Prophetic Progress

St. Baldrick's: Litnany of the Saints

2012-02-12T13:22:00.000-08:00

Today, I'm kicking off my fundraising for St. Baldricks and would like to present a litnany of the Saints that have made this event special to me.

St. Nathan - a special boy about whom I only know snipits. I know that while vacationing with a big group of us in a Scottsdale house, he could not get enough of the swimming pool. I know that Ode to Joy was his favorite hymn and that Fred was his favorite Scooby Do character; I know he died too young.

St. Matt - my friend who first started shaving his head to raise money for cancer research in response to Nathan's diagnosis. Matt is responsible for guiding us to this positive response to the tragedy that is cancer.

St. Beth - my friend who obtained a grant from St. Baldrick's foundation to research medicine important for childhood cancer treatment. Beth is responsible for giving me that knowledge in my gut that this money is doing good work.

St. James - my son who agreed to shave his head to help the cause as well. James is responsible for inspiring me to continue even when I become worried that my asking for money is becoming a drag for my friends.

St. Jeremy - a boy from my youth group who agreed to shave his head for the cause. Jeremy's hair was so beautiful that when the barber began to shave his head there was an audible gasp at the outdoor venue. Jeremy could only participate one year because he lost his life is a senseless act of violence involving a gun; Jeremy died too young.

St. Alex - Jeremy's brother who was never one for crowds or attention. Nonetheless, he agreed to shave his head for the cause in Jeremy's place. Alex is responsible for me understanding that there is courage in this world that I can only witness.

I will not list the donors individually, but I am humbled each year by those who give to this cause. Thank you all for your past support; and thank you for giving again this year. To give, follow the link on the right side of the page.

Read This

2012-02-09T13:02:00.001-08:00

This is such a perfect display of the different creation stories. I certainly cannot improve on it. Just read this.

Faith & Politics

2012-02-03T21:57:00.000-08:00

This post is based on reactions I received to being happy that President Obama revealed that helping the poor was a manifestation of his faith. Here's the AZ Central article.

First ground rules, I accept that there is an American value to separate church and state. And, I believe that this value is not limited to the strict legal confines of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. In other words, there are steps that a person can take that would violate our national value in keeping religion separate from governing that do not necessarily give rise to a judicial cause of action under the First Amendment.

Second, just to be clear, there is no Christian value that parallels this. Liberal Christians sometimes like take the Give unto Caesar passage as Jesus advocating that faith is separate from government. Not so. If you read the passage you will realize the Jesus uses to quote as an indirect way of saying that we, who bear the image of God, should be given to God; thus, dodging the trap set by his detractor.

So, let's imagine that I am a liberal Christian who is a member of my city council. It would be wrong for me to use my governmental power to promote my church. I should not use council meetings as a forum to encourage people to attend my church. I should not push for city contracts with church members, or members of similarly aligned churches. It would also be wrong for me to use my church affiliation to gain more political power. So, I should not say vote for me because I'm a real Christian. Nor should my pastor encourage people from the church to vote for me.

By contrast, it is entirely appropriate for my faith to influence the decisions that I make as city council member. Indeed, it would be impossible for it to be otherwise. As a Christian, I believe that all people are a creation of God, thus I believe in equality. I believe that our salvation is based on how we care for the poor. Thus, I want to ensure there is a social safety net. Likewise, if my faith is going to be worth anything, it needs to address how we live which necessarily includes so-called political issues.

The result is that I can become frustrated by the conduct of people if (1) they misuse their official power to promote their faith, or (2) if their faith properly influences the way they conduct themselves in office, but I find their faith inspired values to be repulsive.

Examples of (1) include printing "In God We Trust" on our money, having a national day of prayer, holding a giant campaign event about prayer, or pastors supporting specific candidates from the pulpit. Examples of (2) include opposing requirements that pharmacists fill birth control prescriptions and opposing gay rights. I actually think (2) is more of a problem in recent politics.

One that sits on the edge for me is teaching creationism. On the one hand, it promotes the creationist's religious views, based on themes similar to those presented in some parts of the Bible. On the other hand, it is an expression of their world view--which is appropriate--but it just happens that their world view is a nonsensical perversion of the faith. Maybe it is wrong on both principles.

Does this distinction work?

Live Encounters

2012-01-28T22:33:00.000-08:00

Pat & I went to see some live music tonight at the Rhythm Room . It was really fun even though the music was rockabilly, which neither one of us, and especially Pat, would never listen to on the radio. I don't know exactly why that is, but tonight I wondered if it was because you could sense the joy of the artist or the others in the room.

Last weekend I attended a retreat of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)'s GLAD Alliance leadership council. During the retreat we watched a lecture that evaluated different techniques of addressing prejudice. Sadly for me, research shows that the worst way to move someone from a bigoted position is education. I say sadly because education, or debating, or mocking, is my favorite response to prejudice.

Turns out that what works is contact. While serving on the GLAD council and while working at Chalice Christian Church, and on several occasions in my professional life, I've had many opportunities to work with members of the LGBT community. As a result, it is hard for me to even understand how there are people who can claim that the love these people I know so well is sinful. It seems ludicrous to hold such a belief.

I wonder if there is something similar between the thrill of live music and the intensity of working together with someone that changes your experience to such a degree that your emotion must follow.

The nice thing is that this study suggests there is more knowing contact with gay people than ever before in this country. Maybe this will be a non-issue sooner than we think.

The Illiad & Me.

2012-01-17T19:00:00.000-08:00

In 1995, I returned from an overseas deployment. It was short even by Clinton-Peace-Era standards, only ten weeks. I got off the boat in my whites, complete with my eagle-adorned cover, to hug and kiss my wife and ten month old son. It was my first such return, and I was as emotional as my wife.

Hector stretched his arms towards his child, but the boy cried and nestled in his nurse's bosom, scared at the sight of his father's armour, and at the horse-hair plume that nodded fiercely from his helmet.

Jimmy clutched his mom tightly and started to cry once he was in my arms. It was clear that he didn't recognize me. We tried to shrug it off, I think, and his mom took him back. But, once we got home, I took out the Dr. Seus book that I had read to him on a video tape--a video tape that he and his mother watched while I was away.

His father and mother laughed to see him, but Hector took the helmet from his head and laid it all gleaming upon the ground. Then he took his darling child, kissed him, and dandled him in his arms, praying over him the while to Jove and to all the gods. "Jove," he cried, "grant that this my child may be even as myself, chief among the Trojans; let him be not less excellent in strength, and let him rule Ilius with his might. Then may one say of him as he comes from battle, 'The son is far better than the father.' May he bring back the blood-stained spoils of him whom he has laid low, and let his mother's heart be glad.'"

Upon hearing my familiar voice and the familiar words, Jimmy recognized me, and I felt our bond as father and son was restored. I prayed a silent prayer of thanksgiving to be home and to be able to hold my son again. I suspect Pat did as well.

With this he laid the child again in the arms of his wife, who took him to her own soft bosom, smiling through her tears.

We still have those videos of me reading to Jimmy, who now goes by James, but since we can't even talk about them without choking up, we haven't ever watched them. Too soon.

I hope things turn out as well for Hecktor as they did for me. I'm only through Book VI.

I like this painting

2012-01-16T19:00:00.000-08:00

This painting intends to illustrate this passage from the Gospel of Luke:

In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

Let's stop here because the painting is intended to show Mary just as the Angel Gabriel arrives. As most probably know, the passage goes on to have the angel tell Mary that, despite her virginity, she "will conceive and give birth to a son, and [she is] to call him Jesus." The passage contains Luke's patented "do not be afraid" admonition, and concludes with Mary's declaration that she is “the Lord’s servant,” and her prayer, “May your word to me be fulfilled.” Luke 1:26-38.

So here is what I love about this painting. First, it shows Mary reading a book and older than I think I see her sometimes. I like the idea of her having her wits about her and not being just an empty vessel to be filled by God, so to speak. Second, I love the realism of her expression, and I get the notion that the angel is over her shoulder, and not as the commentaries I have read on-line suggest, directly in front of her. I don't think the viewer is in the place of Gabriel; I think she is looking off or not really looking anywhere like a person does when trying to listen closely. Finally, I love the quiet intimacy the piece conveys. I've come back to this several times and just found it to be really moving.

Fair Wages

2012-01-07T18:40:00.000-08:00

Much of my reading last year focused on economic justice. I wanted to write something that addressed many of these primary sources. Also it is sort of a pet topic

There is such a thing as economic injustice distinct from committing fraud. Wages can be a source of injustice; however, it is no easy task to assess a just wage. While Marx suggests we eliminate private property, I think the better solution is to accept the market's poor job of assigning a just wage but to use a social safety net to make the system morally tolerable.

Economic Systems Can Be Unjust

When there is no economic system, any party takes possession of what he or she wants. If more than one person wants the same possession, the strongest will prevail. Rousseau addressed this state, and whether there existed a right of the strongest, by writing, "Suppose for a moment that this so-called 'right' exists. I maintain that the sole result is a mass of inexplicable nonsense" The Social Contract, Book I, Section 3. He explains that force has nothing to do with morality. I agree with Rousseau, and so does Jesus. He reserved his blessings for the weak and his curses for the mighty. For example,

Blessed are you who are poor,
for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are you who hunger now,
for you will be satisfied.
. . . .
But woe to you who are rich,
for you have already received your comfort.
Woe to you who are well fed now,
for you will go hungry.

Luke 6:17-26. I do not think this is a tough conclusion that the strong exploiting the weak is not a moral economic system, although I do not know what Ayn Rand or Rand Paul would say. Without regard for these potential objections, let proceed to the next idea.

The next system is one in which any agreement is allowed. In this system, the collective force of the society is used to ensure compliance with the binding agreements. Montaigne recognizes that agreements tend to have winners and losers, writing that "no profit whatever can possibly be made but at the expense of another." Essays, Book I, ch. 21. Scripture condemns economic systems that exploit the poor. See, e.g., Amos (condemning those who tax the poor); Proverbs (condemning exploiting the poor in court). Indeed, when the Israelites returned from exile, Nehemiah scolded them for engaging in some exploitative property deals that actually sounded like they might be similar to practices of lenders today.

Now the men and their wives raised a great outcry against their fellow Jews. . . . “We are mortgaging our fields, our vineyards and our homes to get grain during the famine.” . . . “We have had to borrow money to pay the king’s tax on our fields and vineyards." . . . When I heard their outcry and these charges, I was very angry. I pondered them in my mind and then accused the nobles and officials. I told them, “You are charging your own people interest! . . . What you are doing is not right. Shouldn’t you walk in the fear of our God to avoid the reproach of our Gentile enemies? . . . Give back to them immediately their fields, vineyards, olive groves and houses, and also the interest you are charging them—one percent of the money, grain, new wine and olive oil.”

Nehemiah 5:1-12. So we have an Ancient Palestine loan modification. Note, exploitation does not necessarily mean cheating, which is condemned in other places. See, e.g., Proverbs & Micah, Clearing the Temple. This leads me to the conclusion that it would be desirable to have a method to assess whether a wage is fair, beyond simply asking whether either party lied to each other.

An Honest Day's Pay for an Honest Day's Work

First, it is worth reaching all the way back to Locke's comments on work. Locke attributes the creation of private property to the work individuals put into raw materials, which Locke believes were all given equally to all humans. As for the balance of the value, Locke writes, "It is labour then which puts the greatest part of value upon land, without which it would scarcely be worth any thing." Concerning Civil Government, Ch. V , para. 43. From Locke's comments a fair wage could be derived from considering the amount value of any service or product and assuming that the vast majority of it should be transferred to the wage earners. There are problems with this conclusion. Not least of which is that Locke was referring to land, and that Locke recognized that property rights have since been set up by conventions and are no longer a direct product of labor as in the natural state.

Adam Smith considers wages more directly in the context of a component of the cost of any item, along with rent and the cost of capital. Smith believes that the market creates two limits on wages. For a floor, "[a] man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him . . . in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance." Wealth of Nations, Book I, Ch. 8. Marx states it more bleakly, claiming that "[t]he average price of wager labour is the minimum wage, i.e., that quantum of the means of subsistence which is absolutely requisite to keep the labourer in bare existence as a labourer." Communist Manifesto, Ch. 2. The slight difference between Marx and Smith in defining the minimum possible wage is that Smith assumes that worker can negotiate and as such will not take less than what they need to live on. Marx recognizes the power differential.

Of course, this is only the minimum. Smith also puts forward some expectations for what will actually drive wages. Smith cites five factors in Chapter 10. (1) The job that is more difficult, less desirable, and less honorable will pay more. (2) The job that it cost more or is more difficult to be qualified to do will pay more. (3) The job that has less job security will pay more. (4) The job that requires the public trust will pay more. (5) The job will pay more if success is less certain. I can say that I personally have not found this to be an accurate list. At least, it is not good enough to predict for example the pay received by someone operating a civilian nuclear reactor versus a naval nuclear reactor. Similarly, it doesn't seem to work for school teachers versus insurance underwriters. It doesn't work for firm lawyers versus attorneys general.

I would add to this list the amount of money that flows through a given field as a determiner of wage. More broadly, however, I think the list illustrates how difficult it is to quantify what is a just wage. It doesn't include the social value of the job being performed, and probably a dozen other factors that most people would believe should be a component in determining what one should be paid. So, what is there to do if it is so difficult to fairly compensate people? Marx has an answer.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

We know a couple things about this idea. One, the violence can by plenty real. Two, the economic losses are tremendous.

I think the best solution is to let the market set the wages. Rather than attempt to address the problem by ensuring fair wages, we should instead put in place a social safety net such that we are comfortable that even if someone is working in a job that should be more greatly compensated, they will not do without being able to live an acceptable lifestyle. This allows us to enjoy the maximum productivity of a capitalist society, without the moral dilemma of disparate compensation and wealth distribution. My idea is not without precedent, even in the Bible. For example, farmers were required to leave behind the grain that fell to the ground for the poor. It was their right to have this grain. Not a matter of charity. See, e.g., Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Ruth. Thus, the social safety net is necessary for Christians to accept the injustice of wage assignment found in our system.

recent reading

2011-12-28T05:50:00.000-08:00

While riding the local from Mesa to Tempe, I finished the Adam Smith selection, read the Communist Manefesto and Ibsen's Master Builder, and have started Schroedinger's What Is Life?. The latter is put in context here. I found that article while sitting in a waiting room and wondering if Schroedinger's guess about the number or atoms per gene still held up. (It does for his purposes, although obviously in 1944 his understanding was lacking.) Meanwhile, I'm writing this post on my smart phone on the bus, which is not even really noteworthy. We live in a cool world.

Is Newt Gingrich a Liar

2011-12-10T23:43:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich says that there were no Palestinians until 1977. The article points out that "[t]he Palestine Liberation Organization was in fact founded in 1964, capping off years of Palestinian cultural development from both before and after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War." Also there is this from two hundred years before 1977.

The Jews of Palestine, who had fondly expected a temporal deliverer, gave so cold a reception to the miracles of the divine prophet, that it was found unnecessary to publish, or at least to preserve, any Hebrew gospel. Edward Gibbon, Ch. 15, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (circa 1776).

(Emphasis added)(Footnote omitted).

I think I just answered my own question.

John the Baptist as Anti-Corporatist

2011-12-04T18:50:00.000-08:00

The Gospel of Mark does not open with a nativity. Instead, we learn about how Jesus was the One for whom the Israelites were waiting for. Mark reaches back to the Prophet who wrote told of either a wilderness voice crying out about making a straight path for the Lord or a voice crying out in the wilderness about making a straight path in the wilderness.

“a voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.’”

Mark 1:3. Compare with Isaiah 40:3.

A voice of one calling:“In the wilderness prepare
the way for the LORD;
make straight in the desert
a highway for our God.

Regardless of where the punctuation should go, the important point for the author of Mark is that Jesus has someone doing his advance work. And that guy is described thusly.

And so John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. The whole Judean countryside and all the people of Jerusalem went out to him. Confessing their sins, they were baptized by him in the Jordan River. John wore clothing made of camel’s hair, with a leather belt around his waist, and he ate locusts and wild honey. And this was his message: “After me comes the one more powerful than I, the straps of whose sandals I am not worthy to stoop down and untie. I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.”

What was John doing in the wilderness? Why does it matter that he ate locusts and wild honey? This passage reminded me of something that Adam Smith wrote.

Among civilized and thriving nations, on the contrary, though a great number of people do not labour at all, many of whom consume the produce of ten times, frequently of a hundred times more labour than the greater part of those who work; yet the produce of the whole labour of the society is so great, that all are often abundantly supplied, and a workman, even of the lowest and poorest order, if he is frugal and industrious, may enjoy a greater share of the necessaries and conveniencies of life than it is possible for any savage to acquire.

Wealth of Nations, Bk I, Ch.I, para 4. Adam Smith makes the point that in advanced nations there is a structure wherein the labor of many go into producing goods for everyone. Which in turn makes the individual beholden to the system. Although not a primary point for Smith, such systems also enable "a great number of people [to] not labour at all."

By contrasts, eating wild honey and locusts does not require the support of that social matrix. Furthermore, while John is hanging around the capital city, he is doing his baptizing out in the wilderness. Makes me think of a militia man or off-the-grid organic farmer of ancient Palestine. Is this an accident that Mark opens this way?

Marcus Borg probably doesn't think it is. He writes, "[Jesus] was a voice of peasant social protest against the economic inequity and violence of the imperial domination system, mediated in the Jewish homeland by client rulers of the Roman Empire." In his book, plainly titled Jesus, Borg notes that Jesus' ministry comes in a time when the relatively new economic system, a system that Adam Smith would describe as civilized, is causing significant injustice.

I buy it. I think this economically efficient system presented injustice. I also think that Jesus' coming was about challenging that system. What do you think? Is this too much of a stretch?

Last Ride on 532

2011-12-01T06:34:00.000-08:00

I put down my copy of Wealth of Nations as we began our descent into Phoenix. I decided to drink in the last bit of what was likely my last ride on the Route 532 Express Bus from Mesa to downtown. I resituated myself on the back bench, which seats five but rarely actually seats more than three, and took note of my fellow passengers.

