Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • What Could Be More Dangerous than Liberalism?

    If you let your eyes wander up to the header you’ll see that my tag line includes the word “liberal” and not in a negative light. I’ve even written about being a liberal charismatic believer. So if you’re wondering how I can use both labels at once, follow the link. But in certain circles, “liberals” make good enemies, you know, the kind of enemies that you know will help make other people your friends—the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?

    And so Adrian Warnock points to a post by Micah Fries, titled simply Fighting with Scripture. In this post he speaks of the joys of being Southern Baptism following the conservative resurgence, and how nice it is to know that those around him embrace infallibility and inerrancy. In this portion of the universe, the old enemy, liberalism” has been laid to rest and it is easy to ridicule, at least in these sanitized domains. Now my point here is not to beat up on Southern Baptists. I do not consider those who believe in biblical inerrancy to be either worse Christians or scholars than those who do not. In fact, I hope that more moderate and liberal theologians will read and engage with conservative scholarship. I do like to make the point that those of us who see biblical inspiration differently are not the enemies, and may have something to contribute as well.

    Just a couple of lines from the post:

    Liberalism, of course, reduces God’s word, and in doing so attempts to make a mockery of those who would dare take that word at face value. It assumes a position of great authority, in fact it could be argued that it assumes a position of greater authority than scripture itself as it attempts to “rectify” the “errors” found in the bible.

    When I see “of course” in a sentence like that I must confess that it gets under my skin a bit. You see, I don’t think I “reduce God’s word.” Rather, I attempt to understand God’s word as clearly as possible. I don’t “make a mockery of those who would dare take that word at face value,” in fact, I try to avoid mockery. (There are those who assume that disagreement, especially vigorous disagreement is mockery. I’ll just have to live with that.) But still, the issue here is not whether to take “God’s word” at face value. The question is just what that face value is.

    Let’s illustrate this for a moment from Genesis, the great controversy these days. I’ve just edited, and my company has published, a book titled Creation in Scripture by Herold Weiss. It takes a look at the various ways in which creation is discussed in scripture. What it taught me as I edited it was how much more there was to the “face” of what the Bible has to say about creation than most people realize. There are major texts in scripture that are rarely part of this discussion. Many people who try to discuss creation see a “face” of God’s word that is like viewing a large mountain through the trees. You see a little bit of the mountain where light gets between all the trees. But the mountain is more than what you see in that way.

    And how do I get the face value of scripture? Do I read Genesis 1 & 2 as a 21st century citizen of a scientific era? Do I try to get into the perspective of someone from the ancient world? The face looks considerably different depending on which of those perspectives I take.

    My intent here is not to demonstrate what particular view is better, but rather to show that the simple statement that “liberalism reduces God’s word” is somewhere between inadequate and false. It’s inadequate in the sense that it doesn’t do justice to what moderate and liberal students of scripture do when studying. It’s false because very often the liberal interpreter is actually seeing more of the “face” from which the “value” is derived.

    This reminds me of my discussions with KJV-Only advocates. They refer to any word or phrase that is present in the KJV but not in a modern version as something that has been removed from scripture. In vain does one point out that the best Greek manuscripts do not have the word or phrase in question, and that one might just as well say that the KJV added it to scripture. What are you taking as your standard? More importantly, how are you using and applying that standard?

    In order to have valuable discussions of these points we need to state the questions a different way. Conservatives, moderates, and liberals understand scripture differently. We need to discuss passages on that basis, and examine our hermeneutic first. It’s often valuable to take a passage that is slightly less controversial and ask how we look at that passage. We may well continue to disagree (doubtless in many cases we will), but perhaps we would have a better understanding of why and how.

    I share the concern of the authors I linked with reference to legalism, though I don’t think the accusation that it is “adding to scripture” is the best way to address it. I suspect legalism is more a matter of where we place things in our thinking and acting. Having just taught from Ephesians 2 and done preparation to teach from Ephesians 3, I see a fairly clear relationship between grace and action. It’s not that legalists do too much, though some do, it is that they place rules and their actions in the wrong place in their relationship to God. Grace, God’s grace, comes first.

    In pursuing correct theology, I think we often fall into the same danger. We make theology our works and become legalistic in terms of what people should believe. But placing barriers of knowledge and belief ahead of grace is just as damaging as placing barriers of action. We can get into the position of earning God’s favor through getting things right just as easily as through doing things right, and often with even greater damage.

