Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Cassini-Huygens Pictures

    Saturn from Cassini-Huygens

    These are not my usual fodder, but they are so good, I just had to call attention to them. You can find a catalog of them at NASA-Cassini-Huygens.

  • PERFECTLY SQUARE Fun in Pensacola

    I talk quite a bit on this blog about diversity and the importance of dialogue and making the most of our differences, so it’s a pleasure for me to highly recommend a program here in the Pensacola area by someone from whom I have learned a great deal on unity in diversity, Dr. Dolly Berthelot. If you are in range to travel to this event, make it a point to do so. You will find it both entertaining, challenging, and practical.

    I would particularly like to recommend that pastors and church leaders attend. As my wife Jody and I teach in various churches, I find that whatever the theology of a particular congregation, the difficulties that the leadership has in engaging the various personalities and gifts of a congregation in service are very similar. We can accurately describe some churches as two or three congregations using the same building. The differences seem small and petty, but actually they usually result from differences in personality and taste and not from some profound, irreconcilable differences of belief.

    PERFECTLY SQUARE (the book and the program) points the way to a solution to this problem. Learn about who you are, and why you prefer certain things, and then how you can turn those differences into assets instead of liabilities. There are reasons some of you like loud music with lots of drums, very little “preaching,” and a great deal spontaneity in a church service, while others prefer a firm order and lots of words, and the reason isn’t that some of you are inherently evil. 🙂

    You will have an opportunity also to sign up for two seminars that will help you carry on. I was surprised by the excellent price for these. Dolly’s time could go for a much higher price. So take advantage of this excellent opportunity and learn to make the most of your personal assets, and those of your congregation.

     

     

    O R I G I N A L , E N T E R T A I N I N G

    S T O R Y , M U S I C A L M I X

    March 9, 7-9 pm, Free

  • Could I Be the Antichrist?

    I found this article via WorldNetDaily: Pope is warned of a green Antichrist.

    According to Cardinal Biffi, who gave the Lenten message this year, the antichrist could be “a pacifist, ecologist and ecumenist”.

    OK, I resemble that remark. Of course, I’m not nearly important enough to be the actual antichrist. Probably I could just encourage and support him:

    Cardinal Giacomo Biffi, 78, who retired as Archbishop of Bologna three years ago, quoted Vladimir Solovyov (1853-1900), the Russian philosopher and mystic, as predicting that the Antichrist “will convoke an ecumenical council and seek the consensus of all the Christian confessions”.

    So I can’t convoke an ecumenical council, but I can really wish one would happen, and pray for it regularly. I can be pretty green on environmental issues, and I can pursue peace. Does that count?

    For further proof that one need not be intelligent to be a cardinal, consider this:

    Cardinal Biffi said that Christianity stood for “absolute values, such as goodness, truth, beauty”. If “relative values” such as “solidarity, love of peace and respect for nature” became absolute, they would encourage “idolatry” and “put obstacles in the way of salvation”.

    I’m glad to hear that “beauty” is a more absolute value than say “love of peace.” Got that.

  • A Dangerous Precedent?

    I commented earlier on Rep. Jefferson and his planned appointment to the Homeland Security committee. Republicans are now planning to force a recorded vote on the appointment, according to a Washington Post report, on the assumption that some Democrats will be unwilling to go public with their support of this nomination.

    What’s more interesting to me, is the reaction of a Pelosi spokesman:

    Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Pelosi, said that if Republicans follow through on their threat, they would set a “dangerous precedent. A number of their own members are under investigation,” he said, referring to Republicans allegedly under scrutiny by the Justice Department.

    In just what way would it be bad to open up those individuals to further scrutiny? Perhaps corrupt representatives should object, in the interest of self-preservation, but why should others? I would not maintain that everyone under investigation should be refused appointments, though I do think there is a serious problem when such a committee has access to classified information. Nonetheless, I think it would be an excellent idea for every congressman to put his view on the record in such cases. Come election season, we could check the votes and the disposition of the cases and see whether our congressman used good judgment in supporting such candidates. In fact, I think it would be wonderful if there were a recorded vote on anyone under investigation. In order to provide time for such activity one could cancel some of the maneuvering and political “face time” provided by the manner in which congressional debate is managed.

  • Why Authority Issues are Important

    Via Pandagon I found this story, also reported here. These are serious accusations, and more and more people are coming forward.

    Such a story should emphasize several things to those of us who are in ministry, including how transparent our ministry practices should be. Teach and behave in such a way that an accusation such as this would be implausible in your ministry. In my view that includes not claiming excessive authority over the spiritual lives of others, and in fact teaching them to use their own discernment with respect to claims of spiritual authority. It also means practicing accountability, both to let the congregation know that you really mean it and to make sure that the opportunity doesn’t arise.

