Bandits No More

The headline of this CBS news item”Science Unlocks Biblical Secrets” sound more impressive than the actual news reported therein. An Israeli found a couple of small silver scrolls that have the Priestly benediction of Number 6 written on them. Now scientists have been able to date them to the 7th century B.C., the earliest dated biblical text. I call this interesting, but not quite the unlocking of “biblical secrets.”

Charles Taylor is one of my favorite philosophers. I find his Sources of the Self and volumes of philosophical papers (one, two and three) to be very helpful in understanding the rise of modernity and the transition to postmodernity. I am now working through his latest, Modern Social Imaginaries. My first take on the book is that it is rather rough and probably rushed into print. Much of it is outside my field, so I’m struggling to understand it. The chapter on the invention of the Public Sphere, however, is fascinating and illuminating. Later, when I have the book in front of me (I left it at the office today), I will write more, but now just a brief note.

In his discussion of the Public Sphere, he talks about this as being secular – not primarily in the sense of being non-religious, but in the original sense of being atomistically temporal. All time is the same; there is no time that has any special significance. This illuminates two features of our current reality.

First, one of the major debates on constitutional issues regards the role of original intent. If Taylor is right, it is a central feature of the “new” public sphere that what the public says now is always of the same relevance as what the public said at anytime in the past. Not only is the constitution itself only a purely human creation, on a par with anything produced today, but since the public sphere is always NOW, we are free to change our understanding of the constitution at any time. Sounds like the background to the “constitution as living document” to me. If Taylor is right, it is not surprising that those who argue against Original Intent find it to be such a strange and unbelievable position.

Second, our culture has been marginalizing the place of religion in the larger culture. If religion is taken as historical, with founding documents that say what they say, and are what they are, regardless of what we say today, then it is illegitimate to give it a role in a society dominated by the Public Sphere. Of course, those religionists who follow Lessing and see “true religion” as consisting in “the universal truths of reason” will find less difficulty in allowing a relationship between religion and society – though since the “universal truths of reason” are as changeable as any other aspect of the Public Sphere, this connection tends not to amount to much,

In a recent Tech Central Station Column, Edward Feser writes on “How to Mix Religion and Politics.” He says,

Suppose, however, that someone did defend a view about abortion, same-sex marriage, or some other contentious matter by appealing to religious considerations. Why should this be considered unacceptable? The problem, in the view of many liberals, is that religious considerations are matters of faith, where “faith” connotes in their minds a kind of groundless commitment, a will to believe that for which there is no objective evidence. Opinions on matters of public policy, they would say, can only appropriately be arrived at via methods of argument assessable by all members of the political community, not by reference to the idiosyncratic and subjective feelings of a minority.

If Taylor is correct, not only are faith-based arguments seen as illegitimate for reasons of goundlessness, but are so precisely because they have an illegitimate kind of grounding – in past events and in the founding documents of the tradition. In this kind of religion there is no role for the Public Sphere (as has arisen in modernity).

Almost everyone has an opinion about the Terri Schiavo case. I’m delayed commenting for a long time, but here are some observations and things to consider.

1. I know no one who wants to be fed by a feeding tube. Yet many people are fed this way and do recover.
2. From the Christian perspective death is an enemy, but not to be feared. In his death and resurrection Jesus has defeated the powers of sin, death and hell.
3. A great tragedy in this particular case is the lack of family unity. Though family unity can achieve both great good and great evil, mutual support and love is part of God’s goal for families. One of the long-standing purposes of the modern Nation-State has been the usurpation of familiy duties. (See A.J. Conyers’ The Long Truce: How Toleration Made the World Safe for Power and Profit for a good discussion of how this works.) The thought is that families – and other traditional institutions – repress the individual. The State is to use its power to free the individual so the individual’s freedom can be maximized. We see this same force at work in the current push toward same-sex marriage. Regarding Terri Schiavo, family duty sometimes requires allowing someone to die.
4. Given the state of medical technology, it is easier than ever to keep a body going – to keep a person “alive.”
5. Our culture abhors suffering. We think it is a great evil and seek to do all we can to avoid it. We see no value in suffering. For Christians in our culture it becomes very difficult to understand Jesus’ call to take up our crosses and follow him. The willing submission to suffering is alien (think little green men for the emphasis of difference) to our way of thinking.
6. Because we hate (are afraid of?) suffering so much, when we speak of “putting peopel out of their misery,” we too commonly mean to “put them out of our misery.” Seeing their suffering offends us. This is the modern world – we’re experts at science and technology. Suffering has no place in our world. Since suffering is an abstraction, the next best thing we can do is shut it up where we can’t see it (nursing homes?) or remove the sufferers whose very existence offends our sensibilities.
7. In reports I have read many disabled Americans sense the devaluation of their way of life by those who seek to end Terri Schiavo’s life.
8. There is disagreement as to Terri’s true medical status. Is she aware of anything? Can she respond to and interact with her environment? Does she feel the pain of dehydration and starvation? Finding conclusive answers to these questions (in her case and any others like hers) seems nearly impossible.
9. Although many commentators have tried to make the divisions over Terri Schiavo mirror our political culture, their efforts end in failure. Liberals, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats, etc., are found on both sides. This can be a good thing. Perhaps we’ll finally learn that realiy doesn’t map well on our current dichotomy.
10. It is a difficult and painful thing for a parent to outlive a child. It seems natural for parents to fight for their child’s life to the very end.
11. Caring for someone who is completely incapacitated for 15 years is tremendously draining. While the strong Christian ought not give up hope, giving up hope for a cure in this body is compatible with the Chrisian teaching on resurrection.
12. Michael Schiavo and Terri’s parents are all worthy of our prayers. God’s grace and mercy will be a benefit to them all.

