Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Excessively Large Tent = Crash

    I have written a few times before on the need for a core of essential beliefs that provide a basis for community along with a broader set of non-essentials on which people can agree. Probably my most comprehensive discussion of the issue is in Unity, Diversity, and Confusion.

    Over the last few days I’ve been following the story of Episcopal priest Ann Holmes Redding. I don’t recall where I first saw it, but the story above will do.

    Now I’m a big tent person. I like diversity. But in order to be a community there also has to be commonality. I frequently encounter people who advocate one or another form of interfaith spirituality. Almost all of them will claim that they have discovered the essentials of religion and that on those essentials the various faiths they combine have no conflict. What I have never found, however, is that those claimed essentials agree with what committed adherents of the individual religions would call essential.

    I’m not writing against interfaith spirituality. I’m not even writing to criticized Redding’s own spiritual journey. But I do believe that the Episcopal Church has a serious tent size problem in this case. Many commentators have been upset about such issues as ordination of female priests and bishops and the acceptance of homosexuality in the Episcopal church. But no matter how one stands on those issues, one should recognize that they are less central than the incarnation itself. Between Islam and Christian lies the doctrine of the incarnation as an impassable barrier.

    I think the Episcopal church would share with the United Methodist Church (of which I’m a member) one characteristic: Neither has the central coherence to deal with this level of diversity. I don’t think Christianity can handle it.

    Again, this is not to condemn the individuals who hold such beliefs. As strongly as I believe in the incarnation as the core of Christianity, I also believe that I am not to judge. But I can look at the community and how well it can function, and this goes beyond making a functional community.

    Two other Christian reactions: Pursuing Holiness and NRO (HT: Locusts and Honey).

  • Moral Absolutes

    Most of the time I read the evangelical outpost to keep me up to date on intelligent conservative thinking. I can disagree with Joe Carter, and often do, but I never call him stupid.

    Today, however, he hit on an important topic–absolute truth. Now I’m all in favor of humility about our personal knowledge about truth, and about the appropriateness of trying to force truth as we understand it on others, but the post-modern age bothers me a good deal in that so many people appear (to me, at least) not to be in the search for truth at all. They’ve given up.

    Carter put it in balance here:

    Christians, on the other hand, would be more like the second umpire, who recognizes that there is an objective reality even if our ability to perceive it is somewhat limited.

    You’ll have to go read his whole post to get his truly great baseball analogy that makes this whole idea even clearer.

    The only place I would amend his statements is where he says: “Christians, however, can know moral truths and thereby know more than their po-mo neighbors.” I have two amendments. In spite of significant problems I might have with their epistemology there are post-modern Christians. Post-modern isn’t binary. One can be more post-modern and less, in my non-absolute, relative opinion. But further, those who are not Christians can also know moral truths, though that is a longer topic.

    I also wrote on this for my wife’s devotional list today, Seeking Truth. In that one I allowed myself to have some fun! Yes, I’ve been writing quite a few devotionals for the list recently.

  • Worst Worship Song

    Peter Kirk is discussing the “worst worship song,” a theme (or proto-meme?) that seems to be running amongst the Christian blogs, and he’s particularly concerned that “Heart of Worship” is regarded as the worst by a number of bloggers.

    That one isn’t my favorite, but I also wouldn’t call it the worst. I’m a bit more of a hymn person, preferably accompanied by a fine pipe organ or excellent synthesizer.

    A great deal of the quality of worship music has to do with the time and circumstances. Too many times worship leaders just work off a list of favorites.

  • Notes and Links on Atonement

    I’ve gotten severely behind in reading the current atonement debate, but I haven’t ceased being interested. I note that Adrian has taken to throwing passages at his opponents, ones which we’re sure to have read before, including Isaiah 53, and 2 Corinthians 5. Because I accept substitution and even penal substitution as valid metaphors, but not as the key or sole metaphor, I am not surprised to find some substitution in scripture.

    I wrote two items on the atonement in partial response to the debate. The first is an entry for my wife’s devotional list, which was posted this morning and expresses my view that understanding the details of doctrine is not nearly as important as many seem to think. The second is a few notes on Isaiah 53 and the suffering servant.

    There is quite a bit of good stuff on the atonement going around the web right now. I got a link to Is Your Gospel Robust Enough, and I wish I could give a hat tip to the right person, but I can’t find where I got the link. The post discusses our excessively individual view of salvation, a problem that is common to many advocates of PSA–and to many of the rest of us as well.

