. . . has been posted at Chasing the Wind. Why B2? Because Michael presented the number in various formats, and I chose that one. Nice break from Roman numerals, eh?
There’s a good deal of material here I’d like to read and comment on. I wonder how much I’ll get to?
The following from YouTube illustrates why I simply don’t trust politicians for anything. There being a perceived imbalance in talk radio in favor of conservatives, to which I say “Who cares?”, a number of liberals are now calling for government control, obviously because we all know that the government is always fair in the way it handles information.
Here’s Sen. John Kerry:
Sorry, no points for you Senator. It’s still free speech, even when people say things you don’t like. It’s still free speech, even when people pay for speech you don’t like. Get over it!
I join with Laura in welcoming Discovering the Heart of God as a new Philophronos Blogroll member. Go check out his blog.
I’m going to link to a specific post from the Pacesetters Bible School Newsletter to which I’m the primary contributor.
Fellow philophronos blogger Laura has made a number of excellent points in a post titled Great Moments in Conservative Hypocrisy. Now I’m not linking back so I can crow and say, “See! Those conservatives were hypocrites all along, and finally one of them is recognizing it!”
First, I would have to note that I can’t bring up a case of Laura herself being hypocritical about any of these issues. That aside, however, I can mirror image most of her points. Let me just note one on abortion and one on free speech. I believe abortion should be legal. But others who would agree with me on that point tried for years to use the RICO laws (note libertarian Ed Brayton’s comments) against those who opposed abortion. It was an illegal trick to prevent legal protest. I don’t want to take the time to mirror every one, but I’m pretty sure I could. Many liberals are strongly in support of free speech when pornography is involved, but not so happy with it when hate speech is involved. (Let me note that I support free speech in all cases short of incitement.)
In addition, there is the matter of procedural issues. For example, partisans on both sides are much more favorable to the electoral college (it’s the law!) when their party will benefit from an electoral college with combined with a popular loss, but they don’t like it when their candidate loses (it’s unfair!). Thorough senate review of judicial candidates is good when the other side is nominating, but the senate should only consider qualifications when your own side is monitoring. This has been repeatedly demonstrated by both conservatives and liberals, resulting, I believe, in a number of mediocre choices, folks whose decision and publication record was minimal, and thus provided less of a target during confirmation hearings.
So Laura’s point is well aimed, but I want to help aim it at both sides of the aisle. We need to be consistent on all of this.
These notes accompany my podast Children and Divine Priorities.
13And they brought him children so that he might touch them. But the disciples rebuked them.
Notice again that the disciples are not on the same agenda as Jesus is. They haven’t gotten kingdom principles. To Jesus children are important both in themselves—they receive the kingdom with the right spirit—but they are also important as an example to others. His disciples could learn from children. But instead they turn them away.
There is a common picture in people’s minds about this incident with the children. First, we see it as singular. Some children, once or twice, make it in to have Jesus bless them. It’s a nice little “bless you, bless you” kind of scenario, sort of like a politician kissing babies. But I think that children were attracted to Jesus and that this was a constant sort of scene. Jesus enjoyed talking with them, listening to them, and pointing to them as examples.
This beautiful little episode, expressing an attitude so unlike the academic rabbinical attitude toward women and children, and yet so characteristically Jewish, can scarcely have been invented. — IB Exegesis on Mark 10:13-16
14But when Jesus saw what had happened he was indignant and said to them, “Let the children come to me, don’t prevent them, for the kingdom of God is made up of this sort of people!”
Back in Mark 9:42 Jesus has warned against being a stumbling block. Just as the disciples didn’t “get it” about the crucifixion, so they didn’t get it about not putting a stumbling block in front of other people. The children referred to in these two passages can include both those young in the faith and those young in years. What happens when we get up on our eminence based on years of experience or years of education and turn away those who lack the majesty of our own position in the church?
We need to be prepared to learn from children and youth. I have had frequent conversations with people about church services and why the young people or children don’t like them, and have to be forced to attend. Once they get old enough to resist, they no longer go. Why? Well, don’t ask me! Ask the children and young people. What would you like to do on Sunday morning that would truly excite you? Now you’re going to get answers that you can’t use, but you’ll also get many sincere answers that you can.
What do you do if the adults are offended by what is done in order to work with the youth? Good question. What did Jesus do? He was angry with those who turned the children away, but he received the children.
