C. Orthodoxy

2009-02-25T21:52:00.000-08:00

C. Orthodoxy has moved to WordPress. This Blogger version will remain available, but new content will only be posted to the WordPress site, here:

http://corthodoxy.wordpress.com/

Please update your bookmarks, RSS feeders and blogrolls, and come visit the new C. Orthodoxy!

Goodbye Blogger

2009-02-24T09:58:00.000-08:00

When I started my experiment with WordPress I was motivated by two things especially: the need to do simple back-ups of the blog and the desire for cleaner and more professional look. Along the way I discovered all sorts of other advantages and disadvantages to the switch, but most of those balance each other out, and it is these two that remain the most important.

I was wrong about one of them, however. It turns out Blogger now can do simple backups. I think this is a relatively new feature (or I'm just an idiot), but I don't think many people are aware of it yet. For those of you who are still on Blogger, then, I strongly encourage you to make regular use of this feature, which can be found on your Dashboard under Settings. I've tested it (here) and it does work as intended. Unlike with WordPress, you can still only import posts from other Blogger accounts (no transfers from other platforms), and there is not yet any way to automate the process, but the ability to manually export and import your posts and comments is a major improvement and effectively eliminates one of my big reasons for switching.

If that is a wash, however, the other reason for switching remains. As the poll shows, most people prefer the look and feel of WordPress (by a margin of 3 to 1), and I certainly do. Blogger, admittedly, allows greater freedom to customize your template, but WordPress needs less customization--many of their templates look great unmodified. Alex suggested that I try some third-party templates to find a better look for Blogger, but after spending much of the last week trying, I've finally given up.

There are literally hundreds of custom templates available for free online, but Blogger's system is so buggy that you are lucky if you can get one to upload, and will have to delete all your widgets to do it. I tried dozens of them and almost every time, Blogger would run into some error (bX-pwned) and the upload would fail. Judging by the fact that the Help boards are flooded with unanswered complaints about these errors, it's clear that this is an ongoing problem. For someone like me, with only minimal knowledge of html (let alone xml), it's just not worth the effort, nor the risk, to mess with that.

So I'm moving to WordPress for good. I will not be deleting this blog here, but from now on all new posts will appear exclusively on WordPress. Please remember to update your blogrolls, RSS feeders and/or bookmarks (unless, of course, you've been looking for an excuse to delete me), the new address is: http://corthodoxy.wordpress.com/

Thanks everyone for a great 18 months!

The Lord of the Rings-The Steward and the King

2009-02-23T23:18:00.000-08:00

Inspired by this post (and ready to take a break from my thesis), my wife and I watched the Lord of the Rings trilogy again this weekend and I was once more impressed by Peter Jackson’s films. He didn’t get everything right (it kills me that he left out the scouring of the Shire, though Return of the King was certainly long enough without it!), but he really captured the beauty and grandeur of Tolkien’s epic.

Still, one aspect of the storyline especially really doesn't get the full treatment Tolkien intended. Flipping back through the books again, I can’t shake the brilliance of Tolkien's presentation of Aragorn's rise to kingship. Unlike Narnia, The Lord of the Rings is no allegory (Gandalf, Frodo—even Boromir in his own way—are each as much Christ figures as Aragorn is), but Tolkien’s depiction of Aragorn’s rise to kingship gives a masterful retelling of the incarnation, and actually fits with my reading of John even better than I had recalled.

In Tolkien’s vision, the Stewards are charged with the governance of the kingdom until the true king might reclaim his throne. Thus their duty, from the beginning, was intended to be temporary and provisional. But as the return of the king was long delayed, this perception changed. Arnor, the northern half of the kingdom, from which Aragorn derives, has long lost its grandeur and been reduced to humility. The Dúnedain (Elvish for “Men of the West”) are indeed the descendents of the kings from across the sea, but now most only know them as “rangers,” and see them as little more than vagrants. Few know of their long efforts to protect the free peoples of the North, and fewer still looked to their numbers for the return of the king.

Thus when the hobbits first meet Aragorn they have no idea of his true identity. He calls himself “Strider” and willingly risks his life to save them from the Nazgûl, without ever demanding their allegiance or even hinting at his lineage. But Tolkien himself hints at it. In fact, the quote on my sidebar is actually from Bilbo’s description of Aragorn, first seen in a letter Gandalf left for the hobbits:

All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.

From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king.

So it is throughout the trilogy, as Aragorn repeatedly puts aside his kingly rights to serve others. He is humble and weather-worn, hardly the picture of a king and lord of old. Thus when he does finally turn towards Minus Tirith, the very "city of the king," we find that not all welcome, or even recognize, his coming. For the Stewards of Gondor (the southern half of the kingdom) are failing in their charge. Denethor has long overreached his authority as Steward, insisting: "the rule of Gondor… is mine and no other man’s, unless the king should come again." Yet when the armies of Mordor close in and Denethor’s only remaining son and heir, Faramir, lays poisoned and dying, Denethor chooses rather to burn on a pyre with his son than take up his duty as Steward:

"I say to thee, Gandalf Mithrandir, I will not be thy tool! I am Steward of the House of Anárion. I will not step down to be the dotard chamberlain of an upstart. Even were his claim proved to me, still he comes but of the line of Isildur. I will not bow to such a one, last of a ragged house long bereft of lordship and dignity."

"What then would you have," said Gandalf, "if your will could have its way?"

"I would have things as they were in all the days of my life," answered Denethor, "and in the days of my long-fathers before me: to be the Lord of this city in peace, and leave my chair to a son after me, who would be his own master and no wizard’s pupil. But if doom denies this to me, then I will have naught: neither life diminished, nor love halved, nor honour abated."

"To me it would not seem that a Steward who faithfully surrenders his charge is diminished in love or in honour," said Gandalf. "And at the least, you shall not rob your son of his choice while his death is still in doubt.”

In the end, however, Denethor takes his own life, a traitor and an upstart, but his abuse of the Stewardship is by no means Tolkien’s last word on the matter. For after defeating the army that Denethor so feared, Aragorn does enter Minus Tirith, not (at first) as its king, but in secret. Thus he goes to the houses of healing and takes up the care of Faramir himself (along with that of Éowyn and Merry, stricken after killing the king of the Nazgûl). And when Faramir is healed by his king, he does take his father’s place as Steward, and at the climax of The Return of the King (a role sadly cut from the film) it is Faramir who oversees Aragorn’s coronation. In a chapter titled “The Steward and the King,” Faramir meets Aragorn at the gate of Minus Tirith, kneels before him and says:

"The last Steward of Gondor begs leave to surrender his office." And he held out a white rod; but Aragorn took the rod and gave it back, saying: "That office is not ended, and it shall be thine and thy heirs’ as long as my line shall last. Do now thy office!"

Then Faramir stood up and spoke in a clear voice: "Men of Gondor, hear now the Steward of this Realm! Behold! One has come to claim the kingship at last. Here is Aragorn son of Arathorn, chieftain of the Dúnedain of Arnor, Captain of the Host of the West, bearer of the Star of the North, wielder of the Sword Reforged, victorious in battle, whose hands bring healing, the Elfstone, Elessar of the line of Valandil, Isildur’s son, Elendil’s son of Númenor. Shall he be king and enter into the City and dwell there?"

And all the host and all the people cried yea with one voice.

Faramir remained Steward even after the return of his king, and as such, he became the primary witness to Aragorn's true identity. Yet far from a reduction in his role, Faramir was given yet greater honor, and made Prince of Ithilien (the land on the other side of the river, where he first met Frodo and Sam and “proved his quality” by overcoming the temptation of the Ring), and so he lived there with Lady Éowyn, always within sight of the city he loved and the king who had healed them.

And this, I think, is how John also understood the institutions of Judaism. His well-known vitriol against the leaders of “the Jews,” is not to be understood as a rejection of Judaism at all. It is rather to be explained by his deep sense of betrayal. As John understands them, Moses and his Torah, the Temple and its festivals and priesthood, these were all meant to be “witnesses” to Jesus, "stewards" if you will, who prepared the way for Israel’s true king. But Like Denethor, many of who currently held Jewish leadership rejected Jesus and so, from John’s perspective, failed their charge. Nevertheless, their status as witnesses was not undone either by Jesus’ coming or by their faithlessness. Indeed, John insists that even when the high priest himself conspires to kill Jesus, he cannot help but fulfill his duty as witness:

Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. (11:49-52)

And so when we get to the crucifixion narrative, John (even more than the other Gospel writers), emphasizes that Jesus died as King of the Jews (19:18-22). In a Gospel that uses that phrase fully 25 times, mostly to refer to the Jewish institutions whose significance John has repeatedly claimed point to Jesus, the expression could not help but carry deep significance: In taking his rightful kingship, Jesus fulfills the "witness" of these figures and institutions, whose “stewardship” had prepared for his coming. Yet “stewards” they remain (like all the rest of us), and in that role they are not “replaced” by the king but “re-placed”--given a new and fuller role. The return of Israel's king is thus not the end of her stewardship but its culmination.

Switching from Blogger to WordPress--Advantages and Disadvantages

2009-02-20T14:26:00.000-08:00

After a few days of experimenting with WordPress, I wanted to make some initial observations on the process of importing from Blogger and the advantages and disadvantages I've found so far.

I had already set up a WordPress account before, so I could leave comments on WordPress blogs, so setting up my own blog required only a few clicks. I was annoyed, however, that they only allow letters and numbers in your URL, so I had to go with corthodoxy.wordpress.com rather than c-orthodoxy (as on Blogger). Setting up the blog and choosing a theme was simple, and unlike with Blogger, many of the WordPress themes actually look good unmodified (for a point of contrast, see what my current Blogger theme looked like before I modified it, here). It's a good thing, too, because they let you change precious little about the theme you choose--but more on that in a bit.

Importing from Blogger was also pretty easy. There is a page in the Dashboard specially devoted to importing and exporting, and it took only a few clicks and a bit of waiting for them to transfer all 350+ posts and 990 comments from Blogger. I did have a couple of hiccups: the process seemed to hang up about two-thirds of the way through. So I ran it again and this time it seemed to hang up almost immediately. But when I checked the blog itself I found that all the posts had imported just fine.

The only real problem I had with the import, and it was a minor one, was with the tags. I use a lot of labels on my posts, and I was very pleased to see that WordPress imported them as well. However, for some reason about a dozen posts had one or more tags replaced by a long number. Further, when I had thought the first import failed and tried it again, it was these posts which WordPress re-imported (since it skips those it has already done), leaving me with two copies of each of those posts, one with the correct tags (but no comments) and the other with comments but incorrect tags. I have no idea what would cause such a glitch, but it took a good hour to sort it out. All in all, however, I was very impressed with the importing process and, even if I decide to stick with Blogger, at the least it has given me a backup if I ever need it.

So on to the advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages of WordPress over Blogger:

The first and most important is the one that led me to try WordPress in the first place--the need to create a usable backup of my content. Blogger makes this both "dangerous and unpredictable" (to quote Ben Linus), but WordPress makes it remarkably easy. Not only was I able to transfer everything from Blogger to WordPress (and this itself is a form of backup), it only took moments to download the entire contents of the blog (posts, comments, tags, pages, etc.) into a nice and small xml file (mine was 3.1mb). To make sure the file is actually usable, I set up a test blog (kenbrown.wordpress.com) and uploaded it, and it seemed to work fine, or should I say: and there was much rejoicing!
Of less importance but still high on the list of advantages is WordPress' generally more aesthetically pleasing look and feel. I think the WordPress version looks far better and more professional than the Blogger version, and judging by the poll, most of you agree (if you don't let me know). While for long term readers (especially those using RSS feed) the look of the blog is not the most important thing, for first time visitors it can make a big difference to whether they stick around, and I am willing to put up with a few functional limitations for the sake of a cleaner and more professional look.
While Blogger strips out all the formatting (except hyperlinks) when you copy text into its post editor, WordPress preserves it. Since I often compose my posts in Word and copy them into the editor, this is a huge plus, as it saves me the hassle of either: 1. Manually adding html to the post as I compose it, or 2. Manually restoring italics and other formatting after copying into the editor. WordPress also allows me to add a fold so that longer posts need not take up so much space on the main page (as I've done with this post on the WordPress version), and allows you make posts "sticky" (always at the top of the page).
WordPress version seems to load faster and more smoothly than the Blogger version.
WordPress allows much better control over categories and tags. Blogger has only one kind of label system, while WordPress has two, allowing you to put posts in broad categories which are listed at the bottom of page, and provide more specific tags which can be displayed or not (I've got it set to show just the most common tags in a cloud). Since I had collected nearly 600 labels here on Blogger, the ability to organize them in this way was a big advantage for WordPress. Perhaps even better, WordPress allows global editing of tags and categories. I can change the name of a tag once and apply it to every post I've ever used the tag on. I can also convert tags to categories and categories to tags, either individually or all at once, none of which Blogger allows.
WordPress allows pages (e.g. this one), while Blogger does not.
WordPress offers much better comment management on the back end, and just added comment threading as an option.
WordPress only shows real trackbacks, not those annoying fake ones that show up on practically every Blogger post ever since they added their new blogroll widget.

Disadvantages of WordPress Compared to Blogger:

On the other hand, WordPress places severe limitations on your ability to modify themes, and each theme determines a vast range of settings on your blog. For instance, the theme I am currently using only allows you to change the masthead image--that's it--you cannot adjust the color scheme, fonts, text size, layout, etc. In Blogger this is true to a limited extend. For instance, the template I am currently using allows me to change some aspects of the color scheme but not others, and I have no control over things like column width. But WordPress goes further, tying all sorts of other settings to the theme, like whether archives show full posts or only excerpts, or which widgets you can use. You have to pay $15 a year if you want to be able to modify the CSS, and even then you are quite limited in what you can change.
Related to this, WordPress offers a much more limited range of widgets than Blogger, and gives you much less control over the widgets themselves. For instance, the only option you have for the blogroll is to add categories. You cannot even control what order the links appear in--it is alphabetical whether you like it or not. If you want to make a separate list of links (as I have for "featured posts") you have to code it manually using the text editor, because there is no option to add a second link list besides the blogroll (at least not in this theme). Similarly, you can add a tag cloud or a categories cloud, but you have no control at all over how many search terms it will include or how to display them.
Unlike Blogger, with WordPress you are also limited to 3 GB of media; it's $20 a year if you want 5 GB more. I'm not sure how big of a deal this is yet, since it doesn't seem to count the pictures that I had already uploaded on the posts I imported from Blogger (even though it kept them), and even the YouTube video I posted this week is not being counted against my total. But I'm not sure if that is just an error--I coded it in manually rather than using the built in "add video" button, since I didn't notice that button until after I'd done it myself. In fact, the only "media" it is counting right now is the masthead image, using up a miniscule 32kb.
WordPress (or is it just the theme I chose?) doesn't allow comment previews, which may not matter to some people but to a perfectionist like me, that's kind of a big deal. In fact, you have no choice but to include the comment field on the same page as the post (Blogger lets you choose between several options).
Finally, WordPress does not allow Java. They have a work-around for YouTube and a few other things, but not for others. For instance, you cannot use GoogleAnalytics with WordPress, which is a bummer, though not a huge deal.

Annoyances:
Finally, some things that don't really fall into the advantages or disadvantages categories, but annoyed me just the same. Take them with a grain of salt as I'm certain I've run across at least as many with Blogger over the last 18 months, I've just gotten used to them and so forgotten what they were:

The Dashboard is a bit counter-intuitive, to me at least. The comment emails WordPress sends are much harder to read than those Blogger sends (but on the plus side, they only send emails for other people's comments, not your own). The built-in statistics are very limited, and for some reason they divide days based on GMT, rather than local time (I can't call this a disadvantage because Blogger does not include built-in statistics at all). You can't import WordPress back into Blogger (again, I can't call this a disadvantage because the problem is with Blogger, not with WordPress, but still--it does mean that if you switch to WordPress, there's no easy way to go back).

All in all then, I'm still pretty divided on whether I should switch. I really like the look of WordPress (at least with this particular theme), and the ability to do simple back-ups is a big deal. On the other hand, while individually none of the disadvantages are all that bad, they are not trivial. The limitations on modifying themes and widgets are probably the most annoying, though much less important to me than they would be if Blogger (with its very bland templates) imposed the same limitations. The 3GB media limit may turn out to be a bigger deal, but I don't post that many pictures anyway, and I'm not sure what all will actually be included in that total, so I'm not sure. The biggest thing is just the hassle of making people update their RSS feeds and blogrolls, but that's only temporary. Thus I am leaning towards WordPress, but I'm gonna wait a few more days before deciding and am still eager to hear your feedback.

Replacement Theology and The Return of the King

2009-02-19T10:11:00.000-08:00

I've mentioned that I'm working on a thesis on the Temple in the Gospel of John, and one of my major interests is with the "replacement" theology that pervades much of the literature on the subject.* Most previous studies and commentaries view Jesus as the replacement of the Temple, the Torah, Moses and a variety of other Jewish figures and institutions. In older studies especially, this is often part of a broad supersessionist approach that emphasizes contrast and polemic in comparing Judaism and Christianity.

A growing number of scholars, especially since the Second World War, have come to question this supersessionist approach, and now emphasize Jesus' continuity with and "fulfillment" of his Jewish predecessors, but replacement remains the default view, and polemical overtones often crop up even in those studies that emphasize fulfillment. For a variety of reasons, I think this paradigm distorts our understanding of John's--very Jewish--Gospel and distracts from his more central Christological and Theological purposes. I'll be exploring those reasons in my thesis and don't want to detail them just yet, but yesterday I was struck by an analogy that, I think, captures very well John's point as I understand it, and may be of wider interest [Updated, see Hugh's comment]:

Imagine a king went away on a journey and left ~~an emissary~~ a regent to govern in his stead. The regent is charged with reminding his people of the king's wishes and keeping them expectant of his eventual return. The regent does his job well, but when the king finally does return, it is in a manner that no one expects, and most do not recognize him as the king at all. At that point, the king's regent is, technically speaking, no longer necessary--no one needs to ask the regent about the king's wishes because they can now ask the king directly--but since the regent is one of the few who knows the king's true identity, he does continue to serve as a "witness" to that fact, valuable to those who have come to trust the regent but are not yet convinced that this late-comer is truly their king.

