Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • The Season of Political Literature

    I notice my wastebasket filling up with political literature as the season gets into full swing. Currently we’re approaching primary season, and because I’m registered as an independent, I don’t get much during the primaries. My wife is registered with one of the parties (though I’ll note that her voting habits are as independent as mine) so we still get plenty of literature.

    The literature normally consists of a card or a flyer, and there is never any substantial information. There isn’t space for it. It’s just packaging and campaign slogans. Behind he literature there are good candidates and bad, but the campaign content is always shallow.

    In trying to learn about the candidates I will read interviews in newspapers, I’ll peruse websites, though many of those are as bad as the mailed literature, and I’ll do some research. I’ll do my best not to be influenced by campaign ads, though I have been turned off to a few candidates by the kind of ads they aired or printed.

    The only information that will come in the mail that I appreciate is the sample ballot sent by our Supervisor of Elections. Shortly after we receive that, my wife and I will have a discussion, one we have before each election. We’ll each mark the ballot and then we’ll go through them and discuss each candidate and issue and the choice we’ve made on our own. (She researches candidates much as I do.) We’ll discuss our choices. Sometimes we change one another’s mind on some candidate or issue (especially on issues).

    Campaigns and candidates often remind me of a present one member of our family gave another. I forget who was the giver and the recipient, but the present was very small, and the giver wrapped one box in another until it was the largest package under the Christmas tree. It took a long time to unwrap. At least the present was nice, though small.

    In the case of campaigns, it often seems that one works and works to unwrap the candidate, only to find another bit of packaging. We’ve handed the campaigns over to the packagers, the political consultants and professional campaign managers.

    I say “we” here intentionally. It’s easy to blame everyone else, but many people will show up at the polls this year barely acquainted with the names of the candidates, if they even know that. They will have a positive or negative impression that is built from ads and is based more on how good of a team each of those candidates fielded, specifically how good that team was at packaging their candidate favorably, and harming the other candidates packaging.

    If the media did their job, researching and informing us, it would change things a great deal. But the media won’t do that unless we, the readers and viewers demand it, and refuse to support those news sources that fail to do so. Ultimately, the one and only thing that can change the way elections work is an electorate that wants the information to make an intelligent choice.

    What can we each do? Be an informed voter and encourage others to do so as well. That’s the most important thing we can do.

  • More on Inerrancy

    I’ve just added a couple of good links and some brief notes on inerrancy at my Threads blog.

  • On Inerrancy Again

    My previous post refers to Preserving Democracy, written by my friend Elgin Hushbeck, Jr., but doesn’t actually mention that we have been friends for some time. I say this because I’m about to take his name in vain (sort of). We’ve been friends since the mid-90s when we met on the Religion Forum on Compuserve.

    One of the books I publish is Elgin’s book Evidence for the Bible. Now he doesn’t explicitly argue for inerrancy in that book, but he does affirm the doctrine of inerrancy, while I do not. I recall when I had occasion to drive him from Pensacola to the airport in New Orleans, after he’d spoken at a conference I had organized, and we spent the nearly three hours involved in discussing inerrrancy and applying it to specific scriptures.

    What we found was that we stated our view of scripture differently, but when it came down to specific cases, we handled passages in a very similar way. Our practice was much closer than our theory. Now I would maintain, and I suspect Elgin would as well, that a good theory works in practice, and thus there is probably some weakness in the expression of one or the other view of inspiration, if not both.

    I was reminded of that conversation when I read the iMonk Classic: We thought he was such a nice boy…and then we found out he didn’t believe in….Inerrancy!!, and a response on JOLLYBLOGGER. Many of the arguments are very similar, even though I’m not a Calvinist. In the places one refers to belief in Calvinism one could, with equal force, refer to similar positions from Arminianism.

    I commend these two posts for re-reading and discussion. I haven’t yet changed my mind, but there are serious points here that deserve consideration.

  • A New Edition of Preserving Democracy

    Back when my company, Energion Publications, was preparing to release Preserving Democracy in hardcover, I wrote a post, On Publishing a Conservative Book. Those who read this blog, for example, the tag line in the header, will realize that I do not call myself conservative.

