Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Characteristics of a Living Church

    43Now awe came upon every person, because many miracles and signs were accomplished through the ministry of the apostles. 44All the believers were in unity and had there possessions in common. 45They sold their possessions and assets and divided among all those who needed them. 46Every day they went faithfully to the temple, they broke bread in their various houses, receiving their food with rejoicing and simplicity of heart, 47praising God and being gracious to all the people. And the Lord added daily those who were being saved  (Acts 2:43-47, from the TFBV project). 

    When Paul says, “You are the body of Christ” (1 Corinthians 12:27) he introduces a powerful metaphor for use all around the church.  One of these applications is the question of life.  A live body has breath, blood flow, and most importantly doesn’t have substantial dead pieces falling off of it.  (I’m aware of dead skin and hair cells.)  Visitors to a church will often say something like, “This congregation is really alive,” or “This congregation is totally dead.”  They don’t mean, of course, that the members of the one are physically alive and of the other physically dead.  They mean that there is a spiritual life of the whole body, collectively, that can be seen, felt, and experienced.

    So what makes a church alive?

    I find the definition in the passage from Acts that I quoted above.  I’m not one of those people who want us to closely imitate the early church in every detail.  I believe that there can be a wide variety of ways in which a church can work in a community.  I live in Pensacola, FL, and I don’t expect every little detail of the church in 1st century Jerusalem to be the same as it is for my church in 21st century Florida.  But I do think the principles will be the same.

    From this passage about the early church, I see several principles:

    1. Continuing “power” ministry
    2. Unity and mutual support
    3. Faithful common worship
    4. Worship that extends beyond the worship center (homes, small groups)
    5. Continuing “God-powered” outreach

    I believe I can summarize these points with the word “discipleship.”  It’s important to note that discipleship is closely related to mission.  In fact, one cannot exist without the other.  A church may have different specific missions, and various emphases, but at some point in all churches there must be the two elements of following Jesus (discipleship) and mission (reaching out to others).  Try operating without the element of mission, and you get an ethical club.  Without the element of discipleship, you have a simple social service organization.  (Either option may be alright under appropriate circumstances, but they do not constitute a church.)

    Now let’s look at individual points.

    First, the necessary elements of “power” ministry are the infilling of the congregation, as a group, with the Holy Spirit, the empowering of the members with the gifts of the Spirit, and releasing all the membership to do ministry.  Not all of these elements are specified in Acts, but they can be supported scripturally through 1 Corinthians 12-14, Ephesians 4:9-16, and Romans 12:3-8.  But they can also be established logically.  If only the pastor or a small leadership group carry out the ministry, very little can be accomplished.  The goal clearly must be to have everyone acting together.

    Logically, the need for unity and common support follows.  If the entire body is to work together, it must be healthy.  Too often we work with numbers and percentages, assuming that if a portion of the body is in good shape, we can just ignore the rest.  I would add a note on the church owning everything in common.  That seems to me something that was practical and appropriate in Jerusalem, but not so practical now.  But there is a principle that should be applied today.  We should be ashamed that there are people in our churches who are in need and are not taken care of.  The resources exist for us to make sure people are properly taken care of, and we should consider this a responsibility of the church, not just an option.

    Faithful common worship is an essential of maintaining unity.  Our common times of worship must offer us the opportunity to worship, but also an opportunity to fellowship–to worship together and to bond as the body of Christ.  This fellowship involves encouragement and accountability.  We encourage one another in our discipleship and ministry, and we hold one another accountable for what God expects of us.

    At the same time, the larger the church, the less of the encouragment and accountability can take place in a large, common worship service.  We have the need of smaller groups to provide this additional needed fellowship.  Such small groups also provide additional opportunities for mission.

