Where it all goes

Factory-farmed animals on this planet consume more calories than all the humans, by a long shot. Through this lens, the issue of world hunger seems a lot less like a problem of production or distribution and more like a problem with our personal priorities.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 12

<idle musing>
There was an article in the Atlantic a few years ago discussing the food shortages. The author found that even countries with a chronic food shortage had enough to export food! It was all a case of finances. The food growers could make more money by exporting it, so they did—even though their fellow citizens were starving. It's all a case of greed...it all goes back to Genesis 3.
</idle musing>

Visit

We had the grandkids over yesterday for one of the last times before they move. They love the split door between the office for the cabins and the rest of the house. Here's a picture of them with Debbie:

Thought for a Saturday in January

Our best doctrinal formulation should not be constructed to convince skeptics but to truly describe out actual beliefs.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 284

Embrace the mystery

Mystery can be a liberating theological reality. We’re not expected to systematically explain all truth about God. Actually, we probably try too hard to do so, since the closer we come to explanation, the further we move from veneration. Often the more logic, the less wonder.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 258

<idle musing>
I would say this is the best line in the book! Embrace the mystery and worship the creator.
</idle musing>

The seed of the church

Of all the proofs and all the testimonials, nothing approaches the credibility inherent in martyrdom. How could mere mortals remain defiant after being skinned and covered with salt? How could anyone keep the faith while being slowly roasted on a spit? Such performances seemed virtually supernatural in and of themselves. And that was the effect they often had on the observers. Christian viewers could “see” that the hand of God was on the martyrs. Many pagans also were amazed: the distinguished physician Galen wrote of Christians that “their contempt of death…is patent to us every day.” Accounts of martyrdom make frequent mention of pagans having gained respect for the faith from having observed, or even having taken part in, the torture of martyrs. The pagan onlookers knew full well that they would not endure such tribulations for their religion.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 151

<idle musing>
Origen said that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church. While I think he is overstating it, their testimony (that's what martyr means in Greek) is definitely inspiring and compelling. I pray that I would have sufficient grace not just to endure but to be a conqueror if I were put in such a position.
</idle musing>

It's in the water

Population studies begun forty to fifty years ago show that when people migrate from one country to another, they acquire the cancer rate of the country to which they move, despite the fact their genes remain the same. This strongly indicates that at least 80 percent to 90 percent—and probably closer to 97 percent to 98 percent—of all cancers are related to diet and lifestyle, not to genes.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 9

<idle musing>
Obviously then, as the old saying goes, "it's in the water!" : )

Actually, anymore it probably is in the water, what with agricultural runoff, fracking runoff, and the runoff from road salt. And don't forget the chemicals that leach from all that bottled water...
</idle musing>

Further thoughts on reductionism

Reading Whole has made me reflect a bit more on the phenomenon of reductionism. It still holds sway in the academic community, the hard sciences, the medical world, and popular culture.

The one place it isn't the supreme paradigm is in industry. Oh, it used to be—think of the motion-study experts of the early 20th century. They were extremely reductionistic; every motion was studied in an effort to make every motion efficient. But all that started changing with Deming and his marble experiment. In a nutshell, he showed that reductionism wasn't the answer; the system was bigger than the sum of its parts.

Sure, the change didn't happen overnight, but the corner had been turned. The dominant industrial paradigms of today, Toyota Production System and the Theory of Constraints are systemic approaches. Another good example is Peter Senge's Fifth Discipline approach to problem solving. The result has been the dissolution of what is called "silos" in the industry. Silos are narrow concentrations on your specialty to the virtual exclusion of other aspects of an organization; they are named after the round silos found on farms. The assumption behind siloing is that nothing outside my specific area has any affect on what happens. Right! It is extremely reductionistic.

So why did atomization fall out of favor in industry but nowhere else? Simple; follow the money!

In industry, throughput means more income (this is hugely simplified, but bear with me!). When one part of an industry adopts a systemic approach, their throughput increases and their costs drop. They can afford to sell things for less than their competitors with no reduction in quality. Money talks! Pretty soon, their competitive advantage is adopted by others.

Now look at the medical and food industries. Keeping people sick and fat is good for business. Healthy, fit people don't eat as much junk food. They don't need prescriptions. They don't get sick as often. They don't guzzle carbonated, sugared beverages.

In short, they don't contribute to the bottom line of the food and medical industries...no conspiracy theories needed. In our money-oriented society, where results are measured by quarterly Wall Street results, there is no incentive to keep people healthy via a whole foods, plant-based diet.

I could go on, and probably will over the next few weeks...

Overwhelmed

If the universe overwhelms our cognitive abilities, the Designer and Creator of the universe does so all the more. Our brains are Tinkertoys in comparison to DNA, matchsticks in comparison to birthing galaxies. The divine genius and creativity reduce all scientific calculation, philosophical supposition and theological postulation to nursery rhymes. We can only let God be God.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 256

<idle musing>
Amen! I was reading The Journey of Modern Theology the other day. One of the things that Olson commented on was the rationalization of theology. Another book I just finished, Whole (by a Ph.D. in the hard sciences) stressed the complexities of DNA. All of this causes me to bow in humility before the creator and redeemer.

Let the mystery remain! We are only created beings; if we think we can understand all the mysteries, we are hubristic to the extreme. That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek them out! It just means that we need to acknowledge that God is bigger than all our explanations!
</idle musing>

The role of leaders

The Romans assumed that the bishops and clergy were the active elements of the church and should they be destroyed, the masses of ordinary Christians would simply drift away. This was no doubt true of the pagan temples and perhaps for the Oriental faiths. But it was a misreading of Christianity where behind each bishop, priest, and deacon there was a line of lay persons ready and able to replace them.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 150

<idle musing>
For all the faults of the institutional church, I think this is still true today. I know it is true in house churches...
</idle musing>

The genes made me do it

Genes are the starting point for health and disease events; they are the “nature” part of the equation. But it is nutrition and other lifestyle factors, the “nurture” part, that control whether and how these genes are expressed. The influence of nurture (i.e., nutrition) has far more influence on health and disease outcome than nature (i.e., genes).— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 8

<idle musing>
Yes, that means you are the one who holds the key. No excuses of "the devil made me do it"—oops I mean, "The genes made it happen."

Once again, a whole foods, plant-based diet is the safest option for a long, healthy life. And living by the power of the Holy Spirit within you is the best option to make it fulfilling—notice I didn't say "safe" or "easy!"
</idle musing>

Wrong focus

Ancients did not have the same interest in events that we do, and so they did not record them in ways that could readily feed our interests. If we are truly going to understand their literature and culture, we have to stop pursuing the transformation of their illocutions, realities and values into ours. This is misguided. Historiography is our label, our enterprise, our value, our way of framing reality, our way of understanding events. We cannot base our assessment of truth, authority or inerrancy on our cultural conventions of historiography, though we continue to be interested in all three of those concerns.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 201

<idle musing>
You can learn a lot about a person by noting the personal pronouns they use...our occurs how many times in those sentences? Other-centered is how we are to be as Christians...maybe we should start with how we see scripture. Let's ask different questions, ones that center on God and others. What do you think?
</idle musing>

Hang on

Romans believed that one was forever obligated to honor the religion of one’s ancestors; hence Jews were usually given an exemption from actions in violation of their ancestral faith. But the Romans were contemptuous of all who had abandoned their ancestral faith as of course, all Christians had done, making their refusal to comply with the edict [to sacrifice to the emperor] doubly offensive.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 143

It's in the cards—sorta

Do we simply accept the [genetic] cards dealt to us, or do we consider the possibility that we can control our own destiny? If our health trajectory is mostly predetermined by our genes, then there’s no point in trying to be healthy. If our choices trump the cards we were dealt at birth, then there’s a reason for us to do what we can to achieve and maintain health.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 8

<idle musing>
Hmmm…sounds a lot like the arguments in theological circles over divine determinism versus free-will, doesn’t it?
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

The reason why wicked men and devils hate God, is because they see Him in a relation to themselves. Their hearts rise up in rebellion, because they see Him opposed to their selfishness. - Charles Finney

