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.

  • Managing Evidence for Evolution

    I think that nearly everyone who has debated issues about creation and evolution has been disturbed by the breadth of the topic. Sometimes you provide evidence X, only to have someone point out that what you just presented doesn’t prove Y, not to mention Z. The theory of evolution is many-faceted and really incorporates many theories.

    I’ve been really appreciating the Biologos Foundations Science and the Sacred blog. Today they’re starting to post on managing the evidence. I’m going to be following this series with interest.

  • David Ker is Bored

    Well, at least he’s finding the blogosphere boring. He finds that there are only two interesting Christian bloggers left, James McGrath and Eddie Arthur. What’s interesting is that, while I don’t seem to generally agree with David as to what is interesting, I agree with him that those two bloggers are very interesting. I read everything they write, except for the stuff James writes about LOST.

    My purpose here is not to complain about David’s tastes. What interests me is just what people do find interesting. I’m pretty much going to blog what I feel like irrespective of whether it gets read or not. In fact, I’ve found that my most read posts are almost universally ones that I would regard as a sort of filler. On that basis, this post should be popular, because I’m just rambling, though I’ve found things aren’t quite that predictable.

    My own comment levels are down, though my readership has held pretty well. I suspect that has to do with the fact that I’m not blogging about the creation-evolution controversy nearly as frequently as I used to. Looking back, most of my comments were on those posts, followed closely by political ones.

    I have always been surprised as well by what attracts links. It is very rare that a post I have labored over and lovingly read and re-read attracts many links. When I write unedited, dashing something off in the heat of the moment, it attracts much more attention. It also embarrasses me, because I’ll find the link, then look back at the post to discover just what I wrote, and I’ll find numerous errors.

    The most interesting change over the last year, however, has been that this blog is not my primary blog any more, at least by readership. When I split this blog into three based on interests (Threads for general commentary, Participatory Bible Study blog for Bible study notes, often related to classes I’m currently teaching or to books I’m working on, and Jevlir for fun an fiction) I expected that this would be my main blog, I would have a few readers for the Bible study blog, and family and friends, if that, for the fiction blog. The latter is true, well, except that family and friends rarely read Jevlir, but I still have the sort of hit numbers that go with a “family and friends” type blog.

    But Participatory Bible Study has climbed, while this one has remained steady or dropped a bit. The discouraging part of that is that most of the hits over there have to do with biblioblogging even though I rarely link to anything about that. One way to generate a bunch of visits is to write something about who is a biblioblogger or about one’s current ranking.

    For a long time Participatory Bible Study wasn’t on the biblioblog list, which was fine by me. In fact, I didn’t think I fit the definition. But when I was added, my rank was fairly respectable (#7, last I checked). But it totally amazes me how many posts are written and links provided just to keep up with who has a higher Alexa ranking.

    OK, so this is rambling, and perhaps blatantly linking into David’s post to generate some traffic, though I think my traffic is adequate to my purposes.

    If you read this far, have fun! I’m amazed!

  • Counting the Independents

    Each election various pundits and politicians seem to be surprised at the way independent voters swing. I think they have a bit of a problem comprehending the word “independent.” I am a bit wary of using “we” when discussing independents, but as an independent voter myself I am generally not that shocked by the swings.

    Following last year’s election I wrote:

    I’ve voted Republican before. I voted Democratic this time, for the most part. I could easily be persuaded to vote Republican again–or for a third party if sufficiently provoked.

    The problem, I think is that politicians and the vast majority of the media think in terms of the two major parties. One either supports the Republican agenda in general, or the Democratic agenda. Thus it is often difficult for them to understand how so many people switch allegiances. Now there are a certain number of folks who are voting on appearance or personality, or perhaps because someone they know votes in a particular way.

    For me, it is almost always a case of holding my nose and voting. It is very rare that there is a politician who really sounds good to me and also has some realistic chance of being elected. So each candidate race is a separate decision. Who do I agree with the most and also on the most critical issues? Is that person a person of integrity so that I can count on them to be who they say they are?