My guess is that the median age was just north of fifty. At least two men had been asleep for most of the ride. One leaned precariously close to me several times, each time straightening up just before I was about to wake him. Even though there were thirty of us spread out over about 70 seats on the double bus, I like the back bench and this guy likes the side facing back seat, so we were closer than necessary.

Almost everyone had something to read. The guys who chat about "the game" and "the market" were not riding today. It is pretty common to see the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Paperback novels make up a good share of the selection as well. Newspapers and the occasional lawyer reviewing briefs make up the rest. Some just listen to music.

I will drive in tomorrow and am meeting some folks for drinks tonight. I start a new job on Monday that is not serviced by this Express Bus route. I'm planning to try riding a Local, but we'll have to see. Also, today was a rare overcast day in Phoenix, Arizona. And maybe that added to my sentimentality, but I have to confess to mild feelings of melancholy over saying good bye to Route 532.

The Disciples of Christ Are Anti-Exclusion Part II: Founding Principles

2011-11-26T16:32:00.000-08:00

UPDATED 11/27/11 to correct typos and make some adjustments in response to comments on Romans.

Part I

At the heart of the Stone-Campbell movement was a calling "to restore Christianity to its original purity and power," in which Disciples historians have recognized "the significant role of American religious liberty." [1] This section explores how this calling led the church founders to believe that (1) church doctrine and human tradition had crowded out the simple, true Gospel of Jesus Christ and (2) a particularly destructive manifestation of this perversion of the faith was the exclusion of some from the Body of Christ. These themes are evident not only in the works of Thomas and Alexander Campbell and Barton W. Stone, but also in the work of John Locke, a particularly influential philosopher for the church founders. [2] In Locke's A Letter Concerning Toleration he wrote,

Whosoever requires those things in order to ecclesiastical communion, which Christ does not require in order to life eternal, he may, perhaps, indeed constitute a society accommodated to his own opinion and his own advantage; but how that can be called the Church of Christ which is established upon laws that are not His, and which excludes such person from its communion as He will one day receive into the Kingdom of Heaven, I understand not.

Note both the notion that human doctrine could corrupt the teachings of Christ and that the corruption leads to exclusion.

The Stone Movement's important Last Will & Testament of the Springfield Presbytery addressed the corruption of the Gospel with human tradition. Stone's Christians willed "that candidates for the Gospel ministry henceforth study the holy scripture with fervent prayer, and obtain license from God to preach the simple Gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, without any mixture of philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, or rudiments of the world." Even more graphically, at the beginning of the Observations written to accompany the Last Will & Testament, the Christians asked, "How often even among us, has he been crucified afresh, and put to an open shame; pronounced powerless, dead, and buried among the rubbish of human tradition?" This sentiment was not held only by the Christians. In Alexander Campbell's Declaration and Address, the first declaration is that the Disciples were forming a religious association "for the sole purpose of promoting simple evangelical Christianity, free from all mixture of human opinions and inventions of men." A pithy summary can be found in the popular slogan: in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity. [3]

In place of human tradition and creeds, the founders encouraged adherents to read Scripture for themselves. In the Appendix to the Declaration and Address, Campbell explains that the Reformers "propose to patronize nothing but the inculcation of the express word of God--either as to matter of faith or practice;--but every one that has a Bible, and can read it, can read this for himself.--Therefore we have nothing new." Likewise, the Christians willed in the Last Will & Testament "that the people may have free course to the Bible, and adopt the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus." Indeed, as mentioned above, when Barton W. Stone was required to accept the Westminster Confession as a part of his ordination into the Presbytery of Transylvania, Kentucky he would not accept the creed without qualification. [4] Stone records in his autobiography, "I went into the Presbytery, and when the question was proposed, 'Do you receive and adopt the Confession of Faith, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Bible?' I answered aloud, so that the whole congregation might hear, 'I do, as far as I see it consistent with the word of God.' No objection being made, I was ordained." [5] Or, as another slogan goes, "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." [6]

As a natural consequence of rejecting creeds, Stone and the Campbells both rejected tests of membership. [7] In the introduction to the Declaration, Campbell put it this way.

We are also persuaded that as no man can be judged for his brother, so no man can judge for his brother: but that every man must be allowed to judge for himself, as every man must bear his own judgment;--must give account of himself to God--We are also of opinion that as the divine word is equally binding upon all so all lie under an equal obligation to be bound by it, and it alone; and not by any human interpretation of it: and that therefore no man has a right to judge his brother, except in so far as he manifestly violates the express letter of the law.

It is perhaps its direct link to rejecting exclusion that makes the story of the Communion token so popular. It is undisputed that the Seceder church to which Campbell belonged in Scotland required that before receiving Communion members must first qualify for a Communion token. [8] Some have suggested that when the plate came to Campbell he threw his token upon the plate and compared "[t]he ring of that token, as it fell from his hands [to] the ring of Martin Luther's hammer on the door of the Wittenberg cathedral." [9] Others report the incident more as an internal moment in which Campbell quietly refused Communion in personal protest. [10] In either case, rejecting exclusion was an essential part of Campbell's vision.

These principles strongly argue against discriminating against Christians based on sexual orientation or gender identity. First, having the same sexual orientation and gender identity as the majority of Christians in a particular congregation is not an essential. Walter Scott identified what was essential for membership as the "golden oracle" recorded in Matthew 16:16, namely to confess that Jesus is "the Messiah, the Son of the living God." [11] And even if Scott's formulation is too narrow, the absence of any discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in Scripture demonstrates that these traits are not essential to being a follower of Christ.

This leads to the second point; the Bible is entirely silent on sexual orientation and gender identity. There is literally nothing addressing same sex couples getting married or adopting children. To be sure, the Bible references acts of sex between people of the same physical sex. However, the Scriptures do not consider the notion of a loving relationship between two people of the same physical sex. Consider Romans 1:26-27.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Paul describes abandoning natural relations and being inflamed with lust. Nothing in this description seems remotely related to the couples at Chalice Christian Church raising children together in committed lifetime relationships. More importantly, that it was in fact unnatural for some women to have relations with men--that people have sexual orientations that are not necessarily determined by their physical bodies--was an entirely foreign idea to the authors and the early readers of the Scripture. Thus, the Scripture is silent on sexual orientation. The silence of the Scripture on this topic argues for accepting Christians of all sexual orientations and gender identity.

Third, exclusion of Christians based on sexual orientation or gender identity is a mixture of human opinions and inventions of men with Christianity. As discussed above, one's sexual orientation and gender identity is not a topic of Scripture. Rejecting people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered has become a creed proposed by some Christian churches. It is a social issue--like whether a man may take multiple women as his wife--but is not a Christian issue.

Finally, the principle of religious liberty supports accepting Christians without regard to sexual orientation or gender identity. Furthermore, the principle supports being public about the church's acceptance. Perhaps at sometime in the future a congregation's declaration of being open to and affirming of Christians regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity will be as proforma as an employer's declaration of being an Equal Opportunity Employer. Until that time comes, however, the absence of such a declaration amounts to de facto exclusion. Such a membership test cannot be harmonized with the principles of the Stone-Campbell movement.

Of course, this is not to say that the movement's founders would have literally accepted gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered Christians. How the movement's principles have directed the evolution of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is the topic of the next section.
______________________________________________________

[1] M. Blowers, Douglas A. Foster, and D. Newell Williams, Stone-Campbell History Over Three Centuries, in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement at xxii (2004 ed.).
[2] See, e.g., D. Duane Cummins, The Disciples: A Struggle for Reformation (2009 paperback ed.) (noting the significance of Locke for the Disciples founders and that Alexander Campbell referred to Locke as "The Christian Philosopher").
[3] For a thorough investigation of the origins of this slogan see Hans Rollmann, "In Essentials Unity": The Pre-History and History of a Restoration Movement Slogan, available at http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/unitas/essrev.html
[4] Paul M. Blowers, Creeds and Confessions, in The Encyclopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement at 252.
[5] Barton W. Stone, A Short History of the Life of Barton W. Stone, in The Cane Ridge Reader at 30 (1972 ed.)
[6] Cummins at 119.
[7] Id. at 68.
[8] See, e.g., Leroy Garrett, Campbell, Alexander, in The Encylopedia of the Stone-Campbell Movement at 118; Cummins at 52.
[9] Al Maxey, Tale of the Tossed Token: Campbell's Last Communion Coin, available at http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx148.htm
[10] Garrett at 118; Cummins at 52.
[11] Blowers at 254.

Adam Smith, Really?

2011-11-14T18:53:00.000-08:00

So, I've just started Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations when I come to this at the end of the first chapter.

yet it may be true, perhaps, that the accommodation of an European prince does not always so much exceed that of an industrious and frugal peasant, as the accommodation of the latter exceeds that of many an African king, the absolute masters of the lives and liberties of ten thousand naked savages.

Book I, Ch. I. To be sure, there is plenty of careful economic analysis--specifically the division of labor--and there is the beginnings of the idea that economic advances happen as a result of everyone looking out for their own self interest. But this little gem caught my attention.

I think it is worth recognizing the brutal racism toward African nations. Locke had this, too. Although, with Locke it was more about the American Indian nations. It doesn't necessarily discount his analysis, but I think it should be in the back of ones mind while reading these authors.

I think it is also worth noting the underlying assumption about productivity necessarily improving ones life. Surely one would rather be "absolute master" of "ten thousand nake savages" then a peasant wearing a jacket that much division of labor went into creating. Again, not to say that Smith's observations should be disregarded, but I do think it is worthwhile to keep his biases in mind. Curiously, he later writes, "Every man is rich or poor according to the degree in which he can afford to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life." Book I, Ch. V. Does this contradict his observation about the "savages"?

Is the ability to enjoy the necessaries, conveniences, and amusements of human life of those in what Smith calls civilised, but what we call industrialized, nations always greater than those in less industrialized nations? Was it in Adam Smith's time?

The Eleventh Hour of the Eleventh Day of the Eleventh . . .

2011-11-11T22:58:00.001-08:00

I had a pretty good Veterans' Day this year. (BTW, where exactly does the apostrophe go? It is the day of several veterans, right?) The highlight was marching in the parade with Kate, pictured above. I guess I don't really have much more. Oh, and here's a CNN Link to a story about submarines. I like the part where they sub vet says that he guesses they all thought they were better than everyone else. That really is pretty much true.

Dia de Muertos

2011-11-04T10:41:00.001-07:00

I know that I am a couple days late for Day of the Dead, but as Michael Scott says, "Fall is the most contemplative of seasons," so I've been thinking about Dad and Jaysen quite a bit recently. This picture pretty much captures who Dad is. I miss him.

As for Jaysen, here he is sporting what I believe Dad would describe as a "shit eating grin," a facial expression that Jaysen probably did not invent, but certainly perfected.

The Disciples of Christ are Anti-Exclusion: Part I: Introduction

2011-10-23T17:12:00.000-07:00

Note: This is the first section of an essay I am writing. I would appreciate any and all feedback, from typos to organizational suggestions to objections to the premise.

This essay outlines why the history and heritage of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) leads naturally to being Open and Affirming--accepting into full membership all Christians regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity. It demonstrates that the theological underpinnings of the original movements that led to the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)'s formation militate an Open and Affirming stance. Next, it briefly traces the Church's admittedly inconsistent history of removing cultural barriers to participation in the Church. Finally, it applies to the question of whether to be Open and Affirming the Church's modern vision of bringing wholeness to a fragmented world. Of course, one does not develop an impression of his or her church through academic inquiry, but through experience. And for that reason, this piece begins with a story from a First Christian Church in southern Indiana in the 1980s.

Jeff was older than most when he began membership classes. it is possible that since Jeff was a person with Down Syndrome others had not considered him capable of knowingly making his Good Confession, but the new pastor knew better. The new pastor had grown up as a rough and tumble neighborhood kid in Indianapolis. As a troublemaker who didn't fit in with organized sports, who under performed in school, and who skirted close to the edge of the law from time to time, he had nonetheless been unconditionally accepted by the Christian Church. He knew that it was his job to likewise accept all those in his new community.

And so, he welcomed Jeff to the front of the church and asked, "Do you believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Jeff answered thunderously and unequivocally, "I DO." His proud and full throated declaration compared favorably to Barton W. Stone's carefully worded response in a similar situation. Over a century earlier, this founding father had accepted a long list of man made creeds presented to him, but only "[a]s far as it is consistent with the word of God." Having stripped away the man-made limits on the Gospel, the Christian Church movement enable Jeff to say "I do" without any such hedging.

The pastor then presented the second question, "And do you, Jeff, take Him as your personal Savior?" Again Jeff proclaimed, "I DO." The ceremony, of course, only provided for a public display of what was already true. God accepted Jeff completely and and surely as Jeff accepted God. Alexander Campbell would have been proud. For, like Campbell, he had protested efforts by the Church to exclude those who were unworthy. Campbell would tell of the time he had qualified for the communion token that authorized him to take communion, but when the time came, he recognized that token to be a symbol of unchristian exclusion, and, thus, rather than participate, he simply dropped the token in the plate and chose not to receive communion that day. If the table was not open to all, he would not participate.

Stone's defiance and Campbell's quiet protest bore fruit that Spring day in southern Indiana. The faith of one who might have been rejected was unleashed into the work. And, it transformed all who were there. Such are the ripples created by those founders who rejected exclusion.

One Sentence: Three Points

2011-10-20T08:47:00.000-07:00

The Jews of Palestine, who had fondly expected a temporal deliverer, gave so cold a reception to the miracles of the divine prophet, that it was found unnecessary to publish, or at least to preserve, any Hebrew gospel. Edward Gibbon, Ch. 15, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (circa 1776).

(Emphasis added)(Footnote omitted).

Palestine: I have heard from extreme supporters of Israel that there is no such place as Palestine, like it is some sort of a made up term. It struck me to see something that was written before the United States was a country use the term. I wonder on what the no-such-thing-as-Palestine movement bases its claim.

so cold a reception : For such a careful historian, it is shocking that Gibbon so completely subcumbs to the narrative of his culture. Cold reception? Every follower of Jesus in the Bible is a Jew. Paul may have not been considered a Palestinian, but he was ceratinly a Jew. It is kind of obnoxious to read that the people who are responsible for the entire Christian movement be brushed aside.

Hebrew gospel: Gibbon adds a note that some say Matthew was written in Hebrew, but the evidence suggests otherwise, hence the hedging with "or at least preserve." Now we know that none of the Gospels were written contemporaneously with the life of Jesus and none in Hebrew. The Q source was also written in Greek.

Is it significant that the Gospels were not written until after Paul's letter and they were written in the common language--Greek--rather than the language of the Jewish people?

Matthew and Luke were both written after the fall of Jerusalem, but I think both Mark and the Q were written before. Does that matter?

LDS Church: the perfect Evangelist Church?

2011-10-14T08:27:00.000-07:00

According to Gibbon, the spread of Christianity within the Roman Empire was

assisted by the five following causes: I. The inflexible, and, if we may use the expression, the intolerant zeal of the Christians, derived, it is true, from the Jewish religion, but purified from the narrow and unsocial spirit which, instead of inviting, had deterred the Gentiles from embracing the law of Moses. II. The doctrine of a future life, improved by every additional circumstance which could give weight and efficacy to that important truth. III. The miraculous powers ascribed to the primitive church. IV. The pure and austere morals of the Christians. V. The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire.

It occurs to me that the division of Christianity that most emulates these qualities today is the LDS Church, which just happens to also be one of the fastest growing churches in the nation.

My thoughts are based on my interactions with members of the LDS church rather than an academic study into the topic. For that reason I hope that members of the church will provide their thoughts in the comment section below. Anonymous posting is fine, as always.

Cause I: Exclusive zeal and abhorrence for idolatry. In my last post, I characterized this as being a spritual separatist, but today I am reading this as strictly adhering to one's belief in the public sphere. My friends who are Mormon would not, for example, go see rated R movies. They would politely decline an offer of alcohol or cafeinated beverage. It is clear that Mormonism transforms one and causes one to be in the world but not of it.

Casuse II: Certainty of Life After. I was discussing theology with a Mormon friend and explained that my church did not tell people what to believe but suggested that they seek their own truth in Scripture. She said, "That's because your church doesn't know for sure, right?" She was right. I think absolute conviction about afterlife, and prelife, is a quality to fairly attribute to LDS members.

Cause III: Miracles. The truth is that my recent interactions with friends in the LDS church have not addressed healing ceremonies. Although, growing up in Indiana I was riding with a father and son who were both active in the local LDS church and they talked about the power of healing ceremonies. I am not sure if physical healing brought on by Mormon Elders goes on today much.

Cause IV: Being Good People. Frankly, this is what I think is the biggest distinction between devout Mormons and devout Christian Fundamentalists. Many fundamentalists are super nice people, obviously, but there are a good number who are vicious in the judgmentalism. The first word that anyone uses to describe Mormons as a group is how friendly and kind they are.

Cause V: United & Disciplined. As a person who thrives on curiousity, I see the uniformity of theology expressed by members of the LDS church to be a drawback. But, that's for me personally. I don't think one could deny that the Mormon Church puts forward a united front on matters theological and social.

Is this a fair assessment of the characteristics of the LDS Church? Does it make sense that these same causes were present in the early church movement which spread through the ancient super power that was Rome? Should other movements consider emulating these characteristics?

Extreme Faith

2011-10-12T08:08:00.000-07:00

I bristle at applying "extremist" to terrorist who justify their actions with religion. Violence in the name of God, I contend, displays a lack of faith, not a surplus. [note 1] I have a similar distaste for those who would withdraw from society as an act of faith, but find it less easy to condemn that behavior as a perversion of faith. In Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon gives me fresh reason to question my distaste for such social separatists.

Chapter XV of Gibbon's work deals with the nature of early Christianity. He notes that during the first century of the common era "the disciples of the Messiah were indulged in a freer latitude both of faith and practice than has ever been allowed in succeeding ages." [note 2] According to Gibbon, the movement split into three major components: those who adhered completely to "Mosaic law," Ebionites; those who completely reject Hebrew tradition and other doctrines, e.g., bodily resurrection, Gnostics; and the less discussed Orthodox.

