Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: bible

  • On Publishing Philippians: A Participatory Study Guide

    Philippians: A Participatory Study GuideThis post will contain reflections both on the recently released Philippians study guide and the series of which it is a part. I generally write such reflections after each book my company releases. So be warned—there are products discussed here!

    When I first created this blog I was the only author in the participatory study series. Making a book series grow and sell usually requires a great vision pursued relentlessly. This series, on the other hand, has grown and substantially improved its original vision.

    When I first wrote To the Hebrews: A Participatory Study Guide and Revelation: A Participatory Study Guide, I didn’t feel any great optimism that I could break into a very competitive market. People write Bible study guides all the time. Quality varies dramatically, and often the best sellers are those written by people with famous names.

    What I wanted was a system that brought together biblical scholarship, spiritual disciplines, accessibility to lay people, and a somewhat ecumenical approach. I must specify that my view of ecumenism is not homogenization, but rather a willingness to engage in respectful give and take and especially to look at multiple traditions when choosing sources and study materials.

    I wrote those two books myself, and I had an upcoming class in mind with each one. You can see by the design of the books that this was early in my own publishing experience. From the point of view of developing the company, I needed titles. With the process we use, I can produce study guides for my own use quite economically. My thought was that if these guides sold successfully it would be great, but I wouldn’t count on it, and I would put my efforts into finding authors with manuscripts of their own, not ones following a plan I had designed.

    In the event, not only have I taught from them myself more times than expected, but I’ve seen them sell quite a few more copies than I had thought possible. No, they aren’t threatening to be on anyone’s best seller lists, but they have definitely exceeded my initial expectations.

    A few years after I had released those first two guides Geoffrey Lentz approached me with  a study outline from the book of Luke. Geoffrey had invited me to teach one of his classes from my guide to Hebrews, and he liked the outline of the method, but also the proposed freedom for working within the framework. I liked his outline and his idea, and the result was The Gospel According to Saint Luke: A Participatory Study Guide.

    Geoffrey really rounded out the idea of the series by improving the presentation and tying the method more closely with lectio divina. He at first proposed including both a discussion of lectio divina and the introduction to the method that I had produced, but once I looked at his connections, I suggested we work together to combine the two. Participatory study and lectio divina are not identical; participatory study provides more of an emphasis on resources and critical questions, yet the two work together very well.

    Once I saw the completed study guide to Luke, I knew immediately that if I could find any more authors for the series, I would present that volume as the guide to how we would structure study guides.

    After Luke, Geoffrey and I got together and wrote Learning and Living Scripture: An Introduction to the Participatory Study Method. In that book, Geoffrey’s more pastoral concern and my more technical emphasis combine and lay out the method along with exercises.

    Since then we’ve introduced Ephesians: A Participatory Study Guide, by Bob Cornwall and most recently Philippians: A Participatory Study Guide by Bruce Epperly. Each new author has brought something unexpected to the method and to the particular book they present. I don’t want to describe one book or another as “best.” (I do plan to revise my two volumes to incorporate some features in layout and presentation learned from later volumes.)

    I had wondered just how well someone could take the basic framework and yet use their own gifts and emphases in producing an effective guide. I couldn’t have been more pleased when I read the following sentence in Bruce Epperly’s preface to Philippians: “Henry provided a vision for this study and gave me permission to work out the details in a way congruent with my gifts as a pastor, teacher, and spiritual guide.”

    This was not so much pleasing as a pat on the back, though I admit to being delighted when my work is appreciated. More than that, it indicates that someone whose gifts differ dramatically from my own was able to exercise those gifts within this framework and produce what is truly an exceptional study guide. I’ve gotten some comments from people who wonder about one statement or another. Bruce is a progressive theologian and an adventurous theological writer. But nobody has said it doesn’t challenge them to press boldly on toward the mark.

