Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Chief of Staff Position is not Bipartisan

    Those who are complaining about the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as President-Elect Obama’s chief of staff should chill out. I can’t think of any expression but “abysmally stupid” for the idea that this would be a bipartisan position. It’s a position for a loyalist with an arsenal.

  • Dr. James White Declares me (among others) Evil

    No, he presumably doesn’t know who I am, and didn’t mention me by name. But I voted for Barack Obama on Tuesday, and I also voted against Florida’s amendment banning gay marriage. I am a Christian, a Bible teacher who normally spends hours daily studying the scriptures.

    I found this video by Dr. James White via Tim Ricchuiti. While I have always appreciated Dr. White’s defense of modern Bible translations in King James Only Controversy, The: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?, I have also been well aware that we differ on many things. The most important of these things are contained in this video.

    Tim has already made some very good points, though I would quibble on the matter of defining Christianity. An apologist, which is Dr. White’s vocation, must define Christianity in some way, else just what will he defend? You cannot defend that which is not defined.

    The fundamental difference then is one of definition. I define “Christian” differently than does Dr. White. This is no surprise. The important thing is that it simply makes his accusation that certain people aren’t Christians, or that they are vile heretics of no importance whatsoever, unless one is trying to do some ministry in conjunction with Dr. White’s ministry or to work together with him.

    The important thing is just how well he supports that definition. One of the critical errors (not doctrinal, but logical) in the video is the claim that words have some meaning given to them by a transcendent God. Sorry, but no. Not so. Words gain their meaning from usage, as someone who has commented at such length on translation should know from experience.

    In this case, since Dr. White doesn’t define Christian precisely in his video–OK, it’s only 18 minutes so what do I expect?–we must take the definition implied from his usage. In that case, we must assume that a real Christian:

    1. Does not base theology on race
    2. Opposes same sex marriage even in the civil sphere
    3. Not only is against abortion, but must believe that the law is the best way to put a stop to it.
    4. Believes that people who disagree on these points are evil.

    I would say that I’m on the weakest ground on the fourth point, though it seems to me that he is making that part of the implied definition. The reason for this is that he challenges the Christian faith of people who disagree on any of those points. Again, I don’t challenge his right to have a definition of Christianity–I challenge the usefulness of this definition.

    It’s interesting that besides defining people who don’t agree on these points as non-Christian, he also declares them evil, evil which must be confronted. Having just been studying Romans 1, and especially verse 32, I’m guessing those who don’t confront these things as evil are also to be regarded as evil.

    How would I define Christianity? First, in conversation, I simply accept one’s self definition. If you say you’re a Christian, I’m going to go with it for purposes of discussion. That’s just a convenience. I don’t regard the label “Christian” as all that important. Go ahead and define it how you like. The issue is whether you are a follower of Jesus or not, and while I will list characteristics and discuss discipleship, the ultimate judge of that will be Jesus.

    But if I go a step further and use the term “orthodox Christianity” or perhaps the basis on which I would call myself a Christian it is this: I say the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed without my fingers crossed. So if someone believes in the incarnation, in the doctrine of the trinity, in the resurrection, and the final judgment of God, that sounds very Christian to me. Please note again that I’m not trying to tell you who gets to use a label. I’m simply saying how I use the label of myself. Were I to begin to need crossed fingers in reciting those creeds, I would cease calling myself Christian.

    If I share my Christian faith with others, those are the elements I’m likely to tell them about, and those are thing things I will tell them define me as a Christian.

    Thus the following statement from the TUCC web site means that I accept TUCC as Christian:

    The United Church of Christ acknowledges as its sole Head, Jesus Christ, Son of God and Savior. It acknowledges as kindred in Christ all who share in this confession. It looks to the Word of God in the Scriptures, and to the presence and power of the Holy Spirit, to prosper its creative and redemptive work in the world. It claims as its own the faith of the historic Church expressed in the ancient creeds and reclaimed in the basic insights of the Protestant Reformers. It affirms the responsibility of the Church in each generation to make this faith its own in reality of worship, in honesty of thought and expression, and in purity of heart before God. In accordance with the teaching of our Lord and the practice prevailing among evangelical Christians, it recognizes two sacraments: Baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion.

