Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Avoiding Shoot-First Apologetics

    My Christianity Today Connection e-mail this morning contained a link to an excellent article, Shoot-First Apologetics. I don’t want to steal the thunder from the article itself–go read it in place, but I do want to quote from the e-mail:

    And while defending the core elements of our faith is imperative, we sometimes shoot too hastily at those we’ve misidentified as enemies.

    I would like to note that the folks involved in this discussion are conservative evangelicals. The issue of courtesy in what we say, and care in determining friend and foe is one that cuts across the lines of the various parties in Christianity. It’s very easy to identify “different” as “hostile.”

    Of course we do need to remember that even if we identify someone as hostile, Jesus commands that we love that person, and not in the cartoon sense–“love those meeses to pieces!”

  • Just What the Bible Says – Again

    By reading the new Methoblog portal, I located an entry The Use and Misuse of the Bible . Most of this is a quote of a sermon by A. Allen Brindisi at Davidson College Presbyterian Church, which you can read here, though there is a substantial quote in the blog entry.

    To quote from the sermon:

    There is the rub: to distinguish between what the Bible seems to say, and what it “really

  • Familiarity with God’s Voice

    Laura has another good post on Pursuing Holiness on hearing the voice of God. She says:

    It’s very convicting to realize how easily I recognize voices – even of people I’ve never met – from the world, and how I struggle to discern God’s will in my life. So what’s the difference? Exposure.

    Just so! If you ask my wife in the evening she will be able to tell you whether I spent the necessary amount of time on my devotional reading, meditation, and prayer that day. And she’ll be right. I’m not talking about how much time I spend reading the Bible academically, as in research for my writing, but devotional reading, but how much time I spend listening to what God has to say to me.

    Go and be convicted by Laura’s post. 🙂

  • Wisdom, Discernment, and Creation

    My Breaking Christian News E-Mail tipped me off to this article on http://www.worldnetdaily.com”>WorldNetDaily titled End creation-evolution debate in your home. This sort of thing amazes me and makes me very, very concerned. The article advertises a new printing of the book Bishop James Ussher, The Annals of the World.

    Now I certainly do not mind seeing an old book reprinted, but even the title of the article makes ridiculous claims for this book. It will certainly not settle anything about creation-evolution debates. One should be warned by someone giving a month and day for the creation of the world based on texts that are at best written in years and with considerable doubts about those.

    But the article also calls this book “. . . a favorite of homeschoolers and those who take ancient history seriously.” That is simply incredible. Practically the entire field of ancient near eastern archeology has been created since that book was written. It is, itself, a historical artifact, and not a good source for the facts of the history of the world or of their interpretation. If homeschoolers are being taught history in this fashion, we have a great deal to be worried about.

    This is not wisdom and disernment. This is gullibility. I was homeschooled myself. Understand that I’m not criticizing homeschooling as such, though I do believe that many people try to homeschool who have neither the skills nor the discipline for it. But I am criticizing the use of materials that are not appropriate to the task for which they are used.

  • Hidden Hate – Open Rebuke

    Yesterday I had planned to write a response to the Ted Haggard situation, but other issues got in the way, and then the story developed. I was going to talk some about the meaning of forgiveness combined with accountability and openness. I would have said that we didn’t know yet precisely what had happened, but that he had done the right thing by stepping aside and letting an independent oversight board take a look.

    All of those things are true still. We don’t know precisely what happened, but we do see a bit more fire and less smoke. I would still say that forgiveness involves putting aside our resentments so that we do not poison ourselves with anger, but at the same time that forgiveness doesn’t remove consequences of someone’s bad choices. Accountability is still a key, and simply the fact that there are structures in place that look like accountability doesn’t mean that a person is really being held accountable.

    (more…)

  • Reformation with Warts

    27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and he chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong, 28and the world’s inferior and despised things God chose

  • Atheist-Christian Discussion

    I have noticed from time to time that Christians become very angry with atheists or other skeptics in debate simply for being and saying who they are. Many regard any questioning of their faith positions as impolite, and some even regard such discussion as a form of persecution. It has always seemed odd to me.

