Liberty is wrong

Today's InsideHigherEd.com has a story about Liberty University, which has "withdrawn recognition from its Democratic club," primarily, it sounds like, because of the Democratic Party's stance on abortion and gay marriage. [Liberty has an op-ed response to media coverage of the issue here; I didn't notice any significant discrepancy between Liberty's own account of the events and the piece from InsiderHigherEd.]

Political issues are notoriously complicated, not least moral political issues such as abortion and gay marriage. I often get the impression online and in the media that there is no basis on which a person can legitimately be opposed to gay marriage. Just the belief that marriage ought to be between one man and one woman is labelled "controversial" (for example, the seemingly endless and never-newsworthy saga of Carrie Prejean) even when serious efforts are made to balance one's commitment to traditional values with a belief that all persons deserve respect. Personally, as one with an admittedly conservative political perspective, I am no longer surprised by the vitriol and condemnation that both sides' extremities hurl at one another. But it does amaze me that hatred from one side is covered in the press and hatred from the other is largely ignored. (For example, has this received any national coverage [warning: video contains explicit language] amidst all the declarations of Prejean's affirmation of a traditional view of marriage as "controversial"?)

The political problems facing American society today aren't rooted in either political party, and neither are the solutions. I support Republican candidates more often than I do Democratic ones, but that's like saying I prefer broccoli to kale. I do, but I can't stand either. Liberty University has foolishly given support to the notion that the Republican Party is rooted in traditional Christian values and that evangelical Christians can only support Republican causes in today's political climate. That's a mistake, and traditional Christian moral visions for our society will only suffer and be corrupted and distorted by too close an alignment with either political party.

I don't think any student group—including the Democratic student group—has a right to Liberty's name or their money. And no one, as far as I can tell, is terribly upset that Liberty doesn't have a sanctioned Communist student group [I'm assuming here; if they do please let me know!]. But the prudent course, I would have thought, would have been to officially treat the Republican and Democratic student groups identically, even if faculty and administrators personally feel more closely aligned with the former. The problem, in the end, isn't the treatment of either Republican or Democratic student groups; the problem is the identification of and confusion between biblical and political agenda.

what's wrong with America

In an earlier post I suggested that we increase elected officials' pay if they pledge not to actually do anything that affects our lives. This week (and it's only Monday!) the semi-permanent residents of the District of Columbia have offered hints that they're willing to do this for free. The current fear-mongering regarding the $700B bailout boggles the mind; I wouldn't be surprised to read in tomorrow's paper that the incidence of miscarriage among pregnant women (the demographic most in danger of suffering miscarriages, by the way) has skyrocketed in light of the House's failure to pass the Bailout Bill. I, of course, have no idea (and no way of having an idea) how serious the problem will be in the absence of massive government action, but I can't help but feel manipulated in light of the all the . . . well, fear-mongering (to repeat a phrase).

What is even more depressing is the way the Democrats have blamed the Republican leadership (I can barely type the phrase) for failing to strong-arm the twelve votes by which today's bill failed, while the Republicans have bravely laid the blame on a partisan speech (a speech!) by HM Pelosi. McCain and Obama, for fear of being pushed off the front pages, have likewise blamed each other and each other's party for today's non-events and the DOW's response. Apparently, we've had eight years (not ten, not six, but eight; 2000 was, if we remember it correctly, the zenith of American — nay, of human, culture) of a right-wing government screwing the ordinary person. Either that, or we have a slender majority of Legislative politicians only interested in partisan bickering. It depends on who you believe. (NB, it does not depend on any demonstrable and rational argumentation.)

Every politician, whether of the Rs or the Ds, has failed to recognize, however, that they are the problem. Not the D behind their name; neither the R. It is they. All of them. The problem isn't "the failed policies of the last eight years" (that cliché needs to be retired!); neither is it do-nothing Congress that, paradoxically, is both less popular than W and simultaneously poised to become more of what it already is come November. Rather, the problem is the utter and complete lack of leadership within the I-495 Beltway. There simply is no leadership in Washington, and by definition that leadership lacks both a D and an R.

