Looks like we have a posting problem. I can post in Marsedit, but not through the BHT Wordpress page. Anyone else having this problem?

Try posting through a client. Lots of free ones are out there. Bartenders! Help!

Ten iTunes Add Ons.

“They could be made of water.”

It’s code, Kurt, for those of us who are in the resistance against our alien overlords. That interview contained critical instructions to our cell in Sheboygan.

You teetotalers and cell phone users better start using those third-generation deflector hats I passed out last Thursday, or we’re going to have to initiate quarantine procedures…

Our very own Joel Hunter (jn) being interviewed about “what’s out there”.

Bob: As my great-grandmother often said, “Well, bless my whiskers!”

To bless in reference to “blessing God” Psalm 103 “Bless the LORD O my soul, and let all that is within me bless your holy name” means more than what we associate with praise.  Two rival athletes might admire each other’s skills, but team mates who are connected to one another go beyond praise and “bless” each other’s attributes. 

I’m pretty convinced that we need pithy and fresh definitions of most everything that takes place in our worship services.  When we “confess” our sins, we need a reminder of what it means to “confess sin” before God.  When we sing, we need a reminder of why singing is so prominent among the commands in the psalms. 

I think it’s pretty much always been this way.  Words get worn out, twisted, diluted, and familiarity makes us careless with them.

I hope this post was a blessing to you…. jn….

Patrick Stewart puts the verbal smackdown on a condescending journalist.

This past weekend we were in Charleston, SC for a wedding. Sunday morning while flipping around the channels I came across a Catholic Service which I assume is a local one in the area. My knowledge of Catholic Mass is limited to a funeral and what I have seen on TV including midnight mass at Christmas. What I thought was strange was that women were leading parts of the service and also passing participating in passing out the Eucharist. I have no issues with this but I thought the priests were the ones who led the service.

I can’t think of a more unusable church word in English than “bless”. Seriously, what does it mean? Especially for someone who didn’t grow up with our lingo?

Good question. It’s getting even weirder since its most enthusiastic users would give one the impression that it means “give large amounts of money, popularity, and a clear complexion to.”

My question is, when our words get incomprehensible and/or mutated like this (contextualized, some might say) what do we do about it? My tendency is to abandon or subvert the word, but I’m not sure that’s very useful. Or good for me.

I hate the word “embolden.”

Former UMC pastor now RCC convert Alan Hunt gives his reason for conversion.

His exploration of the faith also introduced him to Catholic doctrine. As Hunt wrote in his blog: “Finally, I have always struggled with the idea I call ‘doctrine by democracy.’ I simply struggle with the concept that we Protestants vote on certain things to decide what is true.”

1) A fellow would at least nod at conciliarism before saying that.

2) You’d consider that Protestants are hardly one on how they arrive at confessional documents.

But really, if Mr. Hunt is happier getting his dogma without interference from the hoi pollloi, I wish him well. We aren’t voting on the Trinity at my church, but if we did, I’d really enjoy voting for it. And against the Immaculate Conception.

I can’t think of a more unusable church word in English than “bless”. Seriously, what does it mean? Especially for someone who didn’t grow up with our lingo?

I’ve been corresponding with a source close to the Enns situation, and here was a quote I thought worth sharing up here:

I think this is the SBTS takeover event of the American Reformed world. If the TRs can clean house at WTS, then they will be emboldened in their push to clean house through their two main denominations: PCA and OPC.

I’m sorry, Michael. I can’t imagine what that’s like.

I have a concern for the BHT that I think is very real. It’s easy to see how this place lags when Michael isn’t around for a weekend or a few days. This sabbatical may take him away for more extended periods. We need some consistency in one or two or more people keeping us in the know with interesting links which might be discussion starters. Also, flowing out of that, we need someone to pull people in the direction of participating in a conversation that doesn’t revolve around one of our hot button dead horses. Who is going to do that when Michael can’t be on here?

