Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Testing Prophets

    For the last few weeks I’ve been talking about inspiration, whether that relates to written scripture, or to someone claiming to be speaking for God. Today I’m going to start discussing the tests of a prophet, which might be equated to tests for inspiration, that are used in Christianity. These find their source somewhere in the Bible.

    As I discussed in my previous entry, these tests are derived from the community. In other words, they have their source in tradition. Somewhere along the line I will talk more about tradition, how it can be valuable and also how it can be a problem.

    The tests I’ll be discussing in my next few entries are:

    • Fulfilled prediction or sign
    • Godliness
    • Access to inside information, or is in God’s councils
    • Divine wisdom
    • Gift of discernment

    All of these have been claimed to be good methods of deciding who is a true or false prophet.

    Let’s look first at the fulfilled prediction or sign. The basic scripture for this particular test comes from Deuteronomy 18:21-22, which says that if a prophet says that something is going to happen, and then that doesn’t happen, they are a false prophet. Note that this is not stated positively, i.e. that one cannot be certain simply because a prediction comes true that the person making that prediction is a true prophet. We’ll discuss that further in the entry on “Godliness” as a test.

    This seems to be the easiest test as well as the most objective. We simply look for some external sign, normally a predicted event, and if that does not occur as predicted by the prophet, then we know the prophet is false. But the Bible does make allowances for predictions that are true, but not from God, and we ourselves know that there is a possibility of a prediction being true simply by chance, or because someone knows certain factors and gets lucky. For example, one can look at opinion polls and predict the result of an election. That doesn’t make that person a prophet.

    The book of Jeremiah provides many excellent examples of the use of this test. The primary issue between Jeremiah and other prophets was over the status of Jerusalem and the temple. Many prophets were predicting that the city and temple would be saved. They held a doctrine that based on God’s promises to David, the temple could not be destroyed. Jeremiah predicted that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed and the rulers and many of the people taken into exile. History proved Jeremiah right, even if his behavior during an invasion did sound like treason.

    One more specific example was the conflict between Hananiah and Jeremiah in depicted in Jeremiah 28. Jeremiah uses the visual aid of a yoke that he wears to show that those who accept Babylon’s yoke will survive. Hananiah removes the yoke and prophecies that Nebuchadnezzar will be repulsed. Jeremiah then predicts Hananiah’s death as a punishment from God. In the same year Hananiah dies (Jeremiah 28).

    A further problem with this test is the vagueness of certain prophecies. People frequently object when I refer to Biblical prophecies being vague. Usually these people have a very precise interpretation in mind. But there are normally other people who are equally convinced of precisely opposite solutions. A good example is the white horse its rider of Revelation 6:2. Interpretations, strongly stated, include the contradictory positions that the rider is Jesus Christ himself, and that he is the antichrist. Some other interpreters see the early Christian church heading out to evangelize. Obviously not all of these can be true, and so the prophecy must be regarded as vague. Revelation has gone through many interpretations that have been proven false by the progress of history. Remaining interpretations put unfulfilled events in the future. Can one then know by the fulfillment/sign test whether John the Revelator was a true or false prophet?

    But the situation gets more complicated yet. In the book of Jonah we have the story of a prophet who makes a specific prediction, one that certainly cannot be regarded as vague, and does not admit of an alternate interpretation. Nineveh was to be destroyed in 40 days. Nineveh was not destroyed in 40 days. One cannot assume that the later destruction of Nineveh fulfilled this prophecy, because it did not occur within the 40 days. Failed prediction! Can we say to the Ninevites, “You don’t have to fear Jonah’s prediction (Deuteronomy 18:22)?” That is certainly not the position of the book. From the perspective of our story teller Jonah does, in fact, have a message from God, but nothing happens.

    Some will claim that Jonah is a fictional story written to make a different point. I would argue that whether fictional or not, it likely reflects its authors view of predictive prophecy. But we have a better alternative.

