Threads from Henry's Web

Category: Author Related

Posts that relate in some way to my books. Excludes administrative posts and most reviews of other people’s books.

  • Sacrifice then and Now

    What meaning is evoked in people’s minds by the word “sacrifice?”  One of the things I like to do when teaching is to simply write a word on the board that is commonly used in Biblical and/or Christian discourse and get people to give me various things that this word means to them.  I try not to specify the context too closely.

    The other day I did this while teaching a bit on the tabernacle service, and its relation to the theme of Hebrews 7-9.  Yes, I know, big subject.  But I started by writing the three words “temple”, “priest”, and “sacrifice.”

    The result was not entirely unexpected, but was instructive.  I’m going to stick with the word “sacrifice.”  The group focused on giving up things for others or for some benefit for oneself.  For example, one person talked about giving up certain things in life in order to pursue an avocation for tennis.  Others talked about sacrificing in order to help the poor.

    It is probably indicative of the group involved that, even though we were in Sunday School class, the “church” meanings did not come up.  When I brought up the idea of sacrifice for sin and the various ways in which that might be understood, people acknowledged it with an “oh yeah.”

    Now this was not a stupid group of people. Far from it.  They were one of the most interactive and constructive groups with whom I have had the privilege to work recently.  But what was uppermost in their minds was not quite entirely unlike a picture of sacrifice in the ancient world, but it was pretty close.

    The idea of offering a sacrifice “to” anyone–God, for example–again did not come up.

    When I have done a similar exercise with more conservative groups I will likely get all the words that relate to sin and atonement, but they will often miss the idea of a sacrifice in order to accomplish something, a simple offering for thankfulness, or the fairly common purification sacrifices.  Those are ideas that are not part of either the liberal or conservative universes.

    So how does one read and/or teach Hebrews in such a context?  First, I consider my use of that exercise completely justified.  I can get an idea of where people are, and then point out the differences and similarities between their view of sacrifice and that of the ancient world.

    Elements that may be missed by various groups include:

    • Any concept of substitution
    • Purification (clean and unclean)
    • Thankfulness
    • Appeasement
    • Magical rituals in which the animal is slaughtered less as a sacrifice and more as a part of the magical ritual.
    • Sacrifice as part of the continuing liturgy.

    There is a difficulty here, I think, in teaching a book like Hebrews without having some exposure to sacrifice, priesthood, and temples in the ancient world.  A good start on that exposure would be to look at the sacrifices as taught in Leviticus especially, but such a process tests the patience of the best of classes.

    I’m not one to maintain that the author of Hebrews was some kind of expert on the Torah.  On the other hand he certainly did have a working acquaintance, at least with the LXX version of it, and he would not necessarily see sacrifice in the same way we do.  In order to get some portion of his perspective, we need to do some reading of that same literature.

    Even simply looking at each of his quotes and perhaps their Old Testament context will be inadequate.  We need somewhat of a picture of how ancient Israelite religion worked, placed in an ancient near eastern context, before we can learn how one New Testament author wanted to change, or better, <em>transform</em> it.

  • So Long to Public Campaign Financing?

    I had mixed emotions about Barack Obama’s choice not to accept public financing of campaigns. On the one hand, as an advocate of free speech, I believe that public financing and campaign spending limits are a threat to free speech precisely where it needs to be most free. But on the other hand, I dislike flip-flops, and this was.

    What I would have liked to have heard was Obama or his spokesman tell us that, having seen how individuals, when fired up, can produce the necessary campaign cash, he had realized just how important freedom was in a political campaign, and thus changed his position. I don’t regard changing your mind for good, publicly stated reasons to be a bad flip-flop. Doing so for political expediency is another matter.

    But I do welcome the fact that Obama’s campaign has underlined already existing questions about public financing. CQPolitics has an article on the $150 million Obama raised in September:

    Obama had initially promised to accept public financing if McCain did, but changed his mind after setting primary fundraising records. His extraordinary fundraising is bound to set a new standard in politics that could doom the taxpayer-paid system. Many Republicans have begun to second-guess McCain’s decision to participate in the program.

    In a way it’s nice to see this campaign highlight the problems with public financing, an issue on which I believe both candidates are wrong.

  • Not About Joe the Plumber

    The furor over this poor guy has illustrated to me one of the problems of presidential campaigning in America. It’s not about analyzing policies to determine who they impact, to what extent, and for what purpose, nor indeed it is about whether the policies will accomplish that purpose. It’s rather all about engaging people’s emotions.

