Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Christianity

  • Could I Be the Antichrist?

    I found this article via WorldNetDaily: Pope is warned of a green Antichrist.

    According to Cardinal Biffi, who gave the Lenten message this year, the antichrist could be “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”.

    OK, I resemble that remark. Of course, I’m not nearly important enough to be the actual antichrist. Probably I could just encourage and support him:

    Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, 78, who retired as Archbishop of Bologna three years ago, quoted Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), the Russian philosopher and mystic, as predicting that the Antichrist “will convoke an ecumenical council and seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions”.

    So I can’t convoke an ecumenical council, but I can really wish one would happen, and pray for it regularly. I can be pretty green on environmental issues, and I can pursue peace. Does that count?

    For further proof that one need not be intelligent to be a cardinal, consider this:

    Cardinal Biffi said that Christianity stood for “absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty”. If “relative values” such as “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” became absolute, they would encourage “idolatry” and “put obstacles in the way of salvation”.

    I’m glad to hear that “beauty” is a more absolute value than say “love of peace.” Got that.

  • Why Authority Issues are Important

    Via Pandagon I found this story, also reported here. These are serious accusations, and more and more people are coming forward.

    Such a story should emphasize several things to those of us who are in ministry, including how transparent our ministry practices should be. Teach and behave in such a way that an accusation such as this would be implausible in your ministry. In my view that includes not claiming excessive authority over the spiritual lives of others, and in fact teaching them to use their own discernment with respect to claims of spiritual authority. It also means practicing accountability, both to let the congregation know that you really mean it and to make sure that the opportunity doesn’t arise.

    Christians should also be very conscious of efforts to force them to give up their judgment to another person. Even demands that one “prayerfully consider” something that you have already rejected (for good reason), can be efforts to break down your own good sense and rational judgment in favor of a church leader. If you haven’t prayerfully considered something, of course, it’s a good idea to do so. But when you have, remember that your decision is between you and God and don’t let yourself be pushed around.

    All of this reemphasizes the point I made a few days ago about the dangers of authority, especially the type of church teaching that makes women spiritually inferior in authoirty to men, such as the teaching that a woman can never have authority over a man in the church. I discussed these issues in Women in Ministry: A Shock and Gifts Ministry and Blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

    Note what I wrote in the first of these entries:

    God doesn’t like his children lording it over one another.

    I have taught this repeatedly. Authority, especially spiritual authority, is dangerous. You create the potential for abuse as soon as you place them in charge and insulate them in any way from accountability. This is true in the home when a man is made “head of household” answering only to God, with his wife answering to him. It is true when one of the church offices is placed above all others. There are a number of teachers who emphasize that the pastor is the final authority in the church and insulate him from challenges because one cannot touch God’s anointed. But all of these options fly directly in the face of the gifts teaching of 1 Corinthians 12-14. God gives the gifts as he wills. They are all important, they are all needed in the church. None of them are to make one of us Lord over another. To fail to recognize this will ultimately result in abuse. If you’re teaching it, though you may not be abusing anyone yourself, you’re opening the door. [Emphasis from original.]

    Now notice the teaching that was apparently involved in this particular pastoral abuse, from The Dallas Observer Blog:

    Allen’s practice of paddling adults has been widely known in local COGIC circles for years, but a common teaching in black Pentecostalism is that a church member should never make an accusation against a man of God. Instead, he or she should pray privately that God deals with the minister’s sin. The two women I interviewed, in fact, each cited this teaching, which is apparently based on a biblical statement, “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm,” that is mentioned twice in the Old Testament.

    I don’t by any means believe that everyone who teaches a questionable view of authority is engaging in this type of abuse, but I do believe that any teaching that tends to remove accountability from someone in spiritual leadership is terribly, terribly dangerous and must be vigorously challenged by all Christians.

