Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Government Oversight in Action

    The only thing worse than lack of oversight may be oversight. Citigroup is supposed to refuse delivery of a plane they ordered in 2005. I’d love to know the bottom line, but paying a penalty for breaking a contract doesn’t sound like a good use of the money either. Oh, it was a French company. Well, that’s OK then …

  • A Note from my Wife

    … discussing the John Webb Winter Golf Tournament, which is what consumes our family at this time of year. Take a look. It’s a good cause.

  • Free Speech and Savings Possible

    … at one blow. Eliminate these. I have never been able to understand how controls on the money people use in order to speak could be considered consistent with free speech. In fact, it’s a way to control speech.

    So we could eliminate regulations, reduce the federal budget, make it easier to get into campaigning by getting rid of complicated language, and eliminate the headaches of people who have to figure out a “good” limit on contributions when there is no such thing.

    Oh, and by the way, I considered Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire one of my most useful RSS feeds.

  • Bad Reasons for Getting Out of a War

    I’m an opponent of the Iraq war, but I oppose it on strategic grounds. Even now, I believe that we have gained very little, and are in fact worse off than when we started. After a period of time we will find that Iraq has become another haven for terrorists, perhaps not as bad as Afghanistan was, but definitely not safe and friendly. We can blame that on the idea that we can create a government in such a state that is both democratic and reliably friendly, and do so by force from the outside.

    For some odd reason, foreigners killing local folks, however they may express their justification, just don’t become popular with the same local folks. Sometimes you have to do it, but don’t expect it to make you popular. So if you are carrying out a war in order to become popular, for some reason you’re likely to fail.

    Stupid, conflicting aims – lousy results. We similarly harmed our own interests when we pushed for early elections for the Palestinians, and then were shocked by the results. (Ex-President Bush take note: People do freely choose terrorists as their rulers.)

    But then there are bad reasons for getting out of a war, for example:

    • The people will start to love us if we go home after the invasion.
    • Force is really unnecessary if we just talk enough.
    • We’re really tired of fighting the war.
    • This is harder than we thought when we started.

    Thus I view with some alarm this report that only 1/3 of Americans support sending more troops to Afghanistan. In this case the point is not popularity, though we may be able to aid the current government. The point is hunting terrorists, in a place where actual terrorists live. As long as that is a viable option, we need to be willing to use the necessary resources. When it is strategically right, we need to be able to move on.

    Now I must give a hat tip to Dr. Michael Westmoreland-White, who alerted me to this report. In his case I must note that he is consistently opposed the war, in fact, all wars. That is a consistent and moral position, even though I disagree.

    The folks that get on my nerves are the ones who are happy to invade, kill a few thousand people, and then get out because it’s inconvenient. They don’t oppose war; they oppose inconvenience. Theirs is not a moral choice; it’s a position into which they drift for their own comfort.

    Americans have a bad habit of supporting the glory of a quick invasion when we can see the enemy running and dying. It’s the hard job of cleaning up afterward for which we lack the stomach. That’s the worst of all possible combinations; it’s childish and immature. A nation with our kind of firepower can’t afford to be so childish and immature.

  • The Need for my Series on Interpreting the Bible

    … amongst many other things.

    As I’m preparing to move forward in this series, which covers only one small area, I find this post from the generally enlightening Jason Rosenhouse, who lauds simplistic arguments in putting down other simplistic arguments.

    He approvingly quotes Coyne:

    Unfortunately, some theologians with a deistic bent seem to think that they speak for all the faithful. These were the critics who denounced Dawkins and his colleagues for not grappling with every subtle theological argument for the existence of God, for not steeping themselves in the complex history of theology. . . .

    Just so! In the same way as I would accuse someone of finding the least qualified person who calls himself a scientist, say someone with a high school level of scientific knowledge, I object when someone targets their arguments against theism at the level of the church pews.

    Certain people on the non-theistic side of this debate expect theists to drop to the lowest common denominator while not treating scientists in the same way. It’s fine if they wish to argue in that fashion, but they shouldn’t be surprised when those with more than a high school knowledge of theology find their arguments unconvincing.

    The success of Dawkins et. al. is more due to the miserable level of Christian knowledge than to any brilliance on Dawkins part. On theology, he writes like a rank amateur–and I say that as one who deeply admires his scientific writing.

    In the very manner I outlined in my previous post, these folks imagine a set of beliefs, note that this set of beliefs conflicts with evolution, and then announce that evolution cannot be reconciled with Christianity.

    But since that set of imaginary beliefs is hardly even related to my own beliefs, and those of many other Christians, I can hardly be expected to concern myself with reconciling the discrepancies, can I?

    (Let me call attention also to Tony Mitchell’s recent post The Dilemma of Science and Faith.)

  • A Thousand Word Picture

    … or perhaps forbidding a thousand words, at Exploring our Matrix.

  • Using Greek and Hebrew in Preaching

    Bill Mounce has some excellent suggestions.

