Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Congressman Ron Paul in the Debate

    Too bad he doesn’t stand a chance. 🙁

    HT: Quiet Paths.

  • Candidates on Technology Issues

    Here is a good article that barely touches on the technological issues which could impact and be impacted by federal government policy over the next 4-8 years. It’s something that we need to think about, no matter what side of each issue we’re on.

    And just to remind us of the great need for education, there’s this comment (2nd on the list):

    . . . That is an example of the same idiotic thinking that gave rise to the stupid solar car race. Ever notice that they pace that race with a bicycle? Why not just ride bicycles? . . .

    . . . which goes to show us that some people have no idea how technology is developed. Early bicycles required some development too, not to mention cars.

  • Christian Carnival CLXXI

    . . . has been posted at Light Along the Journey. Check it out!

  • Inerrancy and Wheaton

    I was interested to see a quote about Biblical inerrancy for candidates for faculty positions at Wheaton College. Check the note out at Through a Glass Darkly.

  • NPP: A Starting Position

    I’ve been reading some more on the new perspectives on Paul, and particularly focusing on a <a href="http://www.thepaulpage.com/Summary.html"summary written by Mark W. Mattison and provided by The Paul Page, and a response to that summary by Chan Lai Ping. I’m going to use the list of key points in the response as a starting point. In this entry I’m merely stating where I start from as I study, and am not really trying to support that more than superficially.

    Chan Lai Ping lists five issues, giving the traditional position (since Martin Luther) and the summary position of the new perspectives. Note that there are many scholars involved in what’s loosely called the “new perspectives on Paul” and they do not necessarily agree on all issues.

    The five key issues are:

    1. Individualism – whether justification is primarily about the individual or the community
      My own view is that we tend to misread the entire Bible in the western world because of our individualistic view. The Biblical writers were always more concerned with community than we are, and this applies to Paul as well. Paul writes pastorally, as the pastor of church with the intent of building the health of those churches. This involves individual action and individual choices, but all of that is on the way to community
    2. Judaism – whether Judaism in the first century was a religion of legalism, and whether Paul’s attacks on the old Jerusalem can be read as an attack on Judaism
      Until I studied Galatians through the commentary by J. Louis Martyn I would have said that while Judaism is not primarily a religion of legalism, and the old covenant was not intended as legalistic, Paul was combating folks who made it into something legalistic. I think Martyn makes a good case that Paul’s “earthly Jerusalem” is that element based in the Jerusalem church that opposes his mission. Their particular legalism was in requiring the gentiles to be circumcised, and so become Torah observant Jews in order to be Christians. Now I believe it was Christian Jews who were placing this requirement on gentiles, one that was not actually a requirement of Judaism itself.
    3. The core of Paul’s message – was it more narrowly justification or a broader view of Christ’s death and resurrection
      This is a hard one for me to answer, because it seems to me that for Paul the opening of the door to the gentiles was the key element of the meaning of the death and resurrection of Jesus. This act of grace made it possible for the old age and it’s barriers to be removed and exchanged with the new age. Justification is a key fruit of that.
    4. What Paul meant by the law – was Paul against all actions that might become regarded as a work, or just the misuse of the law
      Here I believe Paul was strongly opposed to misuse of the law, including the law as a means of gaining God’s favor. He obviously had no problem with admonitions and requirements, however, because he gave his churches quite a number of them. I suspect our theology might be different if students of Paul spent more time in 1 Corinthians and less in Galatians. Paul was pastoral first, which I believe is one reason that sometimes he doesn’t seem as clear and consistent as we’d like in his theology. If we just knew the pastoral situation he was addressing, I think things would make more sense.
    5. Paul’s conscience – did he face a constant battle, or was he convinced of his own standing
      This one I’ll have to work on. It seems to me that Paul had a testimony of struggles that ended in victory, so that his writing doesn’t speak with one voice. My guess as I start looking at him more seriously is that he lived a life of victory, but didn’t spend all his time on the mountaintop, much like many of us today.

    (For discussion, please see the <a href="http://www.thepaulpage.com/Summary.html"summary and response cited above.)

    I expect to spend some time going through various of these articles on Paul and making further notes on some of the key passages.

  • Baseball Instant Replay

    OK folks, I don’t write all that much about baseball, but my stepson John Webb is a pitcher for the Iowa Cubs (AAA), and though I grew up overseas watching soccer and cricket, I’ve learned to love the game.