    Dave Warnock is preaching from Ephesians 2:11-22, one of my favorite passages, and is doing a wonderful job of it. At the same time Peter Kirk is keeping active, with a post titled UCCF Director contradicts the Bible and the Apostles’ Creed which he starts from a comment he made here.

    I plan to get back to talking about literary genres tomorrow, but I may be tempted to say more about the atonement. You can always hope not!

  • Religion and Politics Forum

    I was happy to see this forum take place, though I only had time to watch a portion of it as it played. (I must note also that I am resistant to watching major political debates this far from the election.)

    The major reason is simply that there have always been many more people of faith, and even of Christian faith, than are represented by the “religious right.” This forum shows that there are more people out there interested in faith issues or part of a faith community than those conservative Christians who are also conservative Republicans. I would hope at the same time that we express issues in the public forum from the broadest possible foundation, so that they can communicate with people of many faiths or those who are not believers.

    I am motivated to love my neighbor from within my faith in Christ. I want to keep the royal law to love my neighbor. I can express the policies that I support in many ways. When I communicate with those in my community I may speak in one way. When I address those outside, I may speak another way. When I write on this blog, I realize that there will not only be Christians who will read it, but a variety of folks who are not Christians. Public debate needs to be open to all those options.

    I’m not going to be afraid to express my faith, but at the same time I believe that if the policies I derive from my faith are also for the common good, I should be able to express the reasons why they are for the common good.

    In the meantime, such forums as this, and programs such as ONE Vote 08 will help demonstrate that not all religious voters have the same beliefs, no matter what many in the media appear to believe.

  • Agreeing with Piper – Twice!

    Laura has a good post with some material from Dr. John Piper. I have previously disagreed with Piper on PSA, whilst joyfully and vigorously agreeing with him on hearing God’s voice.

    In this case, I agree with him on both items, even though my placid nature would probably have resulted in a less vigorous use of vocabulary WRT the prosperity gospel. Nonetheless I agree with what he said about it. In particular I reject the notion that the prosperity gospel is the result of advanced revelation. I believe that there can be modern revelation, but if the prosperity gospel is “advanced revelation,” it’s the advanced revelation of a new and different faith, not the next step for Christianity.

    His article on Ayn Rand is also worth reading. I found much to agree with there as well.

    Thanks to Laura for pointing us to these items.

  • Slippery Language on the Atonement Debate

    Adrian Warnock is again posting on the penal substitutionary atonement (PSA) issue, now about an interview with the authors of Pierced for Our Transgressions.

    Now I’m not going to post on PSA today in detail. But Adrian manages to demonstrate some aspects of this discussion from his side of the fence that annoy me-no, that’s not strong enough. I think these statements are just plain wrong.

    At the end of his post Adrian says:

    Where do you stand? Will you join arms with Andrew, Steve, and a whole generation of those of us who feel this issue is quite literally one of life and death?

    Or will you seek to compromise, maybe downplay the importance of precisely how Jesus saves us, and adopt a gospel message that, whilst sounding more acceptable to the modern ear, is in the opinion of many of us nothing less than “another gospel.”

    The stakes couldn’t possibly be higher.

    I’m willing to allow most of the first paragraph. My answer to that would be a resounding NO!. I do not in any sense stand with them on this issue. But I do think that for some people it may be an issue of life and death. Those who malign the character of God through their doctrine may well have to answer before God for those they have driven away. I don’t want to overplay that point, however, because as imperfect humans I suspect we all have those moments and even years when we do not perfectly represent the gospel of Christ. Nonetheless, grace abounds! Where is there evidence that such grace is comprehended on the PSA side of the debate?

    But my major concern here is with the second paragraph: “Or will you seek to compromise . . .” This is the method of extremist madness. You dismiss the opposite extreme, and divide the rest of the world into people who are right and people who have compromised. The compromise, of course, is with that unmentionable evil that has been cut out of the spectrum. It’s “us good guys” versus the compromisers.

    Adrian continues with “maybe downplay the importance of precisely how Jesus saves us . . .” Downplay? Who’s downplaying? I reject absolutely and utterly the notion that precisely how the atonement is accomplished is a critical piece of knowledge. I call that view “salvation by correct doctrine” and I reject it along with all other human based systems of salvation. However Jesus did it, he did it.