    Which leads me to a digression about labels. In Preserving Demcracy, page 188 (of the new, expanded, paperback edition), beginning a section titled “Political Labels” Elgin says, “Before moving on, let me say a few words in defense of labels….” I could say something similar. Language would be impossible without the use of labels; one might say language is labels.

    The problem comes in when we are using labels in debate. In one discussion in an online forum I recall being labeled a fundamentalist Christian and an atheist, both with regard to the very same post, a post which was not more than half a dozen paragraphs long. One of the great ways we have of making debate useless is the shifting of labels. “Liberal” has changed meaning, and so has “conservative.” I don’t have a problem with words changing meaning. There’s no point. They will change. But we need to watch out both for the normal drifts in meaning and the intentional manipulation of labels.

    I don’t wish to repeat myself regarding publishing books with which I may not agree. It’s also a bit unfair to Preserving Democracy. It’s just that questions regarding what I have said and written come up much more frequently with regard to this book than of any other I have published. I suppose, as I’ve said before, that this results from my company being owned by one person, so that people think it’s my personal propaganda arm.

    And of course I do get to decide what I will publish, but I chose from the start to seek out a range of views and publish them. I want books that express a strong point of view, provide support for that view, and invite further discussion. I’m not interested either in publishing only books that take a particular view, and I’m not interested in publishing books that appear ashamed to show their true colors.

    Go back and read my previous post. Take a look through this blog. Most of what I’ve written on politics is right here. I’ve never written a political book, but I am pretty free with my opinions. Then consider taking a look at Preserving Democracy.

    I enjoyed editing it; I hope you’ll enjoy reading it, whether you nod your head all the way through, or get ready to write annoyed blog posts or letters to the author.

  • Finding Darwin’s God

    James McGrath recommends it and I agree. My review here.

  • Think about How

    Allan Bevere started some discussion with his post, It’s Fiscal “Cancer” but What Sage Is It?. One interesting thing I notice about discussions of reducing the deficit is that we tend to have certain spending programs that must not be reduced, and those differ depending on our other political positions.

    This is not surprising, of course, but it does make for a problem: One deficit hawk is not like another. For example, deficit hawks on the left would like to substantially reduce military spending, while those on the right look to social programs. Others tend to emphasize eliminating government waste, without looking at just how much waste there is to eliminate, and how it could be eliminated.

    In the health care debate, for example, both sides suggested reducing waste as a way to reduce costs, but as is typical in political programs, the savings are counted before they’re actually incurred, and inevitably we’ll find that those savings are much smaller than anyone projected, if there even are any savings at all.

    That method–counting your savings before they occur–relates directly to the problem I think lies at the heart of our continuing fiscal problems. We the voters, and because of us our politicians, like to speak in terms of what we want, but not to spend time on really looking at how we can get it, and whether the how is actually going to work.

    Even the way proposed laws are labeled and sold to the public reflects this problem. What the title says a bill will due and what the proposed law actually accomplishes may be very different. Savings or spending are stating over varying periods of time to make it appear that more is being accomplished. The titles are written in order to make it appear that great things will happen, but people often don’t know about how long it takes for certain portions of the bill to take effect, or precisely how they will accomplish what the title (or summary) states.

    I think this applies to our problems with government and deficit spending in many ways. We try to hand things out without discussing how they will be produced. In the health care debate this starts with the idea of an open-ended access to health care in general. Just how much health care is supposed to be a natural right? I personally think we need to create more access, but access to what? We don’t really want people turned away from the emergency room for lack of money, but how should we prevent it? Who should pay? How should they pay? You see, with every new innovation there’s more health care that might be something we must provide for everyone.

    Social Security and Medicare have become almost sacred in the public’s mind. But it might be that very attitude that destroys those programs. Why? Because we are asked to keep the retirement age the same while people live longer and longer. We want to be able to retire at 62 or 65, we want to have the benefits keep up with inflation, but the question is just how one is to pay for such things when there are more and more people living on Social Security. Since I’m in my 50s, I understand how people can want the retirement age to stay the same, but at the same time, I can see that this can’t go on indefinitely.

