Once more, round the 'net

An eclectic collection again this week. A friend of mine once told me I have the weirdest reading habits; so be it. I hope you enjoy this collection of various and sundry goodies (or baddies, as the case may be).

First off, many comments on the state of evangelical support for the current ruler. I think Michael Gerson's comments are probably the most appropriate:

The reform of evangelicalism is probably the work of men and women of a rising generation, who have significantly different views and values from their elders. About two-thirds of young white evangelicals believe that immigrants strengthen the country. Their approval of Trump is significantly lower. Time will work in favor of sanity.

But we should not underestimate the cultural trauma that many leaders of the religious right have inflicted. It is in the order of things that a younger generation should challenge the views and values of its parents. It is a source of cynicism and social disruption when an older generation betrays civilizing values in full sight of its children. Many evangelical leaders now lie drunk, naked and exposed.

Meanwhile, at the Anxious Bench, Chris Gehrz chimes in:

Evangelicals will only recover their witness when they forget about their brand — and the strong man politician they think protects it. Their activism needs to be brought back in line with the rest of the Bebbington Quadrilateral. It will take at least a generation, and it may never be the case again that evangelicals are known primarily as people who forgive those who have hurt them or their families, and as those who call people to conversion — “Give your life to Christ.” Calling on Trump to do exactly that would be a good start.

And, let's be an equal opportunity blog, Ron Sider offers a biting critique of the Dems, which is correct in my opinion:

The Democrats have a problem with religious people, especially Catholics and Evangelicals—and it is substantially their own fault.

Many Catholics and Evangelicals (including yours truly) find themselves closer to Democratic positions on many issues including racial justice, economic justice, creation care, combating global warming, tax policy that demands more of the rich, health care for all. But on religious freedom and abortion, many if not most Democrats stubbornly refuse to acknowledge and care for valid concerns of deeply religious people.

Think again about what "defending the gospel" means. According to Rodney Reeeves, it isn't what most people think it is (HT: Jim E.):

So, listen up crusaders, zealots, loyal members of self-sequestered theological clubs and secret societies: you're not defending the "truth of the gospel" when you alienate your brother and sister in Christ. In fact, according to Paul (the one you call your "beloved brother"), you prove you're not even justified by faith.

Yep. And Roger Olson takes aim at the Fundamentalists trying to pass themselves off as Evangelical spokesmen (and it's all men!):

In brief, what has happened is that people with fundamentalist temperaments and theologies have managed to mantle themselves with tremendous influence if not authority—as normative evangelical leaders. But they are the same people who fifty years ago would have been denouncing Billy Graham for being too inclusive and generous in his treatment of pastors (and others) who wanted to cooperate with his evangelistic crusades.

Yep. I'm old enough to remember when they denounced Billy Graham for letting his hair grow a little bit longer than "white sidewalls," saying he had gone liberal.

First Things has a feature on Rubio's "Common Good" economics. You need to read it; would that it became more of a norm:

Rubio said that economic growth is an inadequate indicator of economic health: “Economic growth and record profits alone will not lead to the creation of dignified work.” He argues for placing human dignity at the center of the economy. “Does our country exist to serve the interests of the market? Or does the market exist to serve the interests of our nation?”

Indeed! If only! Speaking of which, A.J. has an interesting dystopian view of the future:

Consider this scenario: At some point in the next couple of years, Tim Cook meets behind closed doors with Governor Gavin Newsom and and a handful of other political leaders. Here’s what he says:

“Friends, you know as well as I that this state is in a mess. The electricity in this part of the state is provided by a company whose idea of dealing with wildfires is to take away people’s power so the old and uninsulated lines won’t shoot out sparks. Many Californians have come to think it perfectly normal to step over homeless people — sometimes sick or even unconscious homeless people — on the way to work each day. Housing costs have forced thousands and thousands of people who work in our cities to live dozens of miles away, increasing the already infamous congestion on our roads. . .

Scary idea that probably will happen, or some version thereof.

Speaking of those big tech companies, there's a nice primer on anti-trust laws at Ars Technica. Do read it.

Times Higher Ed in an op-ed toys with the possibility that we've made professors too tame; how's this for a headline: "Why universities need to embrace their wild side. Lincoln Allison makes the case for the revival of the old-style academic eccentric." Sounds good to me : )

Is Martha overtaking Mary in your life? Read this for a nice romp through church history before arriving at the conclusion:

Why? Isn’t God’s creation good? Aren’t we supposed to celebrate the many-faceted active life God gives us to enjoy? Sure—but with two caveats. First, our active life is worthy of celebration only because it aims at the contemplative life. Without a contemplative horizon, our human activities turn into distractions. If the active life is all there is, it remains without telos to give it meaning. Contemplation fills action with truth, goodness, and beauty. It is contemplation that gives action a share in its luster.

Second, if the significance of action is derivative, this means that we should insist, without compromise, that contemplation (not action) is ultimate and makes up our eternal future. The reason is simple: The creator, not the creature, is our final end. Just as natural desires aim at a greater, supernatural end, so our active lives aim at something higher, beyond themselves—namely, eternal contemplation of God in Jesus Christ.

Meanwhile, in the "what you eat" category, Michael Greger looks at food synergy and eating a wide variety. Good stuff, but he also includes this marvelous slam on the supplements market:

As T. Colin Campbell has pointed out, more than a hundred trials “overwhelmingly show no long-term benefit for vitamin supplements, along with worrisome findings that certain vitamins may even increase disease occurrence for diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.” Supplementation with fish oil, for example, appears useless or, even worse, “posing increased risk for diabetes,” yet the science doesn’t seem to matter. People continue to buy them. “The public desire for quick fixes through pills…is overwhelming, especially when money can be made.”

And, finally, the National Transportation Safety Board just threw bicyclists under the bus. Bicycling Magazine has a good summary, but basically, as is the norm, it's a case of blaming the victim.

I’m not even sure where to start with this idea that calls upon cyclists to be more conspicuous. I’m certainly not arguing against riding with lights after dark, nor am I questioning people’s interest in gear like high vis apparel and daytime running lights. But this idea that folks riding bikes need to wear specialized clothing so motorists don’t hit them, especially when so many other dangerous driver behaviors and issues are being overlooked, is an insult to the perils American cyclists face every day. Like if you think I need to wear fluoro kit or a blinking vest because it’s just too challenging to see me on the road, maybe you should stow your iPhone or slow down or altogether reconsider driving a motor vehicle.

Yep. Put down the phone, folks. Did you know that 40% of drivers admit to using social media while driving, and 10% admit to watching a YouTube video! Come on folks! You are driving a 5000 pound powered missile. I don't care how many lights and helmets I have, you will do a good job of hurting me if I get hit. I know; I've been hit by a Ford F-150. It isn't fun and the driver felt terrible, too. I got off easy, just 6 weeks in a cast and some staples.

The end of the matter

Joseph and Saul recede into the background only because space at a critical juncture in each story is given to a more fortunate neighbor. One may even say that their less fortunate position is merely relative. On the one hand, this confirms that God deals with the world primarily through his chosen. Those who are unchosen derive their status from their relationship with the elect, and remain in the elect’s shadow. On the other hand, however, this may give some hope for those who are concerned with the fate of the unfavored ones. Perhaps their relative status vis-à-vis those who are chosen is not the last word concerning their destiny. Perhaps there is more to the fate of the unfavored than simply that which is made clear in the biblical narratives, where they remain eclipsed by their chosen neighbors.—The Unfavored, page 208

<idle musing>
And that's the end of this book. The conclusion reminds me of the conclusion to Chosen and Unchosen, by Joel Lohr and also in the Siphrut series. I personally think we've got the whole chosen/unchosen wrong; I tend to follow the thinking here and in Lohr's book.

Next up? Well, I've been reading New Testament Christological Hymns. I'll probably start posting from that. I've also been reading from Son of God, but that one doesn't lend itself well to extracting short snippets. I also just started Robert Miller's Baal, St. George, and Khidr, which will probably find its way onto this blog in time.

Meanwhile, it's two weeks before AAR/SBL and I have to finish up some things before the conference, so don't look for a flurry of posts before that.
</idle musing>

Book Lust!

It's that time of year, just before the Annual Meetings of ASOR, AAR/SBL, ETS, and the publishers are working like crazy to make the conferences with their new books. And I'm going crazy looking at all the forthcoming titles! One just popped up today that makes my drool list:

Myths and Mistakes in New Testament Textual Criticism, edited by Elijah Hixson and Peter J. Gurry, from IVP Academic.

And here's another, from Baker Academic:

Participating in Christ: Explorations in Paul's Theology and Spirituality, by Michael Gorman.

