Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Rewarding Incompetence

    There was quite a stir recently over a rant by Rick Santelli of CNBC on the mortgage plan produced by the Obama administration. One of the claims made was that this plan was “rewarding incompetence.”

    Now without regard to context, I wouldn’t have a problem with that. Where I do have a problem is with those who would cheer these words, and yet support bailing out banks and the auto industry. If you support ideas like “saving an industry as a whole,” then it is quite easy to see the mortgage plan as a means of trying to save a particular industry, rather than as a program to save those who may have made bad decisions.

    On the other hand, if one objects to saving people who have made bad decisions, then surely the executives of financial institutions and of our major auto companies qualify. What better measure of failure could one have than that the company led by a particular management team fails spectacularly and requires a government bailout. Yet even the idea of limiting compensation for those responsible meets resistance.

    As general policy, I don’t think limiting compensation is nearly adequate, nor is it good policy for the government to be trying to directly set compensation. But somewhere there is a major failure when companies are crashing, and the executives managing them are not only not fired, they find defenders who think $500,000 per year is too little pay for such failures.

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’ll be happy to run companies into the ground for much less than $500,000 per year.

    And it appears it’s not even a real limit. Ed Brayton today on Dispatches points out that this limitation has considerable loopholes.

    So if we’re rewarding bad decisions when we bail out homeowners, some of whom might have had excellent jobs when they signed their mortgages, but have since lost them, we are even more guilty of rewarding bad decisions in finance and in industry. I would also point out that bankruptcy is one of those risks that a lender takes, as well as a borrower. Lenders who make bad loans end up losing their money when the borrower goes bankrupt. There are two sides when a bad loan is made: A borrower and a lender. If fraud is not a question, it is not just the borrower who made a bad decision.

    I don’t see much consistency in these debates. It seems that the standards change depending on who is getting the money.

    Having said that, I know that I’ve written several notes in which I might not have been fully clear. So let me put it in a few words. I don’t believe in rewarding incompetence, not anybody’s incompetence. In fact, I don’t believe in the government “rewarding” at all. I do believe in economic stimulus, but the portion of stimulus that I support involves government spending more on things that ought to be done anyhow. Unfortunately this has become a minor portion of our spending, especially with all the hidden money going into the banking system.

    What I mean by spending money on things government ought to do anyhow? Essentially if one looked forward at the infrastructure needs of the country over say 25-50 years, and then during an economic downturn borrows and builds several years worth of projects much faster, I would consider that a valid stimulus. If you pay money out for ordinary expenses, then all you have done is paid those expenses. If you build a bridge, you have a bridge. You do, of course, have to make sure it’s not a bridge to nowhere.

    Bridges, roads, communications infrastructure, needed government buildings, military research, and many other things are valid things on which to spend. They are things that must be done sometime, and most of them will produce income into the future. If a project is a bad idea under normal circumstances, it’s a bad idea in terms of stimulus.

    The problem, of course, is to bring the government off of a deficit spending spree and back to something that should be “normal.” Governments like to spend money. It’s the stopping that’s hard.

  • Speaking the Truth is News

    … when the Secretary of State does it. I thought many of these things were so obvious they hardly needed said, but apparently the obvious can be offensive. Perhaps a little truth will help diplomacy. Or not…

  • Starting Leviticus in the Tyndale Cornerstone Biblical Commentary

    I recently received my copy of this good looking volume from Tyndale for review, and I have summarized its features here.  I noted there that this is not a book I will read once and then write a short review.  Rather, I’m going to blog through it, which also means that I will be blogging through Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.  Ambitious, no?

    Well, don’t expect massive detail, but I will bring thoughts as I go through and major points from the commentary so you can understand its value.  I’m still working with very little reading, so I’m going to defer many points until I have read more.  As of today, I completed reading of the introduction to Leviticus.

    As expected, the author, David W. Baker, takes a conservative stand on authorship and dating of the book, arguing for a “life-setting back in the period of the wilderness wanderings” (p. 5).  I won’t be making a major issue of my disagreements on issues such as this.  My only concern is that the position of the commentator is made clear and that he engages other positions as well.  Considering the length of the introduction and the size of this commentary, he is doing both quite well.