    As an aside, it’s been particularly interesting to see fierce defenses of Medicare by Republicans while opposing similar programs for the population in general. What, precisely, makes Medicare a sacred right while health care for everyone else is not so important?

    But to turn to the other side, we have defense spending. For many conservatives defense spending is largely untouchable, except for the ever-present desire to reduce waste. But waste is not so easy to reduce in the government. Here again we have to ask “How?” How will we carry out our necessary defense activities in a world with terrorism? If we continue to make more and more expensive military equipment and at the same time try to have as much of it as we had before, we’ll inevitably run into a similar problem as we have with Social Security. It is much more expensive to equip a military unit today than it was a hundred years ago, and as equipment gets more complex, that’s only going to get worse.

    So we again have to ask how. How will we carry out our defense? What level of security can we afford? What will the side-effects be? What are we asking of our military personnel when we expect them to do more worldwide and then we can’t keep them equipped as they need?

    Often politicians approach this subject as though one cannot reduce defense expenditures because, well, it’s defense, an important function of government. But I would suggest that a cost/benefit analysis on all defense projects would be valuable, just as it would be on domestic projects.

    And there I would turn to law enforcement. Again, we often think that we cannot economize on law enforcement, and in some ways I agree. But can we consider the way in which we fight the drug war or the war on terror on the domestic front and ask again whether we’re spending our money effectively? Have we made all those overlapping federal agencies actually work efficiently together?

    My fear on that score is heightened by the government response to Hurricane Katrina, and not to the oil spill in the gulf. It seems that what we expect from these government agencies is what we’re getting. If we had to respond to another terrorist attack, how much might it look like Katrina or the oil spill?

    I mean none of this as a slur on our men and women in uniform (I am a veteran myself), nor on our law enforcement officers. I’m talking about what our politicians and government officials ask them to accomplish, the way in which they ask them to do it, and the way they are equipped.

    And in the end I talking about us, me and you, and our expectations as related to, or disconnected from, what we’re willing to do to fulfill those expectations. We want to be secure, but not bothered. We want to be cared for, but not taxed. We want to be protected, but not constrained.

    Now all of those things have some positive aspects, but we need to look at them carefully. How much can we pay? How many liberties will we limit in order to be secure? Are the goals we ask our government to accomplish possible based on the resources we are willing to provide?

    In my private life, I have to ask such questions all the time. If I answer them incorrectly, I’ll run out of money, time, or abilities. It takes longer when it’s the government. But the same thing will ultimately prove true.

  • Text Today – Worth of the Gospel?

    This text struck me this morning.  How often to we forget this part of the gospel?

    27Only carry out your activities in a way that is worthy Christ’s good news, so that whether I come and see you or whether I’m away, I’ll hear that you are standing firm in one spirit, putting out your effort together as one person to advance faith in the good news. 28Don’t be afraid of those who are against you under any circumstances.  Their stand demonstrates that they are on the way to destruction, while yours shows you are on the way to salvation, and that it comes from God.  29Because you have been graciously granted not only the opportunity to believe in Christ, but also to suffer for him.  30You face the same battle that you saw me have, and now you hear I still have.  — Philippians 1:27-30 (a bit paraphrased)

  • Quote on Worship

    From C. Michael Patton:

    What I have been coming to realize over the years is that there is simply no one way to do church. …

    You need to read the whole post at Parchment and Pen to get the real drift of what he’s saying, complete with evangelical discomfort with a seeker sensitive service, a discomfort I share to some extent. I do think he makes some excellent points for people on both sides to consider.

    On the one hand, advocates of seeker sensitive worship should take to heart the points about discipleship. Christian discipleship is not really all that seeker sensitive!

    On the other, many do well to consider why people come to hear the gospel under some circumstances, but not others.

  • UMC Rather than SDA – Again

    This was brought to my attention when I read the text of Ted Wilson’s address to the SDA General Conference. (I listened to he first 10 minutes as well, but preferred reading.) Why am I interested in the sermon presented by the new president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists? I am, after all, a member of a United Methodist congregation.