Prayer please. The presence of EWTN in the new cable package presents new challenges. (Interestingly, I’ve been advised by many Catholics to not watch EWTN.) The presence of Scott Hahn in particular really causes me problems. People who say they’ve “come home” imply that I am not home, and pretty soon I’m in a tailspin of what kind of God tells people, after ?? years, that they must resign their ministry and become a Wal-Mart greeter to be “home.” That messes with me big time. Are all these Protestants his sheep, too? Should all their shepherds leave the ministry and get a job at Subway so they can go to mass? This is how my mind works with this stuff. Striving to be a Happy Enough Protestant, but the whole “Coming Home” bit just zeroes me out on what kind of God we are talking about and what people like me have done with our lives. The idea of being introduced as “a former Baptist minister who came home” just sends me into orbit.

Also, stress and chaos level at work has reached lethal levels. I’m stewing and that’s not good.

Michael wrote:  I may know who will be available to run the BHT while I’m on Sabbatical.

Travis, I’m concerned about that, too, but here’s what I don’t understand. I got my first cell phone 10 years ago. As it is with most things (cell phones, iPods, girls…) I was one of the last of the people I knew to get one. Cell phone technology has improved quite a bit over the last ten years so I figure the one I had in college was like sticking my head in a freaking microwave. So here’s my question: why aren’t there masses of former sorority girls from the University of Arkansas going in for brain tumor surgery? Or at least one of a thousand?

If this were a big concern, wouldn’t wireless carriers along with Motorola, Nokia, and others be crapping their collective pants right about now? Class action, anyone?

Oh well.  I’m concerned about over population and with the numbers of people using cell phones all over the world this ought to thin out the ranks a bit.

So…getting rid of my land line and using only cell phones was a bad idea?

I’ve heard of these studies before, and it seems like the evidence is mounting. This study claims the link between cell phones and brain tumors will be proven “in the next decade,” which is, you know, too late…since it takes about a decade for those brain tumors to develop.

If Trevin Wax is accurate, I’m 5 for 5 with Peter Enns. I may know who will be available to run the BHT while I’m on Sabbatical.

Kevin Johnson thinks Jonathan was picking an unproductive fight with the cross comments.

Phil: Thanks for the clarification, no worries. I don’t think we even have mild disagreement, if we think about it. You say:

i generally don’t see it. From where I sit, I see a lot of churches downplaying the cross because it’s “too negative” and “turns people off,” and playing up the resurrection precisely because it’s seen as more appealing.

Bob: Nice big cross you have there on your building and in your widows. Good to know it means something to the church that visits that building.

Aiung Nang Thu is the Thai boy we’ve sponsored through World Vision for the last 5 years. He wrote us yesterday to thank us, and to tell us he is becoming a Buddhist monk. We’re thankful we had a part in his life and praying for him to come to know Christ as he seeks the truth.

Thanks to all of you who prayed for Denise. She got the anti-virals for the early signs of shingles and so far, no breakout.

We’re off to get our dog, who we’re calling Maisie (maze-e). Five hours each way.

My essay on What Do Gays and Lesbians Hear? is up at IM.

What a weird, weird week at work. Dilbert isn’t strange enough sometimes. And he’s not Baptist.

I’m going to shut down my adult Bible class while I am on Sabbatical, but for the last 7 weeks, I’m going to do material from Surprised by Hope. the first part of that book is essential, folks. You and your people need to know these basic Biblical issues of resurrection.

so I get home from a church event tonight, have some dinner, catch up on the BHT and read a recommendation for Panic at the Disco

I open up Yahoo Music and guess what’s featured on the main page? That was too easy. It’s interesting stuff. All I knew of them before this was the song “I write sins not tragedies”

I’ve appreciated all the posts on the Cross, and like usual I agree with everybody, or at least see helpful things being pointed out by all sides.

That said, I’m a big advocate for the symbolism.  I wanted a Cross slapped across our new building.   And I want a Cross between our projection screens in the worship area.   I don’t think we can point out too often that our worship would be impossible, that God in His Holiness would be inaccessible were it not for the Cross.  I think we’re all born unitarians at heart and relapse back into that unless leadership is given consistently in the worship service and preaching. 

