. . . here. I like the theme texts with each post. I only had time to scan quickly, but they looked good, and of course of great importance to me 🙂 I liked the one on my post. How could I not?
Author: henry
-
Freedom of Speech Rights Tangled
Here’s an interesting freedom of speech issue again brought to my attention by Breaking Christian News and this time referring me to this LifeSite article. It appears that at a minimum there is confusion about the facts of the case, including the professor’s intentions and when the paper was graded, as comparison of the LifeSite article with this article on the Southern Illinoisian web site.
I am uncertain of where the law would stand on this, and would certainly welcome comment that might clarify it for me. This whole story bothers me because of what it means for education. A professor’s beliefs do have something to do with what they teach and what they are going to find acceptable in a paper. I can imagine, for example, a person who wants to be a social worker, but who believes that the entire course of treatment should consist of prayer and Bible study. Should such a study be granted a degree in social work, essentially the university saying that this person is qualified to perform the functions of a social worker? If it’s a free speech issue, then the validity of the contents would not be relevant. I’m not suggesting that Christine Mize did not provide a reasonably competent, faith-based program, but it seems dangerous to me to apply free speech standards to the grading of college papers.
To take an example from a field with which I’m more familiar, suppose that a biology student wished to write a paper on origins for biology class that claimed that all species appeared fully formed and without genealogy, and proposed to demonstrate this from the Bible. I would have to say that there should be no requirement that such a paper be accepted for biology credit. The student has free speech, and can go home and post his paper on his blog if he wants, but I don’t think the first amendment guarantees, or should guarantee a passing grade. Of course the level of competence required would depend on the level.
There’s a subjective line here between thoroughly incompetent and competent but challenging prevailing attitudes. I must say that while it seems excessive to me for the professor to refuse any inclusion of faith based options in a treatment plan, considering that there is substantial disagreement on the value of such elements, it also seems to me that applying first amendment rights to the acceptance and grading of assignments is questionable, and I wonder what the courts may have ruled on this in the past.
As I have time I will look it up, though it’s likely that brilliant readers will have straightened me out before I get the time to do that.
Brilliant readers, where are you?? 🙂
-
Laura has some Good Advice
Being a father and then a grandfather has made me progressively more interested in how to protect kids. One of the best ways is by teaching them to be aware of their surroundings and not to be paranoid, but to be intelligent and careful. If someone is scaring them, it’s generally a good idea to get away from that person. Most commonly it may just be coincidental behavior, but avoid that one time when the person really is after you.
Laura wrote a good entry on this topic and also about apathy. Why is it that we find it so easy to stay aloof from the problems of others?
It reminds me of the line from the Hitchhiker’s Guide series (actually in Life, The Universe, and Everything). Ford is explaining to Arthur:
“An S.E.P.,” he said, “is something that we can’t see, or don’t see, or our brain doesn’t let us see, becasue we think that it’s somebody else’s problem. That’s what S.E.P. means. Somebody Else’s Problem. The brain just edits it out; it’s like a blind spot. If you look at it directly you won’t see it unless you know precisely what it is. Your only hope is to catch it by surprise out of the corner of your eye.”
I think we all have plenty of SEPs in our lives!
-
Structural Typology and the Tabernacle
That’s a fairly pretentious title for this little essay, but in overview form, it fits. This post also represents a return, finally, to my series of posts on the book of Hebrews. I’m looking at the book topically, and using questions from my study guide to the book of Hebrews.
On page 24, in the third lesson, I ask:
What do each of the areas–courtyard, holy place, and holy of holies–mean (Hebrews 8:1-5; 9:1-10; Exodus 25-31; 36-40)? What is the meaning of the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat (Leviticus 16, especially verse 2)?
Now the long references from Exodus are part of the advanced reading. It can be helpful to read those passages quickly while trying to form an image in your mind of what the tabernacle would look like. Go ahead and use your imagination. One can debate minor details for many, many pages of discussion, but that is not my point in this question. I’m interested in the general structure of the tabernacle, and the lessons it has to teach.
I have argued elsewhere (also here) that the sanctuary service was characterized by two goals that act in tension. First was the command to distinguish between the holy and the common, and the second was the command to “be holy as God is holy.” These two commands can bring on considerable tension depending on how one views them and attempts to practice them, but they have a very practical intent. There is a basic idea of teaching good basic discernment and decision making, and once those distinctions are properly drawn, bringing more and more into God’s sphere, the sphere of the holy.