But whatever difference of opinion might subsist between the Orthodox, the Ebionites, and the Gnostics, concerning the divinity or the obligation of the Mosaic law, they were all equally animated by the same exclusive zeal, and by the same abhorrence for idolatry, which had distinguished the Jews from the other nations of the ancient world.

Gibbon goes on to describe the early Christian experience as one of constant concern over the possibility of cultural interface with the pagans. Pagan ritual was present in everything from wedding ceremonies to the currency. If someone responded to a sneeze with "Jupiter bless you," according to Gibbon, the ancient Christian would be compelled to take the occasion to condemn Jupiter. "Such was the anxious diligence which was required to guard the chastity of the Gospel from the infectious breath of idolatry."

I cringe at the notion of such isolationist behavior and Christians focusing on every trivial custom. It reminds me of the annual War on Tolerance waged by Christianists who are offended by the "Happy Holidays" greeting. But, I reading this passage gives rise to my own anxiety. Is my tolerance, my integration into mainstream society at odds with what it means to be Christian? How much credence should I give the behavior of Christians so shortly after the formation of the Church?

[note 1] For an opposing view see Sam Harris's The End of Faith. A book that intensely frustrated my Sunday morning study group at Chalice Christian Church, but at the same time inspired some amazing conversations about faith.

[note 2] This lines up nicely with Harvey Cox's thesis in The Future of Faith. Cox explains that Christianity went through three phases. First the Age of Faith, which was free of dogma for the first 300-400 years. Then the Age of Belief, which was all about dogma and lasted for 1500 years or so. And finally, we are in the Age of Spirit, which nicely coincides with Cox's youth in the 1960's. Our group was less offended by but more suspicious of Cox's work on Faith as compared to Harris's.

Elizabeth Warren, Locke & Rousseau on Private Property

2011-10-08T20:24:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth Warren made a bit of splash recently by identifying the role infrastructure paid for by all of us played in facilitating commerce. Her point, as related to the topic of this post, is that for you to be able to efficiently contribute your labor to your property, and thus enhance its value, you rely on the benefits received from being a part of society. Hence, it is right that the social contract should require you to fund similar benefits for the next generation. Pretty compelling in my book. I wonder if one can take it a step further and say that the very existence of private property is a convention that springs from the social contract.

John Locke says no. Locke's essay Concerning Civil Government ("CCG") largely concerns private property because Locke sees the preservation of private property as the primary function of government. See, e.g., CCG ¶ 88 (the power of the commonwealth to punish is "for the preservation of the property of all members of society"); ¶ 120 (assuming men "enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property"); ¶ 138 ("the preservation of property being the end of government"); cf ¶ 123 ("all being kings . . . the enjoyment of the property he has in this [natural] state is very unsafe, very insecure"). By contrast, Jean Rousseau writes more generally in The Social Contract ("TSC") that "all being born free and equal, alienate their liberty only for their own advantage." TSC Book I, Section 2, para. 3.

Locke recognizes that laws regarding private property are conventions, but if the purpose of civil government is the protection of private property, private property must predate civil government. For this, Locke turns to Natural Law. Locke describes the state of nature as "a state of liberty" but not "a state of license," because "[t]he state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it." CCG ¶ 6. Pursuant to Natural law, for any man, "[t]he 'labour' of his body ad the 'work' of his hands, we may say are properly his." ¶ 26. Thus, private property rights spring from one's labor under the precepts of Natural law. As demonstrated above, men give up certain rights, such as the right to punish, in exchange for security in the property rights they already possessed. For Rousseau,

What a man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses.

TSC Book I, Section 8, para. 2. Thus, for Rousseau, proprietorship, or the right to property, doesn't exist until one enters into the social contract.

Because Locke sees private property as a product of Natural law, he sounds almost like a member of the modern TEA Party when discussing legislation that infringes on it: "Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery, they put themselves into a state of war with the people." CCG ¶ 222. I happen to agree with Rousseau. I don't think property rights exist without a government to enforce, or at least declare, them. This informs my assessment of the modern discussion because I see complaints of slavery or oppression associated with taxation not only as wrong for the reasons listed by Warren, but because they are nonsensical since without the government supported by taxes no such right to property exists.

Does society merely make it possible to utilize our property, or is society responsible for all property rights?

Meta-post

2011-10-05T13:11:00.000-07:00

Today's post is about posting.

I am an extreme extrovert. And I mean that not in the life-of-the-party sense, but in the Myers Briggs personality test sense. I really crave interaction with people. A day full of phone calls from clients and hearings and emails that require responses is roughly a thousand times more fulfilling for me than a day spent in my office researching a topic and drafting something based on the research.

In the world of blogging, my extreme extrovertism manifests itself in a strong desire to receive responses to what I write. Getting a notice that someone has left a comment on my blog is such a pick-me-up. It is like getting a handwritten envelop in the mail.

Often times to encourage comments, I will email an entry to someone and specifically ask for a response. I am a bit surprised, obviously based on my own inclinations, at how seldom people accept my invitation--plea--to comment.

So, I will ask a question, one which any reasonable person would understand is very likely to go unanswered, why don't those who read this blog more often leave comments? I'll even provide some choices:
A. The posts are too long.
B. The topics of the posts are uninteresting.
C. The poor grammar and excessive typographical errors make the blog unreadable.
D. The posts are interesting enough, but not the type to cause one to form an opinion.
E. It actually takes a significant amount of effort to crystalize thoughts such that they can be conveyed in a few sentences in a sentence.
F. Other - please specify.

[Note: I actually think the number of comments left on my blog is larger than would be expected for my readership. Other blogs with thousands of times the traffic as mine do not generate thousands of times the comments. But that only makes me more curious about the behavior that is so different from mine.]

Biblical Marriage

2011-10-03T10:38:00.000-07:00

I suppose to this graphic, we should add psuedo Paul's language from Ephesians.

Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendor, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind--yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.

Consistent throughout the Old and New Testament is the notion that marriage is an institution of male dominance. But, you see cracks in this at the end of the passage from Ephesians. And indeed, it is quoting Genesis 2:24. I wonder if the creation myths found in Gensis were more widely repeated among the population at large. I wonder if the hiearchy that is assumed in the passage from Ephesians, and made explicit in the various laws, was more a product of the power brokers in society. It would make me happy if the notion of love-based marriage co-existed among the people at-large with the explicit rule of domination-based marriage.

The Help vrs. To Kill a Mockingbird

2011-10-01T12:39:00.000-07:00

I did not read To Kill a Mockingbird in high school. Not only is the book often listed as the greatest work of legal fiction ever produced in any medium, many of my lawyer friends were disgusted that I had not read the book. So, I read it.

I related to one of my friends who was a great fan of the book that I found it to be a pleasant read, an appropriate novel for high school students, but not particularly interesting, largely due to how much it hits you over the head with its anti-racism message. A message I agree with, but did not find especially enlightening. She felt my assessment was off and pointed to The Help as an example of a pleasant read with a hit-you-over-the-head anti-racism message. As it happened, someone had just loaned me The Help, so I gave it a read. My lawyer friend was right, I had sold To Kill a Mockingbird short. Although it is not a particularly literary novel, it is great in a way that The Help is not.

Given my skepticism going into reading both of these novels, I want to be clear that I in fact liked them both quite a bit. I cared about the characters; I was interested in the plot. I read both while riding the bus to and from work, and missed my stop twice, once while being caught up in each novel. It is just that I generally like fiction that makes you think, and I didn't see that in these books--in To Kill a Mockingbird at least in part due to the over hype from my friends, and in The Help because I don't think it was there.

Both novels share the theme that the segregated South was evil, but not everyone within the segregated South was evil. To Kill a Mockingbird, however, tells a much more complex and organic story. Consider the villains in each story. The primary villain in The Help is a privileged bitch who you are happy to see get hers at various times in the book. Although the author takes a shot at the very end to show that the villain is pitiful, you never feel any pity for her. By contrast, the worst of the worst in To Kill a Mockingbird are the ultra poor white trash, one an abusive father and the other an abused daughter who allows her lover to be charged with rape. Are they evil? Hell, yes. But your feelings toward them are more complex. Like the real villains we meet in the world, you recognize that they are a product of their environment.

Similarly, both novels have heroes who are themselves a product of the South. But, the hero in The Help seems to not belong there. Here hair is abused by the atmosphere; she's too independent; she doesn't fit in. To Kill a Mockingbird's Atticus Finch, by contrast, is a good shot with a rifle and a good father. He raises his children to respect others in accordance with Southern mores, even the bigots. He simply does his job with quiet integrity. Likewise, the revelation toward the end of To Kill a Mockingbird of other sympathetic Southerners is more organic than the counterpart in The Help.

In the end, the story in To Kill a Mockingbird is nuanced enough that I can understand the desire to read it a second time. On the other hand, while I enjoyed reading The Help, to reread it, I suspect, would be akin to watching a rerun.

NOTE: I think that it is fair to compare the two books given their similar themes and the multiple references to To Kill a Mockingbird in The Help.

Prayer

2011-08-30T10:46:00.000-07:00

I have a group of friends that is reading The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. We recently read Chapter 15, The Hiddenness of Prayer, which can be viewed here, if you are willing to sign up for a trial offer. It appears there is no free Bonhoeffer on the web.

Bonhoeffer emphasizes the importance of not being too public with your praying. He focuses on Mathew 6:5-6, which provides, “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen." Bonheoffer emphasizes that prayer is a time for you to be present with God, and notes that if you are showing off, or even allowing yourself to be distracted by your own pride at how good a pray-er you are, you will blow it and miss the whole point of prayer.

I am also reading The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran. (The chapter is available on line, without a free trial offer here.) A friend from Chalice gave me the book and I am really enjoying it. Gibran gives this advice on prayer. "You pray in your distress and in your need; would that you might pray also in the fullness of your joy and in your days of abundance. For what is prayer but the expansion of yourself into the living ether?" Not to knock Jesus or anything, but I really like this definition of prayer.

Then both texts provide example prayer. I'll start with Jesus and then quote Gibran.

This, then, is how you should pray:

'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.

I cannot teach you how to pray in words. . . [but] if you but listen in the stillness of the night you shall hear them saying in silence,

"Our God, who art our winged self,
it is thy will in us that willeth.
It is thy desire in us that desireth.
It is thy urge in us that would turn our nights,
which are thine, into days which are thine also.
We cannot ask thee for aught,
for thou knowest our needs before they are born in us:
Thou art our need; and in giving us more of thyself
thou givest us all."

Thoughts?

Shakespear & the Psalmist

2011-08-22T12:19:00.000-07:00

From Hamlet, Act 2, scene 2, we have:

I have of late-but wherefore I know not-lost all my mirth, forgone all custom of exercises; and indeed, it goes so heavily with my disposition that this goodly frame, the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the air, look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire- why, it appeareth no other thing to me than a foul and pestilent congregation of vapours. What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason! how infinite in faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals!

From Psalm 8, we have:

LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory in the heavens. Through the praise of children and infants you have established a stronghold against your enemies, to silence the foe and the avenger. When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them? You have made them a little lower than Elohim and crowned them with glory and honor.

Elohim is translated as "angel" in this passage, and this passage alone, by the NIV. Everywhere else it is translated as God. In fact, there is a passage is Exodus, I believe, explaining how Elohim and YHWH are the same entity by different names.

I think it is interesting to read the conflicting views of human exceptionalism expressed in both passages. Hamlet's laments often remind me a bit of Ecclesiastes as well.

Repost: Economics of a Progressive Tax Rate

2011-08-03T08:53:00.000-07:00

INTRO: The following post from November 3, 2008, has been getting lots of hits (well lots of hits for me) recently, so I thought I would bring it up to the front of the blog and see if there is any discussion. The essential theory is that a progressive tax policy is necessary to put money in the hands of consumers, drive demand and create jobs. President Obama, unlike President Clinton, has been unable to get Congress to go along with a progressive tax policy. His job numbers are closer to flat taxers like President Bush. And, when I say flat tax, I don't me a flat rate, I mean people who pay taxes generally pay the same rate, because higher income earners are able to avail themselves of legal ways of reducing their taxes. As always, comments are welcome.

A significant money cycle in our economy is employers paying employees who become consumers. Consumers buy things from service providers who become employers. So, you have this question we've examined before about whether it makes sense to make sure the employers have money to spend, which will in turn lead to expansion and therefore more employees to become consumers OR to make sure consumers have more money to spend, which will in turn lead to more buying and therefore more money for service providers.

It makes sense to me that the latter is the best way to go because consumers will spend money more quickly and drive demand, which is necessary before a business can expand. In other words, you can give my wife more money through tax breaks, but she can't hire new teachers until there are more students who can afford to attend her school.

I believe this makes a lot of sense, but I also believe it is borne out by history. Consider the following chart that provides the maximum income tax rate in the United States.

So you can see that we have basically lowered the top tax rate from over 90% during Roosevelt to something like 37.5% under W. Bush. Now, let’s take a look at job creation. You will see a pretty dramatic trend if you consider party affiliation.

The final chart is my creation. It is pretty rough, but I think it fairly captures the change in tax rates associated with each President and the job creation during the same period.
So, Roosevelt and Clinton both significantly increased the top tax bracket—made the tax structure more progressive—and saw large job creation. (In fact, if you look at the detailed chart, you’ll see Johnson did the same thing and he also had good job creation.) Reagan and Bush reduced the top tax bracket--made the structure more flat--and saw much lower job creation than, in Reagan’s case on either side of his presidency and in Bush’s case than before his presidency. Reagan and Bush also saw a dramatic explosion of the deficit.

It’s from 10,000 feet for sure, but this evidence seems to support my notion that a more progressive tax policy is a better economic policy. Particularly with the top brackets being so low when compared to our history or to other countries.

Thoughts?

Do we measure truth by our own capacity?

2011-08-02T09:11:00.001-07:00

After finishing Montaigne's lengthy essay on education, I discovered that my Great Books reading list included his short essay "It is folly to measure the true and false by our won capacity" and decided to finish it too, in my effort to catch up. I think it to be a much better conversation starter.

Montaigne talks about the dangerous habit of those "who think they have more than common ability" to attribute "belief and conviction to simplicity and ignorance." He confesses that although he was once guilty of this himself, he is now reformed writing,

I presently pitied the poor people that were abused by these follies. Whereas I now find, that I myself was to be pitied as much, at least, as they; not that experience has taught me anything to alter my former opinions, though my curiosity has endeavoured that way; but reason has instructed me, that thus resolutely to condemn anything for false and impossible, is arrogantly and impiously to circumscribe and limit the will of God, and the power of our mother nature, within the bounds of my own capacity, than which no folly can be greater.

In our modern context it is easy to generate a list of beliefs that are generally attribute to simplicity and ignorance, at lease by the Prius-driving, NPR-listening, espresso-drinking liberal crowd to which I belong. Creationism, Virgin Birth, Bodily Resurrection, Intercessory Prayer, Physical Afterlife.

Montaigne, as it turns out, may be thinking of a pretty similar list. The direction he takes it, however, is different than I would go. Montaigne issues another of his condemnations of the Reformation and defenses of the Catholic church, including this, which likely sounds familiar to modern readers, "We are either wholly and absolutely to submit ourselves to the authority of our ecclesiastical polity, or totally throw off all obedience to it: 'tis not for us to determine what and how much obedience we owe to it."

In contrast, I am wary of my own certitude, despite the frequency with which I am certain. Nonetheless, my wariness is not generated by the notion that I should submit to authority, but that perhaps I am missing value tucked away in these believes held by those who I belittle with the tag of simple or ignorant. Perhaps the Truth lies somewhere in between prayer is valuable as a breathing exercise and prayer is a way to call on God to remove a tumor or heal a liver. Perhaps the inability to access the Truth is a measure of the limits of my own capacity.

Montaigne the Multiculturalst

2011-06-23T09:02:00.000-07:00

Habituation puts to sleep the eye of our judgment. This is from Montaigne's essay Of Custom and not easily cahnging an accepted law. The point of the essay is that we don't realize how much of what we do is a matter of custom. In the beginning, he seems to suggest that this is a bad thing, writing that

the principal effect of its power is, so to seize and ensnare us, that it is hardly in us to disengage ourselves from its gripe, or so to come to ourselves, as to consider of and to weigh the things it enjoins. To say the truth, by reason that we suck it in with our milk, and that the face of the world presents itself in this posture to our first sight, it seems as if we were born upon condition to follow on this track; and the common fancies that we find in repute everywhere about us, and infused into our minds with the seed of our fathers, appear to be the most universal and genuine; from whence it comes to pass, that whatever is off the hinges of custom, is believed to be also off the hinges of reason; how unreasonably for the most part, God knows.

What follows is a litany of crazy customs from other lands. The lists include a lot about sex and eating. Then he turns to the Church. I thought to myself, "Wow, is this guy going to recognize the cultural impact on religion in the 1580's?" Uh, no. On the Reformation he writes,

For my own part, I have a great aversion from novelty, what face or what pretence soever it may carry along with it, and have reason, having been an eyewitness of the great evils it has produced. For those which for so many years have lain so heavy upon us, it is not wholly accountable; but one may say, with color enough, that it has accidentally produced and begotten the mischiefs and ruin that have since happened, both without and against it; it, principally, we are to accuse for these disorders:—

He then further disappoints me with this interpretation of Christianity:

The Christian religion has all the marks of the utmost utility and justice: but none more manifest than the severe injunction it lays indifferently upon all to yield absolute obedience to the civil magistrate, and to maintain and defend the laws.

Absolute obedience to the civil magistrates don't get you hung on cross, my friend.

So, Montaigne recognizes that so much of what we do and believe is the result of custom, and that it is difficult to change such things, even if we perceive them; but then he concludes that this is probably okay. In fact, he prefers to leave things alone, unlike those dirty Protestants. Fair enough.

UPDATE: English Major's Junk Food also has some things to say about Montaigne. I think the words of an English major are infinitely more trustworthy than those of a lawyer.

