Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Christian Apologetics

    I think that after my start, I should say that I enjoyed reading Elgin’s first two “Consider Christianity

  • An Individual in Unity with Himself

    An individual identifying himself as yes2truth left a comment with reference to my new moderate Christian blogroll. I don’t usually do this, but the comment is so ironic that I just had to call attention to it. I must warn you that the irony level is off the scale.

    yes2truth said:

    My full question is this:

    Why do we need moderate Christians? In fact, why do we need any kind of pigeon holed Christian group?

    If I answered this normally, I would suggest that we should first be Christians and second members of whatever particular fellowship we belong to. I do think that there is a value in denominational organizations as long as they are not exclusive.

    But in the context of what follows, the question is itself ironic. It’s rare that someone makes my point for me so clearly, but people frequently complain about the factionalism of others, or how other churches are preventing true Christian unity, while what they really want is for all Christians to unify around their concept of what is true. You can find tiny groups of people all over the world who claim to be in exclusive possession of the truth, and who would expect that the rest of Christianity would unify if they would just understand that the particular little group had truth locked up.

    (more…)

  • Skepticism and Scholarship

    Ben Witherington comments on an attitude of skepticism on his blog in an entry titled Justification by Doubt. Dr. Witherington makes a number of good points, but I think the topic at a minimum needs more comment. I’d like to suggest you read his entire post before you read mine. I’m going to quote his conclusion, but you need to read his entire post for context.

    Skepticism is no more scholarly than gullibility. But they both have one thing in common

  • Welcome Chris Eyre

    Chris will be posting a series of entries here dealing with the Consider Christianity series. One of the purposes of my publishing company, Energion Publications is to publish materials that start conversations. As a small publisher, I think it’s useful for me to help start the conversations. Chris has been reading the books, and he disagrees with a number of things in them, so I have invited him to present some of these issues in a series of posts. I haven’t put a limit on it. I’m expecting this conversation to be frank and vigorous. I’ll let Chris introduce himself in more detail as he goes along.

    Let me remind everyone of my comments policy. I remove spam and anything that appears likely to get me in legal trouble or will get my rated ‘X’. If you stay away from those limitations, you are free to express yourself with some vigor.

    I have also set aside some copies of Elgin’s books, both volumes and both study guides, for bloggers who want to get involved in the discussion. I haven’t decided yet on what basis to hand them out, but if you want to comment to this post or e-mail me early with a good reason that you should be one of the folks to get free copies, I’ll certainly give it consideration. The rules that I know of will be that you have a blog on which you comment on religious issues, from any perspective, and that you promise that you will comment on the books on your blog. I know also that I will absolutely not limit the free books to those who are likely to review them favorably. I would like to see bloggers from several perspectives look at these issues. There’s a lot of material in the two volumes, over 400 pages all told, and a number of interesting questions in the study guides.

    I’ll come up with detailed rules and then publicize this further at a later date.

    Have fun!

  • What price apologetics?

    I have to ask myself why we do apologetics. It seems to me that it just brings our religion into disrepute and at best makes us look at best a set of idiots and at worst a set of liars. It just isn’t possible to argue it as being rational without a set of unprovable assumptions. I grant that anyone who’s read Godel can criticise scientific rationalism on exactly the same basis. Sadly, most haven’t

    Who are we seeking to convince? We aren’t going to convince any scientific rationalists. They have a different set of unprovable assumptions, which they aren’t going to abandon in a hurry.

    The term “preaching to the choir” springs to mind. I’t’s easy, but it ain’t much use

    This has been a critique of Elgin Hushbeck’s “Consider Christianity” series, which will continue (sorry Elgin!)

  • Implementing a Doctrine

    I’ve been discussing essentials of Christianity, as I see them, and emphasizing the doctrine of the incarnation. In the process I’ve mentioned implementing and expressing doctrines. What do I mean by those two terms?

    First, I do not regard the expression and the implementation of the doctrine to be part of the essentials. I believe that our implementation and expression of any idea will be limited at best and may be quite flawed. We do not always know best how to express our love, for example. Recently my wife and I were teaching for a weekend at a church, and one of the members recalled an experience. She told us that a woman had visited her church, and that numerous people had gone up to her, greeted her, and done their best to make her feel welcome. At some point, the woman told one of the folks that she really wanted the opportunity to experience the worship service without being bothered so much. Now let’s assume that the visitor was being honest. In this case a number of church members expressed their love sincerely and to the best of their ability, but the message received by the visitor was something different. We aren’t omniscient; things like this will occur.

