Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Christianity

  • How to talk to ANYONE on a Journey

    The Internet Monk has become must read amongst the many blogs I scan. Today, his post How to Talk to an Evangelical on a Journey is exceptionally good reading.

    As you can guess from my title, I do have one note, and if you know me, you may be aware that I can’t help introducing this note with a story.

    I was leading a study group some years back in a church that was divided over issues of worship styles and spiritual gifts, which could be called disputes over just how the Holy Spirit would work in a church. Members of this group had been the targets of attempts to “evangelize” or more accurately to move them from one group to the other. Some of those attempts had involved belittling their faith or commitment to Christ.

    I asked the various members to tell me what approaches had seemed most hurtful and least constructive to them. They batted around a number of examples. Then I said, “I wonder if any of us have used these approaches on non-Christians?” (That “us” was definitely inclusive, by the way.) We all admitted that we had and then continued with a vigorous and helpful discussion of how one can share without talking down.

    That’s why I used “ANYONE” in my title. While there are some elements that are specific to current evangelical journeys, I think all of the points can be adapted to nearly any situation. We would all do well to read them carefully and apply them wisely.

  • Bible Application Suggestion – Make Yourself the Target

    I’m a strong advocate of Bible study by the laity, even when such study leads to errors.  In fact, I think making mistakes is an important part of Christian growth.  But there are a number of odd things that can happen when people apply the Bible.  One of the checks on “loony” Biblical application that I use is sharing, which I teach as part of my basic method of Bible study.  Sharing involves not just telling people what you think you have learned, but also listening to them for correction.  It’s OK to disagree, even with an expert.  But it’s a good idea to hear the expert first.

    In this post I’m talking specifically about application and how you hear scripture.  I discussed a related topic on my Threads blog today.

    My suggestion is simple:  Read the Bible for what corrects you, not for what corrects other people.

    There are two parts to this idea.  The first is to read and study the Bible looking for the best possible case that you are wrong.  This may seem perverse to some.  Why not just directly search for the truth?  The problem is that we are rarely able to search objectively for the truth.  Too often we “discover” that the Bible is telling us to believe what we already believed, or to do what we already wanted to do.  Consider how many conflicting answers people get to the question “What wouldJesus do?”

    In my very early days of online discussion, in the Compuserve Religion Forum, I once had a debate with someone over the translation and interpretation of Isaiah 45:7.  My set of arguments led to the idea that here God, through the prophet, claims to be the creator of everything.  There is nothing that does not find its source in God.  I still believe that, and hold that the pairs of opposites are intended to convey the whole spectrum.

    My opponent was very anxious to argue that God is in no way the author of evil.  Now there is a sense in which I would agree with that as well, while still maintaining that evil is a perversion, not a creation, but nonetheless even evil cannot exist without God.

    But the details are not important.  My opponent got the worst of the debate according to those on the sidelines, and one congratulated me on my fine arguments.  At that point pride got the better of me and I told him that it was no great mastery; I could present a better case against myself than my opponent was.

    I’m sure you guessed it.  He immediately told me to put up or shut up.  So I put up.  I formulated an argument challenging my own and in the process became much less certain of the low intelligence of those who would take the opposing view.  I didn’t convince myself to change positions, but I both strengthened my own arguments and provided myself a lesson in humility by having to provide possible counter-arguments to a number of my own points.

    If you set out to study your pet topic by looking for the best scriptural arguments against it, you may correct against your own biases.

    The other part of this is in practice.  Here I suggest this not just for the reasons I mention above, but also because it will help prevent a judgmental attitude.  It will also help you correct your practice according to what you learn.

    I would suggest as an example of how we don’t do this the issue of homosexuality in the church.  We live in an age with extra-marital sex is ubiquitous and is often swept under the rug or treated as of little importance.  At the same time we spend a disproportionate amount of time discussion homosexuality.  Perhaps those of us who are heterosexual should look more closely at the texts that apply to us.

    To those who might think this latter is a very liberal idea, I must mention that it is not original with me.  I first heard it from a Presbyterian Church in America pastor who was in all ways a conservative, Calvinist evangelical.  He preached it to his congregation.

