Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • On Inerrancy

    I respond to some discussion of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy on my Participatory Bible Study blog.

  • Why Democracy Fails

    In Preserving Democracy, Elgin Hushbeck quotes Alexander Fraser Tytler:

    A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. (quoted on pp. 26-27)

    I thought about that quote today when I read the somewhat deceptively titled story Current Mood Toward Congress: Throw The Incumbents Out. I don’t mean that CQ Politics intentionally wrote a deceptive title. Headlines always miss part of the article. The title refers to the part of their survey results that indicates that 53% of voters do not want to see the majority of members of congress reelected next year.

    The next paragraph has the really interesting result, and I knew it was coming, because I’ve seen this before. A statistically similar number, 52%, do like their own representative.

    Now unlike poll results that indicate that people hold contradictory views, and there are some of those, I think this points to a different problem. Let me use my own congressional district as an example. Here in the Florida’s 1st congressional district there is one issue on which any candidate who wishes to be elected must take a particular stand–keeping “our” military bases here.

    Further, this favors the incumbent absolutely, because he will undoubtedly be able to argue that his seniority makes him better able to protect those bases from any closure. Now I’m not necessarily saying that the bases here are not well placed. But that wouldn’t matter to the voters. The bases are well placed because they are a substantial part of the economy of this area. If our congressman were to become completely convinced that some substantial base or even a facility on a base should be closed, he would be committing political suicide by advocating it.

    When somebody else’s congressman makes that argument for the bases in his district, of course, the voters in this district are not so happy.

    It’s less obvious sometimes in other areas, because the projects and the money are spread over a wider variety of locations and types of activity. But a congressman must produce stuff for the voters or he’ll get voted out. That’s why we hear a great deal about reform out of congress, but we aren’t likely to get reform that prevents members of congress from doing nice things for their districts.

    The same problem continues more broadly. Rather than admitting that smaller government will have to provide less services, many people on both sides of the aisle like to argue that somehow increasing the efficiency of government and reducing waste will let us keep the services, reduce (or not increase) taxes, and still receive more.

    Unfortunately, we always count chickens before they’re hatched in this case. A current good example is health care. Now I think we do have a problem, and that we are not a nation that can actually refuse basic care to our citizens, whatever the economic problems. Currently, we require emergency rooms to provide stabilizing care, for example, which spreads the cost to those who pay. But in writing health care plans, everyone counts savings that they believe they will get.

    Those deficit projections about health care? They are guesses. They’re making assumptions about what various options will do to prices, and how much they can save.

    I could do this with my family budget. Let’s say I want to buy a car today, but I lack $100 of the monthly payment. In order to justify my deficit spending to my wife, I tell her that we’ll get $100 out of the grocery budget. (Since I do the grocery shopping, I might get by with that–or not!) I would say that by saving $25 per week on our grocery shopping we can afford the new car.

    Now there’s two ways to go about this. First, I could find and test ways of saving the money and then test them for a month or so. Can I reduce our grocery bill enough by buying bulk, making better use of the freezer, and so forth? If I go out and test this, and only buy the new car after I know it will work, I’m being responsible. On the other hand, I could simply guess that I can manage the savings, go buy the car, and then find out.

    In the case of health care, we guess certain savings can be achieved. Bluntly, the current proposals are so complex, I really can’t tear them apart on that point because I would have to give up my income producing work (and see what that would do to my budget!) in order to have time to follow it all. I do know, however, that advocates of the public option tend to assume that it will force the general price of insurance down, using the very capitalist argument that the public option will involve an increase in competition.

    Whether you buy that argument or not (and I don’t), the fact is that we haven’t actually seen it work. Advocates of health care reform something like what we have proposed are probably annoyed to have this sort of thing pointed out. After all, we need reform, so we all need to be as positive as possible. Opponents will crow by saying that this shows that the plan won’t work. The bottom line is that the voters are being promised something, but are not truly being told the cost. Would they support it if they truly knew the cost? I don’t know, but we’re not going to get to find out.

    I don’t regard this as a partisan issue. Republicans tend to take a similar approach on defense. We can plan strategy and buy equipment because we need whatever it is, but talking about cost-benefit is often regarded as anti-military and anti-defense. But we need to have good cost-benefit analysis, testing, and most importantly, we need to change our strategy, whether on domestic or foreign policy based on actually observing the results.

    Such a thing will only happen if voters demand it. I think that’s unlikely, because I think voters would rather hope that one or another politician can manage to come through and produce something from nothing.

  • Review – The Second Confession

    In this mystery, Nero Wolfe finds himself under attack through one of his dearest things–his orchids. He also finds himself working outside his home, another unusual situation for him. Since much of the action takes place outside of New York City, we don’t have staples such as Detective Cramer, but we do hear about him and some of his police colleagues in the city.

