Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Criticizing Religions

    I have long been an advocate of permitting criticism of Christianity, because I think allowing such criticism is good for my religion. I have friends who would regard my religion as a delusion, and I encourage them to speak directly about what they believe. This is not a matter of commitment to legal free speech, though I do believe that the first amendment should be protected. That is an area in which I might even be regarded as extreme. I say this from inside the Christian faith. If we try to use legal or forceful means to blunt or eliminate criticism, we will be the poorer for it, intellectually and spiritually.

    Now we have the remarks of Pope Benedict XVI. I already commented briefly on those, noting that I’m not too much of a fan of the pope, but nonetheless I did not off hand see anything wrong with his remarks that would justify the kind of reaction they are receiving. Despite the Pope’s apology I have not changed my view.

    In an article I read yesterday, but from the September 25 issue of Newsweek, Jon Meacham said:

    Much of the Regensburg address was a meditation on faith and reason, the roots of religiously inspired violence and the need for believers to see God as a figure of love. Roughly put, his argument was this: to Benedict, Islam’s conception of God so stresses God’s will that God can be understood to command the irrational.

    The problem is with a quotation from Emperor Manuel II. As is usual, many people have brought up the crusades at this point. But one should consider the fact that Emperor Manuel’s situation was one of being invaded by Muslim conquerors. I deplore the religious justification of violence other than as self-defense, yet this emperor was defending himself. Again, I’m not an apologist for the crusades, but one must remember that Christian territories were being conquered by Muslim conquerors. I’m not an expert on the history of that period, but I am certain there were various justifications from both sides.

    The Christian actions in the crusades should not mean that we can no longer have dialogue. True dialogue is also impossible when one cannot criticize.

    Again, quoting from Meacham’s article:

    Then why did Benedict quote the emperor in the first place? The most likely answer is that, no matter what the Vatican says now, the pope believes in having what the Catholic theologian and papal biographer George Weigel calls “a hard-headed conversation

  • Muslim Protests of the Pope’s Remarks

    I have not been very excited about the vatican over the last few years, and I was not overjoyed when the current pope was elected, but in general since I’m not a catholic, it’s not something I get very excited about.

    But the current round of protests about the Pope’s quotation of a medieval text on Islam in a speech to college professors just emphasizes again that there is an element in modern Islam that simply cannot tolerate freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry. Now the words of a major Christian leader are different from the publication of one person’s cartoons, and the history of the crusades adds a negative element to the context, but nonetheless this kind of universal protest and anger in Islam is, to put it mildly, inappropriate.

    I know that Christians also protest negative things said about them, and the Muslim world provides plenty of opportunities with a number of grossly irresponsible leaders who have serious mouth control problem. Still, I don’t think they should be forced to shut up. That’s freedom of expression. I’m not talking about the legal right of free speech, but of the concept of freedom of expression.

    But many Muslims are reserving to themselves the right to insult practically everyone else, while protesting any effort to respond. Let me be clear. There are moderate Muslims with whom I have no problem. In fact, I have no problem with any Muslim who is not planning to try to use force to impose their views on me or on my country. They can use as much peaceful persuasion as they wish. At the same time, I condemn every person who feels that they should be able to shut up their opponents by threats of violence. I would suggest that western leaders, religious or otherwise, refuse to apologize or respond in any way while angry crowds run around the streets protesting words and images.

    The behavior in these protests is stupid, and it should be condemned as such. The behavior of those who threaten death to westerners is evil, and it should be condemned as such. If protesters want to burn down pieces of their own countries, that is the problem of those countries and those people. And yes, when Muslim countries deny rights to women, or impose cruel punishments on their people, it is appropriate for people to condemn those activities and those laws.

    Having said that, if westerners or Christians call for violence against civilian populations in the Muslim world, or any unjustified violence against anyone, they should also be condemned. At the same time, their right to express their view should be protected. The pope may have made less than the best choice of words, but thus far, I don’t even see that much of a problem in his speech.

    Freedom is threatened right now on every side, in our own government here in the United States through authorization of torture and indefinite incarceration, in Europe through the imposition of politically correct speech, and in the Muslim world by the advance of fundamentalist Islam. The only remedy is for those who love freedom to defend it by word and deed at all times.