    The problem I see is that while we look diligently for texts that apply to others, we can easily neglect those texts that apply to us personally.  Will you ever need to correct others?  Quite possibly.  But you will be in a much better position to do so if you have allowed yourself to be corrected–repeatedly.

    Bible study requires some sort of accountability at all levels.  We need to be willing to be corrected, and the starting point for that is letting God correct us through his word.

  • Which Way do you Listen?

    Recently Dave Black made a comment regarding the way in which we hold certain correct doctrines (HT: Dave Black Online. I’m just going to quote one sentence here, which was as much as I could quote in a tweet:

    … sometimes even biblically correct positions can be reduced to a dogmatic narrowness, formalism, and fundamentalism.

    Before you read on, go ahead and read the entire quote.

    Did you read it? Now ask yourself this: Just how did I hear that?

    The reason I ask that question is that the topic in the full quotation is patriarchy, something to which I am not particularly attracted. It is very easy for me to read the one sentence, which I believe tells us something very important about the way in which we hold our viewpoints even, and perhaps especially, our correct ones, as a particular attack on patriarchy or some other conservative position.

    Perhaps you think something like: “I sure hope those folks who advocate patriarchy are listening! They think they’re right and all the rest of us are lost!”

    If you like patriarchy, you might feel that Dave Black is coming after you, and thus reject the statement because you believe it’s directed against a viewpoint you favor. (For what it’s worth, I think patriarchy is actually incidental to the statement. You could substitute many terms for it in that paragraph and get the same result–but offend different people with it!)

    But neither of those reactions is all that helpful in my view. The reason I chose to tweet the particular selection that I did is that it addresses something to which we are all tempted–making our pet projects or ideas the center. Paul Tillich defined idolatry as treating something as ultimate that is not actually ultimate (I paraphrase).

    As Christians, the gospel should be ultimate, which in turns means that Jesus should be ultimate, because that is what the gospel says. But quite frequently we make our particular take on the details our ultimate. We turn to worshiping not God, but a mental idol that we have put in God’s place.

    What’s even more dangerous is that once we have made that “concept idol” we become less and less capable of hearing the very proper challenges to our idol and the pedestal on which we have placed it. We hear the challenges to the idols of others. Egalitarians, such as myself, can quite clearly see the dangers of patriarchy and hear clearly when its place on the pedestal is challenged. “Tear down that idol!” we shout!

    But have we made our own idols? Too often we have.

    I believe that we Christians trust the Holy Spirit very little. If we truly believed that the Holy Spirit would teach and empower people, I think we would be less concerned to force them into our mold and more concerned to encourage and enable them to study, meditate, pray, and hear from the Holy Spirit themselves.

    I could be wrong about just about everything. I very often have been, and assume I still am! God can teach me through my stupidity, my carelessness, or my stubbornness. But if I become convinced that I have nothing to learn, that I have nailed down all the details, learning will stop. What would then be an even greater tragedy would be if I tried to impose those final, absolute answers on others.

  • Scot McKnight: Is Low Church Evangelicalism Protestant?

    I find this an interesting question. But before I comment, let me summarize and quote Scot McKnight’s article.

    He first notes that from the early liturgies to the Westminster Confession there is a certain common pattern in worship, one which is dropped by what he calls “low church evangelicalism.” Amongst the elements he includes the multiple scripture readings (Psalm, OT, Epistle, Gospel) that would be familiar to those who follow the lectionary, sharing of the word, and some sort of conclusion, such as the creed.

    He concludes:

    … Low church evangelicalism is too often theologically shallow, frequently chaotic in its order of worship, nearly always lopsided in which parts of the Bible it preaches and teaches and knows, and inexcusably ignorant when it comes to the history of God’s people called the Church. These are marks that it has wandered from the gift of the Reformation. These are marks of groups that are not Protestant.

    Having come from a rather low church background, and then having experience even lower liturgy in charismatic circles, I come at this from the opposite end. My wife was raised Catholic, and I as a Seventh-day Adventist. We came together in a United Methodist congregation with a distinctly charismatic tilt. I tend to find much more value in the form of the liturgy, and particularly in the scripture readings. I’m disappointed that we do not read four full scriptures.

