Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Devotionals on Mark

    Recently I have been writing a number of devotionals for my wife Jody to use on her devotional list. Since one of my devotional readings right now is working through the book of Mark, I thought some readers of this blog might be interested. You can find these entries starting at: Monday Morning Devotion 7/31/06. There may be others interspersed. I’ll be reading in Mark 6 this morning and writing, though those devotionals may not appear on the list for some time.

    These are devotional thoughts and not exegetical notes. The purpose of the devotional list is quite different from this blog.

  • On Being a Love Preacher

    I’ve been talking about the incarnation and the two laws, and placing the concept of love at the center of Christianity. There are those who think that preaching love is somehow a weak form of Christianity, and a soft form of ethics. “All you need is love” is not regarded as a particularly profound message. “There’s lots more to it than just love,” I’ve been told.

    But I don’t think so. I think love requires some definition, because not everything we call love actually is. There are lots of details required to implement love. But love is the key, and love is anything but easy.

    My pastor this morning referred to the “cliche of ‘What Would Jesus Do?’” And indeed WWJD has become a cliche, with just about anything you might want to justify being explained as, of course, precisely what Jesus would do. And in practice WWJD has become something of a cliche, and unfortunately, in general people claim that Jesus would do whatever it was they wanted to do anyhow.

    But what would Jesus actually do? Well, we can get some idea from the gospel of John. (This message is scattered throughout scripture, but I’m using the passage in which it is most clearly stated.) Jesus gave up his life for his friends. And then he gave a command:

    12This is my command, that you love one another just as I loved you. 13Nobody has greater love than this, that he lays down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do that which I command you. — John 15:12-14 (TFBV, or see the CEV using BibleGateway.com)

    What would Jesus do? Well, he did give his life for his friends. And he did provide that to his disciples as a definition of love, of the love that they were to carry out.

    Now which is easier?

    • Believe a set of doctrines so that despite whatever you may do, you will still be saved and live eternally?
    • Put your trust in God and let him transform your life so that you exemplify this love, that is exemplify what Jesus would do?

    I think the easy road out is option ‘a’. We would really rather not be confronted with what Jesus actually would do in most circumstances.

    But that, I believe, is the challenge of the gospel.

  • Does Fear Favor the Republicans?

    George McGovern isn’t my very most favorite person, but he is quoted in Newsweek saying this:

    Reached by NEWSWEEK on vacation, McGovern offered Democrats a warning. “For 50 years, [Republicans] used the fear of communism to beat Democrats,” he said. “I hope we don’t have 50 years of terrorism for them to do the same thing.”

    The article, titled Campaign 2006: A Hawk Stays Aloft, is about a boost for Lieberman’s campaign because of the recent hijacking scare.

    But simply admonishing people not to vote out of fear is not enough. If you vote for a candidate because his opponent doesn’t have a plan to deal with a major threat, then are you voting out of fear, or out of prudence? And that’s where I, as an independent, am not seeing what I would like to see out of the democrats thus far. What is the positive plan to make things better? I like what I read in the referenced article about Lamont planning to redeploy troops he would withdraw from Iraq, placing them elsewhere in the Middle East. That’s a good start.

    But we need some other specifics. I know politicians are afraid of specifics. But we have choices to make about screening technology, profiling, or other approaches to airport security. We have choices to make about searches and seizures domestically and what is the appropriate legal strategy. I’m fairly sure from the rumblings that there are both Democrats and Republicans out there with a variety of ideas. Perhaps it is simply the media that is stuck at the simplest level, keeping its focus on the war in Iraq, yes or no.

    I personally would oppose a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, but I think we need to set a realistic set of goals and a realistic strategy to attain them, and withdraw as soon as those goals are accomplished. The following statement, quoted from the same article, frightens me with its naivete:

    “If you have Lamont Democrats who say, ‘Bring ’em home, turn away and it will all be over’ … the American people say, ‘You’re kidding yourself’ … The only way you walk away from war is as a victor,” said a senior administration official who asked for anonymity speaking about the politics of national security.

    The problem is with definition. What is victory? If we intend to leave a country that is friendly to the United States, a full ally in the war on terror, has a stable government, and is prepared to stand up to neighbors such as Iran, then we are deluding ourselves. It’s not going to happen. We need realistic goals–and most of the realistic ones have already been accomplished–and then we need to move on. We don’t have unlimited resources.

  • Christ’s Restraining Love

    12We’re not recommending ourselves to you again, but we’re giving you an excuse to boast about us again, so that you may have a response to those who boast in appearance and not in the heart. 13For if we are out of our minds, it’s for God, if we are wise, it’s for you. 14For the love of Christ keeps us on track, because we judge that one has died for all, therefore all have died. 15And one died for everyone, so that those who live might no longer live for themselves, but rather for the one who died and was raised. — 2 Corinthians 5:12-15 (TFBV)

    Look at the CEV as well: 2 Corinthians 5:12-15 (CEV). (I’m going to make a practice of helping people practice what I preach. Due to copyright concerns on the amount of Bible that I quote online, I generally use my own translations for reference, and I post these in my totally free Bible version project. But it is a project not a translation, and is not even intended to replace any existing translations. What the project does is allow me to have all my working translations, going back more than 20 years, in one place, and to use them as placeholders for commentary. So to help people practice what I preach, I’m going to link to a favored translation on Bible Gateway as I’ve done above.)