Now as far as the regent continues to do his job well, he becomes in a sense "obsolete," for those who do listen to him and recognize their king no longer "need" the regent, but he is not thereby "replaced" by the king, for he is and always was the king's agent. Thus, it is not a case of supersession, as when one king replaces another, for the king and his regent have always been in different categories. The regent always was a mere "witness" to the king's identity and purposes, so this is not some new change in his role after the king returns; it is rather the fulfillment of the role he was charged with from the beginning.

Such is how, I believe, John views Moses, the Torah and the Temple. As the incarnation of the one God of Israel, Jesus does not replace those "predecessors" (after all, he thinks Jesus, as the logos, predates them), nor is their status as "witnesses" (John 5) a demotion from their previous roles. Instead, John seems to be saying that this is the purpose they have always served. Jesus is not a new Moses, a new Torah or a new Temple, but the divine king to whom all three have always pointed.

*So please don't steal what I'm about to say! ;)

1000 Comments!

2009-02-18T23:53:00.000-08:00

One of the unexpected bonuses of trying WordPress this week is that it gave me a global comments total, and it just so happens that today I passed 1000. Ironically, the lucky comment was Jim's, which bluntly stated: "told ya- blogger sucks." But I'll have to disagree. Whatever my annoyances with Blogger, I can't help but be thankful for the technology (free no less!) that has enabled the numerous conversations that make up those thousand comments. Without Blogger, I would have never met the vast majority of the many people who have taken the time to stop by and leave a comment.

So of all the stats that we bloggers tend to obsess over, I have to say that this is the one I care about most. Whatever passing interest my own thoughts may warrant, and however many people read them, to my mind the main point of blogging has always been the discussions it fosters. So to all those who have commented--friend or foe--thank you very much for joining the conversation!

Bill Bailey on "Acts of God"

2009-02-18T12:29:00.000-08:00

HT: Sub Ratione Dei

What the...?

2009-02-18T12:12:00.000-08:00

Has anyone else had problems viewing my blog today?* It shows up fine in Internet Explorer, but on Firefox the main page only show the masthead and sidebar, no posts. I tried reloading, including in a new tab, several times with no luck.... But wait, now suddenly it's back and works fine... very weird.

Strange timing, too. I've been using Blogger for a year and a half and have never had any stability problems, but the same week I'm experimenting with WordPress, Blogger acts up? Is it just a coincidence, or did the import process cause some issue? Maybe it's a sign.

*Which I suppose is rather like saying: "If you're not here, raise your hand!" Oh well.

The WordPress Experiment

2009-02-17T12:06:00.000-08:00

I've decided to go ahead with a trial run on WordPress. I haven't yet decided whether I'm going to switch yet--I'm finding both unexpected bonuses, and frustrating annoyances in the new platform, so I want to live with it for a couple weeks before I commit to switching. I'll post my initial thoughts on the process and the pluses and minuses I've discovered later this week.

In any case, take a gander and tell me what you think of the WordPress version of C. Orthodoxy!

The Land of the Free, Home of the Brave

2009-02-16T22:03:00.000-08:00

I might need to rethink that point about fascism. Disgusting:

Army Private Brandon Neely served as a prison guard at Guantánamo in the first years the facility was in operation. With the Bush Administration, and thus the threat of retaliation against him, now gone, Neely decided to step forward and tell his story. “The stuff I did and the stuff I saw was just wrong,” he told the Associated Press. Neely describes the arrival of detainees in full sensory-deprivation garb, he details their sexual abuse by medical personnel, torture by other medical personnel, brutal beatings out of frustration, fear, and retribution, the first hunger strike and its causes, torturous shackling, positional torture, interference with religious practices and beliefs, verbal abuse, restriction of recreation, the behavior of mentally ill detainees, an isolation regime that was put in place for child-detainees, and his conversations with prisoners David Hicks and Rhuhel Ahmed.

I hope it turns out that he is exaggerating, but even if so, I doubt the truth is all sunshine and roses. What kind of political system makes us choose between abortion and this?

HT Catholic and Enjoying It

Second Life Article Now Available

2009-02-16T15:30:00.000-08:00

I just noticed that my article on Second Life, World of Warcraft and other "Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Games" from Salvo 3, is finally available online. They currently have it up as the featured article of the week. You can read it here.

The Worst Kind of Fascism...

2009-02-15T20:22:00.001-08:00

...is the kind that claims it's "for your own good."

Have you heard about the new law (which went into effect February 10) that criminalizes the selling or distribution of all childrens' books printed before 1985, unless each one is tested for lead. You know, to protect "the children" from lead-containing ink, which no doubt kills millions every year--wait, what?

If you're a lover of literature, read this, it'll break your heart. Apparently the American Library Association is already engaging in civil disobedience, claiming it will assume the law does not apply to them unless they hear otherwise, but many private booksellers have already destroyed their stocks in fear of the $100,000 fines mandated by the law.

Then again, Congress is looking for a way to cover that budget deficit...

*HT for the image: The Leaky Cauldron

Suddenly Christian

2009-02-14T09:12:00.000-08:00

I just recently discovered a great blog called Suddenly Christian, by author John Shore. He's thoughtful, funny and interesting, and he has a lively comments section. I've added him to the blogroll; I've also added Scotteriology and James' Thoughts and Musings, who I've been reading for a while.

In any case, John wrote a good post questioning the way many Christians adamantly insist on a "literal" reading of Paul's rejections of homosexuality, while explaining away Jesus' condemnations of wealth. He sparked a spirited debate, near the end of which one of his commenters quipped:

I have tried to find the passage of scripture that says, “Blessed are the ones who think they are smart enough to tell everyone else what’s right or wrong about themselves or what they believe,” but I have struck out thus far. I think it’s in 2nd Hesitations.

So That's How It Works!

2009-02-13T15:48:00.000-08:00

What does it say about me that this makes perfect sense (HT Sporadic Maunderings):

*Actually, computers (and all other mechanical devices) are inhabited by tiny little elves and gremlins who control all the machines functions.*

I envision it as a tiny monkey (maybe like one of those golden lion tamarind that look like little bearded old men) inside my hard drive furiously switching wires like a 1940's-era phone operator. Sometimes he gets tangled up. Other times, you tell him to unplug something but he can't get the plug out and he's in there with his little feet planted against the wall of the drive, yanking for all he's worth.

Happy Darwin Day...

2009-02-12T12:46:00.000-08:00

So, as I'm sure the whole world knows, today is Charles Darwin's 200th birthday. No doubt, the 'net is crowded with tributes to his genius and attacks on those who continue to doubt his theory, all of which is understandable. But I find it all rather bemusing. No one celebrates "Einstein Day" or "Newton Day" or even "Plato Day," despite the fact that all of those men have surely had at least as great an impact on our understanding of how the world works as Darwin has.

I'm sure part of the difference is that there is no concerted effort to deny the insights of those others (well, except maybe Plato!), whereas evolution remains under constant attack. Still, the excessive devotion paid to Darwin the man, and even to his theory, seems quite out of keeping with repeated claims to only be interested in Science™. For a great many people, evolution is clearly perceived as much more than a scientific explanation, however well supported--it forms the foundation for their whole worldview.

So I can't help but laugh at the fuss over Darwin Day, but in the end, I do think his theory is both largely correct and fascinating, so despite my bemusement here's my favorite quote from the man himself. It's only a shame this observation gets obscured by so many of the debates over evolution:

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.

Blogger vs. Wordpress?

2009-02-12T12:08:00.000-08:00

Lately I've been thinking about switching this blog from Blogger to Wordpress. There are a number of reasons--e.g. Wordpress seems more flexible and I prefer the "feel" of it--but foremost among them is the need to keep a back-up of the blog. As I've now got over 350 posts, with numerous helpful comment discussions among them, I'd be very upset if a server error, hacker or some other catastrophe wiped all of that out. But Blogger makes it very difficult to back up your blog directly. The third party programs I've tried are intolerably slow and I'm not even sure I'd be able to use the data they collect if I ever needed it. Wordpress, on the other hand, can be set to send you backups automatically, and also allows you to create and use them manually, with little trouble.

The big thing holding me back is the fear of losing my work in the process of trying to save it: As I understand it, you can transfer posts from Blogger to Wordpress fairly easily, or so they say, and supposedly it is also possible to transfer comments, but a lot of people seem to have problems with that, so I'm not sure. If I can't transfer both posts and comments reliably, then its not worth switching to me. But even if I can do so without headaches, transferring to a new platform would require a fair amount of work, it would wipe out all my incoming links and google traffic, and it would force people to update their readers, blogrolls, etc., so I'm not eager to do it unless there is a significant benefit to be had.

So I'm wondering: those of you who have used both Blogger and Wordpress, or switched from one to the other (and I know this is true of at least a few of my readers), do you think it would be worth switching over, why or why not? If so, any advice on how to go about it?

Those Creepy Dollhouse Ads

2009-02-11T10:34:00.000-08:00

I'm a big fan of director Joss Wheden, but his work always seems to get screwed up at some point along the way. For instance, Firefly had the potential to be one of the best sci-fi series ever made, but then FOX messed with its schedule and canceled it. In the end, we got Serenity out of it, which is one of my favorite movies, but it's a crime that the show never really got a chance. On the other hand, with no network to blow it, I also really enjoyed Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog--until it jumped the shark in the third installment.

Thus I've been looking forward to Whedon's new series Dollhouse, which premiers this Friday on FOX, but I can't help but have a bad feeling that they are gonna screw this up too (why, oh why would he go back to FOX?!). Still, the premise sounds fascinating: It's about a company that reprograms its employees to do whatever jobs its clients wish--raising all sorts of interesting questions about human nature, free will and determinism, good and evil, etc.

But those ads! For the last couple weeks I keep running across these creepy advertisements (e.g. on Technorati) with the lead actress naked and surrounded by photographs or mirrors or whatever. I get that they are trying to highlight the way she is being exploited by the Dollhouse--thus, the images I've seen are not really sexual--but yuk! I hope this isn't the tone they are going to set in the show as a whole, or I may not be watching it long. Has any one else seen these?

Christian Carnival CCLXIII

2009-02-11T10:23:00.000-08:00

Assuming I remember my roman numerals, I think that's the 258th Christian Carnival, hosted this week at the Evangelical Ecologist (a good blog about environmental issues from a Christian perspective). It includes my post on "engaging culture."

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine...

2009-02-09T16:38:00.000-08:00

Sorry about the title, but after listening to Obama's press conference tonight and reading various criticisms of the economic stimulus package, that about sums up my feelings about the economic crisis. To be honest, I completely lack the economic expertize to pontificate on such matters, and am not even interested in linking to those who claim them. But I did run across a couple of interesting posts in the last couple days that focus on an aspect of these issues that does interest me: how our collective reactions to such crises reflect our views on human nature, and how that should impact our decision-making.

First, Charlie Lehardy has a great post on the concept of "moral hazard" and its impact on the current economic situation. Second, Chris Schelin has some good reflections on the subject of "peak oil"--an issue that is currently less visible than the recession, but may in the long run prove more important--particularly the way overly optimistic and pessimistic views of humanity tend to dominate such debates. Both posts offer some helpful observations from a lay-persons' perspective.

Quote - Seeing Through the Bible

2009-02-07T12:27:00.000-08:00

Henry Ward Beecher (HT Creation of an Evolutionist):

The Bible is like a telescope. If a man looks through his telescope, then he sees worlds beyond; but if he looks at his telescope, then he does not see anything but that. The Bible is a thing to be looked through, to see that which is beyond.

Enganging Culture Means All Culture--Not Just What's Hip

2009-02-06T10:06:00.000-08:00

Owen Strackan gets it exactly right (HT Christ and Pop Culture):

Readers of this blog will know that I want to “engage culture” even as I want to be what is often called “incarnational.” But as some are increasingly pointing out (see pastor Kevin DeYoung’s hilarious and correct post on this topic), engaging culture does not mean that one must own a Mac, listen to Sufjan Stevens, Bob Dylan, and Bon Iver, watch CNN, listen contemplatively to NPR, drink local-brand coffee only, and cultivate stylish facial hair.

One may be engaging culture with these sorts of life choices. If so, terrific! But isn’t one also engaging culture, so to speak, by listening to Hank Williams, eating at Wendy’s (note: I do not encourage this), and seeking to witness at the local truck stop? Are these things not “culture” that we should engage? Or is “culture” only what is branded cool by the upwardly mobile?

It seems to me that many of us have become so concerned about distancing ourselves from fundamentalism that we have abandoned the low-brow culture entirely. We tell ourselves that this is part of our witness--that we want to show that Christianity doesn't have to be ignorant and backwards-looking--but the truth is, we've grown comfortable with our "upwardly mobile" lifestyle and don't want to give it up. Jesus commanded us to "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me," but it's a lot easier to pamper yourself, take up your Starbucks and follow what's cool.

Kings

2009-02-05T20:22:00.001-08:00

I'm very curious where they're gonna go with this (HT In the Open Space):

As Carmen notes, for some reason Internet Explorer crashes when you try to embed this video (another reason to hate Microsoft, I guess). Firefox worked to embed it, but hopefully it won't crash IE browsers who simply access the blog.

Theological Vice and Virtue

2009-02-02T10:32:00.001-08:00

A couple weeks back, Ben Myers posted a tongue-in-cheek list of theological vices, for instance:

1. As a theological student, your aim is to accumulate opinions – as many as you can, and as fast as possible. (Exceptional students may acquire all their opinions within the first few weeks; others require an entire semester.)... If at first you don’t feel much conviction for these new opinions, just be patient: within twelve months you will be a staunch advocate, and you’ll even be able to help new students acquire the same opinions.

Today he posted his corresponding list of theological virtues, including:

6. Love: Theological formation should be driven by a love for truth, not by animosity towards untruth. Truthful theology always involves polemics – but since truth takes form as love, it can never be used as a weapon to wound another person. Where this occurs, truth becomes a falsehood....

9. Truth: Ambition for the comfort and respectability of a career is a deadly temptation which the theological student must resist. One can serve the idol of career only by compromising the call to speak the truth – that is, by sacrificing one’s entire theological vocation. Theological education is not about garnering academic favour, nor about treading the eggshells of correctness and respectability; it is about loving the truth and speaking the truth faithfully, while “taking no thought for tomorrow” (Matt. 6:34).

10. Prayer: Prayer is the theologian’s most fitting and most distinctive activity. A theologian who does not pray is a grotesque aberration – like a literary scholar who doesn’t read, or a music teacher who cannot play an instrument. Above all else, “the theologian is the one who prays” (St Evagrius).

If, like me, you need the reminder, do check out his lists.

It's Easier If We Pretend They Don't Exist

2009-01-31T11:53:00.000-08:00

~~James Pate~~ ProgressiveChurchlady notes a piece on the practice of "hiding" the homeless during major events, which is doublespeak for arresting them for being an eyesore. It seems that with the Super Bowl this weekend, Tampa Bay has joined the long list of cities to sweep for vagrants and lock them in jail while the crowds have their fun.

Instead of dealing with the problem directly--which would require admitting the numerous ways we dehumanize and disenfranchise the homeless--we cart them off and pretend then don't exist.

The Problem with Literalism - Again

2009-01-28T15:53:00.000-08:00

HT ~~a fellow grad student~~ apparently, Scott Bailey.

The Carnival is Back in Town

2009-01-28T09:37:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since I've been in one of these, but my post on FOCA is included in this week's Christian Carnival, hosted at Ignorant Historian.

Atheist Bus (Stop) Campaign

2009-01-27T23:20:00.000-08:00

HT A Work in Progress via Friendly Atheist and James McGrath

Abortion and Teenage Pregnancy By State

2009-01-25T20:56:00.000-08:00

For those who have not been following the comments on my recent post on the Freedom of Choice Act, an objection was raised that restrictions on abortion merely trade a lower abortion rate for a higher rate of teenage pregnancy. Now those who believe abortion is murder might think that a reasonable trade--the lesser of two evils and all--but even if so, it is hardly an ideal situation. Better by far would be to reduce both teenage pregnancy and abortion, and a truly pro-life position must not ignore the negative consequences of its actions. Thus N. Adam claims the pro-life acceptance of this trade-off is one more instance of our "caring more about the welfare of the unborn than the born."

In support of such a claim, it can be pointed out that most of those states with the highest teenage birth rates are in the South, and many of these are Red states. These numbers are a bit skewed, however, by the fact that a high abortion rate can mask a similarly high pregnancy rate. Still, even when comparing overall teenage pregnancy rates, it is clear that the South is not doing well. According to the Guttmach Institute (an arm of Planned Parenthood; figures are for 2000, the latest I can find), the five states with the highest teenage pregnancy rates per 1000 girls are (with Abortion rank and percentage):

1. Nevada: Pregnancy rate 113/1000 (Abortion: 4th highest; 36%)
2. Arizona: 104 (A 19th; 21%)
3. Mississippi: 103 (A 28th; 16%)
4. New Mexico: 103 (A 18th; 22%)
5. Texas: 101 (A 26th; 17%)

Nevertheless, the fact that these are all in the South, and include some states with pro-choice policies (e.g. Guttmacher ranks New Mexico the 6th best for "efforts to help women avoid unplanned pregnancy") strongly points to a cultural factor--this is clearly not just a matter of access to contraception and abortion or even "Red vs. Blue." Thus, some very Red and very anti-abortion Midwestern states (like the Dakotas) are among the lowest in pregnancy and birth rates: North Dakota has the best overall teenage pregnancy rate (42/1000) and the 3rd best abortion rate (8%); South Dakota has the 7th best pregnancy rate (54/1000) and the 2nd best abortion rate (7%).