That, I think, goes some way toward explaining the Palin phenomenon. I've watched with interest as April DeConick has vented her frustration (rage?) at both Palin and those who are energized by her presence in the race. DeConick, of course, has a number of legitimate concerns about Palin, and her expression of those concerns is in no way unique or unusual. But I'm not convinced that Palin is as popular as she is simply because men find her physically appealing or because conservative Republicans are stupid. Of course, neither am I convinced when she says Republicans

have nothing except their own self-interests at heart. They are using Palin to present themselves as a party for Every(wo)man, when in fact, they are a party dominated by a white male elites who are more concerned about making quick money (and getting bailed out) at our expense and our children's expense and their children's expense.

This is the same kind of partisan rhetorical excess of which both parties are guilty and which has no value except for being excessively partisan and rhetorical.

Rather, I think Palin has energized the Republican base because she taps into the general ethos throughout the country that beltway insiders — and not whether they have an R or a D after their names — are themselves the problem. Neither Obama nor Biden, and not even McCain, tap into this ethos as convincingly as the governor from almost-Russia. Palin is as far away from "inside Washington politics" as you can get, whether geographically or ideologically (which is to accede the point that she doesn't know what every other presidential and vice-presidential candidate knows). Of course, being from Alaska, she does have a unique vantage point vis-à-vis the energy debate we need to have. But I think she could accidentally call the British PM "Gordon Blair" and a significant portion of the country wouldn't care. She's not an insider. That might make her look uninformed, but it also makes her uninvested in the status quo. Obama's original appeal, by no means disappeared but certainly diminished (at least from last spring), was the appeal of an outsider, but his tit-for-tat campaigning against McCain, and especially his choice of insider-extraordinaire Joe Biden, has left Palin the sole candidate campaigning for office space at 1600 Pennsylvania with substantial NKOTB appeal.

Palin clearly isn't ready to be POTUS, and I can understand why many people worry about her being a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. But it seems to me that Obama is just like Palin, only without the heartbeat's breadth of insulation. The primary difference between Obama and Palin (apart from policy perspectives, of course)? Both have been enrolled in intensive tutorials on domestic and international politics since the summer, but Obama is a Sophomore, while Palin is still a Freshman. Oh . . . and Obama is at the top of the D-ticket. In the meantime neither Obama[-Biden] nor [McCain-]Palin are "what's wrong with America." Rather, it's the irrepressible partisan rankling that has distracted politicians of both parties that they serve the people of the USofA rather than their party membership.

UPDATE: Chris Brady makes available this voicemail from Obama's campaign. This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about, above. Of course, McCain's campaign hasn't eschewed flinging mud of its own, though to be honest this voicemail surpasses anything I've seen that comes directly from either campaign.

too little, too late for Edwards

Today's Daily News reports that former Senator and one-time media darling John Edwards (oh . . . and he also ran for POTUS) is busily making phone calls to former supporters begging forgiveness and expressing regret for his affair with staffer Reille Hunter. Edwards, apparently, is not offering excuses or explanations; he's only expressing regret:

One source who compared notes with other former colleagues said Edwards makes no attempt to justify or rationalize his behavior in these desperate phone conversations. He simply expresses his regret for deceiving them and asks for their understanding and forgiveness.

Apparently, however, his regret does not strike one-time supporters as sincere, or at least not sincere enough:

Many think he's still not telling the truth.

"As painful as it will be for him, he needs to come clean," one of them said. "There's an overwhelming view that he's still lying."

The sad truth is that Edwards has fallen victim to the common human condition: Ever the idealist (whether honestly or merely for political leverage), Edwards could not avoid the cold, hard reality of human fallenness. Theologians identify "sin" as inherent in the human animal. Maybe; I'm not so sure. Regardless, sin is pervasive. Perhaps that's why the Daily News piece saddened me. Edwards deserves every bit of shame and scorn he receives. But so do those heaping the shame and scorn. While we're at it, so do I.

I sympathize with his former supporters: They saw in him a hope for the future, regardless of what the rest of us saw, and now they feel betrayed and humiliated. Of course, the real victim in all of this is the hapless Mrs. Edwards. Well beyond being publicly humiliated, the man who had promised to forsake all others and to cherish and honor her forsook instead his vow, and this when she needed him most. I emphasize the wrongs done to her not to draw our attention to Mr. Edwards's flaws but to put in perspective the failings that plague us all.