We're first

When we neglect the goals of the ancient literature and instead use the literature to accomplish our own goals, we engage in a cultural imposition that subordinates what the ancients considered as the reality and values of their literature (i.e., their illocutions [intended communications]) to what we moderns consider to be a higher pursuit. We will never achieve a sound understanding of the literature, let a lone a legitimate understanding of biblical authority, if we are always judging its suitability for reaching our modern objectives. We need to start approaching the literature as their literature rather than simply transforming it into our literature from which we then draw theological inferences.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 201

What we really want

What we really want from science is an end to randomness. We want to know why diseases strike some people and not others. We want to know how to protect ourselves against the scourges that have our names on them. We want, in short, to banish unpredictability.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 8

<idle musing>
No, what we want is for science to allow us to be gods…not much has changed since Genesis 3, has it?
</idle musing>

Misreading Rome

Too often, historians have ignored the sincerity of pagans, misreading their casual forms of worship for indifference. But Rome was far more religious than other societies in the ancient world, and large numbers of Romans, especially those making up the political elite, sincerely believed that the gods had made Rome the great empire that it had become. That being the case, Christianity was an obvious affront to the gods, given that the church denied the existence of the gods and charged that to worship them was blasphemy. It was entirely logical to assume that for Rome to tolerate Christianity was to risk bringing down the displeasure of the gods upon its affairs.— The Triumph of Christianity, pages 140-141

<idle musing>
The Romans had a "I give that you will give to me" (do ut des in Latin) attitude towards the gods. They firmly believed in oracles and omens—you could say they were "superstitious" to the extreme; the world was full of gods. The early Christians were called atheists because they only believed in one god. That upset the balance of power dramatically in the mind of the Romans; they didn't know how to handle it, so they worked to eliminate it...if it itches, scratch it!
</idle musing>

Whether you like it or not

That was yesterday morning. Here's this morning:

Round hole

If orality is a round hole, inerrancy could seem to be a square peg. Common definitions of inerrancy do not fit scenarios understood in light of orality (though some responsible constructive theological accounts come close.) Yet orality was the way God chose, which must mean it was the right way. Evidently we need to adjust our understanding of inerrancy to the evidence we find in Scripture.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 196

<idle musing>
Or discard it...which will never happen, unfortunately.
</idle musing>

An apple is an apple is a pill...

As it turns out, an apple does a lot more inside our bodies than all the known apple nutrients ingested in pill form. The whole apple is far more than the sum of its parts. Thanks to the reductionist worldview, however, we don’t really believe the food itself is important. Only the nutrients contained in the food matter.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 5

<idle musing>
Americans love their pills, though. Eat garbage all day and night and then pop a pill to make everything right again...except it only works on the Jetsons.
</idle musing>

Egalitarianists?

But recent, objective evidence leaves no doubt that early Christian women did enjoy far greater equality with men than did their pagan and Jewish counterparts. A study of Christian burials in the catacombs under Rome, based on 3,733 cases, found that Christian women were nearly as likely as Christian men to be commemorated with lengthy inscriptions. This “near equality in the commemoration of males and females is something that is peculiar to Christians, and sets them apart from the non-Christian populations of the city.” This was true not only of adults, but also of children, as Christians lamented the loss of a daughter as much as that of a son, which was especially unusual compared with the other religious groups in Rome.— The Triumph of Christianity, pages 124-125

<idle musing>
Now if only we could get some of the extreme complementarians in the US to read church history...
</idle musing>

Would you care to define that for me, please

To say there are errors in the Bible is to read Scripture anachronistically. Conversely, those who say there are not errors need to make clear that they are representing an ancient view of reliable representations of truth. Modern print culture simply must not be the standard by which the customs and practices of ancient composition and transmission are judged.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 196

<idle musing>
But I'll bet that if you asked the average person in the pew, they would tell you that they hold to an oral dictation version of inspiration. At least that has been my experience when I ask average people to define inerrancy and inspiration for me. I should put up a survey and measure the results...
</idle musing>

But what else does it do?

When you hear about at wonder pill that lowers blood pressure, always get curious about the additional (“side”) effects of the pill. In reality, there are no side effects, just effects. What is this health intervention doing beyond its stated goal?— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 2

<idle musing>
Indeed. We need to remember that the body is a system, not a bunch of discrete parts that don't interact. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction—and we don't know enough to know what those reactions are...why don't we go with a proven, systemic treatment that cures the causes? Instead we go for a band-aid that simply addresses a symptom—and has a massive number of "side" effects.

Pop a pill. It's easier. No need to exercise any kind of self-control. After all, it's all genetic anyway. I'm predestined to it...What a bunch of lies!

A whole foods, plant-based diet will keep you healthy. And if you aren't healthy, it will allow your body to become healthy because you won't be flooding it with garbage...
</idle musing>

Mercy is a defect

In contrast, in the pagan world, and especially among the philosophers, mercy was regarded as a character defect and pity as a pathological emotion: because mercy involves providing unearned help or relief, it is contrary to justice.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 112

<idle musing>
Doesn't sound much different than some of the rhetoric we're hearing today, does it? How the mighty have fallen...
</idle musing>

Healthcare?

We talk about the health-care system in American, but that’s a misnomer; what we really have is a disease-care system…The United States spends more money per capita on “health” care than any country on earth, yet when the quality of our health care is compared with other industrialized nations, we rank near the bottom.— Whole (electronic edition), chapter 1

Reductionism

I just finished reading a book entitled Whole which examines, among other things, the atomization of our thinking. He calls it reductionism and is mainly concerned with how it affects scientific research. Personally, I see it as being larger than that; it affects the way we look at life in general.

For an example let's take theology. We like to break things down into manageable chunks, so we study "the doctrine of God," or the ordo salutis (order of salvation), or justification, or sanctification, or...well, you get the idea.

The same thing happens in exegesis; we examine a verse, then break it down into phrases, then do word studies. Now, each of those is fine in and of itself, but we need to synthesize these back into a coherent whole. But we don't usually do that. We leave them as independent snippets; soundbites, if you will. And we expect to live by those.

That, my friends is a problem. We need to recover a holistic (I hate that word!) view of life. We need to our life as in interrelation of spirit, soul, mind, and body (I'm not even sure those are legitimate parts, but that's another issue...). We can't live life as a secular/sacred divide, we need to see all of life as sacred and full of God's goodness. In short, we need to live "in Christ."

When I was in operations/warehouse management, we looked at things from a systemic view. That is, we didn't look at the operation as a set of discrete operations, we looked at it as a system. You could tweak individual parts of the system and still end up with a mess. What we were interested in was throughput to the customer. It didn't matter if the pickers (the people filling orders) were operating at an unbelievable rate. If the order didn't get out the door, we didn't make any money.

Further, it didn't matter if the pickers were super fast if they were pulling the wrong items for the order! It had to be the correct product. It gets complicated real fast...and that's just a simple thing like order fulfillment.

Once we saw the system as a whole, we could then zero in on a specific part of the system and tweak it. But, we always had to keep our eyes on the results those tweaks had on the whole.

That's one (of many) reason I'm against GMO foods and seeds. And why I am against using pesticides and herbicides. And the liberal use of antibiotics. We just don't know what the systemic results are. And we don't even bother (usually) to study those results. Funding is nonexistent—it might damage profits.

As much as it grates on us, we need to acknowledge that we are finite beings with finite understanding of a huge world. Sure, we know more than we did 50-100 years ago. But the old saw "Give a man a book and he is an expert. Give a man a library and he becomes a student" is true here. We have a book (scientific discoveries); we've read about 1/4 (at most!) of it and we think we're experts. I'm reminded of a Charles Schultz cartoon in Young Pillars. A teenaged Charlie Brown says to his neighbor, "I used to consider myself an expert on the book of Revelation. Then I met someone who had actually read it."

That's us. We think we understand how things work, so we play God. But we are like nursery school kids playing with an Erector Set and thinking we're rebuilding the World Trade Center. Nursery school kids can't even build something simple with an Erector set, let alone something as complicated as a high-rise...

Just an
</idle musing>

We got it backwards...