    When I discuss theology with an atheist, for example, I expect that he or she will:

    • Deny the existence of God
    • Deny the truth of substantial portions of the Bible
    • Find miracles vanishingly unlikely at best, and most certainly denying the virgin birth and the resurrection
    • Find the idea of the atonement fairly silly
    • . . . and many, many more obvious differences of opinion

    These seem so obvious to me, but I’ve encountered some Christians who become offended when a skeptic expressed each of those positions. I’m not sure how one can fail to be offended when someone says he’s an atheist, and yet suddenly become offended when he also mentions that he believes God’s existence is about as probable as that of the tooth fairy. It seems to me that one implies the other.

    So if I wish to have a conversation with such a person–and I’m pretty much interested in dialogue on philosophy and religion with most anyone–then I have to realize we will differ on these things, and accept that in order to dialogue, we will both have to express our differences. Since I believe in God, and an atheist by definition does not, he will have to tell me in one way or another that he thinks I’m wrong. He might use words like misguided, deluded, or something similar. He may well explain all my spiritual experiences as the result of physical causes, and call them delusional. He might point to the doctrine of hell (in the form in which many accept it) and describe God, were he to exist, as a mass murderer.

    To put it bluntly, I’m quite happy with any or all of those options. If that is what someone believes, that is what I’d like them to express to me. I’m not saying they don’t need to consider the public relations angle in general. But I would like to know what they actually think.

    This little post was inspired by Duane Smith’s post Thoughts on Richard Dawkins at Cal Tech. I have to confess that I really enjoy reading Richard Dawkins. He writes wonderfully well and explains difficult topics with great clarity. I can read and enjoy him, and appreciate his writing, and yet disagree profoundly. It sounds like I would have enjoyed his presentation as well, as I have enjoyed hearing him interviewed on TV. In fact, while he is often vilified as the true example of an over-the-top atheist, I have found him to be very careful and precise in stating what he does and does not belief. He’s not unaware of the nuances in theology, even though he doesn’t choose to give those of us who “practice” those nuances much room to maneuver.

    Having said all of that, I still should make clear that I disagree with Dawkins in a substantial way. I’m a theist, and he’s not. I’m in the crosshairs of some of his remarks. But why should I not be?

    It seems to me that in much of what passes for dialogue in the public forum we have gotten whimpy about ideas. I’m not talking about name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and diversionary tactics. Those detract from the issue. But I’d really like to know where it is that Richard Dawkins has behaved in this way. I can and do get somewhat heated about his comments about providing a religious education for children. But based on the remainder of his beliefs, I have a hard time seeing how he could avoid the conclusion that children would be better off without any form of religious indoctrination.

    In fact, I would ask my fellow Christians to look and see whether the shoe does not fit all too well. Often religious education is not education, but is really just indoctrination. I hear complaints from church leaders all the time about young adults leaving the church, but often those same church leaders are looking for teachers who will “teach the young adults the truth” and keep them from going astray. When I had the opportunity to plan curriculum for youth, I went out of my way to let them hear about other faiths. There was a field trip to a synagogue, I invited an Imam to come in and talk about Islam, we read materials about positions other than those of our own denomination.

    Do I still disagree with Dawkins on this point? From what I’ve read thus far, I very much do. But I don’t think he has stepped over any sort of line in saying so.

    If we, as Christians believe that there are things that are true and things that are false, and that it’s worthwhile to accept the truth and reject falsehood as much as we are able, perhaps we need to encourage each person to express his or her understanding of what is truth, and let’s test this in open discussion. If we are to do this, we have to drop the notion that a particular view is by nature impolite. And while I’m at it, for the same reason we can’t cut off discussion from the conservative side of the spectrum. If we try to shut up those who believe that homosexuality is an unacceptable lifestyle, or that all abortion is evil, rather than engaging in discussion, we will make it harder to find good policy positions.

    Courtesy is good, but when courtesy is interpreted as a demand to cut off expression, then it can easily become a danger.

  • Assurance and Success

    It’s another early Sunday morning and it should shock nobody to know that I’m thinking about baseball, life, and spiritual matters. It is a little bit odd to me to realize how often I think of baseball metaphors these days. Until I started going out with Jody, now my wife, I never watched or thought about baseball at all. I remember sitting with her and asking silly questions as we watched my step-son John Webb pitching for Manatee Community College. I didn’t know what a strike was at that point. Now John is playing winter ball, and I’m reflecting on the world series. How things change!