To be sure, Edwards' defeat in the Democratic primaries was a victory for America (perhaps not an unbiased assessment). But his moral failure is no one's victory, and the sad aftermath of this drama, including John's spurned pleas for a second chance, reveals the worst in human behavior and relationships. Edwards's story reveals precisely the problem that Jesus' story solves. Before we point our fingers and cast aspersions on a man who once hoped to have his mail forwarded to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., let's make sure we remember that our stories, too, would be tragedies were it not for a man who once blessed the poor, the meek, and those who make for peace.

tragedy in Cincinnati

Both my wife and I are recent graduates of Cincinnati Christian University. So our hearts were broken when we heard about the tragic death of Jenna Edwards (see here for the words of a CCU administrator). Please pray for the Edwards family and for the faculty, staff, and students at CCU. These stories always break my heart, not only for the innocence of the life lost but also because this could happen to any of us (or at least to me). May God receive Jenna's precious spirit and comfort her loving, grieving family.

diversity of Christian campuses

A few weeks ago I commented on an Inside Higher Ed piece concerning racial diversity on college campuses and on their promotional materials (see here). Today's Inside Higher Ed has this piece on the diversity of Christian college campuses. I have a couple thoughts.

1. First, this is good news. Diversifying Christian campuses, especially more conservative/evangelical campuses such as the one I proudly serve, is arguably more difficult than diversifying public or private non-religious institutions because requirements other than race have significant impact on the racial makeup of the student body. Christian campuses often have denominational affiliations that constrain the cultural and theological changes they can make to attract students from other faith traditions (read: races). Relatedly, those denominational affiliations also provide a major recruiting ground for Christian institutions, so colleges affiliated with traditionally White faith traditions already face an uphill battle in recruiting students of other races. Also, at many of these institutions (including mine) full-time faculty have to sign a statement of faith and/or attend a specific denominational church. As in the case of Calvin College, that means that professional and academic qualifications alone do not suffice to make one eligible to teach at Christian institution. The lack of diversity among full-time faculty is a major impediment to the diversification of the student body.
2. Second, despite being a good thing, the article suffers from a major weakness. As I pointed out in my post on Facial Diversity, too often in American discussions of race focus exclusively (or nearly so) on the Black population. This comes through in the current article in two ways. (a) Most obviously, the article focuses exclusively on the (commendable) increase of Black students on Christian campuses. Other minorities are mentioned only as an after-thought, as in the following quote from Paul R. Corts, president of the CCCU:

   Seeing that there are more black students enrolled is only part of the picture because one of the reasons you get more black students is because you’ve been making your campus more welcoming to blacks and other minorities as well.

   
   ". . . and other minorities as well." While I'm sure this is unintentional, as a member of a non-Black minority group, I can't help but read this as a marginalizing of non-Blacks as quasi-non-minorities (but still also non-White/non-majority). While Black and White is more racially diverse than just White, it still misses out on a lot (even most) of the potential diversity that the Church (and all its affiliated institutions) should be pursuing. (b) More subtly, the article nowhere addresses the responsibilities of the Black community to participate in the effort to diversify Christian (and other) campuses. The phenomenal increases in enrollment of Black students reported in the article are not simply the result of the efforts of predominantly White Christian colleges to attract a broader mix of students. Those colleges have had to develop relationships with other organizations, not least traditionally Black faith traditions and churches, colleges and social organizations, which themselves have had to participate in the efforts to encourage Black students to matriculate into those colleges. In other words, I think the credit for the good things going on among CCCU's member institutions ought to be more broadly spread.
3. Third, my own institution, as I've already said, still has a lot of work to do to diversify our student body, our faculty, and our staff and administration. That said, we already have a surprisingly diverse campus community, if race is not allowed to be the sole criterion of diversity. And while we do still have our work cut out for us, we also need to be up front that there are some aspects of diversity that our campus outright rejects. As the most obvious example, we will always be a Christian college, so religious diversity, beyond the boundaries of Christian praxis and theology, will never be welcomed here. That's not to say that Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, and atheist individuals, etc. will be driven off campus by angry students with pitchforks and torches. But those individuals will never be integrated into our identity as an institution.