There are more, but those two definitely. And that new Cambridge Greek Grammar, and . . .

Seriously??

Words fail me. Via John Fea: The librarians of Citrus County, Florida wanted to buy a digital subscription to The New York Times, but the country commission will not let them do it because, as everyone knows, The New York Times is “fake news.” Yes, this is a true story. Here is a taste of Antonia Noori Farzan’s reporting at The Washington Post:

The librarians of Citrus County, Fla., had what seemed like a modest wish: A digital subscription to the New York Times. For about $2,700 annually, they reasoned, they could offer their roughly 70,000 patrons an easy way to research and catch up on the news.

But when their request came before the Citrus County commission last month, local officials literally laughed out loud. One commissioner, Scott Carnahan, declared the paper to be “fake news.”

<idle musing>
I can't even begin. You don't have to agree with the NYT, but they are trying to do a decent job. If you live in an echo chamber, how will you grow? Oh, that's right, the goal isn't to grow, it is to stay safe. Sorry, I forgot that. Now it all makes sense. Of course, when the ostrich sticks its head in the sand, it's safe, right? If you can't see it, it doesn't exist right?
</idle musing>

Theologically rich reading isn't easy

In particular, as these segments [Gen 38, 49; 1 Sam 13:7b–15a] appear to have been written with a knowledge of Judah’s and David’s future election, stemming from traditions that appeared later than those captured in the stories themselves, they may be seen as suggesting that one fruitful way of reading these complex stories is to read them, so to speak, backwards. More specifically, a reading that is attuned to the compositional depth of these narratives will combine a linear approach with a complementary method that rereads the narratives with an eye on their future denouement. Such a robust interpretation will not be simplistic—that is, reading the crucial stories of Israel’s religious and political life as developing only from beginning to end—nor will it overwhelm the earlier stories with their later progress. A theologically rich approach will benefit from a dialogue between both linear and backwards readings that mirrors the development of the texts themselves.—The Unfavored, page 204

Some interesting links

Here are some interesting links I ran across this week, as we race toward winter.

First off, a look at a new high-tech helmet for bicyclists. Those of you who have followed this blog for a while know that I'm not a fan of helmets—and this summary paragraph gives one of the biggest reasons:

And before you strap on your connected helmet, keep in mind that in so doing you’re also helping absolve drivers of responsibility, because the more gimmicky safety gear they try to foist on us the easier it is for them to blame us if we don’t use it. They already say we “come out of nowhere” because they can’t be bothered to look for us, so just wait until they’re not required to see you at all unless you’ve got a personal locator beacon in your helmet. You might as well program your Matrix dot display to read, “I surrender.”

Designing better bike helmets is a worthwhile goal, and we’re finally seeing some much-needed advancements in materials and design. As for making them “smart,” connecting our helmets to our phones seems far less urgent than getting drivers off of theirs.

OK, it was two paragraphs. Next up, what about giving all those calculators to kids in grade school? I remember back in the 1980s when Chicago announced they would be issuing calculators to kids and I thought it was a bad idea. Anyway, Times Higher Education summarizes a new study, which isn't pretty.

New research suggests that students’ reliance on technology could be undermining some of their basic mental and critical thinking skills after many failed to spot major errors in simple mathematics calculations.

The study programmed an on-screen calculator to “lie” by changing the answers displayed on certain problems and tracked whether students explicitly reported suspicion, overrode the errors or rechecked their calculations.

Upshot: basically blind trust in the calculator : ( OK, it's time for a feel-good story! This, from NPR. He won a million dollar grant and started a nonprofit. Final question in the interview and his answer are priceless, too:

What will you be talking about at the New York City Food Tank Summit this weekend?

I'd like to ask the world to involve us, the farmers, in the decisions and in building the solutions for feeding the world.

Yep. Rather than letting big-Ag set the agenda, ask the farmers who do the actual work. But, of course, that might mean less profits for the 1 percent, so it won't happen. OK, color me cynical, but I really do believe in original sin.

And, over at Jesus Creed there's a good post on being the alternative to right or left:

So, how about you? Will you join me in trying to avoid these two extremes and walk that much more demanding middle path? (Warning: you tend to get shot at by both sides when you trod the middle path.) Will you try to be a broad-minded person who transcends the barbed-wired ideological silos, avoids the religious and political echo-chambers, and intentionally reads and listens to diverse people and perspectives; while at the same time remaining tethered to some system of morality higher and greater than your own fluctuating feelings and opinions? Can we strive to become more generous in spirit as we grow more passionate in our convictions?

I know this is asking a lot. But the future of Western civilization may hang in the balance (and certainly our sanity on social media!). Moreover, for people like me who want to represent the spiritual path Jesus paved for us, we absolutely must learn to walk this third way. As we do, people will begin to experience a Christianity worth considering as they encounter people who, like Jesus, are overflowing with both “grace and truth” (John 1:14). Who’s with me?

Michael Bird takes a look at white privilege in view of Paul's letters—he's an Aussie, so he doesn't know how to spell : )

In the end, the best thing white majority churches can do to divest themselves of their privileges is to implement the ecclesial corollaries that follow on from Paul’s remarks ruling out diastolē (“distinction”) between believers (Rom 3:22; 10:12) and prosōpolēmpsia (“favouritism”) before God and within the church (Rom 2:11; Gal 2:6; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; 1 Tim 5:21). Paul’s gospel calls us to imitate Christ in his divestment of privilege with a view to serving others rather than consciously or unconsciously merely absorbing and baptizing the resident prejudices that we live among. That is at least part of what it means to have the mind of Christ Jesus (Phil 2:5).

While Righting of America asks how much of Leviticus people really want when they selectively grab portions of it:

If Leviticus is the defining text, then I must ask if anti-gay Christians are going to advocate for stoning to death a man and women found in adultery?

If Leviticus is the defining text, then I must ask if anti-gay Christians are going to accept Leviticus 25, which says that every 50 years is a Jubilee to the Lord. This is a practical, actual, literal economic revival. All debts are forgiven. All prisoners are released. All land is given back to original owners. In Jubilee, the poor come to get their stuff back. The radical teaching of Jubilee insists that the practice of the economy shall be subordinated to the well-being of the neighborhood. Are evangelicals – many of whom are raising hell about food stamps and welfare – willing to take Leviticus 25 as seriously as they take Leviticus 18:22?

And he lists more. Personally, I hold to the traditional view of marriage, but also would love to see some redistribution of wealth, because, well, original sin. The wealthy will just keep on squeezing the poor until collapse happens (look at history)—or government forces them to give it over in the form of taxes. Or maybe we should adopt the Athenian way of doing things and have some of the wealthiest people fully supply a few aircraft carriers or battleships from their personal wealth! I suspect they would become less-hawkish in their views!

How do you get evangelicals to believe in human-caused (and therefore reversible) climate change? Well, this Evangelical PhD is doing a good job.

But I refuse to give it up, because I am a theological evangelical, one of those who can be simply defined as someone who takes the Bible seriously. This stands in stark contrast to today’s political evangelicals, whose statement of faith is written first by their politics and only a distant second by the Bible and who, if the two conflict, will prioritize their political ideology over theology.

I’m not a glutton for punishment and I don’t thrive on conflict. So why do I keep talking about climate change to people who are disengaged or doubtful? Because I believe that evangelicals who take the Bible seriously already care about climate change (although they might not realize it). Climate change will strike hard against the very people we’re told to care for and love, amplifying hunger and poverty, and increasing risks of resource scarcity that can exacerbate political instability, and even create or worsen refugee crises.

Amen and amen! Good preaching! And Warren Throckmorten digs up a book from the 1950s on demagoguery that seems only too appropriate to our time:

Allport’s question haunts me. I think he has the situation diagnosed but I don’t believe our psychology or our policies have kept up with the pace of social and technological change today. Panic and fear drove a sufficient number of presidential voters to elect a spectacularly ill-equipped reality television actor and businessman of questionable success. Panic and fear appear to be driving a defense of Trump’s abuse of power based on something other than reality. Evangelical placation of everything Trump does is almost certainly driven by panic and fear. Surely they are not walking by faith.

That sums it up, doesn't it? Fear. Problem is that fear sells.

Finally, what about those high-visibility conversions that fail? Stephen McAlpine says it's not them, but the celebrity-seeking Christian leaders (he calls them D-Listers) that are why people are repelled from Christianity. He quotes from 3 John 9, about Diotrophes, and concludes:

My hope over the next few years is not that a bunch of A-listers become Christian and influence the church. If they do, so be it, and may God get the glory from them that they so carefully crafted for themselves for so long. That’s a hard road for them, if we believe Jesus words about camels and eyes of needles.