    (OK, I’ll get off the soapbox!)

    Note: Actually let me note that as long as the protests are non-violent, the protesters also should be allowed their expression. I would certainly consider it hypocritical, however.

  • Nation Whose God is the LORD?

    Today while doing grocery shopping, I saw a T-Shirt with the slogan: My faith and my freedom are one. Underneath was the verse: Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD (Psalm 33:12).

    I don’t know who provides such a shirt, but that slogan troubles me deeply. I think it reflects the problem that many Christians have with unhypocritical support of freedom of religion in this country and elsewhere in the world. Now there is a theological sense in which I can understand the claim that faith and freedom are one. There is a point of spiritual freedom, the freedom to make spiritual choices and to build a healthy relationship with God that comes, for me, through my faith. But a key element of that spiritual freedom comes from the fact that it was freely chosen. That faith is my faith, and even though I share a fellowship with Christians because it is also Christian faith, it bears a distinct stamp.

    But with the accompanying text (about which more below), I’m pretty sure that’s not the freedom we’re talking about. There are a number of groups that advocate a Christian nation, one built on Biblical principles and enforcing Biblical laws. Let’s ignore, for the moment, the incredible problems there are with simply producing a “Biblical” system of law. One’s hermeneutic is quite determinative of what one holds to be applicable, and even amongst people who advocate a Christian nation, there is considerable variety of interpretational principles.

    There are those who advocate a nation that lives a life of holiness. What this means, in practice, is that they want a single set of moral standards enforced on everyone, derived from the Bible in whatever way they derive things. This will mean marital fidelity in the strongest sense–not only no sex outside of marriage, but no premarital sex, no common-law marriages, and modest apparel and lifestyle. It will mean that homosexuality cannot be tolerated anywhere in the nation. Blasphemy, of course, cannot be allowed, because how can a “holy nation” allow such a thing? Thus freedom of speech will be prohibited. Of course, idolatry and worship of any other God but “the LORD” however defined, must be eventually forbidden.

    Now I’m not arguing against anyone’s advocacy of a particular code of morality for their lives and for those in their spiritual community. I do that myself, and my own code is actually quite conservative and restrictive–to me! But for various reasons, many groups of Christians have decided that somehow true freedom can only come with the practice of Christianity. At the moment, they will advocate permitting other groups, but they want them to exist in a Christian nation and live up to Christian principles.

    They do so often for quite contradictory reasons. One broad grouping believes that Christianity has replaced Israel in God’s scheme, and that America is a new Zion, a new promised land, in which all the promises of blessings will be fulfilled if only we will follow the laws and purify the land. If you encounter such a view, don’t let them claim moderation. That slope is a very slippery one, and unless you are 100% in agreement, eventually you’re going to find yourself on the outside.

    Another broad group continues to believe that Israel is the benificiary of God’s promises to Israel, but they believe that those promises can be extended to our nation if we behave, as a nation, in the same way. This is a bit more logical on the first point–the promises after all were made to Israel, and there is nowhere in the Bible that might indicate a transfer to the United States of such blessings. But it is less logical on the second point, because we take random promises and random blessings and apply them on a national scale.

    Either of these groups needs to read the second half of the verse I quoted above: and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance. Clearly the reference was to Israel, and “the LORD” is YHWH, the proper name of Israel’s God. God does promise blessings to other nations, but not on the same covenant basis as he does for Israel itself. Either transfer or extension of that covenant needs some serious theological undergirding, and none is forthcoming from advocates.

    Jesus never advocated establishment of a physical nation. What he did was advocate people, with the kingdom of God in them, living kingdom lives. I challenge you to find Jesus advocating anything similar to the seeking of blessing on a national scale through somehow forcing them all to agree to identical moral codes. In fact Jesus seemed to be against the imposition of any detailed sets of laws on people; he was a revolutionary advocating the spirit rather than the letter.

    Freedom will not survive in a Christian nation, not because Christianity is bad but because it is a spiritual faith offering a relationship with God to individuals. Christianity applied by force should be regarded as an oxymoron. In fact, Christianity applied by force has repeatedly resulted in persecution of opponents and dissenters, and in a faith that bears little relation to Jesus. Non-Christians should be very careful to guard against the type of Christian who says that his faith and his freedom are one. But Christians should be equally careful. We are commanded to make disciples from all nations, but that does not mean that we should try to make the nations themselves into disciples. Christianity does not work that way and was never intended to do so.

