Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Mississippi Legislator Wants to Play Nanny

    His bill would require restaurants not to serve certain things to people who are obese. You know, those teenagers behind the counter at McDonalds would determine whether you are obese or not. More here at Junk Food Science with hat tips to The Agitator and Dispatches.

  • The Need for Church Politics

    No, I’m not talking about the church getting involved in politics in general, nor about politicians speaking in church. I’m talking about the politics that goes into actually running the church. There’s a great deal of politics involved in the way churches are governed. But I’m not going to call for less–I’m going to call for more.

    You see, I believe that politics can range from the greatest curse to the greatest blessing in a church. One thing is impossible, however–to make the church free of politics. When people get together and make decisions in a group, politics happens. It’s not a bad thing; it’s the way we work together.

    What can be a very bad thing is when politics is left to go its own way and simply develop naturally. Then church Machiavellis, sometimes known as spiritual leaders, get to take over just because nobody else is involved. Now don’t intend either to put down real spiritual leaders or spiritual leadership qualities. The problem is when we don’t pay attention to how people get into leadership and how people lead after thay are in leadership, we often get people who think they are great spiritual leaders into positions where we need actual spiritual leaders.

    I have spent some time with folks involved in the charismatic movement within the United Methodist Church. I’m a bit of a charismatic myself, and have been dubbed a “liberal charismatic.” Now folks who are charismatic are much more interested in the work of the Spirit, in spontaneity, and following the guidance of the Spirit than they are in church rules, policies, and procedures.

    I noticed two things, and I think they both result from this attitude. First, committees in the church tended not to favor the charismatic position. Some of the charismatic folks would refuse to serve, some would miss meetings, and some simply couldn’t stand all the debate over details. It all has so little to do with being spiritual! Second, charismatic activities would nonetheless take on a certain order. The “spontaneous” worship services very often had quite a precise order, and someone who came from another charismatic church could get caught by that. This order came from the folks who gravitated into leadership in the charismatic group. Thus politics happened whether people wanted it to happen or not, and whether they thought it was happening or not. The actual difference came in who made the decisions and how.

    Complaining in a church can also, like politics, be anything from a great curse to a great blessing. It’s the church politics that often makes the difference as to which it is. If the various boards, committees, work teams, or whatever you call them are doing their job, church members are complaining to the right people, and those people listen, then it can be a blessing. If people are just complaining to one another, then it’s just gossip, and it will tear the church down. If people complain when things are bad and pass out praise and compliments when things are going well, that is also a blessing. Some people only come out of the woodwork when they are really unhappy.

    My basic point is that church politics will exist. The one thing we can do is try to make it happen in such a way as to build up rather than tear down. In order to make it build up we need to all get involved in some way, we need to graciously call people to account as necessarily, but also provide positive feedback as necessary. We need to take up positions as we are called by God, and try not to miss God’s call because we really don’t want to be in the position.

    Above all we shouldn’t be afraid of an intense, but constructive discussion. Too often we regard a vigorous debate as contrary to church unity. Normally, the failure to carefully examine something simply protects vested interests in the church. Yes, people build little empires in church organization too. Of course, I must add a caveat here too–vigorous debate means constructive vigorous debate in which all are looking for solutions.

    Politics is. Get involved. Make it a blessing.

  • Book Meme

    I’ve been tagged by C.Orthodoxy with the book meme. Here’s the meme:

    • Pick up the nearest book (of at least 123 pages).
    • Open the book to page 123.
    • Find the fifth sentence.
    • Post the next three sentences.
    • Tag five people.

    I don’t usually do these, and this is going to be funny, because I happened to be sitting on the couch where I had gone to read a commentary on 2 Corinthians, and had taken a break to look at the blog when I saw the tag. Thus this may not make a lot of sense. I can’t think of a book less likely to produce sense from a random location. 🙂

    Update: Via a comment I came to realize I hadn’t specified which commentary on 2 Corinthians. It is Victor Furnish, Anchor Bible: 2 Corinthians.

    If Phil was indeed written from Ephesus, then it is possible that Paul has the same imprisonment in mind as he writes now of the affliction . . . in Asia (2 Cor 1:8). The following points of correspondence between the present passage and Phil 1 and 2 may be noted: (a) Both passages refer to a life-threatening experience (2 Cor 1:8-9; Phil 1:20-23; 2:12-18; cf. Georgi 1965:46). (b) The presence of Timothy (Phil 2:19-23) could account for the use of the first person plural in 2 Cor 1:8ff., even though Timothy himself was probably not a prisoner.

