be (and have been) dangerous in the wrong hands, but I’d never thought of treating it as a maturity issue.

    I’ve added a poll to the right sidebar. Consider answering it, and if you have any thoughts, leave a comment.

  • Blogroll: Quality of Christian Apologetics

    I really wasn’t going to blog about my blogroll today, but An Evangelical Dialogue on Evolution had such a good post that I wanted to link to it, and at the same time I can check off another blog from my blogroll for this round of linking.

    He also links to a post on Through a Glass Darkly (got to love that name!), a fellow member of the Moderate Christian Blogroll. Both of those posts are well worth watching. While I’m at it, I should mention both a disclaimer and a sneaky commercial. My company publishes a set of books on Christian apologetics, the Consider Christianity Series. Having had the experience of editing that set, I would see some points of agreement and disagreement between what these two authors had to say and that series.

    That aside, I think both authors make important points. I am only going to add a couple of things. Apologetics by nature tends to operate quite differently from science. In apologetics, we have our beliefs, and then we try to back them up. The question is how we will back them up. That, of course, interacts with what those beliefs are in the first place.

    An inflexible belief system will tend to produce apologetics that is questionable, simply because one has to work to stretch the facts to accommodate the belief system. A purely evidentiary apologetics will run into this problem, unless it can alter details of that which it defends, and even then it may be difficult simply due to the nature of reality. We simply can’t know enough to tuck in all the loose ends. On the other end of the spectrum, purely presuppositional apologetics often tends to make too many things into presuppositions, and one ends up with a very well ordered package of beliefs and defenses, but very little connection to the real world. Some presuppositionalists will consider that a good thing!

    Between those two extremes, however, are various views that recognize both faith and evidence, and in evidence recognize subjective elements that go into a belief system. For example, I would claim to commune with God pretty much on a daily basis. Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t think this makes me inerrant, nor does it mean you should believe me more than the next person. I’m not making any claims based on it–it’s just part of my spiritual life, and is something I think can be part of anyone’s spiritual life, should they so desire. Is that evidence? Well, it certainly isn’t objective evidence. I’m not going to tell you where your dog ran away to, or what the stock market will do during the day because of my mediations. There is no special light that gathers around my head. Yet that has a great deal to do with my own belief system, rational or not.

    I like works on apologetics that show some struggle with the issues (both posts I reference make good recommendations) without claiming to finally solve all of the problems. That fits with the universe as I experience it, and with God as I experience him. Neither can be tied up neatly and labeled “closed,” and I think neither is likely to go that way. But both invite me to experience them, think about them, argue about them, and look for evidence as to their nature.

    It’s more like a theme park ride than it is like a train ride with a fixed destination.

  • Praying for your Enemies

    Rev. John Shuck of First Presbyterian Church of Elizabethton, TN, would like people to stop praying for him.

    That should be a provocative enough opening line! What’s more, I think a few of those people at least should do just that. More importantly, they should quit talking about praying for him.

    I’m guessing that they start from something like this:

    But I say to you, “Love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.” — Matthew 5:44

    OK, so what am I, a Bible teacher, doing telling people not to do something Jesus commanded them to do. I obviously must not be a REAL CHRISTIANTM.* Well, not so fast. Let’s take this just a little bit further before we consider it settled.

    (more…)

  • Why I Don’t Like Left Behind

    Hat tip to Gentle Wisdom for this quiz on eschatology:


    What’s your eschatology?
    created with QuizFarm.com
    You scored as Amillenialist

    Amillenialism believes that the 1000 year reign is not literal but figurative, and that Christ began to reign at his ascension. People take some prophetic scripture far too literally in your view.

    Preterist

    100%

    Amillenialist

    100%

    Moltmannian Eschatology

    60%

    Postmillenialist

    35%

    Dispensationalist

    25%

    Premillenialist

    25%

    Left Behind

    0%


    Now I know why I don’t like the left behind books! It was also mildly funny to discover that I don’t have an “eschatology” category. I think I’ll leave it that way and just use the tag.

  • Once we faced Lions . . .

    Now we’re afraid our neighbors might think we’re weird. A Christian ministry founder says he believes American Christians are not ready for persecution. I wonder what was his first clue? [HT: Dispatches]

  • My Theological Worldview

    . . . at least according to this quiz. (HT: Gentle Wisdom)

    What’s your theological worldview?
    created with QuizFarm.com
    You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

    You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God’s grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

    Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

    93%

    Emergent/Postmodern

    75%

    Roman Catholic

    61%

    Charismatic/Pentecostal

    54%

    Neo orthodox

    54%

    Classical Liberal

    54%

    Modern Liberal

    43%

    Reformed Evangelical

    18%

    Fundamentalist

    0%

    I suppose that settles it. Not!