Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Being a Passionate Moderate

    I frequently am asked what I mean by “passionate moderate” or how I can be a committed moderate Christian. These questions come even more frequently than ones that ask how I can be a “liberal charismatic,” probably because “passionate moderate” is my self-label, whereas “liberal charismatic” was assigned to me by someone else.

    The term “moderate” has a bad reputation in some circles. It’s connected with “middle of the road” where there are, supposedly, only skunks and a yellow stripe. But I reject that characterization. I have indeed met “moderates” like that. Their answer to every question is to place themselves comfortably in a non-threatening center between all the people they know, and thus they are always arguing a mediating position.

    I simply reject that definition, and I don’t think it is even accurate in describing both moderates. For me, being a passionate moderate means that I do not accept the extremes as the only options. There are issues on which I am extreme. That’s because I have examined the spectrum as I understand it, and found that I belong on one end of it or the other. On many issues, however, I believe passionately in something more to the center. There is no reason whatever that I cannot believe passionately in any particular position I choose.

    I could try for another label, but I don’t know what it would be. It sounds “moderate” to me. Most self-identified moderates that I know would agree with my characterization. While some people fit the stereotype, the yellow stripe and dead skunks slur is just that for most moderates–a slur by people who want to force people into their extreme camps.

    I reject the “extreme” plan for spirituality, for politics, for my personal lifestyle, and for my way of thinking about everything. Thus I am a moderate, and I’m passionate about it. I’m a moderate Christian and I’m committed to it.

    More here.

    PS: One last thing. I don’t reject the label “liberal” either. It’s a bad word to some people, but there are many ways in which I can properly be called a liberal. An opponent once labeled me a “liberal charismatic” and that stuck, so much so that I used it as the subtitle to one of my books, Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Confessions of a Liberal Charismatic. Others label me as evangelical, which seems odd, but generally when they define how they understand “evangelical” I find I fit. Labels are troublesome that way. When one is moderate, one’s labeling can be confusing.

  • MSNBC Article on Condaleeza Rice

    I’ve always though that Rice was a tremendously intelligent person but at the same time I intensely disliked the policies she has been advocating. There’s an interesting opinion piece in Newsweek/MSNBC.com by Marcus Mabry that may give more insight into who she is.

    She built the image the public has of her as an ice queen stuck on repeat. It’s the downside of her extreme loyalty to Bush, her discipline and her deep competitive streak. But it’s an image.

    I don’t know if he’s right, but it’s an interesting thought.

  • Miracles and Community

    I’ve been reading Mark through as part of preparation to resume my series on the Gospel of Mark for the Bible Pacesetter Podcast. Right now I’m listening to and then podcasting recordings of the radio program from which this developed just before we closed that program down three years ago. It’s an interesting process getting back into a series after a three month break!

    A couple of days ago I was reading the following:

    (1) And he went out from there and came to his hometown, and his disciples followed him. (2) And since it was the Sabbath, he started teaching in the synagogue, and many who heard him were amazed, and said, “Where do these things come from, and what is the wisdom that is given to him, and these miracles that happen through his hands? (3) Is not this the craftsman, the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon? And aren’t his sisters here with us?” They were scandalized about him. (4) And Jesus said to them, “A prophet does not fail to receive honor except in his own country and among his kinsmen in his household.” (5) And he was not able to perform any miracle, except that he laid hands on a few people and healed them. (6) And he was amazed because of their lack of faith. — Mark 6:1-6

    That’s my working translation that I make as part of my preliminary study, so check it out in your own version. What I was asking myself as I read this was just what it was that prevented Jesus from doing as many miracles at home as he did elsewhere?
    The easy answer, of course, is that the people lacked faith. But then a second question comes up: Why could he heal a few sick people anyhow?

    There is very little said here about the causes of this story, but I often tell folks to learn from the story and not just the text, so I want to think just a little bit about this story. What makes Nazareth different? Jesus has encountered many people who believed in him, and many people who did not. He has encountered opposition as well as support. But here in Nazareth he encounters this wall of unbelief that prevents him from performing miracles, with a few exceptions.

