Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Energion.com

  • Question Everything!

    Via Exploring Our Matrix, I found this post at Think Christian. Many Christians believe that one should never question the Bible, especially if one is a Bible teacher.

    I know this to be true, because I’m a Bible teacher, and I question the Bible with some vigor, and not only do I not answer all the questions I raise, I frequently emphasize that we don’t actually need answers to all our questions. Unanswered questions are the engine that drives an intellectually and spiritually full life.

    The claim that one does not question the Bible is often taken as an expression of great faith. The person who doesn’t question has anchored their faith so firmly that they no longer need or want to question. But I think it’s precisely the opposite. The person who has stopped questioning and wants to prevent others from doing so has become spiritually and intellectually dead. Their faith is not incredibly great; rather, it is weak and easily threatened by questions. It takes no faith to believe in an unquestioned God. Faith comes into play when we challenge God with our doubts, our fears, and our questions.

    Some of the greatest examples of faith in the Bible questioned God. Abraham did. Moses did. And what is questioning the Bible to questioning its ultimate divine source?

    I want to be a Bible teacher who questions and who challenges others to question. I want to study with other teachers who question and challenge me to question. I do not exclude anything in my life from examination and questioning.

  • Tolerance: A Value, Not an Absolute

    In watching some of the material on Dr. Jeremiah Wright today, I’m reminded of the potential problem of tolerance–getting it above its proper rank as a value. I have been confronted numerous times in face to face discussions with the statement that I cannot be truly tolerant, because to be tolerant, I must tolerate intolerance.

    But that is a sort of binary thinking that is, quite frankly, the basis for a great deal of stupidity. For me tolerance is not an absolute. Tolerance is something I value. I do not value it above all else. It is the sort of thing that when overvalued can become self-destructive. To illustrate from the physical world, I value my home. But when a hurricane is coming, I value my life and my family more highly than my home. So I evacuate when it’s appropriate. Some don’t, and end up dead or injured.

    There are a number of comments by Rev. Wright that I am quite willing to defend. I’m even willing, as you will have noted, to defend a large part of his “God damn America” speech, while confessing that I would never have expressed it that way myself. I can get behind the rhetoric to a good point.

    But in embracing Farrakhan, I believe Wright steps over that line to tolerating intolerance. Farrakhan has, in fact, done some good things in the African-American community. but he has more than balanced that with hateful speech and acts, and with his anti-Semitism. Barack Obama was correct to reject (and denounce!) his support. Rev. Wright does himself a disservice by embracing him.

    To quote from MSNBC.com:

    At the press club, he jokingly offered himself as Obama’s running mate and embraced Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan even though he said he doesn’t always agree with him. He criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the U.S. invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. “Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything,” he said.

    To tolerate Louis Farrakhan in this fashion is to tolerate intolerance, and this is a liberal danger. We wish to be so careful not to be intolerant. We want to be even handed, and love all the disadvantaged, underprivileged, and oppressed people. Those are good impulses. But we need to be careful to draw moral lines. We can desire justice for the Palestinians without justifying their killing of Israelis. We can recognize the economic hardships that contribute to terrorist recruiting without justifying the use made of it by terrorists. We can recognize the need for pride in the African-American community without also justifying a new form of hate and racism.

    Besides embracing Farrakhan, who has stepped way over the line, he continues with the claim that HIV was produced by the U. S. government. Based on things done in years past, I would be prepared to hear it if evidence turned up that some secret agency had done this in some way. U. S. government agencies have done some quite evil things. But the key there is the need for evidence. Right now there is no such thing. One of the nastiest ways one can vilify one’s opponents is by suggesting that they have done the things that they are capable of. We are all capable of some form of evil, but we do not all do everything of which we are capable. Evidence should precede accusation; all else is a smear.

    Rev. Wright should be aware of this, considering that around 10% of the American public believes that Barack Obama is a Muslim. The accusation has been made, and it doesn’t matter how much evidence there is that he is not, some of the slime will stick. A pastor, especially should be very careful with his words.

