Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Pay as You Go – But Will They Do It?

    In a fine example of political maneuvering, the new Democratic majority in congress is pushing a pay as you go policy on spending, to combine with greater transparency on pork barrel projects.

    Since it’s probably impossible to have federal building projects determined strictly by some neutral group on the basis of value in building infrastructure and the economy, I suppose making the methods of getting pork into the budget more transparent is a good thing. At least it’s a better thing than what we have. So is “pay as you go,” something the federal government has not done well on in the past.

    But passing a bill that says they’re going to pay as they go may not be the same thing as doing it. As voters, we should be very watchful of what actually goes on. Some of the methods that could be used to circumvent such legislation could include creative accounting practices (corrupt corporations have nothing on the federal budget on this point) and special exceptions for important things. Of course those items would be passed with much less fanfare.

    Both Republicans and Democrats are talking balanced budgets these days. Clinton would up with a surplus. At this point, I’m not willing to believe that the Democratic congress will show similar restraint to what President Clinton did. I’d love to be surprised.

    The important thing is not to be deceived by the names of bills, or by passage of laws that are essentially intentions. Look for the performance.

  • Making Prayer Happen

    Laura at Pursuing Holiness is blogging about prayer and what keeps us from praying as much as we should. She has some excellent thoughts, and in particular she mentions what I think is the most important point:

    Another problem with prayer is that we so often, after a discussion where someone has shared a need and we respond, “I’ll be praying for you,” then leave with the best intentions and then forget to pray. It is far better to pray with that person on the spot.

    Go read it all.

    I want to take the opportunity to mention the most recent addition to our participatory study series tracts, titled Seven Barriers to Prayer in Your Church. You’ll note that this very point is barrier #2, right after “the pastor has to do it.”

    As with anything, our real priorities are demonstrated by what we do, not what we say. A praying church prays. Lots of churchs talk about prayer, but that doesn’t make you a praying church, or family, or individual. Only prayer does that!

  • Bible Study Tool: The NeXt Bible

    One key question for computer savvy, or at least computer-involved Bible students is the type of Bible study software to purchase. Many can get along well with e-Sword, which I’ve reviewed before. (Be sure to read into the comments for some corrections.)

    Now there’s a new, free resource from Bible.org, the producers of the NET Bible. One of the key features of the NET Bible is the extensive and generally excellent notes provided for the translation. You will rarely be left unaware of major translation issues if you carefully read the notes. Much of what can normally only be accomplished by reading a passage in numerous versions is handled by the NET Bible notes.

    But now there’s more–we have the NeXt Bible. This is not as complete as e-Sword, but some of the resources that do exist are even better. What attracts me to it is that it’s available anywhere that I have an internet connection. For example, this morning I’m working at someone else’s office for a couple of hours, and none of these computers have any Bible study software on them. I can’t do as much as I could with my Logos software, but I can get a substantial amount of information, and it’s readily available.

    (more…)

  • Swearing In on Relevant Books

    Speaking of swearing in on relevant books, the new Governor of Massacheusetts chose to take his oath on a Bible that was a gift of freed slaves to John Quincy Adams who had fought for their release, according to the Boston Globe (Hat tip: Breaking Christian News (e-mail).

    I like the symbolism involved in that.

  • Grand Canyon Age and National Parks Bookstores

    Joe Meert, vice-president of Florida Citizens for Science has an excellent post on the current controversy about a creationist book sold in the Grand Canyon National Park bookstore and allegations that have been made that park rangers are not permitted to give an honest, scientific answer to questions about the age of the canyon.

    He has found that the charges that park rangers are muzzled are false, and that the book is currently carried in the spirituality section of the bookstore. I would agree with him when he says:

    In my opinion, we do a disservice to the community by making false claims to forward an agenda (either political or scientific). There is a book in the spirituality section of the Grand Canyon bookstore that has some nonsensical science and that is true. My feeling is that if people want to buy nonsensical books in order to lift their spirits, have at it. As long as the book is classified correctly (i.e. NOT science) I see no reason for trying to ban the book. Book banning should be the sole realm of despot leaders and religious fundamentalists.

    there is a link in his comments that I would like to note as well:

    Don’t Believe Everything You Read, written by a former park ranger.

