Ray Nearhood

[Foo Foo Cuddlypoops]

Facts:

 

1.  I am not what one might call "an attractive man."

2.  I am, however, married to an attractive woman - whom I love very much.

3.  I have two sons and a daughter.

4.  I have been in the US Army for 12 years, so far.  I am, right now an E7 (Sergeant First Class).

5.  I have lived in many places:

      - Canton, OH (birth)

      - Joplin, MO 

      - Darmstadt and Greishiem, Germany 

      - Clayton, NY

      - Conyers, GA

      - Olympia, WA

      - (and kind of 'lived') Fallujah, Iraq; Baghdad, Iraq; a camp right outside of Ur of Chaldees, Iraq; near Kuwait City, Kuwait; a few other places, too.

6.  I became a Christian at 15 in a Christian Church/CoC in Ohio.  Big church of like 3,000 members back then.

7.  I was a pretty crappy Christian for a while, but didn't know it.

8.  My family (me, wife, kids) are confessional Particular Baptists.  We confess with the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689), as well as the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Definition of Chalcedon.

9.  Now I know how crappy of Christian I am.

10.  My favorite books are -- meh, I can't really say.  I like a lot of books.  Mostly I read history (mostly American and Church), Theology, and some 'classics.'

11.  My favorite movie is Casablanca - that's easy.

12.  I enjoy long walks on the beach and poetry read from soft, inviting lips during the sunset of a cool spring morning over a glass of a fine Pinot Grigio.  And fishing... I can't fish enough.  More, more, more, and more fishing.

13.  Currently seeking membership at Olympia Bible Presbyterian Church.

14.  Thirteen is a good number so I'll end there.

15.  Crud!

16.  Truthfully, I'm not bothered by that... because I lack feelings.

 

You can go here for some more.

Here is even better.

[Char]

No Ray doesn't like them. Only Petra because they're win.

[Scott]

EA -

 

Thanks for the comment. I am not sure if you have been able to read the full texts of Enns, both books. Maybe start with McKnight's The Blue Parakeet as a primer. I think an Enns or Sparks are dealing with things a lot more "eye-opening", in that they lay out a lot more critical scholarship than McKnight initially did in his. But I think the underlying approach of a theology of Scripture is similar.

 

If I can interact with some of your statements. I don't think Ray will mind now. LOL

 

He asserts one thing (belief in inerrancy) and then defines it in his own terms-terms subtly different from those of orthodoxy.

 

You have to realise that there is no particular "orthodox" statement on inerrancy. There is one plumb line of the Chicago Statement that many evangelicals line their understanding of inerrancy with. But it is simply one plumb line, and it is a particular evangelical plumb line. This is what is reality within evangelicalism - no pope, no specific magisterium to say who is in and out. Orthodoxy stands further than just evangelicalism. Hence why we don't see any mention of a doctrine of Scripture in the early creeds. And hence why some evangelicals decided not to particularly associate their particular name or ministry with the Chicago Statement.

 

While it is obvious God condescends to us, we are created in His image. As such, we are rational and communicative. (i.e. we are not, nor have we ever been, Neanderthals.) 

 

As Enns says himself: "It [the image of God] refers to humanity’s role of ruling God’s creation as God’s representative....The image of God is not that spark in us that makes us human rather than animal—like reason, self-consciousness, or consciousness of God. In Genesis it means that humans represent God in the world, nothing less but certainly nothing more."

 

Now, I suppose you will disagree, as your comment focuses on the "rational and communicative" attributes of man (though some might argue that animals have a sense of rationality and communication, but that is besides the point). But I think Enns is pretty spot on because the NT talks of Christ being the image of God (i.e. 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3). But this has nothing to do with Christ being rational and able to communicate in some kind of godlike manner. This has to do with Christ being the exact representative of God as God designed humans to be. For Christ to say, 'If you have seen me you have seen the Father,' (John 14:9), this is about how Christ lives and walks out, not how he looks or that he has specific rational faculties.

 

He says that God took ANE myths and accommodated them in such a way that they became Israel's stories to show them the one God. The Bible presents our God as omniscient, omnipotent and holy. He had no need to "borrow" incorrect and blatantly untrue stories as a starting point. He had the wherewithal to start out with truth to teach truth.