    And again: “and adopt a gospel message that, whilst sounding more acceptable to the modern ear, is in the opinion of many of us nothing less than ‘another gospel.’” Of course I adopt what Adrian and many others regard as “another gospel.” Why? I regard what they are preaching as dangerously close to “another gospel.” The only reason I don’t call it another gospel outright is that I think many people sincerely grab hold of the message of PSA and are saved, never understanding any other aspects of atonement. The preachers of PSA are grabbing a part and making it the whole, and it gets twisted on the way. But even further, I do not adopt my view because it is “more acceptable to the modern ear.” I adopt my view because I believe it is right. I believe scripture teaches a multifaceted understanding of the atonement and I also believe scripture teaches that we should realize that we don’t fully comprehend any doctrine, but most especially the incarnation and the atonement.

    I’m not heading again into writing on PSA in detail right now. I’ve written a few things before. My response here is simply to the dismissive type of language that tries to pretend opponents are not working from conviction, but rather from a desire to be more acceptable to the modern world, and to “compromise,” that compromise being with something that is dismissed without discussion.

    Almost Instant Update: Just after I hit the “Publish” button, my RSS feed showed a new post by Peter Kirk which is well worthwhile reading.

  • Taking [Part of] the Bible Literally

    It appears that some young earth creationists take Genesis very literally, but are perhaps a bit less literal in their understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:1-7. The Australian Creation Ministries International is suing the American Answers in Genesis over a number of issues.

    For those who might not know, here is the passage from 1 Corinthians:

    1Do some of you dare, when you have a dispute with another, to have it judged by the unrighteous and not by the saints? 2Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you then unworthy of judging even the smallest issue? 3Don’t you know that we will judge angels, not to mention the issues of ordinary life. 4So if you have a lawsuit regarding ordinary matters, will you then seat as judges those who are disdained in the church? 5This is shameful! Is there not one among you who is wise, who can judge between brothers? 6Must one of you Christians go to the law against another and before unbelievers at that? 7You’re already defeated when you have to go to the law at all. Why would you not rather be injured? Why would you not rather be defrauded? — 1 Corinthians 6:1-7

    Now I understand how to apply time and circumstances to that passage, but then I’m one of those near-heathen liberals who doesn’t accept the literal creation story. I wonder how literalists justify such behavior? Well, here is where they do it, though I think if I got that much liberty to play around, I could find a way to get past the literal interpretation of Genesis as well.

    HT: The Panda’s Thumb

  • More on Bible Curriculum for Public Schools

    I have previously expressed my concerns about Bible classes in public schools, even as electives. These objections come from multiple directions. Because I support separation of church and state, I prefer to keep such classes out, even though in principle they have been held to be constitutional. As a Christian, I believe there is a serious danger in having a Bible class which will necessarily be from one perspective provided at state expense. I think providing Biblical knowledge is part of the function of the church. As a Bible teacher I’m concerned with the competence of prospective public high school Bible teachers.

    My objections do not apply to inclusion of scripture passages in literature class as appropriate to the academic goals, nor to references to the Bible at appropriate places in history. There is good reason to be acquainted with the Bible and how it has functioned in western history especially, but that goal is best attained by teaching the Bible as part of those other classes, not with a specific Bible curriculum.

    In particular, the NCBCPS curriculum has been found not to meet the needs of teaching a neutral, academically sound Bible class. I have reviewed only the reviews and not the material, but the points brought up by the professional reviewer are well-taken, and precisely correspond to the objections I have to public school Bible classes.

    Ed Brayton has an excellent post on this which quotes a letter from a Jewish teacher in the Odessa, Texas public schools. The link also leads to other letter that illustrate some very unchristian attitudes about this program.

    I strongly oppose the inclusion of this curriculum in any public school program.

  • John Wesley Quote

    I was looking for something else, but I can’t resist posting this quote:

    I advise you never to use the words wisdom, reason, or knowledge, by way of reproach. On the contrary, pray that you yourself may abound in them more and more. If you mean worldly wisdom, useless knowledge, false reasoning, say so; and throw away the chaff but not the wheat.

    Source: Wesley, John. A Plain Account of Christian Perfection, London: Epworth Press, 1952, p. 89. This booklet is a collection by Wesley of a number of writings on the topic over the course of his life.