    Freedom is freedom and faith is faith, and neither will flourish unless faith is freely chosen or rejected. Because of this I am absolutely opposed to the notion of a Christian nation. A nation with lots of Christians in it, yes. But even if 100% of the population were to choose freely and without pressure to be Christians, I would advocate complete freedom of religion, because anything else would be destructive to faith (and of course to freedom).

  • More on Bible in Public Schools

    Ed Brayton calls attention to a Texas Freedom Network report on the teaching of the Bible in public schools. Not surprisingly, the report is not good. Bible teaching is constitutional under certain specific circumstances, largely amounting to requiring that it be taught as an academic subject in a non-sectarian way. The recommendations by the Texas Freedom Network, available at the link I provided, are good ones, if public schools are going to teach Bible courses.

    I have previously commented, however, and I continue to believe that it is not best to have Bible courses in public school. I still continue to believe that is the best policy. That doesn’t mean that the Bible shouldn’t be mentioned. I think it will find an appropriate place in literature, history, and comparative religions, for example. But a class specifically in the Bible presents problems.

    From the point of view of a conservative Christian, the possibility that Biblical criticism will be taught is a serious issue. What view of the Bible is to be taught? Should it be taught as inspired? Inerrant? Mythology? Each of those issues will differ depending on the particular religious view of the teacher. It will be difficult to find teachers who can teach the Bible in a neutral manner. I am practically certain, for example, that I could not give fundamentalists a fair hearing in class. In my view, academic study of the Bible makes such things as Biblical inerrancy and a literal understanding of such material as the antedeluvian material so improbable that I would have a hard time presenting them as having any kind of validity outside of faith. A rational person might believe they were historical material, but that would come from a faith position.

    From the point of view of any non-Christian, I think there is an overwhelming probability that a course will be taught from at least a generally Christian viewpoint. Even thought I think the Texas Freedom Network’s suggestions are good, as far as they go, but even though such a Bible class would be constitutional, I think it would be better to leave teaching of the Bible as a separate subject at the Elementary and High School level to churches, synagogues, and religious schools.

    As a part of other classes, I think it could and should be done appropriately. The Bible is involved in a substantial portion of our history and literature, and that background shouldn’t be lost. But that can be accomplished effectively as part of classes in those other subjects.

  • More on Religious Battle Lines

    Ed Brayton has written an excellent post on this topic over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, titled Drawing Religious Battle Lines. I’ve already said my piece on this one, so I’m just going to send you over there to read this excellent essay.

    My high opinion of it has nothing to do with the fact that Ed talks about me a bit in the post. 🙂

    (Hmmm! Posting gremlins seem to have kept me from posting this earlier, so even though it’s a bit behind times, I’m going to post it for the link. Ed’s post is still excellent!)

  • As Christ Loved the Church

    Lingamish has a wonderful post about Ephesians 5:22ff (if you don’t know about the part that is “ff” be sure to read his post!), and what this can mean in our relationship with our wives. (I do intentionally use purely male references, referring to the Lingamish and myself. You can adjust as necessary!)

    This reminds me of what my mother did at my wedding. I married late in life and acquired three step-children, who have now brought 4 grandchildren (working on 5) into my life. (Note: Never miss a chance to mention the grandchildren.) Because of the unique circumstances, we arranged to have my mother speak a blessing (and read one from my father, who could not attend), and also the children. The children built their blessing around the text that was featured in the wedding service, Ephesians 3:14-21. They didn’t realize that reference is also inscribed inside our wedding bands.

    When my mother spoke, she began with Proverbs 31. Jody got tense. She’s not really excited about Proverbs 31. But after reading a selection from it, she said, “Henry, I feel that this is really addressed to you. You have to deserve the Proverbs 31 wife.” That made Jody relax and turned the verse on its head. But I didn’t mind.

    Anyhow, it must be the day for “improve your marriage” texts!

  • The Church that is Always Emerging

    God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself. 2 Corinthians 5:19

    Do you feel the depth of that statement? Can I recommend that you stop now and read 2 Corinthians 5, or at least verses 11-21 before you continue this?