    This fellowship will include at least the following elements:

    1. Bible study
      In a living congregation the members knows why they are doing what they are doing.  They will be aware of their basic doctrines, and they will be able to study these things for themselves.  This does not mean that “doctrinal purity” is a primary essential of a living church.  It does mean that Biblical and doctrinal awareness is important so that members know why they are doing what they are doing  (see Acts 2:42 and 17:11).  There are some basic essentials that are important, and we should learn to distinguish the essential from the non-essential.  (See the Participatory Study Series pamphlet Understanding Christian Apologetics.)
    2. Prayer
      Prayer is communion or conversation with God.  This is an essential part of keeping the body breathing.  The Holy Spirit is the breath in the body of Christ, and we receive it in communion with God.  (See I Want to Pray! pamphlet and book.)
    3. Grace
      We are recipients of God’s grace, and if we understand that, it will motivate us to have grace ourselves. Many people believe that having more rules and better enforcement is the way to go, but people don’t come to church to find out what the rules are.  Most people know the basics of behavior.  What they are looking for is the motivation and the ability to put that knowledge into action.
    4. Action
      If a new member does not find a way to get active, they will not remain in the church.  Some may continue to attend out of habit, but they become dead weight.  It may be risky to have everyone active–some of them will make mistakes, but it’s the only way to go.

    God-powered outreach brings us full circle.  We are not called to do what we can do; we are called to do what God can do–through us.

     

  • Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter

    As many of you know, besides my work in writing and publishing, I’m president of Pacesetters Bible School, Inc., an organization dedicated to religious education, and particularly in bringing sound Biblical scholarship to local churches. Pacesetters is a totally volunteer organization (I’m not compensated as president), and is a non-profit. I’ve been pretty lax about getting Pacesetters news out, and hopefully this newsletter in blog form will help correct that. Most entries will probably be made by other people involved in Pacesetters Bible School activities.

    You’ll find a link to Pacesetters Bible School under the Religious Education heading on by sidebar. I think it is very important for Christians to get serious about providing a sound basis in their faith to all church members, especially young people. This should not be indoctrination. Members should be aware of what other people believe, and have adequate knowledge to make an informed choice for themselves.

    Keep an eye on Pacesetters! The newsletter url is: http:///news.

  • My Wife and the Spirit of Women

    On February 21 I was priveleged to attend the Spirit of Women awards sponsored by the Sacred Heart Health System. My wife, Jody Neufeld, was one of the nominees, 113 women who were nominated for their service to the community. Only three of those could be recognized with awards, but I was impressed that the bulk of the program was designed to honor all 113. It is kind of nice to see my wife’s picture more than life size on the screen as she is introduced to the audience and honored for her service.

    I think an event such as this is very important for two reasons. First, we very often don’t pay attention to the ordinary contributors to the public good, the volunteers who make community programs function. We pay much more attention to the folks who can contribute thousands and tens of thousands of dollars. But without the many individuals who do the little bits of work, fitting in their contribution between jobs and caring for families, all the big contributions would do very little. Second, we often don’t recognize the contribution of women nearly enough. I talk about this regularly in churches. By limiting the roles that women can play we deny the body of Christ the benefit of their gifts.

    That’s why I appreciated this recognition ceremony so much. The keynote speaker, Dr. Alexa Canady, commented that her remarks were not for the nominees, but actually for the rest of the audience, whom she challenged to get busy. She’s right, but only partially so. The challenge to get involved needs to get out of that room. Most of the folks there were there to honor a loved one or to show their support for the various community projects. The challenge to ordinary people to get involved in ordinary ways needs to be heard far and wide. If everyone put in just a few more minutes a week, we could change the world.

    I’m glad that my wife provides that example to her community.

  • Translations: Getting Back to Results

    Wayne Leman, on the Better Bibles blog, has posted a note about Ben Witherington’s apology for his remarks about the ESV (Ben Witherington apologizes for ESV comments). I’ve been pretty busy the latter half of this week, so I missed part of the action and had to review it through several blogs. I admire someone who is willing to apologize openly and honestly for an error in what he has written.

    Wayne goes on to make an important point when he says, “He has, in my opinion, now placed the focus where it should be for any Bible version, on its own merits, not on what one perceives to be the motives of its translators.” Ben Witherington has also moved forward to precisely this type of information with his post A Sample of More Literal Translations. These are some good examples of the types of decisions that translators must make irrespective of their approach to the final product. I’ve discussed details of the translation methods in my book What’s in a Version?, and in various notes on my Bible Version Selection Tool.

    But as a Bible teacher working primarily with lay members, I must also get involved with the question of how the individual Bible student gets an accurate idea of what the Bible means. In other words, by “results” I need to look at the final product. Once I’ve talked about Bible translations, study tools, and how to make use of them, how do laypeople test their work and study with confidence? The question I’m asked most often is just how one can be sure. Those who want to use more literal translations do so for the very good reason that they think they will get an more accurate understanding. For reasons I’ve explained elsewhere, I don’t think that is true. “More literal” is not the equivalent of “more accurate.” Both extremes on that spectrum of methodology, and everything in between, involve choices and compromises.

