Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Distortion Not Good for Faith

    I blogged previously about the Answers in Genesis creation museum that’s going up in Kentucky in How to Waste $25 Million. Now the museum is about to be opened, and they held special events for the true believers yesterday.

    This museum is a monument to the desire to avoid scientific evidence and to present an interpretation of the Bible that has clearly failed. Young earth creationism serves to place the Bible squarely in opposition to science, and by “science” in this case I do not merely mean “the data of science as currently understood.” Young earth creationism goes contrary to the data that we have. But the approach of young earth creationism is also contrary to the very methods of science. It takes one interpretation of a religious text, determines a very large body of “things that must be facts” from that meager information, and then sets out to impose those results on whatever observations are made. This is not a search for truth.

    This indictment doesn’t apply as I’ve stated it to all creationism. Old earth creationists, for example, take a substantially different approach. It’s easy to forget that there are many conservative Christians who don’t have a problem with the age of the earth as determined and confirmed by multiple branches of science using many different approaches. While they disagree with varying portions of the theory of evolution, the collision is much smaller.

    It is worthwhile noting that ID (intelligent design) creationism differs again by only asserting the need for divine intervention at various points in the development of life. I think it is still right to call ID creationism precisely because of that demand for a special type of intervention. Many young earth creationists are now spending their time arguing for ID. Why? It’s a simple public relations strategy. If you challenge people with the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs lived with humans, you are running against such an overwhelming body of evidence from fields ranging from archeology to geology to biology, that many will reject you out of hand. So what you do is try to attack the scientific method in small ways, and do so in ways that some theists who believe in common descent can agree with you.

    But at the bottom line there are still the same group of organizations out there who are pushing a 6,000 year old earth, because, in their view, the Bible says so. But numerous Biblical interpreters don’t believe that the Bible says that at all. So what this amounts to is equating “faith” with their specific interpretation of a small portion of the Bible. And that, in itself, is a distortion. This is not faith versus science. It’s not the Bible versus science. It is a contest between a bad interpretation of scripture and the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. (I have some comments on the various interpretations here.)

    There’s an excellent article on the creation museum on the Panda’s Thumb. I like in particular the contrast between the spending done on creationism and that on scientific projects and education. Distorting the evidence and the record is not good for faith. It is building on the sand, a flawed building on a useless foundation at the cost of $27 million.

  • Affirming Feminine Spirituality

    My Christianity Today Connection news e-mail connected me to an article in Today’s Christian Woman titled The Goddess Unmasked. It’s a Christian response to Wicca, looking at reasons why women who have grown up Christian become Wiccans, and discusses ministry to them.

    It’s not my intention to discuss the issue of responses to various religions or specifically to Wicca here. This article caught my attention due to the topic, and it kept my attention because of the reasons, as summarized in this quote:

    What lies behind the allure of goddess worship and its sister religion, witchcraft/Wicca? For many—especially those women who feel marginalized or devalued by what they perceive as the traditional, male-dominated church—its appeal is found in its affirmation of female spirituality.

    It is very common in my experience that people who change religions from the faith in which they were brought up do so more because of the way they were treated than because they have been convinced that their old religion was false and the new one true. I’m going to guess that it is easier to recruit new converts amongst those who are loosely attached to their own faith or have been separated from it in some way, and that is usually going to be the result of a relationship problem of some sort, not just family, but community.

    They may well become convinced of the tenets of the new religion, but that wasn’t the starting point. I don’t mean here to call converts dishonest. I’m sure they are, in general, following their consciences. I also apply this same principle both to converts to and from Christianity or any other faith.

    I see a tragedy in this story in that so much of the church can be seen as male dominated. In some groups I know of, single women with children have been warned that if they don’t get married, and have a male in the home covering them, they are leaving the door open to Satan’s attacks, since they are not following the God-ordained plan for the home. That plan, according to these folks, is that a woman is always under the authority of some man.

    We give some lip service in many churches to the idea that God encompasses both genders, and thus is no more “male” than “female.” That is a good theological view, but try referring to God as “she,” even in many churches who would accept women as pastors, and the reaction will be negative. Using “parent” instead of “father” in reference to God is even controversial. I greatly appreciate Andrew Greeley’s mixture of gender language in his novels, which I regard as excellent presentations of the gospel in the form of fiction. But for many, referring to God as heavenly mother is just too jarring.