    The general complaint I hear in charismatic and other low church circles is that high church worship is just dead ritual. From my high church friends I hear that low church worship is shallow, and so are very many of the worshipers.

    There is some truth in both accusations. In many cases I have found that charismatic believers will not meet without the expectation of some manifestation of the presence of the Spirit, i.e. without an emotion-engaging spiritual experience. They will forgo any other element of worship in order to get there. So often a worship service can consist entirely of singing, with the expectation that there will be people around the altar or whatever one calls the area at the front of the church weeping, on the floor, or in some other way making it known that the Spirit is there.

    High church folks quite often don’t want to be interrupted in their liturgy by anything, and often I think this includes being interrupted by the Spirit. While they are likely to refer to the emotional manifestations as the kind of thing they wish to avoid, they may also wish to avoid discussion or testimony, or just about anything that makes the message current.

    Now both of my last two paragraphs paint an extreme, and I can point to any number of exceptions. For example, the ICON worship service at First United Methodist Church which I attend has the historical order of worship, but is quite lively. I feel the presence of God there each and every week. I would be delighted to hear more scripture read, but we do get three of the four scriptures worked into the service. I also know any number of free-wheeling charismatics who are quite serious about studying their Bibles.

    My hope would be to find a balance that connects us to history, roots us in scripture, and challenges us to Christian living all in one.

    Having said all of that, I really don’t know the answer to Dr. McKnight’s question. First, I have always used the term “protestant” for any movement that grew out of the protestant reformation, even though I’m aware that some groups and streams are very different. Second, I’m not sure what specifically the title “protestant” should prove. I have avoided calling myself “evangelical” because I’m not all that sure what it means and how precisely it differs from simply being “Christian.”

    One note I would add is this: Was liturgy a defining element of the protestant reformation? Is it not possible that the reformers stuck with the basic liturgy not because it was defining, but because it was not–it was simply an element of their tradition that they didn’t see any immediate need to reform. If that is the case, I would have a hard time seeing how the word “protestant” should be defined in part by liturgy.

  • Christian Carnival CCXCIV Posted

    … at Codex.  I encourage Christian bloggers to get involved by submitting their best work each week and volunteering to host.

  • Hearing 2 Corinthians

    When I wrote about 2 Corinthians and the importance of story, I had not read this wonderful post.  (HT: John Meunier.)

  • The Problem with Revenge

    It’s 9/11 and the events eight years ago are on most people’s minds. Many Christians will be praying today, as my wife wrote in her devotional. What will those prayers consist of? What is a Christian response?

    Shortly before the second gulf war began, I wrote an essay simply titled Revenge! I want to quote from it here:

    As a nation, we have been living in the role of Michael Palin’s character. We see the bad guys in our sights and we shout “Revenge!” in the hope that when revenge has taken place we will be safer, life will return to pre-9/11 normalcy, and we can forget all about this extra security. Most of us know this won’t be the case, but that doesn’t stop the wishful thinking.

    This was illustrated during the bombing of Afghanistan, and later during the ground war. Repeatedly the reporters would ask various military spokesmen whether they had caught or killed Osama bin Laden yet. The answer? Nobody knew. But why was that the question? Did we really think that a bombing campaign could be so targeted as to kill a single individual? Sure, he might die, but bombs are not weapons of assassination in the normal course of events. Did we think that if Osama were caught or killed that the terrorism would end? Surely we aren’t that naive!

    But there is that little program in our brains that wants to yell “Revenge!” and expects that life will be a little sweeter when it is accomplished.

    In some ways we face a similar situation with Iraq. I know there is a powerful motivation for revenge. I am a veteran of the 1991-1992 gulf war. It annoys me every time I see Saddam Hussein expressing himself on television. I confess I wouldn’t mind having the driver’s seat of a steam roller with Saddam’s feet stuck in setting cement. I’d yell “Revenge!” and “Take that!” and roll over him, and on the other side I’d feel good!

    But then would my family be any safer? Would my country be more secure? Would anything be more normal when all was said and done? Very likely not.