    Over on my Threads from Henry’s Web blog I’ve been discussing essentials of the Christian faith. In addition, in a discussion sparked for me, at least, by Peter Kirk (latest post and by lingamish (Is charismatic a slur?), we’ve been discussing “charismatics” and the gifts of the Spirit.

    In looking at this short passage I’d like to tie these together just a bit. To me the gospel has a simple core, which is God’s presence in the world through Jesus Christ for the purpose of redeeming the world. That core can be expanded and discussed until the universe comes to an end and beyond, but the center remains simple. A good Christianity, then, is Christ centered, and a Christianity that is off-target is one that is no longer Christ-centered.

    That’s Paul’s message here. I translated it, “The love of Christ keeps us on track.” The CEV has “We are ruled by Christ’s love for us.” In either case, Christ’s love is defining. Now go back one verse, where I translate “If we are out of our minds, it’s for God.” The CEV adds the word “seem” there, and I think there’s some justification. But the relationship is that anything that we do that might seem crazy is done in relationship to God. Christ’s love, which is God’s love manifested in Jesus the Christ, is what puts the restraint on it. That’s why in the second part of the verse Paul’s says that if we seem (or are) in our right minds, it’s for you.

    The controlling factor is the love of Christ, shown to us, that “keeps us on track” or “rules us” and makes us keep our focus on the people we serve or to whom we minister.

    Seemingly good theology, or seemingly good spiritual gifts, or anything “seemingly good” can be destructive. What constrains it (ASV), what “keeps it on track,” what “rules it,” is the love of Christ, specifically incarnational love.

    I was visiting a United Methodist Church that had a history of being very charismatic. I was soon going to teach there, and I simply wanted to get a feel for the congregation. I was asked to talk about spiritual gifts in a Sunday School class. In that class was a couple who would not identify any spiritual gifts that they believed they had received. With very little encouragement others in the class commented on their service, their hospitality, their helping, and so forth. After the class they came to me in tears and said that they had felt like second class citizens because they did not speak in tongues. Nobody was telling them they had to, but there was an atmosphere that suggested that the really spiritual people spoke in tongues.

    Now I don’t want anyone to be less joyful in the gifts that God has given you, but people in that church who were rejoicing in their own gifts were failing in the second half–being wise for the sake of others. The love of Christ keeps our practice of the gifts on track. It’s no accident that we see this command here, and it’s no accident that in 1 Corinthians, chapter 13 is placed between 12 & 14. The love of Christ keeps us on track!

    There is one more point I’d like to make from this passage. Paul doesn’t just refer to the death of Jesus, but also to his resurrection, the power of life that was in him. We can take the fruit of the Spirit as an ethical mandate, but as such it’s always going to seem a bit limp and ineffective. But when we empower the fruit, especially love, with the presence of the Holy Spirit manifested in the gifts of the Spirit, we will have ministry in power. Fruit alone, as a dry ethical mandate will be insufficient. Gifts alone will be powerfully dangerous. Gifts ruled by fruit are just powerfully good.

  • Don’t Cover Evidence

    The Telegraph reports that some evangelicals in Kenya are trying to sideline exhibits on the evolution of human beings from Kenya’s national museum. In a story, Evangelicals urge museum to hide man’s ancestors, it is reported that the churches want those exhibits removed and intend a campaign to persuade the museum to do so.

    Folks, this is a way that Christians can prove themselves to be stupid and dishonest at one and the same time. Can there be any good reason to hide the evidence or to try to prevent people from seeing it? This is not an action that will be advantageous to the kingdom of God. It is simply “putting a stumbling block” in front of those who might otherwise be inclined to accept the gospel message.

    I sincerely hope that Kenya’s national museum will resist this campaign, and that the Christian leaders involved will think better of this activity.

  • Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator

    I’ve just created a blog aggregator specifically for Christian blogs. This is the result of recent questions from people looking for more moderate Christian presence on the internet. While I am happy to work with conservative or liberal groups whenever that is possible, I’d like to have a single place to look for commentary and information from a moderate Christian perspective.

    I still intend to participate in the Methodist blogosphere, and have actually been spending more time looking at the various Methodist/Wesleyan blogs, commenting, and sometimes linking to them. But this aggregator is for moderates of a variety of theological traditions.