I think 1 Corinthians 2 is all about Cross Centered ministry. I think Romans is all about the Cross, despite not using the word.    Romans 3:21-26 is about the public display of God’s love in the Cross.  Over and over again Paul harkens back to the death of Christ as our only hope, and I see the symbolism of the Cross leading us back there.   I also agree with Phillip that many churches are abandoning the symbolism of the  Cross because they have abandoned  the Blood, the substitutionary atonement because it is offensive. I realize Jonathan is not at all condoning that.  But, I ‘ve noticed that churches increasingly are going with weather vanes instead of crosses on the top of their steeples and wreaths in place of Crosses in their sanctuaries. 

Jonathan: I’m sure you weren’t advocating a crossless Christ! I was attempting to point out (in haste) that the emphasis on the cross is primarily a response against liberalism, which does seek to proclaim a crossless (and undivine) Christ. I don’t think emphasis on the cross is out of line, based on Paul’s writing, but I do think we should emphasize more of the resurrection.

Our salvation is in the cross, and our hope is in the resurrection. Paul taught both strongly, and we do seem to emphasize the one more than the other, perhaps in part because there is such an easy symbol.

I think, overall, that our single point of disagreement (which is mild) is in the commercialization of the cross: i generally don’t see it. From where I sit, I see a lot of churches downplaying the cross because it’s “too negative” and “turns people off,” and playing up the resurrection precisely because it’s seen as more appealing.

While I’m eager to appeal to the surrounding cultures, I think that avoiding the cross is a huge mistake. The Gospel is offensive, period. That doesn’t mean we should strive to offend, but we can’t avoid the offense of the cross and claim to teach the Gospel message.

I would love to see more complete preaching of Jesus Christ: born, died, raised, and ruling.

Oh….Blue Snowball mic. Best $100 you will ever spend on a podcast. And get a screen.

Pretty Odd….new album by Panic at the Disco, recommended by Ian Cron. Produced by Rob Mathes. Excellent.

Phil: I assure you that I am not advocating an un-crucified Christ. Quite the contrary. What I am attempting to do is cultural exegesis alongside theological reflection. Misappropriations of the cross are rampant, especially in the U.S. Is the solution to abdicate the glory of Christ in the cross? Certainly not. I believe my post clearly affirmed the need for the gospel to save sinners. Moreover, I state: “Perhaps we should recover the centrality of Jesus, the Jesus of the cross (emphasis added) as opposed the cross of Jesus.” Therefore, the issue is not Jesus OR the cross, but the manner in which the cross is associated with Jesus.

Or to take up Joel’s insightful comments, is cultural and Christian misappropriation of the cross due to iconoclastic tendencies towards dualism? This gets at the heart of the matter as I see it, though I am not advocating a dualist approach to the cross and Christ. I am not pitting “person” against “symbol” but rather the person and work of Christ against cross-olatry. I see this idolatry of the cross playing out in two main ways: Symbolically and theologically. Symbolically the cross has been reduced to the logo of Christianity or the Church. It is plastered on bumperstickers, mailboxes, buildings, stationary, billboards and so on, a logo among logos. This commercialization of the cross has emptied an otherwise weighty symbol and reality of the faith—Christ and him crucified.

Theologically, there are strong currents in American evangelicalism that advocate a “cross-centered” approach to the faith.  In my mind, these movements have emphasized the atonement to the neglect of resurrection, ascension, and the hope of new creation. This cross-olatry can leave a follower of Jesus at the cross, calling him to morbid obsession with suffering  and “brokenness”, missing the constant NT appeals to the eschatological indicative, the resurrection and return of Jesus. If we were to focus more on the person of Jesus, we would be more inclined to take in his whole work for whole discipleship.

Related, cross-centered configurations of the faith can de-personalize our salvation, engendering faith in an act or symbol instead of cultivating communion with the three-personed God.

Bill: I am in the learning curve with Audio Hijack Pro, and it’s pretty much the shizzle because I can hijack any audio on the spot without selecting and converting. I will actually use both Garageband and AHP when I get the time to do more development of the podcast.

Bill: Get a mac.

