Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Please Vote in the Midterm Elections

    This is written to my American readers. Please go out and vote int he midterm elections tomorrow. I say this irrespective of your political views.

    There are a number of groups who are more likely to vote in presidential elections and then ignore the “less important” midterm and local elections. But that is not the way the system works. In casual discussions of politics we often tend to blame or applaud the current president for the things of which we disapprove or approve. Often, however, the president is not the one who is making the relevant policies. Many policies are made at the local level.

    For example, I will vote tomorrow to renew two different local sales tax options. Those impact my daily life because, combined, they raise my sales tax level from 6% (the state rate) to 7.5% (the rate in my county of residence). Voting in a presidential year won’t impact that result. Voting tomorrow will.

    There are many excuses for not voting in these less exciting elections. For example:

    1. My vote doesn’t really count. I already know who is going to win the congressional race (or any other example). Margins are important. Narrow margins make politicians listen more closely less their narrow margin disappear at the next election. If politicians know you, or the majority of some group you belong to, will stay away from the polls, they can ignore you. For example, young people are often cited as staying home from the polls, and more so in non-presidential year elections. Young people, your politicians can, will, and in fact do ignore you because they know they can get by with it.
    2. The direction is set from the top. It shouldn’t be. Change it!
    3. I’m too busy. Really? I don’t believe you. It doesn’t take that long. Remember that the lines are shorter in an off-year.
    4. There’s no difference between the candidates. This is generally quite false. I often find it hard to make a choice, though I manage it in the end. The reason is that it’s hard to balance agreements and disagreements. What happens when one candidate supports economic policies I prefer, but would vote for social policies I abhor and vice-versa. It’s not that the candidates are the same; that believe is usually the result of failing to actually study the candidates. Rather, it’s the result of the fact that none of us are likely to agree on everything. What’s more important? Don’t be lazy? Think about it and make a decision!

    I think that’s enough. If you have true convictions that you should not vote, make that decision. Be aware, however, that even that decision has an impact on the results. But don’t stay home because you just can’t get up the energy to contribute.

  • Separating Church from State

    I believe in the separation from church and state. I’m not talking about the principle derived from the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, though I do accept that as well, but rather about a Christian principle. I believe that the more we depend on the power of Caesar to accomplish our goals, the less likely we are to depend on the gospel and the more likely we are to become corrupted. Government power is corrupting, and I think the church should stay away from it.

    Again, I don’t think that church leaders should be excluded from politics, but they should be especially careful to separate their personal political actions from the corporate actions of the church. I, as a member, should be able to handle having a pastor who works for political goals with which I disagree, provided he does not make me a part of his goals without my consent, and provided he is not committing the church to his own views.

    As an aside, nearly every election we have some controversy over churches involved with politics. What are acceptable political activities? Is it an infringement of freedom of religion for the IRS to forbid pastors to do political advocacy from the pulpit? I’ll probably awaken more controversy with this than anything else, but this is why I am ambivalent about church tax exemption. Tax exemption has become a key element of religious liberty in this country. I grew up Seventh-day Adventist, and in every discussion of religion, a bedrock principle was that churches must be tax exempt. “The power to tax is the power to control” was the key phrase.

    But it turns out that the power to define may also be the power to control, and if the government can provide tax exemption to “churches” it must somehow define what is and is not a church. Interestingly, some Christians of my acquaintance think this is obvious. We all know what a church is. But when a more marginal religious group is looking for tax exemption, they may be defined out of it. So is religious freedom for everyone, or just for the people that we think are obviously eligible? Perhaps tax exemption isn’t such a good thing.

    Personally, I don’t want my church doing any of the things that would threaten its tax exempt status, so I have no particular problem. But the fact that certain pastors disagree, and out of their convictions, which I believe they should be free to hold, believe that their religious duty calls for their involvement in politics, what then? That’s when the definition of a church, and of the activities that go with being a church becomes important.

    What do I mean by keeping the church out of politics but keeping individual members involved? I do not mean that Christians should not be involved in politics, whatever their nation. We are citizens of God’s kingdom, but we live in one or another of the kingdoms of this world. Like Nebuchadnezzar, we need to learn that God rules these kingdoms (Daniel 4:17), but he also expects us to live morally within them. I believe that means exercising what personal power we have within them in accordance with our Christian principles.

