Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • 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.

  • In Which God do we Trust?

    They say a picture is worth a thousand words, and I’m never one to shrink from producing a thousand words–or ten! I wonder what a video is worth? A certain number of words per frame?

    In any case, I wrote earlier about God being mocked in the campaign and I even commented on how “In God We Trust” on our money must be some sort of national joke, considering that we don’t really trust God as a nation, and we do so in our financial affairs least of all.

    Now comes an image that’s worth every bit of it:

    A Golden Calf?
    A Golden Calf?

    You can find some more pictures and even video of some singing and (almost) dancing (Exodus 32:17-19) around the calf here.

    In relation to this, consider the following ad from the Liddy Dole campaign in North Carolina. Hear the part about “In God We Trust” on the money? What on earth is “godless money” anyhow, other than, of course, money that we put ahead of God and thus make into an idol.

    Well, that was probably easy to go through than a few thousand words!

    HT: One Thing I Know. Also to Dispatches from the Culture Wars for the video.

  • The Advantages of Stoning False Prophets

    Yesterday I was listening to the radio in my car and heard a woman caller inform the host that God had told her who to vote for in the election. She hadn’t been sure, and she had been inclined differently herself, but the good Lord told her to vote for Obama, and she trusted God above all, so that’s what she was going to do.

    It should shock nobody that it only took a song and a commercial break for another caller to inform the host that she had heard from God as well, who had told her to vote for McCain. I would be willing to bet it was faster than that, in fact, and that she was on hold through that song and commercial! (It was a DJ exchanging views with listeners, not a talk show.)

    Now neither of these women stated that they felt someone should regard them as “speaking for God” and commanding everyone to vote, though I suspect most would assume they thought they had found the right and godly think to do. On the other hand, I have received at least one e-mail telling me that someone had seen parts of God’s plan in vision and that McCain being president was part of it. For unknown reasons, the implication was that I should diligently go out and vote for McCain so that God’s plans would not be thwarted rather than that God could make sure his choice was elected. (God may have more than one vote, assuming he wants one. I’m not so sure.)

    Now I would distinguish all of these incidents from the many advocacy e-mails I get from friends and from political lists in that it’s very different to say that you regard certain things as righteous, and that those correspond best with a particular candidate than it is to say that God specifically gave you the right name. It’s a favorite topic of mine. In fact, I wrote a book about it, When People Speak for God. (Potential readers of this blog be aware that about 1/3 of the 246 pages of text was adapted from here.) In that book I dedicated a chapter to dealing with the manipulative claim that God told you something.

    Now I’m not trying to make fun of all people who hear from God. I will confess to believing that I hear from God as well. What concerns me is statements such as “God told me to tell you . . .” or the obvious implication. I have had people claim that what I told them came from God, i.e. that it was so on target for their situation that it must have.

    There are three explanations I can think of. First, I might be exceedingly insightful. Second, I might actually be speaking for God without knowing it. Third, it might be random chance. I would vote for the third option. If I were actually to consider all lines of advice I have ever given, considering uncertain items, items that were just plain bad, items that were good but pretty obvious, and finally items that were unusually on target, I’m certain you would find it would be very dangerous to equate my words with God’s will. My own decision making, while perhaps not truly horrible, is certainly no example of what I hope God’s wisdom would reflect!

    In ancient Israel, false prophecy was taken rather seriously. Deuteronomy 18:15-22 provides that the prophet who makes a false prediction should be put to death. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 suggests that even if he’s right, if his theology is too far (preaching rebellion against God), he must be put to death as well. My point here is not to present a theology of prophecy, but rather to point out that under those circumstances, it would be likely that far less people would want to proclaim something that they claimed God had said.

    The Biblical prophets actually make a fairly small number of predictions, and only a small percentage of those are very specific and unconditional. Most are more like warnings. “If you do X God will do Y to you.” It’s interesting, however, that a key element of prophetic speech is rebuking and challenging the cultural mainstream of their time. For some reason we do not have the writings of prophets who preached that everything was going well all the time. Second Isaiah (40-55) is one of the most positive and there is still a good deal of rebuke.

    I recall one pastor who, after hearing me discuss the nature of prophecy with a group of his parishioners, informed me that in their church they preferred “positive” and “encouraging” prophecy and were not so much into rebuke. But in the Bible one of the strong characteristics of the prophets is that they do not come to encourage us to stay as we are. They come to persuade us to change.

