Opinion Central Poll 2010.4: Final Results

Now that Democrats do not have a 60 vote majority in the Senate, should they still pass healthcare reform in any way possible?

Caption Contest 2010.2

A Prayer for the Fifth Sunday after the Epiphany

Set us free, O God, from the bondage of our sins, and give us the liberty of that abundant life which you have made known to us in your Son our Savior Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

The Methodist Blogs Weekly Roundup 2010.4.215

Submit your post to umweeklyroundup@yahoo.com by noon EST on Saturday to guarantee that your post is included.

The week in review in the Methoblogosphere:

Why is the crown of a Roman emperor hanging in a Christian Cathedral? Read Mitch Lewis.

Dave Nichols writes on the funeral that went bad.

Dale Tedder posts on covenantal repentance.

Great expectations from Graham Peacock.

Bishop William Willimon's Episcopal Report for 2009.

Bishop Robert Schnase reminds us that when one member of the Body of Christ suffers, all of us suffer.

What song would you sing? Bishop Sally Dyck asks the question.

Jeremy Smith ponders children's sermons on the Haitian earthquake.

Craig L. Adams is tired of John Wesley being misquoted on Twitter.

Lauren Porter questions whether we really need another songbook.

Blessing through obedience-- a post from Michael Ledbetter.

Dave Camphouse has a heavy heart for connecting discipleship.

Brian Vinson posts on a Bible reading challenge.

Sally Coleman is having her theology stretched by children.

Are you looking for a unique gift? Mark Winter has it.

Brian Russell on implementing a missional hermeneutic.

The way through is closer than we think according to Dave Perry.

Andy Bryan is feeling kind of broken hearted.

Dave Warnock reflects on wives.

David Hallam writes on examining homeopathy.

"Qualities of Discipleship"-- a sermon by Dave Faulkner.

Andrew Stoddard posts reflections on Genesis 22:1-18, Hebrews 11:23-31, and John 6:52-59.

Homiletical reflections from Tony Mitchell on the right place and the right time.

Kim Mathews ponders love unimaginable.

Greg Hazelrig posts his thought for the day on Matthew 7:1-2.

Steve Heyduck comments on civil rights and gray areas. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Thoughts on mission and the mission field from Richard Heyduck.

Questing Parson ponders... what story to write?

Joseph Yoo writes on the roads not taken... thankfully.

Angela Shier-Jones reflects on questioning grace.

A report from Joseph Slife on Lifewatch's letter to Senator Ben Nelson to "do no harm."

Dan Dick cogitates on thinking our way out of church.

"Filled-- With the Spirit"-- a sermon by Beth Quick.

John Meunier asks the church, "What if we've all been punk'd?"

Matt Kelley was a witness to love.

Pam BG comments on when nice is not so nice. Best of the Methoblogosphere!

Ken Carter writes on the church as One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

Deb Spaulding is sewing on!

Blogging and time for every purpose under heaven-- personal reflections from Andrew Thompson.

.

Betty Newman posts on the prayer of immersion.

Ken Hagler reminds us that our spiritual story starts somewhere.

Rick Mang pays tribute to a friend.

Silent auctions work wonders writes Olive Morgan.

Jim Parsons preaches on grown up love.

Gavin Richardson counsels us to give to who was there because they will continue to be there.

Richard Hall posts on global warming scepticism.

Galileo and the Scientific Revolution #4: Implications

This new scientific method caused a reversal of the role of science in relation to philosophy and theology. For centuries, theology had set the ground rules. Philosophy had to follow the lead of theology and science had to follow the lead of both theology and philosophy. Now the situation was reversed. The findings of science were setting the problems for philosophy which, in turn, was beginning to define new rules for theology. Theologians found themselves having to play the game of "catch up" in their work.

Theologians suddenly had to begin explaining their assumptions in light of the assumptions of science. This was true at the most basic level, because of the new cosmology which saw the operation of the universe in mechanical terms. If the world was running according to the laws of nature then how did God operate within the world? Were miracles possible? How did God intervene in a revelatory way? While many early scientists and philosophers (Galileo and Descartes among them) were faithful Christians and affirmed the validity of revelation, their method began to edge God out from acting within the everyday world. Reason and experience became the principle instrument of knowledge, not revelation. Revelation was "thrown under the bus."

In actuality, the natural sciences would not land the most powerful blow against theological inquiry; the so-called "social sciences" would. As the scientific method gained popularity, many began to believe that a new era had dawned upon humanity. (Think about the ominous assumptions human beings would have to hold about themselves in order to call their particular period of history the "Enlightenment".) People began to embrace the notion that human beings were getting better and better. The scientific method was helping men and women understand the world as it truly was. Modern medicine, which developed out of the new methodology, began to make great strides against illness and disease. Many came to believe that humanity had finally grown up and left superstition (classical expressions of religion) behind.