[O]ral and communal culture is more than background to supplement our understanding of ancient texts; it is foreground. Orality is fundamentally a different worldview. If we fail to appreciate ancient communicative processes and do not make room for the uniqueness of oral culture, then we put our understanding of ancient texts in jeopardy.—The Lost World of Scripture, pages 185-186

<idle musing>
As usual, we get it backwards. The foreground is really the background and what we see as the background, usually ignored, is the real foreground. The result? Bad exegesis and faulty theology.
</idle musing>

Have your pie and eat it too

What is almost always missed is that Christianity often puts the pie [in the sky] on the table! It makes life better here and now. Not merely in psychological ways, as faith in an attractive afterlife can do, but in terms of concrete worldly benefits. Consider that a study based on ancient tombstones has established that early Christians outlived their pagan neighbors! What that demonstrates is that Christians enjoyed superior quality of life. They did so because of their commitment to what was an unusual virtue in ancient times: “the quality of mercy,” as Portia put it in The Merchant of Venice, played a major role in the growth of early Christianity.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 105

<idle musing>
Not through "name it and claim it! Stomp on it and frame it!" theology, but through mercy. That is so against the natural way of doing things that it has to be God!.
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

Read whatever chapter of Scripture you will, and be ever so delighted with it—yet it will leave you as poor, as empty and unchanged as it found you unless it has turned you wholly and solely to the Spirit of God, and brought you into full union with and dependence upon him.—William Law

The Gutenberg Galaxy

Unavoidably, Western Christians view the issue of inspiration from the cognitive environment of print culture. We are dyed-in-the-wool inhabitants of the Gutenberg Galaxy. We like the idea of a bed of letters that can produce the exact same page of text every time a piece of paper is pressed upon it. We like to think that scribes could make copies with almost the same exactitude as mechanical printing. An inadvertent slip here or there might be acceptable, but any more than that we think correctors should have fixed (or God should have prevented).

Steeped in print culture, much of what we think about biblical revelation is dependent on being able to refer to the written words on the pages of Scripture…we need to be able to look up exactly what the text says.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 179

<idle musing>
And what is the role of the Holy Spirit in all of this? Seems like we've reduced him/her/it to playing second (or third) fiddle to the written text. Not that oral culture can't be just as guilty of that, but the written text is fixed and can be referred to at any moment, which causes a penchant towards deifying the text at the expense of the Holy Spirit.
</idle musing>

idle musings on 58 years

Today I turned 58. I actually enjoy growing older; I've enjoyed each year and look forward to as many more as God allows me. And I appreciate the well-wishes that I receive.

That being said, I don't celebrate birthdays. I always am a bit hesitant to say that—people always assume I don't want to get older. But, as I said, I enjoy getting older, so that's not the reason.

When I was younger, I always looked forward to celebrating my birthday. Being born on the first day of the new year has a few perks for a youngster: parades and a full day of football, no school, another batch of presents within a week of Christmas.

But once I became a Christian, things changed. The focus changed from being on me to being on Christ.

I began to ponder where Jesus talks about esteeming others more than oneself and "death to self" and what it meant in my own life. I noticed the narcissistic tendencies of celebrating birthdays—it certainly doesn't promote death to self, does it! I also noticed that there are only two birthday celebrations mentioned in scripture; in both of them, somebody loses their head! (Not a sound hermeneutical principle, by the way.)

More importantly, I noticed the general tendency in our society to elevate the individual to a god-like centrality. You miss someone's birthday and they have the right to be mad at you. After all, they deserve the recognition, right?

I began to question my involvement in that and how, as a Christian, I could model a different ethos, one of esteeming others more than oneself without putting them on a pedestal of worship. Of taking the focus off of them and me and putting it on Christ.

For me, that took the form of not celebrating birthdays. I'm not saying it is a sin for others to do so. I'm not even implying my view is "better" or "more spiritual." At this point, it seems appropriate to quote Paul:

Some consider one day more sacred than another; others consider every day alike. Everyone should be fully convinced in their own mind. Those who regard one day as special do so to the Lord. Those who eat meat do so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and those who abstain do so to the Lord and give thanks to God. For we do not live to ourselves alone and we do not die to ourselves alone. If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. Romans 14:5-8 (TNIV)

I've come to the conclusion that for me to "live to the Lord" excludes birthday celebrations. I'm comfortable with that and fully convinced in my own mind. Whether you agree or disagree should be immaterial to our walk together with Christ.

But I have found that many people get offended or defensive. I have to ask why that is so. I'm not suggesting they adopt my view—and I make that clear to them. I do think they should seek the Lord and his heart on the whole thing, but why so defensive?

Could it be that maybe it is a case of a cultural paradigm that God is trying to shake up? Could it be that the self is feeling challenged in an uncomfortable way? Could it be that it really is a form of self-worship?

I leave it to you to answer those questions for yourself...but perhaps it is enlightening to watch a kid's anticipation of their birthday. What's the focus? They're too honest to put a facade on it yet. How can we expect them to understand death to self when we set them up for self-worship year after year?

Just an
</idle musing>

What really causes conversions?

Surprisingly, when sociologist took the trouble to actually go out and watch conversions take place, they discovered that doctrines are of very secondary importance in the initial decision to convert…conversion is primarily about bringing one’s religious behavior into alignment with that of one’s friends and relatives, not about encountering attractive doctrines.— The Triumph of Christianity, page 68

<idle musing>
I heard (many years ago now) of a survey of Chinese Christians. They were asked how they became Christians—I expected to hear about apologetics or personal testimonies chock-full of Scripture. Nope. Doctrine came after conversion. What caused them to become Christians was watching their co-workers lives. They wanted what they saw.

For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life. 2 Cor 2:15-16a (TNIV)
</idle musing>

But does it make sense?

Modernized Bibles may mislead people, but the other alternative—ancient forms of the Bible—would repel them. Translators, interpreters and publishers knowingly accommodate the Bible’s ancient dimensions into language and forms that make more sense in the twenty-first century. But it’s not a straightforward process; multitudes of decisions have to be made about how best to translate the words and the culture of the Bible into understandable forms for modern audiences. And it’s an imperfect process; some of what the Bible meant to the original hearers is inevitably lost.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 129

<idle musing>
I remember hearing someone from Wycliffe Bible Translators telling me many years ago that they originally held quite strictly to a literal translation philosophy. He said they have warehouses full of translations that are accurate—but unintelligible. And consequently, useless.

If it doesn't make sense to the target audience, then it isn't accurate. The purpose of translation is to make the original text understandable to the target audience. Yes, stuff gets lost. But the alternative is that everything gets lost...it's a tradeoff, as they say above. I guess that's why translation is as much art as science...
</idle musing>

Whatcha readin'?

I've been doing quite a bit of reading lately; most of it won't ever be seen on the blog for various reasons—partially because I would be spending more time posting than reading! Anyway, here's a sampling, with special thanks to our 5-star library for their assistance on Inter-Library Loan.

While we were in Milwaukee visiting Debbie's parents back in November, I managed to spend a bit of time at a Barnes & Nobles bookstore. We're a bit lacking in large bookstores up here, so it was nice to spend some time there—not enough, but is it ever? I looked over quite a few interesting books, made notes, and once we got back home, I ordered a few via ILL.

The first was My Beef With Meat from Rip Esselstyn. Rip is the son of one of the leaders in the Whole-Foods, Plant-based diet, a former firefighter, and a champion triathlete. He's written a few books about what he calls a "Plant-strong" diet. In this book, he addresses the questions he is inevitably asked about why a plant-based diet is healthier than the standard American diet (SAD). As always, he is an entertaining author, but, again as always, I don't like his attitude. He seems to be trying to prove he's just as much a "man" as a meat-eater. Right. Consequently, you find profanity and tough-guy stuff throughout. That might appeal to some who are insecure in themselves (or more accurately, in who they are in Christ), but it keeps me from recommending his stuff. You would be far better off reading The China Study or either the book or DVD of Forks Over Knives. Another good resource is Keep It Simple, Keep It Whole.

Another book I discovered there was Straw Bale Gardens. This is actually an expansion of a shorter book he self-published, entitled Straw Bale Gardening. I've read both of them now, and the newer one is definitely worth the extra $5.00. Straw Bale Gardening sounds like a fascinating concept. I wish I had easier access to affordable bales around here. In Indiana, I paid about $3-5.00 per bale; up here, the going rate is closer to—hold on—$20.00! There is no way I'm going into this in a big way at that price! But the concept is fascinating and has potential. I'm going to try it in a small way next summer and maybe use it as a season extender idea in the 8' x 8' greenhouse that Dave built.