    There are three reasons. First, I was raised SDA, and one’s upbringing tends to stay with one. In this case I’m not at all sorry about my background. I received an excellent education in SDA schools and being homeschooled using SDA materials. I had many wonderful experiences as a member of the SDA church. Second, I still have friends and colleagues who are SDA, and I appreciate their friendship and their ministry. Finally, I still hear the question pretty regularly: “Why are you no longer a Seventh-day Adventist?”

    I should note that there is another common question that arises in connection with the first, which is to ask just why I’m not an angry ex-SDA. It seems that there are so many of those. I’d simply like to point out that one can disagree with the positions an organization takes and can determine that one should not be a member of that organization without also hating that organization, or even thinking that organization is negative on balance.

    From the other side I get the question of why I will not more forcefully distance myself from “that cult.” The reason for that is that while I disagree vigorously with certain positions of the SDA church, I do not believe it is any more or less likely that a member might be a true Christian or not. I could hardly give statistics since I don’t believe it is up to me to judge. What I am concerned with is mission and ministry.

    Before I give a brief response to the question of why I am now a member of a United Methodist congregation, rather than still being SDA, I want to look at some quotes from Ted Wilson’s sermon. (You can find the complete text here, so you can put these into context. I provide page numbers.)

    As I read this text I felt a concern for my many friends who are members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. At the same time I feel a concern for what I see as the potential blessing that the SDA church could be to the broader Christian community.

    Let’s look at some quotes:

    This church is not just another denomination; it is a unique, heaven-initiated movement with a mission of salvation to the world that must continually go forward in the humility of Jesus. pp. 3-4

    In my view, the “unique, heaven-initiated movement with a mission of salvation to the world” is not the SDA church but the universal Christian church. This is a critical point for me. If Seventh-day Adventists believe they have a message for the rest of Christianity, I think that is a positive thing, and they should be heard, not relegated to the status of a “cult.” But that line puts a single denomination in the position in which the church universal should be placed. I think it would be difficult to find a scriptural warrant for such a thing. This quote figures in the most critical reason I’m not SDA.

    Go forward, not backward…….Do not succumb to the mistaken idea, gaining support even in the
    Seventh-day Adventist Church, of accepting worship or evangelistic outreach methods merely because
    they are new and “trendy.” We must be vigilant to test all things according to the supreme authority of
    God’s Word and the council with which we have been blessed in the writings of Ellen G. White. Don’t
    reach out to movements or megachurch centers outside the Seventh-day Adventist Church which promise
    you spiritual success based on faulty theology. Stay away from non-biblical spiritual disciplines or
    methods of spiritual formation that are rooted in mysticism such as contemplative prayer, centering
    prayer, and the emerging church movement in which they are promoted. Look WITHIN the Seventh-day
    Adventist Church to humble pastors, evangelists, Biblical scholars, leaders, and departmental directors
    who can provide evangelistic methods and programs that are based on solid Biblical principles and “The
    Great Controversy Theme.” p. 7

    That’s a longer quote, even though it carries a great deal of baggage. It is, I believe, a call to look inward. I would point out that this impulse is not exclusive to Seventh-day Adventists. My wife was in a curriculum meeting in a United Methodist church in which a piece of curriculum was criticized for being “too Baptist” and having “too much Jesus.”

    If you have to look only within your own denomination in order to keep people on the road to truth, I have to question whether it is truth you are protecting. In both Wilson’s paragraph, and the remarks made in that curriculum committee, what is being protected is power, not truth. Truth can withstand examination.

    Go forward, not backward! Stand firm for God’s Word as it is literally read and understood. p. 8

    All I can say is that this statement and its many variants is probably the worst advice on Bible study that is commonly given–and unfortunately believed by many. Even in reading a vision, such as the book of Revelation, people are told to think literally. Bad advice! Very bad advice!

    This unbiblical approach of “higher criticism” is a deadly enemy of our theology and mission. This approach puts a scholar or individual above the plain approach of the scriptures and gives inappropriate license to decide what he or she perceives as truth based on the resources and education of the critic. p. 9

    Yet whenever we read scripture we interpret. This criticism of higher criticism does nothing more than reject it because one disagrees with the results. There are problems with higher criticism, just as there are problems with reading everything literally. These are problems that require thoughtful responses. I would reject a version of higher criticism that stands on purely naturalistic assumptions. But such a foundation is unnecessary to find value in many of the tools provided.

