Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • When the Glory of God Shows Up

    Scripture:  1 Kings 8:10-11 (Proper 16B)

    I like to say that God is present everywhere, and that the difference between one time and another is much more with our awareness of God’s presence than it is with any action on God’s part.  But if we believe scripture, there are times when God’s presence is especially visible, and this passage narrates one of them.  You can get a better picture by reading all of chapter 8, rather than just the snippets that are included in the lectionary passage.

    The question I want to present is this:  Can we experience God’s presence in a special way today, and if so, how?  Further, how similar would that experience be to what is described in this text?

    Make sure that you don’t discount the text before you start.  It appears to me, at least, that we’re talking about an impact that is visible to all.

    Here are some links to blog posts or essays in which I discuss God’s glory:

     

    Ezekiel 1 – a Glimpse of the Glory of Yahweh (Energion: Religion, Philosophy, and Politics)

    This is my starting point.  It’s a college paper I wrote my senior year in college. I’d largely stand by what I said now.  The glory of God and its movement is a substantial theme in Ezekiel, and the positioning of the various elements is no accident.

    Eternity in Liturgy (Participatory Bible Study Blog)

    How does glory fit into liturgy?  This is one of the key questions that tie into those I asked above.

    Lectionary Texts for the Transfiguration – Cycle A (Participatory Bible Study Blog)

    The transfiguration gives insights into the nature of God’s glory and the purpose of its appearance.

     

     

  • Disaster and Judgment

    John Piper has suggested that the tornado that struck Minneapolis was a judgment on the ELCA for the recent change in their statement on human sexuality. Piper is a great preacher, and despite some disagreements, I love to hear him present a good gospel message, but I find this, and other similar statements, quite disturbing.

    I think it is biblical to hold that God can send judgment. But I also think it is Biblical, with Job as the showcase example, to think that disaster need not be judgment. Much damage can be done when Christians are told that all setbacks and hardships are somehow a sign of punishment from God. Suffering may come so that we can learn, it may come despite our best efforts, it may come to the best of us, it may come to the worst of us, and finally, it may come because that’s how things work.

    After Hurricane Ivan I was very glad that our double wide trailer was undamaged. As I drove from the home where we had been guests to our home, I saw many similar structures completely gutted. In fact, I had little hope in my mind after the drive that I would find anything where we lived, but there was no damage at all.

    So did God love us more than those other people? Was this salvation because we are praying people who put our trust in God? Even in normal circumstances, I would hardly think so. But in this case our 17 year old son was dying, and within a week of the storm he had gone on to be with the Lord. If we could have lost our home and kept our son, what might I have chosen?

    So to reverse it, were we much more wicked than all those folks who did not lose children to cancer that day or that week?

    It’s simply a dangerous game. If you feel strongly about what the ELCA has done, expressing that belief is appropriate, even expressing it vigorously. But I think it would be better to leave the tornadoes out of it.

    I found the Internet Monk’s comments on this very helpful and well stated, though his were in response to a different post.

    Update: I had intended to provide links here to my Hand of God series of three essays: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, as well as a story I wrote some time ago for the God-Talk Club series on my Jevlir Caravansary fiction blog, The God-Talk Club: Tornadoes.

  • On Red, White, and Blue Hermeneutics

    Some good advice on for the Sake of Truth.

  • Church 7 Days a Week

    Kevin at Shooting the Breeze comments on a YouTube video.

  • 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.

  • Christian Carnival CCXC Posted

    … at Fish and Cans.  Check it out!

  • 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.