Threads from Henry's Web

Author: henry

  • Feingold on the Elections

    MSNBC has an interview with Senator Russ Feingold in which he makes some excellent points. There are many things I disagree with Senator Feingold about, but he is right on target on a number of others. For example he says:

    People in Wisconsin, and everywhere for that matter, want their elected officials to stand up for what they believe. Democrats aren’t going to win in November simply by running out the clock. We need to show the American people that we stand for things like guaranteed health care for all Americans, bringing the troops home from Iraq, and defending the rule of law.

    I’m just going to speak as an independent here. I give my vote to various candidates. I’m not much concerned about party labels, and I also don’t have any single issue that drives my vote. I can disagree with a candidate on a number of issues if I believe he or she has integrity and some good sense. Democrats won’t get my vote simply by not being Republicans (or the reverse); they have to have their own strategy, their own vision for the country, and a willingness to stand up for those things. That’s probably a great deal to expect of a politician, but that’s what I’m looking for.

    This is where the Democratic Party has to catch up with its own supporters. There is a populist movement, a desire for the party to stand for populist positions and strong positions, both international and domestically. All over the country, people are saying the same thing to me. And it is out there in a way I have ever seen before. If the Democratic Party doesn’t have the sense to catch this wave, we may pay for it.

    Precisely! You can’t continually win elections and hold onto power simply by not offending people. You have to challenge them, engage their interest, and earn (not get, earn) their confidence. I think John Kerry would be President of the United States right now if he had simply managed to convince the American people that he had some sort of plan. The problem was that he was sort of not-Bush, and then not all that sure what positive content being not-Bush was supposed to have.

    People voted for the positive plan.

    I agree with Senator Feingold that we will have quite a few surprising results, but that’s not much of a prediction. The question I have is whether there is a politician or group of politicians left out there who can catch the attention of the American people in a positive way. I’m watching for such a group and ready to be active. Right now neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties are looking all that good.

  • Christian Essentials: Incarnation at the Center

    One of my principles of constructive criticism is that one should generally be prepared to propose something positive. This doesn’t always work–sometimes you know one solution won’t work before you have an alternative, but generally I think it’s a good rule. So having said some negative things about the Together for the Gospel statement, I think I should say something about what I do believe.

    As I thought about this project, I came to realize more and more that there are differences between what I consider the core of my experience and the logical center of my beliefs. But as I thought even more about it, they seemed to come back together. I see both now as kind of the layers of an onion, but we start at the center and move out, the core being the most essential, and the outer layers less so. I have previously discussed the importance of distinguishing essential and non-essential doctrines in order to have some unity or coherence of the faith, but at the same time be able to include and celebrate appropriate diversity. I think my best reasonable length statement on this is Unity, Diversity, and Confusion. You can follow some links from there. I also listed four doctrinal items that I hold as essential, which I derived from Elgin Hushbeck Jr.’s Consider Christianity books. (You can see a brief summary at Understanding Christian Apologetics.) But neither of those provides either the reason why I would consider those things essential, nor does it put the life into it.

    I’m going to try to be brief on each of these entries (STOP LAUGHING!), but I will make a number of entries in this series. In the early stages I’ll be making statements that I will leave to back up later, and also I will use scriptures without developing their interpretation from the context, but I will try to remember to tie up all the loose ends as I go on.

    So what does put life into it? I believe the life gets there by putting the right thing at the center and then keeping it centered.

    (more…)

  • Tongues and Hearing

    Adrian Warnock has quoted a section from Martin Lloyd Jones on the gift of tongues in Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians 12-14. (Thanks for Peter Kirk for linking to earlier parts of this discussion.)

    There are two comments I would like to make on this issue, both of which relate to the Biblical background material.

    First, commenting on the view that Acts 2 and 1 Corinthians refer to two completely different gifts, he says (as quoted by Adrian Warnock):

    But, again speaking for myself, I find it very difficult to accept that view because I find that the terms which are used in Acts and in 1 Corinthians are precisely the same and it seems to me to be unnecessary to postulate two different meanings, if one will account for it all. ‘But,’ someone may say, ‘we are told that on the Day of Pentecost everyone heard the apostles speaking in their own language.’ Of course. That seems to me to be a part of the miracle that took place. In other words, I suggest that, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the people who were listening were enabled to hear in their own language though their own language was not being spoken.