    Now let me note a few points of disagreement other than the obvious ones with Dr. White’s video. He refers to it possibly not being God’s will that someone be brought to repentance. Of course this is a major Calvinist-Arminian divide, and I fall to the Arminian side. He criticizes the emerging church in terms that I would find quite unacceptable.

    Further, he takes the stance that a belief in evolution is at the foundation of all this evil, misunderstanding evolution as necessarily atheistic and as stealing the dignity of humanity. I’m guessing this is another part of his definition of “Christian” but I’ll leave that out for now. The creation-evolution controversy can be found in many inappropriate places, and is rarely discussed with comprehension.

    I agree with him that Christians need to soak in the word, immerse themselves in the word. I would suggest, however, that Christians may soak themselves in parts of the word that are either not applicable or that are placed in the wrong priority. I have a prioritizing suggestion, and it comes from Jesus: Love God with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself. All the law and the prophets hang on these two (Matthew 22:35-40).

    That will at least get your priorities straight.

  • Patience for the Nuts and Bolts

    Last night I attended a Bible study in which my pastor was teaching on Romans 1:22-32.  If that verse selection doesn’t fully make sense to you, consider that he was simply following up from the point at which he stopped the prior week.

    My pastor is Dr. Wesley Wachob, an accomplished exegete.  One of the joys of attending First UMC in Pensacola is that while I may occasionally disagree on some technical point, I never have to cringe while listening to the sermons.  Elsewhere I frequently have order myself to ignore exegetical problems or those related to Biblical languages while listening to otherwise uplifting sermons.

    So, being who he is, Dr. Wachob starting out by teaching precisely what Paul was saying.  It’s not relevant to my point here, but I happen to agree with that position.  I’m also not trying to proclaim Dr. Wachob’s position on all issues related to homosexuality, which is only a minor point of the passage, though it is the primary one for which it is cited.  (I eagerly await the sermon on how gossip and slander represents the true measure of human depravity as in verse 29-30.)  The issue I’m looking at is the starting point.  (For my Methodist readers, Dr. Wachob in no way violated the Methodist discipline in anything he said to the group.)

    In particular, Paul is not writing an essay either on what constitutes an appropriate list of sins, nor is he arguing for what things are sinful and why.  He is taking an assumption of what is sinful and tying it all to idolatry, i.e. anything that places anything other than God in God’s place.  Thus homosexuality is assumed to be wrong, based on the Torah, and this is something that Paul can count on as an agreement with his audience.

    Thus the point here is that while we can be pretty certain based on this passage that Paul thought homosexuality was wrong, it is as an underlying assumption, rather than as something explicitly explained.  When I say that, if you know my own view of inspiration as message embedded in surrounding cultural views, then you don’t know how I feel about homosexuality generally, gay marriage, or any related issue concerning how we respond to gays in our society today.

    The text does not immediately translate itself into modern context.

    If you doubt this, consider Numbers 31:15-20.  Does the command that Moses gives, couched in support for the moral preservation, not to mention the physical, of the Israelite people, represent a good standard for warfare?  I would, of course, argue that it does not.  How it can be a command of God in scripture is worthy of a bit more discussion, but that isn’t going to happen today.

    Last night in our class there was a gentleman who was clearly quite knowledgeable.  Throughout the discussion he kept asking our teacher to make the application.  His requests were resisted.  Now I understand his impatience, but at the same time I applaud the resistance.  The nuts and bolts of exegesis need to be done first.

    This doesn’t mean that we don’t later view the scripture in their canonical context or in the broader context of theology.  It doesn’t mean that we never get down to current, practical applications.  It just means that we have to do the hard work first.

    Dr. Wachob’s interpretation of this passage–and mine–will not satisfy many on any side of this debate.  The general desire is to somehow have Romans tell us directly what to do today.  And yes, there are interpretations that make this not address homosexuality as such in its original context.  But that is a very unlikely reading of what Paul is trying to say.  Paul is talking not about some isolated group of people, but rather is talking about all gentiles here (he’ll get to the Jews later) and making a case that all have failed.  That is is theological point.

