Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • A Science Comedian

    … no, really!

  • Christian Carnival CCLXXXVI Posted

    … Thoughts and Confessions of a Girl Who Loves Jesus.  Enjoy!

  • A Query for my Scientifically Oriented Friends

    In an article on MSNBC’s Cosmic Log, titled How Politeness Evolved, I find the following quote:

    “It is far from obvious how turn-taking evolved without language or insight in animals shaped by natural selection to pursue their individual self-interests,” University of Leicester psychologist Andrew Colman said last week in a news release about the research.

    Now that quote just seems wrong to me. My reading suggests that “pursu[ing] their individual self-interests” would be a dangerously incorrect statement of the process of evolution. In species with sexual reproduction, it seems to me, at the minimum, there is a social aspect to reproductive success.

    The rest of the article, in fact, seems to contradict this one statement, as it suggests that social behaviors can evolve. I’m guessing that at a minimum, “self-interest” is seen in too short term a light.

    Any comments, links, or pointers?

  • Somewhat of a Calvinist?

    Having located a Peter Kirk approved quiz, Testing Your C-Factor, I decided I really must take it. The results?

    I’m “somewhat of a Calvinist.” Really? I do like the part about being “slightly hedonistic.”

    Test your C-Factor: 53%
    You are somewhat of a Calvinist.

    Some of your points of view make you look like a Calvinist. However, you live your life in a lighter way than Calvinists do, which allows you to enjoy it more.

    ID Category Score Comment
    52 Work 71% You sure have a Calvinistic working ethos. You never work hard enough; work for you is your bounden duty. You are the type of employee any company desires, but the balance between your work and private life may get disturbed.
    55 Strictness 20% You know how to enjoy life. You don't always spend your time in a useful way. Mind the balance!
    57 Sobriety 50% You were not born to be a Calvinist. Catholicism suits you better – slightly hedonistic, loose and emotional.
    56 Relationships 33% In your relationships you are not very reserved. One might say: uncalvinistic. You let yourself go too easily to be a Calvinist.
    53 Beliefs 40% You are an unconcerned believer, who doesn't worry too much.

    It seems to me, however, that often Calvinists would object to the way in which they are described in this quiz. Further, while including “digital” (perhaps better “binary”) thinking as a trait of Calvinists, the quiz authors write a binary quiz. But that is the nature of quizzes such as this. They are either so complex that nobody wants to complete them, or so simplistic that the results are of little value.

    In my opinion, of course …

  • Do We Live What We Believe

    When one edits a book, one has an extraordinary opportunity to think multiple times about some of the statements. In the case of a revolutionary book such as The Jesus Paradigm, which is in the final stages before release, there are quite a number of such sentences.

    One of these impressed me enough that I quoted it on Twitter, and also used it in an ad for another book on discipleship. It reads:

    The key to church renewal is very simple: every follower of Jesus is to live what is believed.

    Now on the face of it, it’s a fairly straightforward statement. I have very often said myself that the one tool of evangelism I would prefer above all others is a church congregation living the message of Jesus. Now please don’t bother with comments about legalism and about how we are not perfect. Certainly none of us are perfect. I’m not even close to a candidate for that adjective.

    But “I’m not perfect” quickly becomes an excuse for any level of inaction. Jesus does give commands, such as “love one another as I have loved you” (John 15:12). One suspects that Jesus anticipated some sort of response to this command.

    So I think this little sentence expresses a critical principle of renewal in the church.

    But then I started thinking of it the other way around. This reminded me of a conversation I had with a friend who is an atheist. Somehow the misbehavior of a televangelist came up in conversation and after we discussed a particular incident, she said, “You know, Henry, if I believed in God I would be terrified to do something like that.”

    I carried that sentence in my head, and even used it in a sermon that I titled “Practical Atheism.” (It was on a Sunday night, and was one of the best attended services, if I remember correctly! Perhaps many Christians would like to know how to be atheists.) I told this story and then quoted Psalm 14:1 “The fool says in his heart: ‘There is no God.’” I suggested that in the modern world, an atheist observing our church services–and our reactions to them–might not be a fool to say “There is no God.” He might simply be observant.

    This keeps coming back to me as I study through Leviticus again. It isn’t a popular book, to a great extent because very few people understand it. It takes lots of work to understand, and even then there is much that is very difficult.

    But there are a few themes that are very clear. First, approaching the holy is both desirable, even essential. Second, approaching the holy is dangerous. Third, God’s presence is powerful and active. Things change when God gets involved. I’m not going to develop or support these themes; I’ll leave that for another time. Suffice it to say that they seem quite clear to me.