    On the other hand we can just as easily put down feminine spirituality in a condescending way, by talking about women being more spiritual because of emotional responses. “Isn’t it nice that the women are praying and crying at the altar,” someone says, with the obvious implication that such prayer is women’s work. This cuts both ways, by the implication that being male says you can’t have emotions, and that all women are totally subject to theirs.

    How about both men and women can be spiritual people, but they may be differently spiritual. Not less or more, but different. Just how different and in what way? That’s not my problem. All I need to do is follow my own spiritual walk and avoid criticizing that of others.

    If our concern is to keep people in our community of faith, the best approach, it seems to me, is to get about fulfilling spiritual needs. People who are put on the fringes, subjected to an amused tolerance, or even suppressed are likely to look for a place where those things don’t happen. Shocking, isn’t it?

  • The Dream Factor on Money

    Pastor Tom Sims has a good short note on Christians and money, titles Spelling M-O-N-E-Y Biblically. Money is a tough topic for Christians. We tend either to go overboard on prosperity theology or be afraid of prosperity lest it destroy us spiritually. Tom’s thoughts may provide some guidance.

  • On Churches, Drinking, and Weaker Brethren

    Joe Carter has an excellent post looking at the Christian standards on drinking. What does one do with the behavior of Jesus, who did drink? Would Jesus be acceptable as a pastor or elder in our churches or as a faculty member in our seminaries?

    I am a member of a United Methodist congregation, and our standards are a bit softer today, but historically Methodists have been quite strongly against use of alcoholic beverages. I grew up as a Seventh-day Adventist, and in that denomination drinking is strictly forbidden.

    My own choice, and I believe the right choice for me, is not to drink at all, but I do not believe that my personal choice is necessarily the correct choice for everyone. I would certainly not have a problem with church members or church leaders, including pastors and bishops, who used alcoholic beverages in moderation. What precisely “moderation” means may also be difficult to define, but I believe it’s an appropriate exercise.

    Carter concludes:

    These types of questions have important implications that go far beyond the concerns about drinking beer or wine. Where does Christian liberty end and institutional authority over matters of conscience begin? Obviously there are times when we need to delineate such boundaries. But we should be cautious about where we mark those lines — especially when they would put Jesus on the wrong side.

    Good point. I would add that I think we should be comfortable if the way we answer is in accord with the “royal law” (James 2:8). If I drink, I do need to be concerned for those who might stumble because of my action. If I don’t drink (my own choice), I need to make sure that people understand that this is my choice for my walk with the Lord, and not something I hold up as a universal standard.

  • My Latest Book (Partly)

    My new book wasn’t planned–by me, that is. Rev. Riley Richardson, pastor of Gonzalez United Methodist Church (and thus my pastor) were talking one day about books, and he said, “What I need is an extremely simple book that I can give to new members that will tell them what to do next and help guide them into discipleship.

    Discipleship: Jesus With Us

    Being a publisher, and more specifically a publisher whose publications are driven by what I perceive as educational needs in churches, I immediately suggested to Riley that he write such a book and I would publish it. But he didn’t jump right on the bandwagon until I offered to help. So on the new book you will see right below Riley’s name the phrase “with Henry Neufeld.” That means Riley got to make all the decisions, and I helped him produce it. I helped myself by incorporating material from some of our existing Participatory Study Series tracts with Riley’s approval.

    For those who don’t know him, Riley is an energetic, evangelical Methodist pastor. He’s practical and down to earth. So the book isn’t really mine, despite the title to this blog post, but I had quite a bit to do with it and I’m happy to be able to offer it as a tool for pastors, church leaders, and every member who has ever wondered what to do next when someone becomes a Christian or joins the church.

    The statistics are not so good for new Christians staying in the church. Discipleship and fellowship are key elements to sticking with it. Both Riley and I pray that this little book will be a help to many.

    This book will not (or at least should not) teach the pastor anything new about discipleship. It’s a tool to use in ministry and in sharing with others. Activities and study questions are included so it can be used in small groups.