    I often think that we Christians don’t nearly get the meaning of this passage, which is one of the better scriptural expressions of the meaning of the incarnation that we have in scripture. But then it goes on to bring it home to us, by saying that God has given us the ministry of reconciliation.

    To parphrase a question I was once asked after a sermon: If this is the message that we were given at the start, whatever happened to Christianity? Why do we have such a terrible time getting along? Why have we had such a long history of persecuting one another? We easily forget that we are a religion that results from the ministry of a man who spent his time breaking up traditional ground, who found extraordinary ways to make God’s message and God’s kingdom have an impact on a world that was not anxious to receive it. More than 2,000 years alter, we act a bit more like warring tribes protecting our precious doctrinal turf from the heretics down the street, often from people whose positions can only be distinguished from our own by theological experts.

    Enter the emerging church. I’ve not really spent much time on the emerging church, though I’ve read a couple of books and have generally liked what I see. I think part of my problem is that I’ve never called myself an evangelical, and so I don’t quite full feel the issues and the call that they do. Nonetheless I have felt that the movement was a good one for Christianity.

    Via MSNBC I found a Washington Post story on Brian McLaren, a leader in this emerging church movement. The article is titled Evangelical pastor challenges tradition. The emerging church movement does indeed challenge tradition. It tries to make the message of Jesus relevant to the modern world. And while I often wonder about some of their doctrinal positions, which sometimes are to my left even though they use the term evagelical and I don’t, they have one thing that is very traditional: Challenging tradition.

    What’s more traditional than doing what Jesus did? Some of the criticisms sound very much like the criticisms of Jesus. Emergent people don’t teach enough doctrine. They’re giving up the basics. They’re question non-negotiable doctrines. But of course we’ve been negotiating these doctrines for centuries, with some of the current basics being quite recent in their current incarnation. At other times we’ve been negotiating such doctrines with the stake and torture implements.

    It’s a conversation. That’s what the emergent church people say. And I agree. The one thing that has to continue is the conversation. It’s a conversation between various Christians, churches, groups, and ministries. It’s also a continuing conversation between each Christian and God. It’s also a conversation between us and the world. I would suggest that the greatest thing we can do as Christians is get other people listening to God–listening to the Spirit of Truth. We think that teaching them a set of doctrines is going to give meaning to their life, but there are thousands, probably millions of people who live in quiet despair with an evangelical theology.

    It’s not the fault of the evangelical theology. There are also many Christians who live fulfilled lives with an evangelical theology. The problem is that any theology that doesn’t get you into the big conversation is still going to leave you dead.

    Thank God for the emergent church. The church ought to always be emerging. It can’t be any harder than Jesus, emerging from heaven, and coming to earth.

  • I’m Much Worse than That

    . . . from their point of view, that is.

    This is a kind of “take-2” on my Conscience of a Christian Publisher post. Centuri0n had a brief spurt of posting comments, but seems to have been silent since accusing me of deleting them at the very time I was restoring them from backups following a server glitch. The only really annoying damage from that glitch was that I didn’t have a backup for one of my own posts.

    Now his “sidekicks” have added a reference to me in another post, and I’ve got to say that if they really understood what I’m saying, they’d like me even less than they do. In a post More on Publishing–A Cautionary Tale, poster Gummby makes some rather odd statements.

    Referring to the publication of a particular book by the PCUSA publishing house, they ask the following questions:

    First: does the author, David Griffin, have a right to be heard? Well, the First Amendment says he does.

    We’re rather reluctant about freedom of speech, are we not?

    Second: does Presbyterian Publishing Corp. have an obligation to publish him? If you’re Henry, perhaps you think that it does. But unlike the Blogosphere, in the publishing world, just because you’ve written something doesn’t mean it is entitled to be printed.

    You know, I try to credit my opponents with good intentions, but there are moments when that is very hard. I challenge anyone to point out what I have said that would imply that a publisher would be obligated to publish a particular manuscript. In fact, in my prior post, I indicated quite clearly the boundaries of the material that I would publish. And anyone involved in publishing knows that just because one has written something doesn’t mean it’s entitled to be published, although modern technology makes it fairly easy to manage if one is determined enough. I myself have rejected manuscripts, even in the short history of my own company, and will certainly reject more. Right now as a small and new publisher, I’m more in the process of soliciting than rejecting, but soliciting is also a very selective process.

