Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Healthcare and the Church: But What is the Church?

    [Since I have readers from a variety of viewpoints, let me note that the following is written from within the Christian tradition and to those in that tradition. It’s OK to read, of course, but it’s unlikely to be of great interest to non-Christians.]

    Mark at Pseudo-Polymath has started a discussion on health care and the church and I have become involved. His latest post is here, which responds to some of my personal reflections as I begin posting. I have some further personal reflections, based on the five year battle with our son’s cancer. But those personal reflections are intended to lead to some thinking about the broader role of the church. My posts on this subject are in no way intended to be thoughts of an expert. I am far from an expert on this topic. But they are reflections from the consumer’s point of view on the health care system, and from the church perspective from one deeply involved in church activity.

    I want to post just a few thoughts and questions here. My problem in thinking about this discussion has been that it is very easy to shift the discussion from the role of the government to the role of the church without changing the actual content. In other words, I can make this a debate over how much is the role of the government, and how much the role of the church. I can prepare a list of programs, and ask whether the church or the government (or some other private group) should carry them out.

    That might result in a list of church programs: Education on death and dying, end of life care, support for individuals undergoing treatment and for their families, prayer, economic assistance (I know very well how demanding illness can be on one’s pocketbook even with good insurance), good lifestyle and health education and training, and so forth. I intentionally left out most of the spiritual things from that list (except prayer) because we often simply tack those on.

    It seems to me that the church has become more of an adjunct to our secular lives, a club to which we belong, rather than our spiritual center. I’ve been reading Acts 2 as part of my lectionary readings lately, and it strikes me that the church that was breaking bread together and worshiping together constantly, sharing all their good, and so forth, was much more than an adjunct to the lives of those early disciples. I think they believed they were living at least a part of the kingdom of God. That fellowship was the central part of their lives.

    Any health care related program of the church may be helpful, but it cannot be most helpful unless the church feels and acts like a body, the body of Christ in service to the world. Only in that case do we really have the ability to respond full to those within and without. In general, when a family in the church has a problem, it’s their problem with which we (the rest of the church members) may help them. It’s not our problem.

    Should healing be an adjunct to our other activities, something we do as a program, or should it perhaps be an essential part of living as the body of Jesus Christ in the world? This is the question that’s been hitting me as I have been thinking about this. My father’s church, the Seventh-day Adventists, established health care facilities all over the world as a means of evangelism. Perhaps there is another step here, where the church in general establishes (or becomes) such facilities in order to be Jesus in the world. We’d then operate them in such a way as to look as much like Jesus in action as possible.

    I don’t know precisely what this would look like, but I think it would look much different than what we have. The problem with resolving end of life care issues is not so much in knowledge, though knowledge is necessary, but in support.

    Let me illustrate. The hardest moment in my son’s illness was not the day he died, but several months earlier. My wife was on a mission trip in eastern Europe. I had no means to contact her by e-mail. I was here alone with James. I had to call the doctor and get the results of a scan. Those results said that the cancer had returned in four places. Now theres knowledge, and then there’s the ability to apply the knowledge, to take the steps one has to take.

    My knowledge was not adequate. I needed the support of my family and my church in order to work through the situation and take care of it. It seems to me that this is the most important consideration. No amount of training is going to help if we’re not there at the time of need. Being the church in some sense means that we are there at the right time.

  • Curriculum Chaos Bill in Florida

    The Florida legislature is considering an Academic Freedom bill. This one has been done to death, and you can find a great deal of information about it on the Florida Citizens for Science Blog, with the most recent update here. I’ll let you get the details via the many posts there.

    I want to add a point about this bill, however. It’s simply very stupid legislating. Now we are not at all shocked to see stupidity in the Florida legislature, or anywhere else, for that matter. As my wife commented when I mentioned this to her: “Why should Florida be different?” It’s not merely that this is creation vs. evolution, an issue on which I have some pretty strong convictions. The bill itself is wrong. It misunderstands academic freedom and it leaves almost everything open to interpretation, inviting litigation. In fact, it’s pretty much the sort of bill you write when you know you can’t get what you want, but you want to create some legislative language that will tangle the issue and let you try for it.