I hope that the trends identified in the IHE piece continue in up-coming years; even more to the point, I hope these trends are already more broadly applicable and continue to be so in the future. My dream of a more diverse Church (in all its related institutions) jives with the politically correct emphasis on diversity, but it is not motivated by political correctness. Rather, I have in view the vision of John the Elder, who was granted a glimpse into heaven and was surprised by the gathering from every nation, tribe, and tongue to worship the Creator of the universe. Making our colleges and universities more accurately reflect the racial make-up of the country (or even the world) isn't a bad idea; a better one is to bring our institutions into conformity with the racial make-up of heaven.

yeah, CCU!

A week ago Thursday the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed both reported that Colorado Christian University won its federal appeals court case against the Colorado Commission on Higher Education, which had denied CCU access to state funds on the basis that it is "pervasively sectarian." At least one factor in the appeals court's ruling was the distinction the state tried to make between "sectarian" and "pervasively sectarian." These are the kind of public policy decision making practices that deserve to be publicly mocked, preferably involving some form of tar and regurgitated cat hair. Or better yet, we could use feathers. [NB: I am not calling for a person or people to be tarred and feathered but rather decision making practices.]

I applaud the court in arriving at an obviously sensible decision, which is clearly an unbiased way of saying they done good. Too often Christians whine and moan about their tax dollars going to causes they don't support, and this whining and moaning is no more appropriate or deserving of serious public attention when secular (or anti-Christian, if that's the better term in this particular case) groups are raking the muck.

If the government is going to fund art initiatives with public money, I don't think Christian taxpayers can reasonably expect to have a say in which artists get funded and which ones will have to buy their own jars to pee in. But the same goes for education: If the state is going to fund higher education, then secular groups cannot reasonably expect to be able to exclude schools that have otherwise met external accrediting standards from public monies. This is the nature of the public marketplace (of ideas, of funding, and so on): We might not like everyone else sitting at the table (to mix my metaphors here), but neither can we demand to be dealt a hand for us to play while shouting that the ugly guy opposite us shouldn't be allowed to ante.

contemporary messianism

This may not be The Five Gospels envisioned by the sages of Westar, but it does strike me as "the complete gospel." I had noticed that messianic language has been increasingly attached to one of our current presumptive presidential candidates, but up to now that had (in my experience) been mostly confined to the usual suspects (viz., conservative talk radio). It surprises me, then, to see this in the Times Online, a European organ. (HT: Thanks, SWNID.)

UPDATE: And, of course, there's more where that came from. This seems to me more powerful for being visual than the Times Online piece, but not as clever. Still, I'm waiting for the ad that surpasses the 2004 JibJab classic.

surprised by my own bias

In this gruesome story about Anthony Hopkins, an "evangelical minister" charged with the murder of his wife and abusing his daughter, we see (once again) that "the world" (as opposed to the church) does not have a corner on sin and depravity. This story is surprisingly depraved and, in my opinion, surpasses even the recent tragedy in Knoxville. My comments on that story apply, mutatis mutandis, to this story as well.

I'm blogging about this story for a completely different reason, however, one that is unimaginably less important than what the people involved are dealing with as they learn the details of the tragedy that has launched them into the national and (I should think) international news. Specifically, I'm interested in the normally subconscious processes by which we imagine the world around us, especially when we lack certain details about that world. For me, this story raises questions about how we imagine the identity of a person who could, allegedly, abuse his daughter, murder his wife when she discovered his abuse, and hide her body for three years in a freezer while continuing to engage in ministry.

I'll be honest here, and I ask for some sympathy as I admit to things that aren't politically correct so that, perhaps, we can understand those things and think critically about how best to deal with them.  When I first read about this story in my RSS feed, the image that came to my mind was or a Robert Duvall-style preacher: a middle-aging White man of dubious moral and theological accomplishment. I'm not sure where this pre-fabricated image comes from, whether it was the description of the suspect (an evangelical preacher), the location of the crime (the American Southeast), or the nature of the crimes (incestual abuse, murder, hiding/mutilating [?] a corpse). But for some reason, I was surprised when I saw the photo of Mr. Hopkins included in CNN's report of the story (see above), and specifically that he is a Black man. I'm not exactly sure how to interpret my apparent bias; I'm not even sure who it's a bias against. (Certainly it isn't a bias against other races/racial minorities that I didn't automatically associate this crime with a Black man!) What I am sure about is that some potent social forces are at work here, and that these forces are all the more powerful for being, usually, invisible. If a White preacher had perpetrated this crime, I doubt I would have noticed the way my biases worked to portray the world in the absence of further information.

