Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Dave Faulkner on Lakeland

    Dave Faulkner has commented here on posts about the Lakeland Revival, and he has a new article looking at some of the healing and even resurrection claims. He hasn’t come to sweeping conclusions, but is certainly asking the right questions. It’s worth a read, if you’re interested in the topic.

  • Politicians, Adultery, and Integrity

    Despite the broad and pretentious title, this is going to be short and simple. James Poulos wrote today about politicians who commit adultery (HT: evangelical outpost), and said:

    …What I’m angling for here is simple: a basic public consensus that if you sleep around on your spouse you are a bad person, and to hell with your future in politics, because we still have enough talent in America to replace you with someone who isn’t a bad person and is nonetheless capable of being a ‘gifted’ and ‘dedicated’ public servant.

    That’s good within certain limits, and I’ve argued the same myself for folks like David Vitter, Larry Craig, and Eliot Spitzer. But that’s not because of my view of marriage, which some might say borders on the puritanical, but rather because I believe your actions should reflect what you say. For example, I vowed to be faithful to my wife “till death do us part” and others are welcome to hold me to that.

    Why is this not a personal matter, to be dealt with by the family alone? In the case of someone in public office, I would suggest that it gives a strong indication of whether that person will do what he says. He took marriage vows, he took an oath of office. If he violates the one, why should I regard him as a person of integrity who will uphold the other? It is unfortunate, of course, that there are those who are faithful to their marriage vows, but quite unfaithful to their oath of office, but that is another topic.

    In my view this is not primarily about sex. We get excessively excited about such scandals because they involve sex. We are too ready to excuse because they involve sex. The question is whether we, the voters, have enough integrity to demand similar integrity of our public officials. Can we do so when the politician is on our side of the aisle in the same way that we do when he or she is on the other side?

    I would add that by integrity I mean one’s intention and reasonable success at remaining inside one’s own moral boundaries, and also that one’s own moral boundaries are what one proclaims. If one’s actions do not violate one’s own standards, then I would not question that person’s integrity. I might, however, question his or her standards.

  • Small Group Error Correction

    Last Saturday I attended church with my mother, who is a Seventh-day Adventist.  I was visiting for her 90th birthday.  During Sabbath School (the SDA version of Sunday School), there were a number of questionable “facts” brought out by various members of the class.  Amongst these was “Spare the rod and spoil the child” as a Proverb (it’s not, though there are a couple quite close to it), and whether Jesus used the term “vipers” of his opponents, or was it only John the Baptist (Jesus used it too).

    Now this post isn’t about the greater numbers of errors committed by SDAs than folks of other denominations.  SDAs do quite well studying their Bible.  I disagree with many of their theological suppositions, but regarding basic facts they are quite good.  <em>All</em> small groups are subject to this problem.  What do you do about it?  I suggest three things.

    1. Check your Biblical texts in your Bible, not from memory, and check them with a variety of Bible translations.  A small group can agree to bring different versions.  Read the footnotes as well.  Sometimes you may declare that a certain verse doesn’t exist, only to find out later that it was quoted from a different Bible version.
    2. When there is a question of fact, look it up in a good reference source, such as a current Bible dictionary (HarperCollins, New International Bible Dictionary, Anchor Bible Dictionary [used carefully]).  Bible handbooks or Bibles with study notes often include such information, but they also tend to have more opinion as well.
    3. Distinguish fact from theological perspectives and other opinions, even in reference sources.  You’ll find differences of opinion between various sources, but you’ll also find a core that is quite generally agreed upon.  Using multiple sources written from different perspectives will help you on this.

    Finally, don’t be afraid to study because you’re not an expert.  Dig in and work at it.  The world won’t come to an end because you made a mistake.  It has much bigger problems than your misunderstanding of a text.  So relax and enjoy, but take the time to check as well.

  • Periodic Diatribe on Moderation

    It would be nice to have a different word for this that carried less baggage, but if you make up a word, who will understand? Besides I think moderation in general has gotten a bad name.

    I’ve encountered this recently with regard to the Lakeland Revival. In general I have taken little flack online, but in personal conversations, I have been urged to “take a stand, one way or the other.” It reminds me of the saying I heard a great deal when I was young, and more rarely in recent years–“there’s nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead skunks.”