  • What Should he Swear On?

    It appears that Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to congress, is also quite an effective politician. He wants to be sworn into congress holding a copy of the Qur’an, to which a number of “traditional” Christians have objected (on which more in a moment), and has chosen to do so on a copy previously owned by Thomas Jefferson. (Hat tip: Dispatches from the Culture Wars.)

    I was commenting on this story to my wife and she said her first impression was that she would rather have the newly elected congressman swear his oath on a book he considers sacred thus giving it more weight. Her second thought was yet more interesting. “Didn’t Jesus say something about not swearing oaths?” So perhaps the most traditional Christians should go with “swear not at all.”

    Again you have heard that it has been said by the ancients, “You shall not swear falsely, but you shall fulfill your oaths to the Lord.” But I say to you, “Don’t swear at all, neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool, neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king, neither shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your word be clearly yes or no. Everything more than that is from the evil one.” — Matthew 5:33-37

    So maybe the answer is: Nothing!

  • Moderate Christian Blogroll/Aggregator

    To keep this blogroll clean and current I will be removing blogs that are not active for over 60 days from the roll and aggregator. I think this is appropriate because the aggregator lists the last five posts from each blog. If your blog disappears from the list and you become active again, please let me know and I’ll promptly add you back to the list.

    Now we return to our irregularly scheduled programming. . . .

  • Evolution Sunday

    Evolution Sunday is coming up February 11, 2007. Some folks may be a bit concerned, or even seriously annoyed with the idea of an “evolution” Sunday. Is the theory of evolution going to become a point of Christian doctrine? Shall we celebrate evolution for a day?

    Well, I can think of several subjects right off hand that would make good sermons that relate the theory of evolution to relevant topics in Christianity, and I would have no problem with preaching them, should I have the opportunity. (My venue is more commonly the classroom, but who knows?) But the real point of Evolution Sunday is to discuss the relationship between religion and science. Evolution seems to be the topic most commonly used to drive a wedge between the two, and the event is scheduled as near as possible to Charles Darwin’s birthday because he is made the focus of the controversy.

    I have no greater desire to see evolution become an element of a Christian doctrine of creation than I do to see young earth creationism in that position. I would like Christianity to deal doctrinally with the doctrine of God and his relationship to his creation, and to leave the how to those who employ the scientific method. Getting those physical facts and coordinating them is what science does well. It is also something that religion generally does poorly.

    So what I would suggest to churches is that they focus on the topic of science and religion, with an emphasis on living respectfully together as Christians in spite of our disagreements on the details of how God created. Let the congregation know that we can live together even when we disagree on matters of science. Believe it or not, young earthers, old earthers, ID advocates, and evolutionists can and do exist in the same congregation without immediate war breaking out.

    This respect doesn’t mean that we have to give ground in debate or discussion. A vigorous exchange of ideas is important in seeking the truth. Too often respect is equated to agreement or even to the idea that what we believe doesn’t matter at all. What I would hope for is that members of Christian congregations could debate these issues without fear of being thrown out of the church or cut off from positions of authority.

    So on February 11, 2007, consider talking about science and religion working together, about how we can both disagree and communicate our disagreement, and how we can place our focus on the essentials.

    (For some ideas on the doctrine of creation, see the Energion Publications tract God the Creator.)

  • A Politician’s Past

    Barack Obama has been making quite a splash in the media, and while the general reaction is often annoyed or amused, my view is that the pressures of a presidential campaign are quite adequate to test the strength of a candidate. I have not decided to support him, and besides as a registered independent voter, I don’t participate in Florida’s closed primaries, but I’m going to keep paying attention.

    Thus, I read with interest the MSNBC.COM article, Obama’s past could be an issue, in which we are informed that “Senator admitted trying cocaine in memoir written 11 years ago.” Well, shock and amazement! We have a presidential candidate who overcame a past and has made himself into a fine citizen and political leader. Christians especially should have empathy with this story, because it is the quintessential story of redemption, part of the central story of our faith.