    The type of questions that Ben Witherington is asking in this post are a starting point in looking at the result. Too often scholars remain in a totally scholarly environment, commonly known as the ivory tower, and determine whether the meaning has been expressed in discussions between scholars. Expressing a meaning is kind of empty unless someone hears and understands the expression. In translations, that involves field testing.

    But for the average person the question again is this: How can I be certain of an interpretation? How can I be certain the meaning I get from my English text is right?

    Well, to be most certain, you need to learn the Biblical languages. Notice that I says most and not absolutely. Even when you know the Biblical languages, there remains differences in the level of skill between various readers, points on which honest disagreement is possible, and simple human error. In my own study, though I generally produce a translation of any passage of scripture I’m going to use in preaching or teaching, I also compare my own work with a selection of English translations. Why? Because I am as subject to error (and sometimes more so!) as the next guy.

    But there is still one more step. Even when I am as certain as I can be about the meaning of a particular verse, to be sure I’m understanding the full meaning and the application, I need to do two things:

    • Study the verse in context
      By this I mean to study entire passages. Sometimes “in context” becomes the equivalent of reading the verse before and the verse afterward. But if you want to understand Paul’s argument in a verse in 1 Corinthians 14, you will need to read the entire chapter at a minimum, and that will almost certainly lead you to reading chapter 12, and then surely Paul had a reason for putting chapter 13 between the two. To be confident that you understand a single admonition in chapter 14, you really need to put some work into studying all three chapters. Going beyond that, an overview of the entire first letter to the Corinthians will help you understand what Paul means about being spiritual.
    • Study the verse as it stands in relation to the canon of scripture.
      This means to look at the teaching in the light of other scriptures on the same topic. Try to do this after you have taken a serious look at the scripture you’re studying. Often people lose nuances of various portions of scripture by simply overriding them with another scripture. At the same time, a good principle, long used and tested, is to let what is plain and widespread help explain what is simple.

    These two principles can correct your understanding of an individual passage. It is especially important to do this type of study if your impression from a particular scripture seems odd or out of place. That’s the time to check especially carefully for misunderstandings.

    My final check, which I normally teach first in classes on Bible study, is the hanging principle. When Jesus said that all the law and the prophets hung on the two commands of love for God and love for one’s neighbor, I think he also gave us a check on how we read. Try to hang your interpretation from the two laws. If it doesn’t fit, reconsider it.

  • ESV Controversy and Women

    Ben Witherington seems to have started quite a stir yesterday with his post about the ESV entitled The Problem with the ESV. I like Ben Witherington’s work quite a lot, and respect him, but most of this post has to do with who translated the ESV and why, rather than with the quality of the translation itself. But more on this below.

    Wayne Leman responded in the Better Bibles blog with an entry that I think is very much on point, though I would like to nuance some of the comments just a bit more. His entry is entitled ESV translators are not misogynists.

    The ESV Blog has also responded with a post entitled The Origin of the ESV, which includes a number of examples. I do think that the presentation of examples showing the differences and similarities between the ESV and the RSV is the correct way to pursue this topic. Perhaps I’ll have to spend some time on that in a later post.

    I am in 100% agreement with Wayne that the correct way to examine and test a Bible version is by looking at the end product and not by determining the quality and morals of the translators. It is possible for someone with lesser credentials to surprise us by producing a good translation, while someone with apparently great credentials may lack the necessary skills to produce a usable translation.

    But in producing a Bible translation I think we have to ask ourselves whether we are effectively communicating the gospel message in a new environment. This is where I think we have to be very careful with the nuances of what we say. I’m no fan of the ESV, because I think it’s language is a bit awkward and wooden, and also because I prefer gender inclusive language in a translation. Why?

    Because I question both the motivations and the results of a translation policy that won’t express the message in the way that message would be expressed in the target culture. Let’s look at just one example, “brothers” or “brothers and sisters.” In this case there is a substantial portion of our modern culture that does not recognize “brothers” as addressing a mixed group of men and women. These people, when they here someone say “brothers” assume he (and generally it would be a he) is addressing just the men of the group. When we try to get beyond this level of meaning, I think we read much into the language of the New Testament that is not intended. In Greek, when addressing a mixed audience, one said “adelfoi.” That’s why Paul and James and others used that word. Not because they wanted to make some subtle point about masculinity.

