Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Voters are Real Arbiters of Ethics

    According to the Washington Post, Rep. William Jefferson, now indicted, is getting the attention of the house leadership. Republicans moved quickly to be part of the act, though I don’t see too much delay on the part of Democrats either. But here’s why the voters are the real arbiters of ethics:

    In short order, the House last night approved a Democratic motion that would make an ethics investigation automatic upon the indictment of any House member and then approved a Republican motion that could lead to Jefferson’s expulsion.

    Nice, fast work. Later we see the following:

    GOP leaders made no moves to expel Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio) from the House after their indictments last year, going out of their way to try to preserve a path for DeLay’s return to the leadership and saying Ney would have to decide whether to resign.

    Now various partisans will argue about whose activities are worse, and when everyone should have acted, but I will suggest that the reason Republicans didn’t move quite so fast prior to the election was that they had been in power too long and had gotten a bit arrogant. Any politicians feel they can get away with it, they’re going to protect their own, whether they are Republican or Democrat.

    But this also demonstrates the potential power of voters. I commented before on the re-election of Rep. Jefferson even under an ethics cloud, though one should notice the first comment on that post in which Laura makes some good points on that election. But nonetheless, in the long term the voters have their say, because a certain laxness on the subject of ethics helped lose the Republicans their majority, and that same fact holds the current Democratic leadership somewhat accountable.

    It’s not a perfect situation, but if the voters don’t give up too quickly, they have the power to change things. Two keys: 1) Don’t lose interest. Make ethics part of your voting decisions. 2) Don’t get the idea that one party or the other has a monopoly on clean government. They will govern as cleanly as you make them.

    Hold the politicians accountable!

  • The Difficult Message of Hebrews

    Hebrews 5:11-14 describes the message of the book as difficult, chides the readers/listeners for not being ready for a meaty message, and then goes on to the more difficult message nonetheless. So what is basic, what is difficult, and what is it that makes the difficult message difficult? (OK, I take the 1,000 point deduction for using the word “difficult” too many times in one sentence.)

    Since I believe that the first 14 verses of Hebrews 6 are the heart of the message of the book. Once a person has been enlightened and set off on the Christian journey, can they turn back? Once they have turned back, can they repent yet again? This is a complex way of stating the more basic point: Endurance is required for the walk of faith. (For some previous thoughts on this topic, see Hebrews 6:4-6: Can Those who Fall Return?.)

    The author outlines these basic foundation items in 6:1–repentance, faith, baptism, laying on hands, resurrection, and eternal judgment. All of these elements are, of course, in the early stages of the proclamation of the good news. I’ve been reviewing material in the gospel of Mark, and one can find all of these elements, though the very specific “laying on of hands” is only fully developed in the early church. Nonetheless Jesus identifies people, empowers them and sends them out (Mark 6:6-13). These basic elements identify the key points of coming to repentance believing in Jesus and in turn going out to make disciples.

    To many of us in the church today, I’m sure this sounds like it’s not so basic. One of the biggest struggles I encounter in churches is getting members past the point of just being there and on to the point of making disciples. I wonder if the audience didn’t have a similar reaction to this letter when they first heard it.

    I can hear the chatter out in the congregation now. “What does he mean, ‘basic.’ That’s a serious message he’s preaching there. What more do you need if you’ve gone from repentance to being sent out again.”

    But again my study of Mark reminded me of the parable of the sower (Mark 4:3-9). It’s interesting that the author of Hebrews brings in plants as well (verses 7-8), though in a somewhat different context. I don’t want to suggest interpreting Hebrews 6 according to the parable of the sower, but there are some similar points. I do, however, think that the seed metaphor can be used to help understand the point in the Christian experience described by Hebrews 6. It’s not just the seeds that never sprout at all that fail in the parable. Out of the four categories of seed, three sprout. Only one fails completely (the birds eat the seed), while one succeeds completely (grows and produces fruit). The other two raise some of the same questions we have here. Can you fail after you receive the word? If you do fail, can you return? The parable of the sower makes no attempt to answer the second one.

