Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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.

  • Hello world!

    This is not a blog!

    Remarkable, isn’t it then, that I post something here and invite discussion.  I am planning to use the WordPress software as a content management system, and the blog posts section to make a few rare announcements.

    In the meantime, this post will provide an open discussion area for response about When People Speak for God, in case a comment doesn’t fit on any specific page.

  • Biblical Studies Carnival #43 Posted

    … or prophesied, as the case may be, at kata ta biblia.

  • Christian Carnival CCLXXXIII Posted

    … at The Limitless.  Check it out!

  • Abundance of English Translations but …

    … others not so much.

    On his blog today, Eddie Arthur laments the lack of comment in the blogosphere about the need for Bible translation for language groups that do not have any portion of scripture translated. While many of us discuss with some vigor the merits of various approaches to translation and of renderings of specific verses, some people have no translation at all.

    Since I am certainly guilty of extensive work comparing one English translation to another, I feel a bit like I’m in the bullseye of Eddie’s rant, as he calls it. So first let me tell you why I talk a lot about English Bibles, and why I will probably continue to do so, despite the fact that I think Eddie is mostly right. Then I’ll make a suggestion to help adjust our priorities a bit.

    In spite of the number of Bibles that we have in the English speaking world, knowledge of the Bible amongst the general population and even church membership seems to be diminishing. I’m not going to spend time backing that up right now; numerous studies and my own personal experience suggest it. If you disagree, I’d be interested in hearing from you.

    My personal mission is not the production of Bible translations. I believe I’m called to get Christians more and more involved in Bible study. The abundance of Bible translations is one area in which our blessing can also be a curse. We have so much material, so many options, yet we don’t actually make use of what we have.

    For many people, the many Bible versions is an impediment rather than a help. They wonder how to choose a translation, and whether they can trust the text of the one they choose. I have often told classes that they can go to a Christian book store, enter the Bible section, and select a Bible blindfolded, and it will be usable.

    Now I don’t prefer that they do that. Given the number of English Bibles available, I prefer that they find a Bible translation that makes it most likely that they will read and understand. This is one reason I’m turned off by detailed theological criticism of various translations. I like the CEV, for example, yet in reading it for my own use, I’ve found plenty of places where I think the translation is less than the best. But there are two things to note here—this is my personal opinion. It doesn’t mean that the translators were wrong; it simply means I disagree with them. But even more importantly, I’m generally arguing minor points of theology that can be settled effectively by reading in context, while there are millions of Christians who would be uncertain how to find that particular book of the Bible, were they called upon to do so in a Bible study.

    Given this, I’m going to continue to try to provide information that helps people choose a Bible that works for them. I’ve found that to be helpful in getting people to go deeper into Bible study.

    But that plays right back into Eddie’s point. While I feel my mission is to my fellow mainline Christians here in America, his mission is translating the Bible into these other languages. While the American reader has a problem because he sees so many Bibles and doesn’t know which one to follow, there are millions of people who will have to use a Bible in some other language if they want one at all.

    I think that if even a small portion of the money used to produce new Bible translations in English were instead donated to groups working in other languages, it would be a tremendous blessing both to those who give and to those who receive.

    I’ve noticed that one of the best ways to get American Christians involved in Bible study and in various spiritual disciplines is to get them involved in service to folks who are less well off, whether those people are overseas or just down the street. So I’m going to combine this with Eddie’s suggestion that we add a note about those with no translation at all to our comparison’s of English translations.

    How about this? Whether we like it or not, economics is a powerful motivator. When you go out to buy that new English Bible, try donating an amount equal to what you paid for it to an organization like Wycliffe Bible Translators. The extra expense might make you value your new purchase even more!

  • Who Does the Calling (9B, 2 Sam. 5:1-5

    This is a seemingly simple story.  The elders of Israel finally recognize David as king after a long time of rebellion and civil war.  All come together and make a covenant with David and he becomes their king.

    But if you think back in the story, you may recall that in 1 Samuel 16, the prophet Samuel is sent to anoint David as the new king over Israel.  A long time passed while David lived under Saul’s authority, waiting for the time to come when he would become king.

    I’d like to emphasize two lessons in this:

    1. Whatever we may think, it is God who chooses the person to be anointed.  When the elders come together, they are merely acknowledging what God has already ordained.  They even admit that David has been leading for some time.
    2. Even when one is certain of what God is doing, as David was, there may be a long time of waiting.  We need to not only accept the word that God has given; we need to wait for God’s timing in carrying it out.

    David makes so many mistakes in his life, and sometimes we focus on them.  But in so many things he provides an excellent example of being a follower of God.