  • Dr. Reich Stirs up some Hornets

    I’ve been following Dr. Reich’s blog ever since I discovered it during the primary season. He was Labor Secretary during the Clinton administration, and I recall not always agreeing with him at the time, though I don’t recall the details. In any case, from the time when TARP was passed through the auto industry bailout, and now in specific testimony and writing regarding the stimulus package, I have to say that I have found him extremely thoughtful and constructive.

    Thus it’s interesting to note that no less (or greater!) a trio than Michelle Malkin, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh have misconstrued some of his testimony to congress, and of course have begun yelling about it. (Media Matters reports on it, HT to Robert Reich.)

    Of course, there is a group of people, fortunately small I think, who believe that every attempt to be inclusive is automatically an attack on white men. As a white man myself, I repudiate such notions. I believe that each of us is made better as society becomes more inclusive and that the expansion of the economy in size, in creativity, in competition, and in diversity is well worth any temporary displacement.

    Dr. Reich is merely asking that we make sure that the jobs created by the stimulus go to a broad range of people–an admirable goal. In any case, his suggestions are serious enough to merit careful and substantial debate, not a mauling by shallow political entertainers.

    I know, what fantasy land to I [want to] live in?

  • Interpreting the Bible – Mid-Course Focus

    This isn’t a summary of previous posts, but rather an attempt to focus on the issue I’m trying to address with this series before I continue. The problem with a series like this is that the examples begin to take over the topic. Since I have used complementarianism and theistic evolution as examples, and brought inerrancy into the discussion in order to demonstrate that it is not the key issue involved, it is easy for a reader to decide that I’m trying to debate any one of those issues, or perhaps to prefer that I debate them and try to redirect the topic.

    Since the posts to which I responded brought up two more issues, homosexuality and violent passages in the Bible, which are again controversial issues, I want to focus back on the point I’m trying to make: It’s both difficult and inappropriate to tell your opponent what his or her position ought to be. In this case I’m responding to the charge that a Christian who accepts the theory of evolution is less Biblical because the “obvious exegesis” of Genesis favors a young earth creationist position.

    Also, though I believe that theistic evolution is the best position to take at the moment, I am not attempting to demonstrate that. Rather, I’m attempting to show that it, along with a number of other positions on Genesis, can be held plausibly as interpretations of the Biblical text. The particular position one adopts depends on other factors, including the particular approach one takes to Biblical interpretation. After this mid-course focus I’m going to look at other issues and ask whether the exegesis is so obvious that an opponent of some particular brand of theology can easily dismiss it as “not real Christianity.” Within some limits, Christianity allows, and has always allowed, some flexibility.

    The problem often starts with a charge that goes something like this:

    1) The Bible clearly teaches X
    2) X is unthinkable or false
    3) So Christianity must be false

    Now there are numerous and huge gaps in the logic as I have written it, but I think those gaps generally exist in the argument as presented by critics of Christianity. (Note to my philosophically inclined friends: To avoid general implosion with possible damage to the space-time continuum, do not try to critique that as a syllogism. Did I say it was a syllogism? I did not!) Let me apply this to a couple of relevant issues:

    1) The Bible clearly teaches that the earth was created in seven literal days 6,000 years ago
    2) That teaching is false
    3) Christianity must be false

    One obviously missing element here is “Christianity actually teaches X” but that is generally assumed, as is the direct connection between “The Bible clearly teaches X” and “Christianity accepts X as true.”

    For example, one could say that the Bible teaches that an animal must be brought as a sacrifice if one sins, but Christianity does not teach this, for reasons that seem good and proper to pretty much all Christians. Here we have a teaching that is fairly clear, but that Christians believe applied to a particular set of times and places, not including the present. You can try to use this to demonstrate that Christians don’t really follow the Bible, but it’s not going to help as an argument against Christianity because it teaches animal sacrifice. (PETA beware!)

    That would fit more with another form of the argument:

    1) The Bible teaches that God condones and even commands violence
    2) Condoning violence is unthinkable (but where is the demonstration that it is wrong?)
    3) Therefore Christianity is false

    Now supposing this argument is used against a Christian who is a pacifist. Clearly the conclusion is false with reference to that person’s belief.

    The point I am trying to make here is not primarily whether the Bible teaches any of these things, or whether they are true or false, but whether a Christian can believe or disbelieve them and still be a Christian. Is it proper to dismiss theistic evolutionists and even old earth creationists as “not real Christians,” rather than to respond to their actual position?

    Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, clearly wants to argue with fundamentalists and then dismiss all Christians based on his arguments against fundamentalists. I blogged about that starting in From the Land of the Deluded, where I make some similar points.

    I have two suggestions here. First, that Christianity is not defined by American fundamentalism. I have supported that partially and will continue to do so as the series progresses. Second, that it is better to respond to an opponent based on what that opponent actually believes rather than what you imagine them to believe or what you think they ought to believe.

    It is inevitable that this will sometimes fail, but it is an admirable goal in any case, and trying to define your opponent out of existence as the first step to a debate is probably not going to get you very far.