    A couple of personal notes–first, nepotism is involved in the cover production. That beautiful cover is the work of my nephew, Jason Neufeld (contact info at jasonneufelddesign.com). Riley has designated his royalties to go to the Ukraine missions that are carried out by Pacesetters Bible School and partially supported by Gonzalez United Methodist Church.

  • The Right Type of Accountability

    I’m an advocate of accountability, especially in church matters and our spiritual lives. I think it makes for wiser decision making and greater likelihood that we will carry out our goals. Accountability can come in many forms, from very formalized, such as an accountability group that meets regularly in which you question one another’s spiritual life, or simply telling friends and family what it is that you’ve determined to accomplish. The value of these types of accountability varies, of course.

    The Washington Post has an article on accountability, which quotes experts to tell us a number of things about accountability that may seem like common sense, but in government at least we don’t seem to follow them. Perhaps having a few PhDs say these things will help!

    This article quotes Jennifer Lerner, now moving to the Kennedy School of Government, as saying that the wrong type of accountability can produce the opposite effect to what was intended, and notes,

    What she and numerous other experts have found is that particular types of accountability are needed for particular situations. Get the nuances wrong, and accountability backfires on you.

    In particular candidates in either party may be drawn to the left (Democrats) or the right (Republicans) by the voters who will get them nominated, and then feel accountable to those voters once elected. Thus they may do things that please that constituency, to whom they are accountable, rather than what they actually believe is right.

    Accountability may also make the decision maker favor things that are easier to explain, even when those things are not necessarily better. The article cites medical decisions, in which a physician may choose the course of action that would be easiest to explain in a lawsuit, for example, over what he or she truly believes is the best choice. From my own experience with the medical profession I suspect this would result in favoring a traditional, well-established course of action over something newer but potentially more effective.

    Of course it should be no surprise that accountability that kicks in before and during the decision is more effective than accountability that kicks in afterwards. We needed a good deal of research to figure that one out! But it is something we don’t always notice. Once a decision has been made, we’re more likely to spend our time justifying what we have done than in reflecting on what we may have done wrong. Questioning often simply hardens our stance on that matter as we get defensive.

    To relate this directly to church, consider the conflict between a forward looking ministry team and a hard-headed finance committee. We have the faith versus sight debate in full swing, with the ministry folks assuring the finance folks that they are following God’s leading and that God will provide for their need, and the finance folks pointing to the budget. Where is wisdom? I think each being accountable to the other is a good thing. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer.

    But that kind of decision is not limited to the church. In a business you would have a similar conflict between the creative folks and financial officer. Is this product worth investing in? Do we have the money to produce it? All the while the creative people are pointing out how sales will quickly bring in the necessary support. Or something like that . . .

    Accountability is good, but needs to be combined with the courage of our convictions and the humility to reconsider of favored ideas.

  • Being a Passionate Moderate

    I frequently am asked what I mean by “passionate moderate” or how I can be a committed moderate Christian. These questions come even more frequently than ones that ask how I can be a “liberal charismatic,” probably because “passionate moderate” is my self-label, whereas “liberal charismatic” was assigned to me by someone else.

    The term “moderate” has a bad reputation in some circles. It’s connected with “middle of the road” where there are, supposedly, only skunks and a yellow stripe. But I reject that characterization. I have indeed met “moderates” like that. Their answer to every question is to place themselves comfortably in a non-threatening center between all the people they know, and thus they are always arguing a mediating position.

    I simply reject that definition, and I don’t think it is even accurate in describing both moderates. For me, being a passionate moderate means that I do not accept the extremes as the only options. There are issues on which I am extreme. That’s because I have examined the spectrum as I understand it, and found that I belong on one end of it or the other. On many issues, however, I believe passionately in something more to the center. There is no reason whatever that I cannot believe passionately in any particular position I choose.

    I could try for another label, but I don’t know what it would be. It sounds “moderate” to me. Most self-identified moderates that I know would agree with my characterization. While some people fit the stereotype, the yellow stripe and dead skunks slur is just that for most moderates–a slur by people who want to force people into their extreme camps.