Another book I ran across quite by accident is The Four Season Farm Gardener's Cookbook. It's a beautiful book with marvelous photography. I read it mainly for the 200+ pages of gardening wisdom from Eliot Coleman—anything he writes on gardening is worth reading and this book was no exception. There's another 200 pages of recipes, which are good, but not Whole Foods, so of minimal use to me. There are some good ideas, but that's about it.

Finally, on Christmas Eve I read The Secret Race. It's basically a confession by world-class cyclist Tyler Hamilton of how he doped—and how all the professional cyclists dope. When it first came out, Lance was still claiming he didn't dope, so Tyler caught a good bit of flack. The version I read (an e-book via ILL) included an afterword from after Lance's Oprah appearance. I used to say that I figured 80% of the riders doped— the top 40% and the bottom 40%. The top ones did it in order to win, the bottom ones in order to stay professional.

I was wrong! About 99% of professional riders dope. And Tyler explains why and how. Basically, it's the same reason that everybody does anything wrong: you put someone or something other than Jesus Christ at the center of your life. As I was reading, I couldn't help but draw parallels to the fall of Evangelical leaders. Anytime you place something other than the person of Jesus Christ at the center—and that includes "ministry in Jesus name"—of your life, you will fail. No question of if, just a question of when. It took over 10 years to out Lance, but he was outed. How long did Tiger Woods live a double life? How long has Mark Driscoll been guilty of plagiarism? Your sin will find you out!

Well, that's a bit longer than I intended it to be, but that's some of the stuff I've read recently...

Thems pretty bad odds

Most Roman Emperors suspected that nearly everyone was plotting against them. And rightfully so. Of the seventy-six emperors who took the throne from the reign of Augustus to the ascension of Constantine, only nineteen died natural deaths. Seven were killed in battle, forty-two were murdered, two others probably were murdered, and six were forced to commit suicide.— The Triumph of Christianity, pages 21-22

<idle musing>
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want the job on the basis of those odds alone...
</idle musing>

Dual citizenship

The cognitive environment of the gospel message was entirely oral. Jesus presented his teachings in oral forms, and his hearers grasped the truths that Jesus proclaimed by aural means. The Evangelist, who recorded Jesus’ words and deeds, preserved the orality of Jesus’ public ministry in their written records. There is no indication that they understood their written texts to somehow be different from or superior to the oral texts.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 127

<idle musing>
The oral and the written existed side-by-side. Bauckham makes a similar claim in his books; the ancient world was an oral one with a written element. But the written element was subservient to the oral element...not the way we see things, is it?
</idle musing>

Baby, it's cold outside!

We're in for a cold week here; this is from yesterday afternoon's prediction. Note that they were wrong about the low last night. It wasn't -18°F—it was -27°F! Yesterday morning, it was -17°F at 7:30 AM; at 9:00 it was -20°F. It did get up to -4°F. We went for a 6 mile walk—beautiful!—and by the time we got back 2 hours later it was down to -10°F...

It is all leading somewhere

The editorial twist of the Gen 1–11 protohistory, and perhaps one of the things that helps set it apart from its ANE counterparts, is that even though humanity advanced culturally and technologically, things were not at all the way they should be between humans and their Creator. Thus, the stage is set for Abraham in Gen 12, and through him and his offspring, the nation of Israel. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, pages 239-40

<idle musing>
The narrative has a purpose; it is going somewhere. Indeed, it is eventually going to lead to David, then exile and the hope of restoration, with ultimate fulfillment in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus—and us united to him by grace through faith. That's a long trajectory, but it is foreshadowed by Genesis 1-11. And you thought it was all about creation : )

By the way, that's the final post from this very enjoyable and thought-provoking book. Next up: The Triumph of Christianity, and older book, but with some interesting tidbits.
</idle musing>

Folk theologian?

Nor should we think of Jesus’ style of communication as second rate or shallow. He was not a country boy spinning tales to the delight of barbershop friends. Jesus’ communication was truth-telling at the highest level. While anyone could appreciate Jesus’ stories and stand in awe of the authority with which he spoke (Mk 1:27), the most educated and intelligent in the audience could ponder Jesus’ parables for a long time and still never probe their depths. The Pharisees and Sadducees often felt the sting of Jesus’ stories but went away sputtering because they couldn’t think of anything to say that wouldn’t sound stupid.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 112

<idle musing>
Far cry from a folk theologian, isn't it?
</idle musing>

We hold these truths to be less than self-evident...

If other ancient Near Eastern material is any indication, our material in Gen 1–11 might be arranged literarily to communicate its relevance in very specific ways, even if that relevance is lost or diminished today. It may not have transpired exactly how it is described, and it may also contain anachronisms. We have already spoken of the possible significance of the numbers found in the genealogies of Gen 4 and 5, which should suggest even more strongly the possibility of literary arrangement (and, by implication, a less-than-exact correspondence to reality). Numbers were often used to convey different “truths,” as we have said. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 236

<idle musing>
This should be self-evident, but it isn't because we import our own presuppositions into the text. We are the measure of all things (thanks for that, Protagoras!), therefore, whatever we want to find, we find there. And if you don't agree with me, then you are wrong! Genesis 3 all over again, eh?
</idle musing>

Thought for today

...when He thwarts men's plans, they are bent on misunderstanding Him. They will think that He is reckless of their welfare, and they are blind to the precious truth that He shapes all His ways toward them in love and kindness. He would lead us to judge thus, that if God spared not His own Son, but gave Him up freely for us all, then He will much more give us all things else most freely.—Charles Finney

But can they read it?

Reportedly, two-thirds of the world’s population in the twenty-first century can’t, won’t or don’t read and write.—The Lost World of Scripture, footnote on page 95

<idle musing>
What does that do to those who have a bibliocentric view of Christianity? How can these people be saved?
</idle musing>

We've lost it

Essentially, history was arranged in such a way as to communicate its significance as effectively as possible, and often this significance is lost on us today, or at least somewhat veiled. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 235

<idle musing>
I'm wondering how the doctrine of perspicuity fits into all this...any ideas?
</idle musing>

Significance

The significance attached to certain characters in our texts might seem puzzling to us, because our understanding of significance is defined by our culture. More often than not, protohistory was more concerned with the first “significant” generation rather than the actual first generation. This seems to be a reflection of the ancient concern for function as opposed to material significance. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 233

<idle musing>
Which we also hold, but don't realize it. For example, who built the first home computer? I suspect you answered either Apple or IBM. Wrong on both counts. Both of those were early populizers—the first significant ones, if you will. We could go on...think Xerox, Kleenex, Band-aids, to name but a few.
</idle musing>

Taking it to the limit--and beyond

Scientific investigation, for its part, cannot either affirm or deny theological beliefs such as God’s role in creation, the origin of sin, the spiritual nature of humans or the image of God in us. These are theological beliefs not in the purview of science. In the same way the naturalistic operations of the material world and the investigation of its mechanics are matters for science and are not determined by the biblical text.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 54

<idle musing>
Do you really believe that? People mouth it all the time, but then turn around and act as if it isn't true, or say something that totally denies it...
</idle musing>

This is a problem

The problem with this approach [reading modern scientific understandings back into the text] is that it assumes the text is offering modern scientific information to the ancient audience, even though this principle cannot be applied consistently. This approach is selective in where it attempts to extrapolate modern science from the text, and where it does so it is often at the expense of the meaning the ancient audience would have understood. Overall it assumes something about the nature of Scripture’s revelation that cannot be hermeneutically defended or consistently executed. It misunderstands the nature of the Bible in that it assumes the Bible is vesting its authority in scientific statements.—The Lost World of Scripture, page 52

<idle musing>
"This approach is selective in where it attempts to extrapolate modern science from the text, and where it does so it is often at the expense of the meaning the ancient audience would have understood." That's a problem...we don't assume the "windows of heaven" when it rains—but it's almost heretical to suggest that a day in Genesis 1 might not be a 24 hour day. Of course, I have yet to meet anyone who wants the "day of the LORD" to be only 24 hours long...
</idle musing>

And we've changed in what way?