    When I heard that George W. Bush had been involved in a DUI, I hoped that it would not become a factor in his election simply because it was something he had overcome. I would have preferred that it had not been hidden, but I respect the right of a person not to publicize every aspect of his past. (I had many other concerns about George W. Bush, but that wasn’t one of them.) The point I’m trying to make is that it’s not that likely we’ll find a leader with no flaws in his past, though we may not be aware of them. Further, I suspect it is not a good idea to have a leader who has led a flawless life.

    In Obama’s case, however, rather than having somebody remember what he had done at the last minute, we have an excellent source. Senator Obama himself wrote a book and told about it. Again, Christians should be empathetic–he gave his testimony; he overcame the negatives and moved forward.

    I have no idea who I’ll end up supporting in the presidential election a bit less than two years from now. But this bit of the past for Senator Obama will be a point in his favor–not against him.

  • Principles of Interpretation or Conclusions?

    I’m always happy to see discussion about principles of interpretation of scripture, because in general when we have large differences of opinion between Christians they can be traced back to our approach to interpreting scripture and more broadly to our understanding of how doctrine is formed. Thus I was delighted to see General Principles for the Interpretation of Scripture listed in this week’s Christian Carnival.

    I’m responding here to a couple of potential points of disagreement, but I don’t want this to overshadow my appreciation for having someone lay out their principles so they can be discussed. It is so incredibly important that we talk about how we come to an understanding of scripture and acknowledge those principles. In pursuit of that, my own principles can be found in extended form in the participatory study method, and one of my key principles in Hanging Biblical Interpretation. The latter essay is subject to the same criticisms I’m expressing here–in fact, I’m not sure we can avoid these criticisms.

    The issue can be illustrated very simply. Quoting:

    The Scripture is infallible.

    John 10:35 (Very Literal)
    . . . the Scripture is not able to be broken.

    What we have done here is interpreted the text in order to produce a principle of interpretation. Now if you think about it, you are likely to believe I’m being quite unfair. If you read my own essay, listed above, you will be even more convinced I’m being unfair. How else does one proceed? It’s a fundamental of inductive Bible study. But at the same time it’s one of our problems.

    I recall a visit from a very earnest young couple who wanted to save my soul. Their ardor for this task was not dimmed when I told them that I was a Christian and involved in a church. I didn’t mind talking with them, so we settled in to talk about salvation and eventually the topic worked its way around to faith and works. (You can see some of my own thoughts at A Fruitful Faith.) At one point in the argument he separated out a single phrase in a text and said that it applied to a different dispensation. He further claimed that his dispensational view was totally derived from scripture. In my experience, however, what is derived from scripture through a fully dispensational approach differs quite a bit from what others derive from scripture.

    In the case of the particular argument before us, can one justifiably move from the text to infallibility and make that a fundamental principle of Bible study? I think one would have to ask precisely what the scripture was intended to accomplish and how. The phrase “broken scripture” cries out for definition. In the case of John 10:35 it was a particular application to Jesus that could not be broken. But how does that become a basic principle of interpretation?

    I would suggest that it has to go through testing. In other words, I don’t have to begin my approach to scripture with the view that it is going to produce no errors or contradictions, or that it will provide me with true propositions. I would take John 10:35 with me to many different scriptures and ask just how it functioned in those contexts. I’m assuming that Mr. Harvey Bluedorn, who wrote the article I’m referencing, has done precisely that, and has found through testing that this principle continues to apply. Some may think that is a bit circular, but I would suggest it’s no more circular than life. If I touch a hot stove and get burned (hopefully only when I was younger!) I may conclude that the single object in question is dangerous. Through testing of that principle, perhaps a bit more carefully, I’ll find out just how universal my insight is, and how it applies.

    But for those who are just starting out perhaps that principle will require some testing. I think I come to some different conclusions along the line. The key here, however, is to know the principles you are applying, and to test them, especially by interacting with others to test your conclusions. Can you back them up?