    I look at the way the series is developing—and there are several more volumes either in progress or in preliminary negotiations—and I’m truly amazed. I wish I could say I envisioned the quality of the people who would submit proposals for inclusion in the series, almost all of them with doctoral degrees and considerable experience teaching. I wish I could say I’d envisioned what’s happening to the series—but I’m delighted that the result is better than I ever imagined.

    I encourage you to take a look at this latest study guide. Not only will it challenge you to take a more serious look at the content of Paul’s letter to the church at Philippi, it will challenge you to take what you learn seriously and apply it in your own spiritual life. Each lesson starts by asking you to open yourself to the Spirit in some way and concludes by challenging you to carry what the Spirit has done out of the church or classroom and out into the world.

    I have been very pleased to publish every book I have published since I started Energion Publications, and I don’t want to take anything away from those books. Yet my heart is in getting the people in our church pews, not to mention those who rarely show up there, to learn the joy of exploring the scriptures while listening to the Spirit. Thus Philippians: A Participatory Study Guide will always have a special place in my heart. It does an extraordinary job of accomplishing that mission.

    There are review and evaluation copies of all the participatory study guides available, If you’re interested, e-mail me with the reason you want one, and I’ll take care of it.

  • On Camping: Do Errors Result from Lack of Theological Education?

    Dr. W. Robert Godfrey, president of Westminster Seminary California, says that it does, according to the Christian Post. Dr. Godfrey, who was in the youth group taught by Camping at Alameda Christian Reformed Church, says that Camping reads the Bible like an engineer, lacks knowledge of the original languages, and doesn’t know how to read literature, especially ancient literature.

    I would have to disagree–with the conclusion, not the facts. Indeed Camping does not read Greek and Hebrew, lacks formal training and theology, and to some extent reads the Bible like an engineer. On the last point it seems to me that a competent engineer should be able to discern when he is not reading an engineering text, i.e., the pieces just don’t fit together as and engineer would expect them to. There’s something else going on that causes him to force the Bible to fit a certain mold.

    I’d suggest it’s a combination of a belief in inspiration–a high view of scripture, in fact–combined with a 20th century modernism in which scientific, mathematically precise knowledge is the best kind of knowledge there is. The Bible is the best book, so it must produce the best kind of knowledge. With that mindset carried to its extreme, the Bible must produce the kind of information Camping extracts from it. If it didn’t, it couldn’t be inspired, an unthinkable result.

    As I noted earlier with regard to time setting, though Camping carries this to extremes, other interpreters are guilty of similar errors, such as trying to force biblical texts to produce advanced scientific knowledge they were never intended to convey. Dissatisfied with the spiritual message of the Bible–challenging enough in itself!–they search for “better” knowledge.

    But are Camping’s errors the result of a lack of formal education? Certainly he makes calculations that seem nonsensical to those who read the Bible in its original languages with knowledge of its historical and literary context. So yes, there are errors that result from a lack of knowledge. But one can find plenty of errors committed by people with doctoral degrees as well. Different errors, yes, but still errors.

    I think the headline (both mine and the one at the Christian Post) does a disservice to what Dr. Godfrey said. He comments later in the article that Camping “refused to learn from Bible scholars” and adopted a “proud individualism.” I’d say that a refusal to learn from others, not just from Bible scholars, would be the most basic problem.

    There are plenty of sources from which one can get historical and literary information about the Bible. Doubtless such information was available to Camping. Yet he did not submit his work to testing and critique by others and listen to what they had to say.

    In the participatory study method (described in my book Learning and Living Scripture, co-authored with Geoffrey Lentz), the final step in Bible study is sharing. By sharing, Geoffrey and I do not mean going out and letting everyone know what brilliant insights you have gained from your study. Rather,

    You do this both to give others the benefit of what you have learned and to benefit from their comments and perhaps corrections.

    As you study and question, find something to share. Remember that sharing can be in the form of a question. For example, one might ask others how they understand a particular word, such as “incarnation,” “poverty,” or “atonement.” Take notes on their answers, and bring that information back to your study.

