Lincoln didn't say it.

There are many things I admire about classical conservatism that don't seem to be happening in today's world. One of them is the abhorrence of a lie - something they shared with classical liberalism. But, as Andrew Sullivan points out, reusing a quote that is clearly not Lincoln as something Lincoln said is a lie.

Death and our reaction

I've posted links to several news articles in the last days. In part it's to avoid the overabundance of articles on the death of someone who was famous for being famous. And yes a death is a tragedy, but making the life and death of someone into a side-show attraction is even more of a tragedy. Sure I have somewhat of a prurient interest in finding out what happened when and who is the baby's father and how will this affect the case from her rich husband's death and more. But I just don't think it is news. It's entertainment and let's leave it at that.

And if you hadn't yet guessed I'm talking about Anna Nicole Smith and the fact that I suspect everyone knew this before I mentioned her name is a sad reflection on public and private discourse.

The Watada Case

I've been reading about the Watada case for several months now without commenting. Having had men and women in my family who have fought in every war since the Revolution (sometimes I've had people on both sides) I have trouble with the thought of refusing orders. But this war (and it is a war by whatever name it's called) is equally problematic. But having the case end in a mistrial is even more of a problem. The case should be heard on its merits and there's some doubt that another trial may happen as most of the case was finished. If as Wataba claims - he refused an illegal order - then that truth needs to be proclaimed. If as the prosecution claims - he refused a legal order - then that truth needs to be proclaimed. A mistrial is not in the interest of justice nor of this country.

I'm not sure what I want to have happen with a decision, but this lack of decision is bad for all sides.

It is so gay.

Let's see one of the main people in the video "It's not gay" was found to be having sex with men even as he said he'd been cured of homosexuality. And Christians, who say they are for the truth, are promoting this video. Seems to me there's a couple of verses of mistaking the truth and falling into sin that those same Christians ought to be reading. It doesn't matter that Michael Johnston may be back to not having sex with other men, the video is still a lie.

Kerr-McGee guilty

So the Interior Department dismissed a suit against Kerr-McGee as they didn't actually owe royalties to the government. And in a reorganization one (Bobby L Maxwell)of those who protested that dismissal lost his job. And then Maxwell sued as a private citizen and won the case. It seems that the oil companies (President Bus worked in that area didn't he?) were getting their way on the backs of the rest of the country.

Thanks to TruthOut for pointing me to the article.

Creation Science Debunked

In case you hadn't noticed, I don't particularly like the promoters of Intelligent Design and/or creation science. I think it's bad science and bad theology. And I have a love for both. So I was pleased to find this site called Creation Science Debunked.

An earlier post mentioned evangelicals and statistics. But there is more to math and using statistics correctly. A good explanation of margin of error is at Good Math, Bad Math. Take a look.

Evangelicals and Bad Statistics

I've been fighting with my computer all day and lost the blog that pointed me to this article from Christianity Today. There are some Christianists, usually of the fundamentalist or evangelical variety, who seem to continually misuse statistics. They are being called to account by one of their own. I'm thankful and suggest reading the article since it is helpful for those of us who aren't fundamentalist.

I'll claim the title evangelical, but I'm far from a fundamentalist.

Here's where we need to get upset.

Selling a video where one of the people involved claims to be freed from homosexuality and is found - conclusively - to be having sex with those of the same gender and lying about his HIV status to his sexual partners. That's what gets me really upset. Saying bad words is wrong. Lying is wrong and damaging. Selling videos that have false information and lies is insupportable.

There's a balance. And where we shouldn't allow the use of bad language, what should really upset us is is lies. And that is what's happening with Focus on the Family, Americans for Truth, and the American Family Association selling this video.

Another not so ex-gay?

Wayne Besen has an article about the recent re-release of a video by the American Family Association and Americans for Truth that is full of what comes out of the hind end of cattle who have pr0vided the main ingredient for Rocky Mountain Oysters. The problem with the video is that one of the main characters presenting themselves as ex-gay was having sex with people of the same gender while telling the world that he had conquered his same-sex desires. The AFA and Americans for Truth surely know this, but they're still promoting a video that has a distinct lack of truthfulness.

Mischevious errors

"I am a Christian. My mind is closed to falsehood. A falsehood is anything
that contridicts my belief. If you show me where in the Bible it says evolution
occured I will become an evolutionist. That is the only way I will ever become
one."

1SuprJesusFreak, Kyle Givler Teens' Board

I read this and immediately flashed to something from Augustine - a passage I think of often in these cases.

In his work on The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine writes that: even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses ofthe sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. … If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books.

In denial

David Irving and James Dobson have something in common. They both are in denial about some inconvenient truths. One denies the holocaust, the other that gays and lesbian couples make perfectly good parents. I can understand their wanting to do so. But I don't approve of their misstatements about what actually happens and their cherry-picking of statements to support their views. They are simply dishonest. They have a right and responsibility to say what they believe in spite of what anyone else might say. They don't have the right to distort what others say and have researched in order to support their point of view. When they do distort the words and research of another they need to be called to account immediately by all and sundry. That's what is our responsibility to have the right to freedom of speech.

