Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • A Desire to Please and a Fear to Offend – Psalm 95

    Matthew Henry, in commenting on Psalm 95 says that “[t]his psalm must be sung with a holy reverence of God’s majesty and a dread of his justice, with a desire to please him and a fear to offend him.” I’m wondering just how that was derived from this Psalm.

    I don’t doubt that there we should desire to please and fear to offend God, if for no other reason than that I believe God commands us to do merely what is best for us in any case. But in this Psalm we have a description of approaching God, and it doesn’t seem to match this solemnity. Working from God’s Word (GW), the first couple of verses refer to shouting, using adverbs like “joyfully” and “happily.”

    Now I don’t think reverence and happiness are incompatible. I don’t think shouting and reverence are incompatible. But I know plenty of congregations where they would be seen as such. A person who approached the song service by shouting joyfully would be very unwelcome. I won’t accuse Matthew Henry of making such a mistake. I don’t know precisely what his approach to worship would be.

    At the same time we turn to fearing to offend. Again, a joyous response doesn’t seem to involve a fear to offend, but rather points to a situation in which perfect love has cast fear out (1 John 4:18). And no, I don’t think I’m confusing the awe/fear of reverence with fear as in terror. The one fear the Psalm calls for is a fear of being stubborn and closed off to God’s direction, a fear of testing God.

    I may have been unfair to Matthew Henry here, but his entry on this Psalm doesn’t seem to match the spirit of the work.

  • Ethics of Lotteries vs Casinos

    I live in Florida where we have a lottery that is supposed to provide money for education. At the same time we have a strong resistance to allowing casino gambling. Now I’m not a gambler, and don’t recommend it. Some do it for entertainment, and I don’t have a problem with that. For me it would be very expensive entertainment indeed!

    But I find this approval of gambling–what else is the lottery–for state purposes while opposing any form of casino gambling a bit puzzling. Over the years I have heard many, many ads for the Florida lottery, and they trouble me much more than casinos do. It has been said that lotteries are a tax on math illiteracy. In that case, the ads for the Florida lottery amount to aiding and abetting math illiteracy, as well as charging a penalty for it. I’m only going to comment on the ones I’ve heard here, though I suspect other lotteries must use similar methods.

    Gambling by nature operates on creating an illusion. Entertainment in general does the same thing, so that’s not a criticism. In the lottery, the illusion is that you’re doing a good thing by participating and you just might get rich. Of course, there is a need to convince people that the likelihood that they will get rich is higher than it really is. In the casino, I would maintain, this is a known and knowable part of the entertainment. People may get taken in, but they basically ask for it. But do they ask for it in ads on radio and television for a state-sponsored lottery?

    Let me give an example. One type of ad emphasizes the number of chances. For example, a certain ticket is advertised as having “more chances now than ever.” One ad a couple of years back announced that each ticket now provided five chances to win–a great boon to the players. Now anyone who knows probability realizes that the actual chance to win remains the same if you increase the chances to all the players. Your odds become 5 times what they were out of 5 times what the total was before–totally equal.

    I guess one could say that if you fall for that, you deserve to lose your money. In a casino, I might even say the same thing. If one spends more on entertainment than one can afford, one has only oneself to blame. When I was an airman on temporary duty in Panama I once took $50 with me into a casino and played until it was gone. My experience didn’t make me want to spend another $50, but not everyone likes the same type of entertainment.

    But should the state be sponsoring misleading advertising? Yes, the lottery is handled by a contractor, but it is still done for the state, and its purpose is education. I don’t see this. I particularly don’t see it as better than casino gambling. I think it would be much better for us to support education directly through taxes spent on the purpose. It’s not my purpose to examine the use of the lottery money here, but there are many who question whether the education spending from lottery money is not offset by cuts the legislature feels free to make based on the availability of the lottery money. I don’t have good numbers on this.