Since this new methodology had been so successful in helping to understand the world in which we live, maybe it could be employed in helping us to understand human beings in the societies in which they lived? Maybe the new method could help eradicate social ills in the same way it was helping medicine to abolish physical illness? Hence, the modern social sciences were born.

A representative of this enterprise was Auguste Comte-- pictured above (1798-1857). A French philosopher, he is considered to be the father of positivism (a child of empiricism) Comte was a pioneer in the field of sociology and an advocate of a "religion of humanity."

Comte divided history into three periods. The first period was the "theological" in which events were explained by the intervention and control of deities and spirits. The world was defined in supernatural terms. The second period was the "metaphysical" in which events were explained by such abstractions as causes, and "inner principles" and substances. These abstractions replaced supernatural explanations. The third period Comte called the "positive." This current period is the final and highest stage in humanity's development. It is characterized by scientific description which does not attempt to go beyond observable facts. Humanity, in this stage, gives up its desire to know the causes, the nature, and destiny of things. If there is anything beyond this world, it is of no concern. Human beings must confine their attention to this world alone. Positivism is the final stage of human thought and the task of science is to make the present world safe for humanity.

It is important to say that most contemporary social scientists would not accept the label "positivist." The early positivists were caught up in the moment and had grandiose visions of what the scientific method applied to society was going to accomplish. Most contemporary social scientists are more modest in such areas.

But Comte's analysis of history here is crucial because it was (and still is in many quarters) typical of an Enlightenment view of human history. Now that humanity has learned to trust in something "objective" (the scientific method) human beings can put away superstition built upon tradition and rely on reason, a faculty common to all human beings. In other words, humanity had finally growing up and did not need the traditional dogmas of Protestantism, and in particular, Catholicism, which were prejudiced and produced nothing but quarrels.

Not to Beat a Dead Horse on the Recent Supreme Court Decision... But...

In a Q & A at a law school in Florida, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas gives his take on why the Court was right in its recent decision on corporations and free speech. What I find interesting is Thomas gives a little history on how the limiting of speech by corporations started in the first place. He states,

"...the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907."

"Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation," Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. "Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them."

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as "some sort of beatific action."

Interesting, isn't it? In the fear over the corrupting influence of lots of money, some folk haven't even considered the corrupting influence of regulating speech.

I welcome all comments on Justice Thomas' comments. No ad hominem arguments are allowed. Substance only please.

You can read the full story here.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

The Quotable C.S. Lewis #28: Why? Pain?

"The possibility of pain is inherent in the very existence of a world where souls can meet. When souls become wicked they will certainly use this possibility to hurt one another; and this, perhaps, accounts for four-fifths of the suffering of men. It is men, not God, who have produced racks, whips, prisons, slavery, guns, bayonets, and bombs; it is by human avarice or human stupidity, not by the churlishness of nature, that we have poverty and overwork. But there remains, none the less, much suffering which cannot thus be traced to ourselves. Even if all suffering were man-made, we should like to know the reason for the enormous permission to torture their fellows which God gives to the worst of men. To say....that good, for such creatures as we now are, means primarily corrective or remedial good, is an incomplete answer. Not all medicine tastes nasty: or if it did, that is itself one of the unpleasant facts for which we should like to know the reason"

--The Problem of Pain

A Rational Perspective on the Supreme Court and Corporate Campaign Money

The latest decision by the Supreme Court on allowing corporations to pay for campaign advertising directly out of their treasuries instead of from their political action committees, has generated more heat than light in the debate. I have linked below what I think is a sane response from law professor Jonathan Turley, who indicates that either way this decision was not a no-brainer. Turley indicates that Justice Kennedy's majority opinion and Justice Steven's dissent are both excellent and convincing arguments.



Moreover, in an editorial in The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse rightly points out that President Obama was not right when he said in his State of the Union address that the SCOTUS overturned a century of law. (Frankly, that Mr. Obama would take a shot at the Court when they could only sit there mute, and knowing that the court would not respond publicly, was a small and immature moment for the President.) The issue in reality was a statute that was obtuse and complex. The other important point to make is that while corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections, they are still prohibited from directly contributing to politicians.

As I said in a post last week on this issue, I do not know what the right decision is here constitutionally, but Turley is right that it is quite a difficult decision, and that perhaps the answer here does not lie in going after the money, but in going after how campaigns and elections are run in the first place.

In a free society we are all able to express our views in reference to decisions of law even though few of us truly know it well, but let's stop all the talk about a corrupt court turning back a century of precedent. The only time anyone brings up precedent, they do so when it suits their argument. The same people feel free to discard it when they don't like the nature of what has preceded.