    I am not going to get into the game of blaming associates of associates, i.e. that Barack Obama needs to distance himself further from his pastor so as to be distanced further from Farrakhan. I didn’t like the “associating with people who associated with communists” attitude during the cold war, and this one is certainly no better. But Rev. Wright is responsible for his own words, and along with quite a number of good challenging ones, he has spoken some that are dangerous, hateful, and irresponsible.

  • MyBibleVersion.com Progress Update

    I haven’t posted about the changes to MyBibleVersion.com for some time, so I thought I’d let you all know I’m still working on it. I don’t expect to roll it out until my site is moved to a new, upgraded physical server which should happen any day now. It’s been “any day now” for a few weeks, however, so don’t hold your breath.

    Here’s what I’ve decided to do:

    1. User registration.
      It won’t be required to use the site, but it will be necessary if you want to personalize it. See below.
    2. Some real help files.
      I think some people still leave because of complexity, so I want to include better explanations of how to use the site and also of the characteristics and how the numbers relate to reality.
    3. Customized data.
      Registered users will be able to create their own profile sets, then set the site to display their entries when they are using it. Other users can choose to use anyone’s profiles rather than mine if they so choose. Unregistered users will get my material in the same way as they do now.

      Users don’t have to use just the list of translations I include. You could include less versions, for example if you wanted to help people choose between the top ten versions, in your view. You can also add your own.

    4. Commenting.
      I will not roll this out initially, but I plan to add commenting capability, specific to each version profile and profile set. For example, if user “Fred” creates a profile of a version, you can comment on his work, or you can comment on mine or anyone else’s.
    5. Voting.
      I will add a function for registered users to vote on versions for a list of purposes. I haven’t decided on the details, except that there will be only one version list for this purpose, which I will create. Users can e-mail me to add versions. This is to avoid things like the Satanic Bible being added as happened on another service. Basically I’ll list things like “Pew Bible”, “Public Reading”, “Serious Study” and so forth, and users will be able to rank versions in terms of their usefulness for that purpose.

    Any suggestions are welcome. I’ll post here when I roll this stuff out.

  • Bill Moyers Interviews Dr. Jeremiah Wright

    I think we all draw boundary lines between those with whom we disagree, yet consider valid voices in our culture or community, and those whose views we think are so far off the map that conversation cannot continue. For many Americans, Dr. Jeremiah Wright has fallen into the second category.

    I would suggest, however, that in making such a determination one must consider context and intent. The context in which remarks are uttered can completely reverse their effect. Reported by a Jewish writer, “his blood be on us and on our children” (Matthew 27:25) reports on some words, and may express hostility by one group of Jews toward another. Repeated by a crowd of Christians in the middle ages, they became a frequent call to bloodshed.

    I commented previously that I believe that the preaching style was taken outside of the context of the African-American church. Others have noted, and I agree, that many of the comments (especially “God damn America”) were also taken somewhat out of context.

    There remains points on which I disagree, but that is really unimportant. Dr. Wright is a person who has accomplished much of value, and much of what he said is also valuable. In my view, Barack Obama went too far in distancing himself from the pastor who first brought him to Christ, baptized him, performed his wedding, and then baptized his children. I am disturbed that so many Christians seem to believe that is a relationship to be discarded. Dr. Wright was very gracious about it, speaking of the differences between pastoral and political roles.

    I commend Bill Moyers’ interview, which presents what seems to me a much more balanced view of the man, one which accords with my suspicions after tracking down the context of some of the snippets that have been posted.

    I would particularly commend the idea of “arguing with the text” that he mentions late in the second part. Biblical characters were willing to argue with God. If it seems to us that a text is demanding something improper, perhaps we should take a page from their book.

    (Hat tip to if i were a bell, i’d ring for the video link.)