These numbers are also skewed by the fact that abortion restrictions and contraception restrictions (too) often go hand-in-hand, especially in the South. So if we want to get a better idea of the impact of abortion restrictions themselves--and thus the likely impact of FOCA's passage, which would eliminate all such restrictions--we should instead look at the rankings for highest abortion percentages, and here the claim that increased access to abortion lowers teenage pregnancy rates collapses in ruin. According the Guttmacher Institute's own numbers, the five states with the highest teenage abortion rates are all among the top 16 highest teenage pregnancy rates, and all are Blue states (with overall teenage pregnancy rank and rate/1000 girls):

1. New Jersey: 47% Abortion rate (Pregnancy rank 16th highest; 90/1000)
2. New York: 46% (P 14th; 91)
3. Maryland: 38% (P 13th; 91)
4. Nevada: 36% (P 1st; 113)
5. California: 36% (P 7th; 96)

Predictably, four of these states have very permissive abortion laws (California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey; Nevada is something of an exception, and in fact is not clearly Blue, though it went for Obama). More surprisingly, and according to Guttmacher, three of the four provide excellent access to contraception and related services: California (1st), New York (5th) and Maryland (12th) are all in Guttmacher's top 12, though Nevada (34) and New Jersey (43!) get low scores. In other words, these states have some of the best access to abortion and contraception but not only have very high abortion rates (predictably), but also have consistently higher teenage pregnancy rates. In contrast, the five states with the lowest abortion rates are all among those with the 25 lowest teenage pregnancy rates:

46. West Virginia 10% abortion rate (Pregnancy rank 35th; 67/1000)
47. Kentucky 8% (P 25th; 76)
48. North Dakota 8% (P 50th; 42)
49. South Dakota 7% (P 44th; 54)
50. Utah 6% (P 45th; 53)

Note that this does not just measure overall numbers of abortion, but the abortion rate per pregnancy. In other words, Utah, South Dakota and North Dakota are not just low on the list because they have few pregnancies; they have the fewest pregnancies and the smallest percentages of those pregnancies end in abortion. Four of these five states have in place the very laws FOCA would eliminate (West Virginia is the exception).

Now clearly there is much more involved in these differences in teenage pregnancy and abortion rates than a few parental consent laws. There are, very obviously, strong cultural differences that no laws (for or against abortion) can eliminate. Thus, it is often rightly pointed out that, even if criminalized, many women would still seek abortions (though clearly this is more true in certain parts of the country than others). But the opposite is also true: even where abortion is legal, it can remain rare if the culture continues to view it as objectionable (as in parts of the Midwest), and this by no means needs to lead to higher pregnancy rates. In short, and as I have emphasized on numerous occasions, it is not the laws that need fixing so much as people's hearts and minds. So long as we pretend that casual sex and abortion can be morally neutral and consequence free, we will have states like New Jersey and New York with extremely high abortion and teenage pregnancy rates.

But at the same time, it can hardly be an accident that four of the five states with the highest rates of abortion already have FOCA like laws on the books and yet still are among the worst in teenage pregnancy, while four of the five states with the the lowest abortion rates have the very kinds of laws FOCA would repeal and some of the best rates of teenage pregnancy. All of which renders very problematic the claim that restricting access to abortion inevitably leads to higher rates of teenage pregnancy. If anything, the opposite seems to be the case.

What Does It Mean to Be Bi-Partisan?

2009-01-25T14:35:00.000-08:00

Henry Neufeld has an excellent post on the subject:

In my view bipartisanship means honestly listening to one another, and cooperating across party lines wherever that will work. There are two things to avoid: 1) Bickering, grandstanding, and other such tactics and 2) Compromising away your principles. I think both of these things should be avoided diligently and equally.

When two politicians disagree on a substantive issue of principle, debate it out openly and honestly, and then end up voting against one another, I regard that as good civic responsibility. When the same politicians waffle around until they find some mushy compromise, I call that dishonesty and cowardice.

Read the whole thing.

BSG - "A Disquiet Follows My Soul"

2009-01-24T10:18:00.001-08:00

The title of last night's episode of Battlestar Galactica aptly summarizes my feelings about where the show seems to be heading. Is their goal to prove that real heroes do not exist, that even the "best" are thoroughly corrupt? Where is the courage and hope? Left in the ashes of Earth, it seems. Along with the fleet, I have no idea where they are going anymore, and I'm not sure we'll like it when they get there (spoilers follow).

But despite all the "disquiet," this episode did explore some interesting ideas about the nature of humanity. In particular, it brought to the fore an issue that has underlain much of the series: the "humanity" of the Cylons. The Final Five Cylons have been revealed and have formed an alliance with the humans, and now they want to be treated as equals, full citizens with all the rights and protections that entails. Nor is their argument without merit. Are they not people too?

As is graphically illustrated by the scene in which Colonel Tigh and the Six first see the ultrasound of their unborn child, these "machines" are flesh and blood too, thinking and feeling people just like the rest of us. No, they were not born--as far as we can tell they are clones--but is that really relevant? Is it only one's birth that defines one's identity? As the movie Hellboy once put it, it's not one's origins that "make a man a man," but rather "the choices he makes. Not how he starts things, but how he decides to end them."

Yet that is just the problem, according to Felix Gaeta and many others in the fleet, who rightfully ask: Are these not the same Cylons who only four years ago destroyed the colonies--incinerating billions of people? Are these not the same Cylons who oppressed, imprisoned, tortured and executed many of the last survivors on New Caprica? Are these not the same Cylons who chased the remnant of humanity across half the galaxy, only finally giving up their war of extermination when they learned the Final Five were among them? Are these not the same Cylons who, only days ago it seems, threatened to nuke the whole human fleet if they refused to hand over the Five? But now--now that Earth is a wasteland and all hope seems lost--now the Cylons feel as frightened and alone as the humans. Now they want protection. Now they claim to have turned over a new leaf and want to be treated as equals. Is that justice? Is Gaeta wrong to insist that "someday soon there will be a reckoning"? Should we just forget the past with all its victims and join in a round of Kum Ba Yah?

If the Cylons are guilty as sin, however, their newfound desire to be treated as humanity's equal is not as out of place as it might seem, for there is little sign of righteousness among the Colonials either. They too have tortured and executed, imprisoned and enslaved, even coldly slaughtered their Cylon enemies. It wasn't long ago that these very humans and these very Cylons attacked and destroyed the resurrection hub, killing thousands instantly and condemning all Cylons everywhere to death. It may even turn out that it was humans who destroyed the Cylon "Earth" 2000 years ago. "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again."

And if this is true of humanity in general, it is also true of our "heroes," each and every one of whom has a closet full of too many skeletons to name. Gaeta himself, as revealed in the recent webisodes, is hardly a picture of virtue, aiding the Cylon pogrom during the occupation of New Caprica, attempting to kill Gaius Baltar and an Eight for reminding him of that treason, and now plotting mutiny on Galactica. Even Cally Tyrol--probably the cleanest character in the whole series until Tory flushed her out an airlock for discovering they were Cylons--has now been revealed as unfaithful: it turns out Nicholas is not Tyrol's child after all; she got pregnant by another man just before they got married, tried to get an (illegal) abortion, then changed her mind and lied about who the father was.

After all of this has come to light, however, Gaius Baltar--Gaius Baltar--has the audacity to blame God for the evil that has befallen them:

Baltar: What manner of forgiveness are you seeking? Is it that of disobedient children?... Are you all just children who transgressed against your Father's demands?
Crowd: No, we've done nothing wrong.
Baltar: Are you being punished for your multitude of sins? Are you?
Crowd: No!
Baltar: Is this really our lot? To have been lead, by a father, to the promised land? To paradise? Only to have paradise cruelly smashed to bits before our very eyes? Are these the actions of a father towards his children?
Crowd: No! It's not right!
Baltar: What have you done to deserve this punishment? What sins have you committed to condemn you--condemn you!--to wander through the universe, without hope, without light? So you have to ask yourselves, what kind of a father abandons his own children to despair and loneliness? Perhaps we are not the ones in need of forgiveness! Perhaps we are not. Perhaps we have been wronged! Perhaps it is God who should come down here and beg for our forgiveness!

Coming from Gaius Baltar--the most narcissistic, self-serving, morally bankrupt character of all, the very man who enabled the Cylons to wipe out the colonies, collaborated with them on New Caprica, and now leads a sex-cult on Galactica--this outburst of indignant blasphemy is deeply ironic, and made all the more so when it is immediately followed by a fight between Tyrol and the real father of Cally's child. It seems that Cylons and humans can't even stop fighting long enough to blame God for their troubles.

I wonder, if God really did come down, who among them would deserve to stand in his presence? But more to the point: Will God come down anyway, and will there be any redemption on offer if he does? Is there any hope at the end of this story, or is BSG content to leave us with the despair of a meaningless and Godless universe?

I'm a Fundamentalist, You're a Fundamentalist, We're All Fundamentalists...

2009-01-23T15:18:00.001-08:00

From a humorous post over at Inhabitatio Dei:

The third kind of fundamentalist is what we might call the ubiquitous fundamentalist. This sort of fundamentalist is someone who strongly believes a fairly large number of things and, as such, gets in arguments with other such fundamentalists who believe different things. The reason this sort of fundamentalist is termed ubiquitous is because every single person in the world is one of them. You, me, that guy over there. Her? Her.

Quote - Smallville

2009-01-22T21:51:00.000-08:00

From tonight's episode of Smallville:

Saving someone, truly saving them, is not about knocking them out and throwing them in a dark room; it's about helping them find their way back to the right side.

Abortion, Infant Mortality and the Freedom of Choice Act

2009-01-21T21:05:00.000-08:00

N. Adam left the following comment on my last post. Given that tomorrow is the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I wanted to provide a full response here:

[I]t is rather curious how a site like the one you've linked to [here] can be so opposed to abortion and embryonic stem cell research on moral standing alone, yet (according to my google searches) have absolutely nothing meaningful to say about the horrible infant morality rate in the US and the fact that we have tens of millions of children [who] are currently without healthcare.

It's a fair observation, and similar to the one Timothy Mills made a while back. As I responded to Timothy, there is a very clear distinction to be made between intentional and unintentional death, whereby it is hardly illegitimate to focus one's primary attention on the former. But the issue is even clearer in this case. The site N. Adam refers to is specifically focused on a fighting a particular piece of legislation, the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), so it can hardly be blamed for failing to address issues not connected with FOCA, as infant mortality is not.

A more important question, then, is whether fighting FOCA itself is a worthwhile cause, or whether our time ought better to be spent fighting the "horrible" rate of infant mortality in the United States. Sadly, that is easily answered: the US infant mortality rate is the 28th worst in the world, more than twice as high as some other developed nations. In short, infant mortality (and the poor education and health care that contribute to it) absolutely should be a concern to all of us. Nevertheless, in the US this amounts to less than 28,000 deaths a year, whereas abortion currently takes 1,200,000 lives a year. I'm no math wiz, but I'm pretty sure 1.2 million is more than 28 thousand.

But that is only half the issue, for we are not talking about which of those numbers are more important to reduce; we are talking about a bill that would very likely increase the number of abortions performed in this country. If made law, FOCA would eliminate all state and local restrictions on abortion, including partial birth abortion bans, parental consent laws, waiting periods, and many other restrictions which have already been found constitutional by the Supreme Court. There is also concern that the bill might supersede the Hyde Amendment, which currently restricts federal funding for abortions, and many believe it would force religious health care providers (such as Catholic hospitals) to perform abortions or close their doors. In short, FOCA would reduce or eliminate all limitations on abortion, and would almost certainly increase the total number performed annually, as has been the case in those states, like Maryland, which have passed similar legislation (for fuller discussions of the likely impact of this legislation go here and here).

As a Senator, President Obama was a co-sponsor of the bill, and once vowed that "the first thing" he would do as President would be to sign it. Thus, while there are many things about Obama that I like, I am thankful that so far he has not kept that promise (in fact, I'm quite impressed by the legislation he did choose to sign first), and I sincerely pray that he is never able to do so.

To return to N. Adam's observation, then, I do not find it the least bit curious that the site I linked should focus its attention squarely on abortion; it is, after all, called FightFOCA. But more fundamentally, I fail to see why it should seem strange that the pro-life movement generally focuses more attention on abortion than infant death, given that the US infant mortality rate is only 6.9 per 1000 live births, while the abortion rate is currently 19.4%, or about 194 per 1000 known pregnancies (the lowest rate since Roe v. Wade).

Now imagine you lived in a country where theft had been legal for 36 years, and because of this, pick-pocketing had become quite pervasive: 194 out of every 1000 people in this hypothetical country have their wallets stolen, while 7 out of every 1000 people lose their wallets by accident. Now imagine that various pro-Picking organizations argue vehemently that to outlaw the practice would not stop people from stealing; it would only make life more dangerous for those who choose to steal. This argument has convinced the Supreme Court of this hypothetical country, but various states within it have been unimpressed by the rhetoric and passed laws to limit theft where possible. Now imagine that these laws seem to be working--pickpocketing is at its lowest level since theft became legal, except in those few states which passed their own Freedom of Picking Acts, in which the rate of pickpocketing has continued to increase.

Now imagine the country elected a man who said "the first thing" he would do upon entering office would be to pass legislation to repeal all those local restrictions on theft and even force tax-payers and religious organizations to support the practice. Would you find it strange if a group of the citizens of that country formed an organization intent on fighting that new legislation? Would you find it odd if their website failed to devote equal attention to the 7 people per 1000 who lose their wallets accidentally, as they devote to the 194 people per 1000 who are robbed?

Don't misunderstand me, I for one believe that a truly pro-life view absolutely must care as much about the born as the unborn (if not more). I've argued again and again that the current dichotomy over such issues is nothing but harmful. But no one that I know of is trying to make infant mortality "safe, legal and rare." No one I know of wants to reduce health care for children. Unfortunately, our new President does want to eliminate state and local laws which reduce abortion, and I for one will not stand by and say nothing. I'm thankful that the 500,000 other signers of the FightFOCA petition feel the same.

A Good Choice

2009-01-20T21:16:00.000-08:00

HT Mark Shea.

Congratulations Obama! Thank you for your efforts to raise the level of civility and optimism in our nation and around the world. Thank you for your hopeful and bi-partisan approach, as evidenced by your cabinet appointments and Inaugural address. I pray that you truly are able to lead us to a brighter future. That said, while there are many campaign promises that I hope you are able to keep, there is one in particular that I very much hope you are not.

Happy Martin Luther King Jr Day!

2009-01-19T11:27:00.000-08:00

Full text of the speech here.

UPDATE: Matt Kelley offers some excellent reflections on another of King's speeches, which is perhaps even more relevant than the above. Do click through and read it (HT James McGrath's reader).

Battlestar Galactica - Sometimes a Great Notion

2009-01-17T21:03:00.000-08:00

What would you do if all your hopes fell to ashes. How would you respond if all your dreams of heaven turned into hell? Such are the questions put to our long-suffering heroes in last night's episode of Battlestar Galactica. Unfortunately, the unmitigated despair we got for an answer was far from inspiring. We waited a year for this?

It's probably not a good sign that my wife's reaction was: "Do we really have to sit through nine more episodes of this? Can't they just answer our questions and be done with it?" The best thing about BSG has always been the story it told, but after last night I've lost the plot. Even the answers they finally gave were depressing, especially the anticlimactic identification of the final Cylon. I'm not sure what was worse: Who they picked, or the admission that they only decided at the end of last season. The Cylons had a plan; did the writers?

Still, as Carmen Anders notes, BSG has given us some dark and dreary episodes in the past, and they always paved the way for something better. If all seems lost now, that doesn't mean it will end that way, and really, we could hardly have expected sunshine and puppy dogs after all that has happened. Our characters have been hanging their hopes on Earth for years now, and to finally get there and find it worse than what they left could hardly fail to devastate them. It's not a fun way to begin the final episodes of the series, but it was brutally honest.

On that score I particularly liked the brief scene when Adama was walking to Tigh's quarters with a loaded gun, as Galactica's crew fell to pieces around him--it perfectly revealed his loss of control and concern. I also agree with Barbara Nicolosi that Dualla's and Kara's storylines were particularly well done. They were shocking, but made a certain terrible sense in retrospect.

So in the end, I still have hope for Galactica, but I'm not sure what I'll do if it comes to nothing.

Quote - Nietzsche on Christian Faith

2009-01-15T14:47:00.001-08:00

From Friedrich Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil (translated by Helen Zimmern):

The Christian faith from the beginning, is sacrifice: the sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of spirit.... Modern men, with their obtuseness as regards all Christian nomenclature, have no longer the sense for the terribly superlative conception which was implied to an antique taste by the paradox of the formula, "God on the Cross." Hitherto there had never and nowhere been such boldness in inversion, nor anything at once so dreadful, questioning, and questionable as this formula: it promised the transvaluation of all ancient values. (pg. 34 Dover Thrift Edition)

Three Cheers for Continuum and T&T Clark!

2009-01-15T11:12:00.000-08:00

Last month I mentioned that I'd won the Continuum/T&T Clark give-away at SBL. Well the books arrived today and I'm pleased to announce that they even exceeded my expectations. Not only did they let me choose $250 worth of free books, but they even let me take them at the conference price! These are the volumes I chose:

Paula Gooder The Pentateuch (retail $40)
James Charlesworth Resurrection: The Origins and Future of a Biblical Doctrine ($35)
Larry Hurtado One God, One Lord: New Edition ($50)
Loren Stuckenbruck (ed.) Early Christian and Jewish Monotheism ($84)
Mark Goodacre The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze ($35)
Stephen Um The Theme of Temple Christology in John's Gospel ($168)
John Day (ed.) Temple and Worship in Biblical Israel ($50)
Total retail value: $462

So let me give a hearty Hip Hip Hurray! to Continuum and T&T Clark!

By the way, they also have a blog here.

(P.S. I normally dislike these kinds of "look what I got!" posts when I see them on other blogs, but I didn't want to let this pass without giving Continuum/T&T Clark the thanks they deserve!)

Top 100 Theology Blogs

2009-01-13T21:27:00.000-08:00

Wow, apparently someone at ChristianColleges.com has good taste (or bad eyesight), and included C. Orthodoxy in its list of the Top 100 Theology Blogs, in the Society & Culture category. Now I feel like I ought to be writing theology or something. Then again, if I did, they might realize I'm a heretic and kick me off! ;)

All kidding aside, it's a great list, including a bunch of people I follow and quite a few I need to. Check it out!

Children, Avert Your Eyes!