    The headline on MSNBC read Cardinals “shocked the world” to clinch Series, or actually just one of the headlines on that and many other news services. Nobody expected the Cardinals to win the series. Nobody expected them to be in the series. A few times, we were thinking they wouldn’t make it to the post-season. As it happened, however, they not only won, but won in a convincing way.

    So what happened? Well, I’m no expert, even now, having learned what I know of baseball of the last eight years watching John, and occasionally bugging him with questions on the phone, but I have observed human nature over the years and I think the Tigers got used to winning in the post-season. They said the right things about overconfidence, but I think it slipped in anyhow, and when they went up in that first game against the Cardinals and realized that the reality was not going to be the same as the predictions, that assurance (or over-assurance as it happened) went away, and then desperation set in.

    Good players make silly mistakes when they’re shaken, and that’s precisely what Detroit did. Don’t take anything away from the Cardinals who pulled together as a team, worked hard, played well, and clearly kept their mental attitude together. But the Tigers helped them out, and did so with the type of errors they should not have made. Despite all their comments about knowing the Cardinals were a tough team and they would have to work for it, I think deep down they believed the predictions. They thought they were going to walk all over the 83 win upstart team that was tired from a seven game series with the Mets, and then it didn’t happen.

    There’s something interesting about assurance or confidence. It has to be in precise balance. Overconfidence is deadly. Underconfidence is deadly. Only confidence will do. Once you’re off to one side or the other, it’s hard to get back in balance. That, I think, was the key element of the Cardinals win, and something for which Tony LaRussa is to be congratulated, along with several of the leaders on the team: They managed to go from underconfidence to precisely the right level of assurance and performance. That’s not easy to do in baseball, or anywhere in your life.

    Hebrews 10:35 reads: “35Don’t throw away your boldness {or confidence, assurance}, which has great reward.” Don’t throw it away!

    But the secret is that there are two ways to throw it away–under and overconfidence. You can observe this with students in a class. The ones who are very, very confident are often the ones who don’t study and get into trouble. Then there are the ones who are so underconfident that they don’t believe they can get anything done. Somewhere between are those who have the right amount of confidence, so they study as much as is necessary, but don’t kill themselves doing things that are not necessary.

    Good confidence, and good boldness and assurance involves three things. Realistic, but not pessimistic goals, realistic estimation of what is necessary to attain those goals, and lastly, reliance on the right things.

    In the spiritual life especially, assurance involves the one in whom we place our trust, Jesus, the “pioneer and perfecter” of our faith. But both in our spiritual life and in our day-to-day living, we also need to look at ourselves to see whether we’re moving forward. A pioneer goes before, but no matter how well the pioneer prepares the way, the person behind still has to decide to follow, and still has to count the cost and prepare to pay it. Overconfidence results in underpreparation.

    In our spiritual lives, one key way in which we can keep our confidence level in balance is through spiritual disciplines. I don’t have a formula for this. For me, it’s devotional Bible reading and time for prayer primarily. For others there may be other formulas. How do you know? Discover what spiritual disciplines help keep your mind in balance. Pursue those.

    Don’t let anyone steal your confidence–in either direction.

  • An Intelligent Designer in the Gaps

    I think there is a great deal of misunderstanding of the problems with a “God of the gaps” position. This is not a logical fallacy, but rather is more like an observation on the one hand and an implication on the other. I’m not going to try here for a deep philosophical discussion, but rather a simple overview of what I see as the practical application of God of the gaps positively and negatively.

    Essentially, “God of the gaps” results when people first credit some observed phenomenon to the action of God, then discover that this phenomenon has a natural explanation, and finally remove that activity from God’s sphere. In reverse it effectively says that God’s action is to be observed in the things that we do not understand.

    It is quite possible for someone to hold that God is equally active in both the things we understand and the things that we do not. But that is not the God of the gaps position. When one argues that God is demonstrated by particular things that we do not understand, and that complete understanding would remove that evidence, that person is essentially using a God of the gaps type of argument for the existence of God.