Jonathan: Paul refers to “Christ, crucified” often, as well as to the cross alone. Simple word searches don’t give the full picture of the images Paul used. Those images are overwhelmingly on of victory through apparent failure, resurrection following apparently defeat, Christ ruling after the cross. What does that mean for us? Are you suggesting that we abandoned unadorned crosses in favor of iconographic depictions of Jesus? (I want Middle-Eastern Jesus, not Caucasian Jesus! (or Baby Jesus))

In my experience, focusing more on the person of Jesus and less on the cross of Christ tends to lead to ignoring the very core of the message of the Bible. Many people like the idea of Jesus, but hate the cross, because when Christ was crucified, that’s when He upset the world system and showed His power most.

We’ve had knock-down, drag-out fights in here over “no creed but Christ,” and this almost seems to be another way of backing into the same area. “Less cross, more Christ.” Okay, which Christ? Christ who? Christ the shining consciousness? Christ the buddy? Christ the Democrat? Christ the Republican? Christ the misguided teacher? Christ the good moral person?

It’s Christ, God made flesh, born of a virgin, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried; on the third day He rose again and ascended into heaven, where He is seated with God almighty. That Christ.

You may—possibly—be confusing symbols and things. Christ is the object of our faith, but what symbol serves? Christ’s glory was in the cross, and so should ours be.

Besides, the U.S. road the easy prosperity, I assure, lies through the fish.

Bill, Garageband and iMovie, both which come standard on all Macs, will do what you need.  Get the Mac.

You can listen to Merton.

One of the courses I teach is going to be developed as an online course.  I had the idea that I would like to create a series of podcasts corresponding to what I usually lecture on, but I would like to have fun with the podcasts and make them sort of like a radio program.  The content would be there, but I’d like to build in song-clips, pseudo-call-ins, sound effects, etc.  My boss loves the idea so I think I can wrangle some more tangible support from him.  I would also have to embed the podcast into a powerpoint-ish type of slideshow so the students would also get the visuals.
The timing is probably going to correspond with my faculty computer refresh cycle where I ask for money for a new notebook.  So I’m wondering if I may be better off with a Mac than with my traditional Windows machine.

Has anyone done anything like this?  Any ideas?   Lurkers feel free to chime in.  What else might I need, hardware or software wise?

Jonathan, there is a sense in which I agree with what you’re saying, but rather than describe my agreement (how boring!), I’ll say why the way you’ve enunciated your view of the Cross/Jesus doesn’t work for me.

Let me go backwards, and start with the cause rather than the effects. The cause is, ironically, iconoclasm. In a sound understanding of the Cross, the re-presentation of the Cross in material form should serve as an icon, a window into the reality of the world, which I think could be summarized as “the Crucified God.” I think you’re right that the Cross can become an idol, but I think it has become that precisely as a result of our iconoclastic separation of the material and the spiritual, between “reality” and the “symbol,” or if you like, between the signified and the signifier. We can (and do) do this with lots of de-sacralized imagery: the shepherd, the king, the lamb, baptismal waters, etc. What is interesting is that some “symbols” we regard as inoffensive or innocuous (maybe the lamb?) and we think we’ve safely maintained the “centrality of Jesus.”

The double edge to this is that on the one hand, your analysis of how the Cross is abused in “American Christianity” is spot on; but on the other hand, it also empowers your own formulation that sets faith in the “person” against the “symbol.” For example, you said that a symbol-centered faith believes that ”[p]lacing a cross on a building makes it a church.” And while I agree with you that the NT definition of the Church cannot be fully captured, much less exhausted, by the appearance of a cross on or in the building, I think you are too hasty to dismiss how that concrete artifact actually functions both for the local congregation that gathers under and around it, as well as for the community in which it is situated. If it functions as an icon, it shows, reveals, discloses that the people who gather in that place worship the Crucified One. The Cross, then, is a window that allows us to see the Person truly, as He is. Without the “symbol,” our grasp on the “person” becomes impoverished; and in reaction against that actual impoverishment, we try to deny that we are impoverished by defining “real” faith immaterially and locating it in sheer inwardness. Ultimately, this defines faith negatively, for we do not live in such a state.

The Cross makes a dual claim, both on the people who align themselves with the Crucified One as well as on the “powers” that He judges. This is much more than the Cross as a symbol that “stands for” something else. It does not replace or displace the Person by substitution, unless one has already made an idol of it.