2009-01-07T13:27:00.000-08:00

Oh dear:

HT Exploring Our Matrix and Sub Ratione Dei

Quote - Richard Longenecker on Apostolic Exegesis

2009-01-05T06:05:00.000-08:00

Richard Longenecker in Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (as with most things I quote, I could quibble over some details, but it's a good summary):

There is a great deal that was held in common by the earliest Christian preachers and the New Testament writers in their use of Scripture.... All treated the biblical text with some degree of freedom, believing that from among the various textual traditions then current they could do something of textual criticism on a theological basis since they knew the conclusion to which that biblical testimony was pointing. All seem prepared to employ not only biblical citations but also, to a limited extent, statements of truth found outside the canon, whether of Jewish, pagan or uncertain origin. And all of them, most importantly, worked from the same two fixed points: (1) the messiahship and lordship of Jesus, as validated by the resurrection and witnessed to by the Spirit; and (2) the revelation of God in the Old Testament as pointing forward to Jesus. Thus their perspective was avowedly christocentric and their treatment thoroughly christological. (pgs. 189-90)

Reading the Bible in Context--But What Context?

2009-01-04T20:30:00.000-08:00

Recently, John Hobbins of Ancient Hebrew Poetry called my blog "Christian postmodern," which puzzled me at first, but I suppose makes sense in light of various things I've said around here, not least in my sidebar and this post. The ~~problem with~~ nice thing about a label like "postmodern" is that it's ambiguous enough to take however I want--in this case I'll go with "hip and unconventional"--but since others may define the term differently, I wanted to clarify my position, particularly regarding how I understand biblical interpretation:

To many, "a postmodern doctrine of Scripture" (John's phrase) means a reading cut off from its original context, based on the assumption that meaning and truth are flexible and necessarily imposed by the reader. Thus you might have a feminist, post-colonial or vegan reading of a text, with little concern at all for whether such a thing was intended by the original "author." Now, on the one hand, I do have a great deal of sympathy for such an approach. The very fact that the Bible has been written and rewritten, collected and interpreted through numerous different contexts--from bronze age nomadic tribes to Imperial Rome and beyond--suggests that flexibility and reapplication are inherent to its very nature, as I suggested in the post linked above.

In fact, it is not at all clear to me that the authors of the New Testament themselves felt restricted to the "original intended meaning" in their own interpretation of the Scriptures they treasured, so why should we? They clearly believed that more recent events and knowledge, especially the life and death of Jesus but also including broader political and cultural realities, set their scriptures in new and quite unexpected light. Nor is it easy to see why such a process had to end with the New Testament authors. Thus, I not only think it is appropriate to ask new questions of Scripture, but such may even be demanded by the text itself. After all, is "the word of God living and active" (Heb 4:12), or only dull and lifeless? Doesn't Paul say we have been given "a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit" (2 Cor 3:6)?

But clearly that can only be half the story, for why bother reading in the first place if you are not willing to hear what someone else has to say? If we only bring our own questions and perspectives to the text, there is little point in reading at all, and almost no chance of reading well. This is especially the case when dealing with an ancient document like the Bible, which derives from a very different cultural context. As John's post makes clear in the case of Jeremiah 7:22, ignorance of the original context inevitably leads to distorted understandings of the text, and this is hardly excusable simply because our interests lie elsewhere. Thus, even if it is legitimate and even necessary to go beyond the text, such can only be done responsibly after we have made every effort to understand it on its own terms.

More fundamentally, has not the primary purpose of preserving and reinterpreting scripture precisely been to face these new situations in ways that are faithful to, or at least aware of, what has gone before? If it is appropriate for us to ask new questions, then, we must also learn to hear anew the questions the text itself was intended to ask and answer, as these are often enough not questions we ourselves are likely to ask. If we are not willing to do that, we might as well ignore the text altogether and focus our attention elsewhere.

Ultimately, I don't think there is just one legitimate context in which scripture is to be interpreted. Rather, there is a necessary tension between our own varied contexts and the "original" context of scripture. To read the Bible faithfully is to live into that tension, allowing our questions (and answers) to shape and be shaped by those of our predecessors, to learn from our tradition even if we refuse to be trapped by it.

Bumper Sticker Wisdom

2009-01-03T12:46:00.000-08:00

Seen next to an Obama sticker (make of that what you will):

Don't Believe Everything You Think

12+ Best Links of 2008

2009-01-03T00:02:00.000-08:00

Sherry at Semicolon had the great idea to compile the twelve best things she linked in 2008 (naturally, the fact that she included one of my posts has nothing to do with why I like the idea!). Anyway here are my twelve (plus) favorite links from 2008, in chronological order:

Be Grateful, It's Your Birthday, by Julie Grisolano, is easily the most thoughtful and moving article about the impact of abortion that I read last year. Please read it, then consider signing this.

Equally heartbreaking is Sex and Scandal at Duke from Rolling Stone. It's an older article (written in 2006), but still well worth a read.

On a lighter note, there's Hell Abolished, God Adopts Gold Sticker System at The Wittenburg Door, which also wins the prize for most comments I've ever seen on a post (5441!).

Kim Fabricius, who is always worth your time, is at his very best in this paradoxical sermon: Lose Your Faith.

On another note, with the final episodes of Battlestar Galactica premiering in less than two weeks (!!), this is still the best post I've seen on the mid-season finale: Battlestar Galactica Provides Earth-Shattering 'Revelations' (major spoiler warning).

Next is another from The Wittenburg Door, but this one is more substantial (but still funny): Joe Bob Parties With the Atheists.

Steven Greydanus posted an excellent article on good, evil and the supernatural in recent film, at Christianity Today: Hellboy, Evil and the Cross.

Two for one: Nick Milne posted the most comprehensive of the many responses to P.Z. Myers' desecration of the Eucharist, the Quran, and a copy of The God Delusion, while Francis Beckwith offered perhaps the most succinct summary of my own view of the debacle.

And back to the fluff, there's Five O'Clock People, whose latest CD is still awesome, and still maddeningly unavailable; listen to it here.

Back to the meat, and another double-dip, here's a thought-provoking article at The Other Journal on Why Every Christian Should 'Quite Rightly Pass for an Atheist', and the response: On What Could Quite Rightly Pass for a Fetish.

Halden at Inhabitatio Dei wrote an outstanding post on Moral Equivalence, War, and Abortion.

Alan Knox had an excellent and humorous series on Scripture... As We Live it.

And finally--a bonus--my favorite comic of 2008 (from xkcd):

Evan Almighty

2009-01-01T22:54:00.000-08:00

I saw Evan Almighty again tonight and and enjoyed it quite a bit more than the first time. I tend to dislike movies where, if they were remotely realistic, everything would end badly, and you keep waiting for the other shoe to drop. So here we have a newly elected U.S. Congressman going to seed, followed around by wild animals, and shouting about a flood and how God told him to build an ark. There's simply no way this is going to end well, or maintain any believability if it does. Nor does the film itself provide a convincing resolution to the mess--I'm pretty sure that even if everything could happen as it did in the movie, the authorities would be more likely to believe Evan sabotaged the dam than that God actually warned him of the danger. And I'm certain that any flood that could carry a boat right up to the Capitol Building would destroy most of Washington D.C. in the process.

But whatever. This time I knew what to expect and so wasn't as distracted by the absurdities and just enjoyed it as a humorous parable about a man far too concerned with outward appearances with whom God has some fun, and uses to do some good. And as a parable, it works pretty well (for instance, see Carmen's excellent observations here). What I especially like about it, however, is its exploration of how God answers prayer. On one side, of course, the movie is full of instances of direct, miraculous, acts of God, but on the other hand, it suggests that God's usual practice is much more subtle and personal:

Let me ask you something. If someone prays for patience, you think God gives them patience? Or does he give them the opportunity to be patient? If he prayed for courage, does God give him courage, or does he give him opportunities to be courageous? If someone prayed for their family to be closer, do you think God zaps them with warm fuzzy feelings, or does he give them opportunities to love each other?

Ultimately, and as I've said before, God is less interested in fixing our circumstances than he is in fixing us--making us into the kind of people who live for and love one another, regardless of our circumstances. Yet it is still we who must choose how to live in each circumstance. Though God wants to transform us, to cleanse us of our self-focus and make us into the people we are meant to be, he can only do so through our choices.Whatever its failings, Evan Almighty explores that tension very well, and has a lot of fun doing it.

Happy New Year!

2009-01-01T10:24:00.000-08:00

Welcome to 2009, the 150th anniversary of the Origin of Species, 200th birthday of Charles Darwin, 450th anniversary of the final edition of Calvin's Institutes, and 500th birthday of John Calvin. One of my goals this year is to read both books. If you'd like to join me, you can get them in daily installments: DailyLit has On the Origin of Species in 205 parts here; and Princeton Theological Seminary has The Institutes of the Christian Religion in 365 parts here. Both can be subscribed to with a reader.

Here are my other resolutions:

1. To finish my thesis (I hope to defend in September).
2. To apply to PhD programs (which means taking the GRE, ugh!).
3. To present at least one paper at a conference.
4. To publish at least one paper.
5. To publish at least one book review.
6. To read at least 3 chapters of Greek per week.
7. To read at least 3 chapters of Hebrew per week.
8. To get my French back to reading competence.

Anyone else like to share their resolutions?

Red Dwarf - Backwards

2008-12-31T14:44:00.000-08:00

If you feel like wasting some time this New Year's Eve (or New Years Day, for you Aussies and Kiwis), here's a brilliant episode from the classic British sci-fi comedy Red Dwarf. I was reminded of it today, and it's just as funny as I remember:

Quote - McGrath on Reading the New Testament

2008-12-31T10:51:00.000-08:00

James McGrath, in his published dissertation, John's Apologetic Christology (which just happens to be directly relevant to my thesis), makes a point that should be obvious but is too easily forgotten:

[A] century was just as long in the ancient world as it is today, and for this reason it is simply unjustified to assume that what was controversial in the third and subsequent centuries was controversial in the first century. Thus, in much the same way that one would be cautious in reading the Synoptics in light of John, much less in light of the council of Nicaea, so one must be cautious of reading first-century sources in light of the views held by rabbis of the third and subsequent centuries. (pg. 73)

And of course, the same applies to the New Testament itself: the time between the 30s (when Jesus taught), the 50s (when Paul wrote) and the 90s (when John's Gospel reached its final form) was just as long in the first century as it was in the twentieth.

And you say you don't have time to read...

2008-12-29T12:48:00.000-08:00

If Karl Rove is to be believed (eh hem), the popular caricature of President Bush as a near-illiterate rube is actually the opposite of the truth. Supposedly, the two have been competing against each other to see who could read the most books. Rove has won each year, but not for lack of effort on the President's part: In 2006, Bush finished 95 books, in 2007, he finished 51, and in 2008 he finished 40 books, mostly history, biography and current events (from the Wall Street Journal, HT Between Two Worlds):

His reading this year included a heavy dose of history -- including David Halberstam's "The Coldest Winter," Rick Atkinson's "Day of Battle," Hugh Thomas's "Spanish Civil War," Stephen W. Sears's "Gettysburg" and David King's "Vienna 1814." There's also plenty of biography -- including U.S. Grant's "Personal Memoirs"; Jon Meacham's "American Lion"; James M. McPherson's "Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief" and Jacobo Timerman's "Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number."
Each year, the president also read the Bible from cover to cover, along with a daily devotional.
The reading competition reveals Mr. Bush's focus on goals. It's not about winning. A good-natured competition helps keep him centered and makes possible a clear mind and a high level of energy. He reads instead of watching TV. He reads on Air Force One and to relax and because he's curious. He reads about the tasks at hand, often picking volumes because of the relevance to his challenges. And he's right: I've won because he has a real job with enormous responsibilities.

Well, there goes my last excuse not to read more! Then again, I'm sure my job as manager of a self-storage facility is much more time consuming than being President of the United States...

Merry Christmas!

2008-12-24T10:16:00.000-08:00

I hope you all enjoy a relaxing week with your families. I suppose it might be appropriate to include here something about the stories of Jesus' birth, but right now I feel like this is something I need to hear more:

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord's feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, "Lord, don't you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!"
"Martha, Martha," the Lord answered, "you are worried and upset about many things, but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her." (Luke 10:38-42)

Quote - Religion in the Ancient World

2008-12-23T19:48:00.000-08:00

A nice summary by John Kloppenborg, in his interesting little book on Q: The Earliest Gospel:

In the twenty-first century we usually think of religion as a discrete and identifiable aspect of culture and distinguish it from economics, politics, education, and other cultural domains. Yet in the ancient Mediterranean languages there is no word at all that is equivalent to our abstract term "religion." There are words for altars, sacrifices, prayers, and temples and words for attitudes towards gods (piety, impiety, fear). But there was no collective word that gathers all of these into a single domain, distinguishable from the city, the empire, the army, trade and professional associations, and other social institutions. Religion in the ancient world was embedded in these institutions. (pg. 85)

Buried Alive

2008-12-23T11:00:00.000-08:00

In real life, I pay for graduate school by working as the on-site manager of a self-storage facility. It's not a terribly exciting job, but it allows me to work from home and it's generally only busy one week a month (when rent comes due). But the last few days have been livelier than normal, as I've had to spend quite a bit of my time shoveling snow. This isn't an area that gets it very often so hardly anyone has snow tires or chains, and customer after customer has tried to get to their storage unit only to get stuck in a snow drift. Most are here to get Christmas presents out of their units; I suspect many will be back next week with cars full of everything they just replaced. In truth, most of these people were stuck before they even got here.

A couple years back, I spent a week helping build a mission school in southern Mexico and one of our hosts asked what I do for a living. When I told him I manage a mini storage, he had no idea what I was talking about, so I tried to explain: "It's a place where people can keep the stuff that doesn't fit in their house." He gave me a blank look, then asked "Why would anyone need to keep stuff that they can't fit in their house?" I had no answer for him.

Most of the people who rent from us start out while moving. Some need to clear out space while the house is on the market or before they can move into a new one; others need to store their belongings while on a trip or deployment; most figure they will only need the unit for a few months at the most. The trouble is, a substantial number of people who move in for such reasons, never move out. They get into their new house, decide they want to update the furniture, and never empty the storage unit. They buy new clothes, toys and electronics, and shove the old stuff in storage--too valuable to throw or give away, but too old to keep using.

Half of them will end up keeping the unit for years, filled with stuff they have long since replaced with something newer and better. Others dutifully pay rent for units they never even visit. A few stop paying altogether, leaving us with a garage full of old stuff that no one wants or cares about. Sometimes it's junk--cat-scratched furniture and broken-down appliances--but often enough it's just out of date. By law, we have to auction such units off, and we're usually lucky to get $50 for a whole house worth of stuff. No one, it seems, wants old clothes and used furniture. Inevitably, most of it ends up in a landfill.

Yet the cycle goes on, and every month more people fill up their units with their excess, as we all go on buying and buying, burying ourselves under remnants of our corporate consumerism. All of which is to say, though this snow will inevitably melt away, we'll still be buried alive.

Now That's Creepy!

2008-12-20T21:49:00.000-08:00

David Ker shares his view of Santa...

Then there's this, courtesy of James McGrath:

Thank God the true meaning of Christmas lies elsewhere.

Telling Kids About Santa?

2008-12-17T20:30:00.000-08:00

Over at Emergent Village, Jenell Williams Paris reflects on what to tell her kids about Santa, a subject that has also become an issue around our house this year (my daughter is two and a half):

Should we really encourage children to project their material aspirations onto an idealized white man? As a full-time working woman, I don’t want my own hard work, income generation, present-purchasing and gift-wrapping to not only be entirely discredited, but all attributed to a benevolent white man. And I also don’t want to encourage my children to associate material wealth, kindness and generosity, and feasting with whiteness and maleness....
If Santa were a refugee, or a woman of color, or a plant or animal, I could probably get on board. But theologically speaking, Santa is in direct competition with Jesus, and it seems that Jesus pales in comparison. They’re both bearded white men (in the American imagination), but Santa gives more hugs and lets you sit on his lap. They’re both invisible characters that appear from time to time, so how do you convince a child that though you once told them both were real, only Jesus is really real? They both listen to petitions, but Santa grants wishes in material, fun, lit-up ways. Jesus occasionally answers, but with much less reliability than Santa. Your odds are much better if you pray to Santa for a Wii than if you pray to Jesus for your fighting parents to not divorce.

I'm not sure what to make of Paris' concerns about racism and sexism. If Santa is allowed to become the focus of Christmas, I suppose this could be a problem, but as long as Santa is just a character in certain stories, one among many others, I don't see the big deal. In any case, my daughter is not really old enough to ask a question like "is Santa real?" To her, Santa is a character on TV, only as real to her as Dora the Explorer and Little Bear, and I've tried to keep it that way.

But this is one area where my wife and I don't quite agree--her family always got gifts "from Santa," whereas mine never did, so she is much more comfortable asking things like "what do you want Santa to bring you for Christmas?" I just don't see the value in transferring Santa from being a character in her books and on TV into an imaginary person in the real world. But what I really do not understand is why parents would continue to insist on Santa's existence even after their kids start to question it. Shouldn't they be glad their kids are thinking critically for themselves? Why lie? It isn't as though they are protecting them from some dark secret. I just don't get it.

Sweet Free Books!

2008-12-17T12:29:00.000-08:00

Not to brag or anything but I just got this email:

Hi Kenneth,

At SBL last month, you entered your name to win $250 worth of Continuum and T&T Clark books, and I’m pleased to tell you that you’ve won our drawing!

You can choose which titles you’d like to receive by visiting our website http://www.continuumbooks.com/ , or I can send you a catalog if you’d rather browse that way. Let me know which titles you’d like, and I’ll arrange to have them shipped to you.

Someone had better not be pulling my leg!

Quote - Brueggemann on the Bible

2008-12-16T23:20:00.000-08:00

Walter Brueggemann, Biblical Perspectives on Evangelism (quoted by A. Katherine Grieb, The Story of Romans, pg. xxi):

I assume that the biblical text is not a handbook for morality or doctrine as it is often regarded, nor on the other hand, is it an historical record, as many are wont to take it. Rather the biblical text is the articulation of imaginative models of reality in which the... readers in church and synagogue, are invited to participate. (pg. 8)

That's Pretty Cool

2008-12-15T11:12:00.000-08:00

So with that last post I tried using Microsoft Word's blog-post creator for the first time, and it actually worked surprisingly well. Up to this point, I have usually composed short posts in blogger itself, but for more substantial pieces I write them in Word, then copy and paste into blogger, which works fairly well except it strips out the formatting (like italics). This new way uploaded straight to my blog without my even having to access the blogger page, and it seemed to work perfectly apart from the need to go back and add tags. If anyone has used this feature of Microsoft word, do you know if there is a way to add tags within the program?