    I suspect this may be in the running as the least comprehensible extract resulting from this meme!

    I tag:

  • Florida Science Standards Petition

    The proposed new Florida standards give evolution its proper place in science education. The petition is posted here, and you can find further information on it on the Florida Citizens for Science blog.

    Whether you are in the state of Florida or not, please go and sign. We will give separate counts for the in-state and out of state signers when the petition is presented.

  • An Evangelist for Evolution

    The Rev. Michael Dowd is preaching a surprising message: Evolution is real and science points to the existence of God. (Source: .)

    Rev. Dowd also joins the growing group who acknowledge that accepting evolution does impact one’s theology in some ways. I find his specific take interesting.

    One theme that seems to get someone entry into Christian venues is the idea that science can help support faith. Those who say, “Evolution is true, live with it” don’t get so much of a hearing. Unfortunately, while I believe that scientific evidence can be seen as consistent with the existence of God, I see nothing that forces or drives the conclusion that there truly is a God. Often the evidence makes one drop some definition of God that one had held before.

    In a comment to a previous post Larry B. writes:

    In the same (but different) way, I honestly feel that evolution for a lot of people has unmoored more than a few christians from their foundations.

    (I don’t want to copy the whole comment here, but it is worthwhile reading the entire context.)

    I agree with this statement, but would ask what is the proper response? If people have faith that God will heal everyone for whom prayer is offered, they will very possibly be “unmoored” from that faith when reality doesn’t accord with their expectations. In the case of evolution, I suggest that there is more education needed amongst Christians about the implications and possibilities, so that people can make intelligent decisions.

    I do think it is important to note the real challenges to theology, and to welcome, rather than fear questions. Christianity is ultimately doomed if it cannot find a more friendly way to co-exist with challenges. There’s the “fall over and play dead” option and the “circle the wagons option.” We need more folks in the “let’s have fun with this” camp!

    Or at least that’s my take on it.

  • Republicans for Obama

    There’s an interesting article in Newsweek on Republicans supporting Obama. These are not people who are angry that it appears the nomination will not go to someone who is regarded as soundly conservative. They are inspired by Barack Obama.

  • God is not that Vulnerable

    I had a short conversation with a friend and client the other day and I thought I’d share the key point. This man is a professional with a substantial scientific education, and also a devout Christian. On his desk was the book The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. That got us chatting about evolution, and how so many people were bothered by it. He wasn’t even aware that Dawkins was an atheist, nor did he care.

    He said something very interesting that would have taken me several convoluted paragraphs to get across. Referring to those who feel their faith threatened by evolution he said, “God is not that vulnerable.”

    Hmmm! That works for me.

  • Dynamically Wrong? Exodus 24:12 (NLT)

    Exodus 24:12 in the NLT reads:

    And the LORD said to Moses, “Come up to me on the mountain. Stay there while I give you the tablets of stone that I have inscribed with my instructions and commands. Then you will teach the people from them.

    The phrase I’m interested in here is “stay there while.” That may seem like an odd fragment, but consider the NRSV: “and wait there.” What’s the difference? I might not have noticed if I hadn’t written a devotional based on the NRSV translation. Now when I first read the NRSV of this verse, I had to go back to the Hebrew and check, because “wait” looked wrong to me. In Hebrew it reads simply “and be there.” So the reason could be any number of things. But after reading the context a bit, I decided the NRSV had the idea right. Moses was to go up into the mountain and wait for the Lord. If that is the case, the NLT is clear and natural, but misses the point just a bit.

    If you read further you will see that after Moses goes up into the mountain he does, in fact, have to wait. He does so for six days, and then on the seventh day he is called into the cloud. I think the best connection in the context for the phrase “be there” is to that waiting time, and thus the NRSV is the better translation in this case.

    (Before someone misunderstands, the NRSV and NLT are both translations that I commend highly. There will always be points of disagreement in any translation, so this shouldn’t be taken as an “unendorsement” of the NLT. It’s just a single case where I agree with one excellent translation over another.)