Threads from Henry's Web

Tag: Christianity

  • Quote of the Day

    This one makes me think (it’s from Brian McLaren):

    The early church is not homogenized, new believers are not mimics when converted, they remain unique people.  Whoever loves God is known by God.  Knowledge can destroy the weak Christian; therefore, how do we deal with people with different knowledge?An Epistemology of Love | Everyday Liturgy, Oct 2008

    You should read the whole article.

    Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

  • Textual Criticism Summary from Parchment and Pen

    C. Michael Patton presents Textual Criticism in a Nutshell, though what he means more precisely is New Testament textual criticism in a nutshell.

    It’s quite a good introduction giving a feel for the types of variants and why they might occur, and also why we might prefer not to call them “errors” considering that some are intentional, and some are stylistic variants and so forth.

    I would note only one caveat–I think he is a bit optimistic on how much impact the few substantial variants would have. I recall one correspondent who noted that of course variants in the New Testament text made no difference on doctrinal issues, since we don’t truly base our doctrines on the Bible in any case. That’s also overstating the case, in my view.

    Certainly there is a great deal more in the church’s doctrinal statements than is in the texts themselves. I regard this as a good thing. I think the church was supposed to grow and that the doctrinal statements express the church in that process. At the same time, they did take care within their approach to the study of texts, to provide some basis in scripture.

    We would hardly have the debates we do about some variants if there were no doctrinal issues. Thus it is good to realize that while the support orthodoxy may be strengthened or weakened by particular variants, there are no smoking guns that say “that doctrine is wrong,” or “this other doctrine should have been there.” It’s more a matter of the weight of textual support for the elements of doctrine.

  • Bible Reading Poll

    I think it’s about time to change polls, so here are the results of the last one:

    What is your most common reason for reading the Bible (i.e. the one that causes you to spend the most time reading)?

    Selection Percentage Votes
    Devotional 23% 8
    Guidance for a specific personal situation 6% 2
    Ethical guidance 3% 1
    Learning correct doctrine 14% 5
    Hearing God speak 40% 14
    Historical or technical interest 9% 3
    I don’t read the Bible 0% 0
    Other (please comment) 6% 2
    35 votes total

    There were three comments left:

    From Gideon on March 17, 2008 at 1:34 am.
    to find out how to do good. Not that I am
    good, but I want to know what is
    “biblically good”.

    Joh 5:29 NETB … the ones who have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation.

    From Mark Thompson on March 4, 2008 at 2:14 am.
    I ticked hearing God speak, but to be more correct I would add ‘as man understood at that time and place’

    From Philo on February 19, 2008 at 11:09 am.
    “What is your most common reason for reading the Bible (i.e. the one that causes you to spend the most time reading)?”

    For its poetry.

    I was interested in how many chose “hearing God speak” and I wonder how many of those would agree with the second comment made by Mark Thompson.

  • An Evangelist for Evolution

    The Rev. Michael Dowd is preaching a surprising message: Evolution is real and science points to the existence of God. (Source: .)

    Rev. Dowd also joins the growing group who acknowledge that accepting evolution does impact one’s theology in some ways. I find his specific take interesting.

    One theme that seems to get someone entry into Christian venues is the idea that science can help support faith. Those who say, “Evolution is true, live with it” don’t get so much of a hearing. Unfortunately, while I believe that scientific evidence can be seen as consistent with the existence of God, I see nothing that forces or drives the conclusion that there truly is a God. Often the evidence makes one drop some definition of God that one had held before.

    In a comment to a previous post Larry B. writes:

    In the same (but different) way, I honestly feel that evolution for a lot of people has unmoored more than a few christians from their foundations.

    (I don’t want to copy the whole comment here, but it is worthwhile reading the entire context.)

    I agree with this statement, but would ask what is the proper response? If people have faith that God will heal everyone for whom prayer is offered, they will very possibly be “unmoored” from that faith when reality doesn’t accord with their expectations. In the case of evolution, I suggest that there is more education needed amongst Christians about the implications and possibilities, so that people can make intelligent decisions.

    I do think it is important to note the real challenges to theology, and to welcome, rather than fear questions. Christianity is ultimately doomed if it cannot find a more friendly way to co-exist with challenges. There’s the “fall over and play dead” option and the “circle the wagons option.” We need more folks in the “let’s have fun with this” camp!