In a sense, the tabernacle itself can be used as a metaphor for building the kingdom of God. You can look at this building in a couple of different ways. First, you can look at your own life as you grow in holiness, or to phrase it better, as God takes over more and more of your life. Sanctification is a gift. You can also look at it as the growth of God’s kingdom like a mustard seed, as God’s glory and presence grows on and in his people. Make sure, however, that you don’t regard these metaphors as exclusive meanings. What I’m saying is that the tabernacle can serve as metaphors, and I believe these are valid meanings to draw from it.
Now if you didn’t read the two earlier posts I linked above, let me mention simply that I bracket this entire set of ideas with two scriptures: Exodus 19:6 and 2 Peter 2:9. God’s original goal for Israel was that they be a nation of priests. Now if you think about the idea of priesthood, you will probably recall that a priest acts as a intermediary between God or divine things and human beings. Thus if Israel was to be a nation of priests, for whom were they to act as intermediaries? Well, here we have that intention for Israel to be a light for the nations (see my devotional on this here) as is so eloquently and repeated expressed in Isaiah (chapters 40-66), and it’s expressed in doubtlessly very early literature. Israel as a witness to the nations and as a priesthood was not a late afterthought on God’s part.
From a Christian perspective, there is a fulfillment of God’s desire from Exodus 19 in the priesthood of all believers, this fulfillment being expressed explicitly in 2 Peter 2:9. This bracketing makes the whole concept extremely important for Christian theology, I believe, and the view is expressed in some detail and with some force in Hebrews.
If you read Hebrews carefully, and look at the structure of the tabernacle and its services equally carefully, I think you will come to the conclusion that much of the sanctuary service symbolizes the separation from God rather well. Starting in Exodus 19, immediately after we have the expression of God’s desire, we have the expression of fear. The people don’t want to be that close to God because they are afraid. They aren’t ready for that close of contact. In Hebrews, certainly, the tabernacle is seen as symbolizing separation, and entry into the inner veil as something that has been bought through the sacrifice of Jesus.
This is not, however, an exclusive theme of the book of Hebrews. Jesus expresses this in his final talk to his disciples (John 15:11-17 amongst others). He has come and brought us into much more direct contact with God. That is both a tremendous blessing and a tremendous responsibility, and again these are both themes of the book of Hebrews.
Thus the progressive chambers of the tabernacle are progressively more restricted in access. The people can enter the courtyard in front of the altar to offer sacrifices, but beyond that, and into the Holy Place, only the priests can go. This is symbolized further by the Israelite camp, with the priests camping closest, then the levites according to their service, and outside of that the rest of the tribes of Israel. Then finally the High Priest enters the Most Holy Place once per year for the day of atonement. On this day of repentance atonement could be made even for intentional sins. The closer to God, both the greater the glory and the danger, but also the greater the grace.
The “hilasterion” the place of God’s presence, often known as the mercy seat, then symbolized God’s presence. But at the same time it symbolized God’s presence in a limited way, separated from his people. It was placed behind a veil, with God’s presence repesented by human light and offerings of incense in front of the veil, but demonstrated through God’s light on the other side.
Meditating on the symbolism of this service can be very constructive. I have used it before in preaching by simply forming the general shape of the tabernacle with chairs, or even people holding ropes. Then people can walk through and ask themselves just which chamber they were most comfortable in, and then thinking about how they could move forward in their experience.
Note: I make use of the tabernacle as a metaphor in my sermon The Sin of Getting Stuck, available in MP4 video (from a standard VHS tape) or MP3 audio.
-
Turning Point? What Turning Point?
From the Washington Post:
Feb. 22, 2006, is the day the Bush administration says everything in Iraq changed.
Before that day, military and administration officials frequently explain, Iraq was moving in the right direction: National elections had been held, and a government was forming. But then the bombing of the golden dome shrine in Samarra derailed that positive momentum and unleashed a wave of brutal sectarian violence.
This is what gets me about people’s reaction to this war. I simply do not understand the number of people who have changed their mind about it. I’m especially annoyed with politicians like Hillary Clinton who seems to think she was deceived about the war. I commend John Edwards for saying he was wrong and apologizing. Nonetheless, I simply question all of their good judgment, and I have to ask what it is about this war that is surprising such as to cause them to change their minds? What on earth did they expect would happen?