And, of course, this makes me wonder how these forces work in other areas of my everyday life. And, finally, I wonder what difference my biases make for my own interpretation of the biblical texts and my own reconstruction of early Christianity. Given the overwhelmingly likely probability that my biases are substantially different from those of ancient (Judeo-)Christians, I also have to wonder what historical and exegetical problems these biases inevitably bring to bear on my own academic and pastoral work.

Knoxville in the news

It's never a good thing when a small city like Knoxville makes the national news, unless we're talking about a UT team making the sports page. Unfortunately, it's in the former vein that the story of a shooting at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church made headlines Sunday morning. I would like to add my own sympathies with the public outpouring of grief and support for this congregation and express a sense of grief and loss not simply for the two fatalities but for the fallen conditions that allow for such heinous and inexcusable events.

At the risk of saying too much, I would like to add two more comments. First, as a member of a conservative faith tradition that otherwise has very little in common or agreement with the Unitarian/Universalist tradition, I would like to make explicit that these differences do not in any way diminish the grief and support I feel for this congregation and its families. From my perspective it seems the U/U tradition does not take seriously things that are vitally important to me. But these things pale in comparison with the tragedy and heartbreak that any community face when dealing with such robust and salient indicators of the sin and wickedness that have plagued creation since at least the Third Chapter.

Second, still as a member of a conservative faith tradition, I condemn the motivations that have, apparently, motivated Mr. Adkisson to such depraved behavior. By a strange twist of fate, I have close connections with people who grew up with and know personally Mr. Adkisson, and in their view (by which I mean to acknowledge that this could be wrong) he did not consider himself a Christian, neither was he reacting against liberal Christianity in some ill-conceived "defense" of conservative Christianity. Though his beef was, on the face of it, with "the liberal movement" (whatever that means), I am amazed (and offended) by some comments (such as this one) that immediately associate this tragedy with "bad (= conservative) theology." As we wrestle with our faith in God and our experiences in the world, I would hope that we could allow for the very genuinely held perspectives among us that do not necessarily or inevitably lead to violence, hatred, enmity, or strife. Could we acknowledge that evil actions are evil without respect to the theological and/or ideological beliefs that legitimate those actions? And could we lay aside just for a moment our compulsive need to label people and ideologies so that, again just for a moment, we might grieve together?

UPDATE: Mark Nelson, a friend of mine, has just commented on this tragedy here. If you follow his link to the story in the Knoxville News Sentinel, you'll see exactly the kind of opportunistic political name-calling I would have thought both sides would be interested in avoiding. We can be so pathetic . . . 

one more reason I love my job

Michael Pahl reports that Peter Enns and Westminster Theological Seminary have issued a joint statement announcing that the Old Testament scholar is "discontinuing his service" to WTS amidst the controversy stirred by his book, Inspiration and Incarnation. I'm not an Old Testament scholar, nor have I read Enns's book. But this issue strikes a bit close to home, especially since there are doctrinal and theological expectations placed upon myself and my colleagues as a condition of our employment here.

I would, with great timidity and caution, compare my own humble institution with WTS and the educational and theological traditions streaming out of Philadelphia (among other places). But I would like to, again humbly, suggest that the spirit and freedom of my own institution of employment provides me greater comfort (and freedom) in my efforts to strive after God, to understand and be faithful to him, and to equip others to do likewise as they minister in various national and cultural contexts around the globe. I'm not sure why this; perhaps it has something to do with the personalities of the men (mostly) and women in positions of decision-making and power here.

But I suspect that another reason is found in my own faith tradition's commitment to theological principles rather than to theological statements. [NB: My encomium-of-sorts for my institution and my faith tradition is not meant to imply the negative of other institutions and traditions; what I say here about my own community is undoubtedly true, in various ways and to various degrees, of other communities.] In particular, I have in mind well-worn slogans that have, perhaps, been recited more than they have been observed but that still orient me and my colleagues. I have in mind here, "No creed but Christ; no book but the Bible," and "Where the Scriptures speak, we speak; where the Scriptures are silent, we are silent." At its best moments, my faith community seeks to root its understanding and practice of God in the Bible and to allow freedom (of thought as well as practice) in those places where biblical teaching warrants leeway. True, we have also been ungracious at times when interpreting where freedom is appropriate; we have also struggled to know how to interact with people who are less concerned for what the Bible might have to say to us and our world. But I would like to suggest that, in our most Christ-like moments, commitment to principles rather than to (merely) propositions have motivated our thinking and behaving.