    Or at least that’s my take on it.

  • Israel and United Methodist Whoredom

    I’ve always regarded myself as substantially pro-Israel, and often resolutions by the United Methodist Church on this issue trouble me a bit. (For those who don’t know, I am a member of a United Methodist congregation–quite a fine congregation too!) But apparently some people are troubled a great deal more than “a bit,” and can get quite enraged on the issue. The United Methodist Portal responds to this commentary on WorldNetDaily by Joseph Farah.

    Now Joseph Farah gets to what I think is his major point–and if it’s not, it’s my major point about him–when he says:

    This is no longer a church; it is an organization of misguided political activism. This is no longer a house of God; it is a mad house. This is no longer part of the bride of Christ; it is a whore to the world. [Emphasis mine]

    I have to note here, of course, that I might say similar things about an organization like WorldNetDaily, which seems to have made overreaction a way of life. But I haven’t, and I’m not planning to. They can overreact all they like, and I’ll criticize them article by article as I see fit. I have not yet seen fit to read them out of the body of Christ, but perhaps the problem is that I have “lost [my] moral bearings” and am far too tolerant of arrogant windbags.

    (more…)

  • Dr. Richard Colling Comments on Random Designer Review

    I wanted to call attention to a few of these, as Dr. Colling’s response to elements of my posts on his book is very important. He also makes some substantial points in his comments.

    I’m going to quote and link to two of these so that they are not missed.

    Chapter 14 almost did not make the cut for the book. One of my closest friends had read the manuscript just before it went to press. He had terminal cancer. When I suggested that I might take that chapter out, he was adamant that it needed to be included. He could see that his life was soon to end, but he was supremely confident that his life would never end. Only the physical was terminal in his mind. The spiritual had no end. One of his favorite sayings to me during those last months of his life was, ” All healing is temporary”.

    If I think about this, it is so obvious, but also deep. We sometimes place God before the litmus tests of our experimental designs, saying that if we experience some apparently inexplicable healing or recovery from physical disease, it is God. Well, my friend knew that God does not thrive or even appreciate that kind of notariety. All of us are physical beings, and mortality is common to us all. It is hard for me to believe that God cares a great deal about whether I live to be 60 or 80, but it is easy for me to understand that he cares how I relate to him and to others. In the Bible, Jesus repeatedly cautioned his followers about emphasizing physical health over spiritual.

    Are miracles real? My answer is a resounding “Yes”.
    But in the sense that every biochemical process that has been ordained within us, including the innate healing processes are miracles. Can these be tapped by spiritual means? I have not seen it conclusively demonstrated, but I know others who are very convinced, and I accept that reality as a possibility.
    That is faith, I guess.

    Glad you are finding value in the book.

    Thanks.
    Rick

    Source: Comment 99252.

    Hello Henry, and all.

    The answers to the questions posed in your discussions are, in my opinion, not to be easily had from science. They become matters of faith. I understand very well your thinking Henry, that the creation of intelligent human life may not have been so directly directed as we typically understand the word “directed”. It may be as you describe. The multiverse theory suggests something similar — that there are even multiple universes, and that within some of these, life can develop and evolve to reach similar point perhaps as we. But alas, the stretches of time and space preclude us from ever knowing such things for sure. So here we are, trapped in a sense, in our teeny tiny corner of one of hundreds of billions of solar systems existing within hundreds of billions of galaxies and knowing that we can never learn the answer for certain. All we can do it seems is consider what we do know from science (the physical world) and make the best resonance with our faith.
    I recognize that some of the extrapolations tread on what some consider to be “sacred ground’. but my thinking is that perhaps we have some things wrong in our classic Christian/religious foundations.

    One of you suggest that physical death/suffering does not enter the world before a human being’s sin. But adopting such a rigid explanation of the Bibilical text creates all kinds of problems. Not for science, but the the credibility of the Biblical text. For thousands of years, theologians did something similar when they suggested that the world was flat and that the earth was the center of all existence. But when science demonstrated that that was simply untrue, religion changed their interpretation of scripture. (But not without some weeping and gnashing of teeth.) Perhaps we are at a similar point now. The conflicts between religion and physical sciences has been fairly well resolved post galileo, but the showdown battle between religion and biological sciences appears to be only now coming to a head, at least here in the US. It is not a significant problem in most other areas of the world.
    So back to the fall (first sin.) If we look at the data, mankind has been around roughly between 60,000 years to 150,000 years. But the earths record is quite clear that death, suffering, and massive destructive forces have been ongoing hundreds of millions of years prior to that time.
    How is this information reconciled with the classic interpretation of the fall as being the source of death and suffering. Clearly, these things do not arise for the first time when Adam and Eve ate an apple.