My hope is that over the next few years the church will be brave enough to purge itself of self-glorying D-listers who, for the sake of a few small crumbs of influence and fame among those living in a Christian bubble, by their actions deny the very Lord who called them.

OK, one last post, on the supposed death of the printed book, by the CEO of academic publisher Bloomsbury (so he knows a bit about these things):

We know from conducting focus groups and our ongoing conversations with librarians, faculty, and students that print, particularly in the humanities, is still very much in demand. What we’ve heard repeatedly — and this seems to be very much in line with our peers — is that students enjoy the ease of search and discoverability of electronic resources but then often request print for more immersive reading. And maybe the greatest surprise here is that that is just as true of those matriculating now, the so-called born digital generation, as it is for those who preceded them. So there is clearly something inherently “human” about the print format that seems more nature than nurture. As someone who has always loved the printed book, I find that comforting.

Yep. that's what I'm sensing from all the people I talk to in academia. OK, I'm done for this week. Happy reading!

Up and down the kingship staircase

The second stage of Saul’s rejection is reached [in 1 Sam 15]. Chapter 13 saw the loss of dynastic status, but Saul remained as king. Although ch. 14 showed some successes, it was still critical of his leadership, especially compared with Jonathan. Just as Saul moved towards the throne through three key stages (anointing, acclamation, battle victory), his removal takes three stages (loss of dynasty, announcement of loss of rule, and death).—David Firth, Samuel, cited in ;The Unfavored, page 200

what about divine repentance?

The irrevocability of Saul’s rejection is the main subject of Moberly’s study [“Does God Change?,” pages 107–43 in Old Testament Theology: Reading the Hebrew Bible as Christian Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013)], which puts forward two main ideas regarding 1 Sam 15:29 and its sibling text, Num 23:19. First, Moberly notes how these two statements define God’s non-repentance vis-à-vis human repentance. In a fashion akin to apophatic theology they demonstrate what YHWH is not: he does not lie or speak falsely, and in changing his mind he is not like a human being. This observation—supported by the occurrence of differing terms for divine (נחם) and human repentance (שׁוב)—sets an important parameter for future investigation as it explains that God repents on a different level from that of human beings: “It is not mutuality and responsiveness in relationship, but insincerity and faithlessness that are specified for denial.” Second, both texts concern election: Num 23:19 occurs in the midst of Balaam’s forced attempt to curse Israel (Num 22–24), while 1 Sam 15 is concerned with the divine choice of David, hinted in v. 28.—The Unfavored, page 176

Round the 'net

We were traveling this last week, hence the lack of posts, but I still found time to read a bit. Here are some links I found of interest:

Roger Olson asks if it is ever wrong to forgive:

Now I know that someone will say “That’s easy for you to say because you’re white.” Well, I heard an African-American theologian and ethicist say it yesterday. And I have very close loved ones who are black. And I am personally outraged at the epidemic of unjustified shootings of black people in America. I am outraged at juries who have declined to convict some of the police officers who shot unarmed black men and women and at least one child that I know of (and saw it on television).

But as a theologian and as an ethicist, I have to affirm forgiveness even if I am not sure I could do it.

For the record, I'm with him.

Scot McKnight excerpted from Michael Gorman's new book, Participating in Christ (I'm going to have to pick that one up!):

Gorman’s thesis then is that the resurrection life of the Christian is cruciformity because cruciformity is suffused with resurrection. The cross is the pattern of life while the resurrection is the power of that life. The church, then, is faithful to the resurrection when it is cruciform.

Yep.

In an attempt to salvage what's left of any decent connotations to the word "evangelical," the National Association of Evangelicals appointed a new leader—and it isn't a white male. Granted, it is a male, but it's a start. You can read about it more on the Anxious Bench:

Last week Kim, 51, was named president of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), a venerable organization founded in 1942. Kim, a Korean American who grew up in Appalachia, is the first person of color to lead the NAE.

Personally, I think it's too little, too late, but you never know...

Wondering about 1 Cor 14:34? Take a look at this post. Here's the summary paragraph:

7. This explanation accounts for all the available evidential data, both external and internal. It does not conflict with any credible evidence. It resolves every historical and interpretive problem associated with these verses, including all the relevant features of the evidence from the manuscripts. No other explanation fulfils these criteria.

I know, if you aren't willing to be convinced, nothing will persuade you.

Speaking of that, Ken Schenck has some thoughts on the arch of history, ending with this zinger:

What is the right thing? I think it is clear that the last three years have been a major step back in the move toward justice. Has America become more loving toward its neighbors and the world in these last three years? The self-deception of the evangelical church has been astounding.

The attitude and comments of John MacArthur on Beth Moore this past week are representative of the heart of the evangelical church in general in America. It thinks it is standing up for God when in fact God's Spirit has left the room. I wish I could say, "Let them wither on the vine." God's truth is marching on. I hope that's true.

I can only hope along with him, but his comments on MacArthur are on the money. I used to be on his mailing list, why and how I have no idea, and he was always railing against something and saying he needed more cash in order to keep up the fight for the kingdom. I feel sorry for Peter, John, Paul, etc., because they didn't have a huge mailing list to solicit for cash. Wonder how they managed?

Claude Mariottini also weighed in on women in ministry from an Old Testament point of view, concluding with this:

Thus, the calling of women in the Old Testament to be prophets was not a fluke. It was part of God’s plan to save humanity. With the outpouring of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, the idea of gender, age, and social status is eliminated; now both men and women can prophesy.

This is what Paul meant when he wrote: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). Joel’s prophecy and the outpouring of the Spirit reveal that God is no respecter of persons. God calls men and women to the prophetic ministry.

Beth Moore, don’t go home. God needs you in the public square proclaiming the message of hope and salvation in the name of Christ.

Amen and amen! Still on that subject, the Anxious Bench has an open letter to MacArthur, looking at the history of translation, specifically citing an early 20th century scholar named Kate Bushnell:

What was foundational to Bushnell’s entire project was her understanding of power. After a careful study of the Scriptures, she concluded that the bulk of evidence establishing men as authorities in the household, and in the church, could be traced not to the Greek Testament, but rather to English translations. Moreover, it became clear to her that no Christian man would ever seek such exaltation. Jesus himself emptied himself, became human, suffered, and died. Why, then, would men who claimed to follow Jesus seek to assert power over others? Such men who sought power over others did so in exact proportion to the sinfulness of their own hearts, she surmised.

Chew on that for a while, considering the cruciform shape of the Christian life.

Not to beat a dead horse, but Missio Alliance takes a look at the phrase "Go home":

They used to be innocent words, previously spoken billions of times by tired men and women at the end of a workday, or cheered at a baseball game as a baserunner rounded third, or offered as a salutation by college students as a holiday approached. But in an instant, these two words were magnified by the context in which they were uttered and injected with the snide meaning behind them.

Perhaps the best response was by Beth Moore herself, from the Twitter:

Here’s the beautiful thing about it & I mean this with absolute respect. You don’t have to let me serve you. That gets to be your choice. Whether or not I serve Jesus is not up to you. Whether I serve you certainly is. One way or the other, I esteem you as my sibling in Christ.

OK, enough of that. Let's talk about something edifying, such as what does "freedom" mean? The word gets thrown around, but nobody bothers to define it. More importantly, what is "freedom in Christ"? Andrew Gabriel, a Canadian theologian, attempts to define it:

as a result of this freedom, the Bible emphasizes that Christians:

* are children of God
* have no condemnation
* become slaves of Christ
* become slaves to righteousness, leading to holiness as enabled by the Spirit
* receive other benefits from living according to the Spirit, such as life and peace
* will be resurrected to eternal life.

Now you know.

And here's a long read, with a hat tip to Jim Eisenbraun for the link, on an Evryman retreat (yes, the spelling is correct):

And yet in the waning afternoon light of the retreat center, arm in arm with my Evryman brothers, I am skeptical of dwelling exclusively in the bog of my own sadness. After all, when we shed tears for the veteran Matt, we’re ignoring the extent to which his grief has been caused by his armed service, that his inability to connect with his wife stems from the foreign-policy decisions that we civilians have tacitly endorsed. Or when I lock arms with a smart-home entrepreneur, I’m invited to ignore the fact that the automation of Silicon Valley might eventually put some two million truck drivers out of work, an impending structural shift that no doubt runs the risk of increasing toxic masculinity. It is an insidious habit of our time to assume that personal deprivations don’t have social or political dimensions, that the cure-all can be found in the detour of a retreat or the ablutions of self-care. But what I feel most acutely in this moment, and during the long drive home across the byways of the Midwest, is loneliness. We had talked of an enduring brotherhood, and yet as soon as I leave the retreat center, I realize these men are strangers to me. I try to imagine them making similar journeys home, drawing divergent routes across the country, waiting out layovers in airport lounges, standing under the sickly lights of convenience stores—each man returning to his private grief.