    Some of you will think I’m making a big deal about something minor, but in going to churches and teaching my wife and I have repeatedly encountered women who don’t think they’re included in the work of ministry, even in areas where scripture clearly teaches that they are. The atmosphere that’s created by the attitude of “Oh, they’ll understand we mean them too” helps foster this. The result is that many gifted people–gifted women–are not used in the church because they don’t feel worthy, or they don’t feel that they can step out and lead.

    I’m not accusing the ESV translators of being misogynists. I do believe, however, that they have followed a translation philosophy that helps to foster exclusion rather than inclusion. I believe the gospel message is very inclusive, and even more I believe that the gospel commission is inclusive.

    Before I’m done, I definitely do not believe that Wayne Leman is trying to foster the attitude that I’m challenging here. What he is trying to do is get us to focus on translations not on translators. In doing that he is absolutely correct, and makes an important point.

    (Please see also my comments at Gender Neutrality and Bible Translation.)

  • Praying Now

    I’ve been working on a new pamphlet for the Participatory Study Series entitled 7 Barriers to Prayer in Your Church. I came up with these seven barriers while leading a prayer conference at my home church (Gonzalez United Methodist). The following expands on just one of these points.

    1Now Peter and John went up to the temple at the hour of prayer, the ninth hour (3 PM). 2And there was a man who was lame from birth. There were some people who carried him there each day to the gate of the temple that is called “Beautiful” so he could beg from charity from those who went into the temple. 3When he saw Peter and John about to enter the temple he asked them for some charity. 4But Peter looked at him, as did John, and Peter said, “Look at us!” 5So he expected to get something from them. 6But Peter said, “I don’t have any siler or gold, but what I have I’m giving you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazereth, Rise and walk!” 7And Peter took him by the right hand and raised him up. And immediately his feet and ankles were strengthened. 8And he jumped up and stood, and walked around and entered the temple with them, walking and jumping and praising God. 9And all the people saw him walking and praising God. 10But they recognized him as the one who has been sitting in the Beautiful gate of the temple, so they were totally amazed and astonished at what had happened to him (Acts 3:1-10).

    I have always found it interesting how many parents will complain about the government not permitting official prayer in public school (though student led prayer as appropriate times is legal), while at the same time they will confess that they don’t find time to pray with their own children in their own home. There seems to be a strong desire to talk about prayer, but when it comes right down to it, we’re not all that anxious to just do it!

    And this leads me to the second of my seven barriers. (Yes, I’m aware I haven’t written about the first.) This is the “we’ll pray for you” barrier. You can see this in action in just about any church when someone tells another member about a problem, and the response is, “We’ll pray for you.” The idea is that at home in their personal devotional time, or in the next scheduled prayer meeting or prayer group, they will mention that person’s need in prayer. The problem is that frequently we forget to pray, and only rarely is the person prayed for present to receive the personal support of his or her church family praying.

    This has led me to think about this experience of Peter and John. What would have happened if the story went like this, instead of the way it’s recorded.

    Peter and John are entering the temple, and they see a man who has been lame from birth. They get his attention and then say to him, “We don’t have any money, but we’ll pray for you at our next prayer meeting.” Then they continued into the temple.

    What would have happened? Very little! I’m not here primarily concerned with the issue of the miracle. Many times, the result of the request for prayer doesn’t need to be some identifiable miracle. The need may simply be for people to get involved and get active in answering their own prayers. And that’s another problem with the “we’ll pray for you” barrier. We save our prayers for a time when we can easily feel somewhat detached from the problems of the person we’re praying for.

    Let’s look at some characteristics of Peter and John’s behavior in this situation (some of these go beyond my major theme):

    • They were paying attention to the problems of other people while on the way to worship
      Often we are so busy on Sunday morning or Wednesday night that we would have to “pass by on the other side” if we saw someone injured or in need. We might simply never notice.
    • They acted together, but in unity
      Peter is the spokesman, but John works right along with him. We’d be amazed at what could be accomplished if we worked more like a team in the church.
    • They admitted their own limitations
      There’s no point in pretending we have resources we don’t. If we can’t help someone, we need to pass them on to someone who can.
    • They acted in God’s power, not just their own
      Let’s expand this to accomplishing what we can as a team, as the entire body of Christ with our various gifts, and not just based on our own limitations.
    • They (and the man who was healed) provided an open testimony to what had happened
      Don’t be afraid to let other people know when things go well. Don’t be afraid to share.