    I was reading AllahPundit over at HotAir who is quoting a report that Joe the Plumber may be in trouble for plumbing without a license. It’s not that I object to the law being enforced. I even think that someone who lives in a glass house and then invites the hail of rocks should be prepared for the results. That doesn’t mean I excuse either the people who point out the person in the glass house, while failing to mention, nor do I excuse the rock throwers.

    The proper issue here is tax policies and who they impact. Joe the Plumber was supposed to put a face on that issue. If the McCain campaign was doing their job, they would have figured out whether the business was worth $250,000 (or perhaps much less), or was bringing in $250,000, and they would have discovered whether that was gross receipts or profits. Then they could have determined whether Obama’s tax plan would make it impossible for this particular person to own a business or not.

    On the Democratic side, the proper response is simply that Obama’s tax plan does not tax this poor man to anything like the extent claimed by McCain, and that in fact his taxes will drop. So his complaint is that if he manages to make over $250,000 per year at some later time, he would be taxed more heavily on part of that income. Now that is a legitimate issue to discuss, because I want Joe the Plumbers all over the country to be interested in growing their businesses. It’s just not as emotional as the question of whether or not he can buy the business now.

    Here’s the thing. It can’t possibly be news to my conservative friends, but they sure are acting like it is. Businesses already have to pay taxes, and just like any other expense, those taxes might make it impossible for you to start or expand your business. That’s going to be true at any tax rate.

    You have to ask more about taxes than just whether they are bigger or smaller. What are they spent on? Who is getting taxed, and how much?

    We’re hearing a great deal about redistributing income. Some people are acting as though one candidate won’t redistribute while the other will. Actually, there is redistribution now and there will be redistribution then. The question is by how much, and what will it be spent on.

    I don’t hear Republican activists complaining about either taxes or budget deficits when the war in Iraq is on the line. Democrats are not complaining generally when it’s social programs that are involved.

    Now my pro-war friends will probably point out that the war in Iraq was, according to them, a necessity. We have to defend ourselves; we don’t have to provide health care for everyone. So we will spend on an invasion of Iraq irrespective of income, but we won’t do so when people have no health insurance. We can pull together the money, or more accurately pretend we have the money (and a government can get by with pretending for a long time), for Wall Street, but not for individuals.

    But in fact any war, and the war on terror is no exception, involves deciding how to apply limited resources to accomplishing one’s goals in the war. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again–the war in Iraq was a horrible strategic decision. It wasted American and Iraqi lives, and it wasted resources that could have been spent better elsewhere. It was not a necessity.

    We need to start looking for the details in these kinds of issues. When we borrow as a government it’s important to ask what we’re borrowing for. If we’re raising taxes, we need to ask what we’re going to accomplish with the money. If we’re building infrastructure, that’s one thing, while if we’re borrowing just to keep the basics running, that’s another. It’s sort of like home finance. If you’re borrowing to buy a practical family vehicle, that’s very different from finding you have to put your electricity bill on a credit card.

    Both parties have been lying to the American people and pretending that we can have what they offer without having to pay for it. In this case, I find Republicans more guilty than Democrats recently, because they always propose lowering taxes, but are much less forthcoming on lowering expenditures. Then they spend their time throwing rocks at Democrats who propose modest increases to pay for a small portion. I’d be more inclined to defend the Democrats is they were proposing amounts that would actually pay for their programs, but if they did they wouldn’t need my defense; they’d be losing so badly that nothing could possible help.

    So while on the one hand this isn’t about Joe the Plumber, in another way it is, because politicians who believe that you, the voter, can’t handle a rational discussion of policy want the issue to be about whether that one guy can buy a business, one that turns out to have been out of reach in any case.

    So the tax policy discussion is bypassed and we can sling emotions around the blogosphere and a bit in the media, yet at the end of the day, few people know more about the actual tax proposals than they did before.

  • The McCain Campaign and Comebacks

    In an article on MSNBC discussing how Obama is moving into some traditionally Republican territory, I found this quote:

    McCain, for his part, was returning to the argument that Obama’s credentials are too thin for the White House, his campaign and the Republican National Committee releasing ads focusing on experience and judgment.

    Here’s my problem with this: I’m asked to trust the running of the country to a man who can’t run a campaign. Oh, I know how the political operatives work, and I’m willing to discount some of the problems as a clash between McCain’s honorable inclinations and the demands of real life politics. But the bottom line is that a man who would be president needs to set the tone of his campaign and run it.