Sad. The only hope is in Jesus and his transforming power. Now, when I say that, I'm thinking of more than just saying a prayer. I'm talking about a life transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit and moving in you to make changes in the same manner as in the Wesleyan revival in the 1700s.

OK. Enough for now. That should give you a good bit to read : )

In related news, my garden is pretty much done for the year. Just brussells sprouts, kohlrabi, chard, beets, kale, and carrots left. Today I'll dig the beets and carrots, and pull the kohlrabi. Giant kohlrabi, by the way. They are probably 8–10 inches in diameter, and really sweet.

Around the 'net

A few interesting links from the last several days. First, what's the job of a CEO?

The job of an executive is: to define and enforce culture and values for their whole organization, and to ratify good decisions.

That's all.

Not to decide. Not to break ties. Not to set strategy. Not to be the expert on every, or any topic. Just to sit in the room while the right people make good decisions in alignment with their values. And if they do, to endorse it. And if they don't, to send them back to try again.

Read the rest. It sounds idealistic, given the size of too many egos. But, if it were in place, the corporate world probably would run better (to say nothing of the government, but we won't go there).

This one, on keeping the office door open is really moving. Teachers and professors never realize how big of an impact they can have on their students.

He was the first student to ever visit my office.

I wasn’t expecting him to visit. In fact, I wasn’t expecting anybody to visit. I wasn’t holding official office hours that day. My office was nearly impossible to find, set apart from the main corridor and hidden in the back corner of the building. And I was a new professor, only a few weeks into my teaching career. The students barely knew me, and I barely knew them—or anything, for that matter. I didn’t even know how to use the campus library yet.

But my door was open—it always is—and perhaps that’s the reason why Paul* arrived unannounced at my office that afternoon. My door was open, and I was present.

Paul greeted me hello, and he parked himself in the chair beside my desk. I offered him tea, and we began to chat about the warm weather and upcoming class assignments. The conversation seemed relatively normal until suddenly, mid-sentence, he fell silent and slumped over.

This blog, which I only discovered a few months ago, has become one of my favorites. With a name like Bob on Books, what's not to like! Anyway, here's one from last week:

You know you are a book hoarder if:

You cannot leave a bookstore without a book, or ten, even if you have stacks at home to read.
You would have live at least fifty years longer than most mortals live (and retain your sight) to read all your books.
You almost feel a part of yourself is being amputated when you get rid of a book even if you know you will not read, or read again the book in question.
You have books everywhere, not just on your shelves–in stacks on the floor, on tables, on furniture, in every room, perhaps in closets.

Read the rest to find out what to do. And, yes, I freely admit to being close to a book hoarder. Thanks largely to Debbie (my wife of 41 years), I'm learning to give books away more freely. I'm trying to keep my library around 1000 books. And most of those are reference works that I need for my work. OK, a large percentage of them are. Well, I like to tell myself they are, anyway. : )

The always worth reading Roger Olson posted on the wriggly world of Christian ethics. Looks like he might be working on a book. Can't wait to read it! And while you are over there, take a gander at his post on Christian worship as a concert and his take on CCM's history. I was there, too, and have to largely agree with him.

And, on a different note, what's the future of the monograph?

Hope you found something worth thinking about. I know I did.

14 years!

Today marks the fourteenth anniversary of this blog. Granted, this last year or so I've been less than regular at posting, but even so, I've posted over 5400 times. I realize that some, such as Jim West, post that much in about a day, but I'd like to think mine have a bit more substance to them. . .

The blogosphere has changed a great deal over that time. Social media has taken a huge toll on the number of bloggers. I haven't kept my blogroll up to date, largely because it's too depressing to delete the dead ones that contributed so much. My current RSS feed has about 120 or so feeds, but many of those are dead, also. And a large percentage of the ones that aren't dead aren't biblioblogs.

Now I'm starting to sound like an old man! Well, maybe I am. I'm 63, nigh unto 64. I plan on working full-time until I'm 70. After that, I'll probably (eyes permitting) continue to copyedit on a part-time basis until either my mind or my eyes fail. Will this blog survive that long with me? We'll see. Hopefully, you will find something worth reading in this little corner of the internet.

Who chooses?

The main difference between sacrifice and ḥerem seems to consist in the question of who designates what should be given to the deity. In the example of חרם [ḥrm] it is usually God who decides what falls under this category (Num 21:2–3 is an exception). In situations of זבח [zbḥ] it is the worshipper who selects, within certain parameters, what he deems suitable as a sacrifice to YHWH.—The Unfavored, page 169 n. 87

What's going in with Agag?

Saul brings up the capturing of Agag, but offers no explanation for this curious omission from the ban. The reader is thus left guessing as to what the reasons are for this sparing of the Amalekite king. On the one hand, Saul is not at all ashamed or sorrowful because of this act, prompting one to wonder whether Agag also was intended to be sacrificed before YHWH at Gilgal. On the other hand, if anybody was most responsible for the behavior of Amalek, it was presumably their king, and thus one would expect him to be the prime candidate for the implementation of the ban. It is curious that in the previous chapter Saul was ready to kill his own son, yet here he is not willing to kill the Amalekite king, the head of the “sinners, the Amalekites.”—The Unfavored, page 165

Around the links

A quick glance at what I've found interesting in the last few days:

First, what is the proper use of Thucydides? Is the "Thucydides trap" a real thing? A Classics professor says no.

While parallels between now and then abound, lessons are less plentiful. In the end, Thucydides’ history does not instruct us on how to exploit or avoid certain situations, instead instilling the simple truth that given our nature, there will always be situations that we cannot avoid and, if we try to exploit, will have unintended consequences.

Why bother studying the past, then, if it cannot help us navigating the present? One might as well ask why bother reading Aeschylus or Sophocles if they have no useful advice on how to live our lives. Thucydides’ claim that he wrote his history not to win “the applause of the moment, but as a possession for all time” is based on his tragic conception of life. Far from our being able to master events or even our own desires, events and desires will sooner or later master us. While this is not a rousing call for action, it is a call for modesty and lucidity. Especially in our own age, these virtues might still have earned the applause of Thucydides.

Stephen McAlpine looks at forgiveness, well really, he looks at unforgiveness, in our culture:

Our culture has a problem with forgiveness. We live in a post-forgiveness world. And it’s going to get brutal and cold if the trend continues. And it is trending. That’s the precise word for it, because all of the tools are available to unforgiveness to ensure it does. . . .

It was only when the gospel of Jesus Christ gave forgiveness to an astounded world, still locked into revenge and grovelling, that something did change. Until this vicious cycle was swept away by the gospel of forgiveness, nothing could change And we’ve more or less taken it for granted. Until now.

Now? The old order is back. And meaner and hungrier in light of its long absence. Its primary tool is not the actual arena, but the virtual arena, where the boos, scorns and “thumbs downs” assail those who would challenge the laws of the post-Christian Sexular Age.

Michael Gorman writes a letter that Paul probably would write to Christians in the United States:

Let me cut to the chase, brothers and sisters. Is this what your in-Christ community looks like? Is this how you decide your priorities? Your budget? Your mission activity? If you truly believe that Christ crucified is the power of God, and if you want the power of God to be at work in and through your Christian community, you will seek to become a community shaped by my master story—which is really God’s master story.

You see, the crucified Jesus was a Christophany—revealing what the Messiah is like. But it is also a theophany—revealing what God is like. And it is also an ecclesiophany—revealing what the church is supposed to be like. And ultimately it is also an anthrophany—revealing what human beings are meant to be like.

Michael Frost, while rejoicing that the "Jesus is my boyfriend" songs are gone (Praise God!), the succeeding ones still need a bit more revolutionary attitude to them:

It seems we’ve gone from Jesus-is-my-boyfriend to Jesus-is-my-savior, but we’re missing Jesus-is-our-Lord.

Christian worship should express our collective hope in Christ of a rescued, renewed and restored world, a world in which injustice, racism, hatred and violence have ended, once and for all.

Back to my book Exiles, my suggested alternative to romantic worship songs was that we ought to sing revolutionary worship songs. We need lyrics that call us into a revolution of love and justice. In fact, there hasn’t been a single revolution in history that wasn’t sung into existence.

Social change has a soundtrack.

The revolutionaries of the French, American and Bolshevik uprisings all sang about the new nation they were forging, a song they were willing to die for.

The Civil Rights movement sang Christian spirituals.

The German democratic movement that led to the fall of the Berlin Wall began with singing and prayers for freedom in a church in Leipzig in 1980.