    For whom can one vote if one generally opposes war and also opposes abortion? What does one do if one believes we have a duty, as a society, to aid those less fortunate, but at the same time supports civil liberties and generally light handed regulation? All of these things become individual factors.

    I find that the Democrats are frighteningly trusting of government solutions when it comes to social issues, and frighteningly unconcerned with the track record of existing programs, just as long as those programs seem to support their goals. I find Republicans frighteningly trusting of government in the law enforcement, defense, and intelligence fields, and oblivious to the horrible track record of our agencies in those areas.

    Both parties are very good at spotting the failures of the other, but much less so at looking carefully at themselves. So independents tend to swing back and forth a bit, just trying to find someone, anyone better.

    Now we have this election today in Massachusetts. (Note that I’m in Florida and don’t have a vote today.) There is great shock that the Republican may win. With possible errors in polls, I wouldn’t make that a prediction, but it looks pretty likely to me. In many ways this is because the Democratic candidate is not that good. Even if I agreed with her in general, I would have serious doubts about voting for her due to some of her actions as a prosecutor. (I doubt my misgivings are a driving force in the election, however.)

    The question is just what question Republicans are going to take from this. I know they will crow at such a victory. But whether they get long term benefit from it or not will depend on whether they are listening or not. Many of us out here are quite clear on the message not to trust government too much, but in general, we don’t trust government with any of the power, and we want every aspect of government, including law enforcement and defense, to be accountable. We want all our politicians, not just the ones out of power to be ethical, and we expect the ethical standards to be enforced.

    I have not been very surprised by President Obama. I expected that the idealism would largely die when he got to Washington, DC, and it has. He has been more moderate than his platform, but again I expected that. But being pragmatic, and letting the issues you said were important during the campaign die, are two different things. Many of those who voted for candidate Obama hoped that President Obama’s stance against such things as torture would stand. But now in many cases the Obama White House is defending positions staked out by the Bush administration.

    Some Republicans are claiming this is because Bush was right after all. I disagree. I think it is because of the corrupting power of power. The current administration doesn’t want to investigate torture because it might appear partisan. But let me ask what it looks like when you don’t investigate it?

    I expect to disagree with much of what goes on in the halls of government. I pick and choose my issues when I vote for candidates. What I expect, however, is that a politician will stand up for what he believes. If I voted for him, and I knew I disagreed with some position, I do not give him credit for failing to live up with that position even if he changes it to one closer to my own.

    So my message to Republicans is much what it was to Democrats after 2008–Don’t count on me. You’ve got to earn my next vote.

    I suspect many independents are thinking something very similar.

  • Martin Luther King Day 2010

    Two personal experiences shape my thoughts each day on Martin Luther King day. The first was the memory of those in our small north Georgia community who were gratified that he had died. Few of the young folk had any idea why they should think that way, though we had regularly had “scares” that there would be riots in nearby Chattanooga, Tennessee, not that it was likely such things would touch our heavily segregated community.

    For my parents and our family, the experience was a little bit outside of our experience. We were Canadians transplanted into the American south and so attitudes took turns that we did not expect. My parents were very clear that we were not to make racist remarks, and they challenged racist attitudes on an individual level. I don’t think they really comprehended the extent of institutional racism at the time, as we didn’t discuss the politics in any detail.

    The second experience that shaped my understanding was living in Georgetown, Guyana when I was in my teens. There I learned what it meant to be a minority, when I was the sole white member of my youth group. Now let me be clear that I was treated well by all concerned. I did not experience prejudice in that circumstance, but even without prejudice there is a certain feeling of isolation that goes with being the only person of an identifiable type.

    I was listening today to a commenter on one of the TV programs–I don’t recall which–who said that the laws had changed, but people’s hearts and minds still had a long way to go.

    I think that caller was right, but I should note also that laws may help change hearts and minds, but they are not fully efficient at the task. For example, desegregating education has given many young people experience of other races, which is helpful in changing their future attitudes. But the attitudes still exist.

