Threads from Henry's Web

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!

  • 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.

  • Real Guy Interpretation – A Homily

    David Ker has challenged me, amongst others, to say precisely how we would handle 2 Kings 2:23-24.  I actually didn’t notice the challenge at first, though I’ve been following the series.

    I’m going to respond to the challenge by writing a homily.  Most commonly I do not speak from a written text except when I’m working against limited time.  So if I present a homily it will generally be from a written text.  I’m imagining the congregation of my home church as the audience.

    Scripture:  2 Kings 2:23-24 (If I was dealing with a congregation that would tolerate it, I’d read all of 2 Kings 2.)

    Opening

    A few years ago I was teaching a class on the Old Testament and we came to the command in Deuteronomy 18:21-28 which mandates that the parents of a son who is recalcitrant and refuses correction he should be brought to elders at the gate and should be stoned to death.

    I expected that people would view this with horror and it  was to lead into a discussion of dealing with difficult laws in the Bible.  As it turned out a number of people exclaimed “Yes!”

    As we discussed it turned out, not surprisingly, that nobody really wanted any teenagers–that’s the group they thought of in connection with this text–to die.  They just thought there should be more discipline.  Somebody ought to do something!

    They had discounted the text before they had even read it, failing to notice that it wasn’t about disciplining, but rather about terminating the child.

    You may be wondering just why I would start my discussion of a difficult text by citing another difficult text.  But the story illustrates how we work around things that happen in the Bible, and then when someone points out the details and we’re shocked.  That class started with the Deuteronomy passage as a sort of general admonition to discipline one’s children, and came to the point where they were ready to ask just why such a harsh law should be used.

    Something similar happens with our story for today.  Someone reads the story and then admonishes children, young people, or the whole congregation to respect their elders, pastors, or perhaps prophets.

    But if you’re a Sunday School teacher who is doing that, be assured that somewhere out there is a child, or an adult for that matter, who is wondering how having 42 children mauled by bears is a proportional or just punishment for taunting even a prophet.

    I’d like to suggest three phases in a simplified plan for learning from a Bible story.

    The first is …

    Hear the Story

    Let’s ask ourselves just how we might not be hearing this story.

    First, we make assumptions about the children that are involved.  The Hebrew phrase used does indicate that they are not adults or probably even young adults.  But in pictures I often see them portrayed as toddlers or preschoolers.  Similarly we teach the story sometimes to fairly young children who may well assume we’re talking about them.

    There’s nothing in the text, for example, to exclude the idea that this was a gang of teenage boys with sticks, stones, and maybe even spears who were not only taunting Elisha, but were threatening him.  In that case, Elijah might have responded vigorously to the taunting in order to preempt more serious trouble.

    But I’m not going to use that as an “explanation” of the story because, quite simply, the text doesn’t tell us that either.  It tells us nothing about a threat.  It simply speaks of taunting and of Elisha’s response.

    But let’s look further.  It’s interesting that Elisha doesn’t call for the bears.  He simply curses them in the name of the Lord.  Is he angry?  We don’t know.  What thoughts went through his mind?  We don’t know.  They taunted him and he cursed them.

    After he curses them, two she-bears come out and maul them, though again the Hebrew might well be translated more vigorously than “maul.”  I note here again that the text doesn’t say that God summoned the bears.  That’s an interesting point.  There are places where God specifically summons some means of destruction, but here the connection is not made explicit.

    Can we assume the connection?  I suspect we are supposed to do so, but it is not made explicit.

    So what does the story actually say?

    I would suggest that we need to hear the story in the context of the conflict going on in Israel.  Elijah has faced many dangers in his life, and has now passed on his authority to Elisha.  I wonder if Elisha wasn’t thinking more of his authority as a prophet in Elijah’s place than about any personal danger.

    The action establishes his authority, his connection to God, and his power.  Elijah prevented the rain; Elisha called for the she bears.  Even if he didn’t do so explicitly, that’s the impression the story leaves.

    The story isn’t about discipline, self-defense, or punishment.  It’s about authority, in this case the prophet’s authority from God in the midst of the religious conflict between the worship of Baal and Yahweh, God of Israel.

    So what’s the moral of the story?  That’s one of the most dangerous questions to ask!  It implies first that a story must have a moral, and second that there must be only one moral.  In fact, a story can be told for many reasons.  One we sometimes don’t think of is that it may simply be that the story tells us what happened.

    I recall a story that my mother used to tell titled “Jimmy and the Atheist.”  In it, an atheist rescues Jimmy from a fire and then adopts him.  As it stood, it was a story about the man’s love for Jimmy and Jimmy’s influence that brings about the conversion of the atheist.  Stop the story earlier, before the conversion, however, and suddenly it’s a story about not judging people and how an atheist could be the most giving person in the town.