The anti-Marcos movement in the Philippines, the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, the anti-Russian movement in Ukraine – they all wrote songs to inspire their followers.

Even today on the streets of Hong Kong, millions of protesters resisting the controls imposed by Communist China have found the Christian hymn, “Sing Hallelujah to the Lord” as their anthem of freedom. The song has even been banned from Chinese streaming platforms.

And to underscore the point, today, across scores of cities in the US and around the world, secular Justice Choirs are being launched, where ordinary citizens can come together to sing for social justice.

And so on. . . He could have added that the Wesleyan revival was a singing revival, as were many of the other revivals in history. And who can forget the Salvation Army with its bands? Christians should be a singing people—not an entertained people where a "worship" band gets up in front and performs! Sing together; sing alone. Sing! Read the psalms; better yet, SING the psalms!

And, a long read, but well worth your time, on Amazon and it's quest for world dominion in The New Yorker.

Grace and peace until the next round. And we do need both of them in this topsy-turvy world!

A couple of interesting things

OK, maybe a few, not a couple. Over at Jesus Creed, Mike Glen talks about prayer. Deep prayer. Prayer so deep that it is wordless. Spirit-led, Spirit-carried prayer. Read it.

Ron Sider has a word or so on immigration. Here's a taste, but read the whole thing and think about it.

We are a nation of immigrants. At our best, we have told the world, “Give me your tired, your poor, your struggling masses yearning to be free.”

But in the last two years plus, our president has labeled would-be immigrants as rapists and druglords. He has separated children from their parents. He has made it difficult for people to use their legal right to apply for refugee status.

The number of refugees allowed into the US by Pres. Obama in his last year in office was 110,000. But by last year, Pres. Trump had cut the number to 30,000. And for next year the number is a mere 18,000.

Does the Bible have any wisdom on this situation?

And an Aussie blogger has a series on bullying in the church. Here's the link to the first one and the second one. He's promised at least a third one. Here's a taste:

In other words the success of the organisation is dependent on the self-focus of that leader to get what THEY want for themselves. If they can get what they want for themselves, the happy byproduct is that the brand can live on, indeed outwardly thrive, in the afterglow. And we run the risk of transplanting that perspective on to church in these desperate times. Actually we don’t run that risk, that’s what we have done.

The fact is people know – leaders knew – that Mark Driscoll was bullying people constantly, but they did nothing about it. Why? Because the brand was kicking goals. And boy do we need a few evangelical brands that kick a few goals. And if that is so then then a few eggs can be broken in the process. . . .

What did it take to get the leaders to listen? Sadly, the same thing it takes for secular leaders to listen; the risk to the brand. Mars Hill not only started not to kick goals because of Driscoll, but the press coverage was making it kick own-goals. Once that happened, but only once that happened, was Driscoll in trouble.

Driscoll and Hybels were unimpeachable, until the brand started to suffer. Then everyone who had enabled them for so long, and suppressed the bleating of the sheep, suddenly found voice, chucked them out; before ironically, and with no level of insight, offering themselves as the solution to the problem that they had exacerbated in the first place.

The other thing I’ve noticed too is that, depending on our theological framework, we give more leeway to our own, than to others. So Driscoll was always the enfant terrible to the progressive crowd, what with his commitment to complementarianism and substitutionary atonement and all. So it was obvious wasn’t it? Well, not to many in the Young, Restless, Reformed crowd, who were all too often “Yeah, I don’t like his style, but…”

Yet many within that same crowd gave no leeway to Hybels ever, and when he fell, pointed to the business leadership structures that he had in place, and his unfortunate tendency to surround himself with women leaders in senior pastoral roles. There was equal shock by many egalitarians that the man who most championed these women, was abusing his power over them! When should either side be surprised? When they don’t take sin seriously enough, especially in relationships that involve power disparities. . . .

You’ll notice too, that the two “whales” I mentioned started and led their own churches that turned into mini-denominations. They were the supreme leader of the church and the brand. And that is a phenomenon of the can-do attitude of the 21st century, late capitalist West. You can be your own mini-Pope, yet, ironically, with far more direct power than the actual Pope, who has all sorts of historical caveats restraining him. And for good reason. The Pope is not sitting around thinking of a new vision statement for the Church every three to five years, and then hiring and firing those around him to make it happen.

Finally, Roger Olson talks about Paul's description of a church gathering in I Corinthians and the currently popular version of a "worship" service. I might add, it isn't just evangelical churches that are falling prey to this. I've been in mainline churches that have the same approach—singing the same popular songs (well, the leaders sing them; as he says, they aren't singable by real people) with at best a pop sermon with virtually no scripture being read. No wonder the church is anemic. It's eating the equivalent of junk food.

The importance of showing hospitality

He lays wait in the valley, close to the city of Amalek, and approaches the Kenites, urging them—by the sequence of three consecutive imperatives, “Go! Leave! Withdraw!”—to depart, so that they would not be destroyed together with the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:5–6). The reason given is again related to the Israelite journey out of Egypt, where the Kenites acted towards the Israelites with kindness (ḥesed Judg 1:16), which is implicitly contrasted with the disrespectful behavior of the Amalekites. Whereas the Amalekites will perish, the Kenites are spared for their kindness and Saul makes sure that they have a chance to escape, which they use. Saul thus brings out to the open what may be implicitly part of the biblical portrayal of ḥerem: one’s ḥesed has a potential to deliver a person or a group of people from the ban.—The Unfavored, page 160

<idle musing>
And I ask, where does that put the United States, as it slams the doors and builds walls and turns away the sojourner? That is clearly, not displaying ḥesed!

I ran across a good definition of gar, the Hebrew word for a resident alien, the other day. Basically, it's the undocumented aliens in our midst. According to scripture (you do still read that, right?), we are to be hospitable to them. The consequences aren't pretty if you don't. Read the prophets and universalize it based on books in the NT like Revelation.

Turn off Fox News, CNN, etc. and read scripture. It might bring a bit of balance into your life.
</idle musing>

Some Interesting stuff

A few things I've found interesting in the last couple of days:

From Catalyst, "There Are No 'Better' People":

Reconciliation is at the heart of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Trumpism is ignorant of the heart of Christianity, even as it waves the flag to garner votes. The left is allergic to Christianity, as one would be if one were convinced it is not only poison, but the source of all other poisons. René Breuel is right. The problem is not just that our gospel is discredited by its association with all these isms. The gospel is God’s repair to our ruin of the world. We must respond with seriousness to the charge that the gospel is simply ruining it further. We are in a similar position then to Paul, who is convinced God is remaking the world into the creation God wants through the church. Only think of his churches! Little, bedraggled, occasionally persecuted communities scattered across the Mediterranean with few resources. Think of their misbehavior! Not just petty church peccadilloes like gossip and lust (though those are bad enough), but a man sleeping with his father’s wife, believers in the one true God playing footsie with idols, theft and lying and violence—God has wiped out whole civilizations for less. Are these the people through whom God is renewing the cosmos?

Um, yes. There are no “better” people available. The only good one is Jesus Christ, the poor Jew raised from the dead who is God’s own Son, and King, and self, all over again. God’s determination to have the creation God wants will not be thwarted by our pension for using even Christian faith as a cudgel against our enemies. God takes that cudgel from our hands and remakes it into a cross, on which God dies for us. And for our worst enemies.

Read the whole; it's well-worth your time.

The Nation asks, "Has Capitalism Become Our Religion?" You know the answer, don't you?

o be honest, I’m not sure that economics even is a science, however “dismal,” as Thomas Carlyle once dubbed it. Indeed, I think that John Ruskin was closer to the mark in Unto This Last (1862) when he compared what was then called “political economy” to “alchemy, astrology, [and] witchcraft.” As a Christian, I reject the two assumptions found in conventional economics: scarcity (to the contrary, God has created a world of abundance) and rational, self-seeking, utility-maximizing humanism (a competitive conception of human nature that I believe traduces our creation in the image and likeness of God). I think that one of the most important intellectual missions of our time is the construction of an economics with very different assumptions about the nature of humanity and the world.

Wade Burleson reflects on pride in "Pride Stains Us All and Is Erased By a Painful Fall":

Humility by deferring to others is the mark of genuine Christianity.

We don't expect non-Christians to defer to others. Pride puts self first. Humility puts others first. People by nature are proud. God's grace breaks the proud and makes them humble. Those who desire membership at Emmanuel must show evidence of a willingness to put others first for humility is the key trait of Christianity.