    The fundamental problem is that the legislature is choosing to write legislation on one portion of a subject through a specific bill. They had a framer’s committee to write the curriculum standards, they have a Board of Education to check those standards politically, but what they want to do is tinker with them by passing a bill.

    In most areas, we’d recognize this for what it is–bad micromanagement. If you think your management system for the state’s education system is that badly off, then you need to look at a better fix than this. But of course these legislators know that the experts are going to come to the same conclusion as they did before, and so they’re going to make political points at the expense of the children of Florida.

    This is bad legislation, badly written, hopelessly misguided, and there is no good outcome that would result from its passage. There is simply no excuse for it. The legislature should reject it.

  • UC Admissions Case Update

    Since it’s my day to link to Ed (not really, but he has some good posts, here’s an update on the UC admissions case.

  • Freedom from (not of) Expression

    Ed Brayton notes that the UN Human Rights Council has endorsed an anti-religious speech code proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference. I could write about this with the anger and disgust I feel, but Ed already said it so well:

    Now I am one of those people who is careful to distinguish between Islamic radicals and Islamic moderates. I strongly believe that most Muslims around the world, probably a significant majority, just want to live their lives as people of any large group do. Bin Laden certainly does not speak for them, nor should we lump all Muslims together under him. But there is at least a sizable minority of Muslims around the world who really do embrace what I regard as the most reactionary and barbaric ideology in the world today.

    While you’re expressing your deep concern about those who identify Islam with terrorism and human rights violations, how about at least expressing equal concern about those many millions of Islamic reactionaries who themselves openly identify Islam with terrorism, violence and who routinely violate the human rights of those around them? While you’re complaining about Muslims being stereotyped, how about at least pretending that you care as much about school textbooks in madrassahs in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and elsewhere that call Jews pigs and devils? At least keep up some pretense of being objective about this.

    Precisely!

    Ed also notes the irony of having Saudi Arabia of all places trying to lecture the west on freedom of expression. Quoth Daffy, “it is to laugh,” except that these folks aren’t funny; they’re dangerous.

  • MyBibleVersion.com – Comparison against a Base Version (Alpha)

    In response to a comment, I have added a page that will allow you to choose a base Bible version (whatever you prefer) and get a list of all other available versions based on how much they differ from that. The page is http://www.mybibleversion.com/compare.php. The default version is the NRSV if you don’t specify. There is a drop down box listing all available versions after the list of characteristics.

    I can’t emphasize enough that this is ALPHA software. Please watch for bugs, large and small, and report them via comments to this post. Requests for features are welcome, though time to implementation may vary wildly.

  • Also Richard Colling

    PZ Myers (yes, he who was expelled from Expelled!)* Pim van Meurs, has posted a couple of interesting cases on The Panda’s Thumb, and I want to make sure one name is also known: Dr. Richard Colling. I wrote about his situation in a number of posts, and also blogged through his book Random Designer.

    I experienced conservative Christian education myself. Many of my more conservative friends think I don’t understand the closed nature of academia because I didn’t attend a public university. But I experienced the closed minds that manifested themselves as soon as one deviated from the party line by too great a degree.

    The Expelled! producers aren’t concerned about academic freedom. They’re concerned about victory. They would like to be in control and be the ones expelling.

    *My sincere apologies. I plead posting too early in the morning.

  • The Major Errors of KJV-Only

    Someone signing as Morgan Sorensen just left a comment on my old post (11/28/2006), and I want to promote it to its own post, because it demonstrates the core errors of the KJV-Only position in a very small space.

    I’m printing the entire comment but I’m interspersing it with comments on the core errors that are displayed.

    Henry Neufeld, You are the one, in error here . These two verses do NOT say the same thing, unless you have graduated from “Dumbness school”.

    In what way do they not say the same thing? Surely since you believe that in order not to see it I must have graduated from “dumbness school” you can provide details.