    During the last election I was getting my hair cut at a local barber shop while early voting was open. The general consensus was that “those people” were busy stealing the election through early voting. It didn’t take long to realize that “those people” were African Americans, not Democrats or Republicans.

    I hope that we will all become much better at seeing ourselves in other people’s circumstances. As Christians, we need to understand how religious minorities feel here in our communities. That might help us become even more sympathetic for Christian minorities overseas. Understanding what it means to be in the minority would, I think, make us better people.

    For me it took a very long time to put it all together, and I can’t guarantee I’ve understood it all even now. But by the grace of God I’ll continue to progress in understanding others not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character (slightly paraphrased from the I Have a Dream speech.)

  • Jubilee and Care for the Poor

    I was struck by a comment made by David W. Baker in his commentary on Leviticus (Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy [Cornerstone Biblical Commentary]), p. 194-195:

    … Protection of life and dignity through a shared distribution of wealth was also known and practiced in the early church at Jerusalem (Acts 2:44-45), though not in relation to any actual Year of Jubilee.  This might sound radical and unheard of in much of today’s church, but its implementation in Acts seems to have been a catalyst for many becoming members of the church every day.  Could there be a causal link between the two, which the church today should take into consideration?  The church needs to give greater thought to its economic responsibilities in addition to, and as part of, its theological ones.

    Now for those who may think this is from a liberal commentary, it’s not; it’s from a solidly evangelical one.  The redistribution to which he refers is the return of land and the freeing of slaves at the Jubilee. Those who have done poorly during the preceding 49 years are suddenly blessed by a substantial redistribution of wealth in the form of land or even of their personal freedom.

    There are a number of principles that can be illustrated through Leviticus 25.  There is the basic idea of caring for those less fortunate, the particular command against enslaving one’s own people (though the extension to not enslaving anyone had to wait for a later time), and also the idea that such support was not a constant and unconditional thing.

    I suspect most of us have observed how people respond differently to certain sermons or passages of scripture.  When a pastor preaches on giving, for example, often people in the congregation who are already inclined to give feel the need to push themselves to do more, while others who give less on a regular basis are good at finding the loopholes.

    It’s difficult sometimes to find just how a scripture applies to me and not to all the other people I’d like it to apply for.  That underlines the importance of prayerful study of scripture.  Prayerful study does not merely involved praying before you study.  It is also the prayerful attitude, i.e. the attitude of listening to and depending on God throughout.

    Now look at how the early church implemented very similar principles, but in a much different way.  In their smaller community, which was not the equivalent of the nation, unlike that envisioned in Leviticus 25, they managed to keep everyone properly cared for by holding all things in common.  Latter, as discussed in 2 Corinthians 9 & 10 Paul implemented similar principles through taking a special collection.

    Our tendency is to read a passage like the description of the Jubilee, and if we’re inclined to support (or at least talk about supporting) the poor, we’ll emphasize that aspect.  One of my college professors constantly talked about the Jubilee in direct opposition to public welfare, even though wealthy Israelites would have been forced to give up wealth to others in a massive redistribution, because he noted that in the ordinary course of affairs people were expected to work.  That was his inclination, and that was what he heard in the text.

    Another professor whose inclination was toward communism found his warrant in Acts 2:44-45, and never seemed to notice that the early church was not a government, but rather a voluntary association, and indeed an association to which one really had to want to belong, nor did he notice the short duration of this particular practice.  Yet another person could hardly bring himself to fully describe the situation of Acts 2:44-45, because he was so anxious to point out how limited the circumstances were and how short the time!

    I think this passage should give pause for both Christian capitalists and Christian socialists.  I am fairly strongly inclined to the capitalist myself, but as a Christian I believe I should be deeply concerned about and positively active concerning those who are left out.  At the same time, I do have biblical warrant for good and careful stewardship.  Jubilee does not mean that I have to give without consideration or that redistribution is always a great idea.  It also does not give comfort to those who say “Never!”

    The particular way in which I implement God’s commands is left up to me and to the community of which I am a part, with the aid of examples of how God had these principles implemented over time.