    These days, however, I hear frequently about the presence of God. “Wow! God was really present in our worship service this morning. I could feel it!” Now don’t take me as deriding the idea that one can feel the presence of God, though I prefer to say that God is present everywhere and everywhen, and we should discuss how aware we are of his presence.

    What I do question is how God can be especially present at so many worship services with so little impact. People go back again and again to experience the presence of God and then leave and go on living in the same way.

    Either we are not experiencing the presence of God as much as we say we are, or that presence is having much less impact on us than it should.

    I’m afraid it may come back to belief. We need to practice what we believe. That’s true. But is there another dirty secret in many of our churches–that we don’t actually believe the stuff we claim. I’m not talking here about doctrinal statements or theological propositions. I’m talking about belief that there is a God and that he does have expectations, that he might get involved in our lives in some way.

    Perhaps if we become certain that this is important we can get on with discussing those particular beliefs more effectively. I don’t know, but I’d like to try.

    So let me ask one question, of myself as well as of my readers:

    Do we really believe what we say we believe?

    I think that if we do, we’re going to live it, or to express it better, let Jesus live it through us.

  • Response to Sarah Palin Post

    Elgin Hushbeck has written a response to my post Not Hating Sarah Palin, but with no trackback, I’m assuming some people may miss his response. While he didn’t change my mind, he deserves a response, but I don’t know how soon I’ll get back to the topic so as to write one. In the meantime, my readers should be aware of his response.

  • A Bowdlerized Lectionary Passage

    There are a number of lectionary selections that skip part of a passage. Sometimes this is for time. Sometimes it relates to topic, but sometimes it is simply used to remove material that might offend.

    I like lectionary preaching and teaching. I think it forces pastors to get out of their comfort zones and expound on passages they might otherwise not read. I don’t think it’s the only way to go. I think preaching through the Bible has a place, as does topical preaching. But topical preaching is especially subject to the limitations of a pastor’s particular interests.

    Further, I like a worship service that includes all four passages of the lectionary. As Christians we have remarkably little patience for hearing the scripture. I sometimes get the feeling that people prefer the sermon because it has less Bible in it. I have encountered very few services that do include all the passages, but I have truly been blessed by those that do.

    But having said all of that, the Revised Common Lectionary can get no my nerves, and this week was a case in point. The Old Testament passage is from 2 Samuel 6. The story, as told in 2 Samuel, brings out many aspects of worship as seen then in Israel.

    We start with the ark of the covenant in exile, away from the center of Israelite life. David wants to bring the ark to Jerusalem, so he proceeds to do so joyfully. But joy is turned to sorrow when Uzzah tries to steady the ark and is struck dead.

    Now I know that’s a difficult passage in the Old Testament, but you might as well not try to understand the Old Testament/Hebrew Scriptures at all if you don’t want to recognize that the writers viewed contact with the holy as a very dangerous thing. (This is one of the difficult passages that my friend Alden Thompson discusses in his book Who’s Afraid of the Old Testament God?.

    After the ark is kept in a home for a time, David again comes to move it to Jerusalem with better preparation. The story ends with David dancing before the Lord, and his wife Michal despises him for it.

    Besides the inherent danger of approaching that which is holy, this story also illustrates the combination of fear and joy. We want to separate the fear of the Lord from the joy of the Lord these days. We don’t understand how these things can co-exist. But the Bible writers had no such problem.

    Now what about the lectionary passage? Proper 10B gives us 2 Samuel 6:1-5, 12b-19. This splits the story as all the people are making merry and before Uzzah touches the ark in 6:6, then resumes it when David starts taking the ark on from the house of Obed-Edom. It skips 6:12a which tells us how David is motivated to do so when he sees that Obed-Edom is blessed while the ark is present.

    We now continue the joyful procession, with our scripture reading skipping a funeral and three months of time, heading on into Jerusalem. Presumably, the congregation is not supposed to ask just why the ark is in Obed-Edom’s house.

    Finally, the story ends with verse 19 as everyone goes home happy, and skips Michal’s story, which provides the other counterpoint. Worship can be destroyed by disobedience to God, but it can also be destroyed by those who despise the joy.

    You may tell me that people can read these additional passages for themselves, and that the extra reading will not contribute to the service. I don’t think one can be certain of these things. For many church people these days, the scripture reading is pretty much all the scripture they get.

    In this case, I think the story is made to say something completely different than it does in its full context. It’s like a different story all together.

  • Not Hating Sarah Palin

    Mary Fairchild has a post today titled Sarah Palin: Why Some Love Her and Others Hate Her.