    My wife’s comment on reading this book was simply that this was “a good one.” Since we both like Nero Wolfe, that elevates it about the average of really good books to a place that’s much more fun. Archie Goodwin gets into quite a bit of (potential) trouble. When doesn’t he? But the ending remained somewhat of a surprise, even though in retrospect I thought I should have suspected much, much sooner than I did.

    This is another good book in the Nero Wolfe series of stories.

  • Review – Storm from the Shadows

    Storm from the Shadows is a sequel to The Shadow of Saganami, and as such advances the general history in the Honorverse only a little bit beyond the end of At All Costs.

    I had read some reviews that said that this book ended on a cliffhanger, but I had generally dismissed those. David Weber always leaves lots of interesting things to wonder about, which makes one wait eagerly for the next book. But I was wrong. This is, even compared to a normal Weber ending, a cliffhanger.

    Many times as I read a series I get less and less enchanted with the books as I go along. It seems that authors are so anxious to keep things exciting that later books often look like science fiction as it might have been written in their science fiction universe.

    In the David Weber’s case, and particularly in the Honorverse, while I think the situation has been escalating, it is not out of hand. I like the characterization, but even more importantly the development of cultures and backgrounds. If I were to have my choice in details, I probably would have had less conversations amongst the Manpower folks (or their even more secret higher-ups), but even that is well done provided one wants to really get involved in the universe as opposed to simply following a few characters for a story.

    This book remains five out of five starts for me. There were a couple of earlier books in the series that weren’t quite fives in my book, but they were still very good books, and there is no doubt that I will read every book in this series, some more than once.

    Storm from the Shadows follows Michelle Henke for the most part, and she is an interesting character herself. We do see some additional pieces of Aivars Terekhov, who is definitely a character worth watching, and Admiral Khumalo has a substantial role to play. We get passing glances at Abigail Hearns and several other interesting folks we have met in previous books.

    There is somewhat less fleet action and a bit more politics, but in my view, that balance can shift quite a bit through the series and I’ll still be happy. I disagree with reviewers I have read who don’t like the way Weber does politics. I do think he follows some improbable tracks, given his characters and background, but he doesn’t go out of the realm of possibility and do things that look ridiculous within the universe he has created.

    All in all, I think this is an exceptionally good continuation of an exceptionally good series.

  • The Real War on Christmas

    I received an e-mail from the AFA giving me the wonderful news that the governor of Kentucky has backed down on calling the Christmas tree in the state capitol a “holiday tree” and will call it a Christmas tree. In order to help this happen elsewhere, I’m told to buy packets of buttons, wear them, and get all my friends to wear them. There are even church packs and a display pack of 250 buttons.

    At the same time I am already seeing Christmas advertising on TV and hearing it on the radio. I understand the reasoning behind it. After all, I’m a businessman too, and there will be lots of Christmas buying. I can’t help but hope that some people will choose various books offered by my company as Christmas presents. But that is a commercial desire related to a commercial holiday.

    Some Christians feel that there is a war on Christmas, and that this war involves rules requiring store clerks or government officials to wish people happy holidays rather than merry Christmas or the removal of creche displays from public parks. If I could steal an idea from C. S. Lews (Screwtape Letters) and think like a demon for a moment, I would regard this as an excellent diversionary attack.

    Before D-Day in World War II the Germans were convinced that the allied landings would come somewhere around the Pas de Calais. The distance was shorter, the logistics would be easier, and it made a great deal of strategic sense. The allies went to some trouble to foster this impression, even creating a fake army that consisted merely of tents and communications gear that simulated an invasion in preparation. Because the Germans were convinced that the real attack would come somewhat to the north of where it did, they delayed in committing their mobile reserve (panzers), much to the benefit of the allied forces.

    While we’re worried about losing the external trappings of Christmas, such as public trees and manger displays, the real war on Christmas is practically won already. Christmas has almost nothing at all to do with Jesus. This has been my opinion for many years. Christmas as celebrated in America, even in most of our churches, is about us and our economic prosperity, not about Jesus and his good news.

    Studying the liturgical year has just emphasized this to me more, and now that I’m teaching a series on the gospel of Luke for a Sunday School class, I find it rubbed in my face. The advent comes at a time of great trouble and need. There is long expectation, hope kept alive through times of hardship, and recognition of need. When God’s gift comes it does not look like what the world sees as success or greatness. The birth of Jesus is not a commercial success. God gives himself to us at the time of our greatest need. Receiving the gospel message is like a reenactment of this in miniature. The wise men come and give gifts to the king in the manger, though he hasn’t asked. Shepherds worship him. The babe in the manger is the center of God’s activity, even though the world around hardly notices.