 

And this is one of the major hermeneutical issues, or understandings of the nature of Scripture, that will always cause misunderstandings in the discussions here. I've said this elsewhere:

 

The Bible is God-breathed. It makes that very clear. But I think that, though we confess Scripture is both from God and man, we actually practically outwork our theology with seeing it more as something like 60% from God and 40% from man. We give God the trump-card in all things. It sounds spiritual. It sounds Christian. It sounds evangelical. It sounds most honouring to God and Scripture. But if God gets the trump-card, then it is overriding this team project that God came up with. We are moving away from God-breathed to something more like God-written. I can open doors of ministry to people in my church. But if, every time I don't particularly like a perspective they bring, I then jump in a redirect things, change things, etc, I'm really not releasing this person into the ministry that God is calling them into. I'm micro-managing and a control freak. I do believe in the sovereign, providential outworking of God's revelation in Scripture, hence it being God-breathed rather than God-written. And how that all worked out is not always easy to think through. But if God always jumps in, covers the "gaps", won't allow ancients to speak as ancients but rather as angels, then I propose we need to restate our theology of Scripture.

 

The supernatural comes in and heals a broken leg. But it does not take off the broken leg, make a new one, and then put the new one in place. The supernatural power of God comes into the actual, natural leg that God created, mends it, and the person gets up and walks with the same but restored leg.

 

God's supernatural work in revealing himself in Scripture does not break off the problematic or "gapped" knowledge of an ancient, download the absolute correct bit of knowledge on every particular issue, and then have that person pen it. God comes to an ancient, uses the pen or mouth of an ancient, within their given framework and gives us this most amazing team project known as the God-breathed Scriptures.

 

The ancients wrote/spoke with their "accent", their "lips", their "pen", their "framework", as the Spirit enabled them to do the work. Team project all the way. The supernatural did not trump anything, replace anything. The supernatural worked within the good natural framework that God created.

 

God is omniscient, but he, for some odd yet glorious reason, chose to use non-omniscient people to communicate his revelation. This is the amazing thing about it. God does not infuse omniscience or override the non-omniscience of the biblical writers at every point so they can produce something that is above their own real and actual framework. He recognises what is their framework and comes down in to it to reveal himself. Jesus doesn't come as a demigod all dressed up for people to bow down to as an emperor-like clone. He comes as an unseemly carpenter's son who walks dusty roads and has to clip his fingernails and brush his hair to get out the knots. He looks like, smells like, talks like, every has the worldview of a first century Jew, for that is who he was in his humanity. I am very much for God's omniscience. But when God takes up a team project with non-omniscient humanity, he revels in the fact that he is going to chose the ignoble and weak to make himself known in his word, living and written.

 

So if the prevailing focus of the ancient day was mythical origins accounts, meaning psuedo-historical (I hate that terminology because it rings bells in our heads as if it means false or deceptive, which it doesn't) accounts given to theologically explain the origins of humanity and the created world, then it isn't so ugly and messy and wrong to compose a similar story within that framework but with the correct focus of communicating the revelation and truth of Yahweh. It makes good sense to utilise the tools of that day to make the eternal God known, not the tools of another day or generation or era.

 

Bach, in looking to glorify his Creator in his day wasn't going to release a pop-rock song from the 21st century. He was going to put together a symphonic tune that spoke musical volumes within the early 18th century. This is how it works when human beings communicate the revelation and truth of God. And this is how EA Long would undertake communicating God in the 21st century. You are not going to jump into a 24th century AD or back into a 3rd century BC framework.

[Jason]

ScottL,

I'm not commenting on the issue of moderation and Daniel except to say that the rest of the mods need to step up and help him, and do so a little more publicly. It's truly unreasonable to expect Daniel to do much better when he has so much to do. I understand that. I just forget that.

At the present, Daniel and I are OK. Not perfect, but OK.

I was not seeking a reason to leave, but a reason to stay.

Ser,

Me???? Laid back and reasonable???? Boy, have I fooled you!

