Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Ephesians 6:18: Always Pray in the Spirit

    Today as I was driving I noticed a church sign with a message that went something like this: “As a child of God, prayer is like phoning home every day.” Perhaps I’m being too tense about it, but it seems to me that prayer is very much unlike phoning home every day. In fact, to paraphrase the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, “phoning home every day” is almost, but not quite totally unlike phoning home every day.

    Phoning home every day, or even somewhat less, was quite adequate for my relationship with my parents when I went away to college. They were happy even with a weekly phone call. There weren’t so many flat rate long distance plans in those days, so they preferred a few letters, and something like a weekly phone call that we kept short.

    But there was a big difference between my developing relationship with my parents when I was in my late teens, and my developing relationship with God today. I was establishing independence from my parents, as is appropriate. I am hoping to get closer and closer to God right up to the end of my race here on earth. My parents were not always present, always aware, and always available, nor did they have “the plan.” God, as I know him, does. “E.T. phone home” is not the formula for an active prayer life.

    (more…)

  • Looking for Moral High Ground

    I’ve been watching the Foley scandal in congress, though not as closely as I might. While Foley represented a portion of Florida, that portion is a long ways from the panhandle where I live. Our congressional race isn’t even close. At the same time moral standards are extremely important to me. I will tend to favor a candidate who disagrees with me even on significant issues, provided I believe that candidate has integrity and his oppponent does not. (I’m referencing two news stories for this, Ethics panel launches probe into Foley case and Poll: Voters say scandal will affect vote.)

    In the present scandal and in several previous ones, both parties have tended to behave hypocritically. When the person who has fallen is a member of one’s own party, salvaging one’s political career takes precedence, and one tends to advocate forgiveness. When the offender is a member of the other party, the important issue is upholding moral standards, and maximum exposure of the bad behavior and appropriate punishment is the key.

    Now of course those extremes don’t generally occur all that clearly, though I think political operatives sound pretty much like that. When it was Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, Democrats were busy defending the president, while Republicans went as far as impeachment, not to mention a long and expensive investigation. Now I will note that often by “defending” I mean indirectly, such as by redirecting the subject to inappropriate tactics used by those who are investigating or reporting. In my view Bill Clinton’s behavior should have been regarded as sexual harassment and inappropriate sexual behavior, though I didn’t see anything impeachable in it. Democrats who would normally be very sensitive about sexual harassment were rather forgiving of a popular president of their own party. Republicans made some loose morals and inappropriate behavior into a crime.

    Now we have ex-Congressman Foley. His behavior is worse in that it occurs with underage persons, though on the other hand he hasn’t carried it through so far. What is the appropriate response? As soon as anyone found out about those e-mails, the appropriate authority should have taken action. If Speaker Hastert didn’t know earlier, he should have known, because he should have been informed. I am not going to join calls for him to resign simply because I don’t yet know what he knew and when. I could probably sift through the material and get a better idea than I have, but I’ll leave that for later. If he was not informed until last week, he needs to check into the process that allowed things to go that far before he was informed.

    Republicans generally, however, seem to be less angry about this one than about prior failings by Democrats. Demoncrats seem to be more angry, and I see both as hypocritical. We, as voters need to hold our politicians to a higher standard, and do so across the board. We should not tolerate the behavior of a congressman who approaches congressional pages through e-mail, through IMs, or in person. We should not tolerate anyone in power who does not take swift and efficient action. Which party might gain or lose should not be part of our reasoning.

    Today I received my “Breaking Christian News” e-mail, and in there Gary Bauer, of American Values is quote as saying:

    “Hopefully, no Christian voter is under the illusion that the Democratic Party is full of sinners and the Republican Party is full of saints,” he says. “Both parties are full of sinners. Our faith teaches us that it’s a fallen world.”

    He goes on to hope that this action of one congressman won’t impact the overall Christian voter turnout.