    I’m not talking about going negative in this case, though I dislike a nasty campaign. Some negatives are quite appropriate. It is not wrong to point out where your opponent has failed, and thus how you would presumably do better. But there are false negative themes and irrelevant negative themes, and one needs to be able to tell the difference. (Note: Just because your partisan supporters think something is true, doesn’t make it true.)

    But if one goes into a negative campaign, one needs at a minimum to do so competently. Just how far are we going to go? How are we going to handle the fallout if it doesn’t catch on?

    After clinching the nomination, McCain had a fairly strong environmental proposal. Where did it go? The twists and turns of his campaign have been quite entertaining, but not constructive. When you swing too many different ways you don’t satisfy all the different factions; you tend rather to anger them all.

    McCain wants to talk about judgment, but he doesn’t appear to have the judgment to choose a campaign focus and run with it. He should have noticed long ago that the “Obama isn’t up to the job” theme wasn’t really working all that well. Or maybe he just didn’t play it well enough. I’m not sure which. But he certainly hasn’t made it happen. And whether partisans on either side like it or not, the choice of Sarah Palin muddied the waters on the experience issue. I think the contortions of folks on both sides to try to explain how the experience issue goes their way are riotously funny. Democrats, presenting a young and relatively inexperienced candidate (something I don’t mind, by the way), should have just kept their mouths shut about Palin, and Republicans should have responded in kind.

    It seems to me that McCain should have decided who he was, decided just how far he might compromise to keep the base of the Republican party, and just how far he would compromise to attract others, and then stick with that theme. I don’t know if he would win with that approach, but it’s hard to imagine him doing much worse.

    Campaigning and governing may not be the same thing–indeed they are not. But keeping on message, managing a staff, setting the tone, and presenting oneself as in charge are all characteristics that are helpful to a president. McCain is arguing that he has better judgment and is a better leader, but he’s failing to demonstrate that.

    I recall a baseball coach talking to my son who is a pitcher. He frequently got into a jam around the 3rd or 4th inning, but then his pitching really picked up and he would pitch his way out of the jam and look good for the rest of the game. The coach noted that being able to pitch out of a jam was a good thing, but suggested he not go to that well too often!

    I think McCain has nobody but himself to blame for the position he is in now. It is not impossible for things to change, but thus far, he has displayed an almost uncanny talent for making things break the wrong way. He may be the comeback candidate, but if you try to come back from the brink too many times, you may find that it just doesn’t happen.

  • Believing in Private Charity

    Today is Blog Action Day, and though I didn’t get around to formally participating, I’m going to write a short post on dealing with poverty from a Christian perspective. I’m feeling idealistic, so beware!

    Since I first started thinking about issues of poverty, way back when I was a teenager (and fish were just working on that “leg” thing) I have believed that ideally private charitable action would have priority over government action. I still think that as a general rule, what the government can do even poorly, private agencies can do better. The problem is whether private agencies will do it at all.

    I recall having this discussion with someone a few years ago. He suggested to me that if the government would just get out of the welfare business, private charity would take over and there would be no problem. Personally I don’t believe that would happen. I do see a role for he government in providing that basic safety net, but I think that private agencies, privately funded can do much more.

    One option is faith-based initiatives. I have a major problem with these myself, however, for two major reasons. The first is that when a religious agency, such as a Christian ministry gets in bed with the government, their distinctive focus is often blurred or even obliterated. My strongest reason for supporting separation of church and state is that I believe the church is better off without the state.

    My second reason is that when the government provides the money, it can and indeed must regulate how that money is spent. As I will note below, one of the greatest benefits of private charity is its flexibility. That, combined with close access to the community in which aid is offered, helps a private agency to be more effective than a government agency.

    What are some of the strengths of private charities?

    1. Close contact with the community means less fraud. If you go to your neighborhood church, you will find it more difficult to engage in repeated fraud, for example. I don’t mean you can’t defraud a church. In fact, I’ve dealt with people who were trying, and I doubtless made some wrong decisions in using a church’s money when it was my duty to make that call.
    2. A private organization can be more flexible in responding to actual needs, not according to a formula. There are situations that fit a boilerplate, but there are also individual situations that require a flexible response. This is where a faith-based, government funded program loses much of the benefit. Too many government programs are designed to keep people from starving rather than resolve poverty.
    3. A private organization is generally not the only option. A person can seek the program that fits.