  • James 5, Prayer, and Physical Healing

    Mark Olson has posted on James 5 and it’s relationship to healing. He notes that he “had been” in conversation with me on health care. I have been a bit too occupied with other matters, but I do intend to write some more in that conversation. Right now, I’m interested in his comments on James 5 and the instruction to call the elders of the church, anoint, and pray for someone who is sick.

    He says:

    From reading this, and the prayers attached to the rest of that section of the service, it seems fairly clear that based on the liturgical prayer and the attached reading above that he prayers and annointing of the sick first and foremost are intended to deal with the afflicted one’s relationship to the Lord. If one takes seriously, as one should if one is of the faithful, that salvation is assured … then this is the right attitude.

    Just so. I would note that there is a special point here in calling for the elders and then doing this together–the element of community. Too much of prayer for healing in the modern American church is a very individual thing with the primary point being to get the physical healing one desires. I have been asked whether calling for the elders of the church and having a kind of service of anointing would be “more effective” than some other form of prayer. What about finding someone who is claims and/or is identified as having the gift of healing?

    The problem here is that we identify the primary purpose of prayer, and in this case of a form of worship service or at least an act of worship, as getting something physical for ourselves. The perennial question is whether prayer “works.” Experiments are set up to determine the effects of prayer.

    I have no interest in those experiments, because they would rely on the idea that the primary purpose of prayer is to produce a particular result. If, as many Christians seem to believe, that is the actual purpose, then such scientific tests would be valid, and prayer would be a scientific process. We could measure the dosage, determine how many people need to pray for someone, and what sort of people. Do we get more points for a minister or priest? Do elders count for more than ordinary church members?

    But I think that misses the point of prayer. It’s not about getting stuff. It’s about communion with God. And God, as Mrs. Beaver noted of Aslan, is not a tame God. We Christians are often guilty of being pushed into a corner on this point. If we don’t claim any physical benefit from prayer, then we’re asked what good it is, and if we do, we’re making a testable claim for something that has not proven testable in the past. Personally I don’t worry about it. I pray because I want to commune with God. I pray with my community because I am a part of it and am called to be in communion with God and with one another. I don’t pray because I can get things and I don’t stop because I don’t.

    Through this conversation Mark has been making good theological points while I have been telling stories. I do have a couple of notes here. My father was the recipient of anointing when the elders were called. We were overseas and it was questionable whether he would live. The mission board wanted to send him home and my parents refused. Our doctor said he would never work again and would be dead in no more than 10 years. My parents called for the elders and they anointed him and prayed over him. I was very disappointed. I was 14 years old and expected something spectacular to happen. What did happen was that he returned to work two weeks later and lived another 35 years. Miracle? I have no idea. My guess is that he was on a mission from God, so to speak!

    In the case of our son, I have been repeatedly complimented on my “strength of faith” to continue believing through that experience. But the problem with that is that I had never expected Christianity to provide me and my family with immunity to cancer or to death from it.

    I would bring this back to my earlier post on the fear. Fear is the great problem. We can go with peace and joy, as befits those who are citizens of God’s eternal kingdom, or we can live in fear. The focus on the physical result of prayer keeps our focus on the wrong issue. Paul was uncertain whether to go and be with God or to stick around, but I feel under the surface that if it was just for him, he was ready to go (Philippians 1:19-26). But none of that sounds like fear!

  • Independence and Bible Study

    In working on YouTube recently, and particularly on this response to a KJV Only presentation, I’ve noticed that many people think that there is great virtue in independence when it comes to Bible study. Statements like “I didn’t depend on any scholars in coming to this view” or “I didn’t read any commentaries, just the Bible” or “I get everything direct from God” are quite common.

    Even the seemingly pious “show me from God’s Word!” can be a declaration of independence. It calls for someone to convince you to your satisfaction, that you’re wrong. Now I’m not saying that this is completely incorrect. You do, after all, have to make the decision in the final analysis. My question is whether, in doing that, you or I have followed the proper procedure and exercised the proper humility.