    Now Bauer’s quote is something I would imagine that practically every Christian can agree with. We all, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and members of minor parties are sinners. We are imperfect. The problem is that pointing it out right now certainly appears to be a political ploy. The hope is to save the Republican majority in the house, and for that to occur it’s important that Christian conservative voters are not turned off by Republican misbehavior. I actually agree that this issue should be taken out only on those actually responsible–the one who committed these acts and anyone involved in covering them up. Right now people believe (see the article referenced at the beginning of this post) that the Democrats are better able to restore moral standards, but that’s simply because the latest wrongdoing was by a Republican. If this had happened to a Democrat, people would tilt the other way. After a few weeks, the impact of this one event will fade, and the numbers will balance out. It’s unfortunate that people are so swayed by emotion and so unsteady in their decisions. (Note that at one point 80% approved of the war in Iraq, now more than 60% oppose it. That leaves 40% who somehow changed their minds. I know people say that the facts changed, but I don’t think there was any reason to expect things to go much better than they have.)

    “Everyone is a sinner” is one of those good Christian phrases that can be used two ways. First, it can help us be more forgiving. That is good, though not unequivocally good. Second, it can be used to destroy moral standards. We need to be forgiving, but we don’t need to elevate those without high standards into positions of public trust. In the church, we need to be forgiving, but we don’t need to lower our moral goals.

    This morning in my devotions I was reading Acts 3 & 4. I’m writing a devotional on it for my wife’s devotional list, because it hit me over the head, spiritually speaking, when I thought about the lame man waiting and begging at the gate of the temple. He’s outside, just separated from the blessing. I thought, “How many people are there waiting at the gate of our churches, but for some reason unable to come in and be blessed?”

    Then I also read Acts 3:26: “When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you, to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways” [Emphasis mine]. God hasn’t called us to forgive because we’re all wallowing together in a pit of sin and despair. He calls us to forgive as part of healing, as part of becoming holy. God doesn’t just call sinners, he calls sinners to repentance (Luke 5:32).

    And that’s another one of those hard sayings. It looks pretty nice to see God calling sinners, weak people, failures, and losers. Jesus gives them a place. But he doesn’t just call them. He calls them to change. For those of us inside the church he doesn’t just ask us not to judge. He asks us both to have high standards and not to judge. It’s easy not to judge when you have no standards. Judge what? But as usual Jesus doesn’t let us by with the easy path. Love one another isn’t good enough. Jesus asks us to love one another as he has loved us. Oops! That love involved a cross! It’s not so easy now! Likewise “don’t judge” comes only a chapter after we are told to love our enemies, and then asked to “be perfect, as our Father in heaven is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). Now I’ve heard lots of ways to blunt that command, but none of them quite manages to make it easy.

    We’re all sinners, yes, no matter what party. But that’s never an excuse for remaining that way. God’s call is to higher moral ground. He’s offering grace. He’s offering the blessing of turning us from our sins. But he’s not accepting excuses.

  • Christian Carnival CXLII Posted

    Christian Carnival CXLII has been posted at Nerd Family. It looks like a pretty rich source of good posts. As usual, I’ll be posting some of my favorites here some time during the week before the next carnival.

    Thanks to Nerd Family for hosting and for an excellent post.

  • Christian Carnival CXLII Posted

    Christian Carnival CXLII has been posted at Nerd Family. It looks like a pretty rich source of good posts. As usual, I’ll be posting some of my favorites over on Threads from Henry’s Web.

    Thanks to Nerd Family for hosting and for an excellent post.

  • Understanding and Acting

    There are many on the right who complain whenever someone tries to understand evildoers, or to explain the reason for their actions. They assume, not always incorrectly, that the person who is explaining also intends to excuse, that finding a reason, other than that certain people are evil, must remove any justification for reprisal or punishment.

    On the other hand, there are those who justify just such an attitude by believing that somehow an explanation is also a solution. A murderer comes before the court, and either in the trial of the facts or during the sentencing phase provides an explanation, perhaps a very difficult childhood with abuse, or deprivation as an adult. The jury or the judge is supposed to accept the explanation as, in some sense, a solution.