    Clearly the real problem for centuri0n and his sidekicks is not that I would accept anything, but rather that I would accept things that they would reject. Having read their blog, I admit their complaint is quite correct. It’s clear that we don’t see the same things as valuable, and we may not even see the same things as Christian.

    Third: why would a publishing house knowingly publish something that, in the words of the moderator of their own general assembly, is “too over the top to be taken seriously”?

    Well, I can’t speak for this particular publishing house, but if I was making the choice I would ask the following:

    • Is this within the subject and mission range of my company?
    • Are the questions raised worth considering?
    • Is the research properly done?

      • Is it well enough written?

    I personally don’t have much sympathy with the position of the book referenced in Gummby’s post, but I would not reject it simply because I don’t find the position taken very probable on the face of it.

    But those are just the questions I would consider if I were publishing the book myself. There are many books I would not print (would that I had a chance at such high quality manuscripts!) that nonetheless I would hope to see published, would read, and would recommend to others. A couple of examples are The Blind Watchmaker and Atlas Shrugged. Neither are Christian books, and they don’t fall into my range of materials, but both are, I think, excellent and challenging reading. Nonetheless I don’t agree with significant portions of either book. The key is that I don’t have to agree with something–and disagreeing means I don’t think it’s true, does it not?–to think something is worth reading.

    Thus I found the following statement false, shall we say.

    In other words, the ends justifies the means. The “end” of provoking a “discussion on substantive issues about faithful citizenship in this country,” justifies the “means,” which is publishing a book whether or not the claims will be convincing or are even true.

    Well, actually, the end does justify the means, when the means is the best and most appropriate way to accomplish those ends. And the free interchange of ideas is the best way to provoke “discussion on substantive issues about faithful citizenship in this country.” Apparently Gummby would prefer that people only discuss ideas approved by him, an attitude normally taken by tyrants. Fortunately, he lacks that sort of power in this country.

    A book might be convincing without being true, and it might be convincing to one person, but not convincing to another. That is the point of promoting the free interchange of ideas. Now there is nothing here that forces me or anyone else to publish anything. If Gummby submitted a manuscript to me, I could reject it based on the criteria listed above. If I rejected it on some other basis, that would be dishonest of me, because I have said I will publish things within that particular range.

    If I have an obligation, as centuri0n suggested earlier, to publish those things that I present at the truth, then I cannot foster any dialogue or conversation at all. The only thing I can contribute is my ideas as owner and editor. That idea is silly.

    I do not present things that I publish as the truth, but the author’s best effort to present the truth, and my best effort to choose things that will promote conversation.

  • Reasons for Belief

    It seems that this week’s MBWR has produced an excellent crop. Bruce Alderman, whose blog is also in the Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator, wrote a post titled Why I Believe. His approach is strongly but not exclusively experiential, and in many ways resonates with my own.

    It also ties in with the current book discussion I’m hosting here on Threads on Elgin Hushbeck’s Consider Christianity books, which I publish. Elgin’s view is much more evidential, though he admits experience, and I’ve invited Chris Eyre, who is even more experiential than I am to criticize Elgin’s books. (Note that I publish Elgin’s books, so I’m not quite neutral on their value. Regard this as due alert of bias!) Chris has posted first, second, and third. I’ve also indicated that I’m willing to send free copies of the books to a reasonable number of bloggers who’d like to chime in, but that hasn’t proved popular.

    Whether you have an interest in the discussion here or not, you would do well to go and read Bruce’s entry. It should generate some good discussion.

  • Don’t Judge Discipleship by Numbers

    This post is to call your attention to a post by Beth Quick, Mark Driscoll, Mainline Churches, and The Numbers Game (Hat tip: MBWR #82, with strong second to the Best of the Methodist blogosphere! note). I’m also closing the comments here so that any additional discussion will be centered around her blog.

    I want my church to grow. But I also think people can be simply attracted to what is new, flashy, easy, convenient, socially fulfilling. I think some churches, both mainline and other, can grow for wrong reasons too.

    How do we assess growth in discipleship, really? I’m not sure we can do it by the numbers, the stats.

    Go! Read! Think!