Greed is Bad

2011-06-17T08:08:00.000-07:00

I have just finished Michel de Montaigne's essay That the taste of good and evil depends in large part on the opinion we have of them. (clunky Google Books version here.) Montaigne sets out to show that "what we call evil is not evil in itself--or at least, whatever it is, that it depends on us to give it a different savor and a different complexion." He examines three topics in the essay. The first is death. He notes that many people are willing accept death, writing, "Most philosophers have either deliberately anticipated or hastened and abetted their own death." He also provides some examples of literally gallows humor, to show commoners are also capable of not fearing or respecting looming death. Next, he turns to pain and provides a similar list of people famously enduring pain. For example, he explains that "[a] simple Spartan boy, after stealing a fox and putting it under his cape, endured its gnawing his stomach rather that betray himself [as a thief]." After this we get what is the primary thesis, I think.

That our opinion gives value to things is seen by many things that we do not think about even to appraise them, preferring to think about ourselves instead. We consider neither their qualities nor their uses, but only the cost to us of getting them, as if it were some part of their substance; and we call value in them not what they bring, but what we bring to them. At which point I note that we are great economizers of our expenditure. According as it weights, it serves by the fact that it weighs. Our opinion never lets it run at a false valuation. Purchase gives value to the diamond, and difficulty to virtue, and pain to piety, and harshness to medicine.

Montaigne then concludes his point by examining should be a positive, wealth. Ironically, he explains, just as pain does not always lead to suffering, wealth does not always lead to pleasure. Or as he writes, "In truth, it is not want, but rather abundance, that breeds avarice." Or as Paul writes in his letter to Timothy, "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." 1 Tim. 6:10. Or as Jesus told his disciples after the rich man could not give up his wealth, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Or, as Robert Reich explains in this video, greed is killing the American economy.

ALL are welcome at the Table

2011-06-16T08:07:00.000-07:00

We are Disciples of Christ, a movement for wholeness in a fragmented world. As a part of the Body of Christ, we welcome all to the Lord's Table, as God has welcomed us. ~ Disciples of Christ Statement of Identity

This statement seems quite consistent with Campbell's rejection of exclusion. It seems consistent with the priesthood of all believers concept in the Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery. And it seems to unambigously call Disciple congregations to welcome people into the Body of Christ regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

I recently read an trascript from a pastor stating his objection to accepting gay people into full membership and leadership in the church. The pastor took pains to demonstrate that he did not hate gay people, and in fact apologized for his Christian brothers who had caused such harm to gay people. He structured his talk by focussing on truth and grace. The truth part was an effort to justify opposition to the GLBT community with Biblical citation. The grace part was about the need for Christians to have an attitude of love toward gay people.

Surely there were similar good people who could not accept the role of women in leadership. Surely there were similar good people who could not accept interracial marriage. But eventually, the real truth broke through. And now, Christians are ashamed of Biblical justifications of oppressing women and racial minorities.

It is time for all Disciple churches to read this statement of identity, to search their hearts, and to stand up for the radical inclusion called for by our church tradition and, indeed, the ministry of Jesus Christ.

Christian Libertarianism

2011-06-15T08:08:00.000-07:00

The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) was formed by the union of two movements. One headed by the Thomas & Alexander Campbell. The other by Barton W. Stone. (Which was always a cool name to me because I had Grandma & Grandpa Barton and a Grandma & Grandpa Stone.) My last post concerned a story from the Campbells. This one examines a key document to the folks in Stone's movement--The Last Will and Testament of the Springfield Presbytery. The main body of the document begins with a call for an end to divisions within the Christian Church Universal:

We will, that this body die, be dissolved, and sink into union with the Body of Christ at large; for there is but one body, and one Spirit, even as we are called in one hope of our calling.

Of course, I suspect many churches would agree that Christians should be one, which can be easily accomplished if everyone would just shut up and accept the one true theology that the particular church preaches. That was not the path suggested by Stone's followers. Instead, they hoped,

that our power of making laws for the government of the church, and executing them by delegated authority, forever cease; that the people may have free course to the Bible, and adopt the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

and

that candidates for the Gospel ministry henceforth study the Holy Scriptures with fervent prayer, and obtain license from God to preach the simple Gospel, with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, without any mixture of philosophy, vain deceit, traditions of men, or the rudiments of the world. And let none henceforth take this honor to himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.

and

that preachers and people cultivate a spirit of mutual forbearance; pray more and dispute less; and while they behold the signs of the times, look up, and confidently expect that redemption draweth nigh.

and

that all our sister bodies read their Bibles carefully, that they may see their fate there determined, and prepare for death before it is too late.

There are several other stanzas, although I closed with the final one. There are two basic ideas that one can pull from this document. One, the Bible and not tradition is the authority that should drive our thinking, and, two, each person, church and pastor is empowered and required to decern the meaning of the Bible for themselves.

Driving for unity this way, not by demanding one theology but by empowering all to find their own theology, is what I am call Christian Libertarianism. I think the notion is captured well in the motto, "In essentials unity, in nonessential liberty, in all things charity."

I believe this Christian Libertarianism in which the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is so deeply rooted is yet another reason why it is natural for Disciple churches to open to people who are other than heterosexual and affirming of those same people. One's sexuality is certainly not an essential to being Christian. It is a topic not mentioned by Jesus. Indeed the notion of being gay or straight or bi, that is the idea that one has a sexuality, must post-dates the Bible.

And, liberty in this nonessential is to allow full participation in the church without regard to it. Those who believe it is a sin to get divorced, to have sex with a member of your own sex, or to have sex for reason other than reproduction, should also be allowed full membership in the church.

And, we should direct charity toward those who disagree with us, whatever our belief.

Rejecting Exclusion

2011-06-14T07:10:00.000-07:00

Inclusiveness is at the core of Disciple theology. A story nicely illustrating this is that of Alexander Campbell and the communion token. Although many traditions celebrate the Lord's Supper with every meeting, the Presbyterian Church, to which Campbell belonged, only did so once a quarter or less. Shortly before the church held its communion service, the minister would examine members of the parish and issue them a communion token, often with his initials on it, to ensure acts and beliefs were acceptable.

In May 1809, Campbell's church in Glasgow prepared for a communion service. The minister and elders visited the various members to determine who among them could receive a communion token. Campbell found it difficult to accept that which appeared to be "man-made judgments fostering divisions among Christians." He believed that no human could sit in judgment of another's spiritual worthiness.

A plate was passed around the table to receive the communicants' tokens. After providing the token, they could partake of the Lord's Supper. When the plate came to Campbell, "he threw his token upon the plate handed round!" He then stood up and walked out of the church.

The ring of that token, as it fell from his hands, like the ring of Martin Luther's hammer on the door of the Wittenberg cathedral, announced the renunciation of the old church ties, and marks the moment of which he forever ceased to recognize the claims or authority of a human creed to bind upon men the conditions of their acceptance with God.

Thomas W. Grafton, Life of Alexander Campbell, p. 40-41). [What I've written so far, is just a sample of the well cited piece by Author Al Maxey. His essay, which includes much more detail, including a discussion of U.S. State governments minting communion tokes, can be found at: http://www.zianet.com/maxey/reflx148.htm]

This story has always meant to me that radical inclusion is in the DNA of Disciples. I don't know if Campbell objected to the particular criteria required to receive a communion token. I suspect he did not. But the notion that we mere mortals should deny someone access to the Table was intolerable for Campbell. It is easy for me to extend this notion of inclusion to embrace those who fall in love with members of their sex. It is easy for me to extend this notion to those who were born with the sex organs of one gender, but are, in their hearts, members of the opposite gender.

Random

2011-06-13T07:40:00.001-07:00

Two demons worked in concert to derail my Great Book reading schedule. Reblais and Solitare for my iPod. I have decided to give up on Reblais and move on to his countryman Montaigne. I am now woefully behind on this year's schedule, but not so much so as to give up. And, Montaigne actually dabbles close to work relevance.

* * *

I am also writing a 3-5 page essay arguing that the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) should welcome non-straight people into full participation in the church, and without asking them to mask or change their sexual identity. The paper is intended to argue that this is natural extension of what it means to be an Disciple, as in an adherent to this particularly branch of the Campbellite movement.

* * *

I am also working on five little keynote addresses I will be giving to church campers the last week in June. The topics are provided to me. I know the short excercises and the stories I intend to tell. Now it is just a matter of how much detail work to do ahead of time on fleshing out the stories and how much room to leave for the spirit to move. (That's Jesus-speak for wininging it.)

On the margins

2011-06-07T12:30:00.001-07:00

Am I right that the two solutions to the national budget crisis most often suggested are (1) eliminate services to the poor and (2) raise taxes on the rich. If democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, I suppose it is not surprising to see two non-middle class groups targeted. And, since there is no constitutional right to government services or low taxes, budgets it would seem would directly reflect the will of the majority.

When presented with scriptures about the treatment of the poor, perhaps most graphically in Matthew 25:31-46 although it is far from a unique scripture on the topic, I am perplexed by those who profess to be Christians that advocate for option (1).

Of course, this opens me up to a charge like, "Then how can you be in favor of no-fault divorce laws given Matthew 5:31-32's requirement that divorce only be granted in the case of infidelity." But, the thing is, the prohibition on divorce suggests that followers of Jesus should not get divorced, but for limited circumstances. The position on the poor says that followers of Jesus should take care of the poor. I can vote for a supporter of a no-fault divorce law and not get divorced. I don't know if I can vote for a supporter of kicking people off AHCCCS and still claim to care for the poor. Also, I'm pretty comfortable with the fact that the institution of marriage is radically different now than in Jesus' time--most people recognize that this command was directed at helping women who previously could be cast out for no reason. By contrast, I think poverty is still poverty.

Now, I personally think the best solution to the budget crisis is to raise everyone's taxes. Certainly before we start eliminating/modifying by elimination Medicare. I support a progressive tax rate, but it makes more sense to me that we all should bear a relatively higher burden in order to support our priorities. But if we are going to pick on one group on the margins, it is hard for me to see how Christians can advocate for picking on those at the bottom.

As Bill O'Reilly says, "Tell me why I'm wrong."

Remembering the Fallen

2011-05-30T19:47:00.000-07:00

Reflecting on those who died while serving our country in uniform reminded me of something I saw on CNN about President Obama considering a change in policy for those who killed themselves. Apparently, it has been the policy for some time for the President to not send condolence letter to the family of those who service members who kill themselves. Then I found this opinion piece. The author concludes, "I think by changing the policy, President Obama would send a powerful message that we cannot tolerate what is happening to our troops."

First, a condolence letter is not an honor. It isn't a posthumous award for valor. It is an expression of compassion to those who have lost a family member. Is the loss suffered by the family members of those who kill themselves less than that of those who are killed in a car accident or an IED?

Second, do we seriously believe that suicides are an unpredictable result of sending young men and women off to kill people? Is a soldier exposed to the horrors of war, and dies as a result of PTSD less a combat casualty than my dad who was exposed to agent orange and died of cancer?

This policy needs to be changed.

2011 Mother's Day Message

2011-05-09T09:09:00.000-07:00

Here is a video of the Mother's Day message I delivered at Chalice Christian Church yesterday. As with all things, comments and critique are welcome.

Rabelais: Challenging

2011-05-03T13:09:00.001-07:00

I am currently reading Gargantua by Rabelais. Gargantua is the story of a giant and his various adventures, starting from his birth. The language is quite challenging, which is weird because it is a translation. Here is a passage about Gargantua being excited to tell his father about wiping his butt. To give you a taste of this stuff, here is a poem from the work, introduced with "I wiped myself with hay, with straw, with thatch-rushes, with flax, with wool, with paper, but,"

Who his foul tail with paper wipes,
Shall at his ballocks leave some chips.

What, said Grangousier, my little rogue, hast thou been at the pot, that thou dost rhyme already? Yes, yes, my lord the king, answered Gargantua, I can rhyme gallantly, and rhyme till I become hoarse with rheum. Hark, what our privy says to the skiters:

Shittard,
Squirtard,
Crackard,
Turdous,
Thy bung
Hath flung
Some dung
On us:
Filthard,
Cackard,
Stinkard,
St. Antony's fire seize on thy toane (bone?),
If thy
Dirty
Dounby
Thou do not wipe, ere thou be gone.

Will you have any more of it? Yes, yes, answered Grangousier. Then, said Gargantua,

A Roundelay.

In shitting yes'day I did know
The sess I to my arse did owe:
The smell was such came from that slunk,
That I was with it all bestunk:
O had but then some brave Signor
Brought her to me I waited for,
In shitting!

I would have cleft her watergap,
And join'd it close to my flipflap,
Whilst she had with her fingers guarded
My foul nockandrow, all bemerded
In shitting.

Now, just as I'm about to put it down and give up, there is something of the satire that seems to maybe get through. Also, it is fun to read a Paul Bunyon story from the 1500's. Still, I'm not convinced that this book is "great."

Problems with Mothers' Day Preaching

2011-04-27T10:25:00.000-07:00

One problem that we run into as an enlightened community addressing celebrations like Mothers' Day is that not everyone has a mother in anything other than a biological sense. And, perhaps worse, some have been abused by their mothers.

This leads me to the question of whether this day is celebrating our individual mothers, or the notion of motherhood. Surely as the holiday stands today, we are doing both. I think for purposes of my sermon, I will want to focus on the latter.

Josh notes in his comment to the last post that the phrase "ideal mother" is cringe-worthy. I can't argue with that, particularly in as much as the phrase suggests to a ranking. What I was trying to get to was the idea that there is an ideal of motherhood, as something that Plato or Aristotle would acknowledge.

Which brings me to the second big problem. I believe that fathers are nurturing and kind and strong enough to make tough decisions. So, can we celebrate motherhood without dismissing fatherhood? I hope so.

The final problem is that the Bible does not always shine a bright light on mothers. Think about Sarah sending Hagar away. Think about Rebekkah as so strongly favoring Jacob over Esau.

Next Speaking Engagement

2011-04-26T13:39:00.000-07:00

I will be preaching at Chalice Christian Church on Mother's Day. I would like to use this in the service:

Arise, then, women of this day! Arise all women who have hearts,
whether our baptism be that of water or of fears!

Say firmly: "We will not have great questions decided by
irrelevant agencies. Our husbands shall not come to us, reeking
with carnage, for caresses and applause. Our sons shall not be
taken from us to unlearn all that we have been able to teach
them of charity, mercy and patience.

We women of one country will be too tender of those of another
country to allow our sons to be trained to injure theirs. From
the bosom of the devastated earth a voice goes up with our own.
It says "Disarm, Disarm! The sword of murder is not the balance
of justice."

Blood does not wipe our dishonor nor violence indicate possession.
As men have often forsaken the plow and the anvil at the summons
of war, let women now leave all that may be left of home for a
great and earnest day of counsel. Let them meet first, as women,
to bewail and commemorate the dead.

Let them then solemnly take counsel with each other as to the
means whereby the great human family can live in peace, each
bearing after their own time the sacred impress, not of Caesar,
but of God.

In the name of womanhood and of humanity, I earnestly ask that a
general congress of women without limit of nationality may be
appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at
the earliest period consistent with its objects, to promote the
alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement
of international questions, the great and general interests of
peace.

Mothers' Day Proclamation: Julia Ward Howe, Boston, 1870. I am also interested in using the story of Hagar and Ishmael found here. The theme of the sermon will be that strength, particularly in the face of tragedy, is a characteristic of the ideal mother.

Any thoughts?

This Makes Me Sad

2011-04-22T10:28:00.000-07:00

Nate Silver is one of the people I trust when it comes to statistics. He has announced recently that it is fair to say a majority of Americans support marriage equality. Story here.

"But, Jim," you may ask, " are you not on the leadership council of the Gay Lesbian and Affirming Disciples (GLAD) Alliance and of Chalice Christian Church (an O&A congregation, really since its inception)?" "And, by the way, don't both these organizations have exciting new webpages?" you might add as a shameless plug.

Yes, to both I would respond. The reason this information makes me sad is that it makes me feel the Church Universal lost a crucial opportunity to be a leader for Justice in the way that Jesus was a leader for Justice. In one of the two civil rights struggles of our age, it is only fair to say that the church for the most part sat on the sidelines. Frankly, GLAD's work will be to help Disciple churches catch up with the more Christ-like position that secular society has already staked out.

Of course, this was true back when the trend lines were moving this direction. And 50% in support of justice is 50% shy of the target and whatnot. I just wish the church could have been more a part of this as it was the 1960's civil rights movement.

So, let's do the clean up work of purging archaic anti-Christian views of people based on orientation. And let's get in front of immigrant rights and maybe the environment.

Time

2011-04-13T11:24:00.000-07:00

Everyone has a 168 hours per week to spend on whatever they like. Like most people, I schedule much of my week ahead. So, for example, I schedule 45 hours of work and 10 hours of commute every week. I schedule about 50 hours a week for sleep. That still leaves a very impressive 63 hours at my disposal. And with that in mind, I tend to pack more planning into the week. I often have one or two two-hour meeting either for church or charity board or professional organization. I've been trying to do four hours a week of walking. I usually eat breakfast and dinner in the same room if not at the same time as my family. And, Sunday is church followed by youth group followed by dinner at the in-laws.

I am generally very pleased with living a happy full life. But the problem comes when something suddenly takes more time than budgetted to it. The problem I constantly struggle with is how to have enough stuff in my life during non-disaster periods that I'm not bored without having so much stuff that when the disaster comes I am completely overwhelmed. I have not mastered it.

Celebrating Forty

2011-04-07T09:49:00.000-07:00

Because I am only three and a half months older than Pat, we get to enjoy milestone birthdays together. Closing in on forty, we decided not to do anything too grand for the big birthday, but wait until 12/12/2012, our twentieth wedding anniversary, for the lavish celebrations. That said, the low key celebrations matched up pretty nicely with our personal inclinations: happy hour at a pub for me, a museum and excellent eatery for her.