    Unfortunately, in some charismatic and pentecostal circles, the belief that God’s Spirit can come upon everyone in the church and that God can speak to anyone sometimes gets perverted into the idea that God puts an unaccountable authority on certain church leaders. When you have that teaching, abuse of authority, whether spiritual, emotional, or finally physical will not be far away. (Note that I do not mean that the abuse is limited to or especially bad in charismatic and pentecostal groups; rather, that in those groups it is this particular doctrine, and related doctrines about “anointing” that are often abused in this way. Other groups have their own avenues into sin.)

  • Diversity, Tent Ropes, and Tent Pegs

    I have mentioned before that I’ve been writing some of the devotionals for my wife’s devotional list, and yesterday I wrote one that relates closely to some things I’ve written here about tolerance for diversity and yet having identity and anchor points. It’s titled Extend Ropes, Strengthen Stakes.

    For those who may be interested, Jody’s devotional goes out every weekday morning. It used to be an e-mail list, but now it’s a blog with the option to subscribe via e-mail. Being a blog, it now also allows RSS subscriptions. We keep it clear of administrative and personal things, we go very light on the advertising material in the sidebar, and likely no more than once a quarter we might mention an event where she is speaking or a book by one or the other of us, so it’s a pretty safe subscription. You get just a devotional in the morning. Speaking of diversity, as fair warning, it’s distinctively Christian in tone.

  • Plantinga on The God Delusion

    Ben Witherington alerted me to Plantinga’s review of Dawkins’ book The God Delusion on Christianity Today. Now I must be frank (well, no, I don’t have to, but I will!) and say that I find philosophers provide the most annoying of reading. They seem to me to be the world’s best rationalizers, providing excellent reasons to believe what they already believe. I have previously commented on some other work by Plantinga in my post An Evolutionary Understanding of Kinds, and I found his arguments in favor of a theistic science pretty seriously unconvincing. Other philosophers regard him as a heavyweight, however, so I suppose he must be.

    In this case, I haven’t read The God Delusion because I suspect it’s largely going to annoy me. I truly love Dawkins when he is writing about scientific topics, and I note that Plantinga expresses much the same sentiment for many passages on biology. Dawkins is a gifted science writer. But I find his hostility toward theism, and particularly liberal theism as kind of gratuitous. Having discovered that complexity can come from simplicity without any demonstrable guidance (a point on which Plantinga disagrees with him), Dawkins seems anxious to move forward and make claims about things he can’t possibly know.

    Of course, making claims about things you can’t possibly know is a time honored religious tradition. So if Dawkins were to admit that he is speculating, I would generally have no problem with what he does. As it is, I just avoid reading those portions of his writing. I’ve already heard the argument. I’m still a theist. I shrug my shoulders and go on.

    Now I’m not going to quote more than a few lines of the lengthy review. You really should read the whole thing to get the flavor. But Plantinga seems to believe that the evidence is solid for his viewpoint, and Dawkins is on thin ice. I think they’re both well past the ice, and just waiting, like cartoon characters, for the law of gravity to notice. As a theist, I look back at the chasm over which I have leapt in a classic leap of faith, and I have great understanding for those who shake their heads and call me an idiot. I think my concept of God works well with the universe as it is, but I know the evidence I see admits of other explanations.

    Arguments like fine-tuning sound so good in philosophy classrooms, but when it comes right down to it, I know I have to start my argument from the point of view of a universe that was capable of producing me to think about it. In practical terms, astronomical odds against my being here are irrelevant. I’m here, after all. (Yes, I know, philosphers don’t think that’s a good answer, but I think it’s a real answer.) Even more, though, all arguments about the probability of one type of universe existing over another are founded on nothing. Nobody knows just how a universe comes into existence at all, nor at this point whether there is one universe or many, or if many, in what relationship they are to one another. We cannot even imagine what creatures might inhabit a universe substantially different from ours, and who might speculate on the existence of God because their universe was precisely designed for them.