    (As an aside, we need to establish education as a valuable, profitable investment, not a simple expenditure. One thing that troubles me about many fiscal conservatives (and I am fiscally conservative) is the tendency to lump all expenditure together, and then talk directly about cuts and deficits. “Cuts across the board” are unlikely to be wise. The problem is that we don’t have the discipline to prioritize and make choices. Spending on defense, law enforcement, education, and highways, for example, is qualitatively different from expenditures on social safety net programs.)

    It seems to me that it is unethical for the government to participate in deception, and particularly a deception that tends to take money from those least able to afford it. They should be safe from such exploitation by their government.

  • Exodus 17:1-7 – In and Out of Trouble

    I provide some devotional thoughts (not particularly exegetical!) that I gleaned from this passage in my post today for my wife’s devotional list.

  • Al Mohler Advises on Educating Your Kids

    Through a Glass Darkly expresses appreciation for Al Mohler’s advice on educating his kids. Well, maybe not so much! 🙂

  • On Being a Stepfather

    I was pleased to find a report on MSNBC.com on titled It’s tough being a stepdad. In my experience stepparents are often underrated, and do not receive much consideration. The stories we hear tend to be negative–when stepparents fail, as often we do.

    You see, I am a stepfather. I got married late in life to a woman who had three lovely children already. The two oldest were already past the age of 18, and I remember with great amusement my pastor telling me that I didn’t have to worry about them. He gave excellent advice, but he missed it on that point. I still had occasion to be very much involved in their lives, despite their age, involving both joy and sorrow.

    Our younger son was 12 years old, and was in chemotherapy for cancer when we got married. He passed away five years later. As things got more difficult with the cancer treatment a good friend of the family called me aside and said, “Henry, many people are going to ignore you in this situation because you’re the stepparent. But don’t forget to take care of yourself.” Well, some people did ignore me, but to be honest most people gave me all the consideration I could possibly ask for.

    My relationship with all my children grew with time. Let me offer a word of advice from my experience: Don’t be in a hurry. Children don’t get used to you overnight, and trying to force things doesn’t help in the least. I tried to be very patient, and I have heard from the kids now that they are substantially older that they appreciated that. There are some things you have to get involved with, and there are some things you should. Just be sure you think carefully about which are which.

    The second point I would make to other stepparents is that your relationship with your stepchild isn’t something that takes away from, or loses something to the relationship with the birth parent. While my children’s father was alive, I was careful not to say anything bad about him, and never to try to replace him. It won’t work, and it is neither necessary or desirable. You can have a good, constructive relationship with a stepchild that is yours, while nurturing and encouraging the relationship with their birth parent. My children’s father passed away suddenly, early in the morning, when he was out of town. My youngest son came to me within a few minutes after he heard the news and said, “Well, Henry, I guess it’s all up to you now!” He never called me “dad.” I was always his stepdad. I had and have no problem with that–stepdad is an honorable title.

    I made it a note in my last paragraph, but let me make it explicit as well: My third suggestion is to never run down the child’s birth parent. It’s a game you’ll lose, and it’s a game you should lose. Learn what isn’t your business and stay out of it.

    Now I have grandchildren. I like to call people’s attention to the bumper sticker that reads, “If I had known how much fun grandchildren were, I’d have had them first!” I say, “I did that!” There were easy points, and there were hard points, but it was all worth it.

    I offer this for what it’s worth. This was just my experience, and I’m no expert. Not even close! But I do know that stepchildren can be a joy, and that giving stepparenting the time and attention it deserves is well worth the effort.

  • Obama Campaign and Race

    I think Barack Obama has done a good job of keeping his campaign from being about race. I’m certain this hasn’t been easy. In reading this article from MSNBC.com I was struck that apparently the commentators are holding his campaign to a standard of perfection.

    In my view, whether he wins in the end or not, Barack Obama’s campaign has been very good for the country. I think he has paved the way for many people to give serious consideration to candidates irrespective of their race. There must be pioneers, and he is one. Readers of this blog probably know that I like him, and while I do have policy concerns, they are no greater than with any other candidate; in fact, they are considerably less in his case.