    I was a bit disturbed at a recent event to be given a voter’s guide. It was given to me by a very nice person, but it told me very clearly how to vote, and the person who gave it to me implied that this was the “Christian” way to do it. I think that is unfortunate. Not that he should not have pursued his political goals. For that I applaud him, even though he and I will likely not be voting the same way on just about anything. No, my objection is to implying that a particular way to vote is the one and only Christian way to approach issues. I’ve encountered churches I might have joined, but have backed off when I found that a particular political posture was so thoroughly assumed that nobody would imagine a Christian could disagree.

    I think the church would be much better served by working to create disciples, and then trusting that those disciples would act in accordance with the principles that they have learned.

  • Barriers to Hearing the Word

    It turns out that I was off the track a bit in saying what we would discuss in Sunday School this morning. I think it’s one of the problems of teaching from a book I wrote. Everything is familiar and I can’t remember precisely what we’ve discussed and haven’t. I should perhaps take better notes, but this is a fairly free-form class. In addition, I guest taught another class one Sunday in the a couple of weeks ago on a closely related topic.

    In any case, today we were discussing more about how we (and preachers) shape our expressions to the audience and how we should recognize that and still test everything, especially the things we are inclined to hear. As an editor, I’m well acquainted with the tendency we often have to be more tolerant of data presented by someone who is agreeing with us. We need to test everything and not just accept it because someone said it.

    We will also not get to the material I mentioned on the history of receiving the word this coming week. That will wait for three weeks from today (we won’t have class on Consecration Sunday). This coming week the topic will be barriers to hearing the word. The section in my book is derived from a pamphlet I prepared several years ago. I do intend to re-edit and reformat that pamphlet, but I haven’t managed to find the time. The current edition can be read at Seven Barriers to Hearing the Word. I suspect we can take some serious time discussing those seven barriers and maybe a few more.

  • Replacing Israel and Using Titles

    At church today our pastor (Dr. Wesley Wachob) made a couple of points I’d like to repeat here. They may sound disconnected, but they both derived from the scripture lesson, Matthew 23:1-12.

    The common theme was “remember” as he tied us as a congregation into the history of the people of God. This was tied into All Saints Sunday.

    First, he reminded us, quite corectly, that many of the teachings of Jesus and the Pharisees were quite similar, which explains how frequently Jesus engaged them in debate. In this passage Jesus connects positively with the message. The people of God are connected back in time. He noted that those who claim that the church has replaced the Jewish people commit a grave error (his term). We are not a replacement, but are blessed by being grafted into that line. Jesus is pointing to the connection here.

    Second, he discussed titles. He said some people read this passage as commanding that we eliminate all titkes in the church.  That might not be such a bad idea. But he said it goes deeper, It speaks to our attitude.

    I have been in churches that claimed to be totally led by the Spirit, and to ignore human hierarchy, but at the same time have as rigid a structure in reality as you could imagine. On the other hand I have seen churches with a full list of titled offices where people exhibited humility and servant leadership all the way.

    I think we would do well to do away with titles, but I agree that the reality is more important than the label.

     

     

     

  • Recording: The Community through Time

    Continuing on my comments on my Sunday School class discussion, I will be talking about tradition in the sense that it is part of scripture. Simply claiming that something is inspired by God doesn’t not make it authoritative scripture for the church as a whole. I may hear from God something that is just for me.

    Scripture that is authoritative in the church goes beyond “inspired.” It is accepted as authoritative to many people in many places, and at many times. One of my major contentions is that the work of the Holy Spirit goes on well past the simple inspiration of a prophet to speak and/or write. I know that among theologians, this is hardly surprising. But what I hear commonly in the pews is the idea that God inspires the prophet, that’s scripture, and the rest of it, such as the collection of authoritative texts we call the Bible, is sort of an afterthought.

    So today we’ll be discussing how scripture comes into existence, is transmitted, accepted, and then made available to us. We’ll probably touch on the question of the closed or open canon, so we’ll have fun, I think!