    Along with some other discussion, she writes:

    …Personally, I think it might have something to do with her allegiance to another kingdom, her ‘higher calling.’ As a follower of Jesus Christ, could it be that Sarah Palin knows her mission? If she recognizes her membership in God’s heavenly kingdom, that charge would come before any duties of this earthly realm. If she is committed to the call of God on her life, a sense of divine purpose would give her boldness and uncompromising courage to do the Lord’s will, no matter what this world expects—just like John the Baptist.

    Now let me be clear. I think a complete commitment to Jesus Christ, in fact, even a complete commitment to being an ethical person, will bring one into conflict with the culture. One may be despised or hated for doing what is right.

    Further, the gospel does offend our selfish human nature. It offends our sense of fairness. Grace, after all, is not fair. It’s wonderful to receive, but doesn’t follow our rules concerning what one deserves.

    But it is dangerous to reverse those propositions. Just because a follower of Jesus Christ will offend doesn’t mean that everyone who offends is a follower of Jesus Christ. Nor does it mean that when a follower of Jesus Christ does offend, it is the gospel, or their discipleship that is offending.

    I have seen this repeatedly in evangelism. I hear it regularly from people who report on evangelism. Someone talks about Jesus and then reports that people were offended. Yet very often, if one listens to the details, there are many things that are offensive that are not part of the gospel. It might be pride, a desire to be acknowledged as “right,” an unwillingness to listen, or hurtful remarks. We must be careful to make sure that if anything in our lives and work offends, it is the gospel that is doing the offending, and not our own offensiveness.

    But all of this might not be relevant to the discussion of Sarah Palin. Is her commitment to Jesus Christ what distinguishes her from all other politicians? Is she the “greater” disciple who draws more hate?

    I do not want to judge her discipleship, but I certainly see many other politicians who also make the claim that they are followers of Jesus. There are other Republicans who share her political philosophy and profess to be disciples, yet they do not draw the same reaction. There are others all across the spectrum who make the same claim and again, they do not draw the same reaction.

    There are many things on which I would disagree with Sarah Palin. I don’t find her or her political philosophy all that attractive. At the same time, I was amazed at the strength of the antagonism that she drummed up. So while I don’t think it is her discipleship that is her distinguishing problem, I do think there is a phenomenon here that needs some explanation.

    I’m going to suggest the word “frustration.” There are several other factors that contribute to the result, but I think the thing that brings people’s blood to a boil about Palin is that it is so hard to explain her attraction to someone who doesn’t agree or see it.

    This frustration would be fairly ordinary, but there are some factors that feed into it. First, the media gets fascinated by fascinating figures. Palin was a surprise nomination, and there was some bungling in how she was handled. That’s like blood in the water to the media sharks. So, second, they attack.

    The attacks fuel responses and help set these feelings in concrete. If the left had really wanted to see Palin diminish as an issue, they should have stayed away from exaggerated attacks and rumors. But the right should have done the same thing with Barack Obama. Despite huge differences in personalities, stories, and political views, I think very similar frustration has fueled hysterical anti-Obama rhetoric on the right. Those on the right simply could not and cannot understand Obama’s personal popularity.

    But frustration alone doesn’t explain it. The frustration and fascination fueled frenzy has turned Sarah Palin into a symbol. She is now, like it or not, something beyond herself. To argue details of her intelligence or character will generally miss the point. She is a symbol of the Republican right, and the right and the left along with the media share the credit–and the blame–for putting her in that position.

    If I might illustrate with the story of Joe the Plumber, who is really a rather ordinary man. He asked a fortuitous question and was rocketed to fame–as a symbol. Again, those who want to argue that Joe the Plumber is not all that bright (or that he is), or who looked for deficiencies in his tax returns and licensing during the campaign completely missed the point.

    Knowing that his business isn’t going to make a particular amount of money or that he didn’t have a plumbing license was again quite irrelevant and only served to harden and brighten the symbol. Liberals could laugh about “Name the profession“, but there were thousands of people who identified with the symbol.

    Those who don’t get the symbol, whether it’s Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, or Joe the Plumber will find the whole situation frustrating, because they see any character or policy flaws as disqualifying. But they do so because they don’t identify with that particular symbol.

    I don’t think we can explain hatred of Sarah Palin based on any single characteristic. I think it is dangerous to suggest that what distinguishes her is her commitment to the gospel. That tends to make the gospel an inextricable part of her political philosophy.

    Like it or not, Sarah Palin has become a symbol. Whether or not she can use that fact to carry her to national office remains to be seen. But people should not make the assumption that she can’t.

