Some good advice on for the Sake of Truth.
Author: henry
-
Love Without Involvement
I have, on occasion, been accused of being a “love preacher.” It’s not an accusation that frightens me, but it used to puzzle me. It doesn’t so much any more. There’s a difference between a casual “all you need is love” attitude and “love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34), especially considering that the latter is a command given by someone who went on to die immediately afterward.
The problem is that we want “love” as a kind of general good feeling about people, a general desire to have nice things happen to them, but at the same time we don’t really want to get involved in the actual implementation. I think many of us want to help the homeless, but sincerely hope we can do so by giving some money to the soup kitchen, or voting for politicians who will implement policies to help them, but not getting our hands dirty in the process.
There’s nothing wrong with giving money to the soup kitchen, or with trying to implement policies that help the homeless, nor with voting for politicians who will support such policies. The problem is that too often we call this “loving one another as Jesus loved us” and that’s not how Jesus did it.
He starts in heaven, takes on a human body, lives with us, eats with us, sleeps with us, gets dirty with us, and finally dies on a cross, all the time being like us. If you take the incarnation seriously, that Jesus was God in the flesh, you have to also believe that Jesus could have done as many or more nice things for people around him whilst hanging out in heaven.
But the Jesus kind of love doesn’t allow that. It gets dirty. It suffers. It cares in a personal way. Read Philippians 2:5-11.
My friend Greg May is a contributor to our Energion.com Podcast, and I think he hit one out of the park with his podcast today–A Spiritual Tragedy. Please check it out!
-
Picture = 1000 Words = Book?
Here I went and wrote an entire book on the subject, and Jon Birch gets it in one picture:
HT: Kouya Chronicle
-
Getting Seriously Committed (Pr 16B – Gospel)
The gospel for this week comes again from John 6:56-69. We have five of these in a row. John 6 is an interesting chapter because in it Jesus drives to the heart of his message in speaking especially to his disciples, and many of them can’t handle it. They leave.
I have discussed the gritty, earthy metaphors Jesus is using. Certainly the way he expresses these truths will get under the skin of many people. But it’s not just the gritty metaphors that are getting on peoples’ nerves. It’s what those metaphors point to as well.
“You are what you eat,” is a common saying. Many of us are very careful what we eat, and even what we put in our mouths. We’re touchy about it. Why? Well, some of us are aware of health issues. Some just have certain very specific tastes. But in general, sending something inside your body just sounds a bit dangerous, so most of us are pretty careful about it.
When Jesus uses eating metaphors to discuss our relationship to him, he is making it clear that this isn’t something that we take up part of the time. It isn’t something that we pay attention to occasionally. It is something that becomes a permanent part of us. It is something that changes us and makes us something different.
We frequently talk about the presence of Jesus at the Eucharist. But an important point to remember is that when we eat that bread and drink from the cup, we are also symbolically living John 6. If Jesus is present, and I believe he is, then we take Jesus into ourselves. We shouldn’t do that casually or without fully intending to put it into practice, by surrender.
John 6 gives us the confrontation, and then the reaction of each group. The question of total commitment is the real dividing point in Christianity.
-
Added to Blogroll: for the Sake of Truth
I got an e-mail from Josh Mann of for the Sake of Truth, asking if I might take a look at his blog and see if I found it interesting.
The results? Indeed I find it interesting, if for no other reason than that Josh has an MA in Biblical Languages. He’s going on to his doctorate while I’ve been living the educationally deprived life without one, but I’ll have to just deal with that! Oh, and he seems to emphasize New Testament, while I emphasized Old, a much less comprehensible failing. 🙂
It looks like he does a good deal of serious work on NT backgrounds, along with a few posts in other areas, generally as would be expected of a NT specialist who knows Greek.
Head on over and check the blog out. I think you’ll find it useful. It’s likely I’ll be linking to specific posts from time to time.
-
Left Wing Closed Mindedness
I was asked recently in a comment for examples of shrillness from the left, and I didn’t respond at the time. The reason for that is simple. When I talk about right wing shrillness I hear from conservatives about how I’m ignoring the left. When I talk about left wing shrillness I hear from liberals about how I’m ignoring such behavior on the right. Simultaneously, each side will claim that their particular shrillness is justified, whereas the shrillness of the other side is not.
By “shrillness” I do not mean strongly expressed opinions. A commenter left a link to this rant by Josh Rosenau. Now Josh uses language that I would not use, but nonetheless he rants substantively about issues that matter to him. Is it easy to take if you’re on the other side on some issue? Not at all. But he gives you something to discuss.