    Christians should also be very conscious of efforts to force them to give up their judgment to another person. Even demands that one “prayerfully consider” something that you have already rejected (for good reason), can be efforts to break down your own good sense and rational judgment in favor of a church leader. If you haven’t prayerfully considered something, of course, it’s a good idea to do so. But when you have, remember that your decision is between you and God and don’t let yourself be pushed around.

    All of this reemphasizes the point I made a few days ago about the dangers of authority, especially the type of church teaching that makes women spiritually inferior in authoirty to men, such as the teaching that a woman can never have authority over a man in the church. I discussed these issues in Women in Ministry: A Shock and Gifts Ministry and Blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

    Note what I wrote in the first of these entries:

    God doesn’t like his children lording it over one another.

    I have taught this repeatedly. Authority, especially spiritual authority, is dangerous. You create the potential for abuse as soon as you place them in charge and insulate them in any way from accountability. This is true in the home when a man is made “head of household” answering only to God, with his wife answering to him. It is true when one of the church offices is placed above all others. There are a number of teachers who emphasize that the pastor is the final authority in the church and insulate him from challenges because one cannot touch God’s anointed. But all of these options fly directly in the face of the gifts teaching of 1 Corinthians 12-14. God gives the gifts as he wills. They are all important, they are all needed in the church. None of them are to make one of us Lord over another. To fail to recognize this will ultimately result in abuse. If you’re teaching it, though you may not be abusing anyone yourself, you’re opening the door. [Emphasis from original.]

    Now notice the teaching that was apparently involved in this particular pastoral abuse, from The Dallas Observer Blog:

    Allen’s practice of paddling adults has been widely known in local COGIC circles for years, but a common teaching in black Pentecostalism is that a church member should never make an accusation against a man of God. Instead, he or she should pray privately that God deals with the minister’s sin. The two women I interviewed, in fact, each cited this teaching, which is apparently based on a biblical statement, “Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm,” that is mentioned twice in the Old Testament.

    I don’t by any means believe that everyone who teaches a questionable view of authority is engaging in this type of abuse, but I do believe that any teaching that tends to remove accountability from someone in spiritual leadership is terribly, terribly dangerous and must be vigorously challenged by all Christians.

    Unfortunately, in some charismatic and pentecostal circles, the belief that God’s Spirit can come upon everyone in the church and that God can speak to anyone sometimes gets perverted into the idea that God puts an unaccountable authority on certain church leaders. When you have that teaching, abuse of authority, whether spiritual, emotional, or finally physical will not be far away. (Note that I do not mean that the abuse is limited to or especially bad in charismatic and pentecostal groups; rather, that in those groups it is this particular doctrine, and related doctrines about “anointing” that are often abused in this way. Other groups have their own avenues into sin.)

  • Diversity, Tent Ropes, and Tent Pegs

    I have mentioned before that I’ve been writing some of the devotionals for my wife’s devotional list, and yesterday I wrote one that relates closely to some things I’ve written here about tolerance for diversity and yet having identity and anchor points. It’s titled Extend Ropes, Strengthen Stakes.

    For those who may be interested, Jody’s devotional goes out every weekday morning. It used to be an e-mail list, but now it’s a blog with the option to subscribe via e-mail. Being a blog, it now also allows RSS subscriptions. We keep it clear of administrative and personal things, we go very light on the advertising material in the sidebar, and likely no more than once a quarter we might mention an event where she is speaking or a book by one or the other of us, so it’s a pretty safe subscription. You get just a devotional in the morning. Speaking of diversity, as fair warning, it’s distinctively Christian in tone.

  • Christian Carnival CLXIII Posted

    Christian Carnival CLXIII has been posted at Chasing the Wind. That’s a pretty theme there, and it fits the title, but it’s bright!

  • Rosenhouse Dissects Johnson

    Jason Rosenhouse has an excellent discussion or even better dissection of some recent writing by Philip Johnson. I’ve had this partial entry on Johnson sitting amongst my drafts for ages, but since Johnson is now bringing forth many of the same arguments, and Rosenhouse has quite thoroughly demolished them, I will simply refer you to his post.

    For some reason lawyers think they have a special handle on argument, but on scientific and religious topics it appears to be largely vacuous. Perhaps they should allow some facts to interfere somehow.

  • Plantinga on The God Delusion

    Ben Witherington alerted me to Plantinga’s review of Dawkins’ book The God Delusion on Christianity Today. Now I must be frank (well, no, I don’t have to, but I will!) and say that I find philosophers provide the most annoying of reading. They seem to me to be the world’s best rationalizers, providing excellent reasons to believe what they already believe. I have previously commented on some other work by Plantinga in my post An Evolutionary Understanding of Kinds, and I found his arguments in favor of a theistic science pretty seriously unconvincing. Other philosophers regard him as a heavyweight, however, so I suppose he must be.