...the Mesopotamians believed that humankind was initially barbaric and primitive. Civilization, consisting of cities, kingship, arts, sciences and technology, among other things, was a gift from the gods, given to humans by the gods. Once humans received these civilizing elements from the gods, they moved beyond their initial state of primitivism and became civilized. For many of these cultural rudiments, the creator god and god of wisdom Enki is said to have passed them to humans, and the apkallu were often the instruments of this transmission. The Mesopotamians spoke of these cultural components as the me, a term used to quantify in concrete terms their conception of the various aspects of civilization. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 226

<idle musing>
The cynic in me wants to remark, "Initially barbaric and primitive? What about now?!" But I won't—oh, wait, I just did : )
</idle musing>

Review of Walton and Sandy's Lost World of Scripture

I recently received a copy of The Lost World of Scripture compliments of IVP Academic (thanks Adrianna!).

The book was co-written by two Wheaton professors, John Walton and Brent Sandy, in response to questions they inevitably receive as a result of students’ paradigms about inerrancy being shattered. The book is laid out as a series of propositions (twenty-one of them), which can be viewed here.

The basic premise of the book is that the cognitive environment of the ancient world—and scripture by extension—was oral. Given that our cognitive environment is written (they call it the “Gutenberg Galaxy”), we have a difficult time understanding how something oral can be authoritative and accurate. We unconsciously import the presuppositions of written culture into our reading of the text. When the text falls short of our expectations, as it will, we begin to doubt the authority of scripture. This is especially true for those who hold to some form of inerrancy. This book attempts to adjust our expectations and rewrite what inerrancy means.

For example, in an oral culture, what does authorship mean? If the stories have been repeated for generations before being written down, to what degree are they still the same story? And does it matter?

Walton and Sandy appeal to speech-act theory in an attempt to answer these questions. Their thesis is that God has an illocution (intended meaning) which is translated into a locution (the current text) by the “author,” resulting in a perlocution (action or response) on the part of the intended audience. A chart illustrating this is shown on page 41. They maintain that the illocution is the focal point of inspiration, with the locution being the speaker’s culture-bound attempt to get that message across.

The majority of the book is spent explaining how an oral culture operates. The Old Testament (part one) is the focus of the first four propositions, while the New Testament (part two) is the focus of the next nine. Part Three discusses four propositions about literary genres in the ancient world, three relating to the Old Testament and one to the New. Part Four has four final propositions which are their attempts at applying what orality means for the authority of scripture in general, and inerrancy in particular. The book concludes with a set of conclusions on what it is safe and not safe to believe concerning the nature of scripture and its authority/accuracy.

It would be easy for me, not working from a position of inerrancy, to throw stones. I am not employed in an environment that requires me to subscribe to inerrancy, so I can simply say to jettison it. I recall the “Battle for the Bible” of the 1970s and ‘80s. I didn’t subscribe to inerrancy then and don’t now. I’ve always felt it was a misguided attempt to bring scientific certainty into matters of faith—the result of the church subscribing to the rationalism of modern society. That being said, Walton and Sandy do a very good job of explaining the ancient world and its environment. Their attempt at redefining what inerrancy should mean is admirable. The section delineating the differences between inerrancy, inspiration, and authority was very well done, as well.

Nonetheless, throughout the book, I couldn’t help but keep asking myself if it wouldn’t be better to just jettison the term…but I also have to be a realist. The fight about inerrancy isn’t going to disappear; you only need to pick up a copy of Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society to see what I mean. I picked up one while I was working at Eisenbrauns that dated from the 1980s and compared it to one from 2011. Same debates. Same arguments. Same conclusions. Same anathemas being hurled around…it just isn’t going to disappear. In an environment as toxic as that, this book could be a real asset. But, I suspect not. Michael Bird recently pointed out that it is a strictly North American construct. (If you subscribe to inerrancy, you owe it to yourself to read that post, by the way.)

The introduction does a good job of putting the whole question of inerrancy into perspective:

It [the Bible] is a literary masterpiece, a magnum opus, a stellar performance. But there’s more to the story. The ultimate importance of the Bible lies elsewhere: it is the inspired revelation of Almighty God, a heavenly treasure in a world of impoverished ideas, a sparkling mountain stream in the driest of deserts. Our point, however, is not to worship the Bible; we worship the God of the Bible…

Christians may forget or not take seriously that the Bible is the one and only, absolutely authoritative book, that it demands our utmost attention. Living out its truths is the highest of callings. If we fail to show the Bible the respect it is due, we are to be shamed. And it’s more than theory; it’s the practice of bringing our thoughts and lives into line with God’s thoughts and life.

We hold a very high view of Scripture. We confess that the Bible is God’s self-disclosure. The Old and New Testaments are the literary deposit of divine truth. The ultimate revelation is Jesus himself. The central message is creation, fall, redemption and restoration. (page 12)

I can agree with all of that, although I would remove the sentence on shame and added that all is possible only through the power of the Holy Spirit living within us. And I would have stopped there, but they continue in the next sentence:

We affirm inerrancy…Among other things, the evidence assembled in this book inevitably leads to the question of inerrancy. While we wholeheartedly affirm what the Bible itself reveals about its origin, authority and truthfulness, we recognize that there is always a bit of uneasiness when discussing inerrancy and related concepts in fresh ways. This is sacred turf, but the truth of the matter is, no term, or even combination of terms, can completely represent the fullness of Scripture’s authority. (pages 12, 13)

A hearty amen to all of the thoughts there except for the statement about affirming inerrancy!

If you are from a faith tradition that subscribes to inerrancy, you really should read this book. People whose faith has been shaken because of exposure to academic biblical studies would also benefit from it. Even if, as I, you don’t affirm inerrancy, you can learn a great deal about the cognitive environment of the biblical world.

A few random thoughts:
They really should have used the Oxford/serial comma. There are several places where it would have clarified a statement.

I think they go too far in their openness to potential later additions to the prophetic books, but am open to being persuaded. But it would have to be pretty strong evidence (as I suspect it would be for them, as well).

The discussion of joint authorship of the Pauline epistles was fascinating. Sandy suggests that we should take seriously the introductory paragraph of Paul’s epistles where it says they are from a list of people. He suggests that they should be considered co-authors. Fascinating idea!

As I was reading this book, I kept thinking of the fate of Peter Enns. It is a good thing that John no longer teaches at Moody and that Brent is no longer at Grace. I doubt those schools would tolerate this book, irenic and tentative in its conclusions as it is. I hope Wheaton is more gracious and open to their ideas.

I've got to read this book...

Roger Olson has been reviewing Apostles of Reason lately (the link is to the third of a three-part review).

Having grown up in a mainline, Methodist family, I wasn't familiar with much of Evangelicalism's early years. Once I became a Christian in 1972, I started to run in Evangelical circles, but was always uncomfortable there. Now I know why—it was too Reformed...

But that's not why I'm posting. After reviewing the book, Roger offers some suggestions on how to overcome the anti-intellectualism that seems inherent in Evangelicalism. One of his suggestions is "evangelical organizations need to let it be known that conservative donors are not going to call all the shots." Right! That just isn't going to happen.

I went to a Christian liberal arts school with a very conservative donor base. The person who gave the money for the swimming pool said that co-ed swimming was not to happen in that pool. The school also didn't allow beards because of the donor base. The women were required to wear skirts/dresses to class. The men were required to have shorter hair—I believe it was only allowed to touch the collar, not be over it (I don't remember for sure, but I was always getting called on the carpet over that one...). All because of the donor base. Those rules are all gone now, because the donors who required them are dead...

I've seen a few purges at Christian schools in my life. All because the donor base felt the faculty was too "liberal" for them. The Christian radio station one place we lived wouldn't play contemporary Christian music because the donor base would stop giving if they did (not that most of the CCM stuff would have been any better theologically than the drivel they did play!).

It just isn't going to happen...unless God intervenes in the hearts of the people who are making the decisions and in the hearts of the donors...in other words, a revival!

Now that is something to pray for!

An alternate view?

The concept of “the first significant generation” from Shea may also lend itself to a more accurate understanding of Adam in the Genesis text, though this is neither the time nor the place for a thorough comparative analysis. Adam and Eve may represent the Hebrew “Everyman,” and the Eden account may be the symbolic Hebrew account of what was held to be their “first significant generation.” In other words, the significance of the Adapa story to its audience would have been primarily archetypal, as the Genesis accounts would possibly have been for its audience. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 224

<idle musing>
This sounds a lot like Walton's archetypal view, doesn't it? The main difference is that John believes that Adam and Eve are actual historical people, but this view doesn't require that. Interesting idea...
</idle musing>

He reigned for HOW long?