The annual seal hunt is about to get underway.  In an effort to make the hunt more humane, hunters are now required to make sure the baby seal is dead before they start skinning them.

American Christianity has overplayed the cross. The symbol of the cross has been co-opted for all kinds of causes other than the cause of Christ. Not only has the cross been co-opted, its meaning has also been diluted. Placing a cross on a building makes it a church, when the new testament notions of church are infinitely more than a building. The cross is only mentioned ten times outside of the gospels (1 Co. 1:17, 18; Gal. 5:11; 6:12, 14; Eph. 2:16; Phil. 2:8; 3:18; Col. 1:20; 2:14; Heb. 12:2). Staggeringly, the Greek word for “cross” is omitted entirely from Paul’s letter to the Romans.

It appears that new testament authors chose to focus their attention less on the symbol of the cross and more upon Jesus of the cross, what his work on the cross accomplished. The cross, when used biblically, is used interchangeably with the “gospel” and the “power of God to save” (1 Cor 1:17, 18). However, that power is often absent from presentations and sermons regarding the cross. Paul considered the cross a “stumbling block” in his preaching (Gal 5:11; 6:12). Today the cross has become step ladder for financial success, social identity, spirituality, and political power. Perhaps we should recover the centrality of Jesus, the Jesus of the cross as opposed the cross of Jesus. What would happen if we tried to reflect the biblical emphasis of a person-centered, not symbol-centered faith?

Randy, I’m going to be very ashamed of my Hoosier state if they vote Hillary.   Hope you’re organizing against her.   We don’t need this kind of sociopathic liar back in power, along with the soap opera marriage etc.   Of the three democrats, Obama, McCain, or Hillary, she has the most demons.

By the way, everything above is just fact, no opinion, just  brute facts.  Disagree at your own peril….   jn..

I somewhat reluctantly listened to Rev. Cron’s Easter sermon on iTunes. I say “reluctantly” because I am subscribed to far too many podcasts that I don’t listen to, but this was good. I’ll probably keep up with that. BTW, iMonk and the Digg Reel are the only two I consistently listen to/watch. MacBreak Weekly, also.

It isn’t a difficult thought experiment to figure out what Hillary would do. She will always do what is most expedient for her. She seems to be incapable of any other course of action.

I’ve been wanting to read Enns book.  I’m guessing Connversation will have a lot to say about all this in the coming days.

Meanwhile, Dean wants the Superdelegates to decide by July 1.  I can’t see this as anything other than a thinly veiled DNC opposition to Hillary’s plan to take the fight all the way to the convention floor.

Here’s a fun question:  If Hillary suddenly took the lead (which is almost mathematically impossible, I think, but follow me here) in delegates and the popular vote, would she be fine with Obama taking the fight to the convention floor?  Or would she suddenly start talking about the will of the voters, the need for delegates to vote according to the will of the the people, and the divisiveness and potential harm to the party of not dropping out and backing the clear winner?

Anyone read Enns’ book? I really like his commentary on Exodus (NIVAC). It looks like the exchange between he and Greg Beale is an important one (lots of links here). Enns would be a good fit at Trinity too.

Are there any national polls that show Obama beating McCain?

He’s starting to actually become coherent on the “second coming,” but I have a hard time buying some of it, esp his interpretation of “coming.”

I’m almost done with an IM piece called “What Homosexuals Hear.” I’m going to talk about what homosexuals in our churches often hear from us.

The Gore thing will never happen…Gore alone would tank, of course, but Gore-Obama would beat McCain. Could a Gore appointment satisfy those nostalgic for the Clinton years? I doubt it. The Dem side of things is really, really ugly…Hillary’s ready to take this all the way to a debate at the convention – if they don’t seat the Michigan and Florida delegates…despite the fact that she approved the DNC’s policy on punishing those states way, way back in August 2007.

Apparently this Bob Barr dude is considering the LP nomination. Now that Gravel’s a libertarian (wtf?), Barr-Gravel has even been suggested.

Obama-ites: Apparently, a lot of Democrats don’t think your guy can win, and they want a messiah of a different kind.