    Well, I have taken a stand, and it is simply that this is not a simple binary issue. There isn’t a stand to take “one way or the other.” There are positive things and negative things in what I’ve heard so far. Should I come to the realization at some point that there really are only two options in this case, then I will surely choose one of them, but not before.

    Sometimes you have to take a stand against the “take a stand” people. For some reason they think there is a moral benefit in binary thinking. I disagree.

  • Bentley and Lakeland on MSNBC

    There’s an article here. Looks pretty neutral.

  • An Argument for Disestablishing the Major Parties

    Watching the debate about the Michigan and Florida primaries has been instructive in many ways. I’ve previously noted that I come at it from two different angles. First, the states broke the rules and thus deserve to be penalized, though why this penalty should be complete elimination of the delegation I don’t know. Second, the primaries are to some extent about bringing people into the process, and on that basis there is good reason to try to find some way to include the missing delegates.

    But there is a complicating argument, that the state legislature, Republican dominated as in Florida, voted this, yet the Democratic party and its leaders in Florida is being penalized. When I go under my first approach (they broke the rules) I can suggest that the Democratic party in Florida could have started work immediately to allocate delegates on a different basis. They preferred not to. But if one is arguing fairness, the state involvement is problematic.

    I find the fact that the legislature was controlled by a different party less compelling as an argument. In Michigan, the Democrats controlled the legislature and did the same thing. It’s the state involvement, irrespective of the controlling party, that troubles me. To be blunt I don’t see a good way to make rules clear, fair, and reasonably enforceable when there are so many authorities with their fingers in the pie.

    What would I prefer? Let the political parties–any party at all, large or small–set up and administer their own means of choosing candidates. If they want a statewide primary, let them pay for it. If all the parties want to do one together, let them agree on how to finance it. Make the parties 100% responsible for the selection process. Then whether they want a completely democratic process, some mix, or a top-down selection, it is a matter for a private, voluntary organization.

    I think that state entanglement with the candidate selection process is a formula for ever increasing legal issues. People are already arguing this issue as though people had a constitutional right to a certain level of influence in their party.

    At the same time, let’s eliminate party registration. What business does the state have keeping records of political affiliation? Of what public value is it? Let the parties track their own members. They could then repudiate such claimed members as David Duke for the Republican parties and be held responsible for anyone they didn’t repudiate.

    Crossposted to RedBlueChristian.com.

  • In Niagara Falls, NY

    I’m up in these parts, far from the sunny beaches, to be with my mother for her 90th birthday which is today. She is an amazing woman who is still lively, uses a cane but walks too quickly for many younger people, continues to volunteer in projects at church, helps tutor people who are willing to come to her house to do so, and generally keeps up with the world around here.

    Though I hate traveling in general, I’m glad to be with her today. I have posted less this week and will likely continue to do so. I’m returning to Florida on Saturday. In the meantime, there’s sure plenty of exciting stuff going on in the blogosphere.

  • Appearance of the Form of the Glory

    In today’s Running Toward the Goal podcast, recorded on the road with apologies for the quality, I discuss Ezekiel 1:28. I thought that as additional reference I’d provide my discussion of these terms from my college paper originally written in 1979. This is unchanged from the original form.  (This extract is an appendix to the original paper.  The full paper is here.)

    The Uses of ;eyn, demuth and mar’eh in Ezekiel 1

    In the textual comments (see note p on verse 13) I made an emendation of the text in which I stated that a scribe, reading the chapter and seeing demuth used in verse 13 would tend to wish to correct it to mar’eh as more appropriate to the context of the verse. As the King James Version uniformly translates each of the three words above with English words which are essentially similar, it is necessary to demonstrate that this use is indeed correct. The KJV has translated them as color, likeness, and appearance respectively.

     

    ;eyn appears four times in the chapter, Holladay suggests simply “look” or “appearance”, but Eichrodt (OTL) suggests “sparkle”. Elsewhere, gleam is suggested. The latter seem most appropriate in the context here, In verses 4 and 27 the Chashmal gleams, In verse 7 the polished bronze. In verse 16 the wheels, probably of a translucent or transparent color gleam. So gleaming or sparkling here appears to be the best translation.