Emmanuel has some well-dressed adulterers, addicts, and abusers who also attend our corporate worship services too. We welcome them all. Many of them cover their selfish actions and have never been humbled. But every now and then one of them lands on the front page of the local newspaper. The scandalized in Enid are welcome at Emmanuel. We let them know that we accept them where they are, but we also know God's grace will never leave them where they currently are. It's God's business to take them to that place where they haven't yet arrived.

God gives His grace to humble the proud. And he uses His people to convey that grace which humbles.

We have homosexual couples and lesbian couples who attend Emmanuel just like we have well-dressed adulterers and sexually immoral heterosexuals who attend Emmanuel. We can't change anybody.

...

It's not within our capabilities to make a person not proud of behaviors that the Bible calls wicked, selfish, or ungodly.

That's God's business.

We just love people where they are and pray for the grace that humbles. People may get angry that Christians who believe the Bible refuse to celebrate with pride those behaviors the Bible calls immoral.

Read the whole to see how radical humility mixed with love can be.

And Randall Rauser takes a fresh look at Looney Tunes:

Today, the Disney classic Song of the South is recognized as racist and has been rightly consigned to the cultural hinterland. Increasingly, Looney Tunes are facing a similar exile, first for the ubiquitous violence and gun violence, in particular. I would argue that the sexual violence and aggression of the Pepe cartoons has earned them a similar ignominious fate. While I used to roll my eyes at the critics of these old cartoons as the pc police, I now realize that the critics are right: Pepe Le Pew stinks.

I hadn't watched a cartoon in years, and sometime in the last year I sat down to watch one. I was appalled at the violence. I couldn't even enjoy the humor because of the violence and also the cruelty. And I used to love cartoons.

Is there forgiveness?

It seems not—at least not in our culture. A hidden sin from when you were an unruly teenage can jump up at any time and bite, thanks to social media. Where is forgiveness then? Now, that's assuming you have repented of that hidden sin. If not, then it is chasing you deservedly. But, is our society willing to forgive at all? Seems not. I don't usually agree with First Things, but they have a piece I can definitely get behind: Cancelling Debts in Cancel Culture. Here's the opening paragraph:

In a culture that has given itself over almost entirely to extreme moral accountability, mercy often appears dangerous and reckless.

And the closing paragraphs (although you should read everything in between, too.

Jesus knew that his followers would not be able to say “Our Father” with one another unless they also said “forgive our debts as we forgive our debtors.” He was reflecting ancient Jewish wisdom when he taught them to pray this way: Moses taught Israel to cancel all debts in the Jubilee Year so that the community might be preserved. Creditors and debtors will never be brothers.

Barzun noted that Western culture sowed the seeds of its own decline, as the impulses and commitments that led to its rise would ultimately lead to its own demise. Certainly, bourgeois moral accountability threatens to turn society into a fearful place of unending animosity, where no man is a brother and everyone fears the retribution that will inevitably come to him. Food that might strengthen a sick man is often rejected because the illness makes it unpalatable to him. America has been shown healing nourishment in the mercy of Jean and Kemp, and our society will become stronger if it learns, marks, and inwardly digests it. I suspect that Jean and Kemp have won a sister, and I am certain that their example has inspired many Christians to strengthen bonds with others through the cancelling of debts, a grace and mercy that will never cease to be a scandal.

And some good news

I'm starting to link to the posts of others again. So, here's a post by Ted Gossard about lacking nothing:

In the topsy-turvy existence in which we live, we hardly ever see ourselves not in need of something. Or what the world tells us we need through advertising, or even what the state requires by law. On top of that, we have our own expectations for ourselves, our wishes, even dreams.

Then there’s this psalm telling us that with the Lord as our shepherd, we indeed lack nothing. . . <more>

Do yourself a favor today; read the rest.

Read this. And weep.

I don't care which side of the political mess you are in, you need to read this: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/george-conway-trump-unfit-office/599128/

Sure, it's long, but read it without taking your presuppositions in (either side) and then make a decision.

Of course, I doubt that any will change their minds. Why do I think that? Because I started reading Ezekiel today, and I suspect that it pretty much describes the "court evangelicals" and the remaining 82% of white evangelicals who voted for the current ruler.

Read the first couple of chapters of Ezekiel, and maybe throw in a bit of Jeremiah, and then read this in Romans 2:24:

As it is written: The name of God is discredited by the Gentiles because of you. (quoting from Isa 52:5 LXX)

Revival? More like deep delusion. Remember, judgment begins in the house of God and the first step in revival is always repentance...

Those of you who are Dispensationalists, take a look at the current ruler and ask yourselves if maybe he doesn't fit the role you've given to far too many others. Then ask yourself why you are following him.

And while you're thinking, maybe take a look at a few of those scripture verses that talk about caring for others and dying to self. You don't need to become a "progressive" (whatever that's supposed to mean) to care for the downtrodden. On the contrary, the longest running revival that I'm aware of was the Wesleyan revival in the 18th century, which was all about caring for the physical as well as spiritual needs of the poor and downcast. It wasn't popular among the upper class—real Christianity rarely is, after all, who wants to die to self? Especially when that means giving up what you hold dear to you? Not without reason did Jesus say it is hard for the rich to enter the kingdom!

Reading the text as is

I regard this discrepancy between what YHWH would do and what Israel should do a typical characteristic of the mutuality of their relationship. Even though these differences may be explained by pointing to different textual sources, I see theological value in trying to understand them as saying something complementary about the relationship between God and his people.—The Unfavored, page 158 n. 40

<idle musing>
I like that. The whole "canonical approach" can be an excuse to not look at the back-history of the text, but so also the historical-critical approach can miss the theological nuggets hiding in plain sight in the received text. One or the other? No, both and.
</idle musing>

Read this!

Read the latest post by Roger Olson. You owe it to yourself and those you know. And if it doesn't scare you, as he says, you aren't paying attention.

Sound like anyone you know?

Furthermore, because Amalek assaulted the weakest of Israel, he is labeled in Deut 25:18 as one who “does not fear God.” According to Moberly, the phrase “fear of God” in the Old Testament signifies “moral restraint out of respect for God, a moral restraint specifically that refuses to take advantage of a weaker party when it would be possible to do so with apparent impunity.” This fundamental respect for life the Amalekites, at least according to Deut 25:17–19, did not embody. Moberly’s conclusion describes the logic of the ban well: “Its logic appears to be that the attack on defenseless people constitutes such a fundamental denial of God that those who do such things thereby deny their own humanity and so lay themselves open to a treatment not otherwise given to other human beings.” It was the malicious attack upon the most vulnerable of Israel that was behind Israel’s animosity towards Amalek and YHWH’s order of the ban in 1 Sam 15:32 They respected neither human conventions nor God, and therefore became liable to be subjected to this horrifying ordeal.—The Unfavored, page 156

<idle musing>
That sounds amazingly like the current policies of the United States, doesn't it?
</idle musing>

Word-play in Numbers 14?

In Num 14:39–45 the Israelites, despite Moses’s warning, go to Canaan and are attacked by the Amalekites and the Canaanites, who pursue them in battle as far as Hormah (Num 14:45). The last word of the chapter is ָחְרָמה with the definite article attached to it. It likely stands for a place, but given our present discussion, it is worth noting that it comes from the verbal root חרם. Is it possible that Israel was pursued, among others by Amalek, almost to destruction?—The Unfavored, pages 155–56 n. 26

Where are they now?

This piece by John Fea in the Washington Post is definitely worth reading. Here's a snippet of the last three paragraphs:

Like the Old Testament prophet Nathan who confronted King David for committing adultery with Bathsheba, Campolo and MacDonald entered the president’s “court” as pastors — Christian leaders charged with the task of calling out sin and facilitating spiritual healing.

It's hard to imagine something similar happening should Congress impeach Trump. The evangelical leaders he surrounds himself with are flatterers who are not likely to confront the president’s sin. They need Trump to continue to deliver on their agenda. I imagine most of them will affirm Trump’s belief that he has “done nothing wrong” and perhaps offer a lesson about the demonic forces seeking to undermine his presidency.

But even if the court evangelicals speak truth to power by confronting Trump for his failures of character, their words would probably fall on deaf ears. Unlike Clinton, who acknowledged his life was a mess and cried out for spiritual help, Trump, for all the lip service he pays to God, has denied any need of forgiveness in his life.

That says it all. And that's one of the main reasons I haven't called myself evangelical since the early 2000s.

Remember, judgment begins in the house of God. I don't often agree with Al Mohler (I think this is the second time), but he was right when he warned that judgment was coming on the evangelical movement because of hypocrisy (he was specifically addressing the case of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, but he also knew it ranged further than that.)

Listen to the voice of the words of YHWH...