    It may require some patience.  But it is worth it.

  • Christian Carnival #249 – Deep Breath Edition

    The U. S. election is over and we have a new president-elect.  No matter how happy, indifferent, or distressed you are about the result or not, take a deep breath and remember just who is in charge of all this.  I am thus taking my theme from Daniel 4.

    I’m taking the posts in order rather than trying to organize them in sections, so note that the texts that precede and follow each section are not intended in any way as comments on the posts.  Translations are my own, slightly paraphrased, except where indicated.

    [Clip art from Barry’s Clipart.]

    4 I, Nebuchadnezzar, was living calmly in my house and prospering in my palace. 5 I had a dream that frightened me; what I saw while in bed and the visions in my head terrified me. — Daniel 4:4-5.

    FMF presents Accountability Partners in Financial Matters posted at Free Money Finance, saying, “You need someone to keep you honest in money matters.”

    andriel presents Word of Faith Atonement: Jesus in Hell posted at ReturningKing.com, saying, “As noted in the last section, the WOF teaching concerning the nature of Jesus was not the traditional church’s position, namely that Christ was man and God, but rather that Christ relinquished his divinity when he came to earth as a man. While this is a poor beginning for an atonement doctrine, it gets much worse. In accomplishing the work of salvation, according to the WOF movement, Jesus also took on the very nature of Satan.”

    Chris presents Trust God with your Career and your Finances | ProsperingServant.com posted at ProsperingServant.com.

    Allen Scott presents Touched by the Master?s hand posted at A View from the Nest, saying, “Men like George have a great love for all things classic and spend untold hours and thousands of dollars to restore these relics of the past. Jesus, like George, specializes in restoration as well. Unlike a classic car, a broken life requires far more than a new paint job and a few new parts.”

    Doug Forrester presents Christian horror movie posted at Bounded Irrationality.

    Big and Beautiful

    The tree grew big and strong.
    Its top reached heaven.
    It could be seen all over he world.

    Its branches and leaves were beautiful,
    its fruit plentiful,
    and it provided food for everyone.– Daniel 4:11-12

    Trevor Watkinson presents Blogging in a New Direction posted at SaveYourSweat.com Blog, saying, “Why I expanded the theme of my blog to include the Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Diane R presents R.T. Kendalll and the Lakeland “Outpouring” posted at Crossroads: Where Faith and Inquiry Meet, saying, “There has been a lot of discussion of the Lakeland ‘outpouring’ with Todd Bentley. Now R. T. Kendall weighs in and his remarks are very welcome.”

    Annette presents How does one Mature? posted at Fish and Cans.Lop Off the Branches!

    Cut down the tree!  Lop off its branches! — Daniel 4:13

    A Sower presents They Never Saw It Coming posted at A Sower’s Heart.

    ChristianPF presents Biblical retirement posted at Money in the Bible | Christian Personal Finance Blog, saying, “A look at what the Bible says about the “American Dream” of retirement”

    Chasing the Wind presents Responding to Loss posted at Chasing the Wind, saying, “When Saul died, David has reason to celebrate, but he mourned deeply. What is it about David’s heart that God loved? What can David teach us about mourning? A study of 1 Samuel 1,2.”

    Brian Niece presents The ShadowPath of YHWH’s Open Story — Part 4 posted at Sacramental Living.  Get ready to concentrate a bit here, this is not light reading talking about some themes in the Psalms.

    25 You will be driven from civilized society, and you will live with the wild animals. You will have to eat grass like oxen and you will be bathed with dew until seven times pass over you, that is, until you learn that the Most High is sovereign over human kingdoms, and gives them to any one he wills. — Daniel 4:25

    Jeremy Pierce presents Voting and Calvinist Prayer posted at Parableman, saying, “Taking a page from Calvinist discussions of prayer, this post argues why it’s good to vote even if your vote will almost certainly have no effect on the outcome.”

    Richard H. Anderson presents Communal Meals in the Book of Acts posted at dokeo kago grapho soi kratistos Theophilos.

    Raffi Shahinian presents 5 Reasons I’m Not on Twitter, and 5 Reasons I Should Be posted at parables of a prodigal world.