    Furthermore, two important factors from the scriptures hang you , and James White out, as the deceivers that you are.
    One, is the first pillar, (of two) on the doctrine of scripture. That the Word of God came not by the WILL of MAN. Therefore, any changes to this Word of God, by the WILL of Man, must result in “sriritual blood poison”.

    Here’s the key KJV-Only error. They assume that the KJV is the one and only word of God, thus any changes from it become errors because you can’t change the word of God. But the word of God is not limited to one translation, and it didn’t come into existence in 1611. By this standard, the KJV is “spiritual blood poison” because of the alterations it makes from the source Greek and Hebrew texts.

    Of course that isn’t the case, because they, like other Bible translators, were simply working with what they had, and they did a pretty good job. Their translation shouldn’t replace the source texts. How could it? But it was very good for its time.

    Secondly, the Word of God is; “Forever settled in Heaven”, it is”pure”, it is by Jesus’s own explanation, the “Lifeblood” of the Christian. Jesus said; “My Words are life unto you”.
    In Leviticus 17, we read that the LIFE is in the blood. You fellas are tampering with that “life”, and inserting the tincture of “scholastic arsenic” into that “God given Pure bloodstream” of the traditional text, and presenting the corrupted Alexandrian mss. as pure, when you ought to know, it is not.

    Now she also assumes that the “traditional text,” a rather ephemeral object is equal to the “word of God. Which is it? Is the KJV the word that cannot be changed, or is it the “traditional text?” And what represents the traditional text? The textus receptus, the majority text, or some reconstruction of the Greek text used by the KJV translators?

    Considering some of the completely unique readings in the latter chapters of Revelation, again, the KJV might well be accused of adding this “spiritual arsenic.” Of course, no such thing is true. They did the best they could with what they had–and it was an excellent job. The translators themselves would be horrified at the type of arguments KJV-Only advocates use in supposed support of their work. With friends like these . . .

    Further, who presents “the corrupted Alexandrian mss. as pure”? I’m an advocate of an eclectic text, and don’t regard any hand copied manuscript as “pure” in this sense. All are subject to error, and all disagree with one another in some way. If the scriptures are corrupt, that corruption was introduced pretty early.

    Your stupid mis-caricature of Mrs. Riplinger, shows both you and James White’s cowardice and un-gentlemanly behaviour.

    Anyone who speaks the way she does about others has no grounds to complain about how she is treated. She has slandered many men of God and her book contains an overwhelming number of errors.

    Not that I in any way need to defend Mrs. Riplinger, as both you and James white, could not scholastically measure up to her ankles. You both stand exposed for your lies and deception.

    I eagerly await the first time that you expose my lies and deception. All you did in this comment was assert that I was a liar. Try again.

  • Expelled! and the Atheism-Evolution Connection

    There is something I want to clarify from my previous post on the topic. Nobody has mentioned this to me, but it is a common enough error that I think I need to say something explicit.

    I object both to the comparison of scientists supporting the theory of evolution to Nazis and the equation of acceptance of evolution with atheism, but I do so for rather different reasons.

    I regard Nazism as ethically repugnant and pretty much without redeeming value. It’s manifestation in Germany was particularly evil. The passage of years, however, has resulted in a variety of people comparing just about anyone they disagree with to the Nazis. If you get by with it, it guarantees a win. I regard the comparison of scientists denying tenure to a professor with Nazis as a slander. It also demonstrates a lack of ethical judgment, and specifically devalues the true evil of Nazism.

    I think it’s quite possible that for the producers of Expelled, the connection to atheists is more important. Atheism is more present and real to modern Americans, and it is the one thing they expect Christians of all denominations and believers from other faiths to be able to agree on–atheism is bad. So if you can hammer the concept into people that belief in evolution is the equivalent of atheism, they will viscerally reject evolution as they already do atheism.