    Now those on either side can accuse me of expressing the extreme views here. Conservatives are not opposed to explanations in principle, nor are liberals satisfied with only an explanation. But it often appears that way. What are we to do with the murderer who was mistreated by his parents or guardians? Perhaps his plight can arouse our sympathy, but does it allow us to increase the threat to others? An explanation, to be valuable in this case, needs to lead us to a course of action that is effective, and better than existing options.

    What about terrorism? I think I do understand, to some extent, the reasons why terrorists become terrorists. It is not simply that they were born evil and wanted to kill lots of people. They and their people have real problems to solve. But that’s only part of the explanation. They also have goals that are incompatible with ours. Muslim extremists, for example, are frustrated by the success of our lifestyle, which to them is morally bankrupt and should fail. There is a great deal of anger that can result when your high moral values don’t produce their equivalent in material resources.

    Timothy McVeigh was frustrated because the American people repeatedly didn’t vote for the type of policies he wanted. He saw–correctly I might note–that his vision for America would never come about in the normal course of events. So he blew up a building. An additional cause here, I believe, was that he really wasn’t all that smart. So there’s an explanation. That explanation, however, leads up to one point, the point at which hundreds of people had to pay with their lives for McVeigh’s frustration. Does the explanation help us deal with the action? Not that much.

    Now we have some people who are annoyed whenever anyone suggests that terrorists might have reasons for what they do. Of course they have reasons. Some of them are even good reasons–to do something, not to blow people up. And why are we the target? Because we’re the largest roadblock to their plans. I don’t want to minimize the provocation of bad behavior as a nation. An inconsistent foreign policy encourages others to believe they can get by with treating Americans badly. An arrogant attitude on our part makes Americans unpopular in some places. But most people respond by overcharging American tourists or saying nasty things.

    The problem with terrorism by Muslim extremists is that part of the explanation for their anger with us is simply who we are. They don’t want us to exist. They don’t like our freedom and what appears to them as our decadence. They do want a world that is dominated by their particular view of Islam. That doesn’t mean they haven’t been mistreated, but it’s not just by the United States. The UK and France had a good part in creating the current mess as well. But we are the ones in the center of the target because we are the biggest roadblock.

    Recognizing both legitimate and illegitimate grievances should not be either our license to give up on the grounds that we really have been the bad guys many times in our past, nor should it be our excuse to hate indiscriminately. It should be the occasion for us to defend ourselves appropriately and in a reasoned manner, and at the same time for us to correct those elements of our behavior (inconsistency and arrogance come to mind) that are legitimate grievances. It is naive to assume, however, that because we correct legitimate offenses, that suddenly peace and friendship will break out.

    What understanding does give us is an opportunity to decide how to act without the level of hatred and anger, to use a measured response (not a weak response) to produce just the result we want.

    Explanations provide the pattern for effective action, not the excuse for inaction.

  • Secondary Spirituality

    When writing research papers students are frequently warned against using secondary sources. If one must use a secondary source, one must be certain that it’s reliable, and indicate the actual source. Scholars get in the habit of using primary sources as often as possible.

    But in spirituality, I notice that many people tend toward the secondary. Particularly in Christian circles, many people today prefer to read books by modern authors that deal with scriptural concepts. They are not just one step away, such as reading a commentary or other expository work, but several steps away, reading a book about Christian living, for example, that claims to be built on a scriptural foundation.

    Now I don’t have a problem with reading books about spirituality and spiritual experiences by modern authors. But what does surprise me is that so many Christians claim to follow the Bible and so few actually read and study it for themselves. Frequently in teaching Sunday School classes or weekend programs I’ll read from a passage, or have someone in the class read, and then ask people for their thoughts on a particular point. Inevitably someone reads a note from their study Bible and presents that as the answer to whatever question I asked.