     

  • Hearing the Word: Testing the Claim

    1893729389I’ve had a rather intense week and haven’t done any blogging, so as I use the extra hour I got as we switched to standard time, I’m going to talk about Sunday School.

    Last week we discussed considerations of hearing. I’m going to include an extract below, with the subheading “Testing the Claim” from that chapter in my book When People Speak for God. But first, I’m going to include some additional comments.

    One of the things that I hear from non-charismatic evangelicals about charismatics is that we tend to get blown about by the “winds” of the various “words from the Lord” that we receive, either directly or through other people. There is a certain validity to this criticism. It’s very easy to claim that God told you something, especially when God told you that someone else should do what you want them to do. It’s amazing how many sides God is on! So it’s important to remind charismatics (and I count myself as one) that we need to test everything. Not everything—in fact, I would suggest very little—of what people claim is coming from God actually does.

    Evangelical Christians, however, have a similar problem with various wild interpretations of scripture. People are people, no matter how they claim to get their authority. So someone can claim to have found a new interpretation of scripture and make every bit as large of changes in the church as someone who claims to have heard from the Lord. This is what I emphasize in my book and in my class: Every claim of divine authority needs to be corporately and individually tested. It doesn’t matter if it’s an announcement that one has heard directly from God or a claim that one has found the one true meaning of a passage of scripture. Test it. In my book I say that the last person who must hear from God is you. None of these sources relieve you personally or your congregation corporately from the search for truth.

    Liberals may be thinking that they are left out of this. (I frequently use charismatic-liberal-evangelical as a sort of triangle. Like any abbreviation it misses a lot, but it can be helpful.) I think the liberal tendency is to find new ideas by reason and then manipulate people by being the most reasonable person in the room.  I have nothing against reason. In fact, I call myself a liberal charismatic. I don’t use that label because I hate labels and want to be confusing, but because first, I believe that God is still speaking, as much as He ever spoke and I believe in testing, and testing involves reason. I think we seek God’s Word whenever we search for truth in whatever field. The physicist studying the laws of the universe using his or her mind and the best tools of science is studying God’s Word. So I’m liberal in the sense that while I believe God is speaking, I also believe that human reason is a way to discover truth and is always involved in testing claims. (I comment further on these labels here.)

    So no matter where you start, test any claim to truth. Here’s the extract:

    I will discuss how one tests such things in more detail later, but there are some key things to look at immediately. It is quite possible for a sincere person to use the claim that God has spoken manipulatively. One warning sign is when someone has argued for a particular course of action and consistently been losing the argument, and then suddenly receives a word from God that they were absolutely right all along, and that the only way the church can receive a blessing is if they will do as that person desires. But there are some other warning signs:

    ✔ The proposed course of action violates ethical or moral
    standards.

    You might be amazed at how frequently this occurs, and how easy it is to rationalize immoral behavior when someone is forcefully claiming that God has ordered it. Some people have claimed that God sanctioned adultery for them on some basis. I know of cases in which someone decided that God had ordered them to spend their rent money on a mission trip, and not pay their rent. If done without the permission of their landlord, that is at least unethical, and should cause one to consider carefully whether God is speaking. Don’t be led into immoral or unethical actions by a voice.

    ✔ “God’s words” come to a person in the course of debate.

    God’s command should generally be complete and straightforward, and shouldn’t require amendment. If “God” keeps coming up with new arguments over the course of the debate, just as an ordinary person would, think again.

    ✔ “God’s words” are presented in a divisive way, or introduce an element of divisiveness.

    Make no mistake, God’s words through prophets do produce negative reactions in those who do not want to obey God. Where divisiveness comes into the discussion is something that also requires discernment and testing. We would not want to reject God’s word on the basis that it made the devil angry! “Words from the Lord” that involve gossip, criticism, a judgmental spirit,
    or cruelty should be rejected.

    ✔ The person who presents God’s word reacts angrily to having that word tested by others.

    When someone is sure that God has spoken and others reject that word, it is appropriate for them to be grieved at that event, but they should welcome discernment and sincere testing, and they should be prepared to live with differences of opinion.

    ✔ “God’s words” deny established scriptural standards.