    This is almost totally unlike our Christmas celebrations in the church or in our homes. Oh, we certainly do give something to others. There will be gifts sent to children who will not otherwise have a Christmas and food packages passed to people in need. But let’s face it. Most of our money will be spent on us. Christmas will not look largely like a spiritual experience. We’ll start celebrating it weeks early even in church. We’ll skip over the advent expectation and go straight to the Christmas celebration.

    And that celebration will mostly be about us. It will largely be a commercial holiday for us. The emphasis on Christmas, such as it is, will not be a witness to Jesus, but rather to “Christianity – the Brand.”

    The war on Christmas is going rather badly for us. Perhaps we should quit bothering about the wrong war, and save whatever money we were going to spend on “Merry Christmas” buttons to use to help others. If you don’t have any idea where to give it, I’d be happy to make some suggestions.

  • Seeing Things Differently

    Reversal is a common theme in the teachings of Jesus.  The poor are blessed?  The persecuted are blessed?  How silly is that?

    And today we have another reversal in our gospel passage (Mark 12:38-44).  The widow who puts in two little coins that might, optimistically, add up to a penny, is the one who put in more than everyone else.  Again, from the human point of view, this is rather silly.  Even the most math challenged amongst us can figure out that all those rich people were putting in much more money than did the widow.  But God sees things differently.

    I prefer a different label for this, not “reversal” but “seeing things differently.”  God simply has a different way of looking at everything involved.  The scribes could count too, and they knew they were important, and that the widow mattered very little.

    This difference in the way God sees things reverberates through all the lectionary passages today.  In Ruth, we see the despised Moabite woman, who could not become a member of the congregation even 10 generations later (Deuteronomy 23:3), becoming the ancester of King David, only four generations down the road.  In Psalm 127 we see the possibility of having a house that looks great, has solid engineering, and is located in a prestigious neighborhood, but if it wasn’t built by God, it is vain.

    Finally in Hebrews we see the eternal nature of the heavenly sanctuary as opposed to all earthly ones, even divinely ordained sanctuaries.  You could say, in a way, that those earthly sanctuaries must be built by God and incorporate just a bit of the divine in them or they too would be vain, just like the house in Psalm 127.

    What exactly does a God-built house look like?  What makes the difference?  Can you tell by looking?  Is there a way to measure it?

    I don’t think so.  The real way to measure this success is to allow God to show you that heavenly perspective.  You can’t get all of it, but you can get a little bit.  Ask for that vision, and I believe you will receive it.

  • How Not to Make Your Point

    In his post next time, don’t invite the baptists, Bruce Alderman provides a link to a very unfortunate case in which a Lutheran pastor is put down by a local Baptist church because she is a woman.

    Let me note here that I am personally acquainted with Baptists who oppose women in pastoral ministry and are quite courteous. They have no problem recognizing what’s essential for interdenominational fellowship and what is not, nor do they have a problem conveying their views in a Christlike manner. So this isn’t about Baptists in general.

    Nonetheless, this particular church takes a different view. Go read it for yourself. I’m thinking this may not live up to Paul’s little suggestion:

    18 If it is possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. – Romans 12:18 (NRSV)

    If they believe they cannot in good conscience be present at the installation, perhaps they should stay home quietly. I have to doubt the positive effect of rudeness.

  • Defining Inerrancy Yet Again

    Johnny Esposito, a KJV-Only advocate, states in a recent article (HT: King James Only?) that the basic premise of Harold Lindsell’s book Battle for the Bible can be summarized as:

    • When one questions the inerrancy of the Bible compromise is soon to follow
    • When one changes their position on the Bible compromise in other areas is soon to follow

    That wasn’t where I intended to start this article, but I want to observe here that in general when one holds a position that cannot be questioned, silliness is sure to follow.  I do not mean that one cannot be sure of any positions.  In fact, for me, the more certain I am of a position, the more comfortable I am entertaining challenging questions.

    “Entertaining challenging questions” is precisely what Darrell Pursiful did in a speech Why I Am Not an Inerrantist—Even Though I Am (or Vice Versa).  I found it easily the most helpful reasonably short article on the topic I’ve read.

    Way back when I was studying Biblical languages at the undergraduate level I rejected the doctrine of inerrancy.  I’ve stuck with that position since, but then I started to encounter some weird things, such as people who claimed to believe in inerrancy and yet took more liberal positions on many Biblical issues than I do.  While I understand how the definitions work, I still find it difficult to consider positions such as a late dating of Daniel or a view that early Israelite history is largely legend to be consistent with inerrancy.