    Legalism will not be defeated by making sure people’s theology of grace is thoroughly correct and orthodox. Legalism is defeated by grace in action. God’s grace, and yes, God’s grace displayed through God’s people.

  • Rachel Held Evans, Owen Strachan, and Adrian Warnock Went on a Radio Show

    It wasn’t as funny as if they’d gone into a bar, but it was considerably more enlightening. It might appear that having two complementarians against one egalitarian was unfair, but Rachel clearly had no problem with the format, and the host pointed out that, though he was playing neutral moderator, he was more inclined to Rachel’s position.

    I very rarely listen to something that long. I much prefer the written to the spoken word. If you want to get my attention, write. But the participants were enough to get me started and the quality of their discussion was enough to keep me listening.

    It will surprise nobody who reads this blog that I agree with Evans down the line, though I might be a bit more liberal than she is on hermeneutics. The important points on hermeneutics came out more toward the end, though you’ll miss some references if you skip to that point, where Owen Strachan talks about having to obey all of scripture and not pick and choose and warns of a slippery slope. Evans quickly points out that there are other things we don’t follow, yet somehow we don’t feel we’re on a slippery slope.

    The fact is that nobody obeys “all of scripture” in the sense of keeping every command. Everyone has some way to distinguish between commands that apply and those that don’t. It’s just that they generally tend to ignore the ones that they have, in their own view, really excellent reasons to ignore. In ignoring them, they hardly notice the fact that they are ignoring commands.

    So the question is whether one’s application of a scripture to a situation (or failure to do so) is justified or not. I commented some on this on my Participatory Bible Study blog.

    I would add to this discussion this note: When Owen Strachan refers to using the simple or plain portions of scripture to explain those that are more obscure, I find it interesting that he sees commands and theological statements as simple, while stories and history are apparently more obscure. I would see it as precisely the reverse. When Paul says in one place that he doesn’t allow a woman to speak, and in another we have a very clear indication of a woman in authority, I think it would be best to find an interpretation of the command (or theological statement) that doesn’t suggest that Paul was violating his own command, rather than trying to explain away the action and make it appear that it didn’t violate our view of the command.

    Thus if Junia stands out among the apostles in Rome, while women submit (and don’t speak) in Ephesus, I’m going to guess that the command has something to do with Ephesus.

     

  • UMC Pastoral Accountability: What About Bishops?

    United Methodist Insight led me to Jeremy Smith’s article, Defeating the Dark Side of Church Metrics. I recommend the second link because of comments. Since one commenter talks about people who oppose accountability but who receive their paycheck from the church, let me note that I am a United Methodist layman, and I do not receive support from the church. I put those little pieces of paper in the offering plate, not vice-versa. (Read the comments to Jeremy’s post if you don’t get this!)

    I have been very interested in this debate because I believe strongly in accountability and at the same time don’t see conference dashboards providing the right sort of accountability. I have encountered United Methodist pastors that I thought shouldn’t be shepherding actual sheep, much less church-member-sheep. There are a few poor excuses for pastors out there. But at the same time there are churches that are more difficult to manage than others. (Out of This World describes one. Full disclosure – my company publishes that book.) There are also large numbers of wonderful pastors, trying to fulfill their call, and being hampered by a dying (perhaps suicidal?) church.

    So the first thing I noticed was that the metrics being used are not properly weighted. My initial impression is that our bishops are numerically challenged. But that’s not really the problem. They have the numbers. What they don’t have is enough context for the numbers. And while one can hope that when the cabinet discusses appointments, such context will be provided by people who are in the field, when one reads a conference dashboard—say North Alabama—one doesn’t have that context. So the public face of the metrics is without adequate context, in my view.

    But I’m just a Methodist layman. Jeremy Smith has looked into this and is suggesting we change the way we do metrics. Much of what he suggests resonates with me. I have to confess that I’m not connectional enough to care whether a particular local church is giving to United Methodist or non-UM projects for the most part. I have a tendency to call myself “a member of a United Methodist congregation” more often than I call myself United Methodist. But in general, he’s talking about the right things, and the charts he uses (see his post for sources) can be helpful in looking at those things.