    Since I have both claimed that there is a great deal of “speaking for God” that is clearly false (it’s unlikely both the callers on the radio show heard from God), what is the point of “hearing from God” in the first place?

    Personally I find that those times I identify as hearing from God are ones that challenge the way I’m thinking and that provide the greatest insights. I have to sift them, because, as I said in my book and here on this blog, a telephone cord has two ends. There’s a speaker and a listener. I tendency when someone claims they heard from God is to focus on the word “God.” God is omniscient and won’t lie, though one should remember that he might send a strong delusion (2 Thessalonians 2:11). So what we hear must be true, right?

    Hardly! Even if one admits, as I do, that God speaks, there is always the listener. I confess that my biases get into what I hear other people say. If I’m getting loose impressions of divine things, things I understand much less clearly that the topics of human conversation, how accurately will I understand and report those things? Thus hearing from God is a good way for me to push the envelope in my understanding, but everything must be tested.

    This is also scriptural. Paul tells us in 1 Thessalonians 5:21ff to test everything, hold onto what is good and keep away from every kind of evil. This doesn’t tell us to go back to stoning prophets, but it does tell us to take consideration, testing, and discernment seriously. I think this passage is misread in many ways, or at least it would seem so based on actions.

    • Test everything, keep what is good, but don’t say anything about what is bad.
    • Test everything, hold onto what is culturally acceptable and discard the rest.
    • Test everything, accept everything as generally valid because you don’t want to be arrogant and tell someone they’re wrong.
    • Discard everything because it’s not possible they heard from God in any case.
    • Test everything, keep what you like, discard what you don’t like.

    Bottom line here, however, is to take responsibility for what you think and say, and also for what you hear, whether or not someone claims it comes from God. Try to find ways to find out if it’s true, moral, and useful (not moral or useful, the and is intentional).

    I really don’t suggest we stone false prophets. I simply suggest we should be more careful invoking the name of God. Personally, I’m prepared not to do so, but rather to let others decide if something I say is of that profound a nature, and to live happily in that vast number of times when they are saying, “Not so much.”

  • Obama and the Socialism Charge

    I’m interested in how one can take a rather ordinary set of proposals and make them incendiary just by providing a label. And sorry, my conservative friends, I don’t buy into the “but he really is a socialist” line. The basis of the socialism charge is specific–Obama’s tax plans–and a response to that particular point is what is needed.

    This charge has been one of the many reasons my respect for McCain has deteriorated over the course of this campaign. The fact is that both campaigns are supported tax proposals that redistribute. We’ve had them for decades, and very, very few people would support completely getting rid of any redistributive element in the tax plan.

    Flat taxers? Actually not such a totally bad idea, though I think if people looked at their proposed tax bill under flat tax, they might be less excited about it. But you know that exemption of a certain amount of income under a flat tax plan? That’s redistribution.

    Alexander Lane of Politifact covers the major points in an article on CQPolitics, Sorting Out the Truth on McCain’s “Socialism” Allegations. McCain, Palin, and the Republican base are just plain abusing the word “socialist.”

    PS: Yes, I know this source is biased–it’s biased against the Republican bias.

  • Christian Carnival #248 is Posted

    . . . at Fish and Cans.

  • Value of Basic Research (even in France)

    In the middle of a speech on commitment to special needs children, Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin chose to take a pot shot at some pork–research into fruit flies. It was a particularly good political shot, because the research is taking place in Paris, France, and obviously, “real” Americans don’t want to pay for anything that takes place there.

    Like many research projects, fruit fly research simply doesn’t sound very exciting. It makes a good political joke. And it’s a joke that works because too many Americans have almost no idea of the basic science that must take place before they can drive their cars, operate their computers, or generally have jobs.

    Responsible leadership would inform such people of just how essential basic research is. Leaders would examine the process and see just what benefits were intended, even if those benefits were only in developing the framework of scientific understanding in which all that technology, you know, the stuff we all have to have, is accomplished.

    But instead, Palin chose to make it a good joke about wasteful spending. I’m not going to go into detail, but it turns out the fruit flies being studied are abundant in Europe and are just starting to appear in California, and successfully handling this may well involve quite a number of people’s jobs in the future.

    Brighter people than I am have written up a few more details at Inside Higher Ed. List this as another strong reason why I simply can’t stomach the Republican team this year.