    I recall one game last year when he was playing for the Memphis Redbirds and they were in Nashville playing the Sounds. The umpire kept calling “obvious strikes” as balls, according to the Memphis announcers and all fond stepfathers at least! The catcher was ejected for arguing with the umpire, and finally in a great tangle, John was thrown out along with the coach, and the pitching coach. It was quite a scene! At that moment, one is strongly tempted to go for instant replay, just so you can rub that umpire’s nose in the errors he’s made, make him ‘fess up, and get the game right.

    I don’t have a strong opinion, because again I’m somewhat new to baseball, but I do like the human factor of the game, and I fail to see why that shouldn’t extend to umpires as well. In my experience thus far, umpire errors don’t, in the long term, favor any one player or another. They are what they are, and you live with them. I recall one game I watched with the Pensacola Pelicans (home town team) at which an umpire (I believe a minor league strike replacement) truly did not have any clue where the strike zone was. I think I can say that with some confidence because both teams were equally annoyed at him. From where I was sitting in the stands I could make no prediction before his call as to what it would be. But it was still a fun evening, both teams suffered and both benefited.

    Mike Celizic has an article on MSNBC.com, titled Baseball needs instant replay, now, with the subtitle MLB must get over its stodgy traditionalism and make the game better. “Better,” of course, means more accurately called. But I’m not sure that the sport would be made better. It would be more accurate, it would be different, but there’s a certain fun in sitting in the ball park watching a tense coach come out to argue with the umpire, observing the interplay of the catcher with the umpire and sometimes with the batter.

    Technology will make it possible to be 100% accurate, if it hasn’t already. But I suspect soon we’ll be looking for ways to make our recreation more human. We could have machines to send the balls perfectly over the plate, and hit them with extreme accuracy, but that would be no fun either. I’m not all that excited about replays in other sports. As a relative newcomer to baseball–going on 8 years since I married Jody and inheriting baseball playing sons–I find the possibility of error makes the game more interesting.

    Mind you, that won’t make me any less angry when blue calls one of John’s good strikes a ball, but hey, that’s all part of the fun.

  • Pious Assertions About the Bible

    There is a whole category of assertions about the Bible that I call “pious,” that reflect people’s desire to respect the Bible and uphold its authority, but that are often inaccurate and poorly considered. I would ask whether a statement can be truly pious and respectful if it is also not true. My suggestion is that we consider carefully whatever statements we make about the Bible to be certain that the reflect what the Bible actually is and its purpose in the Christian community.

    For example, there are exaggerated statements of obedience. “I do everything the Bible says,” someone announces. Do they really? That’s quite unlikely. There actions are probably more nuanced than that, but it just sounds so good to claim that you do everything the Bible says. Every theological position I know of has some element to limit certain commands to particular times or places, as well they should. But further very few of us, at best, could claim to always carry out God’s will for us in everything, can we? Perhaps we should say something more like, “I do my best to obey God’s commands as they apply in my life” or “I do my best to follow God’s will with his help or strength.” That sounds more like respect, combined with honesty.

    A second category is those statements that treat the book almost like a person. At our daughter’s wedding the little Bible boy was a fairly lively individual. He was carrying my very most favorite Bible, a Cambridge NRSV with wide margins, two markers, and decent sized print. I have a number of full sets of sermon notes in the margins of that Bible. My daughter wanted him to carry it. During rehearsal, he grabbed it, folded it over backward, and started beating the altar rail with it. May I say that it got on my nerves? But my distress was due to my love of books, and to my desire to have that particular book in good condition, not out of fear that God might be angry at the mistreatment of the book. I have encountered people who are afraid to mark their Bibles, write in the margins, or even carry them under tough circumstances. There’s the standard admonition to put the Bible on the top of any stack of books. But the bottom line is that your actual Bible is still just ink and paper. It’s the divine inspiration, the message, that is holy, and that will not be damaged even if the original is flushed down the toilet.

    Finally, there are the bad analogies. My favorite is the “boy scout manual.” Whenever someone gets that saintly smile on their face, and tells me that the Bible is just like the scout manual, I am pretty sure they’ve either never read the scout manual or never read their Bible–usually the latter. The Bible is actually almost, but not quite totally unlike a scout manual. I say “almost” because the Bible is a book with paper, ink, covers, and so forth. Après church has a good post related to this here (HT: Wayne Leman of Better Bibles Blog).