    Let’s take an example. In arguing for intelligent design, Michael Behe proposes that there are irreducibly complex systems, that there is no evolutionary explantion (using all natural causes) to explain the existence of such systems. He further claims that there can be no evolutionary explanation because incredibly improbable events would have to occur to produce all the parts of the irreducibly complex system simultaneously and in the proper relationship. The proposed solution is an “intelligent designer” who puts these things together.

    Now Behe does not claim that the intelligent designer must be God, but nobody actually proposes any plausibly designer other than God. Any lesser intelligent designer would itself require explanation. So for the moment, let’s assume that the intelligent designer is God, and that Behe’s argument is an argument for the existence of God. There is this system which could not be produced by natural causes, yet it exists, so it must be designed, and through other logic we arrive at God as the designer.

    Now suppose I am convinced of the existence of God by this particular argument. Then some fine microbiologist discovers a plausible evolutionary path for producing the system that I was convinced was irreducibly complex. What do I do? Well, if I’m honest I determine that this piece of evidence for the existence of God is no longer valid. If it was the key to my belief, I might have to give up my faith. Otherwise I might still believe, but have one less piece of evidence for that belief. God essentially would have retreated, at least in part, from this section of my universe.

    This is not precisely a logical fallacy, although it could lead to one or two. It is quite possible that something of which I am not aware has tinkered with the development of life on earth. Though I personally don’t believe it to be so, God could be intervening regularly in the development of life. One is not required to reject the notion that “God did it” outright.

    But of what value is that claim? We have two major problems. First, it’s been done many times. As natural explanations have been discovered, people have seen less and less need to assume God’s activity. Second, God makes a rather lousy hypothesis. Now before my Christian friends accuse me of blasphemy, let me note that my car makes a lousy hypothesis as well, but it’s quite an excellent car. God doesn’t make a good hypothesis because he is not an hypothesis. He is too undefined for that, and more importantly his power is not sufficiently limited in our definition. An hypothesis that explains everything explains nothing. It’s the equivalent of “stuff happens.”

    Christian students of the Bible and theology who reject the God of the gaps type of argument do not do so because it is logically impossible. We do so because it conflicts with our understanding of how God functions in the universe, and because as such it has been an untenable position in the past.

    Intelligent design resembles a “God of the gaps” argument in that it finds gaps in human knowledge and plugs God into the gap in our knowledge. I cannot be certain that they are wrong in each and every case, though I see no particular reason to believe they are right. But simply asserting that an undefined intelligent designer did it sure sounds to me like the intelligent designer in the gaps.

    It’s going to be simple to watch and see. If evolutionary scientists continue to discover new processes and fill in the gaps, then ID will continue to look like a “gaps” type argument and will have all its failings, particular a receding God, and explanations that explain nothing. ID advocates now accuse evolutionary scientists of lacking detailed explanations of the development of various systems, while in turn they simply claim that “the designer did it.” I can’t exclude that as a possibility, but I also can’t see any positive evidence in its favor. It’s pretty clear to me now, and time will serve to make it even clearer.

  • Who am I Trying to Please?

    Note: I’m cross-posting this from my wife’s devotional list. I’ve been writing a number of devotionals for her during a season when she’s often too busy to write them. This one I thought might apply rather broadly right now, especially during the elections.

    10So is it people that I’m trusting now, or God? Do I try to please people? If I tried to please people, then I wouldn’t be a servant of Christ! — Galatians 1:10

    What is your final authority? How do you decide what is right and wrong?

    In this passage, Paul makes it very clear. He doesn’t put his trust in people. He doesn’t try to please people. But even more forcefully, he says that trying to please people is incompatible with being a slave (or the more gentle servant) of Christ.

    Now if you read the whole passage from which this verse is take, at least Galatians 1:6-24, you’ll find that Paul is talking about the gospel, the message the he had preached to the Galatians. He was not prepared to give up the gospel of Christ for anyone. It didn’t come from people, he didn’t learn it from people, and he was not going to give it up for anyone.

    But I want us to look behind Paul’s concept here for something that is more universal. Normally when people teach from this passage they are telling us to look at Paul’s gospel, and to stick with that. And I think it’s good to check your understanding of the gospel against what Jesus and the apostles preached. But I don’t think that quite gets to the point.

    (more…)