    While the Bible is paramount in our estimation as the ultimate authority and final arbiter of truth, the Spirit of Prophecy provides clear, inspired council to aid our application of Bible truth. It is a heaven-sent guide to instruct the church in how to carry out its mission. It is a reliable theological expositor of the Scriptures. p. 9

    I would simply point out that this issue stands out as one of the milestones on my own departure from the SDA church. If you treat Ellen White as a definitive interpreter of scripture, you are placing her above scripture, whether you like it or not. I recognize that Wilson didn’t use the word “definitive,” but I think the intentions are clear. As a Christian, I do not reject the idea of a modern prophet, but I do reject he idea that any person can be the definitive interpreter, denying me the opportunity of full examination, discussion, and disagreement.

    So having responded to some key points in the sermon, what does this have to do with my own departure from the SDA church?

    I think it highlights it rather well. Let me begin by noting that my key issues with Adventism were not the standards of the seventh day Sabbath, legalism, or the state of the dead, which seem to stir people up so much. Let me be clear: I disagree with SDA positions on the Sabbath and somewhat on the state of the dead. They just are the critical issues for me.

    The state of the dead doctrine is trivial in my view. I really don’t care how much time elapses between death and going to be with Jesus–eternally. There is no time lapse which will matter, in my view. I think there are some scriptural arguments on both sides, but I don’t care that much about the answer.

    I envy Seventh-day Adventists the doctrine of the Sabbath, even though I don’t accept it. What it did for many SDAs of my acquaintance–and still does–is give them a much stronger sense of sacred time than I find in other churches. Time stewardship in Christianity is in poor shape, and this is something the broader community could learn from SDAs.

    But at the same time we see legalism. Those in the SDA church who worship on Saturday for legalistic reasons also often miss the valuable blessings it can have. I don’t think such legalists are in the majority; my experience was of many Adventists truly refreshed by the Sabbath rest.

    The critical element for me was eschatology. I find the SDA approach to Daniel and Revelation almost completely wrong. The interpretation of Daniel 8:14 is completely unjustified by the text. The doctrine of the investigative judgment also runs contrary to any number of other orthodox Christian doctrines. But I’ve written about that before.

    Even that disagreement is not necessarily a deal breaker. I know any number of United Methodists who believe things about eschatology that I find profoundly troubling, yet I can be a Methodist.

    The problem comes in the doctrine of the remnant. Again, I must specify that I do see a doctrine of the remnant in scripture, but it’s specifically the identification of the remnant with an organization that I would call the critical deal breaker.

    When SDAs ask me why I left the church they often respond to my early, brief remarks by noting that the United Methodist Church also has problems. Their assumption seems to be that I left the SDA church because it was imperfect and have found the church in the UMC. But that isn’t the case.

    The SDA church is imperfect. So is the UMC. But nobody (that I know of) in the UMC expects me to equate my membership in that organization with my Christianity or my salvation. It doesn’t make me part of a special remnant. That membership means that I choose to find fellowship in my UMC congregation, to find accountability there, and to serve as part of the body of Christ there, i.e. to find my place of ministry there.

    When I said I would uphold the UMC with my prayers, presence, gifts, and service, I did not also affirm that I would regard the UMC as better than all other churches, much less as the one organization representing what Christianity ought to be.

    I believe that my disagreement with the SDA church on a number of doctrinal issues means that I do better not to be a member. But combining those doctrines into a core set of beliefs defining the one true organization out there is the most critical element.

    Love, appreciate, enjoy, yes. Join, no.

  • Larry Hurtado is Blogging

    … at larryhurtado.wordpress.com.  He’s Professor of New Testament Language, Literature & Theology at the University of Edinburgh, and it looks like he’ll be a nice new addition to the biblioblogosphere.

    I think I’m about the thousandth person to mention this, but in case you missed the other 999 …