    Then ask yourself what your neighbors will hear when you make particular statements, such as “I must be bold for Jesus!” or “Jesus is the only way to receive atonement.” Do those statements mean something to them? Do they mean the same thing to them as they do to you?

    This is part of contemplatio, as you try to be and do the text. We often think of sharing primarily as telling someone things that we have learned. But if what you learned is that God loves prisoners, for example, you might find that the best way of sharing that lesson is to become active in prison ministry.

    Sharing demonstrates that you don’t believe the text is your private possession. It is God’s gift to the Christian community (p. 14, emphasis added).

    Whether you lack a high school diploma or have multiple PhDs, humility, and teachability, is your best protection from getting stuck in error(s).

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Herold Weiss on Genesis 2:4b – 4:26

    Herold Weiss is continuing his series on the doctrine of creation in the Bible with a discussion of sources and how this passage might enlighten our understanding. The entire series has been extremely interesting and has generated some serious (and some not so serious) discussion.

    (Note: I am publisher of Herold Weiss’s new book Finding My Way in Christianity: Recollections of a Journey.)

  • My Dad Was a Fundamentalist

    Labels are such tricky things, and any linguist is aware of the problems of saying that a word should mean some certain thing. So I’m going to resist that. But it would be nice to have a label for people who were very firm about the tenets of their faith, and yet was not also a pejorative term.

    More and more, “fundamentalist” is used in a pejorative sense. You can be an evangelical Christian, and you might be considered a reasonable person. A little over pious, perhaps, but reasonable. But fundamentalist now carries the connotation of Westboro Baptist protesting at funerals, suicide bombers, and planes flying into buildings. Most fundamentalists I know, whether Christian or Muslim, don’t think the actions of those groups. You even have the term “fundamentalist atheist” for atheists who are firm in expressing their beliefs and don’t give in to anyone else.

    On one online forum in which I participated, the common standard was to use “fundamentalist” of the person’s basic beliefs, but to call someone who was also over the line in terms of behavior a “fundy.” It didn’t always work. In fact, it rarely worked, because a pejorative label is unlikely to be received well by anyone.

    Now my dad was, in terms of beliefs, a fundamentalist Christian. He believed literally in all the major doctrines–virgin birth, resurrection, a literal and imminent second coming of Jesus, the complete truth of the Bible, a literal and recent reading of the Genesis creation story, and salvation by faith alone in Christ alone. He didn’t waver from any of those believes.

    He was also a medical doctor who spent his life serving others. He never made the kind of money that one expects of a physician. He never intended to nor did he try to. He put his effort into serving. He made no distinctions of religion, race, or nationality (or of any other kind that I know of) in the people he served. He treated everyone with the sort of respect that must be part of one’s nature; it’s not put on, so it never slips. He fit none of the stereotypes of a fundamentalist.

    I disagree with some of the religious positions my father held, but I have a profound respect for his faith, his service, and the way he dealt with people. I’m deeply grateful to have grown up under that influence. When I call my father a fundamentalist, I mean no disrespect whatsoever. Yet the term carries that disrespect, and at the same time, I know no other the fully reflects his beliefs.

    Language changes, and is nearly impossible to turn from its course. I wonder if I should try to rescue the term “fundamentalist” so as to make it descriptive rather than pejorative, but I doubt I’d succeed. Perhaps I just need to write something like this every so often, to remind people that “fundamentalist” is not a synonym either for “terrorist” or “idiot.”

    As someone who is distinctly non-fundamentalist, perhaps I’m a good person to make that statement.

     

    Enhanced by Zemanta

  • Bible Memorization and Reading

    When I wrote about different approaches in reading the Bible I left an important one out–memorization. I was reminded of this when writing an e-mail to some friends and quoting scripture. I quoted the KJV and wasn’t even aware of it until I’d completely quoted the text.