    Returning to Jeremiah, now to chapter 18, we have the story of Jeremiah in the potter’s house. He watches the clay pots being made, and sees the potter reshape clay into whatever form he likes. This is often used by Christians, following the example of Paul in Romans 9, to indicate God’s absolute sovereignty, apart from our own actions. But Jeremiah’s point is precisely the opposite. He is telling us that God can change his actions based on repentance. Read the entire chapter. When good is predicted, and people turn to evil, God will repent of the good he had planned to do. When evil is predicted, and the people repent, then God will repent of the evil. The entire chapter is very instructive, and basically carries the same message with reference to prophecy as the book of Jonah.

    The historical situation in Jeremiah is substantially different from that in Jonah, however. Jeremiah is responding to the doctrine I referred to above, that Jerusalem and the Temple could not be destroyed because of God’s promises to David. Jeremiah is responding to this that God can change his actions according to the decisions and actions of people. In Jeremiah’s case this resulted in his correct prediction that Judah would fall, and would go into exile. He also predicted their return to Judah with significant accuracy. Jeremiah essentially presented a doctrine that, despite Deuteronomy 18, would allow the earlier prophets, those who had brought messages in favor of Jerusalem and the temple, could be true prophets even though their prediction of an eternal throne for David and for Jerusalem’s prosperity were about to fail.

    The final difficulty with this test is simply that the results can be too late. Again let me use Jeremiah for an example. He predicts the destruction of Jerusalem. The majority of those who claimed to be prophets in Judah were predicting salvation for Jerusalem. If you were Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, or Zedekiah, who would you believe? Until the events have taken place, you cannot know whose prediction came to pass. I call this the “dead test” for a prophet, because you’re so very often dead, as were many inhabitants of Jerusalem, before you can finish applying the test.

    So this test has some value, in that it provides an objective test, but at the same time there are substantial difficulties in application.

    In my next entry on this topic I will discuss the second test, Godliness.

  • Community and Inspiration

    I’m continuing a fairly long series of essays on inspiration. Some of this material will be included in my new book, When People Speak for God, though I haven’t scheduled a time yet when I’ll complete that manuscript.

    In my previous entry, The Heart of Inspiration, I said that inspiration starts from any experience of God, not necessarily words that are dictated by God, or even specific messages that are presented to a prophet, but rather from very human people experiencing the presence of God and then trying in their own words to record what they experienced. I suggested that this model explained more of the Biblical text than other major models used in discussing inspiration.

    There should be at least some readers who are getting annoyed at the continuing lack of a foundation for all of this, or one could say my use of circular arguments. That frustration is likely to continue. If we had some standard by which to judge divine revelations, it would itself have to be revealed, and then we’d just start the same set of questions all over again. What made this new super-standard into a standard?

    In thinking about this, I’ve tried to avoid coming up with an explanation of how I think I should have decided what, if anything, is inspired. Rather, I’d like to look at how I did, in fact, make that decision. And that comes in two parts. First, I grew up with the Bible. From the earliest time I remember, the Bible was presented as true and as God’s word. That was just an assumption in our family and in our church community.

    When I was about 10 years old, I asked my father how one could know that the Bible was true. I suggested the idea of fulfilled prophecy as an option. Instead, he told me that one couldn’t know or prove that the Bible was true, this was one of the things we take on faith. I have come back to that little piece of thinking many times in my life.

    The second phase came after graduate school, when I left Christianity entirely for a period of time and then returned. Again, I was confronted with the question. I could not be convinced that the Bible was inerrant, and in fact, I remain convinced that the human element shows through scripture in the form of very human failures to comprehend and express the message or the experience of God. Now perhaps I could make an informed choice between various available scriptures. But there was still no acceptable standard by which one could judge the available scriptures.

    Muslim friends have suggested I should accept the Qur’an, and therefore Islam, because it is so comprehensive, and answers every question. I’m afraid that I don’t actually find that very attractive in a religion. Now understand that I’m not criticizing Muslims for what they want and what they find in their scriptures. I’m not talking about what I should want, but rather about what I do want. I still know of no way in which to discover what I really ought to want in religion or a scripture. What I do want from scripture is something that is challenging and provides an opportunity for discussion, and the Bible certainly provides me with that.