In the Hebrew text Samuel says: “and now listen to the voice of the words of YHWH” (1 Sam 15:1).8 This seems to be a peculiar way of constructing the phrase, since the command “listen to the words of YHWH” would seem sufficient. The inclusion of “voice,” however, may be important in terms of evoking resonances later in the chapter, when Samuel hears the voice of sheep among the Israelites (15:14), when he accuses Saul of disobeying YHWH’s voice (15:22–23), and when Saul confesses that he yielded to the people’s voice (15:24). Furthermore, the catchwords “voice” (קוֺל [qôl]) and “listen/obey” (שׁמע [šm']) connect the instruction to destroy the Amalekites with the emphasis, prevalent in ch. 12, placed upon listening to God’s voice as a prerequisite for a successful monarchy under God (esp. 1 Sam 12:14–15). Israel and its leader should live in obedience to YHWH and his voice—a fundamental feature of Israel’s life, exemplified most concisely in the book of Deuteronomy (e.g. Deut 13:5; 15:4–5; 26:17),11 and seemingly finding its way also into the construal of Israel’s kingship in 1 Sam 15.—The Unfavored, pages 152–53

Whom do you trust?

OK, aside from God. You thought this was going to be a devotional post, didn't you? Well, since all truth is God's truth, in a way it is. But, I'm thinking more specifically about medical research reporting. In case you haven't noticed, a lot of it seems contradictory. One week you should eat lots of this or that, the next week eating too much of this or that will kill you! Whom do you trust?

There's a website called NutritionFacts.org that is not funded by the big Pharma companies or by big medicine; instead it is funded through donations. Check it out! And lest you think the media intentionally mislead you (as some high-raking political figures would have you think), read this post from today. Seems the problem begins a lot closer to the source—the researchers themselves and the sources of their funding. But ultimately, it's also what gets published. This final paragraph of the cited article sums it up:

I think the biggest problem with the way the media reports on medicine, though, is the choice of which stories are covered. In 2003, for instance, SARS and bioterrorism killed less than a dozen people, yet generated over a hundred thousand media reports, which is far more than those covering the actual greatest threats to our lives and health. In fact, ironically, “the more commonplace the cause of death, the less likely it is to be covered by the mass media.” Our leading killer is heart disease, yet it can be prevented, treated, and even reversed with diet and lifestyle changes—now that’s what should be front page news.

You will make a fool of yourself

The study of any language—Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Japanese, Taino—opens the mind, gives you a window onto another culture, and reminds you that there is a larger world out there and different ways of saying things, hearing things, seeing things. It always distresses me to hear someone say, “I’m no good at foreign languages,” or demand “English for me, dear.” In learning a foreign language, you have to humble yourself, admit your ignorance, be willing to look stupid. We learn a language by making mistakes. Or anyway I do.—Mary Norris, Greek to Me Adventures of the Comma Queen, 68

<idle musing>
I always told my students that I was going to make mistakes, just as they would. In some ways is was a game to see if they could catch my mistakes. More than once, they did. Learning in general, and languages especially, means you are going to make mistakes. Admit them, learn from them, and move on.
</idle musing>

The battle belongs to the LORD

The section 1 Sam 14:6–15 thus reveals Jonathan’s rationale for his courageous action and its outcome. He relies on YHWH, for whom the smallness and ill-equipped nature of Israel’s army presents no problem. Accompanied by his faithful armor-bearer, Jonathan devises a sign that assures him of God’s favor and as a result he attacks the Philistines. While Jonathan’s attack was a blow to the Philistine camp, the panic created by God is what provided the key difference in the ensuing battle.—The Unfavored, page 138

Nothing new under the sun

Indeed, rural abandonment has often been a serious and significant consequence of urban agglomeration throughout human history.… This decline in rural lifeways may have critically affected agricultural production, diminishing returns, placing further stress on an inflexible multitiered settlement system, which then ultimately collapsed under its own overmilitarized weight and a deteriorating natural environment.—Melissa Kennedy, "Horizons of Cultural Connectivity: North-South Interactions During the Early Bronze Age IV," in New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant, edited by Suzanne Richard (Eisenbrauns, forthcoming).

<idle musing>
Nope. It's not describing Rome, although it could be. And it's not describing the Hittite Empire, although it could be. And, it's not a prophecy about the United States, although it could be. It's describing the decline of urban life in the southern Levant in the Early Bronze Age—wich predates all of those by at least a thousand years.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. And those of us who do, are doomed to watch others repeat it while we watch on, trying vainly to warn others of their folly. No wonder Qohelet (the preacher in Ecclesiastes) said all is vanity. : (
</idle musing>

A Good Beginning

Saul is a suitable candidate for Israel’s throne not only from a human point of view, but he is also chosen by God. Samuel, having been instructed by YHWH, anoints Saul and sends him on a peculiar journey full of unusual signs—an excursion which also places the newly anointed leader under Samuel’s tutelage. These signs gradually locate Saul within the sphere of divine activity and in the end seem to transform him into a different kind of man (1 Sam 10:6, 9). The Spirit’s empowerment he experiences among a circle of prophets in 10:10–13 seems to be a foretaste of his Spirit-prompted action in ch. 11, where he rescues the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead from their Ammonite oppressors (11:6).—The Unfavored, page 120

Is this the one?

Saul’s name (שָאוּל [šāʾûl) means “asked for,” which may immediately raise the reader’s expectation that Saul could be the person for whom the elders had asked in 1 Sam 8:10, in terms of their plea for a king. The verb also occurs seven times in chs. 1 and 2, during the episode in which the barren Hannah asks for a child—then receives, and later gives up again, Samuel (1:17 [×2], 20, 27, 28 [×2]; 2:20).—The Unfavored, page 120 n. 5

Conditional chosenness

There are a number of parallels between the rejection of the Elides in 1 Sam 2–3 and Saul’s rejection in 1 Sam 13–15. Both Saul’s and Eli’s family are initially chosen, yet they are rejected by YHWH through the prophetic word because of an issue involving sacrifice. Their rejection is final, which in turn brings severe consequences for both their families and Israel as a whole. Simultaneously, a person better suited for the task is appointed in their place.—The Unfavored, page 117 n. 4

<idle musing>
Reminds me of Rev 2:5:

5 So remember the high point from which you have fallen. Change your hearts and lives and do the things you did at first. If you don’t, I’m coming to you. I will move your lampstand from its place if you don’t change your hearts and lives.

</idle musing>

The evolving nature of being chosen

Unchosenness, at least when it occurs within the elect group, may be dynamic rather than static, and the Joseph story, with the rivalry between these two brothers pointing beyond its horizon, may testify to this dynamic, unseen elsewhere in the Genesis material. As far as the Joseph story is concerned, Joseph does not lose his favored status, yet Judah seems to achieve a place that goes well beyond his unfavored position at the beginning of the narrative, which is later actualized in the stories of Judah’s descendants. If the topic of election in the closing chapters of Genesis also revolves around the notion of kingship, then the situation in subsequent Old Testament narratives changes even more. Although Gen 48 may suggest that the future monarch will be an Ephraimite, Israel’s most enduring dynasty will come from Judah.—The Unfavored, page 114

Thought for the day

²⁷ Like a cage full of birds,

so their houses are full of loot.

No wonder they are rich and powerful

²⁸ and have grown fat and sleek!

To be sure, their evil deeds

exceed all limits,

and yet they prosper.

They are indifferent

to the plight of the orphan,

reluctant to defend the rights of the poor.

²⁹ Shouldn’t I punish such acts?

declares the LORD.

Shouldn’t I repay that nation

for its deeds?

³⁰ An awful, a terrible thing

has happened in the land:

³¹ The prophets prophesy falsely,

the priests rule at their sides,^u

and my people love it this way!

But what will you do when the end comes? (Jer 5:27–31 CEB)

<idle musing>
Sure sounds like the rich and powerful of the US today, doesn't it?

Let those who have ears to hear, hear and repent of their ways!
</idle musing>

Beyond explanation

Perhaps it must be that a story [the Joseph cycle] containing such a rich texture of themes associated with the idea of chosenness will also include elements that remain unexplained, and thus will continue to provoke one’s understanding and imagination. The nature of election itself defies rationalization. If one could find satisfying reasons for God’s choice in a person’s motives, words, or deeds, the choice would perhaps cease to be divine. The tendency to rationalize and to find possible reasons for chosenness is understandable, but it must be complemented, or perhaps preceded, by an acknowledgment that God’s reasons for his choices may remain beyond human reach.—The Unfavored, pages 109–10

We're just as religious as ever, maybe more so...