An Overview of Romans

2008-12-15T10:48:00.001-08:00

Anyone care to join me in a round of the Hallelujah chorus? I'm done with coursework! All that stands between me and my degree is a thesis, and I'll worry about that tomorrow. For now I should be back to more regular posting, and in the meantime, here's the final I submitted to my last class, which may be of interest to some readers. The assignment was a five-page position paper summarizing five "non-negotiable" elements of any understanding of Paul's letter to the Romans. It deals with the usual basics (occasion, structure), plus more significant issues like the nature of the Gospel and the people of God. Enjoy, throw stones, move on to greener pastures, whatever:

Introduction
Romans is not a piece of systematic theology but a letter, written in a specific situation for specific reasons. Yet neither is it purely occasional, as one of those reasons is to introduce Paul and his gospel to a group of people he has not met. Any summary of the "non-negotiable elements of Romans," then, must account for both the context and content of the letter, which are intimately bound together. We will pay particular attention to: 1. The immediate context of the letter, including author, audience, occasion and purpose; and 2. The structure and argumentative method, including large-scale contents. This will set the stage for consideration of three of the most important themes in Romans: 3. The role of the law; 4. The relation between Jews and Gentiles in the people of God; and 5. The Gospel of God's righteousness.

1. Author, Audience, Occasion and Purpose
Romans, of course, was written by Paul (1:1; all stand alone scripture references refer to Romans), the self-described "Apostle to the Gentiles" (1:5; 11:13). It is addressed to the "saints" in Rome (1:7) in anticipation of Paul's upcoming visit (1:8-15; 15:22-32). Unlike the addressees of his other letters, however, Paul has never been to Rome (1:13; 15:22), so part of the purpose of this letter is to introduce himself, not to those who have never heard of him, but to those who only know him second-hand, and might be prone to misunderstand him (cf. 1:13; 3:1-8; 9:1-3; 15:14-22). He wants to clarify his views and earn their support, not only because he hopes to enjoy ministry in Rome (1:15), but also because he seeks their aid for yet further ministry in Spain (15:24). It may also be that Paul's ongoing conflict with those who adhere more strictly to the Jewish law (cf. Galatians) has made him fear that his reception in Rome might be less than friendly, especially as he anxiously awaits a trip to Jerusalem (15:25-31; cf. Acts 21-23). For the purpose of that trip is to bring gifts from his Gentile churches that symbolize his hope for Jewish and Gentile unity, so often threatened by controversy over Paul's view of the law (cf. 15:27; Gal 2:10 in context).

It should come as no surprise, then, that Romans' presentation of the gospel is everywhere tied to questions of Jewish-Gentile relations and the role of the law, as we shall see. Still, the letter was written to Rome, not Jerusalem, and while its audience plausibly included some Jews (cf. 2:17; 16:7, 11), it was likely predominantly Gentile (1:13; 11:13; 15:14-29). As such, Romans not only addresses Jewish concerns (and cites Jewish scripture), but also alludes distinctively Greco-Roman interests. For instance, Jesus (not Caesar) is "our Lord" (1:4; 4:24), who embodies the "good news" (1:16), "peace" (5:1) and "salvation" (10:10) that the emperors promised. In all ways, however, Romans is not just a defense of Paul's views, but an invitation to find in his gospel the true answer to humanity's deepest needs, and it must be asked how he makes this case.

2. The Structure and Argumentative Method of Romans
Though the major section breaks are widely agreed upon (1:18; 5:1; 9:1; 12:1; 15:14; though it seems to me that 6:1 marks a clearer shift than 5:1), the connections between Romans' various sections have been just as widely disputed. Even if the letter is not tightly structured, however, it is well-integrated. Virtually every section can be tied back to the theme announced in 1:16-17: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of all who have faith, the Jew first and the Greek. For in it is revealed a righteousness of God from faith to faith...." So in chapters 1-5, Paul argues that Jews as well as Gentiles have failed to honor God and his law (1:18-3:20), and so all alike must look to Christ for God's righteousness (3:21-31). In Christ, all can share in the promises made to Abraham (4:1-25), and the universal hope of salvation (5:1-21). In chapters 6-15, Paul responds to potential questions and objections raised by the foregoing: Is grace an excuse to sin (6:1-23)? Is the law sin (7:1-25)? Who can rescue us (8:1-17)? Why do the redeemed suffer (8:18-39)? Have God's promises to Israel failed (9:1-11:36)? How should we live, without the law (12:1-15:13)? Paul then explains his plans (15:14-33) and closes with greetings, blessings and (perhaps) a warning (16:1-27). Thus, even those sections most often deemed tangential actually address objections raised previously, for instance, 9:1-11:32 answer 3:1-2, while 7:1-25 and 13:8-10 answer 3:31.

This is no mere abstract discussion, however; it is grounded in Paul's lived experience as Jewish Apostle to the Gentiles, and is marked by a series of overlapping narratives: of humanity's failure (1:18-3:20), of Abraham's faith (4:1-25), of Adam and Christ (5:12-21), of Israel's struggle with the law (7:7-25), of creation's "frustration" and restoration (8:18-25), of Israel's stumbling and hope (9:1-11:36), of Paul's own ministry (15:17-33), etc. All of these are bound up in the grand narrative of God's righteousness—revealed in creation and covenant, redemption and restoration—and in that story, the law, the people of God, and the good news of Jesus' redemption stand central.

3. The Role of the Law in Romans
Few issues are as controversial in Pauline studies as role of the Jewish law, and in Romans this theme is especially prominent. So this is one place where context is vital, for tied up in the debate is the nature of 1^st C. Judaism as a whole. With the New Perspective I must affirm that Judaism was diverse, but not generally marked by self-righteous legalism, though some (perhaps many) no doubt took their election too-much for granted. Ideally, at least, the average Jew saw obedience to the law as the proper response to God's goodness and promises. Few, however, thought the world was as it should be, and most anticipated God's intervention on their behalf, though who or what they blamed and how they pictured God's response varied greatly. Virtually all saw the law as central to their identity and hope.

For his part, Paul believed that God's redemption had decisively come in Jesus' death and resurrection, and this unexpected turn placed the Jewish law in a new light. He agreed that the law specifies God's (covenant) demands (2:13-29), but insisted that "no one will be declared righteous in [God's] sight by works of the law" (3:20). Instead, the law was given to reveal sin (3:20; 7:13), but because of "the flesh," it cannot make anyone righteous (8:3). Indeed, Israel's reception of the law, which seemed intended to solve the problem of sin, was itself abused by it, so she too fell, like Adam before her (2:17-29; 7:7-24). But Christ did obey perfectly (5:12-21; 8:1-2; cf. 10:4), and those "in Christ" have the Spirit, and so are capable of "fully" meeting "the righteous requirements of the law" (8:4; cf. 13:8-10). Yet it is just this Christological reinterpretation of the law which proved a "stumbling block" to the Jews (9:32-33; 11:9-11; 14:13-18) for, to Paul, it meant that there is no longer any need to maintain the "boundary markers" that divide Jews from Gentiles (3:28-31). Rather, the people of God are defined by faith and identity with Christ, not by ethnicity, ritual purity, food regulations, or adherence to the law generally (2:25-29; 3:27-4:25; 9:1-11:36; 14:1-15:13). Yet if this is so, what then is the proper relation of Jews and Gentiles in the people of God?

4. The People of God: The Relation of Jews and Gentiles in Romans
Arguably, even more central to Paul's purpose in Romans than the law is the relation between Jews and Gentiles, and here too there is a curious tension at work. Though Paul often affirms the equality of Jews and Gentiles (e.g. 3:9; 4:11-12; 10:11-13), the distinction remains important to him: "The Jew first and the Greek" (1:16); "a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly… by the Spirit" (2:29). The law was given uniquely to Israel (2:12-29), but she too fell (7:7-25) so that "Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin" (3:9) and must all respond to Christ in faith (3:27-4:25; 10:9-13). Yet ultimately faith marks one's inclusion in Israel (2:29; 11:17-24) and lack of faith means exclusion, such that "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (9:6; cf. 11:23). "Israel" itself remains a valid category, and therefore, while the word "covenant" is not prominent in Romans (appearing only in 9:4 and 11:27), God's faithfulness to his covenant people is central throughout, now extended to include all who are in Christ.

Paradoxically, then, the very distinguishing marks of Israel (cf. 9:4-5) are also applied to the new people of God, Jews and Gentiles: adoption as children of God (8:14-25), glory (5:2; 8:18), covenant (11:27? cf. 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 4:24), the law (8:4; 13:8-10), worship (12:1), promises (4:13-25), patriarchs (4:1-12), and Christ (3:21-31; 5:12-21; 8:1-4). But it is just that equation which poses a problem for Paul: "Did God reject his people [ethnic Israel]?" (11:1). God's righteousness is called into question (3:3-8) and defended (chs. 9-11) precisely in relation to the fate of Israel: Gentiles are "grafted on" to the olive tree of redeemed Israel (11:17-24), and "all Israel will be saved" (11:26-32). So even now there is "a remnant, chosen by grace" (11:5), the first-fruits of the eventual restoration of all through faith in Christ (11:13-36), and Paul sees his own ministry as part of God's plan to bring this reconciliation to fruition (15:14-33). But how has God accomplished all this? That is the Gospel—good news—that forms the real heart of this letter.

5. The Gospel of God's Righteousness
Traditional Protestant theology stresses the individual's salvation by faith as God's entirely unmerited forgiveness of sin. While this is certainly an element of Paul's gospel, however, it should be obvious by now that this falls far short of the cosmic and covenantal scope of both the problem and its solution in Romans. On the one hand, humanity's "plight" is much more than individual sins; humanity as a whole has failed to honor her creator and has been "given over" in slavery to sin, leading to death (1:18-32; 5:12-14; 6:16-23; 7:14-25), pulling all of creation down with her (8:20). More troubling still, God has called a particular people and given her a law that "was intended to bring life" but even it failed to do so (7:10), for the Jews too fell prey to sin (7:7-25), and this calls God's own righteousness into question (3:3; 9:6; 11:1). So as we turn to that controversial phrase, "the righteousness of God," first aired in Romans' thematic statement (1:17), it seems clear that much more than forgiveness of sins is at stake. A solution is needed to the whole nexus of evil that infects humanity and creation, and the vindication of God's own justice and covenant faithfulness.

In fact, much of Paul's purpose in Romans seems to be to explain how these two aspects of God's righteousness can be reconciled: How can God be both just and faithful, in light of Israel's sin? By sending his son, who obeyed where Adam and Israel disobeyed, and who died in our place and so reconstituted God's covenant people "in Christ" (3:24; 6:11, 23; 8:1-2; 12:5), Paul claims that God has indeed proven his righteousness. This all-encompassing "good news," therefore, includes far more than forgiveness (3:25; 4:7-8) and justification (3:26; 4:5; 5:19) declared of sinners through some sort of legal fiction (though cf. 3:23-24; 5:6-11). Rather, through the Spirit and as part of the redeemed people of God, believers are also made righteous (6:1-23; 8:1-17; 12:1-8), offered "peace with God" (5:1; 8:6; 14:17), "the hope of glory" (5:2; 8:17-25; 15:4, 13), the gift of the Holy Spirit (1:4; 5:5; 8:2-27; 15:13), reconciliation (5:10-11; 11:15), adoption as children of God (8:14-25), conformity to the likeness of Jesus (8:28-29; 12:1-8), and more. Ultimately, this means the vindication and restoration of the covenant people of God, now expanded to include Gentiles as well as Jews (3:21-31; 4:1-25; 11:1-36; 15:7-13), the restoration of the whole cosmos (8:18-25), and hope of resurrection life (4:17-25; 5:17-21; 6:4-11, 22-23; 8:2, 6, 11-25; 11:15). In all this, the one God is truly proven "just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus" (3:26).

Conclusion
In short, Romans introduces Paul, his gospel and its implications to a church from whom he hopes to win support for future mission work, written in the context of significant controversy over the role of the law in light of Christ, and the relation of Jews and Gentiles in the people of God. Through argument and narrative, Paul defends his gospel of God's saving, restoring and redeeming righteousness, offered to God's covenant people through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Through participation in Christ, all—Jews and Gentiles—may have a share in the blessings and promises made to Israel, truly fulfilling the law and inaugurating the final restoration of every aspect of God's creation. "For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen" (11:36).

I Knew Jim West Hated Guns...

2008-12-12T15:06:00.000-08:00

...I didn't know why. I guess if you can kill a bear with naught but a stick, you don't need them:

Jim West, 45, was out walking last Saturday morning with his two dogs near 70 Mile House, about halfway between Kamloops and Williams Lake, when he came face to face with an angry mother bear.
"I turned [when] I heard a grunt. All I saw was eyes full of hatred … I had no option … So I stuck my foot up and tried to kick her in the face," he said.
The bear then attacked him, knocking him to the ground, and West soon found himself on the losing side of an ill-matched fight....
Knowing he would likely soon be dead unless he fought back, the injured West managed to get to his feet and picked up a stick about as thick as his arm....
The five-foot-nine man eventually crushed the bear's skull with the stick, killing it.
West then walked a kilometre and a half to a local lodge, where he was transported to hospital. The gashes in his body took 60 stitches to sew up.

Glad you survived your ordeal, Jim, I hope the environmentalists don't eat you alive!

Battlestar Galactica and a Prequel Series

2008-12-06T13:49:00.000-08:00

Good news for fellow Battlestar Galactica fans! The second half of the final season starts January 16 (you can also watch some full episodes here or on Hulu), and starting December 12 there will be a series of 10 webisodes at Scifi.com. They have also filmed a 2 hour TV movie called "The Plan," which will air sometime after the series ends in March. Finally, they just approved the prequel, Caprica, as a full series (HT FilmChat):

"Caprica" will star Eric Stoltz, Esai Morales, Paula Malcomson and Polly Walker, and will be set 50 years prior to "Galactica's" seminal attack on human civilization by those dreaded 'droids the Cylons. [The] Family-drama-themed series will focus on the Earthlike planet of Caprica as two rival families deal with, among other topical issues, the broader implications of their society's emerging artificial intelligence technology sector.

That means it will be set 10 years before the first Cylon war, which ought to give them plenty of Terminator-esk themes to explore. I'm eager to see what they do with it.

Oh, and I almost forgot: I'm a Leobon, according to this Cylon Detector Test (HT: Carmen).

Quote - Freedom and Virtue

2008-12-05T18:44:00.000-08:00

From Jeffrey Overstreet's excellent novel Auralia's Colors (Abascar is a city-state):

Hear this: if you allow Abascar freedom, some people will choose what they shouldn't.... But take away that freedom, and no one has opportunity to choose what they should.

Blogger Christmas Card...

2008-12-04T17:07:00.000-08:00

HT: Antiqutopia

I'm a Quaker?

2008-12-03T22:41:00.000-08:00

Sorry about the lack of posting, lately. I've been out touring the world, meeting famous people, climbing Everest.... ok, really I've been busy with family and the end of the semester, but after the 12th I'll be done with course work--for good!--so that's something. Then all I'll have left is my thesis... speaking of things I've been too busy to work on.

So with all that extra time I don't have, I wasted a bit of it on the "Belief-O-Matic," which has been making the rounds of late. As all such questionnaires, this one is almost entirely useless, as I'm inclined to choose "none of the above" for almost every question, but I still can't figure out how I got a 100% for "Orthodox Quaker." To be honest, some days I'm not even sure I'm Orthodox, and don't know that I've ever even met an Quaker. Still, the summary at Beliefnet doesn't sound half bad. Anyway, here's my top 5:

1. Orthodox Quaker (100%)
2. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (94%)
3. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (83%)
4. Seventh Day Adventist (80%)
5. Eastern Orthodox (79%)

You can take the quiz yourself here.

Thoughts on SBL

2008-11-25T08:00:00.000-08:00

Well my first trip to the Society of Biblical Literature annual meeting is wrapping up and I wanted to compile some reflections before heading off to the airport to fly home (I miss home!):

I've very much enjoyed my time in Boston, though I could have done without the frigid temperatures. I didn't think to bring gloves or a hat and couldn't find any to buy that were not ridiculously overpriced ($100 for a pair of gloves?!) or covered with Red Sox symbolism (boo Red Sox!), so walking outside has been less than pleasant. It builds character I guess.

As for the meeting itself, I took Mark Goodacre's advice and was very much a "tart"; perhaps too much so. I didn't stay for the whole of even one session, just picking and choosing which papers I actually wanted to hear. Partly this was so that I could catch papers at simultaneous sessions, but mainly it was just because I didn't take Goodacre's advice about not burning the candle from both ends. I couldn't help but wake up way too early each morning, but neither did I succeed in getting to bed at a reasonable hour, so any time I tried to sit through more than one or two papers in a row I'd start to nod off. Like Chris Heard, I figured it less disrespectful to leave early than to fall asleep in a session. Of course, I still managed to fall asleep a couple times, and even saw a few presenters do the same (Emmanuel Tov, reportedly, put his head on the table and took a nap after he finished giving a paper!). Perhaps because of this, I had the good fortune not to have to endure any truly awful papers (unless I slept through one!), but I'm afraid only a handful proved all that enlightening.

The highlight of the week, though, was the chance to meet with a number of people I had only previously known online (and a few total strangers). On Friday I got to have lunch with John Coleman, which was great (if you're reading this John: Start blogging again! ;), then on Sunday night we had the biblioblogger dinner which drew a good 25 people. I'm afraid I didn't get to meet even half of them, but I did enjoy good conversations with several people, including John Hobbins, Jared Calaway (whose paper on the Tabernacle in Hebrews I very much enjoyed before I even knew he was a blogger!), April DeConick and especially James McGrath. Chris Brady also recorded a podcast (with much mocking of Jim West), which I imagine he will post at some point, and Eric Sowell (who could easily pass as one of the Baldwins) wore a great shirt that said: "More people have read this shirt than your blog"! I was disappointed, however, not to get more of a chance to talk with Michael Halcomb, and didn't even realize Chris Heard was there until he posted about the dinner. Ah well, it was fun putting faces to names and getting to chat in a less formal setting.