    What I see from this is that my choice of scripture derives from community. From an experiential point of view I am a Christian because I was raised in a Christian family as part of a Christian community. I have studied further and I believe have more reasons than that to remain a Christian, but the bottom line is that the starting point was that I was born into the community. Further, I have continued to have spiritual experiences that relate to the Christian community, and which reinforce my sense of the presence of God. These experiences relate well to the experiences of the scriptures, and thus these reinforce my belief in the validity of those scriptures.

    Which leads me right back to what my father told me when I was 10 years old: I’m taking it on faith.

  • NBC: The Book of Daniel

    Yesterday I received an e-mail from the American Family Association urging me to write my local NBC affiliate and asking them to refuse to air the program The Book of Daniel. I’m told that the program is anti-Christian, and must be stopped, even though it hasn’t aired yet. Somehow, I’m never supposed to watch this show, never supposed to make an evaluation for myself, and I must also try to force others to give up their own choice by making sure that the program is not seen by the general public.

    Now I could comment on how counterproductive this strategy can be. I recall when similar attacks were made on NYPD Blue before it showed. The attacks made the show even more unpopular.

    But what I really can’t understand is what is wrong with everybody’s power switches and channel changers. Why is it that we are presumed unable to make a simple choice and watch a different channel? Believe me, companies get the feedback from that because they need the advertising revenue that results from a popular show. I recall nearly 20 years ago that the local cable service in Bellevue, NE added the Playboy channel to their lineup. People were up in arms! We can’t have our children watching this sort of stuff! (And I agree–we can’t.) The thing that seemed to be left out was that one had to pay and explicitly ask to have the channel added to your service. If you didn’t want your children exposed to it, all you had to do was not order it. (I discuss the problem of the need to control our own television sets in my essay Off-Switch Censorship.)

    Now I have not yet seen The Book of Daniel. What I plan to do is watch the premiere episode on Friday night. After I’ve watched it, I’ll know what I think about it, not before. I have a working channel changer, and I can handle it. And whatever I choose, everyone else will have a similar opportunity. If it’s a lousy show, it will probably fail.

    I sent the following e-mail to my local affiliate, WPMI in Mobile, AL: “I have seen a number of messages asking people to bombard NBC affiliates demanding that they don’t show this program. As a result, I feel that I should speak up and tell you not to give in to pressure by censoring potentially challenging shows. I haven’t seen “The Book of Daniel,” but I will certainly take a look at it and decide whether to watch it for myself. The one and only form of censorship that is appropriate is my off-switch and my channel changer. Don’t be pressured into cutting down the range of choices available to your viewers.”

    They responded that they are going to air the program, and they agree that people should have a choice. I congratulate them. That’s the way to do it.

  • More on Military Chaplains

    As a follow-up to my prior comments on military chaplains, I’d like to call attention to the following article. I want to note as well that I found this link on the American Family Association web site, and I want to thank them for providing this link to balancing information.

    In this article, Navy rebuts fasting chaplain’s claims, we see the response of the Navy, and also the comments of a conservative evangelical chaplain, and I note that this supports my contentions about the rules for military chaplains.

  • The Heart of Inspiration

    I’ve been talking about inspiration and canonization in several posts, and I’m finally ready to get down to talking about inspiration. First, I’d like to remind you of my existing essays on inspiration, Inspiration, Biblical Authority, and Inerrancy, which goes into some detail on the topic of Biblical inspiration.

    But now I want to look at what’s at the heart of divine inspiration. Then I’m going to follow with entries about various proposed tests for the validity of inspired writers and their value.

    What do people generally mean when they say that something written is inspired by God? There are many different answers to this question. Some options are:

    • God gave the very words and letters of the work in question
      This would apply to the Ten Commandments written on tablets of stone by God’s finger, to the Torah according to many Orthodox Jews, or to the entire Bible according to some conservative or fundamentalist Christians who believe in verbal dictation. Only those things God dictated would be regarded as inspired.
    • God impresses messages on the minds of certain people, who write those messages in their own words.
      Many conservative and moderate Christians hold a view like this. There is room for the personality of the prophet, and there is room for individual idiosyncrasies, but there must be a specific message sent by God.
    • People who experience God try to describe what they have experienced.
      This is a common liberal view of the inspiration of scripture. It is quite possible for there to be errors in scripture, but those who write do have a genuine experience of God. The validity of their descriptions may vary.