    Continuing revelation should not reverse what God has already said. The Bible has been tested and accepted by the church, so if you reverse major principles of scriptures, you are likely off track. This doesn’t mean that interpretations cannot be corrected, but soundly interpreted scripture should be upheld.

    How does one respond to a claim to speak for God? It depends on the particular circumstances. If you are in a church where testing is regularly practiced, you already have a path to follow. Hopefully this will end either with acceptance of the word, or a gracious—and I emphasize gracious—rejection with explanation and correction provided to the person who made the claim in the first place. If you cannot graciously respond, even when you reject the word, you likely need to examine yourself. Outside of that atmosphere, when I am not sure that what someone has claimed as a word from God actually is such a word, I will often choose to say simply, “God is going to have to tell me that,” or “That is not what I hear.” If you are not in a congregational setting where there is a commonality of beliefs, responding appropriately to a false word is not so easy. (pp. 87-89, emphasis added)

    I would note that regarding my comment on “denying established scriptural standards” I do not mean that the church cannot change. What I mean is that one person’s word from the Lord can’t turn everything on its head. Acts 15 provides a sort of model, I think, for this kind of change. Changing through corporate discernment may be a much longer process, but until it seems “good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28 NRSV) conversation needs to proceed.

  • Conversation on Social Justice

    Tonight I’ll be hosting two Energion authors with strongly opposed viewpoints on the question: Is Social Justice a good thing?

    The questionf and answer app for Google Hangouts on Air will be enabled, so bring your questions. You can also tweet questions to @energion.

    Arguing against “social justice” as a useful concept will be Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., author of What is Wrong with Social Justice. In dialog with him will be Dr. Bob LaRochelle, author of the book Crossing the Street among others. Join us and bring your questions!

  • Headed to Reimagine Brownsville

    I’ll again be giving out books at a table at this important event. You can find out more about Reimagine at their web site. I’ll try to post some pictures through the day, but those who know me, know that taking pictures and remembering to post them is not one of my gifts!

  • Major on the Clear Stuff

    I get disturbed when I see people around me disturbed by the latest Bible mystery, or obscure interpretation of prophecy. These things sell books, and bring in offerings, but I don’t think they produce better followers of Jesus.

    I don’t have a problem with discussing difficult or controversial passages, but the church has been living with new interpretations of prophecy that mean, well, generally that mean that you ought to send money to the person who truly knows.

    I grew up in the Seventh-day Adventist church. Practically every year as I grew up there would be a new evangelist in town, or even the same evangelist, who would have figured out how the beasts in Daniel and Revelation really meant something that was happening right now. One favorite was to find communist Russian in Bible prophecy. Of course, there is less interest in that these days. I used to wonder if the preachers thought I wouldn’t remember that the same symbol had definitely meant something completely different the year before.

    But over time I’ve found that people do forget that sort of thing. They forget the previous prophecy or interpretation and move on to the next one. In terms of last day prophecies, Christian history is filled with the failure of the last day foretellers. I have come to the conclusion that God didn’t want us to know precisely what was going to happen at the end of time. I think there’s plenty of good reasons to believe this. What God did want us to know was enough to be ready.

    You don’t need to know the identity of the antichrist. You just need to know what it means to be anti-Christ. (Spend some time in 1 John, not Revelation, to get an idea.) You don’t need to know just when persecution will begin. You just need to know who your Lord is and that you will be faithful. You don’t need to prepare yourself physically for disaster by stockpiling food and survival supplies. You need to be living as the one you claim as Lord lived. He was headed for immediate disaster, and he knew it. Yet he spent his time seeking and saving the lost, not looking to his physical survival.

    We are doing so poorly with the part of the Christian message that is very clear and quite uncontroversial (in theory, at least!) that we really have no business in the trivia.

    Here’s my end time formula:

    4 Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. 5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, … (Philippians 2:4-5, NRSV, via BibleGateway.com)

    Go, read the rest of the passage (Philippians 2:4-11). Or you could read the whole book!

  • Link: Elgin Hushbeck on Hebrews

    I’m posting this in the middle of the action, but Energion author Elgin Hushbeck, Jr. is blogging (and teaching) through Hebrews verse by verse. He’s in chapter 10, so follow it back to the beginning first if interested.