    Two categories of seed start to grow but don’t finish, and both fail because of the hardships of the journey. It seems to me that this illustrates that the advanced material has to do with advancing on the Christian walk. The entire book of Hebrews bristles with the challenge not to give up, turn back, go off track, or fail to enter God’s rest. Most of us have experienced this sort of thing. We hear the gospel message and are excited, but we then encounter the actual church, warts and all and we become a little less enthusiastic. All too often, the cares of this world, or even the cares of Christian ministry choke us off, and there is no fruit.

    This is a hard saying. We can get into some terrible debates over the perseverance of the saints, or the perseverance of Christ on behalf of the saints. I discussed this once with a Calvinist student. We were discussing a person who had left the church after having been an enthusiastic Christian. I was interested in our vocabulary. We both agreed that this person had once publicly confessed Jesus Christ as savior. We both agreed he had set out on the path of discipleship. We both agreed that his love had grown cold and that he had forcefully rejected the life that he once knew. Where we differed was on vocabulary. I used the vocabulary of accepting Christ (being saved) and falling away. He stated that the man had apparently accepted Christ, but as it turned out it must not have been for real, as demonstrated by his falling away.

    It seems to me that those two positions are separated by vocabulary and not by practical reality. What apparently happens is the same. How we describe it is different. The author of Hebrews seems to me to describe this much more as a present danger to every believer. “Keep on going toward maturity (or perfection),” he says. “Don’t fall back!”

    Good advice, but advanced advice. It’s much easier to start a race than to finish it. The author of Hebrews knew that, and thus challenged Christians to run the race to completion (Hebrews 12:1-3).

    [This post deals with the answer to question #6, Lesson 7, Page 41 of my study guide to Hebrews]

  • Deciding to See *Knocked Up*

    It may be a symptom of insanity, but amongst the 20 or so blogs I read constantly are both Pandagon (from the left) and the evangelical outpost (from the right). Generally those two blogs are so far apart that they cannot be regarded as in conversation, so I was quite surprised over the past couple of days to see reviews of the same movie–Knocked Up!–from both blogs (Pandagon Review and evangelical outpost review). What was even more interesting was that while neither was unreservedly positive, both had some good things to say about the movie.

    I don’t generally like movies that are sprinkled excessively with the F-word, which is one of Carter’s main complaints, but both reviews seem to think that the decision of the main character to have the baby rather than taking the alternative of abortion is presented with sensitivity.

    Perhaps I’ll have to go see it after all.

  • Interesting Bible Study – Listening to Scripture

    A friend e-mailed me a link to Listening to Scripture, and though I live nowhere near the church involved, it looks like some fascinating material and a very useful Bible study class. The principles listed in the blog are all worth consideration and application.

    I plan to follow these folks “afar off” as they work through this study and as their leader blogs about it.

  • Taking [Part of] the Bible Literally

    It appears that some young earth creationists take Genesis very literally, but are perhaps a bit less literal in their understanding of 1 Corinthians 6:1-7. The Australian Creation Ministries International is suing the American Answers in Genesis over a number of issues.

    For those who might not know, here is the passage from 1 Corinthians:

    1Do some of you dare, when you have a dispute with another, to have it judged by the unrighteous and not by the saints? 2Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you then unworthy of judging even the smallest issue? 3Don’t you know that we will judge angels, not to mention the issues of ordinary life. 4So if you have a lawsuit regarding ordinary matters, will you then seat as judges those who are disdained in the church? 5This is shameful! Is there not one among you who is wise, who can judge between brothers? 6Must one of you Christians go to the law against another and before unbelievers at that? 7You’re already defeated when you have to go to the law at all. Why would you not rather be injured? Why would you not rather be defrauded? — 1 Corinthians 6:1-7

    Now I understand how to apply time and circumstances to that passage, but then I’m one of those near-heathen liberals who doesn’t accept the literal creation story. I wonder how literalists justify such behavior? Well, here is where they do it, though I think if I got that much liberty to play around, I could find a way to get past the literal interpretation of Genesis as well.

    HT: The Panda’s Thumb

  • JFK Terrorist Plot

    This news caught my attention not just because of its general importance, but because of the involvement of people from Guyana. I lived in Georgetown, Guyana as a teenager and have some fond memories of the country. When they mention that Abdul Kadir is a former Member of the Guyanese parliament, I’m betting most readers have to go look up where Guyana is. But when they mention he was once mayor of Linden, Guyana, I know where that is. My youth group sang and played in the town square once, oh so long ago.