    Not surprisingly, I think we can learn a great deal from the apostles. 🙂

    For more information on prayer, see I Want to Pray!.

  • Deciding in your Heart

    8But Daniel made a firm decision that he would not pollute himself with the king’s best food or wine, so he asked the chief of the eunuchs for permission not to pollute himself. — Daniel 1:8 (from my TFBV project)

    Literally, the words about Daniel’s decision read, “Daniel set in on his heart that . . .” You may be familiar with the King James Version, “Daniel purposed in his heart.”

    What is the purpose of your heart? We’re very conscious of public image, of what people think of us. People put a great deal of effort into controlling what people think of them. The problem is that the things we do publicly are so much subject to change as our public change. Are we with our friends from church? Drinking and four letter words are out! Are we with our buddies down at the bar? Drinking and four letter words are required! Are we with people who are rich and famous? All those low-life morons who don’t make the right amount of money and aren’t in our social circle can just get out of thought and sight. Are we with unpretentious, ordinary people? Those rich bigots need to be brought down a notch or two!

    Do you read the same books and watch the same shows no matter who is there to see and question you? Or does the TV remote almost have the habit of switching to a Christian channel when your pastor or a church-friend visits, but to something more “entertaining” when your work colleagues show up?

    What we make the firm decision of our heart–inside of us–is what really counts.

    What do you really think about drinking? Can you interrupt your holy church friends who are condemning someone for having a glass of wine with dinner, or having a beer and relaxing with their friends and tell them, “Let’s not judge! I think it’s OK to drink when it’s done appropriately and in moderation?” Can you tell your friends in the bar, “I think we’ve had enough. It’s time to stop?” (I’m not trying to tell you what your decision should be, just that it should be the same, no matter where you are.)

    Can you occasionally poke a hole in the pretentiousness of your rich friends, and ask them to think about things that are more important in life than bank balances and social position? Can you tell your not-so-rich friends that judging people just because they have money is also bigotry? Can you stick with that even when they accuse you of betraying them? (Leviticus 19:15 speaks of favoring neither rich nor poor.)

    What is the decision of your heart?

  • Involvement

    “Look at how large a fire can be kindled by just a small flame.” — James 3:5.

    James is talking about the bad things that can be done by our tongues, and indeed he is right to do so. We normally regard physical damage as the more dangerous issue. We use the saying, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” It’s a good sentiment. It’s good to determine not to be hurt by words, but that’s very difficult to do. The fact is that words accomplish a great deal. Often we don’t realize just how much.

    But the purpose of this entry is not to discuss words, except as an illustration of how seemingly small things can have a powerful impact. One or two words can change the whole nature of a conversation, a conference, a church service, or even a family’s evening at home. Those couple of words can change a political climate as well. I’m sure most of you will have experienced a time in a meeting or in a group of people where an entire discussion was going one way, but then a word, a sentence, or even the expression on someone’s face turned the tide. People often have a sort of herd reaction. If one person with a little bit of leadership starts the process, everybody else just follows the path of least resistance. One person going against the tide may find that many folks were uncomfortable with what was going on, but just didn’t say anything.

    It seems to me that we could use this principle for good. We could have a whispering campaign of good, positive things rather than of gossip. We could all try to get one another to think more deeply about subjects, whether religion, politics, or social issues are involved, rather than just going along with the emotions of the moment.

    This extends to financial issues and community involvement as well. People with only a little bit to contribute don’t feel that they are important or that they need to get involved. Let charity be done by big corporations and by rich people. But the combined effect of what supposedly unimportant people do can be massive.

    Last night I was at a dinner meeting for my stepson John Webb’s Winter Golf Tournament. This is an event that was started originally to help our family deal with the costs of treatment for our son James who had cancer. By the time the first tournament came around, James was in his first remission, and the finances were no longer needed. The little group that started this idea raised a few hundred dollars that year, and since the medical bills were paid by that time, with James’s encouragement they passed the money on to the children. He understood what it was like being a child in chemotherapy, and so the child life program was chosen for the money, providing entertainment and fun for the children who have so little of it.