According to the numbers, I should be getting a lot slower net when I switch to DSL, even though I’m getting the fastest package. On the speedtest meter, however, my isp sux. This should be interesting. I’m predicting better service. Currently, my cable modem runs like a real bad motor.

Two/thirds of the way through Surprised by Hope. A most interesting book and I think his best writing for the average reader. He’s starting to actually become coherent on the “second coming,” but I have a hard time buying some of it, esp his interpretation of “coming.”

I’m almost done with an IM piece called “What Homosexuals Hear.” I’m going to talk about what homosexuals in our churches often hear from us.

Children of Men: The Series.

Filmmaker Tribute videos. Very cool.

The ABC continues to impress. See Byron Smith’s choice selection regarding the perennial problematic of body/soul. Byron’s lovely summation follows the Williams’ quote:

Any form of faith that is purely inner, private, non-bodily or apolitical has missed one of the key themes of the whole Christian story.

Yes; a thousand times, yes.

Almost all my socks have disappeared.

I’m calling it right now: Enns will be at Fuller this fall.

I’ve got a new interview with Ian Cron up at IM. I’m really honored with that opportunity. Here’s a post from Ian’s blog so you can see what it’s like to have Rob Mathes as you worship guy.

Westminster Seminary has suspended Peter Enns in view of termination.

“I’m the King of the World!”

Courtesy of Windstream Communications. I also doubled my internet speed and doubled the number of cable channels I have. AND got EWTN :(

But right there in the middle of it all: Fox Sports Cinci.

Let’s calculate Series Wins per dollar spent :)

Richard:  Sure.  The Habs are the best franchise in history, no question about it.

Any other discussion?

Travis: Can we talk Stanley Cup wins, then?

*sigh*  I can’t even not bring it up, and just respond vaguely, and still…

No need to take a vote.  I’m outta this one ;-)

Travis, this was a National League conversation. There’s little worse than a gloating Yankees fan. I move that Travis not be allowed anything but Appletinis or some other girly drink for one year.

Scoreboard.

Now this is a Bible review. I heart this guy.

Now that is funny!

For those keeping score at home, the Braves have one 3 World Series (1 in Boston, 1 in Milwaukee, 1 in Atlanta) and the Reds have won 5. Scoreboard.

Oh, by the way, the Cardinals have won 10. That’s best in the National League by 4. :-)

Regarding Michael’s madness

Dear Michael Spencer,

I read with great sympathy and understanding your blog article concerning your newfound inability to see the Cincinnati Reds.  I, too, am a tremendous sports fan, and I, too, have my favorite teams.  I especially love the Atlanta Braves and would we be equally miffed if my cable company stole my opportunity to see the Braves.  However, I must comment at this point that I (and every cable subscriber including yourself) will always be able to watch the Braves.  They are on television seven days a week on Fox Sports South and Turner Broadcasting System.  It seems that New Wave Communications has discovered what you will soon discover – that the entire population of the United States is made up of Braves fans – they just don’t know it yet.  After all, the Braves are “America’s Team.”  My advice to you is to embrace your corporate cable pre-determined destiny and become a Braves fan…you won’t even have to pay an extra fee to watch them every day.  And as for Bobby Cox, there is genius in his madness.

Since you don’t know me, you can hate me from the seven hour distance that exists between us and wish upon me the flames of hell.  People here in Georgia are already used to that kind of heat in mid-summer anyway.

Your fellow Braves fan and colleague of Sharon Waters,

Brian Clark

Shameless plug, and advice to Michael: John Adams  is a must see, an excellent argument for getting HBO.

Texas is the place to live.

C.S. Lewis websites

Issues, etc news is available at “Bring Back Issues.” It appears there may be some hope for a reversal. If you enjoyed the program, it’s important for you to write or get on the petition NOW.

The latest news on the New Testament manuscript finds in Albania.

If you are in the Oklahoma City area and want to take The Theology Program from Michael Patton, information is here.

Atheists want to play, but they don’t want an Umpire.
Calvinists believe the game is fixed but play hard anyway.
Arminians think you can take runs off the scoreboard.
The Mormons are in left field, while the New Agers should play catcher; no matter how wild the pitch they’ll grab it.
Catholics want the Pope to play shortstop; they claim he’s never made an error.
Amish won’t swing and they walk a lot.
Televangelists sometimes get caught stealing.
The Dunkers are down by three.
Premillenialists expect the game to be called soon on account of darkness.