The one doubtful issue was the presence of weapons of mass destruction. I opposed the war even if such weapons existed in the region not because I think a nation like Iraq, then or now, should have such weapons but because I didn’t think that was the most useful place to get them anyhow. People overestimate the value of a large country, friendly to terrorists, as a base. No doubt it is useful, but terrorists are often, unfortunately, more creative than their opponents. Governments keep thinking massive logistics, coordination, detailed planning, and command and control, while terrorists work around those things as necessary.
Nonetheless, even though I personally didn’t think it merited such priority, destroying materials and weapons would have been a reasonable goal for a war. It could be accomplished, finished, checked off, and declared a victory. The Iraqis were acting guilty, and there was enough evidence for a warrant.
But again, even so, there was the problem of what you’re going to leave behind. From a military point of view, you need a specific objective and the means to accomplish it. From the political point of view, and even from a more strategic military point of view, you need to see a situation develop from accomplishing those objectives that is better than the previous situation. Is Iraq less or more dangerous when all is said and done than it was before? And that is where I see the problem. Our troops didn’t fail. Certainly there have been problems of tactics and logistics, and political maneuvering that is not the greatest. But the one big problem with this war was there before we went in and remains there now. It hasn’t changed. There simply is no “after the war” scenario that is going to make things better than they were before.
We want contradictory things. Democracy, but no Islamic republic. The will of the Iraqi people, when the Iraqi people themselves divide into community without a strong, common national interest. Iraqi sovereignty, but measures that guarantee the security of the United States.
If we could accomplish all those goals, the cost in lives would be reasonable. I know many people will protest, but I’m a veteran myself, and when you go into the military, you know you might die. You may not think that you, personally will die, but you must be ready to put your life on the line for your country. If I were still in the military, that would be what I’d do. Further I expect politicians to be able to look at the folks in the military services and ask whether their lives will be well-expended. A peaceful, stable, democratic Iraq without weapons of mass destruction would be worth such lives.
The problem is that it isn’t going to happen, not with any amount of resources and lives we have at our disposal. That’s the tragedy of all this. There’s no turning point. Our troops have done well with the resources and the goals they were given, but the goals were badly laid out–not just badly stated. They were bad goals.
I recall a national championship game in which Nebraska played Florida and defeated them overwhelmingly. A radio commentator and Florida fan were discussing the game the next day on a call-in show, and the fan asked what was the turning point of the game. “Turning point?” said the commentator. “The turning point was the singing of the national anthem.” In the case of Iraq, the turning point was when the military was sent in to do a job that was not politcally feasible. No blame should attach to them for not accomplishing the impossible.
-
Persecution Victim as a Profession
It seems that former Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt, who claims to have been dismissed from the Navy for praying in the name of Jesus, is making a career now of being persecuted. The story is being kept alive. I was alerted to the current edition through my Breaking Christian News e-mail alert, a source that often provides me with valuable, positive news, but in this case refers me to the WorldNetDaily which appears to be a bit apoplectic.
WND said:
A chaplain who was dismissed from the U.S. Navy when he refused to following orders to make his prayers “nonsectarian” and remove the name of Jesus from them now has been commissioned by the governor of Kentucky as an honorary “Kentucky Colonel.
But CNN reported:
In September a military jury found Lt. Gordon Klingenschmitt had disobeyed a superior officer’s order not to wear his uniform to a political protest at the White House in March 2006.
Ah, he was not dismissed for praying in Jesus name, but for disobeying a lawful order. Interesting difference. The Kentucky legislature should be ashamed of themselves for commending an officer for disobeying orders. Kentucky’s governor should be ashamed of himself for giving such a person an award for courage.
Since I have commented on the issue before, I’m not going to go through the details of the original problem about prayer. Suffice it to repeat here that Klingenschmitt’s view on this differs substantially from that of others, including other Christian chaplains.
-
Only Evil People Disagree with Me
Well, not really. But that’s what many people think according to this Washington Post story, that reports on a study by Glenn D. Reeder, a social psychologist at Illinois State University.
When Reeder and his colleagues asked pro-war and antiwar Americans how they would describe the other side’s motives, the researchers found that the groups suffered from an identical bias: People described others who agreed with them as motivated by ethics and principle, but felt that the people who disagreed with them were motivated by narrow self-interest.