    I need to let that resentment go. I need to tone down the shout “Revenge!” I need to consider what will actually make things more secure.

    Now my point here is not to reiterate my opposition to the war in Iraq. My point is simply this. The command of Jesus to love our enemies extends even to terrorists. While I don’t think that denies that there should be consequences for evil actions that people take, nor do I believe it prevents justice and security measures, what it should prevent, amongst Christians, is the idea that revenge can get us anywhere.

    Vengeful attitudes and fear distort our judgment and prevent us from seeing the best approach. I am not a pacifist, but I strongly believe that we are much too inclined to resort to violence and often to apply violence in the wrong way, often because what we are really seeking is not reasonable security but revenge and a diversion from our fears.

    As a follower of Jesus I think it is my duty to let forgiveness clarify my thinking and to let love guide my actions. That’s not easy in the world today, but I think it’s the call.

    A Response: Elgin Hushbeck has written a short response, but the trackback somehow didn’t happen. I always find Elgin an interesting and challenging dialog partner. I should note (full disclosure and all) that my company, Energion Publications, publishes his book, Preserving Democracy.

  • Lord Save Us From Your Followers – The Movie

    I think there are two major errors we can make as Christians: We can fail to have a message, and we can fail to be the message. If I follow the stereotypes I would say that liberals tend to fail in the first, and conservatives in the second. But I’m afraid we all tend to fail at both.

    Tom Sims posted this trailer on his blog The Dream Factory. I think the trailer, and hopefully the movie, should make us think, then make us do.

    The gospel will offend, but make sure it’s the gospel that is doing the offending and not your attitudes or prejudices.

  • Preaching until you Mean It

    Shane Raynor is again stirring things up with a post on a Toolkit for Radical Methodists. He has proposed the idea of preaching faith until you have it, rather than waiting for faith.

    Since I recently posted some about doubt, I was interested in his phrase “wearing [your] doubt as a straitjacket.” I wonder if one could distinguish acknowledging doubt as opposed to wearing it as a straitjacket. Might it be possible for there to be healthy doubts, doubts that lead you onward as opposed to unhealthy doubts that keep you from taking action?

    This is one I’m still thinking about.

  • Living Romans 12

    Alan Knox has reposted a series on how the church can live Romans 12:9-21 along with some current thoughts. He points out that Romans 1-11 are theological, but starting with Romans 12, Paul begins to speak about how the church can live out the theology of the first chapters.

    This all reminded me of one of my complaints about my biblical training, both undergraduate and graduate. While an undergraduate, I took Exegesis of Romans in Greek, a one quarter course designed to make sure that those of us with two years of Greek didn’t just stop there. It was wildly unsuccessful at that task, as the assignments that forced one to actually read Romans in Greek were minimal. But my greater complaint was that we didn’t follow a schedule and thus only got through Romans 8 in class.

    This did allow the very Arminian professor, also an advocate of the moral influence view of the atonement, to avoid some difficult passages in Romans 9-11, but it also meant that we stayed in the theological portions of the book.

    I was further disappointed when I took an exegesis class in Galatians in seminary. I was disappointed that it was done from the English text, but because of the graduate school/seminary agreement (I was in the grad school), I had to take on an extra assignment, and the professor agreed that I could simply do all of my work from the Greek text. (The value of two years of Greek after which one doesn’t actually study the New Testament from the Greek text largely escapes me.) But again I was disappointed, as we only completed through Galatians 4.

    Now I know that both professors would say that they were just trying to cover the text that they did cover in depth. I know this because I asked, and they did say that. But the risk here is that one gets an extremely skewed view of Paul–Paul the theologian, when he was really much more pastoral. His theology was the foundation for his practical teaching.

    I’m no expert on Paul. My primary study was in the Hebrew Scriptures and other ancient near eastern literature. But I am a firm advocate in all cases of studying whole pieces of literature and putting the appropriate weight on all portions. I can’t imagine Paul being happy when we read about salvation by faith and then miss Galatians 5:13 which tells us the results.

    How does your church and your life measure up to the practical, active portions of Paul’s epistles? What difference might it make in the way other people view Christians if we did so?