The SKL [Sumerian King List] is comprised of two different types of material: lists containing the names and provenance of kings and length of their rule, and also epic and legendary material dealing with some of the kings. The amalgamated new “genre” is one of a list of kings and their rule, interspersed with brief legendary comments throughout. Each of the kings in the list has an unusually long reign attributed to him, by far the longest reigns coming in the antediluvian period (most numbering in the tens of thousands of years). After the flood, the lengths of reign diminish significantly but still remain unrealistically large for a while (most reigns are in the hundreds, still others are in the thousands), though as the list nears the present the reigns become progressively more believable. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 182

<idle musing>
Sounds a lot like the genealogies in Genesis, doesn't it...

Numbers are used symbolically in the Hebrew Bible; they weren't mathematicians and they weren't obsessed with dates the way we are. We need to stop reading our presuppositions back into the text!
</idle musing>

Civilization begins

For example, history became endowed with a greater meaning only once it became civilized. In other words, “absolute beginnings” were not as much of a concern to the ancient mind. Rather, “civilized beginnings” were of extreme importance, and, for the Mesopotamian, civilization did not begin in a sense until kingship was introduced by the gods to the earth. As we will see below, the SKL [Sumerian King List] describes this as when “kingship descended from heaven." — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 181

<idle musing>
Notice where kingship comes from, too. Divine right of kings, anyone...it didn't start in the Middle Ages!
</idle musing>

Sumerian order

A sense of order, and the desire to see it established, were central concerns of almost all Sumerian literature. The Sumerians believed that the proper order of all things, both divine and human, was dependent on what they referred to as the me. The me were archetypally representative of culture and civilization elements in Sumerian thought and were of divine origin. Though divine, the me were not gods, and they were not personified. Nor were they a surrogate god of some sort, or any other numinous being. Much more often, G. Farber-Flügge explains, it was the gods who possessed the me, and it was their most-prized possession. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, pages 167-168

Whodunnit?

In short, from the perspective of Genesis, civilization is a human accomplishment, as opposed to other ancient Near Eastern cultures in which the gods are largely responsible. In some sense, it is as though the biblical authors wanted to “demythologize” the understanding of world and civilization origins, to remove it from the realm of otherworldly origins and to place it squarely into the realm of human history.— Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 109

<idle musing>
Is it a case of God washing his hands of some of our "advances"? I don't think so. I think it is a case of letting us explore the imago dei and the creativity that phrase implies!
</idle musing>

Brrr, continued

Well, it seems that the cold will hang on a bit longer...here's today's

It's supposed to warm up to 10° tomorrow and give us 1-2 inches of snow. Sounds good to me. I'm getting used to it : )

The rabbits seem to be adjusting to it, too. Yesterday and today they've been more active. Earlier in the week, they were just huddling together in their house, sitting nestled up in the straw. Yesterday, they were out playing with the sheet of sheet rock that I put in there for them. They seemed to be having a grand time.

I've been changing their water anywhere from 2-4 times a day, they definitely enjoy when I do that! And they have been consuming more food to stay warm. But they seem to be doing well in it.

We've been keeping up our 4 mile walks, just bundling up better. Yesterday seemed almost warm; there wasn't a wind and the temperature was right around 0°F. What are we going to do if it warms up close to freezing?! : )

The good, the bad, and the ugly

That pretty much describes a few of my culinary experiments in the last few months (man, time flies!). First the good:

I receive a daily e-mail from Mother Earth News. Sometimes the stuff is great; sometimes the stuff isn't. As with most of life, it is a mixed bag. Back in August/September or thereabouts, there was a link to broccoli chips. Basically, you take the leaves of broccoli plants and bake them. They call for olive oil and other such stuff in the article, but we're avoiding added oils, so I figured I'd give it a try as just leaves.

We had a few broccoli plants that were done; I was going to pull them and compost them anyway. So, I cut off some leaves and cut them into smaller squares. I popped them into the oven at 250°F, stirred after 15 minutes, let them go another 15 minutes and pulled them out.

They were delicious! We scarfed them down and I made another pan. We've had them multiple times since then—until the deep freeze at the beginning of November happened. One piece of advice: make sure to cut them small enough! I tried to make some of them bigger, but when you bite into them, they disintegrate. Crumbs all over the floor...

The bad? Peanut butter granola. I had to try it...it was bad. 'Nuff said.

The ugly? I've made baked corn chips off and on for the last couple of years, with fairly good success. I would mix the cornmeal with whole wheat flour to give it substance. Once we got our grain mill in the fall of 2012, I couldn't get the flour fine enough anymore, so I gave up. Until earlier this week. I decided to try it with straight cornmeal. We currently buy our cornmeal at the Co-op and it is more a combination of corn flour and cornmeal than straight cornmeal. I like it a lot for cornbread, but hadn't tried it for corn chips.

I thought it might hold together better than traditional cornmeal. Well, it did—kinda...it stuck to the counter once I rolled it out. So, I figured I'd use the old wax paper method where you roll it out between two sheets of wax paper and transfer it to the stone. It stuck to the wax paper!

No problem; I'll just use parchment paper, so I thought...if it doesn't come loose, I'll just lay the whole thing on the stone. I figured that the baking would loosen it from the paper. Well, it did—kinda. It tasted good—when you didn't get a bite of parchment paper with it. And it was ugly!

So that's my latest experiments...the broccoli chips are a keeper! And I've tweaked one of my cornbread recipes again. I now like this cornbread better than the milk, eggs, and oil version that I used to make. That's saying a lot, because I grew up on that recipe and had always felt that the plant-based ones didn't quite measure up. Now it does...

We know better

First of all, we may conclude that the final editor of these two genealogies saw nothing wrong with placing them side by side in the text. Often, the motivation for seeking putative sources has been the apparent contradictions of the two genealogies, though McNutt warns that frequently what strikes us as contradictory or confused “may nevertheless convey crucial cultural information.” In other words, we might simply be missing the relevance communicated by these two passages, placed together as they are. In some sense, then, relevance theory allows us to think of redundancies and contradictions as possible generic signals. With this in mind, recall from above that Wilson suggested slight variations in genealogies may not have been seen as contradictory by original author and audience. — Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 105

<idle musing>
But we know better than the original authors/editors, right? They obviously weren't using our definitions of history, so they must be wrong! Hubris!

We need to have a bit more of the spirit (maybe Spirit with a capital would be better?) of Isaiah 66:2: “These are the ones I look on with favor:
those who are humble and contrite in spirit, and who tremble at my word."
</idle musing>

It works!

I've posted a bit recently about my problems with iOS 7. Here's what I hope is the final update.

The AppleCare rep called me Monday morning to see if the iPad had arrived. Her screen showed it as on the truck, which it was. What she didn't know was that it is a 2.5 hour drive from Duluth to here : ) The iPad arrived around 1:00 that day. It was cold! But, because there are no moving parts, I didn't hesitate to turn it on.

I went through the set-up routine, answering all the questions. I also connected it to the MacBook via iTunes. Disappointment! iTunes said it couldn't be restored without the iPad updating its software first. Bummer! Oh well, I finished the set-up routine on the iPad and let it do its download of iOS 7.0.4.

Much later...it finished the update and I was able to restore it via iTunes. Boy, does it take time to restore 53 apps and their data! Late that evening, it was up and running—pretty much. The passwords for stuff all needed to be re-entered—a very wise decision on the part of Apple! But, all the other settings were there.

On Tuesday, I opened Accordance for the first time. Major bummer! I had forgotten this (it happened to me twice before), but when you do a restore of Accordance, you have to re-download all your add-ons and purchases. Of course, I had forgotten my username and password, too.

I dug around in my records and found the username and guessed (correctly) at the password and then carried on with the restore. It took a while to download and restore, but now it is all there and running fine.

Note to my Accordance friends: Please revise the restore so it contains the modules! Also, the interface for the username and password should check when you enter it, not when you try to synch. Minor issues, though...it's still my favorite Bible software program : )

I give Apple an A for their handling of this. They definitely know how to make things right once they decide to. From the time they decided to repair/replace the iPad until I had the new one in my hands was 5 days—and two of those were Saturday and Sunday, so effectively a 3-day turnaround. I doubt very many other companies would do that without an expensive service contract...