First United Methodist Church Sanctuary: 1905 – 2005

If we are to understand the building of our current sanctuary, 1888 is a good starting point. In that year Rev. J.A. Wyatt was the pastor. The church was growing rapidly, so they started construction of a new building (this building, pictured on the left, was completed in 1889). One factor in that growth was the special evangelistic meetings held from time to time. At such a meeting in the late summer of 1888, not only were there many conversions, but a young man, D.H. Abernathy, was “reclaimed.”

The Abernathy family, connected with the Pitts family for which the town is named, had been connected with the church for many years. After being “reclaimed” for the faith, D.H. Abernathy became a leader in the church, most importantly as the leader of the Sunday school movement, Conference delegate, and because he was a prominent businessman, a respected lay leader, and a friend of Rev. E.L. Shettles, played a key role in the building of the current sanctuary.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the Pittsburg church was rising in prominence. Two men who were to play a role in the new sanctuary also played a role when the East Texas Annual Conference was held in Pittsburg in November 1900. Rev. E.E. Hoss, then editor of the Nashville Christian Advocate, soon to be elected to the episcopacy, was the preacher for the Sunday night service. He was later to come and preach the first service in the new sanctuary. In the course of his sermon, Rev. Hoss stated that the Conference “lacked only $135 of paying all of Home and Foreign Missions” apportionments for the year. R.A. “Lon” Morris then announced that he himself would cover the deficit. This style of giving was to be repeated 5 years later.

At the end of 1903, Rev. E.L. Shettles was appointed pastor in Pittsburg. Shettles, a native of Mississippi, had come into the ministry after a life as an itinerant gambler and businessman. He had just build a new sanctuary in Bryan, and on his first Sunday in Pittsburg went for a stroll with his friend D.H. Abernathy. The two of them recognized that the church would soon outgrow the 1889 sanctuary and both wanted the growth to continue. A building committee was quickly organized, with D.H. Abernathy, R.F. Lewis, J.M. Holman, G.C. Hopkins, J.B. & E.R. Greer, J.C. Bailey, A.J. Askew, F.A. Lockhart, J.M. Clark, L.R. Hall, W.P. Grammer, W.L. Garrett, T.E. Russell, C.F. Swayze, W.R. Heath, J.A. Coppedge and S.S. Morris (father of Lon) as members. As he had in Bryan, Rev. Shettles called on the services of Dallas Architect J.E. Flanders to design the building. They broke ground in June 1904, and finished in time to dedicate the building April 2, 1905. They used 175,000 feet of lumber, 175,000 rough brick and 85,000 pressed brick in the construction, the whole building costing $25,500. Since the lot cost $4,000, and the organ cost $2,000, the total came to $31,500. The stained glass was made by Kansas City Stain Glass Works, and the furniture by A.H. Andrews Co. of Chicago.

Upon completion, Rev. Shettles invited Bishop E.E. Hoss to come and dedicate the church building on April 2, 1905. Bishop Hoss came, but the congregation quickly learned of a complication. The building could not be dedicated because the construction debt lacked $16,500 of being paid off. The record of the event is a bit hazy, but it appears that in the evening service that night, Lon Morris, as he had five years previously, stood up. He announced that he would give $8,000 if the rest of the church could raise the balance. The other leaders stepped up, and Bishop Hoss dedicated the church in the midst of great rejoicing.

In the past century, this sanctuary has seen a long line of pastors and leaders, numerous people come to Christ, many baptisms, weddings and funerals. Renovated several times, the latest being under the guidance of Pastor Ricky Ricks, the sanctuary stands ready for many more years of housing worship for the people of God. Though it is unlikely we’ll again host the Annual Conference as we did in 1900 and 1905, we expect many to be blessed, not only here in Pittsburg, but throughout the Conference and to the ends of the earth.

I’m a slow learner. Since the early 1980s I’ve been writing letters to my representatives about Social Security. Even back in the olden days I was doubtful of its future efficacy. Inevitably the responses I got pooh-poohed my concerns, saying that “tinkering” (that’s the word they used most often) was a bad idea. They system was just fine and I had nothing to worry about. They didn’t interact at all with the content of my letters – just seeing that the subject was “Social Security” told them exactly what to say.