    I’d like to see an effort, especially on the part of Christians, to increase private charity before, not after, some mythical moment when the government will reduce its activities. Yes, I’m aware that there are many Christian and other private charities in action already, but I do not think that loving one another by our actions has a high enough priority.

    I think this should start inside the church community. We should make a determination that nobody in the family (that is our church family) will be starving, without housing, or unable to get the necessary training to find a job, unless they make it impossible themselves. The early church did this, as recorded in Acts 4:32-37.

    We would certainly have to take a look at some of Paul’s advice to the church in Corinth, and actually learn to police our own congregations, but that would be a good idea in any case. Let’s give this a priority over buildings. Let’s teach stewardship as hand in glove with charity. Let’s focus on making the time being helped by the church short and the time spent contributing great.

    If a church congregation has a member who is in need, that church congregation could respond in a number of ways, including child care, opportunities for training, networking for jobs, and so forth.

    I’m not saying we would succeed at all times. I also long for holiness of life, but the goal is a bit elusive! I’m not saying that we become a source of indefinite payments to support those who won’t support themselves. In fact, my suggest is exactly the opposite of that. The congregation makes wise decisions (we hope!) about what will be done and what won’t be done. The person who will not live up to the minimum expectations will be dealt with accordingly. If this idea was not combined with a return of some sort of congregational discipline, it would not be workable.

    Why do this just for other Christians? I propose this as a start. I believe that if Christians as a group practiced stewardship on the one hand, and charity on the other, there would be no need for the scandal of church members unable to meet their basic needs.

    Having demonstrated thus that we are different as a community, I suspect that we would have less trouble explaining who we are and why. Then when someone asks how it is done, we wouldn’t have to present theoretical models. We could point to our church congregations and say, “Like that.”

    Idealistic? Obviously. Do I expect it to happen? Not really. But of all the things I read in Acts, it is the one I think would have the greatest impact on Christianity as a whole, and on the world as a result. I think it could stop short of holding everything in common, but it would certainly require a greater level of personal giving to the church, and better spending of that money with well-chosen priorities.

  • Albert Mohler Steps in It on Evolution

    There are some basics about what evolution is and is not, and what the various positions of both creationists and evolutionists are, that everyone who steps into the debate should know. Some examples include the difference between a young earth and an old earth creationist. I’ve seen a few discussions in internet fora in which someone explains the age of the earth in great detail to someone else who actually agrees.

    Then there is the difference between an intelligent design (ID) proponent and one of the more specific types of creationist. An ID proponent might be young or old earth, or might even accept most, but not all, of the features of biological evolution, as does Dr. Michael Behe.

    Someone of the stature of Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. should be aware of these things. I don’t mean he has to agree with anyone else’s position. Merely that he should be aware of what those positions actually are. Pretending that alternative views don’t exist strikes me as just a bit deceptive.

    Nonetheless, Dr. Mohler writes, in The End of Evolution (article, not book), writes in his introductory paragraph:

    The evolutionist is locked into an intellectual box from which there is no rescue. Evolutionary theory is naturalistic by necessity – everything must be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Only nature can explain nature, and there is no other source of meaning or truth. Thus, in the end the theory of evolution – and the theory of evolution alone – must explain everything about humanity.

    Now I could fisk the entire article, almost word by word, but I’m just going to touch on three paragraphs. You see, there may be a few people out there who believe that evolution explains absolutely everything, but there are very few of them.

    What evolution does is explain, within the bounds of science, how live diversified on planet earth. It would also propose how life may well diversify anywhere. It is not merely evolution that is naturalistic by necessity, but science itself. That’s for a rather simple reason: Science is designed to explain the natural world. It is ill-equipped to explain the supernatural, because the supernatural does not function as the natural world does. That’s why we call it supernatural.

    Now one may not believe there is a supernatural, but if one does believe in something supernatural, it would be extremely odd to also believe that the supernatural followed natural laws. If it did, we would simply call it natural. On the other hand, if it does not follow natural laws, how would a method designed to study things that follow natural laws study it?

    Imagine the lab experiment for chemistry (the only science I took in college). Careful instructions are given as to temperature, what chemicals one is to combine, how, and when. Then the teacher announces, “Then, if God wills it, the whole thing will light on fire!” It’s silly. I think everyone knows it’s silly.