    None of that is terribly relevant to the story. The important thing here is good police work, and down to earth human intelligence combining to thwart a dangerous terrorist attack. This is one of the aspects of the war on terror that I think is being terribly neglected at this point. No matter what we do militarily in other countries we will still have to have substantial security here at home. Notice that the people involved here are from Guyana and Trinidad & Tobago, two countries that are not high on the list of terrorist sources. This points out the difficulties of completely blanketing the world in the type of security we want.

    One blog I read regularly has already commented on the importance of law enforcement, and treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem rather than a military one. There is a good point here, but not a sufficient one. Treating terrorism purely as a law enforcement problem is not going to be sufficient either.

    The problem with the war in Iraq is not that it treats terrorism as a war, but rather that it stretches strategic resources without adequate return. I do think we are unbalanced in the way our resources are used, with too much going to military action and too little to intelligence and law enforcement, but that is because we are trying to occupy a country long term. Law enforcement will be much more difficult when there are countries to which terrorists can run with impunity. The key is to carefully analyze each set of actions as to cost and benefit, with the goal being security here at home, not revenge or a desire to appear to be doing something.

    This plot certainly illustrates the remaining dangers. It’s frightening to me on one point. Though they got caught by good old human intelligence (an informant), they showed a better strategic grasp than many middle eastern terrorists. The Al Qaeda attacks thus far have been aimed to create fear more than economic disruption. These guys seem to understand the value of economic disruption to their cause. We need to be on guard for attacks on this type of target.

    Of course, law enforcement at all levels involved is to be congratulated on a job well-done in foiling this plot.

  • Behe’s New Book

    Michael Behe is about to release a new book. I like Behe’s writing style, even though I think he goes nowhere as far as his arguments are concerned. Regarding his previous book, Darwin’s Black Box I wrote:

    Thus Behe’s beautiful description of the advance of knowledge as various “black boxes” are opened up is used as an ode to ignorance, rather than to knowledge. We have discovered great things, and thus we can now extract the very powerful idea that we really can’t know certain identifiable things. [More extended note at the link above]

    I do think Behe writes very well. It’s too bad he didn’t put his considerable talents in explaining complex scientific topics to use in popularizing actual science.

    His new book is titled The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. The subtitle suggest that we’re on the same quest as last time. Rather than laboring to extend the boundaries of knowledge as much as possible Behe is likely in the process of trying to state what scientists simply cannot discover. I will surely get a copy of this book soon and take a look at it myself. In the meantime, here are some responses to enjoy:

    Good Virus, Bad Creationist from ERV. This is delightfully written and helped improve my understanding of a fitness landscape. Though I did well enough in math as far as I went, I didn’t go very far, and such simplified explanations are nice to locate.

    Behe’s Dreadful New Book: A Review of “The Edge of Evolution”. This one is pretty interesting, and I see that it has also infuriated Bill Dembski. Anything that does that can’t be all bad. As for Dembski’s challenge, my concern would be more the humor impairment of the ID crowd than their technical ability. In general the ID camp’s attempts at humor have been just a bit heavy handed and easily recognizable. But we’ll see.

    I’ll save further comments until I actually get my hands on the book, which all things considered will probably be a little while. As always, I’m interested in the theological implications, which I think the ID folks don’t always consider. Anything that masquerades as an argument for God’s existence must be good.

  • Brownback on Faith and Science

    There have been quite a number of responses to Senator and presidential candidate Sam Brownback’s discussion of faith and science. These have varied from extremely favorable, from some Christians who think Brownback has managed an extraordinarily good balance between faith and science, while others are quite angry because Brownback has clearly injected faith into science.

    Having read his piece several times, trying to get past the probable political motivations, I have to say that I cannot join those who applaud this statement. Though I certainly do not believe that science can or should answer all questions, and faith plays a very strong role in my life, there is a clear line that should not be crossed. That line is crossed when we let faith determine something that should be determined purely by scientific evidence.