    One cause we can see from the story is familiarity. The people cannot see how God can come to them in the person of a common person that they knew all their lives. It’s the standard problem of the young pastor coming to his home church, and being informed by various people that they changed his diapers when he was a baby. This allows them first to feel very proud of their contribution to making “a fine young pastor” and at the same time to doubt that they can learn anything real from him.

    That would certainly reduce the number of miracles. Less people would ask. Why should that little fellow who used to play in the street be able to heal me? We often diminish what we can receive from God because we despise the channels by which he sends it. God may be trying to send you peace and comfort by means of your dog. Are you ready to receive it? He can be trying to invade your life through the person who comes in and does your yard. Is that OK with you?

    Apparently it wasn’t OK with the people at Nazareth. They weren’t ready for that. But I suspect there was a bigger issue here. You see, Jesus has been preaching the kingdom of God and repentance. Repentance is often not a welcome message. It means that we’re doing something wrong, we have to acknowledge it, and get moving in a better direction. If I’m going to be put straight, I want the correction to come from someone who is both smarter than I am and more spiritual.

    In Nazareth, there was a general rejection of a message of repentance that came from the home town boy. They were amazed at what he had to say, but they couldn’t bring themselves to believe that he was the right person to say it. They couldn’t bring themselves to accept the kingdom of God in that form.

    And that’s where the miracle problem came in, I believe. When Jesus healed people and drove out demons it was a sign of the arrival of the kingdom of God. A new community was on the way, and new way of looking at one another. God was invading history and changing everything around, bringing on a new creation. Reject the kingdom, and what happens to the signs?

    I know of many churches that are longing for God to become active in their congregation and community. How can that happen? It’s the sign of God’s community. Look for the barriers to being the kingdom of God wherever you are. You can’t have the sign without the event. You can’t have the healing power of Jesus without the person of Jesus.

  • Walking To New Orleans

    Well, not quite. I’ll be driving.

    My stepson John Webb is a pitcher for the Iowa Cubs (Chicago Cubs AAA team in the Pacific Coast League) who are in New Orleans for a series against the New Orleans Zephyrs. Last night the Cubs beat the Zephyrs and John put in two good innings in relief. I hope we’ll see him in relief Sunday night or at the day game on Monday when we’ll be at the park watching.

    We’ll leave after church Sunday morning and return late Monday evening. I don’t know what blogging will take place during that time, if any. I will, however, be doing some today. 🙂

  • The Gospel of Masculinity

    Over the last few years we have seen a number of movements in Christianity to involve more men in the church and in spiritual activities. I welcome this trend, because spirituality has too long been the province of only a small percentage of men. This is not because I think that women need men to keep them straight in church. Rather, it’s because men need spiritual food as well. The church is enriched by the involvement of a great variety of people.

    The problem that I see, which was emphasized by Mark Driscoll’s recent video (link to my post about it), is that we reshape the gospel to fit the people instead of the people to fit the gospel. I don’t mean that the gospel is for only one type of people, but the gospel does (or should) change people in substantial ways.

    To some, however, there seems to be a new Jesus. Replacing “gentle Jesus meek and mild” is the Jesus who would own several guns, go hunting and fishing, be a sports fan if not an active participant, drive a pickup truck, and always have control of the TV remote. This is the Jesus who wouldn’t let anyone push him around, whose solution to crime is to go catch them and put them in jail or hang them. Some folks sound like Jesus likes people who don’t share these characteristics less. Men, such as myself, who don’t need to have the remote in their hands and don’t own a gun aren’t taking leadership and aren’t masculine enough. Their wives won’t really love them, and God despises their lukewarm attitudes because they are not clearly and obviously in command of their home.

    Now some good, very masculine men may be offended by that last paragraph, but you see I think the “gentle Jesus meek and mild” is also a dangerous caricature. For some years we’ve had in many churches the sort of Jesus who can’t stand the hunters and fisherman, who has a special section of heaven roped off for the folks who drive pickup trucks so they won’t get in the way of the truly spiritual folks who drive subcompacts, and probably doesn’t like cops because they arrest people instead of converting them.

    OK, now I’ve offended another group. My point is simply that Jesus is there to take you from where you are, and to lead you to be a better person, no matter what your personality. Christianity is not about making you into some sort of caricature of the personality someone thinks is most “Christian.” It’s about taking a variety of people and making them better able to serve their fellow human beings.

