Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Sacrificing for Joy

    The Old Testament Lectionary passage for the first Sunday in Lent, cycle C is Deuteronomy 26:1-11.  It’s kind of an odd text for this season.  You might almost use it as a text for Fat Tuesday.

    I’m going to comment more on the lectionary texts this week, if for no other reason than because I’ve been asked to teach the weekly Lectionary at Lunch group at First United Methodist Church of Pensacola for my friend Rev. Geoffrey Lentz.  I plan to provide another set of comparisons between various study Bibles and what they contribute to the study.  But first I want to note two things from this passage.

    First, Christians often assume that grace is our contribution to religion and that the Israelite religion was one of works and rituals.  But in the confession of faith in this passage, Israel’s faith and worship is clearly rooted in God’s gracious acts to Israel.  God reaches out first and people respond.

    Second, the people bring a sacrifice of first fruits, and it’s not just given in thanks, it’s given for the purpose of having a celebration together.

    It’s easy for us to look down on rituals and ceremonies or on good works in general.  Often this reflects a lack of such works on our own part.  But the real issue is not whether one worships in high or low liturgy, or whether one engages in good works.  Rather, it’s where those acts of worship and good deeds are rooted.  When we are expressing God’s grace through our deeds, and responding to God’s grace in worship, our worship will tend to be filled with God’s presence, and truly be good.

    Without being rooted in God’s grace, we will engage in empty rituals and deeds done for the purpose of earning God’s favor.  Such acts are dead and do not lead to joy.

    Note that the confession comes before the party, just as God’s salvation comes prior to the response.  That is a pattern that is repeated in both the Old Testament and the New.

  • Affliction as Our Schoolmaster

    St. John Chrysostom on affliction as our schoolmaster at Classical Arminianism.  After reading it, ask yourself how much affliction deepens your Bible study.

  • Claims and Actions about the Bible

    The surest sign that somebody doesn’t read the Bible that much is that they claim to do everything it says. Now there are lots of ways to nuance that statement, but I’ve found that in general those who make the claim are unaware of many commands of the Bible, and don’t have an explanation for why they don’t follow those commands. (There are plenty of commands given in the Bible that don’t apply to you.)

    Unfortunately many people regard claiming to follow the Bible or do all the things it says is a sign of piety, so whether or not they know what the Bible says they make the claim.

    Via Twitter I found this post at Coram Deo, in which some such ignorance is documented. I think Matt makes many good suggestions for dealing with this Biblical ignorance.

    I would add two things:

    1. Address controversial issues in the church, rather than sticking with questions that permit “Sunday School answers”
    2. Remember those commands in the Bible that deal with honesty and integrity, and don’t claim to value the Bible if you don’t actually read and study it.

    Check out Matt’s entire post.

  • On Mythicist Views of Jesus

    For those who may not watch all these things the term “mythicists” refers to those who believe Jesus never existed, that the stories about him were made up at some point and were not even centered on a minimal historical figure. There is a near alternative which holds that there were so few valid words of actions of the historical figure that he might as well have just been some random figure. But that’s a different argument.

    James McGrath has an excellent short post on this, which will go into my library of links to use in response to such questions. I think he makes his case well and does so in easily understood language. He gets us away from “proof arguments” which dominate so much amateur discussion of history. Very little, if anything, can be absolutely proven about history even if it happened yesterday. One deals with probabilities. Sometimes these probabilities are overwhelming, but even so we should remember they are probabilities so as to deal reasonably with the less probable events.

    In any case, read the whole post at Exploring Our Matrix.

  • Fallibility, Inerrancy, and Mystery

    I think Mark at Pseudo-Polymath is absolutely correct in his excellent post Of Scripture and Tradition.

    When I first decided that inerrancy didn’t work, it was because I found errors as they would be defined by the people that first taught me to regard the Bible as inerrant.  At the same time I remained convinced of Biblical inspiration.  Over time this has evolved in my mind to the position that inerrancy causes us to ask the wrong questions of scripture, something I still believe, despite the efforts of many to frame inerrancy so that it does not have that effect.  My problem is that once one has so framed inerrancy, it appears meaningless to me.