I’m looking at a change of internet, phone and Cable providers. Would save me about $20 a month and- yes- get the Reds back. I think.

Probably Word of Warcraft

70 Tauren Warrior

I have it on good authority that a certain BHT fellow has a late night addiction to Counter Strike. Anyone want to ‘fess up?

Correction, Gorbachev is still a fool, as in a Psalm 14:1 kind of fool. And the Daily Telegraph, well, it’s another kind of fool, as are the media who did not fact check such a story.

A friend of mine says it makes it hard to be a post millenialist….

Link

Yes Phillip, it’s a bit hard for many of us in America to see why anyone would trade independence and freedom away.  Although, increasingly many Americans are seduced by the idea of a nanny state taking care of us all from womb to tomb. 

PS I have no problem with the US invading another country without the permission or cooperation of any other country, so long as it is in our interests, and is the morally right thing to do.  I certainly do not trust the UN or France or Syria to be the arbiters of just wars. 

John: I think that quote carries a lot of weight with U.S. parents as well, but it won’t necessarily rule the day, and here is where I suspect we’ve come to another cultural difference.

Many people don’t realize how fiercely independent Americans are. Violently so. Proudly so. There’s good and bad to that, of course. The whole world thinks it’s a mistake for the U.S. to invade country X? Yeah, so? Since when do U.S. soldiers care what the world thinks?

That fierce independence, that strenuous desire for complete freedom, is what causes any sort of conflict whatsoever here. Otherwise, with the question phrased a bit differently, I think we’d have near-unanimity. “An 11-year-old is sick. Should she receive medical care?” Well, DUH! We even tend to believe strongly that the welfare of children outweighs their desires, so “An 11-year-old is sick, and she wants to be left alone. Should she receive medical care?” also meets with OF COURSE. Once an adult is involved, that fierce, proud, crazy desire for freedom starts to complicate things.

So let’s consider another slightly different question: “Should someone be forced to violate their religious beliefs in order to extend their life by one year?” No. It’s not even a complex question to most Americans, though personal experiences might shade answers for some. We have religious freedom explicitly guaranteed by our Constitution, which is holier than the Bible for many Americans. It takes a lot to override that freedom, more than it does to override non-explicitly guaranteed freedoms even, which is already a lot.

“Should someone be forced the violate their religious beliefs for X?” Only when X involves “someone else” is this even in question. And so it is with this case. May parents make martyrs of their children? Not normally, no. If the authorities had known of this situation, I’m certain they would have intervened. “It is not the right of parents to determine the matter?” Unless we are talking about guaranteed life-or-death, those are fighting words. The rights of parents are near-absolute.

I suspect that’s something that’s as instinctive as breathing to many Americans, and sounds bizarre to most non-U.S. ears.

This question often comes up in relation to Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing to undergo blood transfusions. This Christian Medical Fellowship article discusses the issue – scroll down to the section headed “the legal position” for some useful background of more general application. See in particular the following:

The legal position is more complicated, and more emotive if the patient in question is a child. Under normal circumstances parents have a right to decide what medical treatment their child should receive but this can be overridden if they fail to act in the child’s best interest. In this instance doctors or social workers can apply to make the child a ward of court. As soon as a ward-ship summons is issued medical treatment can only be authorised by a High Court judge.

The attitude of the English judiciary to these issues is summed up by the following quote from the judge in a (non-JW) case in 1981:

It is not the right of the parents to determine the matter. They may make martyrs of themselves, they cannot make martyrs of their children.

Personally, for all that I have misgivings about giving the state too free a rein in second-guessing parental decisions about their children, that comment is one which carries a great deal of weight for me.

I find myself agreeing with Josh and disagreeing with John, despite the fact that they normally represent the Darth Vader and Obi Wan Kenobi of the Lutheran Force, respectively.