    Here’s the problem. Many Christians living in western culture are so thoroughly convinced that science is the best way of knowing that they want to put their faith, the most important thing in their life, on a foundation of science, somehow.

    But faith is not science, and God is not a proper object of scientific investigation. Oh, we can see what God has done via science. I would suggest that if a miracle actually takes place, the scientific evidence for the physical event should be present. But even so we do not see a miracle. Rather, we see the results of the miracle. We simply have an event for which we lack an adequate natural explanation.

    If you can’t accept that there are other ways of knowing than science, then you probably shouldn’t be a Christian, because science is never going to make a scientific theory of the Christian faith. It cannot because of its nature and because of the nature of science itself.

    When Christians say evolution is naturalistic, they are quite correct. But when they treat that as some special thing about evolution as opposed to all other branches of science, they are in serious error, both scientifically and theologically (from the viewpoint of orthodox Christian theology). Scientifically, they try to examine a phenomenon that is by definition not available to scientific inquiry. Theologically they try to put God in a box, regulated by natural laws. The god that they can fit in that box is not God.

    A bit further on Mohler says:

    Evolutionary theory cannot possibly explain the totality of human experience, much less the reality of human origins. Evolutionists – if consistent – believe that every human experience, every emotion, every physical attribute, every hope, and every fear is simply a feature developed by means of natural selection.

    Of course, looked at from the Christian point of view, evolution cannot explain the totality of Christian experience. It’s not supposed to. As a Christian, I believe the totality of human experience involves origin from God and an experience with God, neither of which are defined in a way that science could even investigate.

    But neither can any other scientific theory explain all those things that it does not purport to explain. Now there is a great deal that evolution can explain. In fact, I think what evolution can explain would make Dr. Mohler very uncomfortable, and so he has to make a broadside attack on something he clearly does not understand. Evolution can explain a great deal. (See my earlier notes on the book Random Designer: Created from Chaos to Connect with the Creator for more information.)

    Finally, I want to address this paragraph:

    That’s a cold theory, and it just doesn’t make sense to the vast majority of Americans – and it shouldn’t. The Christian worldview offers a far more satisfying, true, and understandable account of human origins and human existence.

    As a minor point, let me note that the majority of Americans are not really equipped to evaluate the evidence for biological evolution. It requires certain skills which the majority of us do not possess. I’m a well-read layman on the subject, yet I would refer you to others to discuss the science, while I discuss Biblical and theological issues.

    But as for it being a “cold theory,” it’s also a cold fact that a hurricane will follow it’s proposed course and there’s nothing I can do about it. Shall I reject it because it’s cold, inexorable, and so incredibly NOT warm and cuddly? The fact that the Christian worldview, or rather Dr. Mohler’s particular version of it, is satisfying doesn’t make it any more true. In theology we would have things such as legalism, the notion that one can earn one’s salvation. One can construct such a system that will be quite satisfying. But assuming Dr. Mohler is a good Southern Baptist, he would not accept the satisfying argument as a demonstration of their validity. He would argue that one can’t earn salvation, that it is God’s gift.

    Which leads to the word “true.” If we are to determine whether evolution is true we have to go right back to that place that Dr. Mohler apparently wants to avoid–natural, and naturalistic, science. Methodologically naturalistic, of course, which simply takes note of the fact that science studies the natural world, not the supernatural.

    The facts do not adjust themselves to our convenience and comfort. Whether I like the idea of evolution or not is quite irrelevant to whether it is a valid theory.

    Meteorology is a cold theory. But whether I accept it, or replace it with an alternative theory of lovingly God-guided hurricanes, that hurricane is still coming. It cares not in the least how comfortable I am.

  • How Much Pandering and to What End?

    I’ve been very disappointed in the way this campaign has gone. Not that it’s that much more nasty than any other campaign. As I recall from previous elections, things get pretty emotional and nasty. My disappointment has been in the candidates who could have done much better for the country.

    Obama made a mistake, in my view, when he declined (or failed to arrange) the series of town hall meetings that McCain proposed. At the time the conventional wisdom was that it would have been McCain territory all the way. I don’t think so. I think things would have worked out well for the American people, and we might have gotten to hear the two men discuss issues.

    But at this point McCain is definitely taking the lead in nasty, and that’s also a disappointment. In 2000, I had every plan to vote for him. The election was a done deal by the time he got to my state. I even considered very temporarily registering as Republican to vote in the primary.