Don't import your own presuppositions

We may conclude that, in most cases, however, genealogies were intended to serve other functions in other spheres—most often as a charter of some sort, as mentioned above. A presentation of the past may occur, but this is a secondary function, subservient to a primary function of charter. Another way to put it, quite often when the past is presented in a genealogy, its most important functions have to do with what it accomplishes in the present. —Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, pages 84-85

<idle musing>
Why do we insist on importing our own agendas into the text! Probably because we don't even realize we are doing it!

It's really a miracle that communication happens at all...
</idle musing>

A little exercise goes a long ways

I've had this in my drafts folder for a few weeks...it's about the value of exercise.

After only a week, the young men who had not exercised displayed a significant and unhealthy decline in their blood sugar control, and, equally worrying, their biopsied fat cells seemed to have developed a malicious streak. Those cells, examined using sophisticated genetic testing techniques, were now overexpressing various genes that may contribute to unhealthy metabolic changes and underexpressing other genes potentially important for a well-functioning metabolism.

But the volunteers who had exercised once a day, despite comparable energy surpluses, were not similarly afflicted. Their blood sugar control remained robust, and their fat cells exhibited far fewer of the potentially undesirable alterations in gene expression than among the sedentary men.

<idle musing>
This is basically what Covert Bailey has been saying for over 35 years. Exercise doesn't just burn calories (it actually burns very few), it realigns the body's metabolism so that your muscles become "better butter burners" as he puts it.
</idle musing>

Brrr...

Full circle

"Within the perspective of Genesis as a whole, the primeval history serves to enhance our appreciation of the patriarchs and their calling...if the message of Genesis is essentially one of redemption, Gen 3–11 explains why man needs salvation and what he needs to be saved from. Chaps. 1–2, in describing the original state of the world, also describe the goal of redemption, to which ultimately the world and humanity will return when the patriarchal promises are completely fulfilled” (Wenham, WBC, Genesis 1–15, lii) cited inToward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 78

<idle musing>
And the final fulfillment of those promises awaits the return of the Son of Man. In the meantime, we are aliens and strangers here...
</idle musing>

Define that, please

Texts speaking of protohistory come from many different genres of literature. We must be careful to allow the ancient cultures we study to define “history” on their own terms, which means we must accept whatever genre of text they put forth as “historical.” These texts frequently involve the use of myth, which has been greatly misunderstood in recent times. Correctly, we may understand myth to be analogical, and therefore full of ideologies, ancient perspectives and literary techniques that can (and frequently do) distort the presentation of reality in some way. Protohistory was often recounted metaphorically, or at the very least included metaphors, symbols, and other figurative language. The obvious result is that the texts are often difficult to understand today. This is because the tapestry of images is frequently culture-bound, and also because they may very well have lost their original vitality over the passing of time. Furthering the difficulty, mythic history often took narrative form, replete with ambiguities and redundancies. Reality was often reflected figuratively, though again we must not lose sight of the fact that the ancients believed they were indeed representing reality.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 72 (italics original)

<idle musing>
Indeed! But it is so much easier to come to the text with our own presuppositions and then slice it and dice it to fit. Or, to just say it's all a lie.

Take your pick. Both approaches do violence to the text and short circuit what God is trying to say to you through the text...
</idle musing>

One more time

[H]istory in the ancient Near East was written in the form of myth, which often used symbols and metaphorical, analogical language in narrative form, often intentionally ambiguous. This metaphorical structure of mythic history was frequently redundant, making abundant use of repetitive poetic devices to enhance the story and to perform various didactic functions. At times, metaphorical imagery was even “reified” and discussed in more detail later in the story, further adding to its ambiguity. Along these lines, the ancient mind did not avoid the ambiguous in storytelling; rather, it was embraced. Consequently, the mythic mind would have had no category for our modern discussions of “contradictions."—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, pages 66-67

<idle musing>
Sounds suspiciously like the narrative sections of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, doesn't it?
</idle musing>

Mess up?

Right after I got done with graduate school, I got a job as warehouse/operations manager for a company in the cutthroat business of video distribution. The gross margins were in the 5-7% range—and out of that they had to pay all expenses; net profit was probably in the range of less than 1%. With margins that thin, every customer counted. Consequently, customer service was highly emphasized. It was there that I developed the philosophy that the most important customer service employee was the warehouse employee. After all, what is the first thing that a customer sees from the company? That's right, the package. If it is mispicked or damaged, what is the initial impression on the customer?

Anyway, I digress...

One of the things I learned there was a tacky little phrase: Mess up? 'Fess up. Dress up.

Huh? OK, let me translate: If you mess up, then admit it ('fess up) and then fix it (dress up). Simple isn't it? Except it is hard to do for various reasons. For some it is pride; they are afraid that it will lower their standing in the eyes of some if they admit to being less than God.

For others, it is profit margins. To fix the product will cost money, so better to stonewall and hope the problem goes away. Pity the poor customer service rep who is trying to assist the customer, but the policies of the company get in the way.

So what is the point of all this????

Two fold. There has been a recent flap about plagiarism by Mark Driscoll. You can read about it here. Anyway, rather than admit to wrong-doing, someone (the publisher? Dricoll's PR team?) pressured Mefford to remove the accusations from the web site. Perhaps Driscoll's defense should be he was predestined to do it!

Personally, I see this as a case of pride getting in the way...

What's the other situation? My recent bouts with my iPad locking up/bricking because of iOS 7 (you can read about my woes here).

Well, I have to say that I am giving Apple a solid endorsement for customer service here. It was a bit hard to get them to admit it was their fault (Mess up?, 'Fess up.), but once they did, it has been amazing. The box to send the iPad back came the next day (Wednesday), I sent it out the day after that (Thursday), and they received it Friday.

The customer service rep called me to let me know it had arrived. Two hours later, I received an e-mail telling me it had arrived. A few hours later, I received an e-mail saying that a replacement was on the way. Today I checked the status and it is scheduled to arrive here on Monday!

Besides that, the customer service rep told me she would call to make sure it had arrived...

That is a clear case of "Dress up" if ever I saw one. So, even though the iOS update was screwed up, Apple gets an A from me for fixing it... Here are the relevant screen shots:

Just the facts, ma'am

This point is worth dwelling on for a moment longer: a mythical, figurative account of history in no way rules out the possibility that it may represent actual events. To say as much would be to misunderstand figurative language and its many possible uses. Wolters speaks of the “illusion” that figurative language is “somehow second best” when speaking of the events portrayed in Gen 1–11. There are those who feel as though it would be much more effective to have a scientifically accurate depiction of what actually transpired. “Figurative language is not necessarily a second-best way of conveying truth,” he says. “In some cases it is far more straightforward and effective than any other way of reporting facts."— Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 63

<idle musing>
Ever read Narnia? C.S. Lewis manages to pack more theology into those books than some tomes of theology do. When you are dealing with God, any statement is incomplete and somewhat inaccurate (at best). Sometimes myth is the best way to express the truth...
</idle musing>

Is it real or is it Memorex?

Mythic history operates on both the literal and the metaphorical levels simultaneously, precisely because it contains metaphorical language that operates on both levels simultaneously as well. While our primary goal is to recover the pragmatic meaning of metaphorical, mythic history, we must not do so to the degree that we lose sight of its semantic meaning. In other words, it would be fallacious to assume that, because an author recounts mythic history metaphorically, he may not also be referring to actual events in time and space. Metaphorical is not synonymous with fictitious.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11, page 61

<idle musing>
Indeed! That seems to be a recurring theme in the book: myth is not equal to fiction. But all our training from grade school on has told us that myth = fiction. Hard to shake those early lessons...

I probably dated myself with the title of the post. How many remember that commercial for Memorex™ cassette tapes?
</idle musing>

What was that?

Words develop in meaning and significance; symbols change over time, as we have also seen already. Because of these factors, it is not always possible to say that to know what a text says is to know what it means. Communication is far more complex than this allows, and one suspects proponents of this view might acknowledge as much in actual practice. There are numerous occasions, for example, when literal interpretation does not account for the intended meaning of an author’s utterance.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11 , pages 57-58

<idle musing>
I know you heard what you thought I said, but is what you heard what I really said?!