    Also, if the classic interpretation is accepted that physical death and suffering enter at this time, and that Christ’s death reverses this physical phenomenon, then why did death and suffering not immediately cease when his sacrifice was completed?

    It seems to me that we must be consistent, and careful in our interpretation of scripture. I think it was Charles Hodge who said that to continue to interpret scripture in ways clearly inconsistent with nature is a sure killer for the credibility of the faith.
    Especially if there is a different (and in this case, I believe a better) interpretation. Just as Jesus taught, mankind has a tendency to experience and describe our existence in terms of physical, but he suggests over and over to focus on the spiritual. So, when the first man sins, this is spiritual death. When Christ dies, that sacrifice models God’s way, exposing physical death in a puny perspective when stood next to spiritual death. In other words, Christ’s death was not about the physical dying at all as much as it was perhaps about the willingness to give up oneself for another, or in his case for all! Wasn’t it his words? “No greater love has a man than that he give up his life for a another.”?

    So this humble scientist wonders if we are missing the bigger message of Christianity when we build the foundations of the Christian faith around physical interpretations that cannot possible be true.

    On another note, Henry. Yes, I am an unapologetic Christian, but these days, that descriptor often seems to connote something that I do not like, so I am more recently calling myself a Christ follower. A follower is not wed to preexisting interpretations or creeds, but is a traveler attempting as best as he/she can to listen, learn, love and explore the best and the deepest that life has to offer. When Jesus was asked what one must do to inherit eternal life, he responded, ” Love the lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength,… (and then that troubling little addendum) and your neighbor as yourself.” He said, do this and you will be saved.

    So I am trying to do the best I can to model and follow the example he has given, and try to offer hope to others that literal or classic interpretations are not necessarily directly from the hand of God. they are but teachings and sometimes poorly understood understandings of man.

    Thanks for your interest. I tried hard in Random Designer to make it clear that I am a believer, but also that non-believers need not check their intellect at the door of the church to consider the possibilities for faith and belief.
    As always,
    Rick

    Source: Comment 99253.

    Please go to the original posts for context.

  • Evolution of a Moral Sense

    One of the interesting things I’ve noticed over the years is that scientists who are also believers often tend to resolve theological issues in ways that make the theologians uncomfortable. I can’t call myself a professional theologian, because contrary to what most church members seem to think, theology and Biblical studies are different fields, and indeed are each subdivided into a number of fields themselves.

    On the Panda’s Thumb today we have a post on the evolution of altruistic behavior in robots. This is a remarkably interesting post, referencing recent research, and adds to the mounting evidence that many things we might regard as purely spiritual do, in fact, have material causes. In this case we’re dealing with altruism, but the issue goes deeper into the question of right and wrong as opposed to simply beneficial or not for one’s personal survival. That Humanist provided some additional valuable references and pointers.

    In the comments, there’s a brief exchange over Dr. Francis Collins’ view that morality is something provided by God, which does not result from evolution. Now I’m not going to engage Dr. Collins’ viewpoint in detail. In fact, his book The Language of God is sitting on my “read real soon” shelf, and I plan to blog my way through that reading, so I will respond then. (Out of the references provided in those various blog entires, I recommend this one from TalkReason.

    But the notion that human morality strictly separates us from the animals and that the common elements of human morality point to a God who proclaims morals is one I have encountered before. When I returned to faith after some years away from the church, one of the arguments for the existence of God that impressed me and stuck with me was this argument from universal morals as presented by C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. Don’t get me wrong here. I did not think this proved that God exists, but rather that it pointed in that direction on balance.

    (more…)

  • Questioning God-Given Rights

    I’m following Joe Carter’s new series on his particular conservative beliefs with interest. I think it’s a valuable thing to do, and blogging about it should provide some interesting reading and discussion.