    Since that loss McCain has been pandering more and more to the right wing of the party, including folks he once condemned, such as Pat Robertson. If you want to know someone I think is a crazy associate, I’ll name Pat Robertson. It’s not that I think his ideas are the craziest around, but he also has a more substantial following than any of the crazier people I could name.

    David Corn wrote a column on CQ Politics that expresses my thoughts about McCain better than I could. He says:

    Many of the folks in charge of the McCain campaign don’t really care that much for him. Worse, they are treating McCain as a generic Republican candidate–smothering whatever once was special about him. And McCain has allowed this to happen. He has emasculated himself.

    Just so. McCain isn’t really this nasty at heart and he can’t bring off this kind of criticism properly. Couple that with the fact that the criticisms that are front and center are pretty lousy fodder to work with and you have a losing strategy.

    Normally one plays to the base in the primaries and broadens out in the general. I hear the calls of right-wing Republicans for a more vigorous tone and I have to wonder who they think they’re going to reach in that way. The people whose emotions engaged in that way are pretty much already engaged. You might get a few. But you also get moderates like me who are not entirely with Obama on policy issues and have seen McCain do some good things, but are turned off by smears and guilt by association.

    David Corn discusses some of the groups that have endorsed McCain and the way the rallies are going, and then he says this:

    But it’s hard to get over past hatred. And at the recent rallies, McCain supporters have been displaying disappointment that he has not been truly there for them–in that he has not pummeled Obama as the terrorist-hugging Socialist they know he really is. (And he’s probably a Muslim, too!) They appear to be worried that even after all that pandering McCain is still not one of them.

    That’s the problem with pandering. It’s so very, very hard to pander enough to get the panderees on board. They are just so slow to forgive you for not being absolutely one of them. McCain’s well conceived plan to get some judicial nominations through the senate, for example, is not enough to endear him to liberals, but certainly enough to leave conservatives angry forever.

    It’s a fundamental problem for politicians. Being yourself isn’t supposed to work. You have to be not all things to all people, but the right things to the right combination of people. If that’s not who you are, you may wind up looking out of place. That’s what McCain looks like to me.

  • How a Christian can Vote for Obama

    Laura at Pursuing Holiness has a post titled How can Christians support Obama?. She begins:

    I am frustrated almost beyond belief that any Christian can support Obama. . . .

    She then outlines the reasons she has for believing that we cannot support Obama and provides links, describing these points as “well-substantiated.”

    Laura’s post falls into a category that I’m not even bothering to read these days on either side of this election. I am frankly quite sick of the hostility and partisan, absolute certainty of so much of the blogosphere. But Laura writes quite a number of good things, and though I often disagree with her quite vehemently, she has enough of a reputation to get me to give it a read.

    I was tempted to write, “Simple–just complete the arrow using the nice black marker provided. That’s how we fill out a ballot in this county.” And in Florida there might be a point. We do want to get our votes counted right this time. But I think I’ll respond a bit more.

    I’m not going to respond point by point to the various charges, providing my own list of counter-links that I believe are reliable, or giving my own explanation. (It’s an explanation when I do it; spin when the other guy does.) I had to make a decision as to whether I was going to engage on all those issues during this election, and I decided not to, because I have better things to study. I still read some things about them, but I don’t report or pass the information on, because I believe if I did I would be obligated to back up what I say and respond to challenges. I don’t have the time. So if you want “the other side” you’ll have to search for it yourself.

    What I have noticed here is that partisans on both sides simply use different sources of knowledge and different standards for their own candidate and the other candidate. To Democrats Barack Obama is ready for the job, even if they didn’t think so earlier. To Republicans he is dangerously inexperienced and unpredictable. Cue Sarah Palin and the positions reverse. There are plenty of nasty things out there about Sarah Palin, and quite frankly, the “substantiation” score is about equal, in my view.

    I know neither Republicans nor Democrats will believe me, but that’s OK. Also, you may inundate me with links and proofs, but I’m really not taking much time, and when I do take the time I will read something from each side if at all possible, or use the more reliable sources, in my experience at places like FactCheck.org and PolitiFact.com. (Cue accusations of bias against those sources.)

    Here are several quick points. It’s not just that Christians are voting for Obama. Obama himself is a Christian. You may not like his brand, but he has expressed a Christian testimony openly. I’m not going to stand in judgment of that. I do not mean that one cannot judge actions; I’m simply saying that I accept that testimony itself at face value. So one could ask simply how could one Christian (me) vote for another Christian (Obama).