    In this case, I haven’t read The God Delusion because I suspect it’s largely going to annoy me. I truly love Dawkins when he is writing about scientific topics, and I note that Plantinga expresses much the same sentiment for many passages on biology. Dawkins is a gifted science writer. But I find his hostility toward theism, and particularly liberal theism as kind of gratuitous. Having discovered that complexity can come from simplicity without any demonstrable guidance (a point on which Plantinga disagrees with him), Dawkins seems anxious to move forward and make claims about things he can’t possibly know.

    Of course, making claims about things you can’t possibly know is a time honored religious tradition. So if Dawkins were to admit that he is speculating, I would generally have no problem with what he does. As it is, I just avoid reading those portions of his writing. I’ve already heard the argument. I’m still a theist. I shrug my shoulders and go on.

    Now I’m not going to quote more than a few lines of the lengthy review. You really should read the whole thing to get the flavor. But Plantinga seems to believe that the evidence is solid for his viewpoint, and Dawkins is on thin ice. I think they’re both well past the ice, and just waiting, like cartoon characters, for the law of gravity to notice. As a theist, I look back at the chasm over which I have leapt in a classic leap of faith, and I have great understanding for those who shake their heads and call me an idiot. I think my concept of God works well with the universe as it is, but I know the evidence I see admits of other explanations.

    Arguments like fine-tuning sound so good in philosophy classrooms, but when it comes right down to it, I know I have to start my argument from the point of view of a universe that was capable of producing me to think about it. In practical terms, astronomical odds against my being here are irrelevant. I’m here, after all. (Yes, I know, philosphers don’t think that’s a good answer, but I think it’s a real answer.) Even more, though, all arguments about the probability of one type of universe existing over another are founded on nothing. Nobody knows just how a universe comes into existence at all, nor at this point whether there is one universe or many, or if many, in what relationship they are to one another. We cannot even imagine what creatures might inhabit a universe substantially different from ours, and who might speculate on the existence of God because their universe was precisely designed for them.

    The thing that really gets me about Plantinga’s argument, and Dawkins’s, if Plantinga has characterized it accurately, is that it places both Dawkins and Plantinga in the position of claiming their own position is true, because it hasn’t been disproven. In other words, Plantinga wants us to default to his position, Dawkins to his. Plantinga summarizes what he thinks Dawkins’s argument amounts to:

    We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p;
    Therefore
    p is true.

    But to me, both arguments push beyond the bounds of science, and both questions should be answered with a form of “I don’t know.” And here Plantinga has the upper hand. He is a philosopher, and is thus doing the stuff he is supposed to be doing. When he starts talking about theistic science elsewhere, I think he transgresses in the other direction, but here he is on the ground appropriate to his field. (I am an interloper in either direction, but it’s my blog and I get to interlope!) Dawkins, on the other hand, whether he intends it or not, is seen as a spokesman for science saying that there is no God, no supernatural. And science is simply not capable of testing that. It can see the effects, but it can’t track them back.

    All of this leaves me in pretty much the same place I was when I started. But Plantinga’s review is interesting and well worth reading.

  • Abortion and Moral Good-An Illustration of Extremes

    A post on the evangelical outpost alerted me to a minor tempest about abortion rights. It seems that Amanda Marcotte believes that abortion is a moral good, something to be celebrated.

    Having recently encountered the notion that one trully cannot take the position I do, that abortion in the bulk of cases is to be abhorred, but that making it unlawful is not the best strategy for limiting it in our society, I find it interesting to see the same position taken by the other side. Marcotte says:

    Also, saying that abortion is morally questionable, even if you’re pro-choice, is a huge insult to the brave men and women who risk life and limb to perform them.

    Which simply adds that to a whole list of other things I can’t possibly do, but do anyhow, such as supporting our troops, but opposing the war our political leaders have sent them to fight. As a moral choice, I think that there are a very few cases in which I could morally support the decision for someone to have an abortion, such as serious risk to the life of the mother. I don’t buy the notion that we can’t decide who lives or dies–we do that every day. We just like to pretend that we’re leaving it in God’s hands.

    As an aside, this whole business of “leaving it in God’s hands” suggests to me the picture of someone in a hospital bed, with machines breathing for him, tubes feeding him, and various monitors attached to every part of his body. Then somebody says, “We can’t disconnect the tubes, we need to leave it in the hands of God.” Well if those tubes are sticking out of me, or if my life is being preserved on the off chance that I might come out of a coma some years later, pull the tubes and truly leave it in God’s hands. (And yes, the responsible parties, including my health-care surrogate are aware of my views.)

    What I think is morally reprehensible is the notion that we can’t choose responsible behavior in the first place, i.e. that the decision to produce the baby in the first place is too difficult, yet it’s OK to make abortion an easy option. I don’t think it can be, or will be, an easy option no matter what you do. For various reasons, I want to keep it legal, but “legal” and “right” are not equivalent in my view.

    Thus I’m angered by Marcotte’s rhetoric, but I simply see it as part of the continued insistence by people on both sides of this debate to leave the majority of the country out of the debate, or alternatively to define them into one camp or the other whether they fit there or not.