    One further thought occurred to me here.  Frequently we read statements about caring for the orphan and the widow that are found frequently in the prophets and we use these in support of whatever program is on the front burner today.  Perhaps we should look a bit at the foundation document here in Leviticus to discover just what caring for the poor might have meant to those prophets.  I don’t mean that there cannot be tension between prophetic and priestly statements, but at the same time, my view of the world is doubtless more unlike that of Hosea or Jeremiah than either of their views was from their priestly contemporaries.

  • Quote of the Day – Balentine on Ritual in Leviticus

    From Samuel E Balentine, commenting on the tamid in Leviticus 6:13 and elsewhere in Leviticus (Interpretation, a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), p 65:

    … All religious rituals are more than practical or even symbolic acts, as important as these may be.  At their core, rituals are a form of liturgical exegesis that engages both mind and body in the drama of theology. [emphasis in original]

    Of course, many of our Christian rituals lack drama, are not based on exegesis of anything in particular, and mostly engage our backsides with the pew.

    I recall communion at one Methodist church I visited.  The pastor was clearly excited about what he was doing and saying.  He’d filled in those places in the Hymnal where it calls for words appropriate to the occasion.  One felt engaged in the ritual of breaking the bread.  Even more importantly, he clearly saw the ritual as leading to action outside of itself, and used it to focus the message.

    I wish more rituals were like that.

    (Before someone thinks I’m criticizing my home church, my pastors at First UMC Pensacola are doing an excellent job of engaging people in the liturgy, especially at the ICON service.  It is a struggle, however, to disengage people from the pews and engage them elsewhere.)

  • On Haiti

    When I heard that there had been an earthquake in Haiti, my immediate thought was “Oh no!” I haven’t really known what to write about it. I can analyze it theologically, but that won’t change the body count and my odds of getting it right don’t seem all that good.

    I think I will just refer to two posts: Rachel Held Evans says We already failed Haiti. Duane Smith says Don’t Pray for Haiti, and begins his post with “Send money now.” He allows that you can pray later if you are so moved.

    Which reminds me of a pastor I once heard teaching. With reference to prayer and action he said: “Prayer is not a substitute for anything else, and nothing else is a substitute for prayer.

    So as you’re able (and inclined), do all of the above!

  • Oldest Hebrew Inscription Found

    The biblioblogosphere is alive with discussion of the released photo, line drawing, and preliminary translation of what appears to be the oldest example of Hebrew writing to date.  I found it originally through Evangelical Textual Criticism, but have since read quite a number of posts about it.

    I’m afraid, however, that I must be missing something here with the claim that this will change the dating of Biblical texts by hundreds of years.  Which ones and why?  I already believed some sources of the Pentateuch dated from this period, and I don’t think oral transmission would be sufficient.  In addition, following Milgrom’s dating for P & H, there is already a strong proposal that places extended texts 300-400 years later than this.

    In other words, there were serious suggestions of written texts going back this far even before this discovery.  Now it’s nice to have confirmation that such writing existed, rather than just speculation that it might/must have, at that early date, but I think it was a reasonable inference that it did.

    At the same time, knowing that such things existed in this small form doesn’t really demonstrate that the longer literary texts existed at the same time, much as I’d like it to do so.

    Perhaps I have simply always assumed written texts were quite possible substantially earlier than our earliest example of them.  The question remains quantity and quality.  Writing a small text on an ostracon and writing the final, redacted Pentateuch are substantially different things.

  • Christian Carnival CCCIX Posted

    … at RodneyOlsen.net.  Go check out the first Christian Carnival of the new year.  (No, I didn’t contribute anything this week.)

  • News Flash – I am Very Conservative

    Despite the subtitle of my other blog, Threads from Henry’s Web, which reads “Thoughts on Religion in the World from a passionate, moderate, liberal charismatic Christian”, it appears that on this blog I am very conservative. So saith N. T. Wrong, and who am I to argue?

    He says this in a new Biblioblog Top 50, in which I rank #7.

    How shall I ever go on living? 🙂

    (HT: The Church of Jesus Christ)