In fact, I found meals much more conducive to good conversation than the attrocious receptions the grad schools and publishers put on each night. I guess I'm just too much an introvert but walking into a room full of people I don't recognize and trying to insert myself into their conversations is about as much fun as dental work. Apart from a couple of Princeton students whose names I have already forgotten, I didn't make a single contact at those receptions, which is a shame because I was really hoping to get a better idea of where to apply for PhD studies. Good thing I still have a year to figure it out.

As for books, I made off well. I hadn't set myself a specific budget but I was determined not to buy anything that wasn't a truly excellent deal and I got about 25 books for less than $200. Actually half of that was spent on Brill's 3 volume Context of Scripture, so I actually got 22 books for less than $100. I may or may not post a break down of how the prices on various books compared to online, but the best deals came this morning: Random House had all their display books available for just $1 a piece, and they had some great titles, including Henri Nouwin's Return of the Prodigal Son, Geza Vermes' volumes on the historical Jesus and all of Elaine Pagel's books. Also, Zondervan was giving away copies of Christopher Wright's book The God I Don't Understand, on the condition that we post a review online. I've read about a third of it so far and it is excellent. Perhaps I'll finish it on the flight home and post a review this week.

Speaking of which, if I'm going to make my flight I'd better log off and head out. I miss my family and can't wait to seem them again! And to all my new friends, I'll see you next year in New Orleans!

Jet Lag? More Like Jet Propulsion

2008-11-22T09:28:00.000-08:00

Can someone explain jet lag to me, because it appears my body is confused. I flew from the West Coast to the East, which means my inner clock should be three hours behind (shouldn’t it?). 6 o’clock Eastern should feel like 3 o’clock Pacific, 10 o’clock like 7 o’clock, right? Logically, then, I ought to have a hard time falling a sleep at night an a hard time getting up in the morning.

But my body seems to think differently. I feel like I’m three hours ahead: 6pm feels like 9pm, while 8am feels like 11am. Thus, I’m dead tired in the evening, but then wake up at 5am as though it were time for breakfast, this despite the fact that it is actually only 2 in the morning back home. What on earth is going on?

So anyway, sorry about the dearth in posting; I’ll have something more substantial in the next day or two. Other than the sleep deprivation, I’m enjoying my time in Boston, particularly the chance to meet in person people I've only previously known online. Oh, and the books.... when even Brill is offering titles at a ridiculous discount, I'm in trouble.

Quote - Modern Paraphrases

2008-11-19T10:37:00.000-08:00

Over at Pisteuomen, Scott Bailey made a great observation about modern paraphrase translations like The Message and The Voice. I would add that it goes both ways--if modern paraphrases can have a legitimate place, perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to judge their ancient counterparts:

It is highly ironic to me... that most modern Christians would read some of the Pseudepigrapha, or maybe something like Reworked Genesis from Qumran and be uncomfortable, or even highly critical, of the ancient practices, and here we are in our modern times with authors freely adding to the biblical writers--in some cases obfuscating what the original author wrote or adding to it in a way that is not representative of the original--and that's passable.

Profess, verb.

2008-11-18T02:08:00.000-08:00

Brilliant:

Yes, it is 2:00am, and yes I am still awake. Actually, I'm taking a break from my frantic push to finish a paper due ~~tomorrow~~ this afternoon, eating ~~health food~~ a McDonalds value meal (they were only place open this time of night, and I didn't want to wake my kids by banging around in the kitchen, but yuk! You'd think something this unhealthy ought to at least taste good!). The goal is to regain some energy and concentration before returning to work... Hmmm, not sure if browsing the internet is helping.... Oi!

To Boldly Go, Where Someone Has Gone Before!

2008-11-17T09:21:00.000-08:00

In case you missed the bootleg version that's been floating around the last few days, the full HD trailer for J.J. Abram's reboot of the Star Trek franchise is due to be released this morning. All I can say is, Wow!

Update: Here it is!

How Does God Speak?

2008-11-16T15:27:00.000-08:00

In a recent post, Michael Halcomb expressed his skepticism about claims to have heard a personal message from God:

The thing is, people can rarely ever prove that God spoke, it's like, well, you just have to take their word for it.... But then, I really think that there are legitimate instances where God speaks to people. So, I guess I'm wondering, are there any bloggers out there to whom God has spoken or speaks? If so, how does it happen and how do you know?

I responded there:

God's voice has always seemed to me less like a source of information and more like a rather forceful and focused form of conscience, persistently (sometimes even uncomfortably) pointing toward or away from certain specific decisions. It's not always been there (in fact, ignoring it is a pretty sure way to make it disappear!), but when I have experienced it, it's unmistakable.

And Michael responded:

I'm still wondering just how. Your notion of a "source of information" is interesting but still, how did you hear it? Did you "feel" more than "hear"? What?

My answer grew a bit too long for the comment thread, so I’ll post it here:

The first thing I should say is that I think God’s primary means of communication are scripture and the church, but I don’t think those are the only ways he speaks, and unless I am completely nuts, I think I have occasionally heard his voice in other ways. In my own experience, those latter cases always seemed a mix of thoughts, feelings and "coincidence," like everything in my life was pointed towards a particular choice, and usually one that I did want to make (thus, almost every time it has happened I fought God on it for a long while). At such times I always found that, if I obeyed, things turned out for the best but, if I disobeyed, they very much did not. I’ve given a number of examples in other posts, so here I'll give just one more (omitting a few personal details):

When I was a sophomore in college, for several months I strongly felt that I needed to end a certain relationship, but I had no desire to do so. There wasn't anything immoral about the relationship, but every time I prayed--heck—even when I didn’t, this persistent thought/feeling kept intruding. But I kept pushing it back, giving excuses, arguing with God that it would hurt the other person too much. This went on for months, until finally I got so fed up that one night I went out to the "Back 40" of our campus and prayed/yelled (I don't normally pray out loud, let alone at a shout!) that I didn't understand, I didn't think I could do it, and how could I even know it was God I was hearing and not just my own twisted mind? There was no voice from heaven (if that ever happens, I've not experienced it), just that persistent feeling. So finally I said: "I give up, if this is really you, God, if you really want me to do this, you're gonna have to do something drastic. Hit me over the head with a 2x4!"

I know, I know, that's not how you're supposed to talk to God (I'm rather embarrassed to admit that I did at all, but then again, it'd be nice to have that kind of passion again). Well anyway, I stood there for a few minutes, half expecting some crazed student to jump out of the woods and hit me upside the head, but nothing happened. So I sighed and turned around to walk back to campus, and immediately (I kid you not) I smacked my forehead on a big block of wood.

In all the time I was standing there, I had entirely forgotten where I was. Our campus had a raised set of railroad tracks that ran through the back 40, which the path crossed through a low walking tunnel. I happened to be standing just outside the opening of that tunnel, a bit closer than I realized, I suppose. So when I turned around I slammed my head right into the center brace holding up the roof. I think it was actually a 4x8, but I got the message, and a bad headache. ;)

But I didn't listen. After all that, I went back to my dorm intent to break it off, but I didn't follow through. In fact, I stopped arguing with God about it at all. I knew what he wanted, but I wasn’t willing to do it. So I just ignored him until finally the feeling disappeared. As it turned out, the decision (or indecision!) led to one of the most difficult years of my life. Worse, after so blatantly ignoring God, I never again felt that tug in the same way I once did.

I realize it all sounds a bit unbelievable, but there were many times in my life when similar things happened. Moreover, what convinces me that it was not just my subconscious playing tricks on me is that, when God’s voice was there, it was always unmistakably persistent and very specific--something particular I needed to do or stop doing, not a replacement for conscience, free will or critical thinking--but when it was gone, I couldn't manufacture it no matter how much I wanted to.

Ultimately, then, I do think God occasionally speaks in a more personal way, and it should never be taken lightly when he does, but I'm not convinced this is something we should be seeking as Christians (and I remain deeply skeptical of people who claim God gave them a message for someone else). There are much more important things to our relationship with God, and more important means of ascertaining God’s will, which (I think) should always be sought in the community of faith and in consultation with scripture. To center your life on seeking some private manifestation of God’s voice will seriously distort things. After all, Christianity is not supposed to be about us at all, but about loving God and neighbor. So in the end, if you want to know God’s will for your life, don’t hide in your prayer closet; start with Micah 6:8. For if you were to truly live this out, you could hardly go wrong:

He has told you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you, but to do justice, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?

SBL Biblioblogger Dinner Time and Place

2008-11-16T00:35:00.000-08:00

I meant to post this a few days ago, but in case anyone missed it, Michael Halcomb has the details on the biblioblogger get-together at SBL:

Time: 7pm
Location: Plaza Level: In Front of Exhibition Hall B Doors (click here for map)
Attendees: * Michael Halcomb, * James McGrath, * Nijay Gupta, * Josh McManaway, * Ken Brown, * Douglas Mangum, * Eric Sowell,* Donald Kim,* P. Gardella, * James Leonard, * Chris Brady
Restaurant: Dillon's (955 Boylston St. - click here for site , click here for menu)

If you still want to attend, click through and leave a comment. Thanks again for organizing it Michael!

Quote - Science Fiction and Heroism

2008-11-15T11:36:00.000-08:00

Sean Cubitt, editor of Aliens R Us: The Other in Science Fiction Cinema, from an excellent interview at TheoFantastique (HT James McGrath):

In the West today, we live in a deeply managed society. From traffic regulation to the management of crowd movements through malls and stations and airports; from statistical aggregation of behaviour to the management of supermarket stock, our societies work on probabilistic predictions that tomorrow will be pretty much the same as today - within statistical variations which themselves can be planned for. In this kind of world, action is incredibly difficult. It’s even more difficult because we are told over and over in our stories that only individuals can take action. But how can little me make an action that changes global warming? I can’t. We feel like action is impossible. In SF, action is possible, heroism, sacrifice, generosity, making a moral choice, changing the course of history.

New Harry Potter Trailer

2008-11-14T15:05:00.000-08:00

I can't believe they're making us wait until July 2009, but it looks good:

And if you missed it, check out the international teaser trailer here.

Mark Goodacre on Dating the Early Christian Sources

2008-11-11T20:11:00.000-08:00

Mark Goodacre has posted his SBL paper on "Dating the crucial sources of early Christianity" (PDF). I haven't had time to read more than a few pages of it yet, but it is relevant to recent discussions here so I thought I'd pass it along. (HT James McGrath)

BTW, for those non-biblical studies types who may be confused (it occurs to me that I haven't explained the acronym), SBL stands for the Society of Biblical Literature, the annual meeting of which begins next Friday in Boston.

What Does It Mean to Be a Christian?

2008-11-09T21:53:00.000-08:00

Here's an interesting video, posted at Emergent Village by Steve Knight. I think this is a question that we should never stop asking:

I particularly like Tony Campolo's point near the end:

The only description that Jesus gives of Judgment Day is [based on] how we treated the poor. On that day he's not gonna ask you theological questions... you know "Virgin Birth: Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree."... Here's what it's gonna be: 25th chapter of Matthew: I was hungry. Did you feed me? I was naked. Did you clothe me? I was sick. Did you care for me? I was an alien. Did you take me in? What you failed to do to the least of these, you failed to do it to me, because I'm not up in the sky somewhere, I'm waiting to be loved in people who hurt.

How Do You Read and Take Notes?

2008-11-08T15:43:00.000-08:00

I'm curious how my fellow academics (and other book lovers) approach reading and note-taking, particularly for research. Do you take notes while reading, or mark your texts somehow and then go back later to take notes? If you mark your books, do you underline, make marginal notations, use key word summaries, or argue with the author in the margins? And when (if?) you take notes, do you summarize the overall thrust of the book or article, detail the argument (in your own words or theirs?), record key quotes, or just take note of particular points that are directly relevant to your current research? Do you organize your notes in any particular way? Do you print your notes off for use, or just use them digitally?

I've tried a number of different methods over the years but I've never settled on one that really meets my needs. At times I've underlined excessively and filled the margins of my books with questions and comments. At other times I've read with an open notebook or even in front of the computer and taken my notes while reading. Lately I usually just make quick little pencil marks in the margins (< to mark the beginning of a significant section; - for the end; * for particularly noteworthy quotes; ! for surprising statements, whether brilliant or ignorant; and ? for confusing points), with only occasional marginal notations. I then go back through later and type up some notes based on these marks.

But I'm very inconsistent in how much detail I record, especially when I am first starting research on a new subject and am not yet clear on what is significant or what my conclusions are likely to be. I've ranged everywhere from typing out in full every quote I think could possibly be useful (i.e. when I've got a monograph on inter-library loan and can only keep it for a few weeks), to recording only the barest summary of a book's contents and then just consulting the book itself as needed. No doubt there is some happy medium between those, but I've yet to find it.

Anyone want to share their own methods? Frustrations? Dirty little secrets?

Quote - Frans Neirynck on Paul's Use of the Jesus Tradition

2008-11-07T20:21:00.000-08:00

In contrast to the last quote (and my own view falls somewhere between these two extremes), here's Frans Neirynck, "Paul and the Sayings of Jesus":

In the Pauline epistles there are two instances of an explicit reference to a command of the Lord, in 1 Cor 7,10-11 and 9,14, but there is not "quotation" of the saying... and [these] can scarcely allow for any general conclusion about Paul's acquaintance with the sayings of Jesus.
Elsewhere in the Pauline letters there is no certain trace of a conscious use of sayings of Jesus. Possible allusions to gospel sayings can be noted on the basis of form and context but a direct use of a gospel saying in the form it has been preserved in the synoptic gospels is hardly provable. Paul's knowledge of a pre-synoptic gospel, of the Q-source or pre-Q collections has not yet been demonstrated. Because of the paucity and the anonymity of the possible allusions and reminiscences, and because of their appearance together with other ethical teaching in the paraenetic sections, it remains doubtful whether Paul was using them as sayings of Jesus. (in L'Apôtre Paul: Personalité, Style, et Conception du Ministère, edited by A. Vanhoye, pg. 320)

Quote - David Wenham on Paul's Use of the Jesus Tradition

2008-11-07T14:14:00.000-08:00

David Wenham, "Paul's Use of the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples":

Not only did he know traditions of Jesus' passion and resurrection - see 1 Corinthians 11 and 15 - but also sections of the Sermon on the Mount, Peter's benediction, the dialogue about divorce and the eschatological discourse. He may well have known the woes of the scribes and Pharisees that precede the eschatological discourse in Matthew, also the controversy stories that precede the woes, and probably the mission discourse. This list could be extended, but even this amount of evidence makes it very clear that Paul knew a considerable proportion of what we know as the synoptic tradition (particularly of the material found in Matthew 19-28 and parallels).
The evidence points to Paul's familiarity with a wide range of gospel traditions - traditions attested in the different synoptic strata (so-called 'Markan', 'Q', 'M' and 'L' material) and traditions of different types, not just sayings material. (in Gospel Perspectives Volume 5, pg. 28)

Congratulations Obama

2008-11-04T20:14:00.000-08:00

Politics (and cynicism) aside, I want to wish my hearty congratulations to Barack Obama for becoming the first African American President. It truly is an incredible accomplishment, and a remarkable testament to the progress this country has made in the last 40 years. I sincerely hope that he can indeed bring the positive change to Washington that he has promised.

The Liberal/Conservative Dilemma

2008-11-04T13:24:00.000-08:00

The whole modern world has divided itself into conservatives and progressives. The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. (G.K. Chesterton)

Thank goodness today is the last day of election season here in the US (ooh, it’d better be!). There are few things I find more distasteful than partisan politics. The truth is, I am constantly frustrated by the division between “liberalism” and “conservatism.” These can carry such a wide array of senses as to be almost meaningless, but as Chesterton playfully notes, they do highlight two conflicting and often mutually destructive tendencies. Particularly when it comes to society’s response to vice, “liberals” and “conservatives” (stereotypically speaking) tend to advance mutually exclusive approaches, neither of which seems to me to offer a real solution to the problem.

The trouble is that there is rarely a one-to-one correlation between risky behavior and actual harm. Though gambling or drinking can ruin one’s life if they become addictions, they can be harmless pleasures if kept in moderation. Though drug use can be extremely dangerous, not everyone who tries drugs is harmed by them. Though casual sex can lead to unplanned pregnancy or an STD, it often does not and many people will (obviously) do it no matter what the risks are.

Now society tends to take one of two basic attitudes towards such activities. On the one hand, we can try to add artificial deterrents to make them more risky and (hopefully) less attractive. “Conservatives” who take such a view will tend to take a firm stand on right and wrong, stress the worst consequences of failure rather than the potential mitigating factors, and call for harsher sanctions and punishments for offenders, ranging from mere social disapproval to legal punishment. On the other hand, we can try to reduce the natural risks artificially, so that those who do engage in such behavior will face as little harm as possible. “Liberals” who take such a view will tend to speak non-judgmentally, give as much information about mitigating factors as possible, and call for rehabilitation rather than punishment for those who fail. Of course, both groups want to reduce the amount of harm done, but one emphasizes the dangers as a deterrent; the other emphasizes how to avoid them.

I’m grossly stereotyping of course, and probably no one falls strictly into one category or the other. But these do seem to be clear and opposing tendencies in our society, and they lead to fairly predictable results, neither of which is clearly more compassionate and dignifying than the other. The conservative approach rightly emphasizes the fact that we all have a choice whether to engage in these behaviors, and will tend to reduce the number of people who choose them, but this comes at the cost of piling much more severe harm on those who do so anyway. Alternatively, the liberal approach rightly emphasizes compassion for those in need, and will tend to reduce the harm done to those individuals who fail, but at the cost of allowing (or even encouraging) much more widespread vice. The ideal solution, it would seem, would be to discourage such activities as much as possible while simultaneously offering as much aid as possible to those who choose them anyway, but is this even possible? People are not stupid, and the cheaper a pleasure is, the more likely they are to pursue it.

And so it goes across dozens of issues. “Conservatives” rail against “liberals” for enabling abortion, while “liberals” fire back that outlawing it will only drive people to back alleys. “Liberals” accuse “conservatives” of excessively punishing drug use, while “conservatives” respond that reducing or eliminating punishments will only make the practice even more prevalent. “Conservatives” decry “liberal” socialism for enabling sloth, while “liberals” dismiss “conservatives” for their lack of compassion for the poor and powerless, etc., etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

And so, not only do we have to face the fact that neither solution can work on its own, but our current system ensures that we can rarely work together to find a better alternative that could work. And I’m skeptical about the whole enterprise. Don’t get me wrong, if politics is an evil, it is a necessary one. The problem is not in the attempt to limit harm—whether by liberal or conservative methods—but the delusion that better policies can actually solve evil, as though it were a bad sum on a balance sheet. But every political season it comes to the same thing: One side accusing the other of making things worse while claiming that, if only their own plans were put into practice, all would be well. But all will not be well (nor will all fall to pieces if the “wrong” side wins), because ultimately it comes down to our choices as individuals—to pursue virtue or embrace vice, to help the needy or ignore their plight—and no policy can make these decisions for us.