Pat's choice of museum was superb. We went to the Musical Instrument Museum in Scottsdale--well, I guess it is technically Phoenix at Tatum & the 101. We have been to Seattle's Experience Music Project, which is also amazing. I think the major difference between the two is that the MIM is much more directed at showcasing the world's instruments. Yesterday, we made it through Asia and Latin America. Pat had been before and made it through Africa and Europe. You can easily spend 1-1/2 to 2 hours per region. It is a fun way to consider other cultures because in music there is so much we share (every culture has a lute of some kind, for example) and so much easily comprehended variety. As a college freshmen, a poster with Andy Warhol's painting of Moa and the caption, "I am a world citizen" hung in Pat's dorm room. Today, she replaces Halloween with International Day at her Montessori school. Still representing for multiculturalism.

We took our fancy lunch at the Farm Kitchen, one of the restaurants at The Farm at South Mountain. By using fresh incredients, including artisan bread, they pack a ton of flavor into a simple sandwich. Even with some little sprinkles of rain, it was delightful to eat outside on tables set up not to far from the source of some of our food.

We were going to go for a walk by the Riparian Preserve in Gilbert, pictured below, but I remembered that I left the fill valve open on the pool before we left on our little Ferris Beuller meets Phoenix adventure and so we had to run home. Back to reality. (Only a little bit of the yard was flooded.)

Delayed

2011-04-04T14:09:00.001-07:00

So, I thought while in D.C. I would have been able to catch up on my blogging. Not so. Then I came back and ran around like a chicken with my head cut off up until and including through the weekend. I have finished reading the Augustine selection, and want to write something comprehensive but have not done so. I love how the Confessions is so intimate. I think it is rightfully read as an inspection of St. Augustine soul rather than a piece of theology.

I'm not waiting, though. I've moved on to Machiavelli.

Is it a Homily?

2011-03-24T15:51:00.000-07:00

I will be speaking at my brother's wedding. He has asked me to do the talk, which is maybe a homily, for 3-4 minutes. The service will be very minimalist--I don't believe there will be any other readings or spoken portion other than the vows. It is also a secular service with the officiant chosen by the wedding planner who is employed by the facility where the wedding will be held.

My brother and his bride-to-be do not attend church, although they have worked together to feed the homeless at Paz de Cristo. My brother is fiercely anti-religion. I believe his fiance is much less so.

So, everyone, but especially my clergy friends, what do you think of this as an outline.

Open: Joke about how Jeff only wants me to speak for 3-4 minutes so I don't have time for [quick comments about their past together]; nor do I have time for [quick notes about their future together]; I can only talk about today.

Body: What I can say about today is that this is a sacred event. And of course, sacred is a religious word suggesting that something is blessed by the presence of God. But religion doesn't make this, or any other wedding, sacred. That word just points to what we can all clearly see.

First, that this union is blessed. That means it is more that a good thing . . . [Talk about how great the bride and groom are, and how great their union is]

Second, that blessing is recognized by the presence of others . . . [talk about the role the family and friends play in making a marriage work]

Finally, present in this union is something more than the sum of its parts. [talk about the profound transforming effect of Love and Marriage] As they say, "To love another person is to see the face of God." Jeff and Susan are plainly privy to that today.

Thoughts? Suggested reading? Pitfalls to avoid? What do you think?

Also, any tips for speaking to non-church folks on such topics?

Augustine on Science

2011-03-22T07:50:00.000-07:00

One thing that continues to jump out at me while reading the Great Books is how common "modern" ideas are. Augustine is writing in the fourth century, so I was interested to read what he has to say about science.

An important background point is that Augustine's Confession is not only a story about how great his conversion to Christianity was, but also how evil everything he did in the past was. He seems to hate his father for having the nerve to provide him with a top notch liberal arts education. Even his love for his mother is limited to her praying for him to become a Christian. I don't find Augustine to be particularly lovable.

Book IV, chapters 15 and 16 give his thoughts on science. For Augstine, he compares Christianity to a variety of other world views. For whatever reason, he seems to take science and Manichaeism as a pair. He basically observes that science is better at describing the natural world than the Manichaens. So, why not go with science. Then, he think Christianity is better than the scientists.

Sin (Augustine)

2011-03-15T09:12:00.000-07:00

In his Confessions Book II, St. Augustine focusses on a number of adolescent sins. He obliquely suggests that he had sex out of marriage, but is more comfortable to confess stealing pears from a tree and then throwing those pears at some pigs. He wonders why do we sin? One problem was that his bodily urges produced such a cloud in his reasoning that he could not "distinquish the clear light of love from the murk of lust." Another, he says, is that he desired to imitate God's power, although his was a perverse imitation. He also cites to peer pressure, which in his case was also pear pressure, saying that if he were alone he never would have stolen the fruit. Indeed, he even recounts claiming to have done wicked things he did not do in order to avoid ridicule or to receive praise. See Book II. It is interesting how much his confession strikes me as the text of a "hip" teenage youth group lesson.

The idea of sin is problematic when it is used to declare that someone else deviate from your cultural normal is not only different from you, but in defiance of God. On the other hand, I think the notion of sin is very helpful for those of us who wish to live the best possible life. The idea that we periodically miss the mark makes us better.

Augustine as Panentheist

2011-03-14T19:51:00.000-07:00

I subscribe to panentheism, which means God is everything and then some. God contains all things but is contained by nothing. The "then some" for me is suggested by things like truth and beauty. Truth and beauty are real; they exist in the natural world, but they are not exactly material. (Here is a link to a nice discussion about panentheism by two of the people who introduced the idea to me.)

This notion is linked to the more common God-is-everywhere notion. Augustine broaches this topic when asking how to call to God. He writes,

And how shall I call upon my God -- my God and my Lord? For when I call on him I ask him to come into me. And what place is there in me into which my God can come? How could God, the God who made both heaven and earth, come into me? Is there anything in me, O Lord my God, that can contain thee? Do even the heaven and the earth, which thou hast made, and in which thou didst make me, contain thee? Is it possible that, since without thee nothing would be which does exist, thou didst make it so that whatever exists has some capacity to receive thee? . . . Where do I call thee to, when I am already in thee? Or from whence wouldst thou come into me? Where, beyond heaven and earth, could I go that there my God might come to me -- he who hath said, 'I fill heaven and earth'?

Turning specifically to the notion of containing all but contained by none, "Since, then, thou dost fill the heaven and earth, do they contain thee? Or, dost thou fill and overflow them, because they cannot contain thee?" Of course, the entire Confession is directed toward God in a way that seems most in line with supernatural theism. And Augstine's inquiry seems to be driven by an effort to be rigorous. Still, I find it interesting.

Appropriating Augustine

2011-03-11T06:11:00.000-08:00

The first book of Augustine's Confessions is available online here. The Confessions read like prayers or psalms, which inspires me to take license with Augustine's thoughts and adapt them to my own thinking. For example, in this first chapter of the first book, consider the understanding of God as everything in the world and then some. There is an aspect of God, then, that is awe inspiring. This is an aspect of God that we acutely experience while standing on the edge of the Grand Canyon, or out in the open ocean, many other natural and scientific wonders. I think of this as a prayer to that God, which is all creation.

And man desires to praise thee, for he is a part of thy creation; he bears his mortality about with him and carries the evidence of his sin and the proof that thou dost resist the proud. Still he desires to praise thee, this man who is only a small part of thy creation. Thou hast prompted him, that he should delight to praise thee, for thou hast made us for thyself and restless is our heart until it comes to rest in thee. Grant me, O Lord, to know and understand whether first to invoke thee or to praise thee; whether first to know thee or call upon thee. But who can invoke thee, knowing thee not? For he who knows thee not may invoke thee as another than thou art. It may be that we should invoke thee in order that we may come to know thee. But "how shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe without a preacher?" Now, "they shall praise the Lord who seek him," for "those who seek shall find him," and, finding him, shall praise him. I will seek thee, O Lord, and call upon thee. I call upon thee, O Lord, in my faith which thou hast given me, which thou hast inspired in me through the humanity of thy Son, and through the ministry of thy preacher.

Everything quoted is from the Bible. Citations omitted.

Closing Thoughts on Caesar

2011-03-10T20:32:00.000-08:00

Well, I had been stalled out a bit on Plutarch, so I decided to get through Caesar and move on to Augustine. Strictly as a story, I enjoyed Caesar better than the other lives covered by Plutarch in the selections.

Plutarch gives us the famous veni, vidi, vici and he notes its potential as a slogan.

On leaving that country and traversing Asia, he learned that Domitius had been defeated by Pharnaces the son of Mithridates and had fled from Pontus with a few followers; also that Pharnaces, using his victory without stint, and occupying Bithynia and Cappadocia, was aiming to secure the country called Lesser Armenia, and was rousing to revolt all the princes and tetrarchs there. At once, therefore, Caesar marched against him with three legions, fought a great battle with him near the city of Zela, drove him in flight out of Pontus, and annihilated his army. In announcing the swiftness and fierceness of this battle to one of his friends at Rome, Amantius, Caesar wrote three words: "Came, saw, conquered." In Latin, however, the words have the same inflectional ending, and so a brevity which is most impressive.

I was under the mistaken impression that this quote was one of pure triumph and had missed its dismissive tone. Once again, reading primary sources is pretty cool.

There are other zingers. After the soothsayer predicted the Ides of March would be Caesar's downfall, Caesar saw the seer on his way to the Senate saying, "'Well, the Ides of March are come,' and the seer said to him softly: 'Ay, they are come, but they are not gone.'" Plutarch does not give us "et tu Brute," but puts this as Caesar's last words as crying out "in Latin: 'Accursed Casca, what does thou?' and the smiter, in Greek, to his brother: 'Brother, help!'" The story closes with those who betrayed Caesar, like the one who betrayed Christ, killing themselves. Cassius "with that very dagger which he had used against Caesar" and Brutus by literally falling on his sword, "while a certain friend, as they say, helped to drive the blow home."

Spiritual discipline

2011-03-09T06:17:00.000-08:00

Today is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of Lent. Last year Pat & I gave up meat for the season, and we are going to do it again this year. Being raised in the Protestant Church I was aware of folks who were hostile to all things Catholic. "It's not what goes into your mouth but what comes out of it that saves you," they would say in discussing the tradition of giving up red meat on Fridays. I wonder how they feel about the Muslim tradition of praying five times a day.

Seeing these practices as requirements to enter a post-death paradise misses the point. These practices call us to be mindful. They cause the Spirit to intrude into our ordinary lives. They remind us that faith should be tranforming. Indeed, my pastor, Reverend Linda Miller, pointed this out to Chalice in noting that we always read of the tranfiguration before the season of Lent. Sort of a goal, I suppose.

As the Buddhists say, "Be Mindful."

Modern Problems in Ancient Rome

2011-03-08T07:11:00.000-08:00

Plutarch's exposition of Caesar's life touches on a couple of problems that are near and dear to me in my practice. First, he discusses a method used by Roman judges to avoid the problem of Clodius, a wealthy man, who was on the one hand clearly guilty of serious crimes, but on the other hand a favorite of the masses. The solution was that Clodius escaped punishment, because "most of the judges giving their opinions so written as to be illegible that they might not be in danger from the people by condemning him, nor in disgrace with the nobility by acquitting him." When I read a judicial opinion that ducks the real issues of the day by appeal to procedural difficiency created by the judges, or worse yet, by the creation of a legal fiction, it seems they are employing a modern version of this technique.

Next is a discussion of Caesar's practice of paying bribes to get his friends into office, and then having those same friends appropriate large sums of money to Caesar. As Plutarch explained, "It seemed very extravagant to all thinking men that those very persons who had received so much money from Caesar should persuade the senate to grant him more, as if he were in want."

These two came together when the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United claimed that the lack of coordination between corporations who sponsor ad campaigns and the beneficiary of those campaigns means that it is impossible that at some time in the future the corporation could demand a political favor as repayment for that expenditure. This time delayed quid pro quo is either ignored, or even endorsed, by the justices in the majority in recent campaign finance cases.

I fear that the result of preventing regulators, or in the case of Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett the citizens of a state, from deterring corruption, the Court will doom us to the same extravagances observed prior to the fall of the Roman republic.

A Thoughtful Post on Heaven & Hell

2011-03-07T11:36:00.000-08:00

Rev. Robert Howard, Ph.D., provides a thoughtful summary of the problem of Hell. Seems particularly timely given the Westboro Baptist Church's recent victory.

Longing for Greatness

2011-03-07T07:34:00.000-08:00

In summing up Alexander I mentioned the context in which I most often hear Alexander referenced--he conquered the known world by age 30. Last year I met a young man who was not yet thirty and was set to argue a case before the Supreme Court. I compared him to Alexander, a comparison he pretended to reject because of Alexander's young death, but which in truth I think he quite enjoyed. Reading about Caesar, I came across this.

In his journey, as he was crossing the Alps, and passing by a small village of the barbarians with but few inhabitants, and those wretchedly poor, his companions asked the question among themselves by way of mockery, if there were any canvassing for offices there; any contention which should be uppermost, or feuds of great men one against another. To which Caesar made answer seriously, "For my part, I had rather be the first man among these fellows than the second man in Rome." It is said that another time, when free from business in Spain, after reading some part of the history of Alexander, he sat a great while very thoughtful, and at last burst out into tears. His friends were surprised, and asked him the reason of it. "Do you think," said he, "I have not just cause to weep, when I consider that Alexander at my age had conquered so many nations, and I have all this time done nothing that is memorable." As soon as he came into Spain he was very active, and in a few days had got together ten new cohorts of foot in addition to the twenty which were there before.

How curious that Caesar should have these thoughts as well. Some desire to see themselves as a new version of great people. President Obama allegedly studies Ronald Regan. The Tea Party movement casts itself as the new Civil Rights Movement. Patton saw himself as the reincarnation of Hannibal. This all seems fairly similar to casting Jesus as the new Moses or the new Elijah.

I think we sometimes do this on a less grand scale, even as ordinary people. We delight in children behaving similarly to their relatives. Maybe we even enjoy sharing characteristics or traits with our parents as adults. I wonder if it creates the sensation of participating in eternal life--in life that is not bounded by our own mortality.

Closing thoughts on Plutarch's Alexander.

2011-03-03T07:10:00.001-08:00

Plutarch imparts many virtues on Alexander. He is physically impressive, in both appearance and ability. Alexander is portrayed as noble, treating the women in the territories he conquers with respect, including the family of his arch rival Darius. Finally, Plutarch shows Alexander as intelligent and curious: a student of Aristotle and consumer of Homer's works.

He is also ambitious. When his father has success in expanding the Macedonian empire early in Alexander's life, Alexander confided in his friends that he worried that Philip "would anticipate everything, and leave him and them no opportunities of performing great and illustrious actions." Which leads to the question of whether he thought himself a god. Two exchanges with the sophist Anaxarchus illuminate the issue. First, early on,

when it thundered so much that everybody was afraid, and Anaxarchus, the sophist, asked him if he who was Jupiter's son could do anything like this, "Nay," said Alexander, laughing, "I have no desire to be formidable to my friends, as you would have me, who despised my table for being furnished with fish, and not with the heads of governors of provinces." . . . From what I have said upon this subject, it is apparent that Alexander in himself was not foolishly affected, or had the vanity to think himself really a god, but merely used his claims to divinity as a means of maintaining among other people the sense of his superiority.

Hence, Plutarch believes that at first he did not think himself a god. However, after having conquered "Asia" and prior to his invasion of India there was a turning point. Alexander killed Clitus, one of his companions in a fit of rage. Alexander could not be comforted by Callisthenes, the philosopher who studied with Aristotle. Anaxarchus employs a different technique and scolds Alexander for being troubled by Clitus's death.

"Is this the Alexander whom the whole world looks to, lying here weeping like a slave, for fear of censure and reproach of men, to whom he himself ought to be a law and measure of equity, if he would use the right his conquests have given him as supreme lord and governor of all, and not be the victim of a vain and idle opinion? Do not you know," said he, "that Jupiter is represented to have Justice and Law on each hand of him signify that all the actions of a conqueror are lawful and just?"

Forgive my detour into politics, but how much does this sound like the claims of those promoting American exceptionalism? You are above the law; you are the law! Plutarch seems to cast this as the point when Alexander's demons gain the upper hand over his virtues, noting, "With these and the like speeches, Anaxarchus indeed allayed the king's grief, but withal corrupted his character, rendering him more audacious and lawless than he had been." From here on out Callisthene becomes less and less favored by Alexander, as does Aristotle.

Toward the end of the piece, Alexander has returned to Macedonia and is considering charges made against one who he left behind to rule in his absence, Cassander. Alexander asks Cassander why someone would travel all the way to India to lie to him about Cassander's actions. "To which Cassander replied, that their coming so far from the evidence was a great proof of the falseness of their changes, Alexander smiled, and said those were some of Aristotle's sophisms, which would serve equally on both sides." The detail of Alexander smiling while at the same time disparaging his old teacher almost sends chills down my spine.

Alexander is often pointed to as an example of what can be accomplished while we are young; or more often, what we've failed to accomplish by the time we are thirty. Plutarch seems to present Alexander more as an example of the corrupting power of ego.

Alexander and 10 Questions

2011-03-02T07:57:00.000-08:00

While in India, Alexander took ten of the Brahmins prisoner. These men had a great reputation for intelligence, so Alexander decided to give them a test. He announced that the one who gave the worst answer would be the first to die, and he made the oldest Brahmin the judge of the competition.

Which are more numerous, Alexander asked the first one, the living or the dead? "The living," said the Brahmin, "because the dead no longer count."

Which produces more creatures, the sea or the land? Alexander asked the second. "The land," was his answer, "because the sea is only a part of it."

The third was asked which animal was the smartest of all, and the Brahmin replied: "The one we have not found yet."

Alexander asked the fourth what argument he had used to stir up the Indians to fight, and he answered: "Only that one should either live nobly or die nobly."

Which is older: day or night? was Alexander's question to the fifth, and the answer he got was: "Day is older, by one day at least." When he saw that Alexander was not satisfied with this answer, the Brahmin added: "Strange questions get strange answers."

What should a man do to make himself loved? asked Alexander, and the sixth Brahmin replied: "Be powerful without being frightening."

What does a man have to do to become a god? he asked the seventh, who responded: "Do what is impossible for a man."