Now in case someone missed it along the way, I have a certain appreciation for libertarians. I would describe myself in politics as independent, moderate in many things, but with a decided libertarian lean. So when Republicans want to reduce government interference in some area of economic life, I’m with them. When Democrats want to protect individual liberties, I’m with them. But when they each get into culture wars–and both groups spend more time in that territory now than ever before, or so it seems to me–then I am not with them.
So herewith a left wing example, brought by Radley Balko of Reason magazine. I’m going to link to his two posts. My only comment is that the article written by the CEO of Whole Foods to which he refers is a substantive capitalist contribution to the health care debate, the sort of thing that should be taken on point by point by those who disagree, but the reaction is something completely different. As a moderate, I strongly object to making something into a simple two-sided issue. I can oppose the current health care bill (once it can be identified!) without thinking that the status quo is acceptable.
Again, Balko uses some language that I would not, but he makes very good points, in my view.
-
Yet Again Comments on my KJV Video
I’m not going to embed it again, but there were a couple of recent comments on my video Why I Hate the KJV.
I can’t believe you hate the KJV. Ridiculous. Not fond of, understandable, but regardless of your use of it, the KJV is a masterpiece.
This sort of comment was only to be expected, considering the provocative title I used, but at the same time it demonstrates that the commenter didn’t actually watch the video. In fact, the video is a response to those who ask me “Why do you hate the KJV?” as I state right at the beginning.
Indeed the KJV is a masterpiece, but it’s a masterpiece of translation with tremendous literary qualities, and should be treated as such.
But the second comment is one of those moderate sounding ones that I think is somewhat dangerous, and it was the reason I decided to respond:
I often use the lesser modern versions when trying to get various facets of a text or passage. Admittedly they can be of some use though they need to be used advisedly as if they are not potentially they can do more harm than good!!
(You can find both of these comments and many more at the video page to which I link above.)
Of course one must be careful with modern translations. One must be careful with any translation precisely because it is a translation and something is lost no matter how well the job is done. That is why I recommend using multiple translations if you cannot learn the source languages.
But that is not a characteristic just of modern translations; it is a characteristic of all translations, including the KJV. A translation does not become more authoritative than the source text.
And that is the danger here–that someone will take the KJV as the reliable source against which modern translations will be tested. It too is a translation with all of the failings that entails. It’s a wonderfully literary translation, perhaps the single greatest accomplishment in Bible translation (though I can think of some good competitors) but it doesn’t replace the texts from which it was translated.
-
On End of Life Counseling
Since I blogged two days ago about my opposition to certain phraseology used by Rev. Jim Wallis, I want to say something about the quote to which he is responding.
I find the “death boards” complaint about health care easily the least well-founded and most damaging of the issues. There is good reason to discuss health care and how we can provide it for the uninsured. I think there is good reason to debate the public option. In fact, there are many things that are questionable.
But a provision providing for payment for end of life counseling is a good idea, no matter who is footing the final bill. Setting aside the issue of who should pay, end of life counseling can be extremely important and can greatly improve quality of life.
I have sensed that many people have a great deal of difficulty facing these issues. I used to be one of them. I didn’t want to disuss it. I didn’t want to think about it. I think many fear to deal with these issues, but I can’t be sure what someone else is thinking. I was afraid.
Being married to a nurse who was a hospice nurse and then director of education for a local hospice organization for 12 years, and then living through the death of a child has changed my attitude.
The worst possible thing at end of life is to face the choices you must make without having planned ahead of time. In order to plan ahead of time, you need good information. I remember sitting in an oncologist’s office one day with our son forcing him to be explicit about the numbers and the value of various treatment programs. You have to know that the information is there and then get it.
I have now made a living will, and I encourage everyone, young or old, to do so. It will give you peace of mind to think about the issues and make your decision. I’m not trying to tell you what decision to make; I’m simply suggesting you think about the issues, make the decisions, and put your will in writing.
Might a doctor discuss things in a counseling session that I might not regard as moral? Certainly. Should that session be government censored? I strongly believe it should not be. It is interesting to me that there are people who very strongly oppose anything that might get between doctor and patient and their choice in general (though insurance companies do this all the time), yet they don’t want government insurance to provide for this kind of counseling, if there is a government insurance option.
My own decision is that in very few cases would I support heroic measures to extend my life. That doesn’t mean that I would not choose surgery or chemotherapy based on the best medical device. But if prolonging my life involves hooking me up to a machine permanently, I’m not interested.
It’s odd that some people seem to think that this is an attempt to choose the time of my death. I think the reverse, that technological efforts to keep a body that would otherwise have given up may well be the case of trying to force my continued life after God has chosen for me to go.
I hope to leave this world not kicking and screaming, but rather rejoicing.