[Scott]

Jason -

Yes, you clarified that. But it has been raised recently by others only just a few times.

[Daniel]

Since this has become a bit more of a topic than just Ray not having time for this and SF too, I'd like to offer a comment.  I think we have a small group here that, based on our length of time together, has become close enough that we expect certain things from each other.  But we don't expect the same from everyone or threat everyone the same.  Char, for example, can say some things that I'd never dare and wouldn't be able to get away with.  And I've caught flack for defending her.  Yet if I were to say the exact same thing, it wouldn't be taken the same way because it would be assumed that I intended it in a much more serious fashion.  The point is that we read a lot of intentions into the way we read people and we often don't give them the benefit of the doubt on those intentions and assume the worse.  And it's an issue because the person can rarely clear it up and set the record straight because that too is read with assumed intentions.  Once someone is assumed to have ill intentions, there isn't much they can say in their defense.  Just a thought...

[Marv]

On the other hand if Char said some of the things you say....

 

No, that's too horrible to contemplate...

Daniel said:

Since this has become a bit more of a topic than just Ray not having time for this and SF too, I'd like to offer a comment.  I think we have a small group here that, based on our length of time together, has become close enough that we expect certain things from each other.  But we don't expect the same from everyone or threat everyone the same.  Char, for example, can say some things that I'd never dare and wouldn't be able to get away with.  And I've caught flack for defending her.  Yet if I were to say the exact same thing, it wouldn't be taken the same way because it would be assumed that I intended it in a much more serious fashion.  The point is that we read a lot of intentions into the way we read people and we often don't give them the benefit of the doubt on those intentions and assume the worse.  And it's an issue because the person can rarely clear it up and set the record straight because that too is read with assumed intentions.  Once someone is assumed to have ill intentions, there isn't much they can say in their defense.  Just a thought...

[Scott]

Bingo

Daniel said:

Since this has become a bit more of a topic than just Ray not having time for this and SF too, I'd like to offer a comment.  I think we have a small group here that, based on our length of time together, has become close enough that we expect certain things from each other.  But we don't expect the same from everyone or threat everyone the same.  Char, for example, can say some things that I'd never dare and wouldn't be able to get away with.  And I've caught flack for defending her.  Yet if I were to say the exact same thing, it wouldn't be taken the same way because it would be assumed that I intended it in a much more serious fashion.  The point is that we read a lot of intentions into the way we read people and we often don't give them the benefit of the doubt on those intentions and assume the worse.  And it's an issue because the person can rarely clear it up and set the record straight because that too is read with assumed intentions.  Once someone is assumed to have ill intentions, there isn't much they can say in their defense.  Just a thought...

[Char]

There is such a thing as an idiosyncrasy credit. If some have a lot of them it typically goes to show yet again that the world really does revolve around me (for the record, MEM) that these people have contributed to the group to a degree that a large cache has been earned.

 

That said, "getting away with it" means the actions are not criticized. If these actions need to be defended, no one was "getting away with" them. And the irony of contrasting people being read with wrong motives or uncharitably to me personally is hard to miss. When you're stumped, it's always easier to make it about the other person. But as I've quoted elsewhere, Christians should be in contest, one to offer no offense and the other to take none. I do find the latter responsibility does tend to be lacking more often than the former.

[Char]

Also I don't think Bach would write pop-rock if he were alive in the 21st century either. James can correct me.

[James Gibbons]

Paradox.

1. Bach was first and foremost a professional, who wrote what he needed to write in order to get paid. For example, he used standard RCC liturgy for his b minor mass. Since he was a pretty strident Lutheran, I am guessing he was kind of conflicted about it. May have glorified God. Certainly glorified Bach. And prolly made him a coupla bucks (or whatever the 18th century German equivalent of a coupla bucks would have been). Dude once wrote a cantata about the benefits of coffee.

2. Bach was pretty much immune to fashion. In fact, toward the end of his life he was considered so stuffy and old-fashioned that to have one’s work compared to Bach was an insult.

