My Akkadian is pretty seriously rusty, one might even say rusted out, so I was thinking of looking for good info on that new tablet discovery probably related to Jeremiah 39:3. But Chris Heard of Higgaion saved me all kinds of time by writing an excellent article, with links to a number of other good ones. I wanted to promote the link to his post to the top here so that you all can have a good place to continue your study.
Author: henry
-
Christian Politicians aren’t Perfect, Just Forgive Them
Update: Please read through to the comments. Both Jeremy Pierce and Joe Carter believe I have misread them, though Joe graciously took responsibility for lack of clarity. If I am now reading him correctly, I agree with his points as made in that comment.
One day back when I was a junior NCO in the Air Force, a junior officer (2nd Lieutenant) came by my work area to correct me on an issue. There were perhaps a dozen people gathered around, all aircrew members. He wanted to know why I had said in a meeting that I would reflect even one instance of tardiness for a flight in a supervisee’s performance report. At the time we used a nine point system, and I said I would reduce the appropriate score by at least one for that instance.
His point was that nobody was perfect, and I was expecting young airmen to be perfect. Since he came to me in front of a number of people I simply pointed to them and said, “None of these people have been late for a flight during the last year. There are some of them who have never been late for a flight in their career–longer than mine. I have never been late for a flight. A nine indicates someone is as good as it gets in that area.”
“Nobody’s perfect” is one of the best excuses for bad behavior known to humanity. “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven,” while true, is one of the best excuses for bad behavior known to Christians. It drives me crazy, because it is normally used in circumstances in which nobody is expecting anyone to be perfect, and in defense for activities that are substantially less than perfect.
Niow the message seems to be “Christian politicians aren’t perfect, just forgive them.” Well, personally, I would suggest in many cases that they need to be forgiven back home, once they are out of the public sector.
I had been laying off of the David Vitter story, largely because I think we get a bit too tangled in these things, but also because I think the proper people to deal with the issue are the voters of Louisiana. What he has done is now out there for people to evaluate, and they should do so. I felt the same way about Clinton, though I thought his lying about it under investigation was not only immoral an illegal, but dreadfully stupid. But I have expressed my annoyance with investigations that don’t manage to prosecute for any offense related to the one they were investigating, but get someone for obstruction or lying to investigators.
But here we have someone who preaches a high standard in sexual morality, does so vocally and regularly, and has commented on the behavior of others. I saw one conservative Christian blogger who did a very good job on this, Laura at Pursuing Holiness. She clearly understands that one may not be perfect, but that there are standards.
But two other Christian conservative bloggers I regularly read and generally respect, seem to be off in “Christians aren’t perfect” land. Jeremy, at Parableman is playing word games with hypocrisy, while Joe Carter at the evangelical outpost said:
But this sets an unreasonable standard for politicians. The higher the person’s standards, the more likely they are to miss the mark. As Gary Bauer said when asked to comment on the Vitter scandal, “If a voter is looking for Jesus on the Republican ticket, they’re not going to find him. There was only one perfect man, and all others have fallen short. They should look at how a candidate dealt with his moral failures.”
Listen folks, I’m not looking for Jesus on the Republican or Democratic ticket. Somehow I feel he’d want a third party assuming he didn’t just move to another country. What I do want is politicians with integrity. Larry Flynt making comments provides you with some nice rhetoric to hide behind, but come on! Larry Flynt isn’t a standard for us as Christians. He isn’t even a reasonable standard for ordinary whore mongers.
Just as there were a dozen guys around me on that rating who hadn’t been late for a light, so there are, I’m certain, men in Louisiana–I won’t venture how many–who actually uphold their vows of matrimony. I bet there are even Christian guys who are not perfect and have committed adultery, who dealt with it immediately and openly.
I’m not saying in Vitter’s case that he should resign or be prosecuted. I don’t know precisely where he stands legally. If I were a voter in Louisiana, I can’t absolutely say that this would prevent me voting for him, were I willing to vote for him on other grounds. But it would certainly drop him way down my list under the heading of integrity. I would hope that there would be a better alternative next time around. I’d have to say, “Sorry, you had your chance, but we need leaders with integrity who don’t have to get caught before they own up.”