    (I discuss more options in my essay noted above.)

    There are different ways one can use to decide what inspiration means. All of these will be circular to some extent. For example, many people build their view of inspiration almost entirely from their understanding of the nature of God. God is all-knowing and truthful, so the Bible must be factually accurate and entirely truthful. This is the approach taken by those who believe in inerrancy. It has also been used in my experience by Muslims who have tried to persuade me that the Qur’an is the word of God. Others look heavily at human needs, and make the assumption that divine revelation would necessarily fill in what we don’t know and can’t know. There is a consistent assumption that God is intending to communicate knowledge to us, and specifically accurate knowledge.

    In either case, these people will take either the first or second view that I present about inspiration. The process is primarily about conveying information and the primary question to be asked is whether the information conveyed is accurate and comprehensible. I think that their view works fairly well for books that at least appear to claim to come from God. Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel claimed to be receiving messages from God and to write these messages. But what about other books? Luke claims to be writing the results of research. Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles appear to be history, and find their source in previously existing royal chronicles. Psalms contains prayers that are individual, and seem to express the heart cry of the individual psalmist.

    I would argue instead for the third view. My problem is not that the other views are circular, and that my alternative is not. It is inevitable that when we talk about revelation, something revealed by God that we could not otherwise know, we’re going to get a bit circular. After all, how do we know it is God talking? If the information is readily available to us, we might as well look at a more natural source. If the information is not available to us, it’s impossible to check.

    If you accept the third view, then the other books I have cited fall into place. There are many ways in which God speaks, many ways in which we can hear, and many ways in which we can express what we hear. The core, then, of an inspired writing is that the person doing the writing, or producing the information, has genuinely experienced God in some way. That experience may come through direct impression of messages from God in the mind, visions, dreams, guided study, or even guided experiencing of the world. The Biblical writer experiences God’s presence and writes it down.

    Of course, this view continues to be circular. I don’t know, except through my community and others that I study, what divine presence is. I can read about what others claim it is. I can describe what I have experienced, but I cannot ultimate get outside it and test it. The only protection I have is that I operate in a community. But that, in itself, is a subject for a future essay.

  • REAL Christians and the Military

    I’m going to make this a short note, because what I suggest is that you read the two stories (and even search for other sources) on this story and consider the issues for yourself.

    First, in the Washington Post: Military Wrestles With Disharmony Among Chaplains. According to this story there are definitely some issues to be dealt with. There are places in the military where it is appropriate for a chaplain to be sectarian and places where it is not. No final answer is given as to whether Lt. Gordon James Klingenschmitt, who is on a hunger strike, was actually justified in his actions or not. But the issues involved in the military are examined, as well as the nature of the chaplain’s work. I congratulate the post on a good story.

    Now look at this response: Dont Ask, Dont Pray; Jesus Gets A Dishonorable Discharge. Jesus is being discharged from the military? Chaplains are no longer being allowed to mention the name of Jesus? All the subtleties are lost in an effort to make this into a divisive issue. The difficulties of those of other faiths are not the concern of the writer. Terms such as “weaker, more timd Christians” as opposed to “practicing Christians” (presumably those who agree with the author).

    Well, perhaps I’m one of those weaker, more timid Christians, but I’m not going to be timid in saying that the kind of commentary being made by conservative Christians (and you can find plenty more such commentary on the internet with a simple search) is not well considered, is not appropriate, and is not a good representative of Jesus, my Lord and Savior. I especially dislike the statistical sleight of hand. We’re told that 85% of the country is Christian, which apparently is to justify support for Christian prayers in the military, following which we exclude the “timid Christians” who might not agree. Apparently I’m included in the group of real Christians when it’s convenient and excluded when not.

    Christian chaplains can pray in Jesus name at appropriate, non-mandatory services. It’s not a problem. I strongly suspect that the reason President Bush has not taken action in this case is that the military is fully capable of investigating it, considering all the issues, and making a ruling. What is happening in the commentary is a simple case of grabbing the one, headline generating story of a hunger strike, and then assuming that the person who is yelling the name of Jesus the loudest must be in the right.