    As one who thinks Christians neglect the book of Leviticus I was happy to see that Baker is making an all-out assault on this neglect of an important portion of the Bible.  Along with the typical arguments of history and theology, that this is part, even a core part, of Israel, and that we have grown from Israel, and that it is also of great historical interest, he suggests “religious reasons” and particularly that one might see it as a “handbook for worship” (p. 4).  I am eager to see how he will portray that particular perspective through the book.

    I’ve been a bit irritated ever since I finished my reading of Jacob Milgrom‘s commentary, because I have so many notes that I would like to use in teaching but very few of them are accessible without a serious effort in terms of teaching background and history, for which I rarely have time.  Many believe the hardest part of Biblical studies is digging out details.  In my view, the hardest part is developing an understanding to the point at which one can express it clearly and comprehensibly.  After reading the his introduction, I am looking to Baker for help in that task.

    I’d conclude this interaction with the introduction with the following quote:

    …Whether we like it or not–and the lack of preaching and teaching from Leviticus today seems to indicate that we don’t–this book is also in our canon.  Leviticus is God’s Word to us in some way just as much as the Gospels.  We also are an audience who must seek to determine the book’s relevance to the church in our own times.

    Very much my own feelings.  I am hopeful that Baker can help make it more of a reality.

  • But Did It Help?

    Read:  Mark 9:2-9

    Reading the gospel lesson for today–and I’m writing this on Sunday morning before going to teach Sunday School–I was struck by the parallel to a question I commonly get from Bible study classes.  “Why can’t God just make it clearer, unmistakable?  Why all this variety and human stuff?”

    I can imagine the disciples thinking along the same lines.  Jesus keeps performing miracles, running around healing people, and proclaiming the kingdom, yet he never seems to do anything that would have to do with a coming kingdom.  Why couldn’t he just be clear?

    Then Jesus takes Peter, James, and John and does something spectacular.  Now for some reason many in my classes seem to relate “spectacular” and “miraculous” with “clear.”  But Peter, James, and John don’t really get the purpose of the transfiguration either.  They think it’s spectacular, they like it, they’d like to stay where it happened, but they don’t really understand any more about Jesus than they did before.

    But did it help?

    That is an excellent question.  You see, I believe that Jesus was being quite clear.  It’s just that “clear in general” is not always the same thing as “clear to me.”

    Frequently when my wife and I are in conversation, I’ll change tracks to another subject without warning.  Suddenly I say something.  It’s clear to me what I mean.  In fact, there’s probably something in the last sentence that suggested it to me.  But she has no idea what I’m talking about, because she’s on another program.

    For conversations with my wife I’ve learned a simple solution, even though I still forget:  Tell her I’m changing the subject!  But Jesus can’t change the subject.  His disciples have one set of things in mind, and they are interpreting what he says and does in the light of their own agenda.  It will take the shock of the crucifixion and finally of the resurrection to get them off of their own agenda and onto God’s.

    But did it help?  Well, yes.  But only later.  God’s spectacular act on the mount of transfiguration didn’t immediately communicate to the disciples what they needed to know, but it provided a building block that came together with others to build a new structure born in the fire of adversity at the end of Jesus’ mission.

    And isn’t that really our complaint about God’s communication?  He doesn’t give us enough information to keep us from getting in trouble sometimes, or so we think.  But God knows that we’re not really going to learn it until we get into trouble.

  • Ten Beliefs of (some) Progressive Christians

    John Shuck (Shuck and Jive) found this list here, and as I’m teaching a Sunday School class this morning precisely on who will be saved and how, I find it rather interesting.

    I would suggest that a group has to have something substantial that is both distinctive and held in common to be cohesive and effective. At the same time, one need not try to force everyone else into one’s own category; “outside the group” doesn’t have to mean “consigned to hell.”

    I have to confess that while I find this list intriguing, if it constituted my full list of beliefs, I would probably not bother to call myself a Christian. I might reference Jesus amongst many others, but there would be no particular and direct connection, and thus I would wonder why “Christian,” indicating a more direct connection with Jesus, rather than a connection with any other religious teacher.

    I have written about this before in posts on Unity, Diversity, and Confusion, and Exclusion, Inclusion, and Vague Boundaries.

    The first reason I have a problem with the list would be precisely that vagueness. This list is possibly a good list to define something, but it doesn’t define a Christian or a follower of Jesus to me. Don’t misinterpret this as a desire to poor contempt on Rev. John Schuck, nor to deny him the label “Christian.” That is not my business. I accept his description, accepted by his congregation and denomination.