    I would note here that I would give Obama equal consideration if he actually was Muslim, or atheist, or any other faith, though I doubt I would have the opportunity to vote for him in the general election. A Muslim or an atheist would never make it that far.

    But let me get to another point. I reject completely the equation of Christianity with any particular form of politics. I do not accept that “socialist policies that will harm America,” (see Laura’s post) for example, are necessarily anti-Christian. Since I tend toward more capitalist policies myself, I would often argue that socialist policies will fail, but that is a failure of strategy, not of moral intention.

    Further, we are not seeing an election of socialism vs capitalism, but rather a choice between two different mixes. There is redistribution of wealth now, and there will be after the election. The question is, how much, from whom, and to whom. I like Obama’s mix on that point better than McCain’s.

    On one of the most important moral issues of redistribution, redistributing our expenses into the future through the national debt, I have no faith in the Republican party any more. Odd how they always talk about balanced budgets and reducing spending but when all is said and done the deficit goes up. Bill Clinton (Democrat!) actually managed to reduce it and produce a surplus. Odd that, no?

    But let’s bring up the one nasty issue where I think the facts will not be in dispute–Rev. Jeremiah Wright. My only complaint there about Obama is that he ditched his pastor too quickly. I would have preferred that he express his disagreement with specific points but keep his friendship. At the same time I recognize this as a difficult decision. I do believe that from a political point of view Wright was a loose cannon. At the same time, I believe that we in America have no tolerance for a prophetic, convicting voice. I listened to the things for which Wright said America would be damned, and I found that list rather damning. Those are things of which we should repent!

    But no, we don’t want to be criticized or questioned. We just want to be comfortable. Well, for me, Christianity is not about being comfortable. I’m not saying those who vote Republican are less entitled to the name “Christian” than I am, but I am saying that they are wrong, dead wrong, when they pretend that their vote supports Christian principles to a greater extent than those who vote for another party.

    I plan to vote for Barack Obama because:

    • I support generous treatment of immigrants. It’s likely he won’t be generous enough for my tastes in the way we deal with the alien living amongst us (Leviticus 19:33-34, which I do believe expresses an applicable principle).
    • I believe that we need to protect the environment. Energy conservation of natural resources and alternative sources of energy need to go before new drilling. Sorry, but so far the experts have me convinced on global warming, but even without that, I would believe we need those same priorities.
    • I believe that our foreign policy of attacking people who attack us, and then attacking people who might attack us, while using up our resources in occupying foreign countries is bad both morally and strategically. Obama has far and away the better foreign policy, and I trust him much more with his finger on the trigger. (Here I seem to disagree with the majority of the American people–I’d give McCain a slight edge on the economy, but Obama the edge on foreign policy, just the reverse of the polls.)
    • I believe that we need health care reform. I’m disappointed with both plans, but less so with Obama’s. We’re not using capitalism here either. What we’re doing is taxing hospitals by requiring them to see people in emergency rooms even if they can’t pay, and then failing to provide a way for them to get decent care. That is essentially taxing the hospitals without admitting it, and is a very expensive and expensive way to provide primary care.
    • I believe we need more judges on the supreme court who are interested in individual rights. I probably won’t get that, but in lieu of that I’ll accept balancing the court a bit with a different set of errors instead.
    • I would not make my choice solely on these points but let me note that I believe it will be good for our country to have an African-American president. I like the idea of having a graduate of Harvard Law School who taught constitutional law as president. I think “community organizer” is an excellent resume line for a president of the United States. I don’t object to Obama being relaxed in front of a camera or pronouncing “Pakistan” correctly, and I wouldn’t mind having a president who can both craft and present a good speech.
    • Finally, I believe Republican stewardship has been miserable, and I won’t reward them with my vote. They should reap what they have sown.

    I think this list will be satisfactory to very few people. It will simply stir up all those points of disagreement. So let me answer the question more directly: I can vote for Barack Obama as a Christian because I agree with him on many more points than my conservative Christian friends (who are many) do. I have come to different political conclusions than they have. We all desire to follow Jesus, but we disagree on how.

    Am I right? I think so, but that is obviously a subject for discussion. What I won’t do is discuss the accusation list. It’s much easier to produce an accusation than to rebut one, and not being a politician it’s a game I’m not obligated to play.

  • Explaining Suffering – or Not

    As a follow-up to my notes on God’s Problem, I would like to comment briefly on how a diversity of explanations do coexist, and how they might justifiably do so.

