Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • Dan Wallace has a Complaint about Liberals

    … and I think he’s right, at least about some of us. He writes in reference to graduates of Dallas Theological Seminary.

    After my own difficulties, though rather minor ones, with my more conservative graduate school, it annoys me that liberal schools might look down on graduates of conservative institutions.

  • Mistakes Leading to Death

    This article certainly raises some troubling issues, though I have yet to understand why one should equate ceasing to artificially sustain life with euthanasia or assisted suicide.

    What I wonder, however, is if the same people who are so concerned about erroneously identifying someone as in a vegetative state are similarly concerned about the possibility of human error leading up to the death penalty. This is one area where I think the Catholic church is more consistent–they would oppose all of the above.

    The idea of someone dying because of a mistake is troubling, yet we must admit that such deaths are likely to be frequent, no matter what we do.

  • You Want Me to Take WHAT Literally?

    Check out this cartoon at Exploring Our Matrix.  I suspect it’s much easier to take things literally if you don’t actually have to do anything about them!

  • The Meaning of Christ the King Sunday

    … an excellent short article by Geoffrey Lentz.

  • I Get Mail from UM Communications

    I’m yielding to temptation and including an “I get quoted” story, because I’d like to call attention to the article in question.

    Today when I went to Bible study at my church, First UMC of Pensacola, my pastor handed me a large envelope. Since I wasn’t expecting anything I was a bit surprised. Inside there were three copies of Interpreter magazine, again a surprise because I couldn’t think of any reason I’d get one.

    But then I found the article by Kathy Noble, “Lord, Save Us” (pp. 33-34), in which she quotes me about the movie. It’s very generous to send me three copies since I’m quoted, but I appreciate it very much. A few people in the study group said they hadn’t looked at their Interpreter yet, but would now.

    This movie will challenge the way we think and do ministry. You can find out more at Lord, Save Us (the movie), and/or join the discussion at Interpreter Magazine.

  • Christian Carnival CCCIII Posted

    … at Crossroads.

  • Progressive Orthodoxy

    C. Michael Patton has an interesting post today taken from his introduction to theology students.

    I would particularly like any number of the folks in the various Sunday School classes I teach to absorb some of the material. This is not because I generally agree. I perceive myself to be both to the left and well to the Arminian side of his theology. Yet there are a number of point there that especially many of my Methodist brethren do not understand about either Reformed theology or in general of evangelical theology.

    The first of those items is the definition of sola scriptura. Use that phase in most Methodist churches, in my experience, and people think of a complete rejection of tradition even in terms of the method in which we approach and understand scripture. Thus most of these same Methodists reject sola scriptura.

    Patton describes it thus:

    2. Scriptural Orthodoxy. This is the belief that Scripture alone sets the bounds of orthodoxy without any (or minimal) aid from the historic body of Christ. This should not be mistaken for sola Scriptura—the belief that the Scripture is our final and only infallible authority in matters of faith and practice—but as a radical rejection of any other sources of authority such as the church, tradition, natural revelation, etc. It is often referred to as solo Scriptura or nuda Scriptura. Here, there would not be minimal (if any) authority derived from the body of Christ, historic or contemporary, as an interpretive community that either fallibly or infallibly has the ability to define orthodoxy. Adherents would often be found saying, “No creed but the Bible.”

    The second would be the idea of progressive understanding, or “illumination” as illustrated in the various graphics. He describes that as follows:

    6. Progressive Orthodoxy. This is the belief that the ultimate authority for the Christian faith is found only in the Scriptures (sola Scriptura) and that orthodoxy is a progressive development of the Church’s understanding of the Scriptures. …

    Patton is an advocate of progressive orthodoxy.

    I believe I fall a bit to the left of that position, because I fail to see the clear line between “revelation” and “illumination” that comes at the end of the canon. I accept that we can, and indeed have, developed doctrine past the revelation of the canon, but I don’t see the hard and fast line. In a sense, the “nuda scriptura” folks (to borrow from Patton’s definition) have a point in that if the canon is complete, why would it not define such doctrines as the trinity if, in fact, the trinity is an essential. It’s interesting to me that many who claim the Bible alone in this narrower sense do accept the doctrine of the trinity, even though it seems to me that it requires some Christian tradition to get to what I would call the orthodox doctrine at least.