I had a Classics professor once who said you could read a whole page of Aristotle and not refer to the lexicon—but that didn't mean you knew what you had just read! Communication is more than just words; communication is the meaning behind the words...
</idle musing>

iOS 7.0.4 woes, continued

Well, it's been about a week since I last posted on my iPad woes. During that time, I've scoured the Internet and the Apple forums (fora?) looking for answers. What I've discovered is that about 1-2% of iOS devices are experiencing the problem I'm having. That might not sound like very many, but it works out to between 500,000 and 1,000,000 devices. Yep, the number of zeroes is correct. Up to a million devices!

I read here that you could get it to kickstart if you held the home and power buttons down for up to 15 minutes! I had nothing to lose, so I figured I'd try it. My fingers would slip off one of the buttons after about 10 minutes. Finally—I'm a bit slow sometimes!—I decided to take the iPad out of its case. Now I could actually hold the power button down without destroying my finger : )

I held it down for 20 minutes. No success : (

I decided to try Apple Support. I set up a chat session last night and was online with them for over 2 hours. The initial contact was somebody who called himself Micheal [sic]. I suspect he was in India; he went through the script, but I had already done everything there. We got disconnected, so I tried again and this time I got someone calling himself Mercedes. Again, I suspect India‐definitely not a native English speaker. After about an hour of more of the same, he told me it was a hardware issue and that I would have to pay to have it fixed.

NOT! I told him it was a software issue. I never had an issue until iOS 7. He told me to hang on for a minute. He transferred me to someone else. This person called himself Colsen and was very pleasant—I found out later in the conversation that he is based in Atlanta. He reviewed the case, asked me to resend a couple of screenshots and photos I had already uploaded but didn't make the transfer. We tried various things for about 30 minutes before he came to the conclusion that it needed to be reset by an Apple tech.

He asked if I could get to an Apple store. I told him I was about 5 hours from the nearest one : (

Looks like sending it in is the only option...so I'm waiting for the labels and packaging to come from Apple. The bright side: They pay the freight. And it doesn't look like I'm going to have to pay anything—which is the way it should be. It was their software screw-up that has "bricked" it...

By the way, Apple, if you happen upon this post...I suspect the problem is in a code change in the software power off sequence. Every time the software tries to reboot the iPad, it locks. If I'm not connected to a power source (either via USB to the MacBook, or via the power adapter), whenever the software turns the screen off, it locks. Anytime an iOS update tries to reboot (since iOS 7.0), it locks. Please fix it! You have about a million devices that are worthless until you do...

Update:
I just spent 33 minutes on the phone with 2 different people at Apple. They are going to repair/replace it free. They didn't even ask for the credit card information. Of course, I had to keep reiterating that it was a software issue, not a hardware one. But, hey, it looks like I'm going to get a working iPad again soon...

Asking the wrong questions

Often our modern misunderstanding of myth relates to its purpose. Not only may we miss the point of myths due to the nature of the language, but we also may misunderstand its significance (or relevance), which is itself implicit. It becomes a bit easier to appreciate the frequent use of symbols and metaphor in mythic history when we realize how different the ancient concerns were from what our own would be.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11 , page 55

<idle musing>
We're always asking the wrong questions of the text. We need to really read the text, get inside it, then we can ask questions. But that's too much like work, so we proof-text and use our concordances—and of course, Scofield's Notes!

Remember this?:
My hope is built on nothing less than Scofield's Notes and Moody Press...
Oops, maybe it should be My hope is built on nothing less than Zondervan and Moody Press...no, that's not right either...
</idle musing>

Snow!

Indeed! With a vengeance, too. It's been snowing off and on now since Sunday afternoon. Wonderful stuff! Debbie and I have been out walking in it each day; we're loving it. Right now it is very windy and huge flakes. Here's the weather service warning (somebody should tell them that keyboards have lower case now!):

... WINTER STORM WARNING REMAINS IN EFFECT UNTIL MIDNIGHT CST WEDNESDAY NIGHT...

* LOCATION... NORTH SHORE AREA OF LAKE SUPERIOR FROM DULUTH TO THE CANADIAN BORDER.

* TIMING... THIS IS A LONG DURATION SNOW STORM. IT WILL SNOW ON AND OFF THROUGH WEDNESDAY. SNOW IS EXPECTED TO DIMINISH SOMEWHAT TODAY... BUT INCREASE AGAIN TONIGHT THROUGH WEDNESDAY.

* SNOW ACCUMULATIONS... TOTAL SNOWFALL THROUGH THE EVENT COULD RANGE FROM 15 TO 20 INCHES... WITH SOME LOCALLY HIGHER AMOUNTS POSSIBLE. THIS INCLUDES THE DULUTH AREA UP TO GRAND PORTAGE.

* SNOW ACCUMULATIONS... ADDITIONAL SNOWFALL TODAY WILL RANGE FROM 2 TO 4 INCHES... WITH MORE SNOWFALL EXPECTED TONIGHT INTO WEDNESDAY. SPOTTERS HAVE REPORTED 5 TO 8 INCHES OF SNOW SO FAR ACROSS MUCH OF THE NORTH SHORE DOWN INTO THE DULUTH AND CLOQUET AND MOOSE LAKE AREAS.

* WINDS/VISIBILITY... WINDS WILL BECOME STRONG FROM THE EAST ON TUESDAY WITH GUSTS OF 30 MPH.

<idle musing>
I'd say we've gotten about 8 inches here so far. Hard to know for sure with the wind so strong today. The neatest thing is that everybody we talk to here is loving it!
</idle musing>

Books!

While we were away visiting Debbie's parents, IVP Academic was kind enough to send me the following books. You'll be seeing excerpts and a review of each in the next month or so (deo volente):

The Journey of Modern Theology: From Reconstruction to Deconstruction by Roger E. Olson

The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority by John H. Walton and D. Brent Sandy

Different paradigm

As far as Gen 1–11 protohistory was concerned, the Israelites “did history” in ways similar to other ancient Near Eastern cultures because it was part of their common cultural heritage—this common way of doing history was the result of the common ancient cognitive environment. The importance of this for our purposes is the way the ancients, and by association the Israelites (in this section of Genesis), did history was through the medium of myth. They “did indeed make it their practice to express their speculations about world forces and their situation amid them by means of very sophisticated compilations of mythological motifs and patterns.” In other words, the ancient mind tended to (as we would describe it today) mythologize their past. That is, they speculated about their past in mythological terms. Kitchen rightly observes that in the ancient Near East they “did not historicize myth (i.e., read it as an imaginary ‘history’). In fact, exactly the reverse is true—there was, rather, a trend to ‘mythologize’ history, to celebrate actual historical events and people in mythological terms.” Furthermore, our modern tendency to separate myth from history would be a completely foreign notion to them—that was not the way they “did history.” Again, all of this should make perfect sense in light of the values and concerns of ancient history writing discussed above. Mythological language was the perfect means by which to communicate the relevance of such weighty historical matters.—Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11 , pages 48-49

<idle musing>
We need to learn to let the text speak for itself. We have tried for too long to squeeze scripture into our Western, mechanistic materialism mold. It doesn't work!
</idle musing>

Ride those bicycles!

Via Mother Earth News:
For a given journey, the energy consumed by a driver is at least 42 times more than by a cyclist, a bus passenger uses 34 times as much, and a train passenger 27 times as much. The cyclist requires less space than all but the train passenger and pedestrian. For journeys of up to 6 miles (10 km), the bike is definitely best for both rider and the planet. In terms of lifespan, life-cycle analysis at MIT shows that the bicycle consumes the lowest energy per passenger-mile across its entire life, compared to other forms of transport.

<idle musing>
And that doesn't include the health benefits, which save how many $$ because it's hard to be obese when you ride a bike : )
</idle musing>

Myth defined

Myth is therefore more rightly defined as a reflection on the human world (immediate to the author) “by describing or imaging creative analogies between the circumstances and experiences of human beings in the world and beliefs about the world of the gods.” Here, we find the “analogical thinking” that Averbeck has mentioned. Mythological analogical thinking is the tendency of the ancient mind to relate their beliefs about the distant past (a usual subject of mythological writing) in terms more familiar to them. That is, they tended to analogize known elements from their world around them in order to explain the unknown (or lesser known) elements of their past.— Toward a Poetics of Genesis 1-11 , pages 46-47

<idle musing>
Or, as a seminary professor of mine said, "reasoning from the given to the divine." We still do that, but we don't call it myth anymore...
</idle musing>