Virtue cannot be imposed from above, it can only be chosen on an individual basis, and vice can abuse any system, “liberal” or “conservative.”

SBL Bibliobloggers Get-Together Sunday Evening November 23

2008-11-03T09:36:00.001-08:00

Thanks to Michael Halcomb for taking point and organizing this:

If you are a biblio / biblica blogger and are attending SBL, you are invited to our annual gathering which, this year, will take place on Sunday evening. Whether you've just started blogging, have been blogging for years or are even considering blogging, you are welcome. We're going to meet up at the convention center and walk to a restaurant from there. A more specific time, restaurant location, etc. will be given soon. Please, if you are coming, leave a comment here so we can reserve seats at the restaurant ahead of time (this will make things go much smoother, give us more time to chat and take a lot of stress off of the restaurant employees. I will make reservations for us beforehand and post those soon enough.

Evidence for the Historical Jesus

2008-11-02T22:09:00.000-08:00

In his several posts on the subject, Stephen Law’s primary argument for skepticism about Jesus’ existence is that the inclusion of so many miraculous events in the Gospels should lend doubt even to the mundane details given. This is, in fact, a valid objection to which could be added the important point that the gospels do show some evidence of embellishment and fabrication. He is correct that we cannot uncritically accept these texts as straightforward historical accounts. But neither can the simple fact that they include miracles automatically disqualify them as fabrications. Even if we reject all the miracle stories as too poorly attested to be believed, there are, in fact, many other aspects of the Jesus tradition which make it almost certain that it derives from a genuine historical core.

In my last post on the historical plausibility of Jesus’ existence, I noted that, even in the absence of any other evidence, the claim that he was crucified is itself very good evidence for his existence. In short, the argument runs as follows: 1. We know from independent sources that a number of messianic claimants were killed by the Romans in 1st C. Palestine; 2. We know from independent sources that crucifixion was seen as an extremely shameful death, more likely to be covered up than made up; and yet 3. We know that the early Christians were emphatic that Jesus had been crucified. Quite apart from any dubious reconstruction of motives, it is much more probable that the Christians really did believe their leader had died in this way than that they created the story from scratch. It was simply too big a liability to have been invented (indeed, it opened them up to insistent ridicule from both Jews and Greeks, leading some later Christian heretics to claim that Judas was actually tricked into dying in his place).

Thus, the crucifixion rightly stands as the most important point in any case for the historicity of Jesus, but it is by no means the only reason to believe he existed. I would now like to lay out a few of the other important evidential points which, all combined, not only make Jesus’ historical existence almost certain but also lend a level of support to the broad-scale reliability of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). Here I am building on Paul Eddy and Gregory Boyd’s 2007 book The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition:

External Evidence: As has widely been recognized, the external evidence for Jesus’ existence is far from overwhelming. If we lacked the New Testament, we truly would have little reason for confidence in Jesus’ existence. None of the extant sources provide unquestionable evidence, but several of them are important. For instance, the Gospel of Thomas seems to include some early traditions about Jesus that are independent of the canonical Gospels. Since it is a collection of sayings rather than a narrative, it obviously provides no evidence of the activities of Jesus, but it does offer a measure of confirmation for his existence, and since it includes no miracles, Stephen’s objection on that point can be dismissed.

Among non-Christian sources, things are more dubious. Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews twice mentions Jesus, but both cases have been widely dismissed as later Christian interpolations. There are strong arguments both ways, so any conclusion must be tentative, but in my view, the reference to James, “the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ” (20.9.1) seems very slightly more likely to be original than an interpolation for a variety of reasons. In contrast, the fuller description of Jesus (18.3.3) has clearly been tampered with, but there are good reasons to think this tampering represents secondary attempts to Christianize an already existing reference. For instance, the distinctly Christian elements (“if it be lawful to call him a man,” “He was the Christ,” “for he appeared to them alive again the third day”) all interrupt the flow of the passage. When these are removed, the resulting text is as follows:

About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.

This reconstructed text boasts a number of elements which are unlikely to have been invented by Christians (such as the claim that the Jewish leaders who accused Jesus were “men of the highest standing among us” and the reference to Christians as a “tribe”). It also finds support in the modern discovery of a 10th C. Arabic translation of this text (first published in 1971) in which the three clear Christian interpolations are all absent or altered, confirming their secondary nature. Admittedly, the case is not certain, but Josephus does at least provide potential confirmation of Jesus’ existence and crucifixion.

Outside of Josephus, matters are even less clear. Though we have a variety of later non-Christian references to Christ, it is unlikely that any of them provide genuine independent evidence of his existence. Still, it should be noted that the later critics—like Taticus (an early 2nd C. Roman historian), Celsus (who wrote an attack on Christianity in the late 2nd C.), and several references in the Jewish Talmud—all denigrate Jesus (and his followers) rather than dismissing his existence outright. Since ancient philosophers and historians did occasionally question the existence of various mythic figures (such as the Homeric heroes), it is reasonable to think that if these critics knew of any reason to doubt his existence, they would have mentioned it. This is, admittedly, an argument from silence, but the fact that such was never claimed is at least noteworthy, though by no means conclusive.

Again, if such references were all we had, Jesus’ existence would rightly be in serious doubt. Though these might provide a measure of confirmation, it is the New Testament itself which must provide the most important evidence for an historical Jesus, and it does in fact deliver. Of the many issues that could be raised here, we will focus on just three aspects of the Synoptic Gospels (particularly Mark, widely recognized as the earliest), in increasing order of importance: 1. The inclusion of various incidental details which point to early Palestinian tradition; 2. The omission of any retrojection of various issues of central importance to 1st C. Christianity; and 3. The inclusion of embarrassing details about Jesus’ life.

1. Inclusion of Incidental Details: The gospels include a number of details about early 1st C. Palestine (including knowledge of geography, customs, and figures) that do not appear to be “ideologically motivated,” and can point to an historical core to the story. This evidence is, admittedly, the least secure of those we will discuss, as a knowledgeable author could perhaps have added such details even if writing fiction, but at the least, they help establish the knowledgeability of the Gospel writers (or the traditions they are based on) and point to the early, and very Jewish, nature of the tradition as it has come down to us.

To name just one class of evidence here, note that despite the fact that our Gospels were written in Greek (and are widely claimed by Jesus-deniers to be thoroughly Hellenized), they include a number of Aramaisms which point to much older Jewish traditions. Examples from Mark include Jesus’ use of Abba, meaning “father” (14:36); talitha koum, meaning “little girl, get up!” (5:41); Ephphatha, meaning “Be opened!” (7:34); Rabbi , meaning “teacher” (9:5); and especially Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani, meaning “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me” (15:34). The fact that all of these (except Rabbi) are glossed into Greek points to their being holdovers from an older tradition. Additionally, the last of these also fulfills the criterion of embarrassment (see below), as it runs counter to the usual depiction of Jewish martyrs as unperturbed and confident of their salvation (cf. Acts 7 and the 1st C. text 4 Maccabees), and is thus omitted from Luke and John.

That such Aramaisms were not simply added to give the account an artificial sense of antiquity is evident from the fact that the tradition itself shows a tendency to remove rather than add them (thus Matthew and Luke eliminate most of these). This, by itself, does not prove that the tradition goes back to Jesus, only that it goes back to the earliest Christians who spoke Aramaic, but it does lend considerable doubt to the notion that Jesus was fabricated to correspond to the Greco-Roman redeemer myths. If there are parallels to such non-Jewish myths (they are never explicitly invoked in the New Testament), such is more likely to be a secondary layer of interpretation of an older Jewish Jesus tradition than its original source.

2. Omission of Relevant Issues: A more important point is the omission from the Gospels of a number of items that we might have expected them to include if they were pure fabrications. The tradition does show some tendency towards reading later issues back into the life of Jesus (e.g. the anachronistic mentions of expulsion from the synagogue in John 9:22; 12:42 and 16:2), but it is surprising how many of the topics that were highly controversial in the first century church (as indicated by the New Testament epistles) go unmentioned in the Gospels. For instance, given that Jesus was incessantly referred to as the Christ by the early Church (the NT Epistles are full of references), it is remarkable that the Gospels present Jesus as downplaying this title. Such is extremely difficult to imagine being a fabrication.

Alternatively, other vital issues are entirely ignored by Jesus, such as the necessity or unimportance of Gentiles being circumcised in order to become Christians (an issue which divided Paul from the Jerusalem church, including Peter, James and John). In fact, the Gospels evidence a remarkable lack of interest in matters relevant to Diaspora Judaism, despite the fact that they almost certainly reached their final form in the Diaspora after the fall of Jerusalem. They are simply dominated by Palestinian concerns, which is extremely difficult to square with claims that the tradition is entirely fabricated. This provides strong evidence of the relatively conservative nature of the Synoptic Gospels and suggests that they contain at least some genuinely historical information about an early 1st C. teacher.

3. Inclusion of Embarrassing Details: The most compelling evidence for an historical Jesus, however, is the inclusion of so many “embarrassing” details in the Jesus tradition. Though the crucifixion itself stands at the head of this group (and its importance must not be underestimated), the canonical Gospels are full of details that are unlikely to have been invented. By tracing the Jesus’ tradition across the various gospels (canonical and non-canonical), we can clearly see that the later texts do tend to soften or omit these items, proving that their embarrassing nature was evident to the early Christians themselves, and thus their fabrication is unlikely. The following is only a partial list, drawing exclusively from Mark, but should establish just how widespread this phenomenon is:

Mark admits that Jesus’ own family questioned his sanity, while others accused him of demon-possession (3:20-30); Jesus was rejected by the people of his hometown and could not perform many miracles there (6:1-5); he sometimes seemed to rely on folk medical techniques, which were not always immediately successful (e.g 7:31-37, 8:22-25); he associated with people of ill-repute (e.g. 2:14-17) and seemed to disregard a number of Jewish laws, customs and cleanliness codes (e.g. 2:23-27); he spoke and acted in culturally “shameful” ways (e.g. 3:31-35); he cursed a fig tree for lacking fruit even though it was not the correct season for figs (11:13-14); the disciples—including the leaders of the early church—are frequently presented in an unfavorable light, often seeming dim-witted, obstinate and cowardly (e.g. 10:35-45; 14:37-40; 14:50); indeed Jesus was betrayed by an inner-circle disciple (14:43-46), while Peter himself is called “Satan” (8:32-33) and denies any association with Jesus at the crucial moment (14:66-72); and the empty tomb itself was discovered by women (16:1-8).

Some of these are easier to explain away than others (e.g. Jesus’ disregard of purity regulations could well be an interpolation reflecting later Christian practice), but others are virtually impossible to imagine as fabrications (e.g. that Jesus’ own family “went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind’” [3:21]; a detail omitted from all the later gospels). In most of these cases, the tradition after Mark indicates a strong tendency to downplay or omit such details (an exception is the betrayal by Judas, which was subsequently played up), verifying their embarrassing nature. Taken together, the inclusion of such material strongly suggest an historical core to the Jesus tradition as preserved in Mark, not only making Jesus existence almost certain, but even providing a measure of confirmation for the reliability of the Synoptic Gospels as a whole.

Conclusion: Though individually the above arguments (which are by no means exhaustive) might be questioned, their combined force is considerable. They do not, of course, prove the New Testament accounts “inerrant” (nor do I believe that they are), but they do make the plausibility of a purely fictional Jesus extremely unlikely. Yet as they say, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating,” and ultimately the near unanimity of New Testament scholars (from conservative to liberal) about the basic details of Jesus’ life—that he was an itinerant preacher who was crucified in the first third of the 1st C.—is not based on such arguments so much as the basic usefulness of the assumption. The alternatives offer no where near as much explanatory power, and depend on far too much speculation and skepticism. In contrast, the rise and shape of early Christianity and the New Testament simply make the most sense when viewed as a reaction to an historical Jesus. In every way, the early church evidences its profound debt to the unique personality, distinctive teaching, shameful death, and (purported) resurrection of Jesus.

Bibliobloggers Get Together at SBL

2008-11-01T13:15:00.000-07:00

For those who will be at SBL, Michael Halcomb is trying to nail down a time for bloggers to get together. The options are: Saturday 1) Lunch or 2) Dinner or Sunday 3) Lunch or 4) Dinner. My vote is for Sunday dinner (4), but head over to Pisteumen and vote for yourselves.

Biblioblog Top 50

2008-10-31T20:26:00.000-07:00

According to NT Wrong's newly unveiled ranking system, this was the 29th most popular Biblioblog for October. I'm honored, but also rather skeptical. I'm fairly certain that many, if not all, of those below me actually get more traffic. Oh well, even if a recount reveals massive voter fraud and I'm knocked off the list, I'll take comfort in his disclaimer:

In Biblical Studies the ability to write meaningful pieces that only you and, maybe, one other person in the world understand is the zenith of achievement. The Biblioblog Top 50 is thus no indication of the worth or otherwise of the blogs involved.

But I won't give back the award! ;P

Worshipping the Golden Calf

2008-10-31T13:53:00.000-07:00

Oh Dear:

Drew points to this unintentionally hilarious video and article from the (so-called) Christian Broadcasting Network:

“In January of this year, Cindy Jacobs was in a worship service when the Lord spoke to her, “Cindy, the strongman over America doesn’t live in Washington, DC – the strongman lives in New York City! Call My people to pray for the economy.”
“This is so severe in the economic area because we are facing judgment from the actions, not only for our stance towards Israel, but our blatant sin against Him in passing laws such as the one allowing homosexual marriages,” Cindy said....
“We are going to intercede at the site of the statue of the bull on Wall Street to ask God to begin a shift from the bull and bear markets to what we feel will be the ‘Lion’s Market,’ or God’s control over the economic systems,” she said. “While we do not have the full revelation of all this will entail, we do know that without intercession, economies will crumble.”

I'd say their hearts are in the right place (after all, we should trust God in this matter as in all others), but really? The legalization of homosexual marriage is the most "blatant sin" they could come up with? You'd think, standing on Wall Street, that corporate greed might have deserved a mention? Or is that idol too sacred to question?

Happy Halloween!

2008-10-31T12:04:00.000-07:00

Happy Halloween! Or Happy Reformation Day, for you super-spiritual types. It's been pouring rain all day 'round these parts, so Trick or Treating is gonna be quick and dirty, but the kids are cute, dressed up as Jack-o-Lanterns. No, that's not them! ;)

SBL Is Three Weeks Away! aka This One Is For the Stalkers

2008-10-30T09:23:00.000-07:00

NT Wrong has put together a helpful list of Bibliobloggers, categorizing each (with a whole lot of snarking on all sides) from "Very Conservative" to "Very Liberal." I'm listed as "Fairly Conservative," which I suppose is accurate. John Shuck retorts that the list provides a helpful resource for the stalkers, of whom I'm sure Biblical scholars have many....

In the hope that he's joking, I've decided to finally give up a bit of my own anonymity, so that if I do run into any fellow bloggers at SBL next month, they won't mistake me for a stalker. That said, if anyone knows of any biblioblogger get-togethers planned for SBL (or just wants an opportunity to give me a piece of their mind in person!), I'd love to hear about them.

Did Jesus Exist?

2008-10-29T14:54:00.000-07:00

It is a common refrain amongst the New Atheists that Jesus did not exist, that he was invented out of whole cloth by the early Christians. It is noteworthy that the people making this claim are generally not historical critics, while virtually all New Testament scholars (a group which includes a fair number of non-Christians) insist that Jesus' existence and death by crucifixion is an undeniable fact. That said, a mere appeal to authority can hardly be the end of the matter—though it should establish that the burden of proof rests on those who would deny this consensus—so it is worth discussing the matter in a bit more detail.

Just such a discussion has lately been ongoing at James McGrath’s blog. In response to his book The Burial of Jesus, James has attracted the attention of a number of Jesus-deniers and has been attempting to explain a few of the reasons why the crucifixion is almost universally accepted. Before I add my own two cents, be sure to check out these two posts, the latter of which includes this video:

That video drew attention from well-known British atheist Stephen Law, who responded here:

His argument is that the early Christians would not make up a crucifixion story as the Messiah was not someone they would expect to be crucified. The expectation was the Messiah would defeat the Romans, not be executed by them. Of course this is a blog standard argument that gets repeated over and over. He concludes anyone who thinks the story is made up is living in a fantasy land.
This seems to me an amazingly weak piece of evidence.
He is second guessing people's motives for why they would invent a story in which the expected Messiah dies.
First, there may be reasons why they would want their Messiah to die and come back to life. In fact, aren't there some very, very obvious reasons why they would want that? You want to invent a Messiah. But unfortunately no one has defeated the Romans or introduced the Kingdom of God just yet - which is what the Messiah is supposed to do. Hmm. What sort of story might you construct? Or perhaps the Messiah claim got tacked on to a made up resurrection story in order to give it authority, the story then being adjusted to make the Messiah claim fit.
Second, even if the tellers did have a motive not to include this element, and also had no reason to include it, so what?
This chap's argument rests on something like this principle:
If a story, presented as true, reporting many bizarre/miraculous events, contains an element that we think the tellers would have a motive not to include, then that bit of the story is probably true.
This is feeble. After all, alien abductees are often very embarrassed about saying what's been shoved up them. That's not a bit they'd choose to include. Should we conclude that bit of their stories is probably true?
If this is the best Dr. James McGrath has for supposing the Jesus crucifixion story is almost certainly true, I think he's in big trouble....
Remember, I don't say the crucifixion of an historical Jesus is a made up story. I say it's not unreasonable for me, given the evidence I have seen thus far, to suppose it might be.