    34 When that period was over, I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me.
    I blessed the Most High,
    and praised and honored the one who lives forever.
    For his sovereignty is an everlasting sovereignty,
    and his kingdom endures from generation to generation.
    35 All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
    and he does what he wills with the host of heaven
    and the inhabitants of the earth.
    There is no one who can stay his hand
    or say to him, “What are you doing?” — Daniel 4:34-35 (NRSV)

    Read the whole chapter for yourself.  It’s worth it!

    That concludes this edition. Submit your blog article to the next edition of the Christian Carnival using our carnival submission form. Past posts and future hosts can be found on our blog carnival index page.

  • Reflection after the Election

    Since I had decided long ago what my vote would be, and the man I thought the better (though not nearly perfect) candidate won, it was enjoyable for me to watch. I really don’t want to dwell on the details.

    The greatest problem for President-Elect Barack Obama may not be any of the crises with which he will need to deal, but rather the huge number of hopes, some of them contradictory, which have been read into his person. His election is an historic accomplishment, but as he correctly pointed out in his victory speech, last night was not the change. Last night simply provided the opportunity to accomplish the change. The work starts now.

    Any politician discovers that the promises of the campaign trail, even when sincerely meant, are very difficult to deliver. Actual government involves working with many people and it requires compromise. Compromise is, well, compromise. But in Obama’s case, many people have filled the words “hope” and “change” with their own dreams.

    I disagree with those who say that Obama was undefined. He made enough policy proposals so that we can know what he wants as well or better than we can with other politicians. But by simply seeming bigger than the moment and than any one person to so many, he has the burden of much more than he actually tried to promise.

    Senator John McCain, on the other hand, goes back to the senate. In 2000 I hoped he would be the Republican nominee and I would have voted for him. In 2008 he appeared to be the fractured candidate. I believe his greatest failure was in not running a campaign as his own person.

    The urge to draw in the base of the Republican party conflicted with many of his own views and positions. One thing every political operative should know is that you have to put a message in your candidate’s mouth that your candidate can present successfully. John McCain never presented the attacks on Barack Obama in a convincing manner.

    I’m not one who objects to negative campaigning simply because it is negative. Rather, a candidate needs to know positively why he is the best person for the job, and negatively why the other guy isn’t, and he needs to present both cases. Adding a conservative candidate to the ticket doesn’t necessarily bring all that candidate’s potential supporters to you, and it doesn’t guarantee you won’t lose any of yours.

    The bottom line here is that almost any message, consistently presented, would be better than shifting message from day to day. McCain couldn’t decide how far to go with attacks because, I believe, his heart wasn’t in them.

    I wonder how it would have worked for him to campaign as who he is while letting Sarah Palin campaign as who she is, while simply stating that he had chosen to broaden the ticket and that the Republican party was big enough for both of them. It would go against conventional wisdom, and I have no basis for saying it would work, but I wonder if it could be worse. Governor Palin sounded sincere in the attacks. I don’t particularly like her, even though I did at first, but she does have a voice and a natural audience.

    In any case, I sincerely hope that McCain will now become part of a center oriented group in congress that will work with President-Elect Obama to give him an alternative to working solely with the left. McCain returned to the man of 2000 in his gracious acceptance speech. These speeches may not mean much, but I hope they do.

    As always, I will pray for the leaders of our country, all of them, as they face many difficult problems.

  • Expect Christian Carnival #249

    . . . sometime this afternoon.  Thanks for the submissions!

  • Reflection before the Election

    I have been fascinated by politics for as long as I can remember. The first presidential campaign I recall thinking and talking about was in 1968 when I was 11 years old, though I had certainly read and talked about many. There was never any doubt that I would register to vote as soon as I was eligible and get involved.

    My first political involvement was working for the 1976 campaign of Ronald Reagan. I’m not one of those Republicans for Obama, nor an Obamacon. In fact I have some difficulty understanding how conservatives decide to support Barack Obama. I support him because I have have become much less conservative, and the elements of conservatism that were important to me back then, especially fiscal conservatism, seem no longer to be of that much interest to Republicans and/or self-proclaimed conservatives. They talk, but they do not do.