I don’t think most of us required a survey to realize that tempers are hot, and the other side is generally accused of bad motivations. I would suggest, however, that not only is it a question of how convinced we are of a position and how important that issue to us, it’s also a question of how much moral investment we have in it. Such commitments drive the intense debates about abortion, for example, in which people on one side cannot imagine how anyone reasonably human can accept the “slaughter of millions of babies” while folks on the other side see a massive invasion of their personal lives at the very deepest level. On the war in Iraq, we’re dealing with people getting killed, and that is certain to be very emotionally invested.
I really liked the following note, however:
“Partisans within ideological groups tended to view themselves as atypical vis-a-vis their group: atypical in their moderation, in their freedom from bias, and in their capacity to ‘see things as they are in reality’ even when that reality proves to be ideologically inconvenient or ‘politically incorrect,’ ” Harvard Business School researcher Robert J. Robinson and his colleagues concluded.
This is behavior I have noted in myself. But hey, I really am more moderate than everyone else! 🙂
-
Example of Doing Dialogue
I comment from time to time on dialogue and diversity (most recently here), a pair of topics that I regard as particularly important. It’s important amongst Christians because we have much in common, but we often focus on difference. It’s important in general, because we do share a home planet, however much we might think some other folks come from interstellar distances.
A couple of the requirements that I believe are important for effective dialogue is knowing what you believe yourself, along with a willingness to search out both the common ground and the major differences, and then express those politely.
This morning I read a post on the evangelical outpost, titled What Evangelicals Owe Catholics: An Appreciation. Now what precisely interested me about that article, seeing as I’m neither Catholic (nor even ex-Catholic) nor am I evangelical? It was an excellent demonstration of precisely what I’m talking about in terms of dialogue.
I recommend going and reading it, for content, yes, but especially for method.
-
Newsweek Article on Human Evolution
There’s an excellent piece on human evolution in Newsweek, written for those of us who are not scientists. I think there are a couple of unclear points, but for the most part it’s a good update on the state of science. I did notice that things that have been around for some years seem to be considered brand new and exciting–exciting they certainly are, but the simple “begat” idea of human evolution has been weakening for a long time.
In any case, this is an article worth reading. I’ve seen the various pieces on more scientific blogs, but as an overview for the non-scientist, this one is good.
-
Accuracy in Communication
I have maintained in a number of posts that it is pointless to talk about accuracy in a medium intended to communicate without involving the audience that is intended to receive the communication. First, I would like to note that it is quite possible for the information in a medium of communication to be inaccurate for all potential audiences, i.e. the information is just plain wrong. But when one is talking about a translation, one is dealing with the accuracy with which the information in the source language is carried over into the receptor language, and that is always audience dependent. In fact, the information in the source language could be completely wrong, and yet be accurately conveyed by the translation.
I was discussing this with my wife this morning at breakfast. Yes, we do discuss such things over meals from time to time. She provided me with a wonderful illustration. In the move Angels in the Outfield there’s a scene where the coach, played by Danny Glover, plays some baseball with a few neighborhood kids. There’s this really little guy who doesn’t know what he’s doing yet, and somehow he hits the ball, but he just stands there. (I don’t remember the details, and don’t have the movie at hand to check, but the basic point is there.) Everybody is yelling at him, “Run Home! Run Home!” So he runs home. But “home” to him is where he lives, not home base. Off he goes, off the ballfield and down the street.
Now in a sense the communication was accurate, but the audience didn’t comprehend what was going on. He applied another definition of “home” that made sense to him and ran with it. The information was not communicated accurately.
Our favorite word in this whole ESV discussion seems to be propitiation. Most people I encounter are not at all sure just what propitiation means. There are, in fact, a number of meanings of propitiation in various non-Christian contexts that I would not want applied to Christianity, and which I do not believe reflect accurately the meaning of the words “hilasterion” or “hilasmon” in New Testament literature.
But more critical for the moment than the question of whether I’m right or they are on “hilasterion/hilasmon” is the simple question of whether people hear accurately what these translators are trying to communicate with the word “propitiation.” That is the real objective test of communication–how accurately does the hearer understand the meaning the writer/translator intended to convey.
I submit that for a large number of readers, the situation will be much like that little boy in the movie–running for the wrong “home.”