    I rarely congratulate President Bush, but I can certainly commend him for letting the standard military process investigate and deal with this one. I hope he continues to have the courage to resist demagoguery like this.

  • Inside and Outside

    Note: I wrote the following for my wife’s devotional list, but I thought some might be interested on this blog as well.

    “I baptized you with water, but he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit.”

  • Redeeming Time

    It’s a new year. Resolutions have been made. Best wishes have been passed on to friends and loved ones. We even added in a leap second into last year to even out time very precisely.

    We care quite a lot about time. We like to measure it carefully, divide it into various bits and pieces, celebrate or mourn its passing, and discuss and criticize the way we use it. All in all, time is very important to the way we live in the year 2006 in America.

    I am pretty time conscious. I have generally worn a watch, and I sometimes make people nervous by looking at it as a conversation goes by. They think I’m in a hurry or have an appointment somewhere, or that I’m bored and would like to see the present activity end. A few months ago, the battery ran out and I decided to try not wearing a watch. You might think this was a tremendous hardship, but I’m normally in front of my computer, which has a clock displayed, or I’m in the car, which has a clock. In the house, there are clocks in every room. I can’t recall more than once or twice in the last several months when I’ve had to ask someone to look at their watch for me.

    Last night I attended a watch night service at my church (Gonzalez United Methodist Church). It started at 11 PM, and was to go until just after midnight. I wasn’t wearing a watch, as has become my habit. I was able to enjoy the service thoroughly, and then when the leader put on a CD of a bell choir over the church speakers, and told us it was now 2006, I was able to be in the moment, be surprised by it. But it didn’t take up my time before it got there. During that time I was able to think about the time of praise, prayer, and meditation that had been planned.

    As I was thinking about this post, I was reminded of a passage of scripture. As often happens to me, I remembered the scripture as I’d memorized it in the King James Version as a child: “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Ephesians 5:16). It might be better translated as “Make good use of every day, because these are bad times.”

    How are we to make good use of every day?

    Paul has some suggestions. In the verse before, he says not to be unwise, but to be wise. Sounds like a good idea. Some of my Spirit-led friends seem to think that being Spirit-led and applying wisdom are contradictory. “Don’t think about what you’re doing,” they say, “just go with the flow of the Spirit!” And that idea has some merit to it. We can kill things just by thinking them to death.

    But at the same time thinking about how we use our time is not contradictory to knowing God’s will. In the verse following, verse 17, Paul says, “Because of this don’t be foolish, but understand what God’s will is.” Wisdom and thinking in the use of our time is important, and is one of the ways we know God’s will.

    I think that in order to really “redeem the time” we need to get both elements involved. Both the open, free, unfettered leading of the Spirit, including our dreaming, visioning, imagining, and even resting, and at the same time our understanding and wisdom.

    Let me illustrate with two roles I play–writer and editor. These are hard to combine. You’ll find errors in many of these posts, because I don’t have someone else to proof-read them. Writing requires that free flow, quantity production, that gets words and hopefully thoughts on paper. If I spend too much time thinking about each word and about the whole document I’m trying to produce, I will produce a stilted and boring manuscript.

    When I edit, I have to change modes. (This is very difficult to do with your own work!) I look at each word asking whether it is accomplishing what it is supposed to accomplish. Is it necessary? Is it sufficient? The results of the free-flow of my imagination may be curtailed by an editorial hand, and usually will be better for that change.

    Balancing these out can be an interesting exercise. But to “redeem the time” we need to do both. In our lives, we need to have vision, dreams, and imagination. We need to have rest and relaxation. We also need to have boundaries, goals, schedules, and other means of dividing our time into manageable portions.

    Think about your life this new year’s day. Are you overbalanced in either direction? What would make your life better, more fulfilling, more in line with God’s will? Consider altering the balance a bit one way or the other.

    Redeem the time.

  • Child of God Living

    Note: I wrote this for my wife’s devotional list for today’s (12/30/05) entry. Jody puts out an e-mail devotional every weekday, and has also created a collection for her book, Daily Devotions of Ordinary People – Extraordinary God. I’ve included an ad (Amazon.com) for the book and a link to subscribe to the e-mail list. We probably only cross over between my blog and her list a half dozen times each year because they have a different flavor and purpose.