    You see, we are all dependent on someone when we turn to the Bible. Those who don’t know the source languages are dependent on translators. But even those who do know the languages are still dependent on lexicographers and grammarians for some of their knowledge. In addition, we are all dependent on various historians, archaeologists, commentators, paleographers, and so forth in getting necessary information about the text.

    This deals with the proper procedure. When I complete the study of the passage I should be able to answer “yes” comfortably to this question: Have you consulted good authorities on those things you do not know well yourself? It’s important to be honest about this, because we tend to like to “lean on our own understanding” after a certain amount of study. That’s dangerous! I don’t know how many times I have discovered errors in detail on something I should know when I check it against a good, authoritative source. Another pair of eyes will find even more errors.

    Then there is humility. By humility I do not mean that one gives up one’s own judgment and discernment. Rather, I mean that one is willing to learn from anyone, that one takes an open attitude, and that one seeks correction. You may have to reject some of it. Proper humility in this case is not cutting yourself off from correction, listening honestly, and giving full consideration to the possibility that you may be wrong. After you have done that, you make your decision.

    In practice none of us are independent. We should acknowledge that. But we should realize that such independence would not be a good thing, even if we could attain it.

  • Promising Series on TNIV, HCSB, and NAB

    I think Kevin Sam over at New Epistles has made an excellent choice in selecting these three translations to study as “intermediate” and he’s off to a good start explaining why he’s doing it.

    I note his apology for the term “intermediate,” but that is not such a bad choice of language. I rate translations on a scale of one to ten for formality and similarly for functionality (see examples at MyBibleVersion.com). It is important to realize that these translation types are not narrow pathways to follow, but rather more general principles.

    How one combines them in translation, for example choosing formal equivalence except for specific circumstances, can produce some interesting results. In the case of the NAB, for example, I gave a rating of 4 for functionality/idiomaticity and a 9 for formality. The TNIV is 3 and 8 in those two categories, while the HCSB is 2 and 9. This implies that the NAB is using paraphrasing and careful choice of English idioms in specific places, whilst generally following a formal equivalent line.

    My practice in producing these ratings is to use a list of verses which contain idiomatic expressions and also to test the translations of sample passages for how many words are strictly justified in a formal sense. In the case of the HCSB, I’m not certain the numbers are valid, because as I read more and more of it, it seems uneven in practice. I may write a bit more on that as I go forward. With a small number of sample passages, it could be possible to get an invalid reading.

    In any case, I await the remainder of this series with interest and will be comparing it with my own notes.

  • Comparing 1 Peter 3:13

    Yesterday I commended the HCSB translation of this verse. Today let me give a couple of other options:

    • HCSB: “And who will harm you if you are passionate for what is good?”
    • REB: “Who is going to do your harm if you are devoted to what is good?” [Doesn’t read well, in my view, even though I love the REB]
    • TNIV: “Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?” [Excellent, though I like “passionate” for this context]

    Not of these are horrible, nor are a number of others I read. I still like the HCSB best on this one.

  • Revisiting Acts 17:26

    Yesterday I blogged about the HCSB of Acts 17:26, and in particular the portion that reads something like “made of one ______”. The KJV reads “blood” which is one of the textual variants, while the HCSB says “man” which apparently does not occur in any of the ancient manuscripts.

    Since I read these lectionary texts daily for two weeks, today I encountered it in a different version, this time the TNIV, surely not one that could be accused of supporting anything like “male representation”, and it also read “man” in this case.

    I’m not at home right now, so just looking at the immediately available Bible versions, I see the following:

    • REB reads “from one stock”
    • NRSV reads “from one ancestor”
    • CEV reads “from one person”
    • ESV reads “from one man”
    • TEV reads “from one human being”
    • God’s Word (GW) reads “from one man”
    • ISV reads “from one man”

    I think that’s enough to see that most of the versions break where I would expect, with the exception of the TNIV. I wonder what their justification is here. It seems to me that since a number of ancient scribes appear to have provided options, but none thought of “man” here, it is unlikely that ancient readers would have understood this to refer specifically to the one man as human ancestor.