    But ultimately I don’t think any set of numbers will do the job adequately. Numbers can be helpful, but in the end someone has to take responsibility, prayerfully discern the situation in each ministry situation, and make a call. I’d think the person to take that responsibility in our polity would be a bishop. That’s unfortunate, in a way, as bishops supervise too many churches to really understand all their local church communities, no matter how well one designs and then completes charts and reports. It would be better for such responsibility to fall on someone at the district superintendent level, but I don’t want to beat up on DS’s too much, as I perceive their job to involve taking all the blame, getting none of the credit, and having no actual authority to do anything about it. I exaggerate, but the DS does have to work largely by exhorting pastors below and bishops above.

    Bishops are elected for life, and we should imagine they are elected because their fellow pastors discern in them special gifts and a special call from God. But is there any point at which a person should no longer be called to account? I want to say there is no such point, but in our clumsy Methodist structure, I’m not sure if we’ve given bishops the authority to accomplish what they need to either. I’m no Book of Discipline expert, but I base this on observation.

    I would say the same thing for every level of the church.

    1) Provide responsibility with adequate authority to fulfill it

    2) Place those with the responsibility to hold one accountable in a position to evaluate and act

    3) Hold everyone accountable according to the authority given.

    Incidentally, this leaves us with the power vacuum at the top of the United Methodist Church. There is nobody to hold everyone from bishops to boards and agencies accountable. The members of the church at large should do this, but the authority structure is so bizarre that few Methodists know who is accountable for what. We obviously fear strong executive power, but the advantage to such power would be that the membership could understand that if the agencies don’t do what the general conference votes, there is one person, or one small group, who should be held accountable for failing in their task.

    Or—and it matters little to me, so long as we do one or the other—we could just become congregational and admit we have little control over what’s happening, and that such control as we do have is generally hampering the gospel rather than helping.

  • Timo S. Paananen on Forgery Detection

    James McGrath links to a PDF by Tim S. Paananen demonstrating some problems with forgery detection via literary parallels.

    I’ve kept largely silent on the issue of the authenticity of The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife, because I don’t read Coptic and I’m simply not well enough acquainted with the various methodologies that would be required to authenticate such a fragment.

    Paananen’s comments are well-taken, however, and apply broadly to determining literary relationship, and also dependency. Sequences of common words don’t carry much weight.

    I continue to await some sort of consensus amongst scholars who have the time, skill, and access to make a solid determination.

     

  • 1935 Series Dollar Silver Certificate Without …

    … “In God We Trust” on the back. See This is NOT a Counterfeit Bill at Yahoo News. I’ve always found the idea of putting “In God We Trust” on our currency to be mildly blasphemous. In our money is precisely where we trust God the least. And that’s in our personal finances. When we come to national finances, putting God’s name somewhere in there is false advertising, or in the biblical sense, taking God’s name in vain. Or so it seems to me.

  • Are You Preserving Holy Bricks?

    There’s an insightful article on the Spectrum Magazine web site titled Holy Bricks. This one deals particularly with Seventh-day Adventist bricks, but the principles discussed apply anywhere. I have yet to encounter a community that doesn’t have a few holy bricks to deal with. I particularly liked the point where a constituent in a meeting said, “I don’t care if we don’t have a single student left, you’re not going to close our school!” I suspect most church leaders have heard the equivalent.

    There is a time to move forward in faith, but I don’t think that time coincides with our desire to preserve holy bricks. In any case, read the whole article. There are some great thoughts there.

  • On Deepening Progressive Theology

    As you can see in the header, I use the labels “passionate moderate” and “liberal charismatic.” The first is one I adopted myself, the second was bestowed on me by an enemy, who combined the two things he liked the least in order to describe me. Nonetheless, it has an element of truth. I even used it in the subtitle of a book.

    But one of my complaints about liberal Christians has been that they (or we) are often much more certain of what we don’t believe than of what we do. Comments such as “we don’t take things so literally” or “we see that as more of a story” are used to cover wide swaths of theological thinking, but often the speakers don’t actually have any idea what that “less literal” meaning might be.  I have always known of serious progressive theological thinkers, and enjoyed their writings. Unfortunately, I’ve also known the other variety.