    The most blatant example of this problem can be seen in the creation museum. The sponsors of that museum believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old. This conclusion comes purely from scripture. More importantly they come from scriptural text which is clearly not designed to provide scientific information and has only a minimal historical content. Rather than allowing scientific study to determine what it is best able to study, young earth creationists come to a faith-based conclusion, and then impose it on the scientific evidence, no matter what happens.

    A better approach would be to let each element do what it does best. Genesis addresses meaning and the relationship of God to the universe, though even to understand those elements of the story one must be careful to understand the type of literature involved and why it was written. Genesis does not attempt to provide a scientific discussion. When people claim to discover wonderful, scientific things in Genesis, their example always involves taking a vague statement and claiming that it fits precise scientific data exceptionally well. But one can make such vague statements agree with almost any set of scientific data proposed. One would never derive the details from Genesis; they are not there.

    So where in Brownback’s statement does he cross this line? He starts out quite well:

    The heart of the issue is that we cannot drive a wedge between faith and reason. I believe wholeheartedly that there cannot be any contradiction between the two. The scientific method, based on reason, seeks to discover truths about the nature of the created order and how it operates, whereas faith deals with spiritual truths. The truths of science and faith are complementary: they deal with very different questions, but they do not contradict each other because the spiritual order and the material order were created by the same God.

    This statement uses appropriate words such as “complementary” for the questions addressed by science and by faith. But we already have the seeds of the problem here. Brownback asserts that faith and science can’t contradict one another. Yet if they are truly answering different questions, how could they contradict? If there are baseball games going on in two separate fields, one would hardly find it necessary to assert that the outfielders in one game can’t produce outs by catching balls from the other. We wouldn’t imagine that would happen. We would only make such a rule if we thought someone was going to try it.

    In this case, Brownback seems to be saying it’s OK for the questions to cross over, as long as they don’t contradict.

    People of faith should be rational, using the gift of reason that God has given us. At the same time, reason itself cannot answer every question. Faith seeks to purify reason so that we might be able to see more clearly, not less.

    In what way does faith seek to purify reason? If we would say that the goal of faith is to make a more open, more truth-seeking person, then I would find that acceptable, though many, many people of faith have done quite the opposite. Yet as a goal of faith (or better spirituality) I would regard that as good. But just what is it that faith is supposed to do to my reason that would make my scientific conclusions differ from those of an atheist?

    Unless one is first accusing a scientist who is an atheist of falsifying his conclusions, then there is no reason to assume that faith is purifying reason. I would like to think that my faith helps purify my reason, because I believe that my faith helps deal with my motivations and with who I am. But for all of those who read what I write and see what I do my words and actions–the effectiveness of my reason–can be judged by what I produce.

    Faith supplements the scientific method by providing an understanding of values, meaning and purpose. More than that, faith — not science — can help us understand the breadth of human suffering or the depth of human love. Faith and science should go together, not be driven apart.

    Again, I ask, in what way does faith supplement the scientific method? This is one of those statements that sounds balanced and well considered, but doesn’t seem to have much meaning. Is there something about Kenneth Miller’s science (he’s a Catholic) and the late Stephen Jay Gould’s (he was agnostic) that is different? Is one a better scientist than the other? Fit any scientist who is also a believer into the first slot and any who is not into the second, and tell me where it is that faith improves the functioning of the scientific method for the scientists of faith. (I do note some cases in which faith, however little I like the particular version involved, does harm to the science.)

    The question of evolution goes to the heart of this issue. If belief in evolution means simply assenting to microevolution, small changes over time within a species, I am happy to say, as I have in the past, that I believe it to be true. If, on the other hand, it means assenting to an exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world that holds no place for a guiding intelligence, then I reject it.

    And here we see the problem. The questions of microevolution and macroevolution may be debatable. Personally I think that the distinction is simply a technical one. People who believe in microevolution but not macroevolution usually simply don’t comprehend either one. Yet whatever they are both are processes of the natural world and should be studied as such. So having said that science and faith are complementary and can’t contradict, Brownback immediately asserts (though without admitting it) that they do contradict, and that when they do, he’s going to take faith.

    Biologists will have their debates about man’s origins, but people of faith can also bring a great deal to the table. For this reason, I oppose the exclusion of either faith or reason from the discussion. An attempt by either to seek a monopoly on these questions would be wrong-headed. . . .