    I think there is a bit of a problem here in that the use of the same terms in different contexts need not have precisely the same meaning. Terms generally have a range of meanings, and we might better ask the question of just what range of meaning these terms can have. They are clearly used in different contexts. In Acts there is no mention of any problem with understanding. There are those who say they are drunk, and presumably do not understand the speech, but that is not an example of a problem with the gift in action, but rather with the response. In the Corinthian church we have the gift used in a worship service, not in a purely evangelistic setting. We clearly have some people exercising their tongues (double meaning intentional), while nobody is understanding, and thus nobody is being built up. We have individuals giving the interpretation, indicating that only some were able to understand, at least on a regular basis.

    Dr. Lloyd-Jones has a good point, I think, when he points to a miracle of hearing, rather than one of speaking. But are these differences sufficient to show that this was a different gift? I question whether this is so. I would suggest that the gift of tongues should be given a broader range, as a gift of divine communication, perhaps an impartation of God’s control over language itself. This was applied in Acts through a miracle of hearing, because that fit the situation. It can be applied in prayer individually to a form of spiritual communication, and it can be applied in the worship service with interpretation. All of these instances would refer to the same gift, but in different circumstances.

    I would note here that often in discussing spiritual gifts we take a restrictive sense, determining that only the precise application of a gift that we can find described in scripture is appropriate. I would rather apply an inclusive sense, determining the outer boundaries of the gift of tongues scripturally, and allowing the actual application of the gift to flow within those boundaries.

    A second point I would like to note is this, again quoting Dr. Lloyd-Jones:

    So if you meet people who say they speak in tongues, or if you have been at a meeting where this is claimed, and if there was disorder and confusion, then you are entitled to say, in terms of the scriptural teaching, that whatever else it may have been, it was not the gift of tongues as described in the church at Corinth.

    Adrian Warnock commented earlier on his post on this part of the quote:

    The Doctor is not easily pidgeon-holed and seems to want to, in one sense, go further than most charismatics would go by saying that tongues in Acts AND 1 Corinthians were not, in fact, foreign languages. He is eager to stress the need for decency and order, however, to the point where he believes that tongues not done in order cannot actually be tongues at all – which seems a bit strange since Paul seems to be addressing a situation where disordered tongue-speaking WAS in fact occurring.

    I think I see here possibly the result of another difference in understanding the gifts of the Spirit. I don’t know Dr. Lloyd Jones’s work well enough to know how he approached this, but it’s worth calling attention to the difference anyhow.

    Some interpreters who do belief that the gifts continue, don’t see the gifts as given to the person for that person to exercise, but rather see the gift as given for a specific occasion. One description I have heard is: “I have been given the gift of healing (or some other gift) at some times.” In this view, the gift of the Holy Spirit is given for a specific time and place, and thus if something that appeared to be a gift was exercised out of order, one could not attribute it to the Holy Spirit; that would be accusing the Holy Spirit of disorder.

    I believe it is more in accord with scripture to view the gifts as given to the individual Christian (though distributed according to the will of God for the needs of the church), and that the individual must choose to exercise them under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Due to our own imperfection, we could exercise our gifts improperly. That improper exercise could involve the gift of tongues just as easily as it could involve the gift of teaching. I don’t lose my ability to teach just because I’ve taught error. I’m given the responsibility to exercise my gift properly.

    As an illustration, the first time I encountered a word from the Lord given in a tongue followed by an interpretation, the individual with the word spoke first, and then the pastor called for the interpretation. In the end, we had both the tongue and the interpretation together and thus order. But I happen to know that the interpreter didn’t really want to give that word; she was obedient and spoke, but she could have chosen to be silent. Would the Holy Spirit have been retroactively less present in the original word because the interpreter refused to present the hard message she would rather not have presented?

    I acknowledge that I don’t have a slam dunk on this, but I do think that it is much more in accord with scripture, especially with the stories of God’s servants, to see gifts as given with the one who receives them having the opportunity and responsibility to use those gifts appropriately.

  • Newsweek on Billy Graham

    Newsweek has a good article on Billy Graham in its current issue, titled Pilgrim’s Progress. It’s a fairly long article that presents some interesting points.

    While Graham is certainly not abandoning any essentials of his faith, he does admit to softening on some things. I believe that the things he indicates Christians can appropriately disagree on are well chosen.

    For example, he spends less time on political affairs:

    “The older I get, the more important the eternal becomes to me personally.” His mind is on the heavenly more than the temporal, on the central promises of Christianity more than on the passing political parade.

    . . . and . . .