    5What is mankind that you remember them?
    Or human beings that you pay attention to them?
    6But you made them a little lower than God,
    And crowned them with glory and honor.
    7You made them rule over the works of your hands.
    You put everything under their feet. — Psalm 8:5-7 (TFBV)

    4Now when the time was fully right, God sent his son, made of a woman, made under the law, 5So he could ransom those who were under the law so they could be adopted as children. 6Now because you are children, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts with the cry, “Abba, Father!” 7So that you are no longer a slave, but a child, and if you are a child, you are also an heir through God. — Galatians 4:4-7 (TFBV)

    It’s coming up on New Year’s Day, and many of us will be making some resolutions. Some of those will mean a change in our lives. Others will be forgotten within days, or perhaps even within hours. I think the practice of making resolutions is, on balance, a good one. Times of commemoration and renewal are good for us, though it might be better if we had them more often, and were more careful to remember them between.

    But the question I want to suggest to you in this last devotional before New Year’s is this: What kind of resolution is appropriate to a child of the king?

    While you’re thinking about that, consider something else. Tonight, my wife and I were watching “Criminal Minds

  • Inspiration and Canon

    I’m back to thinking about inspiration today. Many people think about the terms “inspired” and “canonical” as nearly synonymous. Generally they are not.

    The term “canon” relates to idea of canon law, in other words a book is canonical when canon laws defines it as authoritative. Now the edges have become blurred over the years, and we have many different churches, but in general you will still find a statement in any church’s statement of beliefs that designates certain books of the Bible as canonical. For protestant churches, this is almost always the 66 books that have been accepted as canonical since the protestant reformation. The Roman Catholic Church, various eastern Orthodox churches and some smaller bodies have a different list of books.

    The books listed as canonical are generally assumed to be inspired, and thus to carry divine authority. But the act of making certain books canonical does not necessarily make them the only books that are inspired by God. Other works may be inspired. A person may regard other works as authoritative.

    This brings up the concept of a “personal canon.” In one sense, that is a contradiction in terms, since “canon” by nature involves a community to which the standard applies, and not an individual. But as used, it simply means those books that a particular individual regards as authoritative in some way. Alternatively, some people use that term to designate the list of those books they regard as inspired. I prefer not to use that second sense, because it reinforces the notion that “canonical” and “inspired” are synonyms.

    So how does an organization establish a canon? That would depend on the organization. In the case of early Christianity I would suggest that it was in many ways a contest of popularity, with the proviso that I’m referring to popularity in use as an authority on doctrine or practice. By the time the church councils got together to make authoritative lists, there was really very little wiggle room. By virtue of the earlier victory of what we now call “orthodox” doctrine, and the fact that generally orthodox bishops and officials attended the councils, we get a canon that was acceptable to orthodox churches.

    I don’t have a problem with the procedure. In effect, I think that popularity must be a primary consideration. It would be hard to force a community to accept material that they truly did not like as authoritative. But this does relate directly to the idea of inspiration. Very frequently a community later accepts as authoritative someone who was not popular in his own time. Jeremiah is an excellent example. He was persecuted when he spoke, his work was cut up when he wrote, and he ended up forcibly taken to Egypt against his will. But his book later became an authoritative part of scripture.

    This leads me to point out almost a contradiction between immediate inspiration and immediate relevance of a message and its acceptance as canonical. Some of the most inspired and challenging statements that have ever been made have been given to communities that really didn’t like them at all. I suspect that in most times the message of a true prophet will not be well received. A message may receive very mixed reception. Gandhi was poorly received by the British occupiers and by those who wanted to turn to violence. Others received his work joyfully. Inherent in the way he inspired people to action was the fact that he angered other people.

    My point is that simply asking whether a work is canonical or not is not a very good way to determine its value to your own spiritual life. Most of the material we now have in the Bible and which are regarded by all Christian churches as authoritative, was once poorly received by at least a part of the community. The things that truly correct us and call us to greater action are likely to be frowned upon by those who need them most.

    What a defined canon does for us is tell us what defines our community. It does not define the boundaries of what helps us grow spiritually.

    (I will discuss inspiration in a later post.)