Instead of making excuses, and making lame remarks about not finding Jesus on the Republican ticket, we should, as Christians, decry someone not living up to their words.
And as far as hypocrisy is concerned vs. inconsistency, I would suggest that “white washed tomb” covers it all quite well. It looks good on the outside, but on the inside–not so much.
Now Sen. Vitter does have one thing in his favor: He confessed when he was actually caught. The problem is, however, the very same thing is his major problem. He confessed after he got caught. At least he isn’t so abysmally stupid that he would think he can continue to deny all this and get away with it.
I’m strongly in favor of letting most of these issues be decided by voters. At the same time, I’m appalled at the number of Christians who normally uphold strong values who suddenly find cracks in the moral system when a favored politician falls.
-
Hindu Prayer in the Senate
My own preference would be that any prayers in congress be privately, not officially conducted. That is due on the one hand to my conviction that we should be a pluralistic, secular society, and on the other to my doubt that politically stage managed prayers are of any value. But given that prayers are offered on the floor of congress, the opportunity should be inclusive, not exclusive.
Thus I appreciate the effort of Harry Reid in inviting a Hindu to offer the prayer, and I believe the response of three Christian protesters in the gallery was not a good witness for Jesus. The appropriate response would be courtesy and respect, both for the person who was practicing his religion and for the congress which was recognizing the presence of non-Christians in this country.
For the complete story, see Hindu prayer in Senate disrupted
-
Valuable Evidence Found in Debate on Hebrew Scriptures
A tiny tablet has been found most likely confirming the name of one character in the Biblical book of Jeremiah. It is unfortunate that the Telegraph headlines it as Tiny tablet provides proof for Old Testament, though the text of their article is more accurate. Biblical archeologists generally do not go out attempting to prove that the Old Testament as a whole is true, and single connections to historical data do not prove the historicity of the whole.
What this tablet does appear to do is provide some challenge to the Biblical minimalist position, and suggests that the setting of the book of Jeremiah is precisely what it claims it to be, a document contemporary to the exile.
In the comments on the Telegraph story, one commenter asks how much third party evidence needs to be found to validate the Old Testament. That’s simply the wrong question. Historians and archeologists will continue to examine each document and each incident according to the evidence available.
Peter Kirk also provided a good perspective on this discovery.
HT: In the Word.
-
Sola Scriptura (Link and Comment)
I am running late today, and may not get much of what I intended to post completed, but in the meantime, Mark Olson has a post on sola scriptura over at Pseudo-Polymath which is quite interesting. He has already been taken to task (only with the utmost courtesy, of course) by a commenter that the view of sola scriptura that he discusses is not one that would be recognized by most reformed or evangelical scholars.
In a way, the commenter is right, but in another way, not so much. I think most evangelical and reformed scholars who reside somewhere other than the ivory tower will have encountered such an attitude in the pews of protestant churches, and most have probably endeavored to better educate those who expressed it.
The popular perception, and one I even encounter from many pastors, is that sola scriptura somehow means that doctrines form sort of magically from scripture, without mental processes or influence from other sources. That caricature is very easy to knock down, but often needs knocking down, because there are so many people who thoughtlessly continue to hold it.
Hopelessly this post, and a promised follow-up will help people better understand the various positions.
-
Christian Carnival CLXXX
. . . is posted at Everyday Liturgy. Check it out! There’s even a post on nudity–well, sort of.
-
St. John Chrysostom Quote
I’m reading the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament, Volume X, Hebrews, and I found this interesting quote from St. John Chrysostom:
St. John ChrysostomWe ought to receive all things with faith and reverence, and, when our discourse fails through weakness and is not able to set forth accurately the things that are spoken, then we ought especially to glorify God, in that we have such a God, surpassing both our thought and our conception. For many of our conceptions about God we are unable to express, and many things we express but do not have the strength to conceive. For instance, that God is everywhere we know, but how we do not understand. There there is a certain incorporeal power, the cause of all our good things, we know, but how it is or what it is, we know not. We speak and do not understand! I said that he is everywhere, but I do not understand it. I staid that he is without beginning, but I do not understand it. I said that he begot from himself, and again I know not how I shall understand it. And some things there are that we may not even speak–as, for instance, that thought conceives but cannot utter. [p. 13]
Perhaps we could all (me especially) do with a bit of humility regarding our knowledge of God and divine things.