    There are folks who serve one another who are quite fond of guns. One pastor I know is a retired sheriff’s deputy. He’s a good shot and a wonderful Christian man at the same time. Another man I know personally is gay, and spends his life well beyond what we’d normally call “duty” in service for others. I know a dentist who has led numerous mission trips and has a special ministry to children when he leads teams in service. He also has a substantial supply of guns (I’ve handled and discussed most of them with him myself), likes to shoot, drives a pickup truck, and could be mistaken for a ruffian if you didn’t know him. My father, on the other hand, is an MD who was a missionary all his life, and served World War II in a conscientious objector’s camp in Canada because he refused to bear arms.

    All of these people were and/or are servants of God and followers of Jesus. There isn’t one stamp for it. A gospel of masculinity is not a good replacement for a gospel of femininity or any other specialized gospel we invent. What we need is a gospel that includes all those God is calling. God will make use of our diverse gifts and personalities and smooth the rough edges where necessary.

  • Moderate Christian Blogroll Requirements

    I’m assuming that very few people subscribe to or read the main Moderate Christian Blogroll blog yet, so I’m going to link to my latest post there from here as a reminder. I started posting blogroll related items there because I like to keep this blog focused on opinion on religion and society type issues.

    In any case, I have posted something on the requirements for the Moderate Christian Blogroll. If you’re on the blogroll, please check that post out. The requirements for the blogroll are pretty simple, and not terribly demanding, but they do need some attention.

  • H. R. 1592

    I’ve posted on this one before, but over the last few days my e-mail inbox has been bombarded by notices telling me that my freedom of speech is about to be destroyed. Amanda at Imago Dei has an excellent post responding to this as well, and that reminded me to say a few more words. I could not find anything in the text of the bill that dealt with freedom of speech, but the logic apparently is that a pastor might preach a sermon against homosexuality, and a member of the congregation might then commit a crime against someone who is homosexual. Thus pastors could get put in jail over this.

    It seems to me, however, that absent any particular change to the law, such a charge would have to pass current tests for incitement, and frankly, I don’t think a pastor should be exempt from the standard charges of incitement. Let’s change the scenario around just a bit and suppose that the sermon is preached by the pastor of a small “cult.” (You supply whatever definition of “cult” you desire.) The pastor says that other Christians are as good as murderers because they are sending people straight to hell by presenting an untrue message, and that killing them would be justified. Following that service, a member of the congregation goes out and kills one or more conservative (but not true enough) Christians.

    I’m not a lawyer, but as I understand it there would be certain things that the pastor would have to have said to make his speech incitement. Certainly it would be considered incitement had he specified a target by name and pointed to a member of the church with the suggestion that the specific member should go kill the specific target. I don’t know precisely where the boundary lines are, but they already exist.

    Now I have some questions about the value of bringing in federal support, and in providing specific aid in cases of a specific motivation, but those issues are technical and should be discussed technically, not as an all-out assault on freedom of religion.

    For more information:

  • Christian Carnival CLXX

    . . . has been posted at Brain Cramps for God. It has a nice theme, lots of good information and many interesting posts.

  • Christian Carnival CLXX

    . . . has been posted at Brain Cramps for God. It has a nice theme, lots of good information and many interesting posts, including my very own post from this blog, Look at New Perspectives on Paul.

  • Information on FV (Federal Vision)

    I found the this post on the Federal Vision (FV) because the author tracked back to a post on my Threads blog that is related to my Look at New Perspectives on Paul entry. It’s not my intent to discuss the FV and the relationship of the Westminster Confession to the new perspectives on Paul, nor do I plan to debate the doctrinal issues of the PCA directly. But I suspect that most readers of this blog are not PCA and might want to know what those things are since I referenced them.

    Having provided these links, my plan is to blog about materials I read on NPP strictly from the point of view of their accuracy. Are the new perspectives giving us a better idea of what Paul meant or not? I won’t be trying to fit those ideas into a particular doctrinal perspective. I do have one, of course. I don’t deny having biases and preconceptions. I’ll do my best, however, to set them aside.