The question to the eighth was whether death or life was stronger, and his answer: "Life is stronger than death, because it bears so many miseries."

The ninth Brahmin was asked how long it was proper for a man to live, and he said: "Until it seems better to die."

Then Alexander turned to the judge, who decided that each one had answered worse than another. "You will die first, then, for giving such a decision," said Alexander. "Not so, mighty king," said the Brahmin, "if you want to remain a man of your word. You said that you would kill first the one who made the worst answer." Alexander gave all of the Brahmins presents and set them free, even though they had persuaded the Indians to fight him.

What are the chances that this story has anything to do with Alexander? I would bet dollars to donoughts that what we have here is a folktale, perhaps of Indian origin, that is just too precious not to tell. I suppose it is possible that a leader who saw himself as a God who hold meetings like this, but I find my first guess much more likely.

By the way this is taken from a different website called e-classics. Internet Classics does not contain the full work, even in the download text only form, which contains more of it than the html form.

Mafia Movies & Alexander

2011-03-01T07:08:00.000-08:00

Obviously I am particularly interested in shared themes between Great Books' authors and the Bible, given my particular interest in the Bible. Of course, it is also fun to find things that sound familiar for other reasons. Having defeated Darius and conquered Persia, Alexander was giving his troops a rest for several months and was being very generous is spreading the spoils of war around. Plutarch writes:

But when he perceived his favourites grow so luxurious and extravagant in their way of living and expenses that Hagnon, the Teian, wore silver nails in his shoes, that Leonnatus employed several camels only to bring him powder out of Egypt to use when he wrestled, and that Philotas had hunting nets a hundred furlongs in length, that more used precious ointment than plain oil when they went to bathe, and that they carried about servants everywhere with them to rub them and wait upon them in their chambers, he reproved them in gentle and reasonable terms, telling them he wondered that they who had been engaged in so many single battles did not know by experience, that those who labour sleep more sweetly and soundly than those who are laboured for, and could fail to see by comparing the Persians' manner of living with their own that it was the most abject and slavish condition to be voluptuous, but the most noble and royal to undergo pain and labour.

Full selection. This reminds me of the scenes following the big heist in mafia movies in which the crew gets a little ostentatious with its spending and gives the boss angina.

Alexander is quoted as reminded his troops, "Are you still to learn that the end and perfection of our victories is to avoid the vices and infirmities of those whom we subdue?" I'd like to hear this in a speech about the Global War on Terror.

Failed Plots to Kill Hitler

2011-02-28T07:45:00.000-08:00

Once a month at Chalice the young people watch a movie immediately after the 11:00 a.m. service. This Sunday we watched Valkyrie. As you either already know, or likely guessed from the title of the post, this is a story about a plot to kill Adolf Hilter. We see a man who loved his country enough to leave parts of his own body on the battle field, commit treason. Doing so, he knowingly endangers his wife and children.

On Saturday, my newly formed Breakfast Club had our second meeting to discuss Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship. Bonhoeffer was a brilliant theologian, a pacifist, and someone involved in a plot to kill Hitler. He explained, “If I see a madman driving a car into a group of innocent bystanders, then I can’t, as a Christian, simply wait for the catastrophe and then comfort the wounded and bury the dead. I must try to wrestle the steering wheel out of the hands of the driver.” Bonhoeffer, like all of the semi-fictionalized characters in Valkyrie, was executed for his role in the plot.

One function of Adolf Hitler and Nazis generally in our public discourse is to stand in for ultimate evil. Unfortunately, we often simply use this ultimate evil as something to call our political foes. Goodwin's law only partially sarcastically provides, "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

In my discussion with the youth after Valkyrie and in reading about Bonhoeffer's choice, I find ultimate evil giving rise to a surprisingly subtle question. When is something so evil as to require an exception to your moral code? When does righteousness call you to commit treason, or to turn your back on your life long moral commitment to pacifism?

Alexander v. Joshua

2011-02-25T07:10:00.000-08:00

Alexander the Macedonian and Joshua the Israelite were two military leaders. They both are reported as being on a divinely sanctioned mission, e.g., Alexander was told by a priestess of Apollo that he was invincible and he loosed the Gordium knot indicating that he would conquer the world. Perhpas Joshua's mandate was stronger because he was directly carrying out the will of God to take possession of the promised land for the Israelites. Consider this passage describing Joshua's conquest, which I submit is a typical description.

Joshua took all these royal cities and their kings and put them to the sword. He totally destroyed them, as Moses the servant of the LORD had commanded. Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds—except Hazor, which Joshua burned. The Israelites carried off for themselves all the plunder and livestock of these cities, but all the people they put to the sword until they completely destroyed them, not sparing anyone that breathed. As the LORD commanded his servant Moses, so Moses commanded Joshua, and Joshua did it; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses.

Josh. 11:12-15. Now, Alexander's conquest seems generally limited to defeating armies rather than razing cities, but there is at least one exception. Here is how Plutarch recounts the defeat of Thebes.

The Thebans indeed defended themselves with a zeal and courage beyond their strength, being much outnumbered by their enemies. But when the Macedonian garrison sallied out upon them from the citadel, they were so hemmed in on all sides that the greater part of them fell in the battle; the city itself being taken by storm, was sacked and razed. Alexander's hope being that so severe an example might terrify the rest of Greece into obedience, and also in order to gratify the hostility of his confederates, the Phocians and Plataeans. So that, except the priests, and some few who had heretofore been the friends and connections of the Macedonians, the family of the poet Pindar, and those who were known to have opposed the public vote for the war, all the rest, to the number of thirty thousand, were publicly sold for slaves; and it is computed that upwards of six thousand were put to the sword.

Full selection. The thing is, Alexander is reported as feeling great guilt of his treatment of Thebes. So much so that he attributed "the unwillingness of the Macedonians to follow him against the Indians, by which his enterprise and glory was left imperfect, to the wrath and vengeance of Bacchus, the protector of Thebes." Of course, there is no reason to take either author at face value. I think it is fair to assume that both authors are intended to exault their subjects. It seems likely to me that Plutarch felt that Alexander would be well served by a compassionate image, while the author of Joshua felt that Joshua would be well served by an image of unflinching resolve. I wonder if there are any obvious reasons for the differences.

Alexander

2011-02-23T07:08:00.000-08:00

The opening to Plutarch's description of Alexander includes this.

I should not by way of apology forewarn my reader that I have chosen rather to epitomize the most celebrated parts of their story, than to insist at large on every particular circumstance of it. It must be borne in mind that my design is not to write histories, but lives. And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever. Therefore as portrait-painters are more exact in the lines and features of the face, in which the character is seen, than in the other parts of the body, so I must be allowed to give my more particular attention to the marks and indications of the souls of men, and while I endeavour by these to portray their lives, may be free to leave more weighty matters and great battles to be treated of by others.

Full selection. Plutarch then proceeds to recount how Alexander was descended from Hercules and the miraculous circumstances of his conception. It seems to me that the Gospels were not "histories, but lives." Recognizing how common in was for authors of this period to write like portrait-painters rather than news photographers comforts me. It comforts me because it justifies my understanding of what the Biblical authors were trying to accomplish.

Marriage in Western Civilization

2011-02-21T09:57:00.000-08:00

So, first off, if you are really interested in Marriage in Western Civilization you should read Rita Nakashima Brock's piece on the Huffington Post, or one of her books on the topic. If, on the other hand you are interested to hear what I think about Plutarch, keep reading.

In comparing the stories of Lycurgus and Numa Pompilius, Plutarch writes:

With respect to wives and children, and that community which both, with a sound policy, appointed, to prevent all jealousy, their methods, however were different. For when a Roman thought himself to have a sufficient number of children, in case his neighbour who had none should come and request his wife of him, he had a lawful power to give her up to him who desired her, either for a certain time, or for good. The Lacedaemonian husband, on the other hand, might allow the use of his wife to any other that desired to have children by her, and yet still keep her in his house, the original marriage obligation still subsisting as at first. Nay, many husbands, as we have said, would invite men whom they thought likely to procure them fine and good-looking children into their houses.

Full selection. Did the modern institution of marriage evolve from traditions like this? These traditions do seem to have something in common with this: You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor, what with wives included in a list of things that belong to a neighbor. I have written before about the nontraditional nature of the Patriarchs' marriages. E.g.

This all reminds me of one of the more clever assaults on marriage equality from this summer. Ross Douthat suggested we should pause in our inevitable march toward marriage because

lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable — a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations — that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support. . . . It’s a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the sexes.

When I read this over the summer, I knew that the Bible did not support monogamy, but this reading from Plutarch suggests that neither did the ancient Greek and Roman traditions. It actually makes me wonder where we got the current understanding from.

A Peacetime President

2011-02-17T19:59:00.000-08:00

I remember George Bush frequently referring to himself as a wartime president. The point being that he had hard decisions to make. He was a serious president. He could not be held accountable for what he did. He was above it all; he was a wartime president. I understand that we have never voted a president out of office with soldiers in a combat zone. Although, LBJ would have been the first had he run. When Plutarch chose to write about a great Roman leader he identified Numa Pompilius. Of him, Plutarch wrote:

[The] temple at Rome has two gates, which they call the gates of war, because they stand open in the time of war, and shut in the times of peace; of which latter there was very seldom a . . . But, during the reign of Numa, those gates were never seen open a single day, but continued constantly shut for a space of forty-three years together; such an entire and universal cessation of war existed. For not only had the people of Rome itself been softened and charmed into a peaceful temper by the just and mild rule of a pacific prince, but even the neighbouring cities . . . began to experience a change of feeling, and partook in the general longing for the sweets of peace and order, and for life employed in the quiet tillage of soil, bringing up of children, and worship of the gods.

I love the phrase pacific prince and will try to remember it for a brief some time.

My question: Who is our pacific prince? Who is the greatest American peacetime president, and behind how many wartime presidents does he rank? And, I guess, why is this so?

Arizona's Monument Garden

2011-02-16T08:00:00.001-08:00

Arizona's Wesley Bolin Plaza features a monument garden that I think is pretty impressive. I had the opportunity to walk through it today and was reminded of just how diverse the objects of memorial are. Sure, we have monuments to wars, but there is also a monument to police dogs that died in service. And there is the pictured monument to those who died in the Armenian genocide and another one to the conservation corps that did so much work during the Great Depression. There is plenty of controversy: memorials to confederate soldiers, to Spanish missionaries, and a 9-11 memorial that gives more notice to dissenting voices than some would prefer. There is also a Ten Commandments Memorial.

How are we Arizonas doing at living up to the principles found in these commandments that are allegedly foundational to our society. The first four deal with respecting and honoring God. We have agreed not to compell participation in a religion, or even to directly support any religion. But there are other ways to honor God. In fact, the prophet Micah suggests that God doesn't care about "com[ing] before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old, . . . with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of olive oil [or even] offer[ing] my firstborn for my transgression." Rather, God "has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." To my knowledge there is no First Amendment prohibition against loving mercy or acting justly. Do we do that here? I suppose we do okay on the behavioral commandments.

Immaculate Fertilization?

2011-02-15T07:08:00.000-08:00

I believe the virgin birth stories in Matthew and Luke are intended to demonstrate the special character of Jesus. I do not believe that God provided the sperm that fertilized the egg in Mary's womb. I have often heard that when Matthew writes, "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means “God with us”)," he mistranslates the word 'alma' from Isaiah 7:14 because he used the Greek Septuagint as his source. According to someone on the internet, that is ridiculous because the Septuagint available to Matthew only included the Torah. The Septuagint we talk about today has the whole Hebrew Testament, but it was written by Christians much later. Also, I've read other places that alma refers to an unmarried young woman--which frankly, in ancient civilization seems to me to be pretty synonymous with physical virgin given how young people married. So, I don't know.

Anyway, from Plutarch's biography of Numa Pompilius we have Numa's response to those who would want him to be king. He says, "Yet Romulus had the advantage to be thought divinely born and miraculously preserved and nurtured. My birth was mortal; I was reared and instructed by men that are known to you." At some point I'll start thinking about Numa, but note that Romulus was "divinely" born. For me, the fact that another first century biographer notes that a tremendously important, foundational figure is divinely born bolsters my notion that Luke and Matthew were making it clear to the readers that Jesus was every bit as much an ordained leader of the world as these Romans. I'm not sure what the claim means to those who believe that God literally impregnated Mary.

Is it impolite to suggest God provided sperm to fertilize the egg in Mary's womb? First, I don't see why that would be the case. If you believe in literal virgin birth then at some point Jesus has to have human physiology, and it seems conception would be a natural place for that to take place. Second, if you think that is impolite, consider this: Could a human man fertilize an egg to grow in God's womb? Plutarch didn't address the conception part of this question, but seemed to think it is ridiculous to think gods could only have sex with mortal women:

And this in particular gave occasion to the story about the goddess, namely, that Numa did not retire from human society out of any melancholy or disorder of mind, but because he had tasted the joys of more elevated intercourse, and, admitted to celestial wedlock in the love and converse of the goddess Egeria, had attained to blessedness, and to a divine wisdom. . . . Though, indeed, the wise Egyptians do not plausibly make the distinction, that it may be possible for a divine spirit so to apply itself to the nature of a woman, as to imbreed in her the first beginnings of generation, while on the other side they conclude it impossible for the male kind to have any intercourse or mixture by the body with any divinity, not considering, however, that what takes place on the one side must also take place on the other; intermixture, by force of terms, is reciprocal.

Hence, the question: Is immaculate fertilization possible?

St. Valentine's Day Reminds Me

2011-02-14T08:02:00.000-08:00

Legend has it that Claudius II hoped to keep young men of his day single because they would make better soldiers that way. Valentine was put to death when found performing secret marriages.

Read more: Valentine's Day History

Reminds me of another story. Several years ago Chalice Christian Church resettled a man named Kambiz Golsham from Iran. Kambiz was Bahai. A part of the persecution he endured was that his marriage in the Bahai church was not recognized by the state. The totalitarian regime in Iran went so far as to arrest clergy who performed the ceremonies for facilitating prostitution, but it did not recognize the Bahai marriages.

Reminds me of something else. There are several gay couples who attend Chalice, which is located in the United States of America. The government here rejects their marriages, like the Iranian government rejected Kambiz's and Claudius II rejected young Romans'. When I log their donations to Chalice, I must keep them separated because the couples can't file joint returns. So, once a week I am reminded that my country continues senslessly discriminate against my friends and fellow Christians. I wonder how often they are reminded of that?

P.S. thanks to Jimmy Gawne for reminding me of the legend of St. Valentine in his FB Status.

For Kate

2011-02-13T20:56:00.000-08:00

Lycurgus set the number of Senators at 28. In discussing the reasoning behind the number Plutarch writes:

As for the determinate number of twenty-eight, Aristotle states, that it so fell out because two of the original associates, for want of courage, fell off from the enterprise; but Sphaerus assures us that there were but twenty-eight of the confederates at first; perhaps there is some mystery in the number, which consists of seven multiplied by four, and is the first of perfect numbers after six, being, as that is, equal to all its parts.

I have asked Kate what 6, 28 and 496 have in common. This will serve as her clue if she takes me up on my suggestion to read my blog. (Anything to drive up traffic.)

Those Who Have Not Died

2011-02-11T07:19:00.000-08:00

Having finished Plutarch's Lycurgus, I have moved on to his work about Numa Pompilius. That work opens with a discussion of another famous Roman, Romulus. The end of Romulus's time on Earth is described as follows:

It was the thirty-seventh year, counted from the foundation of Rome, when Romulus, then reigning, did, on the fifth day of the month of July, called the Caprotine Nones, offer a public sacrifice at the Goat's Marsh, in presence of the senate and people of Rome. Suddenly the sky was darkened, a thick cloud of storm and rain settled on the earth; the common people fled in affright, and were dispersed; and in this whirlwind Romulus disappeared, his body being never found either living or dead. A foul suspicion presently attached to the patricians, and rumours were current among the people as if that they, weary of kingly government, and exasperated of late by the imperious deportment of Romulus towards them, had plotted against his life and made him away, that so they might assume the authority and government into their own hands. This suspicion they sought to turn aside by decreeing divine honours to Romulus, as to one not dead but translated to a higher condition. And Proculus, a man of note, took oath that he saw Romulus caught up into heaven in his arms and vestments, and heard him, as he ascended, cry out that they should hereafter style him by the name of Quirinus.

Being the good church boy that I am, I immediately thought of Enoch, Elijah and Jesus. (This, I believe, is the only cause anyone ever has for thinking of Enoch.) Their ascensions, in order of appearance, are cited below:

When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. After he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked faithfully with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. Altogether, Enoch lived a total of 365 years. Enoch walked faithfully with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

* * *

As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind. Elisha saw this and cried out, “My father! My father! The chariots and horsemen of Israel!” And Elisha saw him no more. Then he took hold of his garment and tore it in two.

* * *

When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

From Genesis, 2 Kings, and Luke. What to make of all this ascending directly into heaven? I noticed that both Elijah and Romulus call back to their chief disciple on the way up. Well, I don't think Romulus ascended directly into heaven. I am not convinced Plutarch thinks he ascended into heaven as Plutarch could be merely demonstrating to his readers that early Roman's held Romulus in high regard. But, even if Plutarch believes it I don't. I will leave the analysis of the other ascension stories as a exercise for the reader.

Points for Snark

2011-02-10T10:00:00.000-08:00

James McGrath gets points for snark when he provides this as the interpretive rule employed by those who believe Jesus never lived, "All things being equal, the simplest explanation is the best one, unless a more complicated one supports mythicism." Exploring Our Matrix: Godfrey's Razor and Historicized Scripture

Although I probably was exposed to it before, for me the most important presentation of the notion that the human being Jesus of Nazareth never existed was in Steve Gibson's book A Secret of the Universe. It is a good book and Steve is a great thinker. I was underwhelmed by the notion as presented there, although this is a novel so it isn't really trying to convince people of the notion either. Since then, I think McGrath's teasing of one of his commentors sums up my take on the topic.

