Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Robert Reich on Gladiator Politics

    I would suggest that everyone read this post. When Robert Reich was Secretary of Labor I didn’t like him that much, but he is truly expressing wisdom in this post.

  • Meditations on a Healing Service

    Or perhaps I should call it thoughts resulting from meditations on a healing service. But that makes a long title.

    I’ve mentioned here before that my wife and I recently transferred our membership to First United Methodist Church in Pensacola. This past Sunday we had the opportunity to attend a healing service at our new church. I enjoyed the service a great deal. It was done with a traditional liturgy and gently contemporary styling in the music, by which I mean that a band with guitars, drums, and keyboard (they used the grand piano so no effects!) played a combination of more modern choruses and familiar hymns. Unlike some contemporary praise groups who seem to think that comprehending the lyrics is not important and that volume is the key element, the words were sung clearly and at a quite reasonable level.

    The service included reading of scripture, prayer, and a medication (see comments!) meditation, then communion was served, or rather the ritual was carried out through the blessing. Once the elements were blessed, and also oil for anointing, people were left free to come forward for communion, for prayer with anointing, or to peruse through pictures that represented situations about which we could pray. I’ll mention more about that in a moment.

    The communion ritual was nicely done, with words added at the appropriate asterisks that tied that day’s worship activities to the service of healing. United Methodist readers will probably understand what I’m saying here. Way too often I hear a communion service conducted with no attention to the points at which “words appropriate to the occasion” can be added. A few tasteful lines there that tie in the day’s message, worship activities, or even people from that community can go a long way toward helping this to be communion and not merely a reading from the United Methodist Hymnal. In this case the words were very carefully chosen, and tied the afternoon service to the message of the morning services as well.

    I noticed that the lines for communion and for anointing with oil and prayer were quite long, but little attention was paid to the table with the pictures that were offered so that we could take them home and pray about the items represented. Toward the end I went and picked up a picture almost randomly, that turns out to be one of a young soldier in Darfur. The picture has been haunting me. I was already aware of Darfur, but this has brought it home.

    I certainly found the service a blessing. But now for what generally makes both my more rationalistic and my more charismatic friends crazy. Both would think that a healing service would be about healing, and that someone would come away cured–or not. The success of a healing service would be measured by healings.

    But for me that is not the point. I know that is difficult to understand, and I don’t usually try very hard to explain it. If you feel blessed by a healing service, go. If not, not. But just as I say prayer can’t be measured by studies of the number of people who are healed, or the number of things that are received, so I do not believe a healing service can be measured in that way. Indeed, I doubt it can be measured except by the numbers who attend, and how much they appreciate it.

    It is very much like any other variety of prayer. If prayer was designed to work like a vending machine, insert prayer, receive goodies, then we would say it failed if no goodies were received. And for those many people who teach just that, there is justification for the skeptical question of why it doesn’t happen. For me, both prayer and the healing service are about God and our communion with him. If we have communed, then we were successful.

    In the meditation, the minister presiding seemed to indicate much the same thing. Unlike a faith healer, he didn’t whip people into a frenzy and suggest that if they had enough faith they would be healed. Rather, he simply suggested coming before God and receiving what God chose to give.

    I’m thankful for the ministry of my new church and particularly for this service, which was a blessing to me.

  • Faithful Promises: Psalm 12

    One of the long term projects I have for this blog is to take a brief look at the major passages of scripture that relate to inspiration or that are used in discussions about it. I’m taking these passages from various sources, including comments made on this blog, but also from personal conversations, books, letters, e-mails, and so forth.

    In theological debates, the actual intent of Biblical passages often gets subordinated to a theological agenda. I recall one debate, or perhaps it would better be called an argument, in which both my opponent and I were citing Hebrews 4:12, yet our positions were polar opposites. That’s why an assertion with a parenthetical scripture reference, such as “the Bible is inerrant (2 Tim. 3:16)” have a tendency to fail in discussion.

    One favorite of the KJV-Only group is Psalm 12, of which they regularly cite verses 6 and 7. There are several things to look at about this Psalm. First we must ask just what type of literature it is. We know it is a Psalm (I wonder what our first clue was!) but just what type of Psalm?