+ + + + + + +

Cross-Posted at RedBlueChristian

You Must Check Out GodFilms

Produced by the UMC General Board of Discipleship, GodFilms is an excellent resource for churches and small groups to explore faith. Each film is short (10-12 minutes) and features an "introspective journey" on faith in life. Three videos are available for online viewing here. I have watched them. They are engaging and should prove to be a valuable resource in the small group setting.

You must check out GodFilms.

Opinion Central Poll 2010.3: Final Results

Does God determine every event in life?

A Passage of Scripture Not Meant for Weddings Only

Today's audio sermon from 1 Corinthians 12:27-13:13.

No MBWR Again This Weekend

There is just no time. I plan to post the Weekly Roundup next Saturday.

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2010.3

Man torches car battling frost

Wed Jan 27, 2:40 pm ET

BERLIN (Reuters) – A 76-year-old German man trying to thaw out his car incinerated it instead when he decided to speed things up by putting a blow heater under the hood.

"He burned the vehicle out completely," said a spokesman for police in the western city of Hildesheim. Police said the man left the heater on next to the frozen windshield washer tank and returned indoors. Shortly afterwards he heard two explosions and returned to find the car ablaze.

He alerted fire services, who arrived in time to prevent the flames from destroying his house. Including charring of the building, total damages were estimated at 40,000 euros ($56,240).

(Reporting by Dave Graham; Editing by Steve Addison)

Opinion Central Poll 2010.2: Final Results

Now that the holidays are over, have you started making plans for summer vacation?

What Gives You Joy? What Is Your Character?

When my children were young I loved taking them fishing. I would bait their hooks and I would take the fish off their hooks. When they got their line tangled in the bushes or in the branch of a tree, I would untangle it for them. They caught most of the fish because I was so busy attending to them that I hardly had time to put my own line in the water. And yet, I enjoyed every minute of it. I experienced more joy in watching them catch fish, than in catching fish myself. I received more joy in watching them eat their catch (which I had cleaned), than in eating it myself. I suppose in fishing with my children, I experienced some vicarious moments.

What gives us joy? When a co-worker gets a promotion are we truly happy for her or are we envious that we didn't get what she received? When a friend finds his dream job, are we truly thrilled for him or are we jealous that our dream employment has never come to fruition? When we find out that our next door neighbors will become grandparents for the first time, do we truly celebrate with them, or are we depressed that we have yet to become grandparents? When the church down the street starts a wonderful new ministry that brings new folks into the kingdom, do we truly rejoice thanking God for his work in their midst, or do we feel a sense of competition because our church has no such ministry?

What gives us joy? I dare say that is a good test of our character. Do we truly rejoice in the good fortunes of others or are we jealous, envying what they have that we don't?

Jesus says that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents, than in ninety-nine righteous folk who need no repentance. If that repentant sinner is found among the Baptists, should we Methodists be angry? If that repentant sinner comes to the altar in the Presbyterian Church, should the Pentecostals be unhappy?

What gives you joy? What is your character?

On Disclaiming Disclaimers

We all have seen them-- statements reminding readers and listeners that the following comments are the opinions of the persons expressing them only and not of any other persons or organizations the individual is affiliated with. There are bloggers as well who feel the need to let their readers know that their views are not necessarily endorsed by their church or their denomination or anyone else.

I understand why some bloggers feel that it is important to publish disclaimers. I have heard of some blogging pastors who get in trouble because some intellectually insecure parishioner doesn't like a view expressed by the pastor and doesn't want to have to deal with "guilt by association," or they don't want to have a pastor who is "liberal" or "conservative." I am sure there are other scenarios where that kind of thing has happened, so bloggers have to state the obvious in order to enlighten a small handful of their ignorant readers. I get it.

However, I do not have a disclaimer on my blog, and I have several reasons why I will not post one:

First, it should be obvious that my views are my own and are not necessarily endorsed by the congregation I serve as pastor, the seminary where I teach, the denomination in which I serve, and the family I live with who loves me. Nor are my views always the same as my friends, some of whom regularly post comments on this blog in disagreement. Anyone who thinks my views must reflect the views of those with whom I am associated has unresolved issues, and I am not of a mind to enlighten them out of their ignorance.

Second, while I treasure the differing views of others for the sake of discovering the truth and having the significant discussions we must have as people in community, I have no concern what may happen to me because someone doesn't like my doctrine or politics or the positions I take on controversial issues-- and that includes people who have authority over me. I have great respect for those individuals, but if they don't like what I say, they can fire me.

Third, I do not want anyone in the blogosphere hindered when it comes to expressing serious opinions. (I feel the same way about stupid opinions, even though they are not worth consideration.) I regularly read bloggers with whom I consistently disagree. I am glad they are blogging. They help me to think, even when, and especially since I do not agree. I wouldn't have it any other way. They don't need a disclaimer as far as I am concerned, so neither do I.

Fourth, I do not post a disclaimer on this blog because I don't want to and no one is going to make me.