    So what does quoting the KJV have to do with the value of memorization? It goes back to my school experience. For four years of elementary school I attended a small Christian school that required regular Bible memorization. We didn’t do memory verses–well, we did a few of those two–but the bulk of the program was memorizing chapters or groups of chapters. These included Matthew 5-7 (The Sermon on the Mount), Psalm 78, Genesis 1:1-2:4, and Psalm 119 (all 176 verses). All of this memorization was from the KJV.

    Since that time I’ve learned to read Greek and Hebrew, and I include both in my daily devotional reading. I’ve read the Bible through numerous times in a variety of translations, and I’ve written any number of working translations of verses I’m studying. But I still remember most verses, even ones I never memorized, in the KJV.

    I’m not making an argument in favor of memorizing the KJV specifically. Rather, I’m suggesting that memorizing scripture and doing it early will tend to keep that scripture with you later in life.

    There was one aspect of this training that didn’t stick. They hoped that by making us memorize all this carefully selected scripture, they would guarantee that we’d stick with the doctrinal positions they held. That was one of the major reasons they included texts as well as chapters. We had four texts on the Sabbath, four texts on the state of the dead, and various other Adventist doctrines. It was also hoped that having memorized Genesis 1 we’d be protected against the wiles of evolutionary theory. They didn’t consider that one might love those words, and yet understand them very differently.

    Nonetheless I recommend memorization. In fact, to Greek and Hebrew students I recommend memorizing texts in those languages. I have much better memory for both words and constructions that are in passages I have memorized than I do otherwise. Even better, when I’m discussing the meaning of those words of constructions, I can easily cite the memorized text. I wish I had memorized more back when I was a student, but I still can remedy that.

    So I recommend memorization of selected texts as an aid to your Bible study, whether in English (or your native tongue, whatever that is), or in the original languages.

  • Reading Genealogies

    I discuss why I think we should pay attention on the World Prayr blog today.

  • Can the Bible Be Alone?

    Clayboy asks whether “the Bible alone” is an oxymoron.  Now I sympathize with the question, because I have been dealing in another forum (the issue arises in the last 100 messages or so) with someone who seems to think that a text can have meaning with no context at all, or more precisely that the obvious meaning of English words to a 21st century audience is somehow “the meaning of the text” as opposed to something built on the context in which it was actually uttered.  Using all that ancient language and culture stuff is changing what the text actually says.

    But that is a caricature of sola scriptura, but it is one which many people in the pews of our churches hold.  They believe that by sitting down with the Bible, and perhaps a concordance, they can discover what God actually said, and they don’t need to depend on anyone else–no tradition, no outside sources, no experts.  It’s an interesting view, but I don’t believe it is what the reformers intended by sola scriptura, and I’ve never encountered anyone who could be called “Biblically trained” who held that position.  (I responded on YouTube to someone who made that claim, and yet couldn’t get his English straight, much less his Greek.)

    But there is a more serious issue with the actual sola scriptura position, part of which has been raised in other discussions around the blogosphere.  Without tradition we do not have a Bible.  It is the tradition of the church that produced the canon as we have it, and there is not a 100% agreement even now with respect to just what books should be included in the canon, and whether the canon should be (or is) open or closed.

    But there is also the question of inspiration and just what can demonstrate that a book is inspired by God–God-breathed.  There are numerous ideas, but the question I would raise is just where those standards came from.  For example, why did the early church think there should be apostolic authority behind those books to be included in the New Testament canon?  To a certain extent I can accept the standard, though not completely.  For example, I don’t care whether Hebrews was written by Paul or some other person, whether Revelation by the apostle John or some other John, or whether the pastorals are genuinely Pauline or not.  I regard them as authoritative scripture in any case.

    Why?  Tradition.  It’s as simple as that.  I don’t even regard the books of the Bible as the only ones that are inspired, nor as the only ones that give me guidance.  They are the books that God guided the church to accept as the general authority for the church, and I submit myself to that general authority.  (The sense in which I do so is another topic!)