Travelers

2011-02-09T07:38:00.000-08:00

While in college I read both Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance while traveling, mostly on airplanes. On both occassions I noted how it added an extra flavor to the books to read them while on an adventure myself. This morning, I listed to an episode of American Life titled Road Trip! while I was riding on a bus and had a similar feeling.

Now back to writing my brief.

Snappy Quotes from Plutarch

2011-02-08T06:14:00.000-08:00

Plutarch's description of Lycurgus, the great Spartan lawgiver, included some neat little bits I thought I'd share. First is a tale I know I've heard applied to women other than Lacedaemon (Spartan) women.

[S]ome foreign lady . . . told [Gorgo, wife of Leonidas] that the women of Lacedaemon were the only women in the world who could rule men; "With good reason," she said, "for we are the only women who bring forth men."

Oh snap! I really feel like I've heard, "That's because Southern women are the only women who raise men." Or something like that.

It turns out the Spartan lawgiver was a communist, or at least a communalist since he obviously predated the Communist Manifesto by a few years. He not only redistributed the land, but banning precious metals he redistributed all wealth. He also required everyone to eat together. "For the rich, being obliged to go to the same table with the poor, could not make use of or enjoy their abundance, nor so much as please their vanity by looking at or displaying it." Who you eat with is a pretty big deal. See, e.g., Luke 5:27-32.

Skipping the bits where they shared wives and had their children raised separately from their families, I thought I'd quote this discussion about building projects.

Betwixt this [river and bridge], their assemblies were held, for they had no council-house or building to meet in. Lycurgus was of opinion that ornaments were so far from advantaging them in their counsels, that they were rather an hindrance, by diverting their attention from the business before them to statues and pictures, and roofs curiously fretted, the usual embellishments of such places amongst the other Greeks.

Any person who has run a capital campaign at a local church has felt some sympathy for this position.

Salt and Light

2011-02-07T08:23:00.000-08:00

The deadline for our brief to the U.S. Supreme Court is looming large, and beginning to really cut into my blogging and leisure reading. Thus, rather than come up with thoughts of my own, I thought I'd pass along something Rev. Linda Miller gave us at Chalice yesterday. Although the author of John would later write that Jesus taught that He was the light of the world, John 8:12, the author of Matthew has Jesus putting that responsibility elsewhere.

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.

“You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

Matthew 5:13-14 (emphasis mine). Linda tackled the first metaphor as well in her sermon. After talking about the myriad uses of salt, including as a preservative, she admonished us as follows: You are the salt of the earth, with out you, something precious spoils. Which I processed as meaning, without the hard work of good Christians, the Gospel will become rancid and dangerous to consume.

Social Darwinism vrs. Real Darwinism

2011-02-04T07:18:00.000-08:00

My typical reaction to people criticizing Darwin as being connected to Social Darwinism is to become extremely irritated with them. "The two are totally unrelated!" I scream in my head, as I become frustrated at yet another anti-science beachhead being formed. It was with this framework in mind that I listened to the 18 min. RadioLab podcase linked below which is an interview with evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who defends Darwinism and attack social Darwinism.

After listening to the podcast I actually started to wonder if the theories are not more connected than I had thought. I had thought that there are many holes in the general notion of social darwinism--which I would explain as the proposition that if you practice charity, you are assisting an organism that has characterists adversely adapted to our environment survive and propogate, and thereby allowing adverse "mutation" in society to persist. One of the core problems with it is that it focuses on society and not individuals. I value individual humans.

But then this thought came to me: Does the purposeless world that evolution via natural selection suggests, make it less rational to value individual humans? Is this another way real Darwinism is connected to Social Darwinism?

Luke & Plutarch

2011-02-03T07:03:00.000-08:00

Here are excerpts from the opening few paragraphs from Plutarch's Lycurgus

There is so much uncertainty in the accounts which historians have left us of Lycurgus, the lawgiver of Sparta, that scarcely anything is asserted by one of them which is not called into question or contradicted by the rest. Their sentiments are quite different as to the family he came of, the voyages he undertook, the place and manner of his death, but most of all when they speak of the laws he made and the commonwealth which he founded. . . . But notwithstanding this confusion and obscurity, we shall endeavour to compose the history of his life, adhering to those statements which are least contradicted, and depending upon those authors who are most worthy of credit.

Now consider this opening to the Gospel of Luke, which curiously enough was written a basically the same time.

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Luke 1: 1-4. What we have here is two first century writers, attempting to recount the life of a significant figure, but feeling compelled from the outset to acknowledge that others have set out to do the same thing. Luke's author is a bit more self-assured than Plutarch, which is reasonable I suppose given that Plutarch was considerably more separated from his subject.

Mortimer Adler's notion that Western literature is a conversation is compelling to me. Obviously, reading the works that his group selected to be Great only reinforces that notion. But I think it is crucial to recognize that the Bible is also a "Great Conversation," and this passage from Luke makes it pretty explicit.

A final note, one can promote an allegorical reading of the creation myths without abandoning the notion of a divinely inspired, even divinely authored Bible. Why shouldn't God communicate morals to God's people through a parable? The opening to Luke, on the other hand, seems to strain that notion to the breaking point--at least, if the other accounts include Matthew and Mark. (John wouldn't be written for some time after Luke.)

Imprecatory Prayer

2011-02-02T08:19:00.000-08:00

Religion Nerd has a post about a new kind of prayer for me. Imprecatory Prayer. Although, it turns out that if I had been paying attention while reading Psalms I would have recognized it.

1 My God, whom I praise,
do not remain silent,
2 for people who are wicked and deceitful
have opened their mouths against me;
they have spoken against me with lying tongues.
3 With words of hatred they surround me;
they attack me without cause.
4 In return for my friendship they accuse me,
but I am a man of prayer.
5 They repay me evil for good,
and hatred for my friendship.

6 Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy;
let an accuser stand at his right hand.
7 When he is tried, let him be found guilty,
and may his prayers condemn him.
8 May his days be few;
may another take his place of leadership.
9 May his children be fatherless
and his wife a widow.
10 May his children be wandering beggars;
may they be driven[a] from their ruined homes.

[and on, and on, and on]

Psalm 109.

Shared Wisdom

2011-02-01T06:06:00.000-08:00

Consider these two passages. The first is from the Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, chapter 6; the second from Matthew 7:13-14.

Again, it is possible to fail in many ways (for evil belongs to the class of the unlimited, as the Pythagoreans conjectured, and good to that of the limited), while to succeed is possible only in one way (for which reason also one is easy and the other difficult- to miss the mark easy, to hit it difficult); for these reasons also, then, excess and defect are characteristic of vice, and the mean of virtue; For men are good in but one way, but bad in many.

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

Now lets do a similar exercise with these two. The first from the Nicomachean Ethics, Book II, chapter 9; the second is an internet summary of Buddhist thinking. (Sorry, no time to find something from the Dhammapada.)

That moral virtue is a mean, then, and in what sense it is so, and that it is a mean between two vices, the one involving excess, the other deficiency, and that it is such because its character is to aim at what is intermediate in passions and in actions, has been sufficiently stated. Hence also it is no easy task to be good. For in everything it is no easy task to find the middle, e.g. to find the middle of a circle is not for every one but for him who knows; so, too, any one can get angry- that is easy- or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one, nor is it easy; wherefore goodness is both rare and laudable and noble.

The Buddha claimed that the practices he advocated in the quest for enlightenment avoided the extremes of sensual self-indulgence on the one hand and self-mortification on the other and thus he gave his Noble Eightfold Path the alternative name of the Middle Way. (Majjhima patipada).

A similar comparison is frequently done with the teachings of Buddha and Christ. What explanation do we have for this other than one being directly influenced by the other? The teachings of Jesus might have been influenced by Hellenistic culture, and certainly the version of those teachings recorded in the Gospels was. But, I don't think there is any reason to believe that Buddhism influenced Aristotle.

Is the best explanation that they were all providing wisdom on the human condition, and there are certain universal truths about how to live life in the best way?

Which came first: the Just Act or the Just Person

2011-01-31T10:14:00.000-08:00

I've enjoyed a nice FB conversation spawned by the following status update.

Does one become a just person by doing acts of justice, or is doing acts of justice the product of being a just person?

First off, clearly both are required. If an wicked person accidently did something that had a beneficial effect, I wouldn't call it a virtuous act. (Or shoud I?) Nonetheless, I think which causes which is important in deciding how to instill values. E.g., if you are going to work at a soup kitchen and your kid doesn't want to go, should you make him? If behaving in a virtuous manner, makes us virtuous, then the answer is yes. If truly virtuous acts require a virtuous heart first, then making him go is no good, and maybe even counterproductive.

Aristotle, "By Faith or Works?"

2011-01-28T07:38:00.001-08:00

The ultimate aim of Christians is salvation, or entry into the Kingdom of God. The final end for humans, according to Aristotle, is happiness. Aristotle's happiness is not fleeting joy, but closer to a life of satisfaction. And he recognizes that some (I suspect including Aristotle) see the path to happiness as virtue. Which leads to this:

With those who identify happiness with virtue or some one virtue our account is in harmony; for to virtue belongs virtuous activity. But it makes, perhaps, no small difference whether we place the chief good in possession or in use, in state of mind or in activity. For the state of mind may exist without producing any good result, as in a man who is asleep or in some other way quite inactive, but the activity cannot; for one who has the activity will of necessity be acting, and acting well.

Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, Chapter 8. Compare this with excerpt from the second chapter of Ephesians, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast," and this from the second chapter of James, "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." Eph. 2; James 2 (note deeds is just a different translation of works).

Aristotle initially indicates that virtue without action is no good, noting, "in the Olympic Games it is not the most beautiful and the strongest that are crowned but those who compete (for it is some of these that are victorious), so those who act win, and rightly win, the noble and good things in life." Nonetheless, if the possession of happiness is the ultimate goal, it is hard to see how it requires action.

Religion & Rationality

2011-01-27T07:34:00.000-08:00

I'm reading Sam Harris's End of Faith with my Sunday School Class at Chalice Christian Church. I think it is fair to say that Sam Harris defines faith as irrationality. This allows him to do a couple of things. One, in Chapter 3 of his book he can make the claim that Nazism is essentially a religion. Two, in Chapter 1 and elsewhere, he can claim that rational adherents to a religion are not really religious.

What I take from this is that rational religious folks need to work hard to make other rational people understand the value of faith to a rational person. The shortest answer I have for this is that the human condition involves a spiritual/soulful something that is neither defined by our intellect or our physicality. Religion and faith help nurture and grow that aspect of our humanity. Developing our sense of compassion and empathy, feeding our better angles, and sharing our progress in these efforts with others is important and entirely rational.

The other thing I take from Harris's book is how tremendously dangerous irrational beliefs are. Irrational fears whether brought to us by religious leaders, political leaders, or news moguls all seeking to consolidate power are dangerous. Harris's book is really a critique of the frequent failures of humanity.

Did Jesus Exist?

2011-01-26T11:04:00.000-08:00

Dr. James McGrath blogs at Exploring the Matrix with is linked to on the right. He had a post today which is a round up of past posts on mythicism. Mythicism is the notion that Jesus is a character in a myth and not a historical figure. Myth is not necessarily intended to be derogatory, it just means a story that helps us understand our world. In fact, there is no reason no to attribute divine authoriship to myths.

In any case, McGrath compares thinks mythicists, like creationists, put forward lots of psuedo science and half-readings of primary sources to arrive at false conclusions. He is pretty thorough in his analysis, and it appears to be a pet topic.

I am not particularly interested in debunking the notion that Jesus was a character. But it is enjoyable to read someone with such intelligence and such resources address the topic.

Good Is As Good Does

2011-01-26T07:20:00.000-08:00

I am reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. It agrees with Plato's Republic in claiming there are two kinds of good. Things that are good because of the outcome they bring, e.g., medicine for producing health, and things that are good in and of themselves, e.g., justice. Plato adds a third category which is things that are enjoyable to do, but which do not produce a good outcome. This is an intellectually seductive way to view the world, but I wonder if it is accurate. For example, dieting may be pursued for the sake of the outcome, fitness, but many people report that they actually enjoy eating more healthful foods.

The discussion of greater and lesser views of the good or happiness reminds me of my understanding of Hinduism, which is derived entirely from Huston Smith's The World's Religions, and its notion that humans evolve their aims as they proceed through various lives. The lowest, but legitimate, aim is pleasure. Then humans seek prestige or honor. Next the goal of a life is service, and finally the most evolved soul seeks detachment.

Socrates' God.

2011-01-25T07:32:00.000-08:00

Well, first off, Socrates never gets back to the risk of damnation as reason to act justly, at least not in Book II. He does develop the notion of social contract as the foundation of society by imagining the State from the ground up. From there he talks about educating the children because the State needs guardians who "unite in [themselves] philosophy and spirit and swiftness and strength." [376] To that end, he wants children to be educated about the truth about God. Well, at first he says "the gods," but then he morphs into discussing god in the singular. I'm not sure about the choice to capitalize. But he concludes Book II by deriving this about God, he is "perfectly simple and true both in word and deed; he changes not; he deceives not, either by sign or word, by dream or waking vision." [382]

What to make of Socrates' God? A part of the argument about God includes that God is only responsible for the good and humans are responsible for the bad, and thus God is not responsible for very much. This sounds pretty cheeky. And this understanding of God was posed literally as an attack on Homer's and Hesiod's stories, but seems to be an attack on religion of the day.

I knew that Dante and Milton influence our notions of afterlife. I wonder how much Socrates' God influences our understanding of the divine. It is most notably different from the God of the Psalmist or the God of 1,2 Kings in that Socrates' God is sterile and distant.

Time with Young People: Teaching & Learning

2011-01-24T16:30:00.000-08:00

While taking the high school and junior high youth on a trip to find snow in Arizona, I had the chance to experience some touching and exciting moments. While playing something called The Ungame:

Q: What would you do if you found out you had a week to live.
A: (Jr. High girl) I would cry.
Q: Okay, anything else?
A: I would hide because I wouldn't want to make anyone else sad.

# # #

Q: What is one thing that peopel don't know about you?
A: (H.S. girl) That's hard because I'm so outgoing. People know everything about me. I don't know. I guess I wish my family was closer.

# # #

Q: What are the four most important things to you ad why?
A: (H.S. boy) . . . and fourth, I guess self-awareness because you can't improve as a person unless you are self-aware.

We also had a variety of formal and informal conversations. I began a conversation with a group of high school boys about whether they would act justly if they could get away without acting justly. The conversation evolved to one boy openning my eyes when he said he would always act justly, but unlike what another boy said, guilt had nothing to do with it. He said that if he did something wrong he would (1) accept personal responsibility (2) work to fix it and (3) not do it again, but he would not feel bad about himself over it, or have an emotional response about something that happened in the past. We talked about whether there was value in "feeling bad" and came across the notion that perhaps others would have trouble accepting your apology if you did not feel bad about having made a mistake. He stuck to his guns and said that he couldn't feel what he doesn't feel. He would, however, accomodate such a person by making an effort to assure them the mistake wouldn't happen again.

We have a formal discussion about New Year's Resolutions that could focus on spiritual development in addition to growing your mind and body. (A little disturbing how many 11-17 year olds list eating better as a resolution.) We also talked about how to both be truthful and constructive with the tone of our speech.

Lake of Fire

2011-01-24T07:10:00.000-08:00

I just wanted to dash off a quick note here as I work my way through Book II of the Republic. The question presented is whether it is better to be just or unjust. Socrates argues that it is better to be just and various people argue in opposition. The second main challenger is arguing the two limiting cases of the perfectly unjust man and the perfectly just man. Through a device that is not quite perfect, he assigns humility to the just man. Thus: the perfectly unjust man would take advantage of people in his business dealing, would sleep with other men's wives, and would be universally loved as a just man; the perfectly just would do worse in business, presumably sleep only with his wife-although I don't think that was spelled out-and would be universally loathed by society because they would keep his just deed secret.

But then, the speakers brother pipes up asking Socrates why he isn't going to ask about the most important difference: the way they will each be treated by the Gods. The brother goes so far as to discuss how the just will go to the underworld and lie on couches at a feast while the unjust will be tormented in Hades. I'll have to make that a cliff hanger because that's as far as I got today. So, I don't know how Socrates deals with this.

That said, I cannot remember anything in the Old Testament that even comes close to this level of do good, get good in the after life. I've heard it said that Old Testament Hebrews did not believe in after life at all, which would obviously explain it. Now, most notably Matthew 25 makes this explicit argument; but, Matthew 25 was written about 500 years after The Republic and in by Christians who were at least emersed in Helenistic culture. Curious, yes?

Jesus Hates Obama?

2011-01-21T10:53:00.000-08:00

Here is a link to the Jesus Hates Obama ad that Fox turned down for the superbowl. My reactions are as follows:

*I think it is funny that there would be any suggestion that Fox's ad folks would be more or less likely to turn down an over the top ad than any other network. These decisions have biases, and some of those biases feel conservative, but I don't think Fox would have more than ABC or CBS in their ad department.

*I think this is pretty clearly an example of where an "advertiser" designs an inflamatory ad with hopes that it will be rejected due to content and that it will, therefore, get a nice little bump in its profile without paying the astronomical costs of a superbowl ad.

*I don't think anyone thinks Jesus hates Obama. I think it is as dumb to suggest this as it is to compare Republican healthcare lies to Nazi lies.

*I actually think the ad is kind of cute.

Jesus versus the Governor of Alabama

2011-01-18T09:30:00.000-08:00

Providing an address to commemorate Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., new Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley explained, "So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

I've said before that accepting Jesus Christ as your savior is a prerequisite to being saved. I expect my understanding of Salvation is much different from that of Governor Bentley, although I don't know. I believe that Jesus provides a pathway to enter the Kingdom of God on Earth. The Way, if you will, to live in harmony with the creation, to learn to love everyone and everything in God's creation. I think He offers salvation from what Paul describes as the unexamined, selfish life of those enslaved by the law or by sin. I think the Christian goal of Salvation may be similar to Buddhism's Englightenment or the securlar humanist's Good Life, but they are not the same. Accordingly, I don't quibble with the notion that not everyone is saved.

