Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Mother Theresa and Crises of Faith

    A friend e-mailed me the link to Mother Teresa’s Crisis of Faith. Although they use the singular “crisis,” that one crisis was one she lived with for a long time.

    I have to say that I have ample sympathy, not to mention empathy with people with doubts from time to time. I think God leaves us with an abundance of questions. Standing back and thinking in “theologian mode” that seems like an excellent scheme to make us grow spiritually. Living through it seems just simply annoying.

    It does remind me how much I dislike prosperity theology. Besides promising people something that is false–not all, or even most, followers of Jesus will be wealthy–it also encourages people to deny doubts and troubles in order to appear to be “real, faith filled” Christians.

    When our son was in his fight with cancer, from which he ultimately died at age 17, there were those who felt that if we had the right amount of faith, God would heal our son. It’s an interesting feeling to not only struggle with the reality of losing a child, but to also face the implicit accusation that it’s your fault because you don’t pray correctly or with enough faith.

    I suspect the faith that is without any doubts of being shallow. Trust and endurance are separate things. Faith, however, is not so absolute as some would like to make it.

  • Christian Carnival CLXXXVI

    . . . has been posted at Chasing the Wind.

  • Jena, LA: A Town in Turmoil

    Newsweek story here. I wish I was surprised at such racism, but I’m not. In many places it’s just below the surface. (HT: Pursuing Holiness.)

  • Campaign Finance, Enforceability, and Free Speech

    It has become fairly well established in current law, as I understand it, that election financing can be regulated quite substantially without violating free speech. Some of the boundary areas are not so well defined, and regulation of those who are not connected organizationally to any candidate has been held unconstitutional in at least some cases.

    Recently, a liberal blogger filed a complaint against Fred Thompson for conducting activities that were inappropriate for an undeclared candidate. (HT: First Read [MSNBC].)

    Now I’m not a supporter of Fred Thompson for president. I think it is vanishingly unlikely that I will vote for him. Nonetheless, I think that campaign finance reform is an area where we have taken a situation that was problematic, and made it much worse through legislation. Having politicians bought and paid for by various special interests, whether they are corporations, unions, or large special interest organizations is something that should concern us all.

    That, and reducing the cost of elections, is the impetus behind campaign finance reform. We are told that if we keep individual contributions small and limit total expenditure, we will somehow make elections better. Well, it hasn’t happened. What we now have is a kind of game between the politicians to see who can get the biggest boost not allowed to his opponent from the existing laws. And those laws are not very clear, precise, or logical. What exactly is the difference between testing the waters and campaigning, anyhow? Sure the law tries to give criteria, but frankly those criteria look to me like an invitation to lengthy debate and possibly litigation, which is, in fact, what has happened in many cases.

    I doubt that any amount of campaign finance reform is going to work, short of the voters deciding to hold politicians accountable for what they say and what they do. I know, I’ve said that about just about everything that we try to do about politicians. But it seems to me that there is nothing that could not be resolved through responsible voting, and at the same time there is no solution to corruption in elections if we do not have responsible voting citizens. All we have done through campaign finance reform and term limits is spread the corruption around and put different labels on it.

    There are those who are saying simply that this is the law, and Fred Thompson ought to obey it. But is Fred Thompson truly testing the waters, or is he a real candidate? A great deal of the accusations against him stem from his collecting too much money–something that indicates popularity, and his position near the lead. But he has not, in fact, done all those things the other candidates have, and I don’t think we can make assumptions about the result.

    Do we generally care if it’s just the law? I’m guessing that some of the folks who think that the election laws are “just the law” and we should live with them don’t take the same approach to immigration. There the laws are broken and need to be fixed, and we shouldn’t criminalize the people who are living within them. Now you may think these are unfair comparisons, but I have a specific point on which I think they are parallel. We each have some area of the law which we think is so messed up that even honest people doing their best to live lawfully find themselves entangled.

    When a law results in otherwise honest people becoming lawbreakers, we should at least reexamine it to see if it’s doing what it should be doing. I think this has happened in the case of immigration. There are areas where workers are unavailable legally, and so people have gotten calloused about hiring them illegally. At a certain point enforcement, while attractive, is unlikely to be successful within a reasonable expenditure of resources. Reform of the law is necessary, and one of the aims of reform must be enforceability.

    Similarly I think our election laws have gotten way off course. We are now entrusting a government that can’t be trusted to count ballots properly with monitoring finances and keeping them honest. I think that too much of the energy of a campaign now goes into satisfying legal proprieties. At the same time there are interesting loopholes. A person can spend as much of his own money as he desires, creating an opening favoring incredibly rich candidates.