    The next year the money moved into the thousands, and the year after that it moved to around ten thousand dollars. None of us are rich. Though John now has a contract with the St. Louis Cardinals, he has only played a few innings at the major league level over the last couple of years, and minor league ball isn’t riches. (He’s headed to major league spring training.) None of the people who started this program are rich. But this year we’re beginning to get more celebrities actively involved. More teams are going to be here; in fact, we will probably have as many players as we can most optimistically accommodate. Look at what a big thing a very little start kindled! (Watch this blog space for a report on the success of this year’s tournament.)

    One comment at our meeting last night was that there are a few rich people here in town who are very generous, but are constantly tapped for money for every project. As a result, we need to find more people to be involved. Those people are the ones who can give $10 or $15 or even less. Preachers complain about the dollar givers, those who place a dollar in the offering plate just so they don’t let it pass by with nothing. But may church budgets would be in serious trouble without those dollar givers.

    The point of all of this is that whatever your abilities, whatever your goals, say something about them and do something about them. Your action may be small, but the results can surpass your wildest dreams.

  • New Translations in Selection Tool

    I’ve updated my Bible Translation Selection Tool to include some additional, older versions. As I add these versions I want to note a couple of things about this tool.

    The ratings should be regarded as subjective. I make an effort to use objective standards, but especially on the fine points, it can be difficult to do. For example, I can be certain that the REB is much less formal equivalent that the NKJV or the NRSV. But the difference in formality between the NRSV and the NKJV is a little harder to measure objectively. Nonetheless, I count words in certain passages and try to determine which are justified in terms of form, so that I can get a scaled result indicating how close to the forms of the source language the translators stayed. Similarly for the index indicating how functional equivalent a translation is, I check numerous passages and look at the use of idiomatic translations. Generally the results agree with what I will get if I simply read and compare the versions, and also with what the translators claim in the preface.

    When I get to such issues as readability, and value for public reading, my comments are even more subjective. For example, I like something that is clear, but in a formal register for use in public reading. That bias is bound to show through. In my own earlier comments on choosing a pew Bible, which normally will also be used for public reading, I have indicated cases in which this bias would be inappropriate. For example, while I don’t regard the NCV as particularly good for public reading, it might be the best public reading version for a church involved in outreach to people whose native language is not English, or for a church in outreach to people in its literacy program.

    Now, here is the list of translations added to my selection tool yesterday and today:

    • JPS Tanakh
      Hebrew scriptures only, the Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is an extremely valuable translation for the serious student, especially for those who are not Jewish, but want to understand the Jewish point of view.
    • New Life Version
      A simple language version done by missionaries. It’s fairly good, but I didn’t find much to get excited about compared to similar offerings in the NCV, CEV, and so forth.
    • New International Reader’s Version
      Believe it or not, early rumblings of the gender language war came when this version was first released. It is mostly used for children’s Bibles, and is an excellent choice for that use.
    • RSV
      This is an old standby, though mostly superceded by the NRSV and the English Standard Version.
    • The Complete Jewish Bible
      Some might be confused by the title, but this is in fact a Christian version translated by a Jewish believer in Jesus. I would prefer other terminology than “Jewish” Bible simply because I don’t like to get into fights over Jewish identity and the appropriate use of various terms. I should point out that the translator of this Bible means something different by “Jewish” than do the translators of the JPS Tanakh.
    • New English Bible
      Again, I had previously not included this version because it has been replaced by the more current REB. Some are still using the NEB, though less than use the RSV.

    Use the selection tool to get a list of versions to check out. My judgment is subjective like everyone else’s. I believe, however, that if you choose your priorities carefully, I’ll be able to help direct you to a short list of versions to check out for yourself.

  • Wesley Elsberry Profile

    There’s an excellent profile on Wesley Elsberry on the Daily Kos who is both a Christian (United Methodist) and a scientist who accepts the theory of evolution. He works for the National Center for Science Education. This article makes a number of excellent points regarding the need for quality science education.

    I recommend this excellent article. As a Christian Bible teacher, I come to this from a slightly different perspective, but I feel a certain frustration because so many make the assumption that as an active and committed Christian I must also accept young earth creationism. A few folks are so kind as to allow for old earth creationism, but it is again taken as a given by many that I must accept intelligent design–surely I believe that God designed the universe! But the fact is that ID doesn’t prove that at all, and that there are many Christians all across the spectrum who see the difficulties with it.