    But my second reason for having a problem with the list is more personal, and that is the fact that despite being called liberal by many, I am much more of a true believer. I believe I have encountered the living Jesus. If the disciples were deluded, then so am I. The call of Jesus that I heard was not to a particular social agenda, but rather to trust and obedience, founded on a realization that I couldn’t manage it myself. I do believe that a social agenda does result from that call, but it is a fruit of it. It is not the call itself.

    So for me, at least, intriguing as it is, this list is far from adequate. My list starts with “… and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.”

  • Dan Wallace Reposts on Post Cartoon

    You can find his further thoughts again at Reclaiming the Mind. If you read the first one, you should read this one as well.

  • Cornerstone Biblical Commentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy: A First Look

    This is a first look, before I have read or used the book extensively.  I have simply looked through it, read the preface and some introductions, and laid out a plan for reading and study using the volume.  I intend to “blog through” rather than simply read and review this volume.  See the end of the post for how I will proceed.

    Those who know me will be completely unsurprised that, when I was given the opportunity to review a volume in this commentary series, I chose this one.  There are two interlocking reasons:  1)  I love studying the Torah from every perspective I can manage, and 2) I believe Christians who neglect this part of the Bible also miss some of the depth of their own theology and tradition.

    Yet few Christians are really interested in Torah, and it is difficult to get them to study it.  So while I have studied from much more complex commentaries on the topic, such as Jacob Milgrom’s three volume commentary on Leviticus (here is my review), I can’t pass those on to Sunday School classes or to pastors I’m encouraging to get started in preaching or teaching from these books.

    Thus I am very much attracted to the basic idea of this commentary series, starting with its use of the NLT second edition text, which is an excellent foundation on which to build a commentary for everyone.  Too frequently commentary translations are done in a technical fashion, designed to illustrate the commentator’s points.  This is not a bad thing for a scholarly audience, or even for those past the first stages of study.  Indeed it is necessary.  But it doesn’t help much with that first study.

    I’m encouraged by the ambitious goal set forth in the General Editor’s preface:  “… the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary aims at helping teachers, pastors, students, and laypeople understand every thought contained in the Bible.”  Yes, it’s ambitious, but it is aimed at the right group of people.  If one doesn’t keep one’s eye on the goal, then one will never get anywhere.

    So how is this volume laid out?

    First, it includes the full scriptural text from the NLT second edition.  That’s a highlight.  I’ve already read that part, though not from this volume.  It is a good translation to use in accomplishing the goals of the commentary.

    Second, it includes notes on textual, translational, and interpretational details.  For example, looking at notes from Leviticus 4:1-5:13, I see explanations of the Hebrew word behind the English translation “commands” along with references.  We’re provided with word numbers in both the Tyndale and the Zondervan numbering system (Kudos to Tyndale for including the latter), along with references to selected works.  There’s a discussion of the phrase “ceremonially clean” and “an offering for their sin” amongst many others.  In scanning through the volume I also saw notes on various textual issues, but written in minimally technical language.

    Finally, there is commentary on the passage as a whole, dealing more with themes, theology, and application.  In the case of Leviticus 4:1-5:13, there is about a page of notes followed by nearly five pages of commentary.  The scriptural text itself occupies very nearly two pages.  This will give you an idea of how space is proportioned.  (The introduction and outline of the book is 10 pages.)

    Overall, the book is 679 pages + 14 pages of front matter.  The main section uses 214 pages for Leviticus, 229 for Numbers, and 236 for Deuteronomy.

    So let’s compare bulk as a sort of “intimidation factor.”  The NLT Study Bible uses 65 pages for the book of Numbers.  The New International Commentary on the Old Testament volume on Numbers uses 667.  I don’t have a good intermediate number on Leviticus, but I would note that Migrom’s commentary is over 2700 pages.  I would say this commentary is well-placed then to draw people beyond the study Bible stage and on to the more serious study.

    As for perspective, the authors (David W. Baker, Dale A. Brueggemann, and Eugene H. Merrill) and editors are all unsurprisingly evangelical, and fairly conservative at that.  I don’t intend to criticize the commentary for its stated perspective.  I will note just how much each author interacts with opposing viewpoints.  In a commentary such as this, there is a balance.  Too much discussion of every idea out there means that one can’t get to the basic work necessary; too little tends to limit the usefulness of the work to broader audiences.