This matter of the indignations of Jesus throws a clear light on his spiritual greatness. He never showed indignation over personal affronts. All through the scourging and crucifixion “opened he not his mouth.” The only reference he made to his executioners was, “Father, forgive them.” It is a humbling experience to compare his indignations with our own. What most quickly rouses ours as a rule is some injury done us, real or fancied, some slight, some rejection. Then we blaze like a freshly lighted fire. While many of us continue to look out on evils that engulf vast numbers, or on injustices that cry to the skies, with undisturbed equanimity. — IB Exposition on Mark 10:14
15I tell you truly, whoever doesn’t receive the kingdom of God as a child will never enter into it.”
Jesus could never resist the opportunity to provide a lesson. Here he repeats his lesson from Mark 9:37.
16And he called the children, placed his hands on them, and blessed them.
Jesus suits actions to his words. He takes the children in and blesses them.
— Mark 10:13-16
For your convenience, here again are the key references I’m using:
Barclay, William. The Gospel of Mark (Daily Study Bible). Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1956.
Bock, Darrell L. Jesus According to Scripture. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002.
Keener, Craig S. The IVP Bible Background Commentary. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Via Logos Bible Software.
Wesley, John. John Wesley’s Commentary, from eSword.
Wuest, Kenneth S. Mark in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1950.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV)
The Learning Bible (CEV)
The Oxford Study Bible (REB)
UBS Greek New Testament, 4th Edition
The Evangelical Ecologist has an excellent post titled Closing Credibility Gaps. I think that I’m in a good position to underline his post, as a member of a congregation of the United Methodist Church, one of those declining mainline denominations. Just so the error seekers know that I saw it, I will quibble slightly over the use of an example statement from the Anglican Church (UK) followed by an example of decline from the Episcopal Church (USA). The Anglican church does indeed have its share of problems, but it is a beast of a different color from the Episcopal Church. They fall under a larger umbrella together in the Anglican communion, but that doesn’t make them of the same denomination. Nonetheless, I don’t think that vitiates the overall point of the essay.
I commented tangentially on this issue, though not in direct relation to ecology, in my post Christian Essentials: Incarnation at the Center:
Christianity cant retreat into being simply a system of ethics. It involves ethics, but it also involves redemption and empowering, the means of creating ethical people by redemption, but even more the means of bringing people into touch with God.
I could rephrase that as Christianity cannot retreat into being a system of politics, or of science, or of any similar thing. Whatever positions we may take as Christians on anything at all, it has to start with being Christian. Why is this so?
Christianity takes a good deal of work. Even if you drop most of the doctrines, take away the servant leadership and the discipleship, and make it essentially a social club, you still have to maintain the club house (the church), pay the leadership and staff, and people have to go to meetings. Now if the church is merely a social club, why wouldn’t one find a cheaper way to accomplish those goals. I guarantee you that church architecture is not the most economical way out there to construct a clubhouse.
Now if you’ve been a member of the club all your life, you may feel inclined to remain a member. But what about new people? If your selling points on your church are entirely made up of political and social goals, why should somebody join the church? What you’re telling the potential new member, or the person you are trying to keep as a member is this: “Come join our social and political movement. We cost more, we’re less effective, but we have the traditional label ‘Christian’.”
I believe this has been the major failing of Christian liberals. We (I’m called liberal often enough to use an inclusive “we”) have kept all the social goals, but in order not to put anyone off, we have been afraid to pursue any sort of spiritual or doctrinal standard whatsoever. I commented in an earlier post that when I first decided to join a United Methodist congregation I checked out two different ones. In the first one the pastor kind of chuckled at my interest in the church’s doctrinal positions and said, “We don’t really worry that much about what you believe. If you enjoy fellowship with us, you can join.” The other pastor asked me about my experience and relationship with Jesus. I joined the second.
Being inclusive can eliminate the barriers to people entering the congregation but at the same time it can remove all identity from that congregation and thus any positive reason to join.
The Evangelical Ecologist is absolutely right. We can talk and talk about this as churches, but why is it that anyone should listen? Are our councils of clergy more knowledgeable about climate change than various scientific groups? Do we have some extraordinary expertise in administration so as to help implement all this legislation? If you’ve participated in church councils, I suspect you already know we have neither of those elements. What the church could have, and should have is the moral impetus to challenge and empower people to implement change. But that moral impetus can only come from conviction that is part of an active spiritual life.