     

    demuth appears 9 times. We have the demuth of the four living creatures who have the demuth of a man. Their faces have the demuth of various creatures. The demuth of a vault is above the creatures’ heads. The sapphire stone resolves itself into the of a throne. Upon the demuth of a throne is the demuth of the appearance of a man. Finally the glory of God is said to have demuth. The only one of these which is neutral is verse 28, “the form of the glory of Yahweh”, although even here reference is being made to the form which was on the throne. Holladay suggests form as a translation for demuth. It appears to be the best translation in this chapter.

    Lastly we have mar’eh which appears 11 times. It is used as a general reference to the four creatures, immediately followed by the statement that they had the form of a man, four faces, four wings, etc. In verse l3 there is the mar’eh of lightning, which does not have “form” as such. In verse l4 we have the mar’eh of lightning again. The mar’eh of the wheels was as the sparkle of tarshish, etc. The mar’eh of the wheels was as if a wheel were within a wheel. Ezekiel sees the mar’eh of sapphire which resolves itself into the form of a throne. There is the form of the mar’eh of a man, and the mar’eh of fire, the mar’eh of a rainbow, and the mar’eh of a gleaming. In only one of these cases would “form” be an appropriate translation. That is verse 16, with regard to the wheels.

    In verse 13, however, the situation is reversed. The “coals of fire burning like lightning” could hardly be described as having “form”. The scribe, seeing Ezekiel’s normal use of the words could easily have added mar’eh in the margin to indicate that this would be a better word to employ here.

  • Revival, Faith Healing, and Healing Prayer

    Update (5/27/08): Before you conclude that I’m a deist and that I don’t believe in any miracles at all, please read the discussion in the comments, where, to put it briefly I affirm both healing miracles and the bodily resurrection of Jesus. These are things I accept by faith, however, whilst doubting one’s ability to prove them. Now on to the post as originally written . . .

    The whole discussion about Todd Bentley and the Lakeland Revival has led me to think back a great deal about the Brownsville Revival. There were and are a number of concerns while at the same time I don’t want to be a blanket critic. But I have personally seen people seriously hurt by the excesses that tend to accompany a mass revival movement.

    Activity involves risk, so when I give cautions about risks one should not assume that I am saying to avoid the whole movement and everyone in it because there are risks. But there are more and less risky ways of going about spiritual business.

    Let me outline my starting point first. I will likely say more about these things later. I have been called a liberal charismatic, initially by an enemy. Though I personally prefer “passionate moderate” the label does have some truth. In fact, when I presented it to my wife and a number of our friends as part of the subtitle to my book (Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic), they thought it fit me perfectly. So if your friends (and your wife) think the label bestowed by an enemy fits, perhaps there’s something to it. I am charismatic in the sense that I believe any gift of the Holy Spirit can be present at any time. I do not hold that God spoke more in the time of the Hebrew prophets or the apostles than he does today. I don’t believe God was more willing to heal back in those times than he is now.

    I have personally experienced some of the “manifestations” that accompany revivals–speaking in tongues (or more accurately some form of prayer language), being slain in the spirit, and so forth. I have found occasions of each experience to be very spiritually helpful. Nonetheless I started using the term “side effects” rather than “manifestations” for these things, because I think the manifestation of the Spirit is focused on ministry that is characterized by the fruit of the Spirit. Those who teach that the side effects demonstrate that the Spirit is present can lead to a great deal of hurt. I encountered people who attended Brownsville and were not slain in the Spirit who felt that they must be spiritually inferior for that reason. Many charismatic and Pentecostal churches hold that a prayer language or speaking in tongues is a necessary demonstration of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and some that it is necessary evidence for salvation.

    I may blog about some of those experiences in a later post. Right now I want to say some words on faith healing. I blogged recently about a healing service, and then yesterday healing prayer was included in a regular service of worship. Both of these services were a blessing to me just being present. That experience is detached from any physical healing that may have taken place.

    You see, I have no experience that will say that prayer, apart from the application of medical science will heal. I have seen people prayed for who went on to get better. I have observed this happen outside the predicted parameters. My own father’s recovery in 1971 was contrary to the predictions of the doctor, but in any scientific sense one must take into account the possibility that the doctor’s predictions were simply wrong.