I’m really, really nervous about the government mandating medical treatment over the parents’ moral objections. The problem is that “potentially life-saving medical treatments” could include any number of things that I would morally object to, from sterilization to abortion. Why should the government tell me which treatments I can or must apply? Or consider this very likely scenario: you or your child contracts a fatal disease, which can only be cured with embryonic stem cell-based treatments. Do you expect the government to respect your moral objection to the source of the treatments?

The parents in this case are clearly loony. But I’d rather let them respond to God than to the government.

It’s a sad story, but when the proposed alternative is government intervention to force treatment, I get off the bus, especially with euthanasia right around the corner.  But why would we trust the government to make the right treatment decisions when parents err for religious reasons and HMOs err for financial reasons?  Only a completely naive person who believes that the government alone out of all societal institutions has our best interests at heart and makes the most balanced, wisest decisions possible would want to put the final say-so in medical treatment for children in the hands of the state.  This is part of that “freedom” vs “security” thing.  You can’t avoid any and every tragedy and still have freedom.

I’m fundamentally dismayed by the idea of not taking someone to a health care professional but instead relying on the “power of prayer”. Maybe I’m just thick, but is it beyond the realm of possibility that MAYBE God is answering that prayer for healing using a doctor or surgeon as His tool?

Phillip: reading the linked story, I’m not sure the authorities were aware of the situation. Had they been aware, I hope they’d have taken action.

UK law gives parents considerable latitude in how they raise their children, but the fundamental legal principle is that “the needs of the child are paramount”. So where parents are withholding medical treatment in a perverse and life-threatening way then it’s likely the decision would be taken away from them. OTOH, the relevant authorities in the UK have a pretty shocking record of failing to take appropriate action in some awful cases, and sadly a misguided desire to respect parents’ religious or cultural beliefs sometimes lies at the heart of this (“Well, I suppose believing your three-year old daughter is possessed by evil spirits is just part of their culture. We shouldn’t interfere in that”). I don’t know how that compares with the situation in the US.

I agree we should pray that none of us is ever faced with this situation. We should also pray for those whose vocations bring them into contact with situations like this (and worse ones – at least these parents were simply appallingly misguided rather than actively seeking to harm their children) on a daily basis.

On a more cheerful note: Quick straw poll. Is anyone here uncertain as to whether they have ever been shot at when getting off a plane? You know: maybe it happened, maybe it didn’t. Lots of things happen at airports and sometimes you just misremember the little details. (jn)

Michael: Very sad. My libertarian impulses, sharped on this issue due to exposure to homeschooling in CA, suggest that parents should have nearly-complete authority over their children. Clearly, however, that authority does not extend to murder or abuse, so the question is whether refusing medical treatment in favor of prayer constitutes abuse (or in this case, murder).

I’m inclined to say it does, so that these parents are not within their rights, but I can see why others might think differently. I’m also well aware that some will wonder how I can even consider such a possibility. (If the government can intervene when a child is sick, when else can they intervene? Do parents have any rights at all?) Looking back, with a child dead and the info we have, it’s pretty easy to say they made the wrong call. What would we say had the child lived? What about if they child would have faced a life of agony and they chose to withhold treatment to ease her passing? All of these are ugly issue (and I tend to side on the “life” issue on all of them), but they’re all debatable and complicated.

Most of all, sad. I pray that none of us is ever faced with such a situation.

Michael: how awful. What a sad, sad story. Answer to your question? Rearrange these words into a familiar phrase or saying: WAY. NO.

However, the photo of your dog cheered me up no end. What a gorgeous dog. Got a name yet?

Death by lack of faith? An 11 year old dies because her parents don’t use doctors, but rely on prayer. Are they within their rights?

Here’s the dog. Mostly Scottie. A great little girl I’m sure we’ll love.

My good friend and fellow preacher at our ministry Clark Bunch has a beginning blog. Good thoughts. Give him some visits. He’s thrilled with the stats.

Global Lutheranism jumps by two milllion.

I’d be willing to pay for a month or two of MLB TV for Michael. Anyone else want to chip in?

MOD: Thanks for the kindness, Bob, but that’s not necessary. Thanks for being so kind. I’ll be on sabbatical for 8 weeks, so I’ll look at my options when I get back. Like taking hostages. :-)