    The thing that really gets me about Plantinga’s argument, and Dawkins’s, if Plantinga has characterized it accurately, is that it places both Dawkins and Plantinga in the position of claiming their own position is true, because it hasn’t been disproven. In other words, Plantinga wants us to default to his position, Dawkins to his. Plantinga summarizes what he thinks Dawkins’s argument amounts to:

    We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p;
    Therefore
    p is true.

    But to me, both arguments push beyond the bounds of science, and both questions should be answered with a form of “I don’t know.” And here Plantinga has the upper hand. He is a philosopher, and is thus doing the stuff he is supposed to be doing. When he starts talking about theistic science elsewhere, I think he transgresses in the other direction, but here he is on the ground appropriate to his field. (I am an interloper in either direction, but it’s my blog and I get to interlope!) Dawkins, on the other hand, whether he intends it or not, is seen as a spokesman for science saying that there is no God, no supernatural. And science is simply not capable of testing that. It can see the effects, but it can’t track them back.

    All of this leaves me in pretty much the same place I was when I started. But Plantinga’s review is interesting and well worth reading.

  • Finding the Tomb of Jesus

    A documentary to be shown on the Discovery Channel purports to have discovered the tomb and the ossuary of Jesus (CNN story here).

    I’m amazed that something like this would be called a “documentary” since there is next to no possibility of sufficient evidence for such a claim. The sad thing is that archeological claims, when popularized, rarely resemble anything a trained archeologist would actually say. Archeology is not about searching for a specific person’s remains or some specific artifact, Indiana Jones movies notwithstanding.

    This is not, however, solely a province of opponents of Christianity. When archeological discoveries have even the slightest relationship to the Biblical text, Christians will portray them as new “proofs” of the accuracy of the Bible. Inevitably they do no such thing, but each side contributes to this attitude of proving or disproving. Then of course others make discoveries that disprove Christianity, but later these prove to be no such thing either.

    Scientific historical study doesn’t work this way. The point is not to prove or disprove an entire collection of documents, such as the Bible, but rather to determine historicity point by point and create a most probable reconstruction of historical events. That process involves a great deal of nuance, and a willingness to admit ignorance in many cases, or tentative conclusions in many others.

    Both the statements “archeology proves the Bible” and “archeology disproves the Bible” are silly. The Bible is not a single source from the historical point of view, and sources are not proven or disproven, rather, individual elements of a story will be determined to be more or less probable.

  • On the Retirement of Marcus Borg

    Marcus Borg has announced his retirement. After completing his current class at Oregon State University, where he has been the Hundere Distinguished Professor of Religion and Culture, he will retire, and may even slow down a bit! He does have a few books in the works and other outlines in mind, according to this story in the Corvallis Gazette-Times.

    I have watched a little bit of Christian discussion (CompuServe Christian Fellowship Forum) of this retirement with some interest, though I haven’t gotten involved in any of the debates there. I think it is pretty much pointless for us to debate Borg’s state of grace or to pray for him more, or less for that matter, than anyone else in a similar relationship to us. I can observe that he is a person who diligently seeks, speaks honestly, and doesn’t give up.

    I have long recommended that if you are going to read just a single book on the life of Jesus from the liberal perspective–and Borg is doubtless liberal–then let it be one of Borg’s, preferably Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time. I prefer him for this purpose to John Dominic Crossan, though I think Crossan is a bit more thorough in discussing his sources and methodology. Crossan seems to dry his Christianity out, while Borg maintains an active spirituality that is reflected in his works.

    I recall one time as I was preparing for a sermon dealing with historical Jesus studies. I wanted to find readings that would include a short statement from a conservative and a liberal perspective just what the essence of Jesus actually is. I wanted to put on display what, at the core, a good representative from either side of center would see as the right answer to that question. As I often do when looking for words that communicate, I read a couple of selections to my wife to get her reaction. Both were from The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, by Borg and N. T. Wright. Now I have to say that while I have a generous dose of agnosticism regarding our ability to prove historical events, and even question the use of the term “proof” at all, and don’t believe that one can ultimately prove a miracle in any case, since historical study involves some sense of probability, I still would tend more in the direction of Wright than Borg on the historical issues. Wright is a wonderfully thorough–some would say too thorough–scholar. Yet after reading the two passages, my wife’s suggestion was simply to read Borg’s. It caught the essence for her.