    The problem is what I call the “Sunday School” answer. We know we’re supposed to respect the Bible as God’s Word. We know it’s important. But often in the modern Christian community we don’t actually know what’s in it, so we can’t make our own accurate statements of why it’s important to us. Thus we use just any comment that sounds pious and respectful, so we can appear to respect the Bible without the effort of digging into it.

    For me, the Bible is an important companion as I commune with God. Over the years my times of prayer and Bible study have become more and more blurred. That’s because I see prayer as communion with God, and I see Bible study in the same way. God speaks to me through the Bible. My understanding of his will is enlightened by the Bible.

    There’s a good old statement that does well for me: Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light for my path. — Psalm 119:105

  • Social Darwinism and the Theory of Evolution

    Science Avenger has an excellent article on the connection, or rather lack of a logical connection, between the theory of evolution and social Darwinism (for the third time today, HT: Dispatches).

    Evolution is a scientific theory. It explains why many facts are what they are. It can never tell us what we should do about it.

    Just so.

    I’ve always wondered about the logic, only distantly related, of those who say, “If I evolved from an animal, why shouldn’t I act like one?” If you read Genesis 2:7 literally, you were made out of mud. (One assumes the dust was wet in order to be formed, but with God, who knows?) So should you act like mud because you were formed from mud?

  • WP on Blair Legacy

    The Washington Post has an interesting article on Tony Blair, titled For Blair, a Legacy Overshadowed. The article is quite interesting, looking at the thing Blair accomplished, and what has brought his popularity from a peak of 75% down to 28%.

    It reflects on human nature that any number of accomplishments can be completely obscured by one major failure. Tony Blair did quite a number of good things, and perhaps in a couple of decades he’ll be remembered for those. But right now the quagmire of Iraq overshadows all of that.

    But further, I was interested to note the charitable motivations he had in many of his actions. He wanted to stop atrocities in various countries, and thought it was OK to invade. The basic idea of ignoring borders and national sovereignty in the pursuit of moral goals didn’t start with Bush. Bill Clinton did a good bit of that in the Balkans. I think inevitably that the aim of imposing our moral views or our system of government on other countries irrespective of their traditions is doomed to create intractable situations. When we try to do both–impose democracy and our moral view, we will commonly find our goals in conflict, and unclear goals is a clear formula for failure.

    The problem is that there are countries where what a substantial number of people want to do is to kill others and take their stuff. In general, you’ll also find a large number of people who simply go along with the majority passively, or who can be intimidated into voting a particular way. In such a country, imposition of democracy may well not be the best idea.

    In the long run, we may find that Blair was done in by idealism, but an idealism that was not guided by practical wisdom.

  • There ARE Moderate Muslims

    . . . and some of them speak up, too!

    Daniel Pipes writes about protests by moderate Muslims in Pakistan and Turkey (HT: Dispatches from the Culture Wars). It’s worth reading.

    My first thought was that the fewer and weaker moderate Muslims are, the more we ought to support them. I have always maintained that we should be careful to distinguish the guilty form the innocent whilst being vigorously opposed to those radicals who would use violence.

    But I think that our government makes a dangerous mistake when it puts democracy above freedom. It’s quite possible for a majority to be tyrannical, which was the major reasons that the United States places limits on what the majority can actually do. A major problem with “winning” the war in Iraq is that we have set goals that cannot be accomplished. One cannot blame the military for not being miracle workers. We somehow want a democratic, unified Iraq that will not be an Islamic state. We need to consider one or another of those goals

    Consider this quote from the article, regarding Turkey:

    This resolute stand against Islamism by moderate Turkish Muslims is the more striking when contrasted with the cluelessness of Westerners who pooh-pooh the dangers of the AKP’s ascent. A Wall Street Journal editorial assures Turks that their prime minister’s popularity “is built on competent and stable government.” Dismissing the historic crossroads that President Sezer and others perceive, it dismisses as “fear mongering” doubts about Prime Minister Erdo?an’s commitment to secularism and ascribes these to petty campaign tactics “to get out the anti-AKP vote and revive a flagging opposition.”

    If the Turkish military helps keep the country secular, more power to them!