    Stories are a most flexible means of communication, but at the same time they put more of the load of thinking onto the reader or hearer.

    Thus we come to the next stage …

    Enter the Story

    What do I mean by this?  I mean that the reader looks at the story without judging.  Just look at the people who are in the story, how they behave, and try to see it from their point of view.  We already have a basis on which to do this from our hearing of the story.

    Why is this important?  Because we tend not to learn from people and events when we stand over them in judgment.

    When we look at the story and ask whether Elisha should have cursed the boys in the name of the Lord we often miss the opportunity to check on our own attitudes and actions.  We know that 42 boys were mauled, but we don’t know how many there were.

    Now be honest!  How would you react to more than 40 young people coming toward you and taunting you?  Would you be angry?  Would you “curse them in the name of the Lord?”

    The fact is that for many of us, it’s likely that the only thing lacking for us to play Elisha’s role is, well, the power.  We do the cursing, but we’re fortunate that God doesn’t send two she bears each time we do.

    If you don’t believe me, wait for the next time someone cuts you off on the interstate …

    There’s another factor to remember here.  In the ancient world, words were thought to have power.  Cursing someone was a form of assault.  This attitude probably lies behind another difficult Bible passage, Exodus 21:17 that says that someone who curses father or mother should die.

    Applied today, that would be quite a population control measure!

    But think of this from Elisha’s point of view.  He’s the successor to a prophet who has stirred up many enemies.  He needs to establish himself.  He has work to do, and he also believes that curses might have power.  At the least they must be challenged.

    What would you do?

    There’s something else that entering the story will help you to do.  It will help you get out of the bad guy / good guy mode of thinking.  The problem is that Elijah looks quite a lot like a “real guy” in this story.  For the circumstances his reaction seems normal.

    The Bible presents few flawless heroes.  Even the greatest in Hebrew scripture, Moses, has his flaws.  When he strikes the rock after he’s told to speak to it, he disobeys God, but notice that God responds miraculously even to a disobedient Moses (Numbers 20:10-13).

    There is a time to look at heroes as heroes and see them in shining armor, so to speak.  There are other times when it is important to see heroes as human beings with flaws.   In Exodus 2:14, for example, we are told that Moses was afraid when he realized the king knew of his actions in killing an Egyptian.  In Hebrews 11:27 we are told that he left Egypt, “not fearing the wrath of the King.”  What’s the difference?  It’s simply two perspectives on a hero.

    So then we have the final stage …

    Grow from the Story

    If you have heard what the story actually says, and have entered into the story without judging the people, then you will be prepared to grow from what the characters can teach you.  You may have wondered about my suggestion that you don’t judge the characters.  There comes a time for judgment.  Once you understand, once you recognize your own similar weaknesses as well as your strengths, it is time to do some judgment.

    You judge what you should do and how you should live.

    There are many things I hear in this story.

    1. It is important for God’s messengers to get respect.
    2. Words really do matter.  I may not lean toward the same view as the ancients, but we may well be taking words too lightly in the modern world.
    3. It’s easy to react in anger when my authority or safety is threatened.
    4. Actions can have consequences beyond what I intend.  Elisha didn’t say, “I want two she bears to rip up 42 of these boys. ”  He just cursed them. Then came the she bears.  Is it possible that Elisha was surprised?

    Elisha was a real guy.  He had real weaknesses and real strengths.  He acted as he saw best.

    You may be wondering how I could skip the big question:  What about God?  Why would God take the action that he did?

    But you see, I think the answer lies in the same place.  God works through real people, real guys and real gals.  In order to do that, God often works more our way than his.

    What would the results have been if Elisha cursed and nothing happened?

    I can ask the same thing about my life and God.  How many of my messes does God have to clean up?

    God could, of course, choose to work through less real people.  It would be much less messy than it is.  But he hasn’t chosen to do it that way.  He’s chosen to work with us flaws and all.

    Conclusion

    You may be thinking that this method leaves a lot of room for error.  I certainly do!  But that is another aspect of the way God works, giving us the opportunity to think and learn and gain experience, rather than bringing us under tight control so our errors don’t mess up the works.

    There is one little test I’d like to suggest to help us stay on track.  I call it the hanging test.  In Matthew 22:34-40 Jesus gives the two laws of love.  Love God with all your heart.  Love your neighbor as yourself.  He says the entire law and the prophets hang on these two.

    And while I quote these from Jesus, he quotes them from the Hebrew scriptures.  I suggest that the lesson you take from these stories will show the most growth if it hangs nicely on the two hooks Jesus provided.

    Real people, real stories, real God.

    Will I really learn?


    That would be about 15 minutes if I resisted the temptation to expand, which I rarely do.  But still, I should get them out in less than 20 minutes.  Lots of questions are left, but I think that’s a good feature in a homily.