    I’m not challenging the right of people to define terms and doctrinal statements as they find it necessary, and there is a certain value in letting experts define a term, but it seems to me that clinging to a term that has a much different meaning in popular circles, while denying that meaning is a bit linguistically perverse.  I can say that Daniel is apocalyptic and that pseudonymity is a characteristic of apocalyptic literature, and I can say that Joshua is some form of legend, and that legends are, well, not entirely historical, but what does it then mean to claim in turn that the Bible is inerrant?

    My own statement of inspiration would be simply that there is nothing in the Bible by accident.  God intends it the way it is.  I discover the way in which God inspires by reading the Bible and looking at what it is.  As a Christian what other standard do I have by which to determine inspiration?  Now I see how that can be defined as inerrancy, but it is not what people in the pews hear when they hear that word—not even close.

    Thus the following resonated with me from Dr. Pursiful’s article:

    The truth is, although all early Christians agreed that Scripture is truthful in all it teaches, formal doctrines of “biblical inerrancy” have only been around for the past 200 years or so. And as we shall see, not all inerrancies are created equal.

    We should note before we go any further that the early church was not naïve in its doctrine of inspiration. The church fathers were well aware of certain anomalies in the text that called for serious theological reflection.

    Inerrancy is a bit difficult to pin down sometimes.  First there is the debate over whether it is a new doctrine or not.  The distinction between the long-held conviction of the church that the Bible is true and modern formal doctrines of inerrancy (and there are many) is important.  Secondly, I really like the phrase “anomalies in the text that called for serious theological reflection.”  That’s really good.  I often say that the contradictions are what I like most in the Bible.  After all, as a Christian I believe that Jesus was both totally divine and totally human; I should be able to handle anomalies in the text that call for serious theological reflection!

    Later, Dr. Pursiful defines this change to more formal doctrines of inerrancy:

    Now remember, the new thing that happened in the 1800’s was not that somebody invented the idea that the Bible is “free from error” or “utterly reliable.” What was new was the way this affirmation came to be defined and defended. In particular, “inerrancy” came to serve as a theological shorthand for the idea that the Bible was error-free not merely in terms of what it taught about the life of faith, but what it taught in any area in inquiry: not merely theology but history, geography, science, psychology, and so forth.

    Again that is admirably clear and, I think, correct.  Our Christian congregations, marinated in the enlightenment, naturally think that Bible should give them accurate information on the stuff that is most important to them–history, geography, science, psychology, and so forth.  When the Bible writers actually try to tell them that those things are not the most important things in one’s life, they are not well equipped to hear it.

    My own note here is that when we assure them that the Bible is factually accurate in those areas, we may often be simply reinforcing their belief that those human ways of looking at things are just as important as they thought, and making it harder for them to find the truths of eternal value.  After all,  all of our history, science, and psychology are but instant’s in time and drops in the ocean to what God has to say to us.

    I am not going to comment point by point on the article.  I’d simply recommend reading the entire thing.  The title really reflects what is going on quite accurately.

    There is an affirmation that must be made about biblical inspiration and authority.  The question in my mind is whether that statement is best made with the word “inerrancy” or whether we need to start again and shed the baggage that word carries.

  • Christian Carnival #301

    … at Fish and Cans.  Lots of interesting stuff.

  • A Note on Independent Voters

    I’m sure it’s a requirement that political commentators try to discover trends in voting patterns. It’s also not surprising that they try to make those trends deal with either the Democratic or the Republican parties. But I think that they simply don’t comprehend the meaning of “independent.”

    I’m just one independent voter. I won’t register as a member of either of the major parties, and I truly vote independently. I examine everything I can find about each candidate in a race. (Have you ever tried to discover anything useful about candidates for the district utility board?) When I vote, it is a decision that the particular candidate is the best person in that race and in that race only. It doesn’t mean I’m likely to vote for the same person next year. If that candidate is a Democrat is doesn’t mean I’m suddenly leaning Democrat. If he or she is Republican, it doesn’t mean I’m leaning Republican.

    For me, the meaning of being an independent voter is that those labels don’t impact the way I vote, except with reference to how party connections might impact the way a particular candidate will govern. I cannot be counted on for a trend. It’s back to a clean slate in each election.

    I don’t know how well that applies to independent voters in general, but the unscientific poll of the independent voters I know, including a few who are registered with a party so that they can participate in primaries, but are no more loyal to the party label than I am, indicates that it’s a pretty common feeling. Party endorsement of a candidate means nothing. Each candidate must earn respect.

    For myself, I will add that I don’t favor or disfavor the incumbent. Since I go out of my way to study the candidates, I will know the names of all of them. I’m never voting on name recognition.

    So don’t seek a trend. I’m not starting to lean one way or another. If the candidates of the major parties–or any party–want my vote, they must earn it 100% for each candidacy.