    The expectation that an African-American candidate could run without any signs of race showing up is ludicrous. Obama has done a good job with the options available.

  • New Poll – Why Do You Read the Bible?

    I’ve replaced my poll on Origen with a new one, this time asking what reason causes you to spend the most time reading the Bible. I’m interested in the results. In my personal experience I have heard people express all of these reasons. You’ll find the poll in the right sidebar.

  • Origen and Bible Censorship Poll Results

    You can see the poll results here if you haven’t done so already. I’m going to replace the poll with a new one. I posted this poll after reading Origen’s comment that immature Christians should not be permitted to read certain passages of scripture, especially the Song of Songs (or Song of Solomon).

    I found this poll interesting, because as I expected there were few people who wanted to try to control church members’ Bible reading. I was wondering if there might be a few out there, but there were none. The only restriction that received any votes was that children shouldn’t be allowed to read sexually explicit passages (1 vote out of 20). The remainder were simply different ways of saying people should be allowed to read whatever they want.

    Thanks to all who responded.

  • Roundup Florida Science Standards

    Wesley Elsberry has provided a roundup of his posts on the Florida science standards. Note that the vote on these will be February 19.

  • Am I a Darwinian?

    I spent Saturday, February 9, traveling to/from or in Tallahassee. I was there to attend the annual meeting of Florida Citizens for Science, and also to take in some Darwin Day speakers at the FSU Medical School. I was able to work in Dr. Harry Kroto and Dr. Eugenie Scott (National Center for Science Education), and also part of the final panel that include Dr. Michael Ruse amongst others.

    There is a problem with these meetings in that we gather together people who already agree that the theory of evolution is sound science and we are encouraged by those supporting it and alarmed by the number of folks in this country who oppose it. Often little is accomplished in convincing anyone who wasn’t convinced already. But it’s really a very small problem. There is a place for educating and encouraging the choir, and those of us who were there learned some things about communicating evolution. I would say that the very best way to build support for the theory of evolution, and thus also sound science generally, is to provide better science education.

    Why do I think supporting the theory of evolution in particular encourages sound science? In order to truly do science one must be willing to follow the evidence where it leads. Evolution is the main point on which large numbers don’t want to do that. As long as we say we can ignore the facts discovered by science, we are inevitably weakened.

    There was one discussion that interested me especially because of my linguistic background. Dr. Scott made the comment that we should not accept the title “Darwinist” because that title is applied to us by creationists as an epithet. Physicists are not Kelvinists, for example. (Dr. Scott provided a considerable list.) I can see her point on this, because the term “Darwinist” has been poisoned so much by the debate. Dr. Michael Ruse objected on this one point and suggested rather than he didn’t mind being called a “Darwinian.”

    I’m kind of torn on the issue. I don’t like being called an “evolutionist.” It’s not my religion or my political “ism.” It’s just a well-established scientific theory that I accept. It shouldn’t be regarded with surprise that I accept it; the reverse should be true. Why would one not accept a theory with such solid support? But at the same time I dislike the misuse of Charles Darwin’s name. Evolution today is not limited to what he discovered, but at the same time he was both a man of his age, and thus not perfect, while at the same time he was a wonderful example of a scientist, and a scientific thinker. He was able to step beyond the paradigms of his age and provide a whole new foundation for understanding the whole science of biology. In that sense, I would proud–but unqualified–to be called a Darwinian.

    The bottom line, I suspect, is that I can do very little about what people choose to call me or anyone else. I will likely be a “theistic evolutionist” for the indefinite future, even though I object to the “ist” on evolutionist and the “theistic” part of the title. I both believe in God and I accept the theory of evolution. My theism does not modify the data of the theory of evolution. Yet the title has become accepted and does identify a somewhat coherent group of people.

    Perhaps we should take on the name “Darwinian” and try to rescue the reputation of the fine scientist form which it is derived. The fact that this must be done is a sorry comment on our culture.