Dobson

Dobson's Focus on the Family claims that the researchers who are crying out against his use of their work are taken in (or words to that effect) by the liberals. In what world does he live? They say he is misusing and misstating their work and ask him to stop using it. Dobson respects them enough to use them as sources, but not enough to listen to them when they decry what he says? Somethings smells and it's not Gilligan, Pruett, Saewyc and more.

Truth Wins Out has many articles on this and is spearheading the contact of scientists and researchers whom Dobson has misquoted, misstated and misused their research.

Does it come from God? or Testing the Spirit.

Does it come from God? or Testing the Spirit.


I’ve often heard people try to stop debate by saying, ‘but the Bible says.’ The problem with using that is often what is being discussed is the question of ‘what the Bible says.’ Whether or not scripture is infallible, inerrant, or nay of the other words thrown around is irrelevant to any theological discussion. That’s because the inerrancy, the infallibility of scripture doesn’t apply to any of us who are reading, interpreting and proclaiming the Word of God.

What applies to the word of God does not apply to those of us who lie under the authority of Scripture. We are called to test the words of those who interpret scripture. Whether the words come directly from scripture, from some authority on scripture, or our own sense of being informed by God as to the meaning of a passage, we are called to test the spirit and examine our understanding. Does what we are hearing and/or saying come from God or from another source?

To say, without context, ‘but the Bible says’ is to ignore one’s own responsibility to study scripture with both heart and mind. One scripture passage has been translated into English ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child.’ That passage has been used to justify the use of a stick to beat children. But a more justified response would be to look at the passage in the context in which it was written in which case one finds that the ‘rod’ is a measuring device.

Scripture is read as I read anything else. Books that aren’t scripture I still read with the same tools. Prayer and reflection are tools that I use to read scripture and to help to understand every part of my life. Analysis and questions are what I use to understand fiction and non-fiction and then use in scripture to help in understanding better what God desires of me. A tool or method that is valid can be used on literature whether it is or isn’t scripture, a tool or method that doesn’t work on literature won’t work on scripture.

Reading the words in the Bible is only a start to understanding what they mean. When I go to scripture I begin with prayer and reflections. I go to tools that help me understand the words in context. I go to tools that help me understand the original language. I go to tools that help me to understand the culture in which the passage was written. I go to like and unlike passages of scripture. And I return to prayer and reflection.

When I read a novel, the words are only a start to understanding. I go with prayer and reflection. I go to tools to help me understand the context of the words. I go to language tools if I’m reading a translation. I go to tools that help me understand the culture of the author if it’s not my own (and sometimes if it is my culture). And, as with everything in my life, I return to prayer and reflection.

To suggest that I use the same tools for scripture and other writings is not to say that one is the same as the other. Scripture is my witness to God. It is my authority on how and what to believe. But even with prayer and reflection my understanding of scripture only begins with reading the words. My understanding should use all the tools that have been provided – archaeology, philology, literary criticism, like and unlike theologians, and more – so that I can come to a little more understanding of where God is calling me to go. The tools are not more important than the text, but they are important to help us understand the text.




The Orthodox test of a prophet/visionary is still valid today as we seek to interpret what comes to us in visions:
1. The vision/revelation/prophecy affirms and in no way gainsaysScripture.
2. The prophet/visionary doesn't profit from the prophecy/vision.
3. If anyone suffers the prophet/visionary suffers.
4. The prophecy/vision is ultimately proven true.

How we read

A supposedly true story of 3 Major League umpires goes that each was asked how he knows to call a pitch a strike.

The first says, "I call them as they are." (supposes an objective reality to which his perception does not contribute)

The second says, "I call them as I see them." (dismisses any external objectivity and relies solely on experience)

The third says, "It's nothing until I call it." (realizes that there is a reality apart from his, but that, the categorization--interpretation--of the pitch is his job, and depends solely on his judgement)

Sexual identity and sexual orientation

A recent study in New York City revealed that up to 10% of men self-identifying as heterosexual had had sexual activity with another man in the last year, several of them had only had sex with other men. Identity can be changed. Why some of those men don't identify themselves as gay is a matter for them. Clinically they can be identified as homosexual or bisexual, but how they self-identify is a very different matter. Sexual orientation is about the gender of those with whom you have sexual activity and the gender to whom you are attracted. But one's actions and feelings are not necessarily how one identifies oneself to oneself and others.

In many ways the problem is confusing definitions. It is like the woman who told me that she didn't identify as a feminist but did identify as a sufferigist. She'd heard too many times that feminists were man-haters, but no one had ever told her the same about the ancestral name 'suffragist.' And she didn't realize that feminists want equality between women and men and the word suffragist was about getting equal voting rights. Too many men (and women) identify being homosexual or gay with attitudes or activities with which they disagree, but haven't realized what makes one homosexual or bisexual is attraction to and/or sexual activity with their own gender.

Why I like John Scalzi

Being Poor

Being poor is knowing exactly how much everything costs.

Being poor is getting angry at your kids for asking for all the crap they see on TV.