    Right now I only have blogs with which I am involved in the aggregator, but I hope this will change substantially over the next few days. To be included, go to the Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator, take a look around, then follow the link to Moderate Christian Blog Aggregator Standards, fill in the form and submit it. I’ll get to adding you to this list quickly.

  • The Incarnation and the Two Laws

    34Now when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they approached him together, 35and one of them tested him by asking him, 36“Teacher, Which commandment is the greatest one in the Torah?” 37Jesus replied, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with your whole heart, and with your whole being’ {Deuteronomy 6:5} and with your whole mind. 38This is the greatest and first commandment. 39And the second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ {Leviticus 19:18} 40On these two commands all the law and the prophets hang. — Matthew 22:34-40 (TFBV)

    I hope I’m getting across the idea in this series (starting with Christian Essentials: Incarnation at the Center) that rather than a list of doctrines and of standards I prefer a hierarchy. Both logically and in terms of importance various teachings fall into a hierarchy. At the center of all of this I see the notion of incarnation. I’m going to discuss my understanding of many other doctrines later, including ones I regard as non-essentials, and I believe in each case we’ll find the incarnation shedding light on how that doctrine should be understood.

    (more…)

  • Security, Convenience, and Freedom

    We’ve just seen another terrorist plot stopped, perhaps at a very late stage, and suddenly we have new security restrictions. The question is, are these new security measures adequate? More importantly, are they all that likely to do any good?

    I was thinking of writing about this, and I looked around on MSNBC, and found an interview with someone who has said most of the things I wanted to say, and also added some points from his expertise that I wouldn’t know. The interview is by Jennifer Barrett and is with Douglas Laird, a security expert.

    He ended with the point I want to start with:

    The problem is that we respond to what happened yesterday today. Richard Reid shows up with a shoe bomb and we start making people take off their shoes, which was silly. Reid was not a bright bulb, but these guys out there today know what they’re doing. Remember: it wasn’t the checkpoint that caught them, but the intelligence work done by the Brits. The real game is played in the intelligence arena, not at the checkpoint. If these guys make it to the checkpoint, you have a much greater challenge.

    He’s absolutely right. If we continue to respond after the fact, it’s only a matter of time until one of these attacks succeeds. There were previous incidents with liquid explosives, and yet security measures are first taken against such explosives after this latest plot was revealed. And it is questionable whether the security measures that have now been taken would necessarily have prevented this attack, had not good intelligence work done so.

    I think we need to pick up on another lesson from this attack. It was not based on the soil of a terrorist nation, but rather in Great Britain and in Pakistan. Simply dealing with countries that sponsor terrorists will not stop their attacks. I believe that our strategic thinking about terrorism is too dependent on a bureaucratic picture of what it would take to accomplish a particular mission. These guys don’t think like bureaucrats. They are not stopped by inconveniences or by the limits of bureaucratic thinking. They think outside the box. It’s good to deal with state sponsors of terrorism and to get at their money. But we should not be complacent about the safetry provided by such things.

    We need to make some decisions as to what we’re willing to put up with in order to be secure. If we don’t make conscious decisions we’re simply going to slide into massive inconvenience and still lack security. For example, commenting on how one might still get banned items onto an aircraft, Laird said:

    But saying, “Take no liquids on board

  • Is this new information in DNA?

    In the “evolution is more creative than we are” department, Carl Zimmer has written an account in terms comprehensible by us non-scientists, of an article published in Cell. He titled it A Dead Dog Lives On (Inside New Dogs). I heartily recommend his article, especially for those who think that the paths taken by evolution are extremely limited. It’s fascinating!

  • Connecticut Senate Race: Good Thing

    I like following the elections nationwide, and one of the means I use to do it is CQPolitics.com and their e-mail notifications. This morning, I was reading commentary on the Senate race in Connecticut, Conn. Senate Race Still Likely to Have a Democratic Winner. Of course, that prediction is not terribly difficult to make, assuming one grants that Lieberman is still a Democrat.

    I have to say, however, that I don’t like the commentary from either of the major parties, which should be no surprise to those who know me, because I rarely make it a secret that I loathe the parties themselves. I’m registered as an independent not because I don’t care to choose between them, but because I can’t stand being identified with either of them.

    So I really don’t care what this primary election does to the Democratic plans for the fall, nor what Republicans think they can spin out of it. I must mention that the Republican spin on this thing is unusually ridiculous, and that’s saying something. Lamont isn’t some kind of odd extremist. He opposes the war in Iraq and thinks his part should take a stand and take action. In this position, he’s with the majority of the American people. I have to note, however, that there are at least a good number of the American people who somehow were dim enough to think the war was going to go better than it has, but that’s the nature of democracy, and one of the best arguments for a representative form of government. The current U. S. congress is one of the best arguments against representative government, but I digress.

    But look at the following, from CQPolitics.com:

    Lamont’s win came amid strong voter turnout. State Democratic Party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo said 43 percent of eligible Democrats participated in the state’s first August primary