    Perhaps disclosure should be the law, thus allowing the voters to see where a candidate is getting his money. But without responsible voters–the ultimate enforcement in this case–that isn’t going to do much good.

    I would say finally that the line between actually campaigning for office, political commentary, and political advocacy is a dangerous one. Personally, despite what the courts have ruled, I think we took a dangerous step when we first regulated speech even in elections. But when we step even further over that line, it becomes even more dangerous. Even though some of the nastiest material in an election comes from third parties, often folks we can’t be sure are unconnected to a candidate, I think that speech must be protected. Again, responsible reading and listening is the key.

  • How Not to Respond to Bad Reviews

    As a writer and public speaker, albeit on a small scale, I found this story on the Panda’s Thumb amusing. Apparently Dr. Stuart Pivar, who appears to have no particular qualifications in the field, has written a book about giving “structuralist/developmental interpretation of evolution.”

    As authors will do from time to time, Pivar then sent a review copy to PZ Myers, whose review was anything but positive. Pivar sent him a revised copy, which resulted in another unfavorable review, to put it mildly. Now, my fellow authors, what do you do when you get an unfavorable review? You learn what you can from it, and if it’s truly malicious and not at all constructive, you suck it in and go on. When you present ideas to the public, you live with the possibility–no, the near certainty–that someone isn’t going to like them.

    In the case of LifeCode: The Theory of Biological Self Organization, the author shows no qualifications for writing the book, and the reviewer is extremely well qualified, thus suggesting who should be heard and who no. Besides, $60.00 for a 164 page book is just a bit out of range. Specialty books written for a scholarly audience sometimes are priced in that range, but that doesn’t apply here.

    Finally, any author who sues a reviewer should assume that any positive review he ever gets can be discounted. He has tried to apply intimidation, and cannot be relied upon.

  • A Christian Response to Wiley Drake

    I’ve been trying to write a good response to Rev. Wiley Drake who is calling for imprecatory prayers against specific people at Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I haven’t really managed to express my feelings yet. This is not about disagreements about church and state, it’s about a proper Christian response to opponents. There are times when one has to express oneself forcefully, yet there are certain things we should not do.

    But Through a Glass Darkly has a post Imprecatory Prayer Today that expresses what I’d like to say extremely well. This issue also illustrates, and the post discusses, some of the wrong ways to use scripture.

  • Ben Witherington on Hermeneutics

    This seems to be my day for linking, both on my threads blog and here. Ben Witherington has written an excellent basic post on hermeneutics. I’m particularly interested because of his illustrations taken from Revelation. In my study guide to Revelation, I recommend Witherington’s commentary as “the best commentary on Revelation for the serious student that is available today.”

    Witherington lists three principles: 1) What it means is what it meant, i.e. the meaning is in the text; 2) Context is everything; and 3) Genre matters. I’d love to say one is more important than the other, but there may well be no “greatest of these.”

    In this post Witherington demonstrates the clear exposition that makes his commentary the powerful resource that it is.

  • WordPress.com Banned in Turkey

    It appears that WordPress.com has been banned in Turkey because of criticisms of Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar. Oktar appears to be an unusually warped version of creationist, and may well be using creationism to foster Muslim fundamentalism.

    The reason I’m linking to this is that it is a free speech issue. As a number of commentators have pointed out on the official wordpress.com blog, if folks violate a TOS, it’s appropriate that they be removed, but not for their opinions.

    I hope this will all be resolved in favor of free speech.

  • More on Atheism and Autism

    Bruce Alderman has written some very cogent comments on the earlier post by Joe Carter on this topic and my response. Bruce looks at this from a somewhat different angle. Carter has also written an additional post which Bruce calls a strategic retreat.

    Bruce’s posts are:

    Carter’s follow-up post is Atheism, Autism, and Other Minds (A Clarification) [Note that McAfee Site Advisor continues to report problems with this site, though I continue to use it.].

    I have asked a friend of mine who is a psychologist and an atheist to write a response. Assuming he gets to it (it’s the beginning of the year and he’s a college teacher), I’ll post it here. In his initial comments to me he also focused on what he called serious misunderstanding of autism, rather than misunderstandings of atheism.

  • St. John Chrysostom on Hebrews 6

    This past week seems to have been a good week for me reading St. John Chrysostom. It started from my reading of the book Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament X, Hebrews, and then looking up further contents for the selections. This is the second selection from the same author I’m quoting.

    I have written previously on Hebrews 6 and the possibility for those who have fallen away to repent and be restored. I want to quote Chrysostom, who takes a somewhat different angle, especially with the increased emphasis on baptism. In general, however, I found this very good reading. You can find the whole book on Christian Classics Ethereal Library, a wonderful resource page which I encourage you to visit.