    Reagan’s 1980 campaign was a disappointment to me. I had already moved a bit to the left on social issues by that time, and Reagan was de-emphasizing his fiscal conservatism and proclaiming supply-side economics.

    Barack Obama compared himself in a small way with Ronald Reagan early in the campaign and was criticized for it a great deal. It’s quite true that he is not Ronald Reagan. But there are some similarities in the campaigns and their progress. Many people, especially serious Republican operatives, could not understand us “Reagan Republicans” (I have never been a registered Democrat–I went from Republican to Independent). We had an incumbent president, and surely nobody would throw away that advantage over a newcomer. Reagan was new, unpredictable, dangerous in foreign policy. We couldn’t be sure what he would do.

    Gerald Ford, on the other hand, was a known quantity, stable, certain, reliable, a “real” Republican. How could one not want him to continue in the presidency? He represented safety and reliability, things that conservatives (and Republicans in general) should surely want. These were folks, of course, who also thought that Nelson Rockefeller was just fine as well. It was establishment Republicanism.

    All us young pups with fire in our eyes didn’t see things that way. You see, we thought Gerald Ford was doing a bad job, that things were not getting better. We didn’t think sticking with him was the same thing. If you’re on a river boat headed for the falls, the guy who’s steering straight for disaster just doesn’t appear all that safe! Some other, less experienced candidate, but one who at least intends to turn around seems much safer.

    I also heard some of the same shock from people at Reagan’s victories, both his near success in 1976 and his victory in 1980. He was just an empty shell, they said, a good speaker, but he really didn’t understand what he was saying and doing. There was an effort both to portray him as untested and inadequately defined, and at the same time as espousing dangerous policies.

    I see the same thing going on in this election. I am not one to trust the polls. I also don’t think people generally pay enough attention to the margin of error and the possibility of a poll simply being wild. Thus I’m not proclaiming victory. But I do know that many people right now are still quite stunned that so many people support Barack Obama. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Experience is an argument you use against someone you have already decided to oppose.

    Obama can be both “dangerously liberal” and “very much an unknown” at the same time. That’s the nature of the political debate. But I think those who pay attention can know pretty much who Barack Obama is and what his policies will generally be. He’s a liberal senator. He has made fairly liberal proposals, and he will, I assume, be a liberal president.

    That doesn’t mean he won’t reach across the aisle to build consensus. I think simply being in the presidency requires that to some extent. But don’t expect a sudden conversion into another person. He’s not an empty suit. He has fairly strong positions, and he’s likely to pursue those.

    I’ll just add one more thing. I have learned during this election just how much further from the social conservatives and the family values folks I actually am. I’m afraid I share very little of their agenda, and in general I don’t find the most vocal “family values” groups to be all that pro-family. It’s not that I have just now changed. It’s just that I paid more attention to them during the election season and found very little to cheer.

    Tomorrow we will vote. I urge you, no matter who you support, to get out and vote. It is a right, a privilege, but even more a responsibility. Don’t sit back and refuse to engage. There are significant differences in what will happen depending on the president and congress we elect. There will also be many, many substantial issues in state and local elections as well. Don’t be a shirker!

  • Christian Carnival 249 Coming UP

    . . . right here!

  • Biblical Studies Carnival XXXV Posted

    . . . at Abnormal Interests.  Besides the fact that I have a post from my Threads blog listed, there are a couple of major sections that are particularly worth taking a look.

    First, there are numerous posts relating to recent discoveries relating to the history of Israel.  Duane did a great job of showing the diversity amongst the Biblioblogs and you can follow links from those to get a fairly complete current picture.  Much of this material needs further study (what doesn’t?) and it’s going to be fun to watch.

    Second, there’s a pretty good roundup of the rather good recent discussions on the historical Jesus.  I’m behind on reading these myself, even though my current reading from good old fashioned books is on the same topic.  Or perhaps it’s because.

    In any case, check the carnival out.  It’s worthwhile.

  • Stupid Scam E-Mail

    I often read a few lines of these scam e-mails just because they are so poorly written. Today I got a new one purporting to be from one “Sgt. David Brown” a “U. S. Marine Capt.” in Iraq. The stupid scammers should spend more time on research.