    So I like to see efforts to further define liberal or progressive theology, such as The Eight Points in Process – A Theological Vision – The Way of Jesus by Bruce Epperly. It is just the first article in a series, and it looks very promising. I see serious theological reflection written in terms that anyone can understand. For example:

    An early Christian spiritual leader, Iraneaus, proclaimed that the “glory of God is a fully alive human being.” From this perspective, Jesus is the fully alive one. The light of God focused on Jesus in a special way, giving him a unique message, spectacular healing energy, unhindered hospitality, and prophetic action. We follow Jesus’ Way not only because of his teachings but because of the power, wisdom, and healing he channeled.

    Though this uses some vocabulary that may wave red flags for some people, it addresses a serious issue. Can Jesus be reduced to just a great ethical teacher? If you are one of the people who find the vocabulary troubling, I’d suggest reading it again and then thinking of some phraseology from the gospel of John.

    I personally find process theology to be a bridge too far, but I do find much here that is helpful. I’ll definitely be following this series through to the end.

  • Such a Prayer – Jody’s Devotionals

    I want to call attention to my wife’s excellent devotional on prayer.

  • Community vs Supporting the Organization

    Miguel Angel Nuñez, in a post on Facebook, discusses what he would like to see in a church. Here’s an extract:

    Deseo formar parte de una comunidad cristiana que base su relación en la igualdad y no en la jerarquía, en la sinceridad y no en medias verdades, en la intimidad y no en un vínculo fingido, en la aceptación y no en la aplicación de etiquetas y partidos, en el poder curativo de un Dios de amor y no en la toxicidad de un dios que atemoriza, que culpa, que persigue y que manipula.

    For those who don’t read Spanish, let me provide a quick translation:

    I want to be part of a Christian community that is bases its social structure in equality and not in hierarchy, in sincerity and not in half-truths, in intimacy and not in fake ties, in acceptance and not in applying labels and parties, in the healing power of God’s love and not in the toxic nature of a god who frightens, blames, drives away, and manipulates.

    I like the kind of community we’re talking about, but I wonder just how it is that we can achieve it. I have experienced many different Christianity communities, either through membership or as a visitor. I have tried connecting with groups that claimed to be non-hierarchical, and in general I find that they are very hierarchical. In fact, the less explicit they are about their hierarchy, the more manipulative they become. There is nothing quite like the manipulation that takes place in a group where the lines of authority and the social connections are poorly defined.

    On the other hand, manipulation does not disappear in highly structured organizations. It may be easier for the newcomer to navigate the structure, but the more subtle manipulation of the group with an undefined structure is replaced by an inflexibility of the fixed structures. Methodist churches often fall into this second category.

    But I have observed something else. Often the structure that is claimed, either in writing or reported by members, is not the same as the real structure. If the claimed structure is not being followed in reality, the result can be even more manipulative than one that is completely undefined.

    In any of these churches one will hear calls to community, to give up oneself, to live for others. It’s not about me. It’s not about you. It’s all about God. But when all is said and done, God seems to support some “me’s” and “you’s” more than others. Those god-favored folks for some reason seem to be the same group that tends to become leaders in any social organization.

    It’s not supposed to be this way with the church.

    In his first letter to the Corinthian church Paul has to address issues of immorality as well as serious errors in theology and in church practice. But he starts out with his surprise that factions have broken out in the church. There’s even a “Christ” faction. I don’t know if the groups precisely match, but this reminds me of myself in a factional dispute. I’m prone to create a “not part of any faction, just following Jesus” position, which quickly become its own faction of holier than thou folks because, well, we’re not a faction! We’re an unfaction. Or something.

    Whether you’re in a home church organization or in a highly structured church organization, this human tendency toward hierarchy and faction can, and probably will, rear its ugly head.

    What can we do?

    The one answer that I have found is more application of the gospel message. When we apply the gospel message, we need to apply it first to ourselves. In other words, I need to get out of my faction, including the faction that says I have the answer, and start pointing to Jesus. No, not pointing to the way in which I’ve got Jesus under control so that my non-faction is the only group in the church that has things right.

    The gospel teaches us that we are all outsiders. We’re not part of any “in” crowd. It is only by grace that we become part of the only community that really matters, the community that belongs to Jesus Christ.

    (You can also follow me on Facebook.)

  • On UM Insight

    I want to thank UM Insight for publishing a post from this blog, Defensive Christianity. It’s encouraging to have a post recognized and republished, and I appreciate what they do for the United Methodist Church.