    As I mentioned in the initial note, it is not my intent to read through this book and then publish a review.  Rather, after publishing these initial notes, I am going to use it as my secondary devotional study, after my time spent on the week’s lectionary passages, and then blog about the experience, finally wrapping everything up when I have read the entire volume.  While I will, as always, be studying and comparing with many sources, my primary question in this case will be just how valuable and accessible the material is to someone preparing a Sunday School lesson or a sermon for their congregation that would draw from this material.

    In terms of overall theme, I’ll be asking myself how well the volume will link the theological themes to Christian theology and tradition, and of course ultimately to Christian living.  Then I will rate the book as to how well it accomplished the stated goal I quoted above, with due consideration for how ambitious a goal it is.

    You will be able to follow my study on my Participatory Bible Study blog.  There will be a final wrap-up post here.

  • The Osteens New Bible

    This headline caught my attention: Osteens offer hope for today with new Bible. Obviously the headline doesn’t mean what one could construe it to mean; it’s a study Bible, not a rewritten Bible, but the headline still struck me as funny. I do have problems with single themed study Bibles, but that’s another post.

  • The Extras in your Bible Edition

    David Ker is concerned about section titles in your Bible.  And well he should be.

    I frequently talk about avoiding reading the “lower half” of your Bible when you study.  What I mean by the “lower half” is the study notes that so many editions put at the bottom of the page.  Now this is something that applies particularly to study Bibles, and it’s not subtle–you can easily tell whether you’re reading the Biblical text or the notes.  One of my pet peeves is people reading a note from their Bible when I ask for their thoughts on a text.

    But what David is talking about is much more subtle, and it’s easy to miss.  The fact is that the chapter, paragraph, and verse divisions in your Bible were not created by the original authors, but are part of the translation process.   If you take a text that was not divided into paragraphs and divide it, you will do so based on your understanding of the text.  If you add titles, those will be based on your perception of the way the text should be understood.

    Go check out David’s post for a good example of how the meaning might be adjusted in this way.  Then when you study your Bible, give consideration to the possibility that the main point isn’t what the title suggests, or that the text might flow through that paragraph division.

  • The Shocking Nature of Grace?

    Grace is shocking, if you think about it, because by definition someone gets something unearned.

    But in Calvinism, it seems, grace becomes even more shocking. Adrian Warnock posts a quote from Jonathan Edwards that expresses predestination quite well. You are saved by grace, someone else isn’t. Edwards notes that “although all things are exactly equal in both cases” one person has success which is denied to another.

    Edwards’ statement is fairly straightforward as a statement of predestination. But Adrian’s comment is what caught my attention. He says:

    …If this notion does not make you grateful to God that YOU should be so blessed by him, I don’t know what will.

    Now this is what gets me. What’s shocking to me is the level of narcissism that I see in that statement. I’m headed for heaven, and I’m terribly grateful to God, and it doesn’t bother me at all that many other people have been equally arbitrarily consigned to hell. Because, of course, that is what being “denied success” means in this case.

    I recall having this discussion with a Hebrew student who simply told me that it bothered him as well, but he believed it was the truth. Whether he liked it or not was immaterial. And indeed whether I like something or not is quite immaterial. I could easily understand that student’s view.

    What I don’t understand is the frequently heard expressions of great joy. It is almost as though one is living under a tyrant, and arbitrarily the secret police will arrest some, but not others. The ones who haven’t been arrested can express great thankfulness for the fact that they are allowed to live, due to no actions of their own. But somewhere out there others are suffering, also through no fault of their own.

    Under either set of circumstances, I hope I would not be indifferent. I hope that the joy of my escape would be tempered by my knowledge of those who did not. If I believed that God was arbitrarily sending me to heaven, but at the same time was going to arbitrarily send others to hell, I believe I would find it would drive me insane, and I would find it impossible to love such a God or to regard such a God as loving.

    I have found over the years that Calvinists don’t fit my stereotypes of them. Just as they do not sit down and neglect Christ-like living because they have already been predestined, nor do they neglect evangelism because God has already made his choice, so they are not, in fact narcissists, whatever may seem to be implied by their doctrine.

    Nonetheless I cannot fit this doctrine with any notion of a loving God. And yes, I do mean using a scriptural definition of love. It is, in fact, the description of a tyrant, and not even a benevolent despot.

    I guess it’s a good thing I also see little scriptural or logical reason to believe it!