    Others relish the battlefield; Graham now prizes peace. He is a man of unwavering faith who refuses to be judgmental; a steady social conservative in private who actually does hate the sin but loves the sinner; a resolute Christian who declines to render absolute verdicts about who will get into heaven and who will not; a man concerned about traditional morality

  • Bible Translation: ESV

    We pause briefly in these various Bible study series to call your attention to a comment on the English Standard Version (ESV). Wayne Leman has provided a little bit of history, along with some passages for comparison between the RSV and the ESV.

    Wayne does his usual thorough job, so I have very little additional comment here. I recommend his ESV Links as an excellent place to start your research.

    A couple of other Bible translation links amongst my own pages are:

  • Book: God After Darwin

    In this wonderful little book (God After Darwin [ISBN: 0813338786]), theologian John Haught looks at our concepts of God in the light of evolutionary theory, and in relation to intelligent design. My notes are more of a response than a review.

    This book is not an examination of each movement in great detail, but rather a look at theology, and how it might need to adapt in the light of what evolutionary theory has shown us about the universe. Haught does not believe that metaphysical materialism is an adequate view, because it does not support, in his view, the novelty of creation. He rejects the views of philosophers like Dennett and Dawkins who claim that science has shown that there is no purpose in the universe and that everything can be explained by mechanistic natural causes.

    But he also rejects intelligent design, not on the usual grounds that it is not science–after all, he’s discussing theology–but because it too fails to adequately deal with novelty in the universe. Haught postively embraces evolution, moving God from the Alpha, the God who pushes from behind, to the Omega, the God of the future. God, as Haught sees him, does not coerce his creation, but rather continuously invites it into the future. God gives the gracious gift of new creation to the universe continuously.

    (more…)

  • Is the Trilemma about Jesus Useful?

    Yesterday I wandered by the The Evangelical Outpost just to see what was going on, and besides finding a current thread on which I want to comment, I found an older one, Jefferson’s Jesus: An Appreciation of the Trilemma. In this post Joe Carter undertakes to defend the trilemma, a much maligned and yet much used argument.

    First let me quote:

    Philosopher Peter Kreeft considers the trilemma to be the “most important argument in Christian apologetics.

  • Eleanor Swift on Cheney and Iraq

    Some time ago I blogged on the danger of using insufficient force and of not completing the solution to a problem. The result of that procedure, used all too often in goverment and international relations, is that people suffer and die, but there is no real cause and no conclusion.

    Now in a column Eleanor Swift (Holding Pattern — Rumsfeld’s Senate testimony underscores that there are no good options on Iraq. Meanwhile, where’s Dick Cheney?) evaluates Rumsfeld’s testimony before the Senate armed services committee as indicating that there are no good options:

    The best any of this trio of apologists could come up with is that U.S. forces need to keep doing what they’re doing to keep from losing. They offered no strategy for victory, only a holding pattern to prevent a worse defeat than that America is already experiencing. An honest reckoning would acknowledge there are no good options in Iraq and that the road to failure began with Rumsfeld’s bullheaded determination to keep the number of invading troops to a minimum.

    She’s right on part of this, but I actually think she hasn’t gone quite far enough.

    (more…)

  • Freedom of Expression is Important

    Ed Brayton has a wonderful post today titled Answering Ancient Brit on Thought Crimes. I could not agree with Ed any more completely and forcefully. Europe’s response to “thought crimes” is itself extremely dangerous.

    I would add a note for my fellow-Christians. When you pursue religious liberty and the rights of religious expression, you need to also pursue freedom of opinion and expression generally, especially for those you dislike the most. You need protection from people who truly despise you and are willing to engage in violence to put their opinion into action.

    Christians should be front and center in fighting for the rights of Muslims, Jews, Pagans, and any other religious group. In fact, that effort should be extended to non-religious groups. Freedom needs to be protected for everyone. Freedom of religion is not the freedom for Christians to do what they want; it’s the freedom for everyone, Christians included, to practice their faith as they see fit.

  • Francis S. Collins on Religion and Evolution

    Courtesy of the Florida Citizens for Science blog, I found this article on Francis S. Collins, an evangelical Christian who sees no incompatibility between religion and science, including acceptance of evolution. The article can be found at Relgion Today (HeraldToday.com).

    I could add little to what Dr. Collins had to say. I came at the question from the other end, starting from a religious point of view and looking for compatibility with science.

    I do believe that the expectation that people reject evolutionary theory, which is supported by overwhelming evidence as Dr. Collins says, puts a stumbling block in the path of well-educated people who are considering the gospel message. Dr. Collins provides a good response to that problem.

    While I want consensus science, and that means evolutionary theory, taught in the public school classrooms of this state, I believe Christians should regard the “how” of creation as a non-essential, one that can be debated openly in the church without accusations of heresy.