    First, despite our best efforts to find logical explanations, in general people use case by case explanations pretty readily. They may believe that one person suffers because of their own sin, another is under the attack of the enemy, and yet another is having his faith tested. Simultaneously, they may look strictly to a future divine intervention to resolve the problem.

    Second, I would ask if the problem of suffering is actually a single problem. There is no necessity that all suffering be explained in a similar fashion. It is quite rational, I think, and frequently done, to divide suffering from natural disasters or non-moral causes as one issue while suffering because of wrong moral choices of others or because of evil is quite another matter.

    This will even work its way into the creation-evolution debates because of the question of whether physical death predates human sin. Old earth creationists and theistic evolutionists both have to answer this question if they are to claim compatibility with Christian theology. Young earth creationists maintain that both groups are out of bounds on that very issue.

    My observation is that any explanation of suffering fails at some point, or at least fails to satisfy.

    1. There is no explanation–suffering just happens.
      This may well be right, though I think there are some reasons why we live in a universe that is so designed as to allow suffering. The problem for this one is that it is ultimately unsatisfying for a great many people. They just can’t accept it.
    2. Suffering as a punishment for sin.
      This one works for some, though it tends to lead to vindictiveness and to erode love for one’s neighbor. Consider the implications of those who believe HIV/AIDS is a judgment on gays and lesbians. The view is corrosive. (Note that this isn’t a valid argument against it being true, though I think there are such valid arguments. The main problem here is that one will inevitably encounter someone who is clearly undergoing undeserved suffering under this view, and that tends to shake one up. Then the question becomes not only why good people suffer, but why God would discriminate between one bad person and another. For example, why would HIV/AIDS be created to punish gays, while somewhat lesser STDs punish promiscuous heterosexuals? (Please note that the question is based on a false premise and I’m aware of that. It is one of the questions, however, that tends to shake one’s faith in the basic premise, as it should.) Alternatively, why would a hurricane hit New Orleans one year, but a relatively quite area of coastline another? Is there supposed to be a correlation between the evil and the response?
    3. Suffering as a test of faith.
      Suffering does test one’s faith and many other things, but the question is whether a God who intentionally puts one into such a test is in accordance with a “loving” God. We can, as I have noted, adjust our view of what “loving” means, but that has its own risks. I tend to think that our faith is tested, but that God here operates in terms of parameters, not precise direction.
    4. Blessing and cursing.
      This is simply a variation on punishment for sin. An additional problem here is that my sin may harm many, and my good deeds may benefit many. I may cause undeserved suffering or undeserved blessing. If I manage the family finances badly, more people suffer than me. One is reminded of Abraham’s question about destroying the innocent with the guilty (Gen. 18).

    All of these views have various difficulties, but I think few people adhere strictly to just one. I do think that many tend to claim just one even if they don’t use it consistently. The bottom line here is a very human one–most of us can’t stand not to have an answer. If we see someone else suffer, and we don’t have an explanation that either excludes us from a similar result, or at least limits our liability, life can be too difficult to face.

    I still do not have a good explanation. At the root of the way I understand this, however, is the notion that God creates a universe and then largely lets it function. He may intervene in order to have communion with his creatures, but he does not routinely alter the course of cause and effect in the physical world*.

    Now I get to return Ehrman’s book to the library, and go back to cogitation. I hope you have enjoyed the journey.

    *For this reason I tend to reject the idea of some that toward the “end times” (whenever they may be) we have massive healing and so forth.

  • Not Watching the Presidential Debate

    . . . was very relaxing.

    I actually never watch these debates because they are more a tribute to those who plan the event than to anything that either candidate is capable of saying. I would like to see a debate which allows the two candidates to confront and challenge one another. The real story of these debates shows up in the polls of who won. It’s not about who knows more, it’s about body language and who manages to present himself better.

    With reference to handling the campaign, where does experience apply? It seems to me that McCain has shown a massive inability to manage his own campaign or to choose the right people to do so. I started out the summer leaning toward voting for Obama but quite capable of being swayed. Both candidates have swayed me–negatively–but McCain more so than Obama.

    If he was going to go negative, he needed to back it up at the debate. I can’t imagine that those supporters who heard him claim he would go after Obama during the debate are happy. (I base this both on transcripts and on analyst comments.) To someone who has watched politics for decades, this doesn’t look like a coordinated plan. The Republican party is not being well-served.