    We can make some generalizations about Psalms. They are poetry and will tend to use figurative and picturesque language as is common in poetry. They are written from various perspectives and intended for various occasions. Thus it is very dangerous to pick a few lines from a Psalm and apply it theologically. There is the great example of quoting “there is no god” from Psalm 14:1. Of course, the Psalmist is quoting some unspecified group of fools, or perhaps some particular fool.

    Psalm 12, in particular is a prayer that is divided into some quite precise divisions. Verses 1 & 2 lament the lack of good people and describe the depravity of those who surround the Psalmist. This is followed in verses 3 & 4 by the actual petition, which is to cut off those who are flattering and arrogant. Verse 5 is YHWH’s response to the situation, in which he declares his intention to respond to the petition presented. Finally, verses 6-8, we have the expression of faith that despite the way in which the petitioner(s) is surrounded by the wicked, God will be faithful to his word–his promise–of protection given in verse 5.

    The two elements that the KJV-Only advocates have grabbed out of this Psalm are the statement that the Lord’s words are pure, and in verse 7 that the promise is forever. They take this to mean that the KJV is God’s pure word and that it will remain forever. Of course, the Psalm says nothing of the sort.

    Note that many modern versions (NRSV and NIV among them) translate “words” in verse 6 as “promises.” That is a correct reading of the Hebrew in which the specific words are the ones just spoken, and are thus promises in context. This meaning is similar to our use of “give your word” in English.

    Thus this passage says nothing directly about the Bible or its inspiration. It does, however, say some things indirectly, by talking about God and the nature of his promises. God’s promises are amongst God’s words, and he will be faithful to what he has declared. We can expect God’s word as reflected elsewhere, such as in scripture, to share characteristics with his word expressed to worshiper(s) here.

    Psalm 12 is a good example of a prayer of petition in the Bible, and it declares God faithful in what he says.

  • 4 Posts on Scripture

    A roundup at the Moderate Christian Blogroll blog.

  • Pelicans Back Home – Win 5-3

    Update: The Pensacola News Journal now has a report here.

    After a depressing road trip and a delay filled return, the Pelicans got off to a late start against the Shreveport Sports. John Webb (my stepson, for those who haven’t realized it yet!) started for the Pelicans and went 6.2, allowing 3 runs, 2 earned. The official stats aren’t showing the last game yet, but it looks to me like that puts his ERA at 2.89.

    Despite one error that allowed a run, and one inherited runner who scored on a wild pitch (that’s the 2nd earned run against John) the Pelicans looked much better than they have. The errors (or lack of them) alone doesn’t tell the story. There were a number of very well done plays, and at least one exceptionally good catch by the center fielder that simply made the game look much better.

    Note that I usually put out a couple of tweets on Twitter during the games and might put out a few more if I thought anyone was reading them. Right now I’m pretty certain nobody is, so it’s just an exercise in typing on my Palm Centro.

  • Fairness vs. Fairness

    With a hat tip to evangelical outpost, I present this quote from P. J. O’Rourke in the LA Times.

    The Bible is very clear about one thing: Using politics to create fairness is a sin. Observe the Tenth Commandment. The first nine commandments concern theological principles and social law: Thou shalt not make graven images, steal, kill, et cetera. Fair enough. But then there’s the tenth: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor’s.”

    Now please, please go read the whole article before you comment on how I used it. There is absolutely no way I could get the flavor while staying within the bounds of fair use. The article is funny, and if you read closely, you’ll find some truths lurking in it, just waiting to jump out and bite you. But above all, it’s quite humorous.

    Nonetheless, I’m grabbing a sentence that involves equivocation in the use of the term “fairness” that is all too prevalent in our society. Being humor challenged, I’m going to deal with it seriously. I hear or see “fairness” used in two substantially different ways.