Well, now some people in leadership have learned enough math to have some concerns also. President Bush has shown interest in reforming the system, though he hasn’t given many details. Having heard some of his speeches and having read much analysis of Social Security reform issues, I wrote the President with the particular question about how those of us who pay self-employment tax will be affected, and whether he (or any one else) was even thinking about changing the fact that self-employed people pay twice the rate of non-self-employed people.

Today (after a month and a half) I finally got my answer. Signed by a staffer, I see that politicians still read letters the same way. “Oh, it’s about Social Security. I’ll get my computer to spit our our standard form letter on Social Security.” The closest the letter came to addressing my questions was to say that the president is against raising payroll taxes.

What does it take to get our leaders to actually deal with the questions we give them?

Texas City has never been on the list of places I’d want to live. Though we need the chemicals produced in that region (the chemical plants stretch from Texas City up the Houston Ship Channel quite a ways), the pollution is pretty bad and the explosions pretty frequent. This BP plant makes 3% of the US gasoline supply. Not knowing whether the production of gasoline will be affected by the explosion or not (and I have trouble seeing how it won’t be), fear alone will likely drive up prices.

Here are the NT occurrences of the noun “baptism” and the verb “baptize.” Obviously by listing the word and its congnates alone, I don’t list every occurrence of the concept. Also, I did my search in the Greek text, so the word “Baptize” won’t show up in every English verse.

Matthew 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

Matthew 3:11 “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Matthew 3:14 But John tried to deter him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?”

Matthew 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him.

Matthew 21:25 John’s baptism– where did it come from? Was it from heaven, or from men?” They discussed it among themselves and said, “If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will ask, ‘Then why didn’t you believe him?’

Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

Mark 7:4 When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.)

Mark 10:38 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” 39 “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with,

Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 3:16 John answered them all, “I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Luke 7:29 (All the people, even the tax collectors, when they heard Jesus’ words, acknowledged that God’s way was right, because they had been baptized by John.

Luke 12:50 But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is completed!

John 1:31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”

John 1:33 I would not have known him, except that the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

Acts 1:5 For John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 2:38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:47 “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

Acts 19:4 Paul said, “John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. He told the people to believe in the one coming after him, that is, in Jesus.”

Acts 22:16 And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’

Romans 6:3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

1 Corinthians 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel– not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

1 Corinthians 12:13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body– whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free– and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Galatians 3: 26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, 27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism;

Colossians 2:12 having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Hebrews 6:2 instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

Hebrews 9:10 They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings– external regulations applying until the time of the new order.

1 Peter 3:21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also– not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Revelation 19:13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.

For some years Methodists have – for good or ill – led American culture. Methodists were the first denomination to officially recognize the new US government. Methodists split over slavery 17 yeras before the country did – rehearsing many of the same issues and arguments used during the Civil War. Methodists led the way in education, and in societal reforms.

Since the 1960s, however, the Methodists are no longer leading the culture – and considering the direction the culture is going, that can be seen as a good thing. While the sexual revolution began to consume our society in the 1960s, it did not begin to consume the churhc until a decade later. Sure, we now have full blown battles over the compatibility of homosexuality and the Christian faith, but at least we didn’t originate the issue. I remember hearing a pastor argue against that compatibility about 15 years ago. One of his arguments addressed the issue of orientation. He confessed to having an orientation toward many women, instead of mere monogamy. Just as this orientation failed to trump the Christian teaching of monogamy, so-called homosexual orientation fails to trump biblical injunctions against the practice.

Now scholars are coming out with arguments in foavor legal acceptability of “polyamory.” In today NRO, Stanley Kurtz tells of one such challenge, prepared by a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Though I have heard United Methodists speak in favor of homosexual practice, I have not yet heard any United Methodists speak in favor of polyamory (though as sinners, some appear to be practitioners).

In my years of pastoring I have sometimes looked at my congregation and wished that I had so-and-so (or someone like so-and-so) in my congregation. I’d see people like that in other churches, in my reading, or in my imagination and wish they’d come my way. The more I think about it, however, I think my wishing has been misguided. Instead of wishing for people I don’t have, I need to work with the people I do have. It’s my job to win them to Christ, build them as followers of Jesus, and teach them to obey everything he has commanded. This job includes a recursive element. I’m not just supposed to relate to people this way, but I’m supposed to help those people relate to others the same way.

This seems to be an important part of the solution to the “perfect church problem.” We all have people from time to time who are disillusioned with our churches. The people aren’t spiritual enough. The programs aren’t “feeding” them any more. The life is stale. But if my job – and dare I suggest the job of the Christian who aspires to maturity in Jesus – is to love and grow the people I have, none of this is relevant, except insofar as we now know our starting point. Our goal is still the same – maturity in Christ.