    Let me look briefly at the incarnation, its expression and implementation.

    (more…)

  • On Being a Love Preacher

    I’ve been talking about the incarnation and the two laws, and placing the concept of love at the center of Christianity. There are those who think that preaching love is somehow a weak form of Christianity, and a soft form of ethics. “All you need is love” is not regarded as a particularly profound message. “There’s lots more to it than just love,” I’ve been told.

    But I don’t think so. I think love requires some definition, because not everything we call love actually is. There are lots of details required to implement love. But love is the key, and love is anything but easy.

    My pastor this morning referred to the “cliche of ‘What Would Jesus Do?’” And indeed WWJD has become a cliche, with just about anything you might want to justify being explained as, of course, precisely what Jesus would do. And in practice WWJD has become something of a cliche, and unfortunately, in general people claim that Jesus would do whatever it was they wanted to do anyhow.

    But what would Jesus actually do? Well, we can get some idea from the gospel of John. (This message is scattered throughout scripture, but I’m using the passage in which it is most clearly stated.) Jesus gave up his life for his friends. And then he gave a command:

    12This is my command, that you love one another just as I loved you. 13Nobody has greater love than this, that he lays down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do that which I command you. — John 15:12-14 (TFBV, or see the CEV using BibleGateway.com)

    What would Jesus do? Well, he did give his life for his friends. And he did provide that to his disciples as a definition of love, of the love that they were to carry out.

    Now which is easier?

    • Believe a set of doctrines so that despite whatever you may do, you will still be saved and live eternally?
    • Put your trust in God and let him transform your life so that you exemplify this love, that is exemplify what Jesus would do?

    I think the easy road out is option ‘a’. We would really rather not be confronted with what Jesus actually would do in most circumstances.

    But that, I believe, is the challenge of the gospel.

  • Don’t Cover Evidence

    The Telegraph reports that some evangelicals in Kenya are trying to sideline exhibits on the evolution of human beings from Kenya’s national museum. In a story, Evangelicals urge museum to hide man’s ancestors, it is reported that the churches want those exhibits removed and intend a campaign to persuade the museum to do so.

    Folks, this is a way that Christians can prove themselves to be stupid and dishonest at one and the same time. Can there be any good reason to hide the evidence or to try to prevent people from seeing it? This is not an action that will be advantageous to the kingdom of God. It is simply “putting a stumbling block” in front of those who might otherwise be inclined to accept the gospel message.

    I sincerely hope that Kenya’s national museum will resist this campaign, and that the Christian leaders involved will think better of this activity.

  • Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator

    I’ve just created a blog aggregator specifically for Christian blogs. This is the result of recent questions from people looking for more moderate Christian presence on the internet. While I am happy to work with conservative or liberal groups whenever that is possible, I’d like to have a single place to look for commentary and information from a moderate Christian perspective.

    I still intend to participate in the Methodist blogosphere, and have actually been spending more time looking at the various Methodist/Wesleyan blogs, commenting, and sometimes linking to them. But this aggregator is for moderates of a variety of theological traditions.

    Right now I only have blogs with which I am involved in the aggregator, but I hope this will change substantially over the next few days. To be included, go to the Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator, take a look around, then follow the link to Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator Standards, fill in the form and submit it. I’ll get to adding you to this list quickly.

  • The Incarnation and the Two Laws

    34Now when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they approached him together, 35and one of them tested him by asking him, 36“Teacher, Which commandment is the greatest one in the Torah?” 37Jesus replied, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and with your whole being’ {Deuteronomy 6:5} and with your whole mind. 38This is the greatest and first commandment. 39And the second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ {Leviticus 19:18} 40On these two commands all the law and the prophets hang. — Matthew 22:34-40 (TFBV)

    I hope I’m getting across the idea in this series (starting with Christian Essentials: Incarnation at the Center) that rather than a list of doctrines and of standards I prefer a hierarchy. Both logically and in terms of importance various teachings fall into a hierarchy. At the center of all of this I see the notion of incarnation. I’m going to discuss my understanding of many other doctrines later, including ones I regard as non-essentials, and I believe in each case we’ll find the incarnation shedding light on how that doctrine should be understood.

    (more…)