    Now I don’t claim the mantle of orthodoxy, less because of massive disagreements with orthodox doctrine. I am a trinitarian Christian. My own answer, theologically, to who Jesus was is that he was both son of man and son of God, fully divine and fully human, and that this simple point is at the core of Christianity. I am a supernatural theist, in the sense that I believe God can and does intervene in the natural world, though I believe he does so rarely and only for very particular purposes. But the claim of orthodoxy, in my view, requires that someone spend more time defending a doctrinal standard than one does being a spiritual person. By “spiritual person” I mean one who is in communion with God and filled with God’s Spirit. Now there is nothing about orthodox that prevents such spiritual living, and in my view much that helps. But an obsession with orthodoxy can and often does prevent us from keeping our focus.

    In the same way, someone who is reading Marcus Borg from the conservative side of the spectrum can spend all of his time determining what is wrong with everything that Borg teaches. If you are conservative, there is no doubt that you will find plenty, and you will doubtless find lots of reasons to object. From your perspective, you should. In fact, from my perspective, I do as well. But nonetheless I have found reading Borg’s books to be an educational experience, and a spiritually challenging experience.

    Though I don’t think any of the three fall on the extreme, which I reserve for folks who deny the existence of a historical Jesus at all, I think it’s instructive to compare Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Bishop John Shelby Spong. All react to an orthodox Christianity that they think is failing. When I look at their works, I ask myself just why it is that people see that orthodoxy as failing, and since I hold more orthodox doctrines than any of the three, I have to ask myself whether those orthodox doctrines are, themselves, problematic. As I said above, I don’t think so. I think an obsession with doctrine can be problematic, but I know people who seem, to me at least (and I must guard against judgment, favorable or not), to be genuinely and truly spiritual in the sense I’ve discussed, who hold many different doctrinal positions including ones with which I have little sympathy. I know conservative, hard-line Calvinists with whom I could join on a broad range of social and spiritual issues, provided we could trust one another sufficiently to do so.

    Spong takes a few root ideas and runs with them, often making massive reconstructions based on very limited evidence. I should, of course, note that pretty much all purely historical reconstructions of the life of Jesus and the early Christian church operate on the basis of very little evidence. I think Spong’s concern is genuine, but I think his reactions are not so well considered. (I make these comments simply to bracket my reaction to Borg. Discussing Spong’s views would require a great deal of time on their own. Crossan is the dry scholar. I truly enjoyed reading his longer works on the historical Jesus and early Christian history, and yet there I find that while I get a good deal of food for my mind, especially in responding to the methology, I find very little food for soul and spirit. Borg manages to do both careful scholarship, avoiding Spong’s flights of fancy and at the same time Crossan’s dryness.

    I do need to note that another favorite of mine, N. T. Wright, is drier than Crossan and so extremely thorough with his details that he can drive you nuts while you’re agreeing with him! A similar book from the conservative perspective is Darrell Bock’s Jesus According to Scripture which sets out with the fairly basic task of presenting a picture of Jesus based purely on the canonical gospels, and winds up as a potential cure for insomnia. Yet Bock’s work is an essential, in my view, precisely because of its thoroughness in dealing with issues in the canonical gospels. I would no longer discuss the historicity, the meaning, or the setting of any saying or event in the life of Jesus without having read Bock’s outline on the subject.

    I welcome Borg’s retirement, not because I have longed to see him out of academic life, but because I hope to have the opportunity to read and be challenged by many more of his books. Perhaps he’ll even give a lecture somewhere near where I am so that I can go and listen. Interacting with his work has been a growing experience for me.