Though I believe there are particular doctrines that are better than others, I don’t think the primary problem of mainline denominations is that we believe the wrong things on specific doctrines. It is that we don’t, as denominations, believe anything at all enough to care about it. As Christians I believe the incarnation should be at the center of all we do, but that doctrine has to be a living thing in our lives so that we cannot imagine being without it. It has implications in our lives (“Christ in you, the hope of glory” – Colossians 1:27), and those implications must be important.
If we don’t have Christ at the center, then we are simply another social service organization, with a bunch of excess religious baggage to make us less efficient. Why should people get on board?
The place of Christianity in this kind of social activity is redemptive, empowering, life-giving, and motivating, a body filled with the breath of the Holy Spirit, ready to act. That must be the case for Christianity to have a great impact. Personally I haven’t tried to take a position on global warming as such, because I don’t know the science well enough to defend any position I take. But I do know that there are good things that I can do, things that make sense whether global warming or global cooling is correct.
In doing those things, “the love of Christ urges me on” because I am called to live a life empowered by the incarnation, guided by the two laws, one of which is love for my neighbor.
For those who do not read scholarly works it may seem strange to feel bereaved when someone whom you have never actually met dies. I discovered via Levellers that Dr. Brevard S. Childs has passed away. He will be missed in Biblical scholarship, and though I never met him, I am deeply sorry that he will no longer be on the scene.
I encountered his writing first in his wonderful commentary on Exodus, and then in his even more enlightening commentary on Isaiah, both in the Old Testament Library. He manages to bring a balance to Biblical criticism that allows one to enjoy discovering some of the history of the text, but yet leaves one able to wrestle with the canonical form. He wrote with a great interest not just in the historical understanding of each text, but also in how those words had echoed through the communities that read them and passed them on.
I cannot be more personal, as I only knew him through his work, but the depth, breadth, and balance of his scholarship has been a breath of fresh air in my reading.
R.I.P. Dr. Brevard Childs, 1923-2007. (See the obituary at Yale Divinity School.)
The blog of Florida Citizens for Science (of which I am a board member) is reporting that “Dr. Cheri Pierson Yecke, K-12 chancellor for Floridas Department of Education, has apparently hired a company called ReputationDefender to search the Internet for information about her and, on her behalf, challenge items she disputes.”
You can find more on the particular item in dispute here. Dr. Wesley Elsberry, who originally posted the information, continues to look for confirmation, and in the meantime has posted a note immediately following the quotation, indicating this information is disputed. That seems to be a very responsible way to handle the information.
What is the importance of this issue? As a public official, Dr. Cheri Yecke should be held accountable for her statements about public policy. If a correct quote is disputed, that is a significant matter for such a person. On the other hand, if this quote were proven to be incorrect, it is important that the record be corrected and indicate Dr. Yecke’s actual position and record.
My own position is that consensus science should be taught in the public school classroom, and the scientific consensus is that the theory of evolution is well confirmed.
This working translation and notes expand on the presentation in my Bible Pacesetter Podcast titled The Question of Divorce.
1And he left there and arrived in the region across the Jordan from Judea, and again a crowd came to him, and as it was his custom, he taught them again.
Jesus is continuing his trip toward Jerusalem and death. The rest of Mark is focused on the coming sacrifice. On the way, however, challenges continue.
2And the Pharisees were approaching him and asking him if it was legal for a man to divorce his wife. They were testing him.
This episode is a challenge to Jesus’ attitude toward the law, rather than a question intended to honestly discover information about God’s attitude to divorce.
There was, however, a very real question about divorce in the culture, with the followers of Shammai holding a strict interpretation of divorce and allowing it only in the case of adultery, while the followers of Hillel allow divorce for almost any reason. I’m usually in sympathy with Hillel, but in this case, Shammai seems to me to have gotten the divine intention just a bit better.
3But he answered them, “What did Moses command you?” 4So they said, “Moses permitted us to write a divorce paper and to divorce.”
Like good Christians of today, the questioners are ready with a scripture that supports their position. Many a Bible student has latched onto a less clear scripture and pounded his Bible, refusing to consider any other option. The Pharisees were right—in that sense. They had their scripture, and if that one scripture was the sole basis on which a decision should be made, they had their case. That was, of course, precisely what they assumed.
Their scripture, in this case, is Deuteronomy 24:1-4. The certificate of divorce was very important. This was a merciful provision (IB on Mark 10:1-12). A woman who was not a virgin needed to be able to prove that her reasons for not being a virgin were legitimate. A woman sent away without any evidence was completely at the mercy of anyone.