    I reject the “extreme” plan for spirituality, for politics, for my personal lifestyle, and for my way of thinking about everything. Thus I am a moderate, and I’m passionate about it. I’m a moderate Christian and I’m committed to it.

    More here.

    PS: One last thing. I don’t reject the label “liberal” either. It’s a bad word to some people, but there are many ways in which I can properly be called a liberal. An opponent once labeled me a “liberal charismatic” and that stuck, so much so that I used it as the subtitle to one of my books, Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic. Others label me as evangelical, which seems odd, but generally when they define how they understand “evangelical” I find I fit. Labels are troublesome that way. When one is moderate, one’s labeling can be confusing.

  • The Gospel of Masculinity

    Over the last few years we have seen a number of movements in Christianity to involve more men in the church and in spiritual activities. I welcome this trend, because spirituality has too long been the province of only a small percentage of men. This is not because I think that women need men to keep them straight in church. Rather, it’s because men need spiritual food as well. The church is enriched by the involvement of a great variety of people.

    The problem that I see, which was emphasized by Mark Driscoll’s recent video (link to my post about it), is that we reshape the gospel to fit the people instead of the people to fit the gospel. I don’t mean that the gospel is for only one type of people, but the gospel does (or should) change people in substantial ways.

    To some, however, there seems to be a new Jesus. Replacing “gentle Jesus meek and mild” is the Jesus who would own several guns, go hunting and fishing, be a sports fan if not an active participant, drive a pickup truck, and always have control of the TV remote. This is the Jesus who wouldn’t let anyone push him around, whose solution to crime is to go catch them and put them in jail or hang them. Some folks sound like Jesus likes people who don’t share these characteristics less. Men, such as myself, who don’t need to have the remote in their hands and don’t own a gun aren’t taking leadership and aren’t masculine enough. Their wives won’t really love them, and God despises their lukewarm attitudes because they are not clearly and obviously in command of their home.

    Now some good, very masculine men may be offended by that last paragraph, but you see I think the “gentle Jesus meek and mild” is also a dangerous caricature. For some years we’ve had in many churches the sort of Jesus who can’t stand the hunters and fisherman, who has a special section of heaven roped off for the folks who drive pickup trucks so they won’t get in the way of the truly spiritual folks who drive subcompacts, and probably doesn’t like cops because they arrest people instead of converting them.

    OK, now I’ve offended another group. My point is simply that Jesus is there to take you from where you are, and to lead you to be a better person, no matter what your personality. Christianity is not about making you into some sort of caricature of the personality someone thinks is most “Christian.” It’s about taking a variety of people and making them better able to serve their fellow human beings.

    There are folks who serve one another who are quite fond of guns. One pastor I know is a retired sheriff’s deputy. He’s a good shot and a wonderful Christian man at the same time. Another man I know personally is gay, and spends his life well beyond what we’d normally call “duty” in service for others. I know a dentist who has led numerous mission trips and has a special ministry to children when he leads teams in service. He also has a substantial supply of guns (I’ve handled and discussed most of them with him myself), likes to shoot, drives a pickup truck, and could be mistaken for a ruffian if you didn’t know him. My father, on the other hand, is an MD who was a missionary all his life, and served World War II in a conscientious objector’s camp in Canada because he refused to bear arms.

    All of these people were and/or are servants of God and followers of Jesus. There isn’t one stamp for it. A gospel of masculinity is not a good replacement for a gospel of femininity or any other specialized gospel we invent. What we need is a gospel that includes all those God is calling. God will make use of our diverse gifts and personalities and smooth the rough edges where necessary.

  • Christian Carnival CLXX

    . . . has been posted at Brain Cramps for God. It has a nice theme, lots of good information and many interesting posts.

  • Even Better Update on Driscoll Video

    Check this post on In Defense of the Faith for further information. One can’t be absolutely certain with blog comments, but this is beginning to make sense to me, I think. 🙂

    In textual criticism, we consider a reading that could give rise to all the others as more probable. This report–that the videos were available, but in a different way than expected–could give rise to all of them. This whole thing reminds me about making assumptions that one person’s take on an event is necessarily accurate, even if they are sincere.