  • Book: Identifying Your Gifts and Service

    Finally, after many delays, every one of them my fault, my new edition of this book has gone to the printer. Titled uncreatively Identifying Your Gifts and Service: Small Group Edition, it fills a need, expressed by a number of people who have taken my class series of the same name, for an edition of this book that could be used by small groups in a continuing study of spiritual gifts. The original edition was really simply my way of gathering my handouts and exercise sheets into one binding to use in my own teaching. It was just a workbook.

    We will be offering a pre-publication price of $10.00 rather than the $12.99 cover price form now until March 13, 2007 in celebration of this release.

    Commercial announcement over–back to our regular programming!)

  • Quick Note on Persecution

    The other day I wrote a note about Christians feeling persecuted in the United States and how I felt that devalued the term “persecution.” This morning I got an alert from Christian Today (I subscribe to the Christianity Today Connection e-mail), which gave the story of a persecuted girl in Pakistan and led, inevitably to the Voice of the Martyrs site Persecution.com.

    I suggest to any American Christians that if you’re feeling persecuted, go read some of the stories on that site until you get perspective. Even better, take some action. They’ll give you some options.

    I believe we should be alert to the persecution of any people for any reason. We should be alert against discrimination in this country as well, no matter who is targetted. But we also need to realize our blessings in this country, and at the same time come to a clear understanding of what it means when people claim authority of the spiritual lives of others through the power of the state.

  • Put Your Bible Down for a Day

    That would be a weird thing for a Bible teacher, such as myself, to say. And indeed, I didn’t say it. Dennis Stout did, over a Christianity Today/Christian Bible Studies.com. There’s some good advice in this article, so I wanted to commend it to my readers.

  • And Yet Christians Speak of Persecution

    I am continually annoyed when Christians claim to be persecuted in this country. I know that we are, from time to time, inconvenienced and troubled, but it seems to me that calling ourselves persecuted simply devalues the term. I’ve lived where persecution was a reality, as in fleeing ahead of someone intent on killing you because of your activities as a Christian, and it’s truly not at all like living in America.

    I’m not saying that we should not oppose discrimination. We should. We should oppose discrimination against anyone, not just ourselves. That should include Wiccans and their right to worship, even in the armed services, Muslims, including protecting them from discrimination based on a bias to assume they are terrorists, and even . . . [gasp] . . . atheists, true infidels!

    Thus I was interested to note the following poll (HT: Abnormal Interests). The apparent resistance to Catholic, Black, and Jewish candidates is headed toward negligible. There’s a larger resistance, totally unjustified, against a woman candidate.

    But only 55% would vote for a homosexual candidate, while only 45% would vote for an atheist. Gay atheists, obviously, need not apply!

    So the question is this: Who’s getting persecuted in this country, and who’s doing the persecuting? I’m sure people are going to claim that refusing to vote for somebody is not persecution, yet many claims of persecution of Christians that I hear fall into very much the same category. Often they are effectively claims that one is losing one’s favored position. But taking one characteristic of a person, and refusing to vote for them on that basis, is a reflection at least of an attitude of persecution.

    Many Christians are likely to tell me that I should, as a Christian, assume that Christian candidates have better character. But that is demonstrably false. In fact, in voting for “Christian” candidates, all I’m voting for is a professed Christian candidate. God only knows whether the claim is true or false. He may attend church simply to gain political favor. He may be 100% sincere. The only way I have to know is by a person’s record of doing what he says and his competence. But that’s precisely the same way that I can determine whether an atheist, a homosexual (who may well also be a Christian), or a Wiccan deserves my vote. What does the record show? I may guess wrong, but a couple of years in office will let me know whether I should vote for that person again.

    As for me, I will vote for a person who has demonstrated integrity and competence, whether that person is gay or straight, Christian or atheist, Black or White, or any combination of characteristics or claims. It’s not the label, it’s the deeds.