3. His most significant and enduring contribution to music is NOT any of his excellent works, but his approach to the work. Bach codified music notation and voice leading, and composers still use his methods today. So, if Bach were alive today, I guess he WOULD be writing 24th Century music, since he wrote late 20th Century music in the early 18th Century. Probably not pop rock.

4. The term “symphonic tune” is a little strange. Tune implies a string of notes played in sequence. Symphonic means notes (sounds) played together. So if you are using the term as a descriptive, you kinda got a oxymoron going on, a little like saying a “harmonic melody,” or a “blackish shade of white.” If you are referring to “symphonic” as a classification, Bach never wrote a symphony. The form was not invented until after he died. He also never wrote for the piano. But that’s another discussion for another day, I suppose.

Otherwise, Char, you are completely wrong. Just sayin.’

Char said:

Also I don't think Bach would write pop-rock if he were alive in the 21st century either. James can correct me.

[E. A. Johnston]

Are you a music major?

James Gibbons said:

Paradox.

1. Bach was first and foremost a professional, who wrote what he needed to write in order to get paid. For example, he used standard RCC liturgy for his b minor mass. Since he was a pretty strident Lutheran, I am guessing he was kind of conflicted about it. May have glorified God. Certainly glorified Bach. And prolly made him a coupla bucks (or whatever the 18th century German equivalent of a coupla bucks would have been). Dude once wrote a cantata about the benefits of coffee.

2. Bach was pretty much immune to fashion. In fact, toward the end of his life he was considered so stuffy and old-fashioned that to have one’s work compared to Bach was an insult.

3. His most significant and enduring contribution to music is NOT any of his excellent works, but his approach to the work. Bach codified music notation and voice leading, and composers still use his methods today. So, if Bach were alive today, I guess he WOULD be writing 24th Century music, since he wrote late 20th Century music in the early 18th Century. Probably not pop rock.

4. The term “symphonic tune” is a little strange. Tune implies a string of notes played in sequence. Symphonic means notes (sounds) played together. So if you are using the term as a descriptive, you kinda got a oxymoron going on, a little like saying a “harmonic melody,” or a “blackish shade of white.” If you are referring to “symphonic” as a classification, Bach never wrote a symphony. The form was not invented until after he died. He also never wrote for the piano. But that’s another discussion for another day, I suppose.

Otherwise, Char, you are completely wrong. Just sayin.’

Char said:

Also I don't think Bach would write pop-rock if he were alive in the 21st century either. James can correct me.

[James Gibbons]

I was a music theory and composition major, until I figured out that I would NEVER make a living if I continued down that path. I am not very smart, but I do eventually figure things out. Finished in Journalism (advertising sequence). Did grad school in fiction writing.

E. A. Long said:

Are you a music major?

James Gibbons said:

Paradox.

1. Bach was first and foremost a professional, who wrote what he needed to write in order to get paid. For example, he used standard RCC liturgy for his b minor mass. Since he was a pretty strident Lutheran, I am guessing he was kind of conflicted about it. May have glorified God. Certainly glorified Bach. And prolly made him a coupla bucks (or whatever the 18th century German equivalent of a coupla bucks would have been). Dude once wrote a cantata about the benefits of coffee.

2. Bach was pretty much immune to fashion. In fact, toward the end of his life he was considered so stuffy and old-fashioned that to have one’s work compared to Bach was an insult.

3. His most significant and enduring contribution to music is NOT any of his excellent works, but his approach to the work. Bach codified music notation and voice leading, and composers still use his methods today. So, if Bach were alive today, I guess he WOULD be writing 24th Century music, since he wrote late 20th Century music in the early 18th Century. Probably not pop rock.

4. The term “symphonic tune” is a little strange. Tune implies a string of notes played in sequence. Symphonic means notes (sounds) played together. So if you are using the term as a descriptive, you kinda got a oxymoron going on, a little like saying a “harmonic melody,” or a “blackish shade of white.” If you are referring to “symphonic” as a classification, Bach never wrote a symphony. The form was not invented until after he died. He also never wrote for the piano. But that’s another discussion for another day, I suppose.

Otherwise, Char, you are completely wrong. Just sayin.’

Char said:

Also I don't think Bach would write pop-rock if he were alive in the 21st century either. James can correct me.