    There are many study Bibles, and they don’t all agree. I want to ask each person this: “What do you believe that means?” Now I’m not suggesting that experts aren’t helpful. They can be. But in the end a person needs to know what he or she thinks, and how that thought relates to the text. I recall a number of times when people have brought me a passage from a commentary or a note from their study Bible and asked me just how it was that the presumably expert commentator got what they said from the text on which they were commenting. In many cases I have to respond that I have no idea. As far as I can tell, the text says one thing, and the commentator says something else.

    Even more frightening to me is the tendency of people to catch me in the hallways of the church and ask Biblical questions. I don’t mind being questioned, but I do mind it when people expect a one sentence answer, and I am very concerned when they simply accept what I say without checking further for themselves. I know that at least in some cases the answers are never checked, because I’ve gotten them back several generations removed in other classes.

    The point of this rant is to make two major points:

    1. If you believe the Bible contains, conveys, or is God’s word, then you need to actually read the Bible and not just books about it, or distantly derived from it.
    2. If you are going to read the Bible for yourself, you’re going to have to take the time to actually read it, study it, meditate on it, ask questions about it, share it with others, and get input.

    All this is going to take more than five minutes per day, and it will require you to say “I don’t know” from time to time. People don’t like it when I say “I don’t know” because they feel that if I don’t know after the amount of time I’ve studied, not to mention reading Hebrew and Greek to which they attach excessive importance, how will it be possible for them to ever know?

    You can consult experts. They are most useful in providing background and connection information, but they are also very valuable in checking your own positions against the work of others. They provide a kind of accountability to your scriptural interpretation. But in the end you need to study for yourself, and move beyond the bounds of what others suggest you study.

    (For suggestions see the pamphlet I Want to Study the Bible.)

  • Charisma Books Expo Reports

    My wife Jody and I will be doing some reports and impressions from the Charisma Book Expo in Atlanta, September 27-30, 2006. I believe some readers of this blog will be interesting. The reports will be on our Energion Publications Announcements Blog, and in addition I will be reviewing some materials that I found at the show that I think will be of interest to Christian educators on the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter blog.

    The expo was intended to provide a spiritual experience and atmosphere along with an opportunity to pick up some of the best new things in the Christian book industry, especially from a charismatic perspective. Our experience was positive, and we plan to be at the next one.

  • Gender Roles as Essential

    Peter Kirk has written an excellent post about the essentials of the Christian faith. I’ll let you go to his blog for the many references he has used in his discussion, and the reason for this post at this moment.

    My reason for commenting on it is simply that Peter has highlighted a number of the reasons why I believe it is important for us to clearly identify what we hold as essentials of the faith and why. I think I made a fairly clear statement on the issue in my post, Unity, Diversity, and Confusion. In that post I suggested that when we have too few essentials we become confused and rudderless and when we have too many, we become rigid. I could also note that when those essentials are not well-defined and carefully chosen we can do unintended damage throughout the church.

    (more…)

  • Maturity or Masculinity

    OK, here is a good post on men in the church. I have nothing to add to it. Men, let’s read it and put it into practice.

    Hat tip: Lingamish.

  • God: Nice or Not?

    One of my Old Testament professors once told me that he thought survey courses might better be left to the end of one’s program, that one could greatly benefit by a survey course after one had studied more deeply into the various elements. I agree, though I would suggest a starting survey and then a finishing survey. I think this idea works in Bible study too, though I put less emphasis on the later survey or fast read. Sometimes we use too narrow of a context in interpreting a passage, which is a hazard of serious study of the particular text.

    So today I was read Hebrews 1-6 in Greek for my morning devotions, and some things started popping out at me as I read, just as though I had them highlighted. Some I did have marked in my text, and some not. Now I noticed this list of texts first, and then saw the question afterward, but I’m going to present you with the issue first, and then look at two questions that they help answer. (I added the second question in later!)

    (more…)