    I appreciate also the essentials/non-essentials distinction, which many folks have a hard time making. It’s too easy to make the essentials be totally coterminous with their personal belief system. I wrote about this in a post Unity, Diversity, and Confusion, in which I argue that you must have some core of common belief, but you can also have way to much required common belief.

    I continued this theme in several posts, notably Excessively Large Tent = Crash, and Christian Essentials – Incarnation at the Center, in which I discuss where I start in defining essential doctrines. Each of those posts provides links to my own further discussion.

  • On Translating to be Understood

    One of the experiences that shaped my approach to Biblical languages and Biblical studies occurred late in my first year of Greek.  The teacher was Lucille Knapp at Walla Walla College (now Walla Walla University), and she really enjoyed Greek and was quite expressive.  She kept us on our toes.  I was translating a verse for the class and used the word “propitiation.”

    “Henry!” she exclaimed.  “I am not teaching you to translate Greek into Latin!”

    An argument amongst the students ensued regarding how we should translate that word.  Some students, myself included, felt that people could just learn what propitiation meant, since we couldn’t think of a good single word in English to replace it.  The problem was, to our shame, that we really couldn’t do a good job of defining it either.  For us, the word “propitiation” was a black box.  It filled a space, but we didn’t really have it integrated into our theology enough to explain it rather than just repeating it.

    I thought about that a great deal after that class and it changed my whole idea of what “translation” means as well as what it means to express theology clearly and effectively.  C. S. Lewis once suggested that all ministerial candidates be required to pass a test involving translating a substantial work of theology (I’d suggest a nice passage from Karl Barth!) into language that their congregation would be able to grasp.  I think both ideas are related.  You haven’t translated if you haven’t managed to make the text comprehensible in the target language.  You haven’t preached or proclaimed the gospel unless you have made it understood.

    I was launched into this little note by reading the following today from Dave Black’s blog:

    In the course of teaching Greek (both classical and Koine) the past 34 years I’ve found that translating Greek into English is a very different enterprise from understanding what the text means. A translation may at times sound very erudite, but to be relevant and beneficial the text must be understood — and then applied. One of my greatest challenges as a teacher has been to get my students to see the need to give up theological jargon when translating from Greek into English. If we can use simpler and clearer words to express the truths of Scripture, then by all means let’s do so. Why, for example, should we render Rom. 12:11 “distribute to the needs of the saints” when “share what you have with God’s people who are in need” will do the job and is much clearer? Or why should we insist that the purpose of pastor-teachers is “to equip the saints for the work of the ministry” when we can say “to prepare God’s people for works of service”? If all we do is parrot the standard English versions while translating from English to Greek, I’m afraid we’ll end up with nothing but another secret religious society. If insisting on the use of theological jargon actually helped people to become more obedient to the Word of God, I’d say do it at all costs. But is there any evidence that it does?

    To admit this inadequacy honestly can be very intimidating to the teacher. It means, in fact, that we can no longer be content to offer courses in Greek exegesis that fail to include serious self-examination. Somehow we need to move our students from a mere grammatical approach to the text to one that involves them deeply in the Christian pilgrimage. What is the purpose of exegeting Paul’s Christ-hymn in Phil. 2:5-11 if we, the translators, are not willing to model the upside-down kingdom of God in our own lives? Strangely, I am discovering that more and more of my students are asking the “so what” question of everything they are learning. And I am more and more convinced that the joy of living the Gospel in our lives is what should drive the exegetical process in the first place. I may be wrong, but when we talk about “seminary education,” I think we are talking about training students for the adventure of living the Christian life in the real world by doing what is important in God’s eyes. I have found, to my horror, that it is far easier to simply talk about the text than to seek to live it out. Look at the New Testament writers like Paul or John who wrote and taught in the crucible of actual missionary experience. They were willing to follow the Lord Jesus even at the risk of death. They didn’t just talk about the truth, they lived it.