    [8.] What then (you say)? Is there no repentance? There is repentance, but there is no second baptism: but repentance there is, and it has great force, and is able to set free from the burden of his sins, if he will, even him that hath been baptized much in sins, and to establish in safety him who is in danger, even though he should have come unto the very depth of wickedness. And this is evident from many places. “For,” says one, “doth not he that falleth rise again? or he that turneth away, doth not he turn back to [God]?” (Jer. viii. 4.) It is possible, if we will, that Christ should be formed in us again: for hear Paul saying, “My little children of whom I travail in birth again, until Christ be formed in you.” (Gal. iv. 19.) Only let us lay hold on repentance.

    For behold the love of God to man! We ought on every ground to have been punished at the first; in that having received the natural law, and enjoyed innumerable blessings, we have not acknowledged our Master, and have lived an unclean life. Yet He not only has not punished is, but has even made us partakers of countless blessings, just as if we had accomplished great things.

    Again we fell away, and not even so does He punish us, but has given medicine of repentance, which is sufficient to put away and blot out all our sins; only if we knew the nature of the medicine, and how we ought to apply it.

    What then is the medicine of Repentance and how is it made up? First, of the condemnation of our own sins; “For” (it is said) “mine iniquity have I not hid” (Ps. xxxii. 5); and again, “I will confess against myself my lawlessness unto the Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my heart.” And “Declare thou at the first thy sins, that thou mayest be justified.” (Isa. xliii. 26.) And, “The righteous man is an accuser of himself at the first speaking.” (Prov. xviii. 17.)

    Secondly, of great humbleness of mind: For it is like a golden chain; if one have hold of the beginning, all will follow. Because if thou confess thy sin as one ought to confess, the soul is humbled. For conscience turning it on itself causeth it to be subdued.

    Other things too must be added to humbleness of mind if it be such as the blessed David knew, when he said, “A broken and a contrite heart God will not despise.” (Ps. li. 17.) For that which is broken does not rise up, does not strike, but is ready to be ill-treated and itself riseth not up. Such is contrition of heart: though it be insulted, though it be evil entreated, it is quiet, and is not eager for vengeance.

    And after humbleness of mind, there is need of intense prayers, of many tears, tears by day, and tears by night: for, he says, “every night, will I wash my bed, I will water my couch with my tears. I am weary with my groaning.” (Ps. vi. 6.) And again, “For I have eaten ashes as it were bread, and mingled my drink with weeping.” (Ps. cii. 9.)

    And after prayer thus intense, there is need of much almsgiving: for this it is which especially gives strength to the medicine of repentance. And as there is a medicine among the physicians’ helps which receives many herbs, but one is the essential, so also in case of repentance this is the essential herb, yea, it may be everything. For hear what the Divine Scripture says, “Give alms, and all things shall be clean.” (Luke xi. 41.) And again, “By alms-giving and acts of faithfulness sins are purged away.” (Prov. xvi. 6.) And, “Water will quench a flaming fire, and alms will do away with great sins.” (Ecclus. iii. 30.)

    Next not being angry with any one, not bearing malice; the forgiving all their trespasses. For, it is said, “Man retaineth wrath against man, and yet seeketh healing from the Lord.” (Ecclus. xxviii. 3.) “Forgive that ye may be forgiven.” (Mark xi. 25.)

    Also, the converting our brethren from their wandering. For, it is said, “Go thou, and convert thy brethren, that thy sins may be forgiven thee.” And from one’s being in close relations with the priests, “and if,” it is said, “a man hath committed sins it shall be forgiven him.” (Jas. v. 15.) To stand forward in defense of those who are wronged. Not to retain anger: to bear all things meekly.

    There are a couple of key points that I know would seem odd to my United Methodist congregation, though they aren’t contrary to Wesleyan theology.

    First, as I already mentioned, the strong emphasis on baptism and its character. One can repent, but cannot be rebaptized. Many modern church members see baptism as nothing more than a celebration of a life experience, rather than the deep spiritual reality reflected here and elsewhere in patristic literature.

    Second, the description of the nature of repentance and the activities and attitudes that go with it will be foreign to many modern Christians. Repentance often means to us that we say “I’m sorry” and express determination not to continue, with a level of determination that will keep us on the straight and narrow until nightfall.

    I might think some of the intensity reflected in this passage is perhaps slightly overdone, but then again, perhaps it is a necessary expression. Are we not more likely to treat our sin more lightly than it deserves than we are to treat it too harshly?