-
How NOT to Express Your Views
I suppose it was inevitable, with all of the hype about the terrible evils supposedly caused by a belief in evolution, but it looks like some crackpots decided to express their views with threats.
From the Denver Post:
The first threat was e-mailed to the labs – part of CU’s ecology and evolutionary biology department housed in the Ramaley Biology building – on Friday. Wiesley said Monday that morning staff members found envelopes with the threatening documents slipped under the lab doors.
I hope these just come from a prankster without serious intent. We’ve seen too many times recently how someone who is truly demented can nonetheless get hold of weapons and cause considerable damage.
HT: The Panda’s Thumb. Further details will be posted there, though I will link to them from here as I notice them.
-
Churches other than Roman Catholic are not True Churches
I always knew I was a heretic:
Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches. (From MSNBC.com)
Well, actually, I never regarded the Catholic church and the pope as having any authority over me in any case, but I expected this kind of nonsense when this pope was elected, and here it is.
-
Impeachment and Political Strategy
I have long argued against the war in Iraq on strategic grounds. I don’t object to war when war is absolutely necessary, but I believe that when war is waged for the wrong reasons, conducted improperly, or for unattainable goals, however good those goals sound, that war is a tragedy and is immoral. Killing is such a terrible thing that one must weigh very carefully one’s decision to take that route.
Now we have a situation of political strategy, and I think the various factions are taking just as little consideration for strategy in the political conflict as others have in the planning for war. Recent polls show a substantial amount of support for impeaching President Bush and even more for impeaching Vice-President Cheney. It would be nice if one could believe that most of those who favor impeachment actually knew what impeachment is, and for example which house impeaches and which tries impeachments. That is probably too much to hope. I suspect the answers in favor of impeachment include a large number of folks who simply want Bush and Cheney gone, and the sooner the better. One should also recall that this is the same electorate who once produced an approval rating for Bush in the 80s.
I don’t really like either man. I didn’t vote for them, and I abhor their war policy. I think very often their domestic strategies in terms of home security have been crude and ineffective while unnecessarily threatening civil rights. I think Bush’s use of signing statements to ignore portions of the law is wrong. I think his efforts to continue the war right now are misguided. He’s missing an opportunity to at least control the mode of exit. One aspect of the strategy of war is the political support one has for the action. Ignore that portion, and you ask for trouble.
Now I’m no legal expert. I’m not going to argue what congress can and cannot use as the grounds for impeachment. I’m pretty sure, however, that the final answer is going to be that they can use pretty much anything they can get a 2/3 majority of the Senate agree on for conviction. Violating the constitution is a form of violating the law, but it doesn’t have fixed penalties. “Abuse of power” is a rather hazy sort of concept. I actually think it’s quite reasonable to have 2/3 of the Senate agree on what it might be.
But the question is just how valuable is this particular means of getting rid of a president? We’re already into the election campaign for the next presidential election. In a little more than a year we’ll be voting on who we want to succeed Bush and Cheney. Is it a good idea to go through the contentious process of impeachment right now? One question, of course, is whether 2/3 of the Senate would agree to convict on any particular charge. I suspect the answer is no.
The impeachment talk is, I think, directed to the hardliners in the Democratic party and those who are to its left. It shores up the base, and provides a means to keep from losing those supporters to third party candidates. At the same time there are quite a number–a growing number–of people who are like me in one respect. We don’t have party loyalty. We believe both the Democratic and Republican parties have forfeited any right to our support as parties. When all the partisan bickering has played out (on this topic; there will be another by then), some one of you is going to need our vote, and we’d like to see you show some good strategic sense, an ability to see all aspects of a problem and to find the best strategy to get where you’re going.
Cindy Sheehan has told Speaker Nancy Pelosi she’s going to run against her if she doesn’t work to impeach President Bush. I think this is a good opportunity for Pelosi to demonstrate some good strategic sense. Not statesmanship; that would probably be too much to ask–just good strategy. She can say, “No, that’s a bad idea. I’m interested in keeping and building a Democratic majority. I’m more interested in withdrawing from Iraq successfully than I am in scoring revenge points on the current President.”
She’s played this one right so far; hopefully she’ll continue.