The truth is, Stephen's own response is the one that is “feeble.” ~~He assumes that the mere possibility that Jesus could have been invented is proof enough that he was.~~ He dismisses James' argument on the grounds that he can imagine an alternative [see Stephen's comment]. He offers no reason to think this alternative provides a better explanation for the rise of early Christianity than that it really was a movement begun by a man named Jesus who was crucified. After all, unlike alien abductees, we have plenty of concrete evidence (archaeological and textual) that many Jews were crucified by the Romans, so there is no obvious reason to deny that Jesus was as well, simply because it was his own followers who recorded it.

Even leaving aside any other reasons to think Jesus existed, James' point about the Jews not expecting their messiah to be crucified is important. The issue is not that it was unlikely that a would-be messiah would be crucified (it was very likely indeed), but that this was generally seen as proof that the claimant was not the messiah after all. It was this latter belief that the early Christians rejected, and the most plausible explanation is that their own favored messianic claimant was actually crucified. What needs explaining is not why a would-be messiah would have been killed, but why anyone would continue to call him the messiah after it happened.

In fact, we know from non-Christian sources (such as Josephus) that there were numerous would-be Jewish messiahs in 1st C. Palestine, many of whom were killed by the Romans. Therefore, if you are going to explain the origin of a 1st C. Jewish messianic sect which claims its leader was crucified, it makes by far the most sense to think they started out as followers of one of those would-be messiahs, and subsequently reinterpreted their beliefs after his death. To claim the sect originated for some other (unknown) reason and then invented an entirely imaginary messiah that never existed and yet was still claimed to be killed by the Romans raises far more questions than it answers. UFO’s notwithstanding, James is right that such “embarrassing” details—of which there are many more, like Jesus’ baptism by John and Peter’s denials—are indeed strong evidence that there is a historical core to the story, however much it may have been embellished and reinterpreted by the early church.

To see this, consider a contemporary analogy: The cargo cults. No doubt it is possible that even if no Western traders ever visited them, the inhabitants of certain Pacific islands might have nevertheless started claiming that white men had brought them extravagant gifts from their gods (and one day would again), but it makes far more sense to see the embellishments and interpretations put forth by such cults as responses to actual encounters with such traders than as pure fiction without historical foundation. Similarly, even if you categorically deny all miraculous elements in the Jesus tradition, it makes much more sense to see those elements as embellishments and interpretations based (however loosely) on actual memories of a crucified messianic claimant than as pure fiction without any basis in reality.

Some Perspective

2008-10-27T20:58:00.001-07:00

From the Kenyan Daily Nation HT: James McGrath

Money Isn't Everything

2008-10-25T09:31:00.000-07:00

Nicholas Kristof offers five ways the recession could be good for you (HT Jesus Creed):

Americans haven’t become any happier as they have prospered in the last half-century. And winning the lottery doesn’t make people happier in the long term.
This is called the Easterlin Paradox: Once they have met their basic needs, people don’t become happier as they become richer. In recent years, new research has undermined the Easterlin Paradox, yet it’s still true that happiness has less to do with money than with friendships and finding meaning in a cause larger than oneself.
“There’s pretty good evidence that money doesn’t matter much for how you feel moment to moment,” said Alan Krueger, a Princeton University economist who is conducting extensive research on happiness. “What seems to matter much more is having good friends and family, and time to spend on social activities.”

Human Sacrifice and the Christian Carnival

2008-10-22T09:26:00.000-07:00

This week's Christian Carnival is up at Rodney Olsen's blog. It includes my post on Literalism and the Ascension along with various and sundry others.

In particular, note Henry Neufeld's post on the many meanings of sacrifice, to which I would add the complication that our understanding of legitimate sacrifice has itself changed (thankfully!), and did so even within the ancient world. For instance, I've lately been enjoying an excellent series of lectures on Ancient Greek Literature. The one I listened to on my drive home last night discussed Agamemnon, who sacrificed his daughter Iphigeneia at the beginning of the Trojan War, described with great pathos (and sickening detail) in the first part of Aeschylus' Oresteia trilogy. A similar story, of course, appears in Judges 11, which describes with like pathos (though none of the gory details) Jephthah's sacrifice of his own daughter after a war with the Ammonites.

But the interesting this about both stories is how they indicate a shifting view of human sacrifice from the period described to the one in which the story is told. While Agamemnon and Jephthah apparently considered human sacrifice as an acceptable means of earning the god's favor, those telling their stories saw things quite differently, taking pains to build up sympathy for the victim. These, I think, can provide a model for our own reading of the more gruesome aspects of biblical history. Like Aeschylus and the unnamed author of Judges 11, we must tell these stories, not to excuse or encourage such acts, but precisely to reveal their tragedy. For we still live in a world that is willing to sacrifice its children (whether in the names of various gods, nationalities, or as a "choice"), and too often we are numb to its horror.

Jeffrey Overstreet Gets It

2008-10-21T09:57:00.000-07:00

Jeffrey Overstreet (whose book Auralia's Colors I just purchased and can't wait to read) sums up my views of this election perfectly. I've never felt more conflicted about an election, nor more tempted to vote third party.

Indiana Jones Denied Tenure

2008-10-19T21:48:00.000-07:00

Nice:

The committee concurred that Dr. Jones does seem to possess a nearly superhuman breadth of linguistic knowledge and an uncanny familiarity with the history and material culture of the occult. However, his understanding and practice of archaeology gave the committee the greatest cause for alarm. Criticisms of Dr. Jones ranged from “possessing a perceptible methodological deficiency” to “practicing archaeology with a complete lack of, disregard for, and colossal ignorance of current methodology, theory, and ethics” to “unabashed grave-robbing.”...

Moreover, no one on the committee can identify who or what instilled Dr. Jones with the belief that an archaeologist’s tool kit should consist solely of a bullwhip and a revolver.

Literalism and the Ascension

2008-10-18T12:46:00.000-07:00

Over at Exploring Our Matrix, James McGrath has up a couple of interesting posts about “naïve” verses “conscious” literalism, particularly regarding the story of Jesus’ ascension into heaven (Luke 24:50-53), which are well worth reading:

At heart, the difference is as follows. Naive literalism involves someone (e.g. a Biblical author) treating something as factually true because he or she has no reason to believe otherwise. So, for instance, in the case of the ascension, why wouldn't Luke depict Jesus as heading straight up into the sky? Presumably, had Luke lived today, he would have either described the scene differently, or mentioned dilithium crystals.

Conscious literalism means taking something written by a naive literalist, while having information (whether scientific or historical) that was not available to that ancient author, and deliberately choosing to ignore the more recent developments in our knowledge and understanding, and instead treat the naive literalist's description as entirely factual.

This is an important distinction that must be kept in mind (along with the equally important point that ancient Jews, including our New Testament authors, were not opposed to creating seemingly historical accounts to make theological points), but I’m not certain that “conscious literalism” is necessarily illegitimate. It seems to me that much still depends on how we judge the trustworthiness and intentions of the one we're reading. While it is problematic to insist on a "literal" reading of Luke's ascension story, that doesn't necessarily mean rejecting the basic details he gives; it can also mean asking if there was a real event at the base of this story, even if we question his (naive?) interpretation of it.

Just as it is problematic for a "conscious literalist" to insist that Jesus bodily travelled up to a literal heaven just past the clouds (does anyone actually believe this?), it is also problematic to insist that the early Christians couldn't possibly have seen what Luke claims they saw because that would mean Jesus was still floating out in space somewhere. This is merely another form of literalism.

After all, there are alternatives. Perhaps Jesus was (is?) physical but capable of translating out of our visible three dimensions (one might appeal to string theory with its 11 dimensions, or perhaps something like Hiro Nakamura moving through time, who knows? Perhaps this is what James is referring to in mentioning “dilithium crystals”? A warp-powered Ironman suit? Heh). In any case, whether these are plausible or not is certainly a question worth asking, but the truth is that we're talking about something (resurrection) that is completely beyond our experience, and I doubt we'd do any better job describing it accurately than the New Testament authors have, even if it happened right in front of us. We'd use language and imagery from our own experience and texts--time travel, phase-shifting or some such thing--because it's the best we can do. In the First Century the best they could do was talk about ascending to heaven/the sky.

For all we know Jesus did ascend into the sky (then disappeared?) precisely to give that impression, knowing what First Century Jews would tend to infer from such imagery (deity, glorification, etc.). We might consider it more plausible that the early Christians themselves created this story to express those beliefs about Jesus, but that is not a necessary conclusion. After all, something convinced them that their crucified leader wasn't just taken to heaven non-bodily--like any other martyr--but bodily resurrected and bodily ascended. Whether the story is primary or secondary, bodily resurrection was not what we should have expected them to believe about Jesus, so it seems a bit unlikely that they were completely “naïve” about accepting it; they adopted the belief for a reason, whatever that reason was.

The point is, we can't really know what happened, but if we insist on certainty in such matters (whether as literalists or anti-literalists) we'll never be able to accept that any improbable or miraculous event can happen.

Self-Interest and Sacrifice on Stargate Atlantis

2008-10-17T20:06:00.000-07:00

I think it's fairly well-known around here that I'm a fan of science fiction, and I'm not terribly picky about it. I'll watch just about anything that's not terrible, and even then I'm liable to enjoy the unintentional humor. As such, I've long watched the Stargate franchise, even though it's as often mindless as profound. But this week's episode was a notable exception (ok, obligatory Spoiler Warning):

For those who haven't watched the series, Stargate Atlantis centers on a team of soldiers and scientists who have travelled to the Pegasus galaxy (via a portal created millenia ago... long story) to look for the lost city of Atlantis (even longer story). Upon arrival there, they discover that the galaxy is in fact full of humans (longer story still) who are enslaved by a race of evil people-eating aliens called the Wraith (don't ask). Oh, and everyone speaks English! So anyway... our noble heroes take it upon themselves to try to free said galaxy from said wicked villains, leading to all sorts of entertaining but impossible adventures.

Now--if you've finished rolling your eyes--in this week's episode the team is visiting a planet, offering medical services, and being all good-neighborly. Suddenly a large group of Wraith arrive and demand that the locals turn over some refugees, threatening that if they refuse the entire town will be destroyed (apparently, there's only one town on this planet?). Predictably, the town is divided over this little moral dilemma. Some claim that to give in would make them no better than the Wraith; others insist that it's better to sacrifice a few--outsiders no less--than to let everyone be killed, including the refugees.

At this point the heroes offer a way out: They will help evacuate the town and relocate everyone to another planet. Noble folks that they are, they even offer to risk their own lives to fight off the Wraith to enable this escape. But of course, this only presents yet another dilemma: The townspeople must now decide whether to give up their own livelihoods to save the lives of others, essentially to become refugees in order to save refugees.

Put like that, it's easy see what the noble thing to do is, but what is noble and what actually happens is rarely the same thing. After all, our own world is full of dying people whom we could help if only we'd be willing to reduce our own standard of living and give. We needn't even join them in poverty; you can save a life for just a dollar a day. But they're all strangers, and we don't have to look them in the face as we choose our comfort over their lives. In theory, we're willing to help, but it takes effort and sacrifice, and too often self-interest wins out, whether our own or someone else's.

And so it was on the show. Though the town agreed with the plan to flee in theory, before anyone acted to help a few men took it upon themselves to form a brute squad and turn over a few of the refugees. Though they are arrested, by then there are too many Wraith for the original escape plan to work. So what happens next? Some heroic deeds to save the day and clean up this messy moral dilemma without sacrifice? Hardly. The mayor sneaks into the prison and tells them where the remaining refugees are hiding. He then lets them go and, predictably, they lead the Wraith right to the place. When they get inside, however, they find it empty and rigged with explosives. So the villains are killed. Our "heroes" are able to fight off the remaining Wraith and evacuate the town before more can arrive. The credits roll. Another victory for the "good guys."

And isn't that exactly how it goes in the real world as well? We in the West would like to help but, as nations if not as individuals, we let others make the sacrifice for us (or force them into it). Despite all our good intentions, most of the time we can't or won't prevent others from doing the dirty work for us while we live in relative comfort and sleep soundly at night. Sometimes we may throw the worst offenders in jail, but just as often we let our leaders quietly pat them on the hand and send them on their way--to kill or be killed. For either way, a sacrifice always has to be made, and if we are not willing to make it ourselves, there's usually someone else to make it for us. Some young soldiers perhaps? Or a child we'll never meet? Or maybe some "criminal" we can all villainize and execute in our place? Or does that only happen on TV?

If Only My Wife Would Say This

2008-10-17T14:51:00.000-07:00

Ben Byrely's wife (from a great post on "how blogging has tweaked my life"):

If you journal in a notebook with pen and paper, everyone commends you for being spiritual. If instead, you blog in a more communal way, you are wasting time.

The Gematriculator

2008-10-15T10:00:00.000-07:00

Heh, should I be relieved or concerned?

Here. HT Jim West and NT Wrong.

Life on Mars

2008-10-12T08:46:00.000-07:00

This week I caught the series premier of ABC's new show Life on Mars (watch it here). If you were a fan of that short-lived but excellent show Journeyman (my review) or are just hankering for some time travel while you wait for LOST to return, it's worth checking out. Though I'm not at all sure where they're gonna go with it, the premier was interesting and entertaining.

In short, the story centers on Sam Tyler, a New York city detective. Early on, his girlfriend (also a cop) is kidnapped by a serial killer but while Sam is trying to save her he suddenly gets hit by a car. When he wakes up, he's shocked to find himself in 1973, with no idea how he got there. But he hasn't (just) traveled in time; according to everyone around him he lives in 1973. He's got a car and a job (still a cop) and an apartment; as far as everyone else is concerned, the only thing strange about him is that he keeps talking about 2008.

His first reaction is to think this is all some kind of dream, and this seems to be confirmed when he occasionally hears the voices of doctors discussing his accident and coma. But as the voices fade he can't get around the fact that everything seems as real as can be, and his 1973 coworkers are not particularly impressed by his repeated assurances that all this is a delusion. When he then discovers that the case they are working on is eerily similar to the one he was chasing in 2008, he begins to wonder if he might be here for a reason after all.

Without giving away too much more of the plot,* the episode does raise some interesting questions. What you would do if you truly believed your life was just a dream? If you honestly believed that none of the people or situations around you were anything more than a figment of your imagination, how would you act? Would you go on with life as usual, play by the rules, try to be the same person you normally would be? Or would you throw inhibition to the wind, toss your responsibilities aside and live however you want (a possibility raised, perhaps most humorously, in the Stargate SG-1 episode "Window of Opportunity")?

On the one hand, such questions (to me) highlight a particular misunderstanding of morality that conservative theists sometimes tend toward, wherein right and wrong are deemed to be entirely dependent on eternal consequences, unrelated to the consequences of our actions in this world. If, as I believe, God's character is the ultimate determiner of right and wrong, that doesn't mean (as so often assumed) that disbelief in God automatically makes everything permissible. Eternal consequences are not the only ones that matter. Actions do have consequences, and these are real whether there is a God or not, whether the world is real or not. That is to say, even if all this were only a dream with no eternal significance, as long as you are stuck here you'll have to live with the consequences of your actions. In fact, even if the dream will end shortly, the choices you make in it will reflect and shape your character, and you take that with you through whatever world you live in (virtual or otherwise).

Which brings me to the last interesting question the episode raised: To what lengths would you go to prevent someone from committing a crime you know they will one day commit? Near the end of the episode, Sam finds himself face to face with a younger version of the person who will go on to kidnap his girlfriend. Sam seriously considers killing him, even though he is only a young boy who hasn't (yet) done anything wrong. Would you? Would it make a difference if it were only a dream?

*For those who have seen it, however (SPOILER WARNING), highlight for some thoughts on the ending: If (as the message over the radio seemed to imply), he really did prevent the kid from becoming a serial killer, thus saving his 2008 girlfriend, why is he still in 1973? Sam himself asks this question, so the writers seem to be aware of it, but really, if the whole reason he got hit by the car in the first place was because he was chasing this killer, shouldn't the fact that he changed the future also prevent him from ever needing to chase him, and thus from ever getting hit by the car? Does this imply (if he's not dreaming the whole thing to begin with), that he has created an alternate timeline, or is this just bad writing?

Good News for Whom?

2008-10-08T22:44:00.001-07:00

From here:

Paul's "Conversion" and the Life of Faith

2008-10-07T20:57:00.001-07:00

This past week I've been fighting off a bad cold and busily preparing for a graduate seminar on "Israel's Faith, Paul's Conversion or Call, and the Speaker(s) in Romans 7," huge topics, all three. I taught the class this afternoon, and it seemed to go very well. I can't say we reached too many firm conclusions, but we did clarify the issues in important ways. In case anyone is interested, I've uploaded the handout, though I can't say how helpful or unhelpful it will be without the discussion which supported it. If any of my biblical studies-inclined readers would like to comment on it (or point out gross errors, omissions, etc.), however, I'd be grateful, as this is part of my research for a fuller paper on the subject due later in the semester.

In any case, the other reason I bring this up is to say that, as I have been thinking about Paul and the dramatic change which he experienced, I can't help feeling that there is much more here than just the academic questions discussed in the above seminar. And it turns out that Carmen has been thinking about this as well. As she writes:

Sometimes these experiences are dramatic and stunning, but more often they are quieter and less noticeable. Either way, these encounters are integral and constant in the lifelong process of entering and living in kingdom life. “Conversion is more than just an event,” says Scot McKnight in Jesus Creed, “it is a process. Like wisdom, it takes a lifetime. Conversion is a lifelong series of gentle (or noisy) nods of the soul. The question of when someone is converted is much less important that that they are converting.”

When I look at Paul, I see a man who was not only powerfully transformed by his experience of the resurrected Jesus, but did something about it. He didn't just hide out in a cushy office in Jerusalem writing learned treatises on the relation of Jew and Gentile. He didn't sit in some ivory town offering high-minded but impractical moral advice. He took his faith out, into the world; he shared the good news, raised money for the poor, and helped real people to allow God to transform their lives. He did this on his own dime, and in return he was beaten, ridiculed and imprisoned, yet he kept at it right up to his death.

Paul was, by no means, a perfect man. Even his letters strike me as variously puzzling, profound and profane, but not only are his words part of Christian scripture, but he provides a remarkable example to which I need to pay more attention. Like him, I need not just to talk but to live this faith to which I'm in the process of converting.

Quote - Financial Priorities, Again

2008-10-07T20:36:00.000-07:00

Seen on a bumper sticker on my drive home:

It will be a great day when our schools have all the funding they need, and the air force needs to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.