Special Note: The views of this post are not necessarily those of First UMC in Cambridge, Ohio or the United Methodist Church, Ashland Theological Seminary, my family (and the dog I had as a boy), the City of Cambridge, the State of Ohio, the United States of America, North America, the Western Hemisphere, the world, the Milky Way Galaxy, the Universe (just in case there is a Multiverse) and any companies I have previously worked for and anyone whom I have known in my life, but have forgotten about because I haven't seen them in twenty years.

Galileo and the Scientific Revolution #3: Galileo's Method

Galileo used the telescope to study the heavens. He began in 1609. In March of 1610, he published a pamphlet entitled, The Starry Messenger. In the pamphlet, Galileo described his use of the telescope and how he had developed it to the point where he could see objects a thousand times larger than with the naked eye. He announced that his observation of the moon revealed that it was not smooth and spherical, as previously thought, but rough, much like the surface of the earth. This was no minor correction of a few facts. Because of the belief that heavenly bodies were made of a more perfect substance, the notion that the moon was rough and not round undermined the idea of its perfection. What Galileo effectively did was to question a whole way of understanding the universe and, by logical conclusion, a way of life.

The most revolutionary ideas were yet to come. Galileo's methodology did not included appeals to theology. Unlike Copernicus, Galileo was not concerned with theological explanations of why something was the way it was. He was simply interested in descriptions in mathematical terms through experiment and observation. Observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and mathematical description were the basic factors in this new approach. Philosophy and theology were avoided.

Traditional ways of employing metaphysics and theology were replaced by new methods of understanding the world. Even though Galileo was a loyal Catholic, he was being accused of undermining the church's authority and biblical authority. Galileo himself did not see it that way. He disagreed with the way the Bible was being interpreted by ecclesiastical authorities. Galileo questioned who should interpret the Scriptures in scientific matters. He did not think that the theologians were competent to apply their scriptural interpretation in matters of science. Over time, the result of Galileo's new method would be a severe limitation of the church's authority in many areas of human experience.

Gradually, God was less and less crucial in the explanations offered for how the world works. Galileo did not intend to reduce God. It was inevitable, however, that such would happen. The Aristotelian view that all things remain in motion as long as the cause continues to move the object meant that the motion of the planets and stars resulted from the direct intervention of God. Galileo's method proposed secondary causality, making the universe appear more mechanical. The rise of modern science opened the large question of how God acts in the world and in the universe.

For Some Great News from Haiti, You Must Watch This!

If this video does not bring a smile to your face and a tear to your eye, then you need to do a gut check on your humanity.

A Lesson in Biblical Anatomy

Today's audio sermon from 1 Corinthians 12:12-30

Truth is Stranger than Fiction 2010.2

Sea slug surprise: It's half-plant, half-animal: Scientists aren't yet sure how animals actually appropriate genes they need

By Clara Moskowitz
updated 2:50 p.m. ET, Tues., Jan. 12, 2010

A green sea slug appears to be part animal, part plant. It's the first critter discovered to produce the plant pigment chlorophyll.

The sneaky slugs seem to have stolen the genes that enable this skill from algae that they've eaten. With their contraband genes, the slugs can carry out photosynthesis — the process plants use to convert sunlight into energy.

"They can make their energy-containing molecules without having to eat anything," said Sidney Pierce, a biologist at the University of South Florida in Tampa.

Pierce has been studying the unique creatures, officially called Elysia chlorotica, for about 20 years. He presented his most recent findings Jan. 7 at the annual meeting of the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology in Seattle. The finding was first reported by Science News.

"This is the first time that multicellar animals have been able to produce chlorophyll," Pierce told LiveScience.

The sea slugs live in salt marshes in New England and Canada. In addition to burglarizing the genes needed to make the green pigment chlorophyll, the slugs also steal tiny cell parts called chloroplasts, which they use to conduct photosynthesis. The chloroplasts use the chlorophyl to convert sunlight into energy, just as plants do, eliminating the need to eat food to gain energy.

"We collect them and we keep them in aquaria for months," Pierce said. "As long as we shine a light on them for 12 hours a day, they can survive [without food]."

The researchers used a radioactive tracer to be sure that the slugs are actually producing the chlorophyll themselves, as opposed to just stealing the ready-made pigment from algae. In fact, the slugs incorporate the genetic material so well, they pass it on to further generations of slugs.

The babies of thieving slugs retain the ability to produce their own chlorophyll, though they can't carry out photosynthesis until they've eaten enough algae to steal the necessary chloroplasts, which they can't yet produce on their own.

The slugs accomplishment is quite a feat, and scientists aren't yet sure how the animals actually appropriate the genes they need.

"It certainly is possible that DNA from one species can get into another species, as these slugs have clearly shown," Pierce said. "But the mechanisms are still unknown."