    First is the fairness of approach. For example, in a game, a “fair” game is one in which the umpires ruled impartially, the rules were followed, and generally cheating was prevented. That’s fairness of opportunity or potential. In politics, we might be talking about the opportunity to make money. The government doesn’t deny me the opportunity to start a business or to take a job. I’m not blocked for some irrelevant reason, such as gender or age. That doesn’t guarantee me the ability to sell my idea and acquire or borrow the capital to put it into action. It doesn’t make me succeed at the resulting business. But all else being equal I am not prevented from access. (Note that there are move controversial points in economics than in sports because the possibilities are more complex, but that’s not my topic.)

    The second is a fairness of results. In this case we assume that people should win a certain amount and lose a certain amount. We usually find this amongst young children who think a game is fair when they win, or when they’re a little older they think it’s fair when they win the appropriate percentage of the time. In politics we’d look at the idea that everyone should receive either similar incomes, or incomes that are rated on some scale of non-economic value of their work. Why, for example, is a doctor rated as less valuable than many entertainers, and a school teacher less than either? This view of fairness results in some sense of moral outrage at economic inequalities, and often in an attempt to directly address those inequalities rather than looking at opportunities that lie behind them.

    The 10th commandment would certainly stand against fairness in this second sense, but I would suggest that this second type of fairness is a muddled concept, incapable of being resolved into clear thinking. The reason an entertainer gets more money is that more people want his or her services and are willing to pay more for it. (Note that each individual pays less to the entertainer than they do to the doctor, though the total income for the latter is less. Should the doctor learn how to serve patients in the millions he would likely get very rich!)

    But in the first sense, fairness of opportunity, the 10th commandment creates no problems. I think it’s unfortunate that in discussion these two senses are so rarely sorted out. In social policy, the line may not be so clear at the edges, but it is certainly a distinction that needs to be made.

  • 4 Posts

    I’ve decided to start a series of irregular but hopefully frequent posts on the Moderate Christian Blogroll blog for the purpose of trying to increase interaction. You can read the explanation, or see the first entry, 4 Posts on Christian Apologetics.

  • Sermon Today on Genesis 1:1-2:4a

    I want to recommend another sermon from the senior pastor at our new church, Pensacola First UMC, Dr. Wesley Wachob. I should note that they usually post audio from a different service than the one I attend, and he doesn’t follow a precise written text, so there may be some difference.

    There were two reasons I wanted to commend this sermon. I’ll go with the lesser one first. I always appreciate a sermon in which the relationship between science and religion is discussed. Dr. Wachob very clearly stated that Genesis 1:1-2:4a is not science, but theology. He also rejected the term “mythology” and I would agree with him for the precise passage, but there is material in Genesis, 2:4b through the end of chapter 4 in particular, that carries most of the literary characteristics of myth. Nonetheless he also called Genesis 1:1-2:4a liturgy which is what I believe it is. He only spent a minute or two on this.

    The second point is really more important, however, from my point of view. He preached a solid sermon with a spiritual lesson from Genesis 1:1-2 without making it a debate about historical and scientific issues. Some people have a very hard time preaching from this chapter. They spend all their time either affirming or denying it as narrative history. Dr. Wachob makes application to daily life and practical Christian living.

    There’s a link to the audio on the Pensacola First UMC site here. Look at the left hand side of the page toward the end of the pastor’s message.

  • A Remarkable Piece of Anti-Evolutionary Logic

    Via Quintessence of Dust I found this post at Reasons to Believe, with the following interesting paragraph:

    The fundamental problem with evolution as a scientific theory is that it is neither predictive nor falsifiable. Embryologist and geneticist C. H. Waddington says, “The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable… If an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation… . The theory is not … a predictive theory as to what must happen.”1

    What interests me here is that the theory of evolution is criticized for not doing something it was not intended to do. We frequently see this when the theory of biological evolution is criticized for not explaining the origin of life, or for not explaining where matter came from. We don’t expect the theory of gravity to also explain why there is something and not nothing; given that there is something, the various predictions of that theory seem to work.