    Just so!

    If Paul says I am to share what I have with God’s people who are in need, I’d better be doing just that. This pedagogical insight may belong in a fortune cookie, but it’s the best I can do.

  • The Age of the Earth – Not a Minor Difference

    In the good old days when I used to have a seminar on this topic that I used in churches, I had an overhead transparency that showed the age of the earth (along with some of the various geological time periods). This was represented by a line that went the length of the slide. Beside it was the young age, represented by a dot.

    The BioLogos Foundation Science and the Sacred blog has something about this today. It’s not a minor difference, explainable by slightly different interpretations. It’s a massive. fundamental difference.

  • The Real War on Christmas

    I received an e-mail from the AFA giving me the wonderful news that the governor of Kentucky has backed down on calling the Christmas tree in the state capitol a “holiday tree” and will call it a Christmas tree. In order to help this happen elsewhere, I’m told to buy packets of buttons, wear them, and get all my friends to wear them. There are even church packs and a display pack of 250 buttons.

    At the same time I am already seeing Christmas advertising on TV and hearing it on the radio. I understand the reasoning behind it. After all, I’m a businessman too, and there will be lots of Christmas buying. I can’t help but hope that some people will choose various books offered by my company as Christmas presents. But that is a commercial desire related to a commercial holiday.

    Some Christians feel that there is a war on Christmas, and that this war involves rules requiring store clerks or government officials to wish people happy holidays rather than merry Christmas or the removal of creche displays from public parks. If I could steal an idea from C. S. Lews (Screwtape Letters) and think like a demon for a moment, I would regard this as an excellent diversionary attack.

    Before D-Day in World War II the Germans were convinced that the allied landings would come somewhere around the Pas de Calais. The distance was shorter, the logistics would be easier, and it made a great deal of strategic sense. The allies went to some trouble to foster this impression, even creating a fake army that consisted merely of tents and communications gear that simulated an invasion in preparation. Because the Germans were convinced that the real attack would come somewhat to the north of where it did, they delayed in committing their mobile reserve (panzers), much to the benefit of the allied forces.

    While we’re worried about losing the external trappings of Christmas, such as public trees and manger displays, the real war on Christmas is practically won already. Christmas has almost nothing at all to do with Jesus. This has been my opinion for many years. Christmas as celebrated in America, even in most of our churches, is about us and our economic prosperity, not about Jesus and his good news.

    Studying the liturgical year has just emphasized this to me more, and now that I’m teaching a series on the gospel of Luke for a Sunday School class, I find it rubbed in my face. The advent comes at a time of great trouble and need. There is long expectation, hope kept alive through times of hardship, and recognition of need. When God’s gift comes it does not look like what the world sees as success or greatness. The birth of Jesus is not a commercial success. God gives himself to us at the time of our greatest need. Receiving the gospel message is like a reenactment of this in miniature. The wise men come and give gifts to the king in the manger, though he hasn’t asked. Shepherds worship him. The babe in the manger is the center of God’s activity, even though the world around hardly notices.

    This is almost totally unlike our Christmas celebrations in the church or in our homes. Oh, we certainly do give something to others. There will be gifts sent to children who will not otherwise have a Christmas and food packages passed to people in need. But let’s face it. Most of our money will be spent on us. Christmas will not look largely like a spiritual experience. We’ll start celebrating it weeks early even in church. We’ll skip over the advent expectation and go straight to the Christmas celebration.

    And that celebration will mostly be about us. It will largely be a commercial holiday for us. The emphasis on Christmas, such as it is, will not be a witness to Jesus, but rather to “Christianity – the Brand.”

    The war on Christmas is going rather badly for us. Perhaps we should quit bothering about the wrong war, and save whatever money we were going to spend on “Merry Christmas” buttons to use to help others. If you don’t have any idea where to give it, I’d be happy to make some suggestions.