Nonetheless, Governor Bentley wasn't making the point that a group of folks was saved and another group was not. He was saying, those that are not saved are not his brothers and sisters. What is his point? Is it that he doesn't need to consider them?

Jesus seems to disagree. Consider this story about who is in and who is out:

On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
“What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”

He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”

But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”

In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”

Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

As I've mentioned, but might be worth repeating, Samaritans practiced a different religion than the Israelites. It is not an accident that the folks that passed by were religous people. The point is that your neighbor can include even one among the dreaded adherrents of the false religion in Samaria.

Of course, some people are not Good like the Samaritan. But, Jesus says you are supposed to even love your enemies. Luke 6:27; Matthew 5:44. In fact, in the version provided my Matthew he kind of goes off on how unimpressive it is to only care about those people who are like you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

This all leaves me unsure of the Governor's point. Luckily, Jesus was more clear. To follow Him is to treat everyone with love and kindness, including and especially those who are not in your group.

Fear Not

2011-01-16T12:25:00.000-08:00

A helpful feature of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is that it's cover contains the comforting words "Don't Panic!" Excellent advice. The same advice in slightly more archaic form would be, "Fear Not!" This admonition appears in the King James Bible 63 times, including, "Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you." and "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people."

These words crept into my minds as I processed the shooting last week. Michael Moore's widely misunderstood moving Bowling for Columbine examined gun violence in the United States. But, contrary to the line suggested by the gun lobby, Moore's film did not conclude that the cause of our uniquely high rate of gun violence was an abundance of guns. In fact, he noted that there are countries with more guns per capita that the United States with many fewer instances of gun violence. After suggesting a number of possibilities, he landed on the idea that our problem was that we were being constantly bombarded with news stories telling us to be afraid. His ultimate theory is that our culture of fear is the cause of our increased violence. I can't explain how Moore reconciles this with his own status as provocateur and professional fear monger. But setting that and his unfair treatment of Charleton Heston in his movie aside, I feel like there may be something to his theory.

In one of the few recordings I have of my dad, he is talking about his imminent death and he says he is not afraid to die, everyone dies. In the same interview he brushes off the idea of afterlife stating candidly that he thinks the notion of a physical afterlife is "foolish." The source of his fearlessness was that he was at peace with the way that he had lived his life, not that he knew what was to come. Conversely, I suspect he reached this state of satisfaction by leading his life fearlessly.

Faith, at its best, can make it possible for us to live our lives fearlessly. It can provide us with the satisfaction that comes from living in harmony with our surroundings, appreciating what is around us, and using each moment as best we can.

Translation translation translation

2011-01-15T09:15:00.000-08:00

Consider the following.

Leader of chorus of old men

Come, Philurgus, man, let's hurry there; let's lay our faggots all about the citadel, and on the blazing pile burn with our hands these vile conspiratresses, one and all — and Lycon's wife first and foremost!

Second semi-Chorus of old men [singing]

Nay, by Demeter, never will I let them laugh at me, whiles I have a breath left in my body. Cleomenes himself, the first who ever seized our citadel, had to quit it to his sore dishonour; spite his Lacedaemonian pride, he had to deliver me up his arms and slink off with a single garment to his back. My word! but he was filthy and ragged! and what an unkempt beard, to be sure! He had not had a bath for six long years!

And now this.

LEADER:
And shall these females hold the sacred spot
That might King Cleomenes could not?

CHORUS:
The grand old Spartan king,
He had six hundred men,
He marched them into the Acropolis
And he marched them out again.
And he entered breathing fire,
But when he left the place
He hadn't wash for six whole years
And had hair all over his face.

Point 1: I have no idea which translation is closer to the Greek text, but I suspect it is the first because the second version seems to have made an attempt to include some cultural equivalents. There is a song I know as a camp song which goes, "The Grand Ole Duke of York, he had ten-thousand men, he marched them up the hill and then he marched them down again. And when you're up you're up, and when you're down you're down but when you're only half way up, you're neither up nor down."

Point 2: I like the second translation better--which happily is the version the version I'm reading. I think it contains the same information and I assume it matches the feel of the play.

Point 3: I wish I was aware of these choices before I thought that Aristophanes wrote the phrase "Children are best seen and not heard." I have a suspicion that was another cultural translation rather than literal translation choice.

There ain't no good guys

2011-01-14T07:40:00.000-08:00

There is just nobody to love in Aristophanes' play, The Clouds. You have the protagonist, Strepsiades who took on more debt then he could repay, seeks help from Socrates to learn trickery to avoid his debts, and ultimately burns down Socrates' school because although Socrates did teach his son how to use argument to get Strepsiades out of his debts, having a son would could justify anything ends up backfiring on him. You have Socrates who is pictured as an atheist who believes in nonsense, but at the same time is stilled enough in argument to allow "the Wrong" to always prevail over "the Right." Strepsiades' son starts off as a lay about and ends up as a pompous ass who beats his father and justifies it using the techniques his father sent him off to school to learn.

Although there is plenty of what Kevin Smith calls "dick and fart jokes" in this play, it is actually pretty sophisticated in its themes. Is the economic collapse really just an example of us all getting what we deserve? Just because one party is a villian, is his opponent necessarily a hero?

I initially perceived it as anti-intellectual--and it is certainly that--but I think it is also anti-youth, anti-aged, anti-common man. [Note: "common man" is not really common man. It is common fairly affluent man with servants and property etc. I find it interesting how much of literature and scripture is concerned with the behavior of the very wealthy.]

Aristophanes' The Clouds

2011-01-13T07:58:00.000-08:00

I'm reading the Clouds by Aristophanes. A couple of details jump out at me. One, it includes the phrase, "Children are best seen and not heard." I thought my dad and my uncles invented that phrase. Not really, but I am surprised it goes back to 423 B.C. Two, the slur for old people is Methuselah. I am frustrated because as many as three minutes of searching the internet has not revealed anything interesting on whether Aristophanes is borrowing Methuselah from the Hebrew tradition, or whether they are both borrowing from a third source. The name does not appear to means "old one" or anything.

Generally, the play's dramatic anti-intellectual theme is curious. As you may know, in the Apology, Plato blames Aristophanes for starting the rumor that Socrates is an atheist. Socrates in the blames is pompus and worried about foolish things. The middle-class landowner that tries to learn how to argue to get out of debt quickly realizes that he is too old to learn Socrates' complex ways. Although, it seems pretty clear, the landowner is the one the audience is supposed to sympathize with.

I guess our love hate relationship with thinkers goes back a long way.

My Thoughts on the Shooter in Tucson

2011-01-12T13:15:00.000-08:00

On Sunday, I asked for prayers for the victims of the shooting in Tucson, and also for the nation to take this as an opportunity to behave more civily toward one another. In repeating back the prayer request, my pastor wisely added, "and also prayers for the shooter." How right she was to include him in our prayer. Jesus taught the following.

“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.

“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Luke 6:27-36. I think it is also worth noting that when Linda similarly offered prayers for the 9-11 terrorist a family decided not to come to Chalice anymore. They were still just checking us out, but that remark was too much for them. I guess it is too much for a lot of people; but, if we want to call ourselves Christian, we don't have much choice but to at least try.

My Thoughts on the Tucson Shooting

2011-01-11T08:29:00.000-08:00

“‘I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but not everything is constructive.” 1 Corinthians 10:23. Paul is writing about freedom in Christ, but his reasoning applies equally well to our First Amendment freedom of speech. We may never know what role gun metaphors and unchecked vitriol played in the shooting in Tucson last Saturday. Perhaps it inspired a tragically unbalanced young man to direct his violent rage toward a member of Congress. Perhaps it was merely a coincidence that his victim's district had been identified in a campaign ad behind the crosshairs of a gun. Assuming it is the latter, viewing those ads now is still painful. Surely those who created the ads wish they had not. Whether or not vitriolic rhetoric is to blame for the murders, why shouldn't we use this as an "excuse" to exercise our rights, our freedom to speak more constructively and beneficially.

Living in Harmony

2011-01-07T10:16:00.000-08:00

I prefer the idea of living in harmony to the notion of tolerance. Tolerance is better than intolerance but I don't think it is enough, and I don't think it is what citizens of the Kingdom are expected to exhibit.

A mental fragment floating around my head today comes from my Sunday school class reading Sam Harris's "End of Faith." I think it is fair to say an important point for Harris is that religon adherents can only get along with other adherents if they betray their principles. Another brain crumb comes from hearing on the radio that the executive who fired Juan Williams for saying he was scared to fly with Muslims who dress like Muslims, resigned after having her 2010 bonus withheld as punishment for handling things poorly. In the story, Juan Williams called her a bigot.

This Paul Moses piece on CNN.com, which includes the story about Francis of Assisi visiting the son of Saladin in 1219, was nice to read given the debris that had collected in my mind. It doesn't prove that Muslims and Christians always get along. Heck, the story takes place in the middle of a cruscade. But I think it does provide at least a few data points that conflict with our standard anti-Muslim narrative. His book pictured on the left might be worth a read.

Playwrights

2011-01-06T07:49:00.000-08:00

Currently reading a little Aristophanes. Specifically, Clouds. It is fun because one of the characters is Socrates. In the Apology, Socrates, as written by Plato, claims that his accusers are responding to the characterization of him in dramas rather than in real life. Interesting.

Anyway, it made me think back to the book of Job, which I believe can be fairly treated as a script. Consider the first chapter here. The author of Job was much more given to long speeches though.

Does Honors Dishonor?

2011-01-05T10:12:00.000-08:00

CNN reports Capt. Owen Honors has been relieved of his command. I'm always torn by these stories. I think the military culture is so distinct from that of the business world. CNN reports that the videos for which he was relieved included "anti-gay slurs, simulated sex acts, and what appear to be two female sailors in a shower together." I guess these videos aired to the entire ship between 2006-2007 while Enterprise was deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan.

2006 is pretty recent, and such insensitivity is probably disqualifying for a commander of so many people. I guess the pause that I have is that I do not think you should have to behave with the same level of sensitivity in all circumstances. When you broadcast something to 5000 people, though, you really need to make sure it is suitable for all audiences. If the tapes had been secretly recorded or viewed only by his friends, this would be a very different case for me.

2011-01-03T09:05:00.000-08:00

As happens sometimes, there have been a couple of new comments on an old post that are worth checking out. Day 11 (Dueling Revelations)

Jesus : Socrates

2011-01-03T07:59:00.000-08:00

I am reading Plato's Apology and cannot help but notice that Socrates is challenged by the three institutions he most challenged. He takes the position that he is but a conduit for the truth and that he will accept death rather than terminate his mission.

The Gospel passage that gives us "Give unto Caesar," is one of three testers attacking Jesus shortly before he is executed for refusing to end his ministry. The testers represent various aspects of the establishment that he has challenged.

The human mind loves pattern recognition, yes?

Exclusive Salvation

2011-01-01T13:36:00.000-08:00

Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” John 14:6-7.

Let me paper over the distinctions between the various notions Salvation, and allow me to take for granted that coming to the Father equals Salvation. Conceding that, what does this scripture mean in a multicultural world? Does it mean that non-Christians are denied Salvation? I think so. But I'm not sure if I have a problem with that interpretation.

Can one achieve enlightenment through studying Jesus? I can't imagine that they could. Can one live a Kosher or Halal life by meditating on a koan? Can reading the Quran lead to Hindu detachment?

Project Complete - Final Thoughts

2010-12-30T06:41:00.000-08:00

Just some random musings before I leave this.

I think the One Year Bible is a good tool. NIV is a conservative translation, and I did have issues with choices the editors made, which means I probably would have had issues with other choices if I had noticed them. But most editorial choices are not ideologically driven, and it is readable. The format is the big advantage. It is good to be able to keep track of your progress. More importantly, there is variety particularly when you are slogging through tedious portions.

Four months was too fast. It is not that the volume of reading was so bad. The problem is that there would often been four or five things I wanted to think about more deeply but didn't have time to do that in one day. Also, it would have been good to explore context a bit more.

Taking time to reflect on what I had just read was invaluable. I am really glad I decided to blog about it. I would recommend others to either do the same, or to keep a personal journal or whatever.

Okay, so I am 40 years old. I completed my little mini-reading program. I am ready to tackle the ten year reading program for the Great Books and hopefully take some serious steps this to get healthier. It is like a new decade's resolution.

Project Complete - Why It Matters

2010-12-29T17:29:00.001-08:00

It helps no one, including oneself, to ignore inconvenient facts. That's true whether one is analyzing a client's case or evaluating a New Year's resolution's chance of success. Accordingly, I started with the last two posts. Despite these concerns, the Bible remains important, even precious to me.

It is a great work of Western Civilization. In January, I'm going to start reading the Great Books of Western Civilization. There are reasons to read these books, even if modern works or non-western works are "better," and those reasons apply to the Bible. They provide reference points for other works. Themes developed there have found their way into the fabric of our culture. See, e.g., I'm not my brothers keeper, I wash my hands of it, the writing is on the wall.

It is a source of authority to for roughly two billion people. A part of what I want to do as a Christian is to motivate others and to advocate for justice. The Bible provides a common language that might otherwise be unavailable to me. It also provides certain starting points. For example, even Bill O'Reilly recently conceded that no reasonable person could deny the need to help those who can't help themselves.

It provides a connection to my spiritual predecessors. To be sure, the religion I practice is distinct from that practiced by the semitic people inhabiting a region just north of Egypt on the Mediterranean 3000 years ago. Nonetheless, my faith has evolved from theirs. And, while reading a scholarly work can provide intellectual context, the Bible provides a more human context. It is one thing to know that spiritual purity was important to the Hebrews, it is another to read hundreds of rules dealing with the topic. It is the difference between reading someone's obituary and reading someone's journal.

Parts of it are intellectually stimulating. I have had marvelous discussions focused on good and evil as presented in the story of Deborah. My dad has several books devoted to issues raised in Job. And there is plenty of other grist for the mental mill.

Parts of it are moving. This is where I get back some of the stuff that I have had to admit is not squarely located within the text. Reading of Jesus' treatment of the outcast speaks to me in a way that motivates me to strive for equality. It inspires me to fight for justice for those society condemns. Another reader will find within the Scripture a celebration of life as the ultimate gift from God and be moved to fight for maintaining it always and particularly at the extremes. And that's okay with me. It is okay that the Bible inspires us both, but differently. It is still a source of inspiration for me.

Project Complete - What's There I Wish Wasn't

2010-12-29T07:00:00.000-08:00

The title of this post is a problem for many, and I recognize that. For good or ill, it is how I feel. There are some things in the Bible that I wish were not. Elsewhere I have discussed ways to handle these difficult passages. But here, I just want to come clean about some troubling themes.

Do not tolerate other religions. With the major exception of the ministry of Jesus, the Bible is full of hatred for other religions. Embracing other religions is the reason for the exile. True Christians are not only to reject other religions, but other version of the faith. And, violence is authorized. To be fair, it is usually violence that comes from YHWH.

Women and men are not equal. There are more exceptions here. Not just the ministry of Jesus, e.g., Deborah, Priscilla & Aquilla. Nonetheless, women are treated very poorly by the Bible. Mistreatment of women may be the single greatest injustice our world faces today and it sucks the Bible has so much that supports it.

Support cultural norms. The writers of the Bible, naturally enough I suppose, have trouble distinguishing what is their response to God in their lives from what is just a cultural norm. The result is that loving your neighbor, obeying your master, and not wearing clothes with mixed fibers are all in there. This is troubling because some of the norms that come in, but also because it makes it difficult to avoid just throwing out everything you don't like.

Project Complete - What's Not There

2010-12-28T05:51:00.000-08:00

Many people use the Bible to support rather than to shape their views. As a litigator and sometimes appellate attorney, using authority to support my view, or more precisely my client's view, is my occupation. But just as an overzealous attorney can stretch the meaning of a Supreme Court case to the breaking point, so can Christians stretch claims based on the Bible. Here are my thoughts, starting at home.

The message of the prophets was that Israel was falling into ruin because it failed to take care of the poor. Exaggeration. The prophets did say things like this, but those verses were buried under a pile of verses about worshipping idols or more often, generic accusations of taking on the ways of foreign nations.

The kingdom of God/Heaven is a way of life not a far away place. More debatable than I thought. I have not run a tally, but I believe a solid majority of the references attributed to Jesus support this view. Nonetheless, I came across many that support the castle in the sky version. And from reading Paul, it seems that there was a pretty hot debate over exactly what it meant.

The Bible forbids gay marriage. Extreme exaggeration. While the references to justice for the poor are dwarfed by other material that no longer seems relevant, references to gay sex are dwarfed by references to justice for the poor. Not only are there relatively few references to gay sex, those references typically fall in lists of cultural behaviors that Christians have long since abandoned. And of course, gay sex is not the same thing as gay marriage. To beef up the profile of gay sex prohibitions, some Christians try to include stories about a crowd of men raping a couple of angels and prohibitions on sexual immorality into the list. Rape is obviously wrong for its own reasons, and claiming sex with a committed partner is an example of sexual immorality is classic circular reasoning. Gay marriage wasn't an issue 2000 years ago, and, not surprisingly, the Bible has nothing directly to say about it.

The Bible forbids abortion. Untrue. I have heard this claim made before, and I had it in my mind as I was reading. Are there verses that suggest life begins before birth? Yes, but there are also verses that say that life begins with taking breath. Passages that attribute extraordinary power to God, for example, sufficient to know someone in the womb, hardly establish the idea that life begins at conception. (Is it beyond God's power to know someone before he or she is conceived?) Furthermore, there are laws that explicitly treat causing a miscarriage differently from murder. Finally, there is nothing about intentionally terminating a pregnancy. Unlike gay marriage, I find this perplexing. Surely the women of ancient Israel knew how to terminate pregnancies. But for whatever the reason, the Bible says nothing directly and very little indirectly about it.

The Bible supports separation of Church and State. Untrue. Let's end at home. Jesus' trickery with "give to Caesar" was dodging his detractor's question and replacing it with what he wanted to talk about. The Old Testament is all about how to have a Godly kingdom. The New Testament is about how to run a society, sometimes in secret, within an oppressive empire, but nonetheless in compliance with God's law. I did not see any foundation of the First Amendment in the Bible.