    It seems to me that we try to judge the Bible as a book amongst books, and that we err in doing so whether our judgment is favorable or not.  As scripture, the Bible is a unique phenomenon.  There is no standard by which we could judge it.  There is no category “books inspired by God” which as a set of criteria (presumably also divinely inspired) against which we can judge the Bible.

    I like Mark’s statement “The mystery is the experience …”  That is a very good descriptive phrase.

    Now I don’t think there is any problem evaluating the Bible’s impact on some area of study, for example, its value to historical study, and so forth.  But its value to historical study is not the same thing as its value as God’s message.

  • Essence Restored on the Repeal of Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell

    He thinks Christians should support the repeal, and explains his position very clearly.

  • Can One Be a Bibleist?

    I received a link to the following video in a tweet from @TheActiveWord.  It seems so closely related to my last post that I’d include it here:

    There are several things I agree with here.  First, I do believe that the Bible has the sovereignty of God and the responsibility (of which some sort of free will seems to be a corollary) of humanity.  Second, I also find labels confining.  Yet the very act of using language involves assigning labels, and I note that Rev. Coy is unafraid to apply labels to the editors of Christianity Today.

    But the bottom line again is the idea, presented right toward the end, that one can be a “Bibleist” and believe “the Word of God” without “man’s interpreations.”  Yet even the statement that the concepts of sovereignty and responsibility exist together in some sort of tension is an interpretation.

    I don’t understand why so many Christians are afraid to admit that they are interpreting and then they are following their interpretations.  It sounds so pious to claim that one is following just the word of God without any human involvement.  But by the very fact of recognizing it as God’s word, reading it, and applying it, you are interpreting it.  It’s nothing to be ashamed of.  It’s just a fact.

  • N. T. Wright on Hell

    An interesting short discussion.

  • Opinions, Interpretations, and What the Word of God Says

    There’s one use of the phrase “just your interpretation” that implies that no interpretation is better than any other.  This is often used by people who have no idea how a particular text should be interpreted, but nonetheless feel like rejecting your interpretation in particular.  Either they think all interpretations are equal–a common idea these days–or they are just tool lazy or uninterested to bother to check.  (I wrote about this some time ago on my Threads blog.

    But today I’m writing about the opposite use — the idea that you can get past opinions and interpretations to something that is just “what God’s word says.”  For example, this morning a reader named Bryon commented on a post on tithing, and began thus:

    In regards to tithing, the question is not what is someone’s opinion or interpretation of Malachi 3:10. The question is what does the Word of God say about Malachi 3:10 and other scriptures concerning the tithe? …

    (I’ll provide him a link in my reply to his comment, so he can respond here..)

    Now it happens that I agree with most of the interpretations and opinions contained in his post, but they are his opinions of how to interpret those passages and apply them.  My agreement is my opinion as well.  There’s nothing wrong with interpreting or with having opinions.

    Some people think that claiming something is just God’s word is a matter of humility.  If you attribute it to God then you’re not claiming authority for your own opinion.  I happen to disagree.  It is my opinion that not taking credit for your own interpretations and opinions is really rather arrogant.  They are still your opinions; now you’re just letting people think that somehow God is speaking directly through your words.

    For example, Malachi 3:10 does not tell us whether tithing applies to Christians or not.  Clearly it is addressed to the Jewish people after the exile, but there are other commands that are addressed to specific groups of people that many, many Christians believe apply to everyone everywhere.  Determining the person(s) to whom a command applies is a matter of interpretation.

    Now my opinion is that Bryon is right and this command applied to Israel at the time and stewardship is different for Christians.  But that remains my opinion of how the text should be interpreted.

  • Christian Carnival CCCXII Posted

    … at M and M.  Check it out!