    It’s a fairly standard propaganda ploy. Find something that is already in disrepute amongst your audience (and polls on the perception of atheists will show the basis for this), then all you have to do is completely (subconsciously if possible) relate the idea you dislike to the one people already dislike. Unfortunately, all that is necessary to accomplish this goal is to repeat it often enough and loudly enough.

    So my problem with “evolution is atheism” is quite different from my concern about Nazism. Nazism is nasty, and it is slander to connect it with evolutionary science. Atheists are generally good, moral, productive people, and there is nothing about their belief system that says they will be anything else. There’s a big difference between a group of people who believe as a tenet of their ideology that you ought to be killed, and a group that disagrees with you on certain philosophical points, even very basic ones.

    So I want to make myself clear. I do not object to the connection of atheism and evolution because atheism is nasty, and you shouldn’t smear evolution in that way. I object to this connection because it is incorrect. The theory of evolution describes the natural world, and is not incompatible with theism. It is also not incompatible with atheism. It is simply organized information about the natural world. Connecting it with a philosophy is completely unrelated to determining its truth value.

    Nazism is an ideology with an ethically repugnant set of actions inherent in it. It is slanderous to connect evolution with that ideology.

    It remains true, of course, that both connections are inappropriate propaganda ploys and the producers of Expelled! should be ashamed of themselves for both.

  • MyBibleVersion.com – Adding a New Concept

    Lingalinga, formerly going under the identity lingamish, made a suggestion about my Bible Version Selection Tool. He thought it would be nice to be able to modify the version profiles to one’s individual tastes, and use the tool against those profiles rather than the ones I supply.

    I agree with him, and it wouldn’t be that difficult for me to implement, partially because I have most of the necessary code on file from other projects. The main difficulty is designing a usable system. So I’m going to give you, my readers, a chance to make more detailed suggestions.

    I will have one firm proviso. I’m not going to mix this idea in with the original tool. Feedback has indicated that my original tool (still available at http://books.energion.com/bibles/eneversion.php) was simply too complicated for most users. They would give up after going through one or two of the items, and rarely would get to all eleven. That’s why I created the simplified version with profiles. Users can now check a box and get the more detailed layout. I think, however, that adding links for all of this to that page will remove the benefit. Instead I will create a new page for individually tailored selection.

    Here are the basic features:

    1. Simple registration and sign-in. Version information can then be recalled and edited, but only by the one who created it.
    2. Though each person, unless possessed of multiple personalities, should likely have one set of descriptions for Bible versions, multiple sets are possible.
    3. The editor will present a matrix with the complete list of versions, defaulting to the current numbers and descriptions. Users will simply provide an ID for their data, and then modify any information they wish.
    4. Users of the personalized selection tool will be able to choose any one of the profiles provided by users, probably via drop-down box.
    5. Other than selection of the data set against which you want to work, the selection tool will function in the same way as it does at present.

    Some options I’m considering:

    1. User profile, with some kind of user ID (not necessarily real name) and web site/blog link.
    2. Published/not-published option, so you can edit on a new set of profiles for the translations without having it show publicly.
    3. Published profile sets would then display the user profile information, allowing users to evaluate a bit. For example, if the person who created the profile set is contributor to a major Bible translation blog (Better Bibles, for example), one might give it more weight.
    4. Allow users, more specifically anyone who creates a profile-set, to add characteristics on which they want to rate a version. This is a bit more complex, and would not be in any initial version.
    5. Allow users to add versions to the list. Again, in the initial version, people would have to e-mail me to add a new version.

    For those who have web sites, it looks to me like we would have the same XML generator available to work under your individualized profile. You’d be able to create a set of profiles for Bible versions, then use an RSS reader to access your information and display it on your site. I have the basic code for doing so here. I would expect this to be possible with the personalized version as well.

    These are just my preliminary ideas. I will accept suggestions via comments to this blog entry.

  • Upgraded to WordPress 2.5

    I have upgraded the software for this blog to WordPress 2.5. I believe with the way I did it nobody should have noticed more than a momentary (less that 30 second) glitch. If there were any other problems I apologize.

    Please let me know if any new difficulties emerge.