    Further, I don’t expect to get such evidence, unless it’s accidental and comes from someone else. Why? I will never test healing prayer, laying on of hands, or any similar activity in that way. I have strong theological reason to suggest that prayer is not a substitute for medical science. One could always have a test group prayed over by faith healers, and another group offered the best medical science has to offer. My suspicion is that the first group will do much worse than the second. But I would regard it as unethical to try.

    My concern with faith healing is that the expressed expectation of the healer is going to lead the person who receives prayer to believe they are healed, or to believe that their healing will come apart from medical care. I have every reason to believe that they will probably be wrong about that. I previously related the case in which a pastor, who should have known better, told my 12 year old son who was in chemotherapy that God had told him that everyone he laid hands on and prayed for would be healed from cancer. For a 12 year old that logically meant he no longer needed to continue chemotherapy–but he did need to continue.

    I can testify that there are many things about having a child sick, for example, that go well beyond the obvious. In our case, my wife was forced to go to half-time on family medical leave. Despite having good health insurance, we piled up medical bills with the copays and deductibles. Our time was strained. Our mental energy was strained. Then someone would come along and say, “If you will just go to _____, they will pray for your son and I believe he will be healed.” If we made the decision not to go the obvious question was why we would neglect to do something that might possibly save our son’s life.

    The problem was that we had dozens of such suggestions, some from regular medicine though different from the course of treatment we had chosen with our oncologist’s advice, some from alternative medicine, and many from a spiritual perspective. We had suggestions on how to decorate his room, how to handle the water in our house, and how to organize his diet. At some point, you simply wear out from suggestions. You simply cannot do all of it, even if you want to.

    A major problem is desperation, which leads you to do anything that might help, without any concern about whether it is very likely to do so. Friends are desperate as well, and they want to help. Under these circumstances the faith healer looks pretty good. Just go get anointed with oil and hands laid on you and it’s taken care of. Well, the bottom line for many people is that it isn’t, and after that the recriminations start. I know of a family, for example, who were told by a Methodist minister that if they had had enough faith, their loved one would have been healed. If your business is spiritual, can you admit simply that God doesn’t always heal, or even do so all that frequently, or do you have to find a reason why the activity failed?

    Revival, American style, shares characteristics with American fast food. We want it to be exciting and fast. We would prefer to go to the faith healer, be declared healed, and go on our way. It certainly beats months of chemotherapy.

    But I don’t think healing prayer is primarily about that, which is why I would not test it in that way. Healing prayer is primarily about spiritual, and by extension emotional, health. The healing services I attended fed into that spiritual health by combining the prayer with worship, explicitly discussing the expectations, and doing this all in the context of a supportive praying community, the church congregation. This can be done in a mass revival service, but it is easy to miss it. Further, in the revival service there is most commonly no follow-up to help a person with their expectations. If the revival preacher or faith healer lays hands on you and you remain ill, who is going to help you deal with your expectations? I recall one young man in trouble with the Brownsville revival who talked to me about his situation. He was happy that I would listen, he said, but what he really wanted was a half hour with his own pastor, something he was unlikely to get.

    I believe that any time we put our primary focus on the physical–material wealth, physical healing, visible effects of the Spirit’s presence–we will produce many negative results. Pastors in the area of a revival need to be aware of this and be prepared to support their members. One key issue here which might need more comment: Being a blanket critic of the revival is likely to turn away the very people you could help. If you affirm a person’s desire for a touch from God, and then help them work through their expectations, you will have opportunities to provide balance for them that they are unlikely to get at a revival service. Implying that they were stupid for seeking prayer is unlikely to be helpful.

    I would describe this as the primary failing of churches in the Pensacola area during the Brownsville revival. People showed up in churches after they had accepted Christ at the revival, or church members returned to their home church after the revival service, only to hear condemnation. Discerning comment on weaknesses is necessary. Affirmation of people’s needs and of the blessings that many receive helps establish the ground. Then you can fill in the blanks and balance the imbalances where they occur.

    I have been rambling a bit, but I hope these thoughts will be of help to people in relating to revival. I’m in no way telling people not to go and experience whatever they believe God has called them to do. But the more people there are and the more excitement, the more discernment is necessary.

  • Misplaced Grief

    My wife has written a post about a family who is suing the wrong people in their grief.