    I’d be interested in comments on the reasoning behind the use of “man” in this verse.

  • Are Creationists Stupid?

    Many people get the idea from my posts on evolution that I believe all creationists are stupid or at least irremediably ignorant. In today’s atmosphere, that may be a reasonable view to take from the posts, but I don’t mean it that way, and I don’t intend to accept the current atmosphere.

    In current American culture we are frequently urged to treat everyone’s ideas as essentially equal. They’re just someone’s opinions, and how can one be so arrogant as to suppose his own opinions are better than anyone else’s? I reject that view. If I’ve studied an issue and taken a position, I do so because I think that position is superior to the alternatives. If you want me to change it, don’t explain to me that your view is just as good because all views as “just opinions”; tell my why your view is superior to mine and sound like you mean it. I’ll argue with you, but I won’t be offended.

    There are even certain arguments based on authority that has merit. I believe my opinion on an issue of Biblical Greek or Hebrew is superior to someone who either does not know those languages or has only the basic seminary introductory class in them. Why? Because I have spent years both in formal study and in continued personal study, with daily reading of the Bible in its source languages, and regular study of grammars, lexicons, and other relevant literature. There are those whose opinion is more valuable than mine. That doesn’t mean that the “most superior person” is always right, but it gives them an edge.

    In the creation and evolution controversy, I have taken a position. I’m a theistic evolutionist, or I would prefer to say I am a Christian theist who accepts the theory of evolution in the form of the neo-Darwinian synthesis more or less. I’m going to defend that position with vigor. I have repeatedly stated that I do not question whether those who disagree with me are true Christians. I would be happy to have them in fellowship with me in the same church. I would be happy to have them challenge me. But I’m not going to pretend that I think their position is as correct as the one I’ve accepted. If I thought that, I wouldn’t have accepted it!

    So do I believe all creationists are stupid? Of course that would cover a lot of ground, even with my more limited definition of the word “creationist” as those who believe God has repeatedly intervened in the process. But the answer, even for young earth creationists, is no. Are there some stupid creationists? Yes. But intelligent people can disagree on things. Dr. Kurt Wise, for example, is clearly an intelligent man, but I find his position on this issue totally untenable. He’s a good man, an honest man, and an intelligent man, yet of those adjectives I can apply only “honest” to his position and also be honest myself. So I have to say that I believe his position is fatally flawed. Many will see “fatally flawed” as a weaselly way of saying “stupid.”

    But besides the possibility of simply evaluating the evidence differently, we may encounter self-deception. I think that many creationists have deceived themselves either by avoiding encounters with the evidence (reading only one side, for example) or via the use of conspiracy theories (that’s just those atheist scientists trying to destroy my faith). These people I could not call liars, but nonetheless they present misinformation that has been repeatedly and definitively refuted. It’s hard to keep just the right tone, especially when I think such a person should know better, yet I know that they don’t.

    Intelligent Design (ID) advocates actually get on my nerves in a special way, because they’re chorus of claims that ID has nothing to do with God or religion is simply so obviously phony. The spin is so clear and obvious, and yet they will try to claim that they are misunderstood or that straw man versions of their views are attacked. Yet given a moment of relaxation and they will bring God into the picture.

    Now this whole post could be labeled “arrogant” and “condescending”. Go ahead. I am arrogant enough to believe that my view is superior to other views, condescending enough to tell you so, and stubborn enough not to change them unless you can prove to me that your view is better. I would suggest that Christians especially, as we have truth claims in our religion, should be very careful in using the claim that all ideas are equal.

    Obviously, that is my opinion, to be held until I am convinced by superior evidence and arguments.