    There’s a sort of chicken and egg debate as to whether the church or the Bible comes first.  I don’t really see the answer to that as either possible or important.  The Bible and the community of faith grew together, with one supporting the other.  People lived as followers of God for many centuries without the complete canon, and yet somehow they managed.  Abraham believed God, as our lectionary passage for the coming week says, and it was counted as righteousness (Gen 15:6, loosely).

    Somehow Abraham managed to recognize God and believe him without a canon and also with precious little tradition.

    I do believe that the Bible is foundational, but one of the reasons I believe that is that it is the most tested source of tradition and experience–the experience of the community of faith with God passed down from generation to generation.

    It should be no surprise to anyone that one of the things that attracted me to the United Methodist Church was the Wesleyan Quadrilateral.  When I came to that in reading the United Methodist Discipline (and yes, I read the first hundred pages or so before I joined) I was hooked.  I do emphasize, however, that the quadrilateral should be more of a four layer filter than a four lane highway.

    In any case, my answer would be that the Bible cannot be alone, but more importantly is not, and has never been, alone.  We should not be afraid either to drive people back to the Bible as the source or to to admit that the history of our faith, God-guided I firmly believe, was the instrument God used to produce it.

  • 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.

  • Three Commentaries on Leviticus

    I just compared two commentaries on Leviticus on my Participatory Bible Study blog. In addition, I’d like to link to my older review of Jacob Milgrom’s three volume commentary on the same book. From that review:

    The only possible adjective for this commentary is “incredible.” It is not just long (2,468 pages of text), but it is packed with useful information, well organized, with the details of the process used in coming to understand the text laid out for examination. A book can be long but not informative. This one uses its space effectively to contain useful information.

    All three of these commentaries have been useful to me. Check them out!

  • Holy Bible: Mosaic NLT

    Note: I am participating in a blog tour for the release of this Bible on my Participatory Bible Study blog. Please go there for more information on the Mosaic Bible giveaway.  There are more details on the tour at the HolyBibleMosaic.com site.

    I was very excited to receive a copy of The Mosaic Bible from the folks at Tyndale House, because I had great hopes for this devotional and study Bible.

    It’s very hard to get me excited about study Bibles, because I see so much abuse. I can cover most of that abuse under two headings:

    1. Readers who treat study notes as equal to or sometimes superior to the text itself. Nobody actually says this, but they often act as though they believe it.

    2. Study Bibles with notes that are so narrowly based as to slant one’s Bible reading in favor of a particular tradition. Now I don’t expect Bible editors to cover all perspectives, but when the view of a particular tradition or even of an individual theologian is stated authoritatively in the notes as the one interpretation, it’s possible for the inexperienced reader to become confused.

    With that, enter The Mosaic Bible. I must admit to starting with a bit of bias. I have a strong appreciation for the NLT, and that is the chosen Biblical text. That text is particularly appropriate to a Bible that aims primarily at devotional or liturgical study and reading. The clarity of the translation text is too often neglected in liturgical use. Yes, we want accuracy. Yes, we want a decent literary sound for the scripture reading. But in addition, clarity is particularly important in public reading. The NLT is quite good in that area.

    But from that good foundation, it is possible still to construct a Bible edition that detracts from the excellent text. That is not the case here.

    Most importantly, in my view, the study and devotional notes are separated from the Biblical text. Instead of breaking up the flow of the Biblical text, thus suggesting that they are almost part of it, the notes and meditations are placed in the front of the Bible and then crossreferenced from the text.

    Of almost equal importance is the variety of materials included. The claim of the preface is that this Bible is intended “… to provide a way to encounter Christ on every continent and in every cenury of Christian history.” And it does precisely that. We have readings ranging from the 1 Clement and the Didache to writers of today, and they come from different tradition streams as well as different geographical locations.