Being poor is having to keep buying $800 cars because they're what you can afford, and then having the cars break down on you, because there's not an $800 car in America that's worth a damn.

Being poor is hoping the toothache goes away.

Read the rest of this article. You'll know why I link to him.

2,700-member Tulsa church poised to leave the PC(USA)

I am consistently amazed at what I see as ignoring ordination vows. In this story from the Presbyterian Church USA the church and the pastors certainly have the option to leave.

2,700-member Tulsa church poised to leave the PC(USA)

Congregation meeting Wednesday to "affirm" session decision

by Jerry Van Marter

LOUISVILLE * Members of the Kirk of the Hills Presbyterian Church in
Tulsa will meet tonight (Aug. 30) to "affirm" the unanimous decision of
the church's session two weeks ago to leave the Presbyterian Church
(U.S.A.) and affiliate with the Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC).

The congregation * which will meet in closed session * will also be
asked to "affirm the ordinations" of the Kirk's co-pastors, the Revs.
Thomas W. Gray and Roger Wayne Hardy. Both of them renounced the
jurisdiction of the PC(USA) when the session voted to bolt the
denomination and have not as yet been received as ministers by the EPC.

Yet it seems to me that if you as a minister can no longer live with the policies and decisions of a denomination you should leave and let the congregation know why, but not try to take the congregation with you. The PC(USA) or the predecssor denominations spent time and money planting the congregation. The denomination has supported the congretation at different times. The property and the congregation are not just responsible for the current status, but the inherit a legacy and hold it in trust for the next generation. That is the clear belief of presbyterians as has been stated in various formulations through the years.

I am saddened by the congregation's decision and that of the pastors, but they also need to leave in a Christian fashion. Making a decision in a fashion that ignores the constitution of their denomination is selfish and inconsiderate, or less than Christian.

Wyne Besen, ex-gay forces

I read about ex-gay activities regularly and Wayne Besen has one of the better articles on the recent APA meeting that I've seen at 365gay.com. It amazes me that the ex-gay forces still can pretend that they have a pretense of legitimacy. There have been physical and psychological studies that indicate time after time that homosexuals are equally healthy as heterosexuals. That change happens only with detriment to the one trying to change and many are harmed even though the change of orientation doesn't ahppen. The people who claim to be ex-gay don't do clear, replicable studies and there scientific papers indicate many flaws in the design and execution of their own attempts.

From my perspective as a religious person there is nothing intrinsically moral about being heterosexual nor is there anything intrinsically immoral about being homosexual. It is one's actions that show morality rather than one's sexual orientation. That opinion about morality is certainly debatable. The scientific evidence isn't. Study after study shows the same thing. Morality can ask the question of 'what to do with that study?' and 'what we should make of the evidence?' But denying the evidence is fruitless and shows a disbelief in the one we call our Way, our Truth and our Life.

Truth

What do we mean when we say "truth"? I'm not talking about Pilate washing his hands and moving to the next project, but our understanding. Is truth about the facts in a case? At least some of the time it is. Is truth about attempting to be honest? At least some of the time it is. But honesty is not the same as being factual.

For example, I can state facts in an order that will lead to a false conclusion. Every fact is true, but because other facts are left out most will draw a false conclusion.
1. I am gay.
2. I share an apartment with another man.
3. I have a deeper bond with this man than with my parents.

There's an obvious conclusion that I'm sharing an apartment with a lover or sexual partner. I could add that I have a deeper bond with this man than with my brother John and reinforce that obvious conclusion. Yet when I say I share an apartment with my twin brother, then those three/four true statements while staying true lead to another conclusion.

A few years back I used this example with a man who pointed out, correctly, that if I was lying about any of those statements it completely changed the conclusion. he4 was correct, but wrong-headed. The problem is that all the statements are true and they are but one example of ways in which completely true statements can be sequenced to lead to a false conclusion.

I stopped the discussion when with a nasty turn of mind (in my opinion) he suggested that I might be having sex with my twin.

When reading scripture we are also sometimes left with incomplete information. Plain understanding of scripture is a guideline for interpretation but is subject to the realization that something obvious to the writer may not be as obvious to us today.

Inthe stories of Elisha one of the miracles is when Elisha causes an axe-head to float. This doesn't seem like much. If I borrowed an axe and the head flew off into a river, then I could just stop at the store and for a couple of hours wages replace it. During the time of Elijah and Elisha the axe-head was equivalent to a farm tractor. Not just a little one, but the ones that cost more than a couple of months salary.

There are other things that aren't obvious in the stories of Elijah and Elisha. The change from small family owned farms to large agricultural properties was part of what was happening as the Philistines moved into the small agrarian communities. The Philistines had moved into the Iron Age before the ancient Hebrews as is evidenced by the chariots they possessed and the loan of the axe head.

The question for us in reading scripture is what else do we miss because we just don't have the common knowledge of the time of the writing of the scriptural passage. It is good that everyone reads scripture. It is good that we read to find that obvious meaning. But we shouldn't be so focused on the plain meaning of scripture that we forget it is written in a different time, a different place, and a different culture.