    Christians do this to atheists from time to time as well, in particular by concluding that an atheist actually hates God or does not desire to be under authority. This suggests that an atheist isn’t really an atheist, but is rather a rebellious theist. Perhaps it would be a good idea to stretch our Christian imaginations a little bit, and allow that someone might just not find the idea of God convincing, or might not see sufficient evidence to believe. Imagine, in other words, that the atheist is honestly stating his or her beliefs.

    Further, we need to realize that what seems to us a certain result of a particular belief might not be so certain for someone else. In talking about grief, I am likely to mention that my relationship with Jesus Christ and spiritual disciplines including prayer and fasting have been critical to me in facing loss. Do I mean that someone without those particular beliefs will not be able to handle what I have handled? Not at all! From personal experience I know persons from other faith traditions who have found their beliefs and spiritual practices critical, and I know non-believers who have also endured and come out of such trials successfully. I mention this particular case because it is very common for Christians to believe that atheists will be unable to endure hardship and loss.

    One last illustration might help. I speak frequently to Methodist groups, as I’m a member of a United Methodist congregation. Every Methodist group with whom I have discussed Calvinism has come to the conclusion that Calvinists will not engage in evangelism. Why? If Calvinists believe in predestination–that God has determined who will be saved or lost–what purpose is their for evangelism? The result is already determined!

    Now I have always pointed out that Calvinists do, in fact, practice evangelism, and thus attacking them for a failure in outreach would be inappropriate. A few years ago, however, I had the experience of hearing John Blanchard, a Calvinist evangelist (something many Methodists would regard as an oxymoron), who was asked this very question: Why, if you believe in predestination, are you an evangelist?

    His answer, as I remember it, was this: Predestination is a doctrine, and I believe it; evangelism is a command, and I obey it.

    Hmmm. A bit different logic than we Methodists were assuming he would use, but here we have him believing both things. He is not the person we assumed he would be.

    Neither is the theistic evolutionist the person you assumed him to be. He is not necessarily a scientist whose religion is loosely pasted on. He might be a devout believer and a scientist. On the other hand, his training might be in Biblical studies, like mine is, and the church and faith might be the stuff of his daily life. In any case, he (or she) not likely to be impressed when you claim he’s not who he says he is.

    As I move forward I’m going to discuss views on homosexuality and the church. It may surprise some to know that many advocates of acceptance of gays and lesbians in the full fellowship of the church are actually quite conservative in their understanding of exegesis. One can fault their results in a number of passages, in my view, but one can hardly say that they lack the intent or a conservative approach, even as one charges them with special pleading in particular cases.

    And so as not to disappoint, let me note right now that my intention will not be to argue one side or another here, but rather to look at the types of Biblical interpretation involved.

    Previous posts in this series were:

  • A Caution to Republicans and Democrats

    I’m an independent who voted Democratic this time. Now obviously I can’t speak for independents as a group. That is, after all, what independent means. One of the things I wanted was bipartisanship, and my impression is that either I don’t know what that means or most of the people in Washington DC are pretty clueless on the matter.

    In my view bipartisanship means honestly listening to one another, and cooperating across party lines wherever that will work. There are two things to avoid: 1) Bickering, grandstanding, and other such tactics and 2) Compromising away your principles. I think both of these things should be avoided diligently and equally.

    When two politicians disagree on a substantive issue of principle, debate it out openly and honestly, and then end up voting against one another, I regard that as good civic responsibility. When the same politicians waffle around until they find some mushy compromise, I call that dishonesty and cowardice.

    So when President Obama and congressional leaders get together, I don’t mind the fact that the Republicans have numerous objections to the stimulus package that is taking shape on the Democratic side. They should. There is much here to which one may object.

    When President Obama gives as his reason for opposing them the fact that he won, that is also quite within bounds. After all, he did win, and not only has the right and the power to pursue the policies one which he campaigned, or which he deems appropriate in the current circumstances; he has a duty to do so.

    On the other hand, when Democractic leaders in congress write rules that tend to freeze Republicans out of the process, that’s not bipartisan, and when a Republican such as Senator John Cornyn of Texas uses the rules that are available to block a cabinet appointment when he (a) knows he’s going to lose in the end and (b) intends to vote for the particular appointee in any case, that’s not bipartisan.

    At the same time, if was actually opposed on principle to the appointment itself, saying so and voting against the appointment would be simply carrying out his duty as a Senator.

    It seems to me that the politicians simply don’t understand how grandstanding and petty bickering looks to those who are not already their committed followers. I think it’s one reason congress, under the control of either party, has extremely low approval ratings as a whole. We just see too much of this sort of behavior.

    It seems simple to me–talk, listen, decide, vote. Procedural tricks are quite valid when they can accomplish something, but when they are used simply to draw attention to oneself, I think they will tend to backfire more and more.

    I’ve voted Republican before. I voted Democratic this time, for the most part. I could easily be persuaded to vote Republican again–or for a third party if sufficiently provoked.

    That’s just a thought from one independent.