    Again, we contradict the “complementary idea. What precisely is it that people of faith, in other than their role as scientists if such they are, have to contribute to origins? They can discuss the spiritual values of humanity, but there will be no new interpretations of fossils, or of genetic clocks, or of the relationships between lineages that are provided by faith. All of those elements of understanding origins will be managed by scientists doing science.

    I believe the “monopoly” language is to be read as favoring the incorporation of intelligent design creationism in classrooms. Of course science should have a monopoly on determining scientific questions. That’s how science works. Senator Brownback is a politician trying to trade on people’s dislike of the word “monopoly.” Truth, however, needs a monopoly. Compromising intelligence and stupidity doesn’t produce greater intelligence, it produces more confusion.

    While no stone should be left unturned in seeking to discover the nature of man’s origins, we can say with conviction that we know with certainty at least part of the outcome. Man was not an accident and reflects an image and likeness unique in the created order. Those aspects of evolutionary theory compatible with this truth are a welcome addition to human knowledge. Aspects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.

    “An image and likeness unique in the created order” goes beyond both science and faith. We have a Bible addressed to humans, and humans are (shockingly!) the subjects. That doesn’t mean that we are unique in the whole created order. We don’t even know whether there is life in the rest of the universe and if so whether there are other intelligent species that hold a similar position in their ecosystems.

    When he continues that “[a]spects of these theories that undermine this truth, however, should be firmly rejected” we understand that despite any lip service given to science, Senator Brownback places his particular faith, and his particular doctrines of that faith over and above the scientific evidence. The origins of human beings are to be discovered by science. The relationship of human beings to God can be discussed in religion. But if my conclusions in religion deny the evidence of science, then I’m crossing the boundary.

    As a scientist who comes to realize that the earth must be older than 6,000 years must adjust his understanding of Genesis accordingly, so a scientist who has based some aspect of man’s relationship to God on a scientific conclusion that is superceded by a better one must adjust his understanding accordingly. To do anything else would be to deny the revelation of the creator as given directly in his creation. But in this case, the most important thing to note is that such a person is not supporting science.

  • Celebrities Abusing Rehab

    I really likes this article on MSNBC/Newsweek written by Patti Davis. Based on her own experience with becoming addicted and overcoming it, Davis looks at the celebrities going in and out of rehab and heading straight back into trouble.

    Davis’s article has something that is often lacking in these discussions: An assumption that people are responsible for their choices. She says:

    Abusing ourselves with any kind of substance abuse is a violation of the gift of life—it isn’t what any of us were put here for. And treating rehab like it’s just a strategic career move is practically blasphemous.

    Good stuff. Yet we treat people who are massively irresponsible and regard getting by with their irresponsibility as a right as though their lives were worth watching. They deserve to be ignored. MSNBC should consider the irony of including a picture of Lindsey Lohan as an illustration. If they had a picture of her being arrested, perhaps. Otherwise, not.

  • More on Bible Curriculum for Public Schools

    I have previously expressed my concerns about Bible classes in public schools, even as electives. These objections come from multiple directions. Because I support separation of church and state, I prefer to keep such classes out, even though in principle they have been held to be constitutional. As a Christian, I believe there is a serious danger in having a Bible class which will necessarily be from one perspective provided at state expense. I think providing Biblical knowledge is part of the function of the church. As a Bible teacher I’m concerned with the competence of prospective public high school Bible teachers.

    My objections do not apply to inclusion of scripture passages in literature class as appropriate to the academic goals, nor to references to the Bible at appropriate places in history. There is good reason to be acquainted with the Bible and how it has functioned in western history especially, but that goal is best attained by teaching the Bible as part of those other classes, not with a specific Bible curriculum.

    In particular, the NCBCPS curriculum has been found not to meet the needs of teaching a neutral, academically sound Bible class. I have reviewed only the reviews and not the material, but the points brought up by the professional reviewer are well-taken, and precisely correspond to the objections I have to public school Bible classes.

    Ed Brayton has an excellent post on this which quotes a letter from a Jewish teacher in the Odessa, Texas public schools. The link also leads to other letter that illustrate some very unchristian attitudes about this program.

    I strongly oppose the inclusion of this curriculum in any public school program.