    In teaching on how to study the Bible for laypeople, I emphasize sharing. By sharing I mean not just telling others what you have learned, but also listening to the broader community, in time, in space, and in tradition, so as to hear possible corrections of your own eccentricities. Often people come and ask me where they can find such things. Of course there are numerous reference sources one can use, but many are not easily accessible outside of an academic environment.

    I can now recommend using this Bible for a year as a way to introduce yourself to the variety of resources and authors that are available. It will provide you with places to start in many areas.

    I attend a more liturgical church, and hear preaching from the lectionary. But I didn’t grow up with that. The church year was pretty much a mystery to me. The Mosaic Bible divides its notes into 53 weekly readings (the extra week helps deal with different dates for certain church days), each of which includes four scriptures patterned after the lectionary (Old Testament, Psalm, Epistle, Gospel), and at least one additional suggested reading. In addition, there is an introductory note on the topic, readings, a medition, a prayer, and some white space to use in taking notes.

    The obvious approach to this Bible is either liturgical or devotional. Follow the Christian year with this Bible, do the readings, and watch your devotional life grow, or alternatively, use them in church liturgy. I am a strong advocate of more scripture reading in our worship services. We have little tolerance for listening to substantial passages of scripture, but I would suggest we would do well to develop a spiritual discipline of just plain listening to scripture.

    With the crossreferences, however, you can choose instead to follow your own plan of reading, and use this Bible as a supplement. Clearly marked references indicate what scriptures are used in the weekly studies, so you can use them in reverse as well. The Bible text portion of the book will serve quite well as a Bible you can carry to church with you, or use for other reading and study.

    Having listed all these strengths, let me note a couple of weaknesses. The difficulty with the word “weakness” is that it needs to be interpreted with reference to a goal. I think this Bible accomplishes what the editors set out in the introduction or “Mosaic User’s Guide.” Nonetheless I think I need to point out what the Bible is not.

    First, it is not a technical study Bible. The introductions to the Bible books are basic, not detailed. The notes are not about historical background or technicalities of language, but are instead devotional (this is, of course a strength as well). You will not find discussion of historical-critical questions. For example, the introduction to Genesis gives the date of writing as “Uncertain, perhaps 1450-1410 BC.” You could generate decades of arguments over that, but you won’t find any of them here.

    Second, it is not a guide to any particular tradition. It is not surprising that often Catholics would like a Catholic study Bible, protestants a protestant Bible, evangelicals an evangelical Bible, Methodists a Methodist Bible (sort of!), and so forth. Those groups overlap, of course. This Bible isn’t designed to address the most controversial issues, at least as I read it. It is, instead, to take elements from all the traditions that point to Christ as the center.

    Before I make a final point about the Bible I want to expand on that point. I don’t think we are used to christocentric study notes. Some evangelical study Bibles point to prophecy and fulfillment. Those interested in historical interpretation look more at an isolated meaning at a particular place and time. But as the scriptures of the Christian faith, the books of the Bible can and should be read as centering around the one greatest revelation, Jesus the incarnate Son of God.

    I do not intend to deny historical-critical methodologies. I use them myself. But that is just one way of looking at the Bible—important, but not exclusive. It contributes to our other understandings. But if we see Jesus as the primary revelation of God, then I think we must look at the rest of God’s action in the world through that lens. This Bible will help you look at the whole in that fashion.

    My final point has to do with book design. It’s easy to criticize book design formt he cheap seats. I handed this to my wife and she said it wouldn’t work for her, largely because of the print size. Be aware that the print is small. At the same time, I’m not sure how one would change the design to satisfy everyone. If the print were substantially larger, the whole volume would become too large to carry.

    Book design is a collection of compromises. So a compromise must be struck, and I’m personally not unhappy with the result. For me, the text is large enough, though I need my reading glasses, while the book remains small enough for me to carry to church or a small group study.

    Overall, I give this Bible five out of five stars, and thank Tyndale House for the opportunity to review it.

    (Please see my previous post for an announcement of the Mosaic Bible giveaway. This review has also been crossposted to the Energion.com Book Blog.)