    My interest is in the concept of God-given rights, or rights with which we are endowed by the creator, and the value of that concept (Point 4 in Joe’s second post). Of course, any American reader should know that I’m paraphrasing there from the Declaration of Independence, and that I’m likely to get into trouble asking questions about it. This sort of thing is like machine-gunning sacred cows. But I do question the value of the claim that rights are given by God in political discourse.

    (more…)

  • A Question of Ecumenism, Theology, or Exegesis

    Over the last few days Adrian Warnock has been posting excerpts from John Piper’s new book on justification, The Future of Justification. His latest seems to represent an escalation, with its title John Piper: Is N. T. Wright Preaching Another Gospel?. Adrian has maintained throughout that Piper is being gracious to Wright and is accurately representing Wright’s views.

    Other than to note the escalation, however, the grace (or lack thereof) of Piper’s book (which I have not read) is not my topic. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, so to speak, because I am not nearly as concerned that one gets justification precisely right. This topic is, in my view, very susceptible to “doctrinal correctness”–a tenseness about precise terms that makes it difficult to explore. Reformed theologians in particular seem to want to make one’s precise understanding of justification they anchor point of their theology. They equate it with the gospel. I couldn’t possibly disagree more. The gospel is not a precise understanding of esoteric points of theology.

    Which leads me to the actual purpose of this post. What is driving the discussion? Piper is criticizing Wright’s view on justification, and I’m not going to criticize him directly, but there is a clear tendency in Adrian’s quotes from Piper, and that is simply define what reformed theology has been up until now, demonstrate that Wright disagrees, and leave the obvious impression that Wright must be wrong.

    Elsewhere, there are some who claim that Wright’s theology is driven by ecumenical goals–bringing Catholic and protestant views together. I’m not sure how well that is going, if it is true. Certainly the hardliners in the reformed camp aren’t feeling the ecumenical spirit in all of this.

    But when I read Wright himself, I get a different impression entirely of his driving force. Now I need to place a caveat here. I am only a small part of the way through my own preliminary studies of this New Perspectives on Paul, and I probably won’t try to express my own opinion on some of the key issues for months. Right now I can simply say that the work of Wright answers some questions about Paul for me and raises others. I’m tempted to simply fall back to the notion that Paul was a complex character, and does not willingly fit into our theological boxes.

    When N. T. Wright goes about doing his own writing he appears to me to be driven not to find or produce a particular theological result, but rather by exegetical concerns. He seems to be more careful to follow the text where it leads than the majority of writers. I’ve read. For an example of his exegetical writing, see On Becoming the Righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21). For a more theological view, with Wright expressing his own view of justification, see Justification: The Biblical Basis and its Relevance for Contemporary Evangelicalism.

    In response to this, we need more than theology. I have no doubt that there are reformed theologians making theological arguments, yet there are also many who are simply happy to point out that Wright fails to meet their standards of “orthodox evangelical theology” and thus can be dismissed out of hand.

    But wasn’t one of the features of the reformation going directly back to scripture? At this point it looks to me like the Bishop of Durham is behaving like a reformation theologian–digging through the texts and trying to come to the best understanding possible, while the purported defenders of the reformation are left to point out just how orthodox their teaching is–by their standards.

    If I’m given the choice between defending theological turf and wrestling with exegesis and trying to understand Paul in his world and mission I’ll choose the latter every time.

  • My Highlights from Christian Carnival CXCVII

    I like to highlight three or four posts from the Christian Carnival when I have the time. I usually do so in the post linking to it (if I remember to do so at all), but I forgot today, so here comes another “link” post.

    My first highlight is host Diane R’s Yes, We Can, in which she is saying yes to the possibility of putting the social gospel together with proclaiming the atoning work of Jesus. It’s a good challenge.

    Second, I noticed this post on discipleship, in which I read: “A true relationship with the Living and Holy God is not a one-time event or prayer, it’s a lifetime commitment.” Yep, that’s it!

    Finally, Kevin at Everyday Liturgy talks about what it is like to experiencing the world after a reutrn from a monastery. I have a friend who is pastor at a local church who visited a Benedictine monastery, and he couldn’t stop talking about it. Some of what he said is much like this post. I wonder what the needs of our lifestyles do to our spiritual growth?

    Well, there are others, but those caught my eye.