This whole topic cries out to be treated as a trajectory. Start with a situation in which divorce was solely the province of the man, who could send his wife away merely verbally, leaving her with nothing. The provision of Moses was that a certificate was required. Jewish tradition expanded on that and provided more rules that made it harder for the man to be arbitrary. Christian tradition has typically been a bit confused on the issue.
Jesus suggests where we find the ideal to pursue—Genesis 1 & 20—in the spiritual union that God intended. This passion of the two sexes for one another is God’s best metaphor for his passion for seeking us. If you don’t believe me, just read any Andrew Greeley novel. Greeley has an incredible capability for expressing the gospel in the form of fiction, and has a thoroughly Biblical view of the relationship of human sexuality to salvation.
So the trajectory in this case would run from no stability in sexual relations, through the rules and documents specifying how one gets out, to the near forbidding of divorce, to an ideal in which a “husband loves his wife as Christ loved the church” (Ephesians 5:25-26). Our focus should be on creating and preserving marriage bonds that live up to the “one flesh” ideal.
5But Jesus said to them, “He wrote you that commandment because of your hardness of heart. 6But from the beginning of creation male and female he created them. 7Because of this a man will leave his father and mother and will be joined to his wife, 8and the two will become one flesh, so that they are no longer two but one flesh. 9So what God has joined together nobody should separate.”
Jesus also turns to the scriptures—a different one in this case. He does what we should do much more often in dealing with issues of sexual morality. He looks for the ideal. That ideal is expressed, as Jesus tells his questioners, in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. The first tells us that God created one humanity, who are male and female. Genesis 2:24 tells us that the two combine to become “one flesh.”
Now it is physically impossible for the two to actually become one body, but God intends the spiritual union, the combination of their two lives, emotions, and desires into one to be so complete that from the outside they look like one person. In this case I have a quibble with Darrell Bock (p. 299), who notes that “Jesus sought to shift the issue from what will allow one to get out of a marriage to an emphasis on staying in it” and also “the most important point: marriage is designed to be permanent.”
Jesus is definitely intending such a shift of emphasis, but I think his point here, based on the scriptures he uses, is that the union is to be so complete and divinely ordained and accomplished, that permanence is the only imaginable goal. In other words, the emphasis is on the nature of the bond; the permanence is derived from that.
10Now when they were in the house again his disciples were questioning him about this. 11He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery with her, 12and if she, having divorced her husband, marries another, she commits adultery.”
The explanation Jesus gives his disciples simply applies the principle he gave his questioners. The one who creates a split in the sacred bond is the one who is responsible.
And here is where I think it is extremely easy to misapply this passage. First, Jesus does not attempt here to provide a complete discussion of marriage and divorce. He answers a question and deals with the controversy. At the same time he provides a number of pointers to how questions should be answered. The incompleteness of his answer might be noted by comparing this passage to Matthew 5:32, in which an exception is provided.
But if we look at the sacredness of the bond in question, the two becoming one flesh, what can possibly break that bond? In modern times there have been many cases, for example, in which a woman has been instructed to remain in a marriage with a physically abusive husband in order to preserve the sacredness of the bond. But what precisely is the sacred bond she is preserving? Surely the husband is not behaving as “one flesh” with the wife he is beating.
This is, in my view, a case of applying the facts of one case to another without discovering the principles behind it. If a wife could demonstrate that her husband had committed adultery by having sexual relations with another woman, the church would have recourse to act against him as a matter of church disciple. If the woman instead shows that her husband is beating her, what should the reaction of the church be? I would suggest it should be at least every bit as strong as the church’s reaction to the husband who has committed adultery. That man is committing an offense against he divine institution of marriage and has broken his marriage covenant as much as the man who commits adultery. Of course, the same principle would apply were the sexes of the partners involved reversed.
Jesus points us to the ideal, an ideal we should aim to carry out in our lives. But that ideal is violated both by actions that terminate the marriage covenant in effect, and by actions that terminate it in public. We are more concerned with the public ending of the marriage bond, with people knowing that it has happened. We need to be just as concerned that a marriage has ended even when it is only privately known.
Note: See this entry for a list of works commonly cited in these notes.
We interrupt the usual flow of commentary on this blog for something both baseball and personal . . .
My stepson John Webb is pitcher of the week for the PCL, according to this MiLB.com story. John allowed only three hits in 8 shutout innings while earning the win against the then-division leading Nashville Sounds.
He’s pitching again tonight for the Iowa Cubs against the Albuquerque Isotopes tonight at 7:00 PM.