Here's a long read on the increase of the number of women exploring the possibility of becoming Catholic nuns, or so the title says. Actually it's as much about the increase of angst among the younger generation as it is about anything else. What I found fascinating is the acknowledgment that there's something we're missing as a culture as we grab for everything. Here's a snippet, but set aside the time to read it all and ponder what it means for the church:

America started with a religious narrative—the city on a hill—and once you conceive of it, still, as a society grasping for religion, you see it everywhere. The free-floating moral rage, which affixes itself to targets like cucks or Aziz Ansari or libtards or MAGA bigots. The conviction, in the way we now talk about the climate or the loss of our “values,” that the world will inevitably be ruined because of our sins. Things like Goop and the gluten-free movement are basically straight-up religions, promising spiritual renewal and healing from all sickness, only with a jade yoni egg as the Eucharist. We’re fixated on minimalism and self-purification, be it by the methods of Marie Kondo or “inbox zero” or Jordan Peterson, whose popularity rests less on his insights about Carl Jung or lobster biology than on his idea that life can be boiled down to 12 rules—commandments.

Remember when?

The most controversial thing a president did was reveal his reading list? OK, I'm being a bit ironic, but it always was fun to see what he was reading. Anyway, the former president has revealed his summer reading list. You can see it here. I have to confess that I've never read any of them. But I'm sure they're good. And it's alway's fun to see what people are reading. Me, I'm buried in editing books and haven't had a chance to read much else this summer. Every summer I swear I won't take on so many projects—and every summer too many tantalizing projects get offered to me. How can I say no?

This looks like an interesting book

Just saw a review of Shadows of Doubt: Stereotypes, Crime, and the Pursuit of Justice on Crooked Timers. Here's how the review begins

America is very good at some things and very bad at others. We produce a steady flow of scientific, cultural, and engineering successes—in the past five years we can lay claim to a drug that cures hepatitis C, Hamilton: The Musical, and self-driving cars. And yet, we perform just this side of miserable at addressing core social and economic challenges. We are among the world’s leaders in income inequality, obesity rates, drug overdose deaths, and per capita greenhouse gas emissions. And, we rank first, that is worst, in the proportion of citizens in jail at about seven people per thousand. Even more troubling, blacks are six times as likely as whites to be behind bars.

Why is this so? And what is to be done? In their exceptional book, Shadows of Doubt: Stereotypes, Crime, and the Pursuit of Justice, economists Brendan O’ Flaherty and Rajiv Sethi examine our troubled, racist criminal justice system with depth, maturity, pragmatism, and focus.

Sounds interesting, doesn't it? The review gets into more detail; go read it and then read the book! And then, hopefully, change your paradigms. . .

An archaeological tidbit

Since most people are right-handed with shields held by the left hand, making a right-hand turn into the city from the central gate axis created an initial contact moment in which the nonshielded side of the body was exposed.—Steven Collins, footnote in ch. 15 in New Horizons in the Study of the Early Bronze III and Early Bronze IV of the Levant, edited by Suzanne Richard, Eisenbrauns, forthcoming.

Learning from his mistakes

When one attempts to envisage the influence of [Genesis] ch. 38 on the rest of the Joseph story, this subplot may be viewed as having a bearing upon the situation endangering Benjamin in chs. 43–45. It is possible that Judah’s emphasis on the continuation of Israel’s family line and his understanding that the life of the youngest might need to be risked in order to ensure the future (Gen 43:8) might be seen as stemming from Judah’s own experience in ch. 38. His willingness to be a surety for Benjamin (Gen 43:9) may further show that he wanted to prevent a similar scenario happening again.—The Unfavored, page 75

Wrong priorities are nothing new

Judah seems to care more about his reputation within the Cannanite culture where he lives, than about the continuation of his clan, which at this point is in the immediate danger. Judah’s lax attitude towards his own family and his preoccupation with his good reputation thus stand in contrast to the unconventional action of Tamar, who risked her own reputation in order to acquire a son who would carry on Judah’s family line.—The Unfavored, pages 72–73

thought for the day

“Rest is not idleness, and to lie sometimes on the grass under trees on a summer’s day, listening to the murmur of the water, or watching the clouds float across the sky, is by no means a waste of time.”—John Lubbock, The Use Of Life (1894) (from the Gorgias July newsletter)

A word to the wise

Is. 10:1    Doom to those

who pronounce wicked decrees,

and keep writing harmful laws

² to deprive the needy of their rights

and to rob the poor among my people

of justice;

to make widows their loot;

to steal from orphans!

³ What will you do

on the day of punishment

when disaster comes from far away?

To whom will you flee for help;

where will you stash your wealth?

⁴ How will you avoid

crouching among the prisoners

and falling among the slain?

Even so, God’s anger

hasn’t turned away;

God’s hand is still extended. (CEB)

<idle musing>
Let those who have ears understand!
</idle musing>

Thought for the day

Is. 5:20    Doom to those who call evil good

and good evil,

who present darkness as light

and light as darkness,

who make bitterness sweet

and sweetness bitter.

Is. 5:21    Doom to those

who consider themselves wise,

who think of themselves as clever.

Is. 5:22    Doom to the wine-swigging warriors,

mighty at mixing drinks,

²³ who spare the guilty for bribes,

and rob the innocent of their rights.

²⁴ Therefore, as a tongue of fire

devours stubble,

and as hay shrivels in a flame,

so their roots will rot,

and their blossoms turn to dust,

for they have rejected the teaching of

the LORD of heavenly forces,

and have despised the word

of Israel’s holy one. (Common English Bible)

So many books—but that's a good thing

Ran across this quotation from Dr. Ruth J. Simmons, president Prairie View A&M University in Texas and a comparative literature scholar today in Shelf Awareness:

I'm much less convinced than many others that there is a prescriptive list of books that you must read. I'm more convinced that it is the reading widely that matters more than anything else. . . . I know a lot of people today like to do things on the fly. You can't read on the fly, thank goodness, right? Because forced meditation is probably a good thing. . . . The busyness does not make our lives meaningful. It is the interior life that makes the greatest difference to us in the end.

Steps to reconciliation

Yet Joseph does not accept their [his brothers'] servantship, refusing to exercise dominion over them. He sees himself as subservient to God (Gen 50:19), and his power not as a means to rule over his siblings but as God’s way of providing for them in a time of crisis. He is able to perceive God’s hand even in his brothers’ merciless act towards him, an act which eventually resulted in much good for many (50:20). He does not speak harshly to his brothers any more (42:7) but reassures and comforts them (50:21), which further rectifies the hostile relationship which began in 37:4.—The Unfavored, page 62

Submission?

Joseph’s journey through Potiphar’s house, the prison, and the Egyptian court have demonstrated that the favored one needs to learn a certain sort of submission in order to be blessed. The actions of the mature Joseph appear to fulfill the dreams in a way that is life-giving, because they respect the authorities given into his life.—The Unfavored, page 56

Unchosen, but favored?

The story never explains why Judah succeeds and Reuben does not, but Gen 43 shows that Judah focuses on saving the life of Israel’s children, and acts with both responsibility and urgency. When he and his brothers go to Egypt the second time, Jacob’s family is close to death. Surprisingly, it is the unchosen Judah who alters the family’s future and brings life out of death, precisely because he is willing to risk his own life. He values the bond between Jacob and his beloved Benjamin, and hence offers himself in substitution for the brother more loved than himself. In addition to this, Judah’s wise and persuasive words show Joseph that he is, in effect, now doing the very same thing his brothers did to him. Joseph might have brought his father down to Sheol in sorrow by his plan to enslave Benjamin. Judah’s speech thus prompted Joseph to reveal himself to his brothers and moved the whole family towards reconciliation. Judah represents a kind of climax in the line of unchosen brothers in the book of Genesis. He is instrumental in effecting a fuller reconciliation than that which occurred between Esau and Jacob, and accomplishes something that Cain failed to do—be his brother’s keeper (4:9).—The Unfavored, pages 46–47

Showing emotion

Joseph’s willingness to weep in front of the members of his family continues throughout the narrative (45:14; 46:29; 50:1, 17) and thus seems to play an important role in the reconciliation of the brothers. Ebach, for example, suggests that Joseph’s self-control is connected with his control over his brothers. If this is the case, then it is possible that a capacity to come to terms with emotions connected to the past pain seems to be a significant element in one’s ability to cope with previous hurts. Joseph is defenseless and more vulnerable, which seems to feature positively in his dealing with those who have previously harmed him.—The Unfavored, pages 44–45

Daddy's favorite

Judah has somehow learned that protecting this special relationship between father and the chosen son is to the benefit of the whole family. The attempt to get rid of the favored one did not help the situation, as none of the unfavored brothers was elevated to this privileged position, and so now Judah is ready to accept his unfavored status and do whatever he can to save the chosen son and thus also protect the father.—The Unfavored, page 43