    In this case, the error is a bit more subtle. The quoted author is apparently saying that the theory of evolution is to be criticized for not predicting just how a particular population will evolve. It predicts general pathways, but not actual results. But that is precisely what a theory that includes random activity will predict. We have essentially random input in variation (well, not totally random, but with random elements), and it is then controlled by environmental factors which are also not totally predictable. We know generally how these will interact, but we do not, and very probably cannot know the actual result with any certainty, other than that variations that improve reproductive success are more likely (not certain) to survive.

    I’m used to this sort of thing from archeology. One can’t look at a particular culture and predict what will happen to it, unless one includes a huge number of “ifs.” Archeology can predict things about what activities will leave what results, but it can’t tell you what will be there ahead of time.

    The criticism posited of evolution, therefore, is a criticism that evolution does not do something it is not intended to do. It is sort of like criticizing my hammer because it is totally useless is sawing boards.

    Note: I am responding solely to the quote as provided by and used by the poster at Reasons. I have not checked its context and do not know if they used it properly in context.

  • Does Science Education Lead to Atheism

    Several discussions have led me to think about this question over the last few days. There is a significant group of scientists who think that the inevitable result of scientific knowledge is a loss of faith or a turn to atheism. On the other side of the line there is a significant group of fundamentalist Christians who feel much the same way. The major difference is in which they would give up. A recent MSNBC.com story gives the encouraging reminder that about 40% of scientists believe in God. Encouraging, indeed, but for which side?

    There has been a great deal of discussion on just how compatible religion is with science. Obviously for myself I’ve decided that good science is compatible with my theology, though not without some adjustments to how I understand the theology. My theology today is not the same as what I grew up with in any number of ways. But let’s lay that one aside.

    What does the church offer to the educated person? My education is related largely to theology, and I have spent a good deal of my church life being urged to ignore some things, greatly simplify others, and basically to leave my education behind at the doors to the church. This is by no means a universal attitude. At the same time as one person would be telling me not to bother people with things I knew, others would be inviting me to teach.

    But consider the difference between my education and that of an evolutionary biologist for example. Since I’m trained in Biblical studies and most particularly in languages, there is always someone in church who wants some portion of my expertise. I have even been invited to programs where I’m pretty certain my primary role was to sit with the other speakers and be “the guy who knows Greek.” There’s a certain respect for that. But the hypothetical evolutionary biologist isn’t going to find much call for his knowledge in church.

    Now that is the trial of the specialist. You have to gather with other specialists to talk about your specialty. But in church, other people frequently feel free to express uneducated opinions on just about any topic, and especially to talk about the great danger of education to faith, and the one way to be accepted in that society will be to claim that your education is not important to you.

    I’m painting this rather negatively, more so than I actually feel, but I do believe there is a problem. It’s variable with churches. In the United Methodist Church, for example, I have found a great deal of appreciation for education in any area. At the same time, for many people in the pews the educated person, especially one who questions any of the standard explanations of life, the universe, and everything, can be looked on with suspicion.

    In my view, faith and fellowship go together. Someone’s faith is not going to be nurtured when there are no other people to take that walk with them. While I think many churches do try, and I really appreciate the United Methodist congregations of which I’ve been a member, I think there will be a substantial problem for a scientist looking for a congregation where he or she can explore and examine faith freely and openly–in other words, to have constructive fellowship.

    It may well be that a significant number of those scientists who have slipped away from faith did so not because they were philosophically convinced that God does not exist, but because they never found a place to explore faith in a vital and constructive way with other people who welcomed their questions, their doubts, and even their unbelief.

    I do not mean in any way to question the intelligence or judgment of those who have made a conscious decision based on their view of the evidence to reject belief in God or to become agnostic. I even find many of their arguments quite reasonable myself in a certain context. But I suspect there are many who have slipped away from faith simply because they are not particularly trained to deal with spiritual issues, and those who should have helped them were unwilling, or perhaps unable, to deal with them doubts and all.

    I don’t know what numbers would be involved, but I’m convinced that having fellowship is an essential part of one’s faith journey. I’m further convinced that many people don’t take the fellowship needs of the educated seriously. Education is simply another characteristic of the people God brings together into his church; their needs need to be served as well.