    Symbols are dangerous things, often much more powerful than he realities on whom they rest.

  • N. T. Wright on Women in Ministry

    It’s no surprise that I like this, considering it’s N. T. Wright.  I like reading or listening to him even when I disagree.  (HT:  Allan Bevere)

    While I like his comments in general, I’m particularly interested in his approach to deriving his point from scripture.

    He goes first to the story.  What was it that Paul did.  That leads him to Romans 16:7, certainly a controversial story, though I agree with Wright’s take on it.  Then he goes to the overarching story by rooting his idea in the resurrection and the persons who proclaimed it.  Finally, he looks at 1 Timothy 2 and sees it in the context of these two larger stories.

    This process leaves us more subject to theological reflection than would a direct text->doctrine approach, but it helps us resolve the question of what constitutes advice for a particular time and place and what is a broader principle.

  • My Country, Right or Wrong?

    Back in 2007 I wrote a post about patriotism in which I said:

    I’m going to annoy quite a few people with this post, but I have noticed for a number of years that Christians in America often conflate Christianity and American patriotism. …

    I didn’t post on July 4th this year, but I did continue to think about this just a bit. What allegiance do I owe my country?

    I think it is clear that a disciple of Jesus owes his or her allegiance first to the kingdom of heaven, and only second to any earthly power. The question automatically comes up as to whether I am a reliable citizen of my own country if that country does not have my first allegiance.

    Some might think this was an accusation to be used by the anti-religious against Christians. But I think that suggestion is perhaps a bit too hasty.

    Let’s take my father as an example. He was a Seventh-day Adventist and objected to bearing arms in war. As a Canadian during the 2nd World War, he was denied a request to be given a medical role. Since he still refused to bear arms, he was given alternative service, so to speak, planting trees for he war. Many people despised young men such as that, thinking them cowards.

    This is a case here the laws of the land, in this case Canada, conflicted with someone’s understanding of the laws of God, and he chose to obey God rather than men. As such, he was certainly a less reliable citizen of the country–from one point of view–than those who were willing to do whatever their country demanded of them.

    Many were in a similar situation in the United States. In the churches I attend, most people make the assumption that the patriotic–and Christian–thing to do is to serve your country in time of war. To them, it’s just right.

    I served in the U. S. Air Force for 10 years and was honorably discharged. (I became a U. S. Citizen when my parents were naturalized when I was 12 years old.) For many people this is an indication that I am truly a patriot. (Well, some of my Marine friends think that service in the USAF is a substitute for real military service, which can only be performed in the Marines!)

    Now let me note that I am proud of my service to my country. I’m no hero. I just served honorably and moved on. But I am also very proud of my father’s service to his country.

    No, I’m not talking about the service of planting trees, though that is what was required of him. I’m talking about his service of obedience to his conscience.

    I don’t know if patriotism is the right word. It gets used in so many ways. But often love of one’s country is defined in terms solely of obedience. I think the most valuable citizen is one who gives country the value of his or her mind and conscience.

    You see, I don’t think this should just be a Christian issue. The greatest danger to a country, I think, is a citizenry that accepts “my country, right or wrong” as their approach to decision making. That is the road to tyranny.

    I have a hard time imagining the ethical atheist giving first allegiance to country either. If you give first allegiance to your country you abdicate your responsibility to make ethical decisions. Face it, sometimes an ethical decision is going to disagree with what the country orders.

    Let me bring up a more recent example. Supposing you have legal authorization to torture, as some people thought they did under the previous administration. Your superiors order you to do so. The relevant folks support their decision as lawful. What is your duty to your country?

    I think there is no doubt as to what the ethical person should do, on the assumption that you are opposed to torture. You would have to refuse to participate, and I personally would fell obligated to take measures to try to prevent such a policy from continuing. (While I do not find any convincing arguments in favor of permitting the use of torture, that is not my point here.)

    A country that wants ethical citizens should endeavor to make room for such ethical decisions and actions.

    Let me illustrate this from another ethical issue. Quite a number of physicians would consider it immoral to perform abortions. (My father, true to his principles, also rejected abortion absolutely.) Many Catholic physicians have objections to providing birth control services. Some believe that the law should require all doctors to provide all services, in other words, it would be illegal for a physician to decline to provide a service he or she found morally reprehensible.

    I believe such a law would tend on the one hand to create immoral and unethical citizens, while on the other forcing those who are ethical out of those professions.

    The best thing for the country is to make such ethical decisions possible. The best thing for each individual is never to abdicate such decision making to others.

    My country–when right. Otherwise I owe my country my best judgment.