Having taken the time to express my own gratitude for my current situation, let me also wish Prof. Enns all the best as he seeks to provide for his family, his faith, and for his interaction with the wider biblical and theological conversations going on around the world. And may God bless WTS, though I have to admit that my sympathies at this moment, barring further information, are squarely with Prof. Enns.

windfall recovery

It's nice to have your faith in humanity restored from time to time. Since I'm currently reading Genesis 1–3, it's especially encouraging to read about "Good Samaritans" helping an elderly man and sparing him some very real difficulties. I think the best part of the story is that these "Good Samaritans" seem to have vanished back into the wind from which they rescued Mr Geier's money. Their reward awaits them.

text of the Apocalypse of Gabriel

Over at The Forbidden Gospels Blog, April DeConick posted a notice (which has since been taken offline and replaced with this) that the full translation (as well as the reconstructed Hebrew text) of the Apocalypse of Gabriel is available online [follow the link for the .pdf to access the Hebrew text].

I haven't looked at the Hebrew text, but after reading through the English translation (and being impressed by the amount of work still to do on this text, of course), I am even more convinced that the significance of this text for understanding Christian Origins and the earliest kerygma of Jesus' resurrection is on a par with Josephus's account of the Golden Eagle incident (War 1.648–655; Ant. 17.149–167) or Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry bones. That's not to say that, if authentic, the Apocalypse of Gabriel isn't still momentously important. But its significance for Christian Origins needs to be kept in perspective. Unfortunately, perspective doesn't sell news stories.

the abominable church

As a confessing Christian I feel a sense of duty to oppose and condemn the plans of Westboro Baptist (I can't bring myself to type the word "church") to protest the funeral of a pregnant soldier found dead in a hotel bath tub on 21 June. I raise my voice in support of Danell Shafer and the Fort Bragg Mommies, who are organizing a protest of the Westboro abomination. I may try to make the 425-mile drive for the 16 July demonstration. May God bless and comfort Megan Touma, her unborn child, her family, and all the families and friends of those serving in our armed forces. And may God bestow mercy and forgiveness on a church that finds it hard to show God's love to everyone.

Resurrection, BC[E]

First, two preliminary comments.

1. It's a bitter-sweet thing to see the Bible in the news. On the one hand, our hearts are strangely warmed to see national and even international attention explicitly focused on The Book that We Love, and yet being in the news is rarely a sign of something good. In the case of the Bible, either we find (a) someone who similarly cherishes The Book that We Love speaking embarrassingly or uninformedly (á la Robertson or Dobson, et al.), or (b) someone who castigates said Book, often (though not not necessarily) from a similarly uninformed perspective.
2. I have attempted to avoid commenting on the story I comment upon here simply because the evidence is neither widely accessible, nor has it been subjected to the scrutiny of the scholarly community. Whether you trust them or loathe them, genuine, bona fide biblical scholars are human and liable to make untenable claims (see here for a recent and poignant example). The contribution biblical scholars make to wider cultural appropriations of the Bible is found precisely in the scholarly community, which reigns in its wilder elements and moves much mores deliberately (= slowly) precisely to avoid some of the embarrassing possibilities that have been actualized in recent years (examples here, here, and here). But this issue has since invaded even my seldom-used Facebook inbox, a sure sign that some sort of comment is in order.

That said, I have been following some (certainly not very much) of the media buzz regarding the so-called "Gabriel's [Vision of] Revelation."¹ On the basis of two news items from either side of the Atlantic — one in The Times Online, the other from Time (as in the magazine) — it appears that this story is destined to go the route of the sensationalized biblical news stories that ignite the public imagination and then fades before the scholarly discussion can moderate the popular claims made about this newly discovered tablet. But so far as the public's attention is still focused on this find, a few observations will help thoughtful inquirers (Christian or otherwise) properly assess the significance of this text.

First, the headlines and by-lines attached to these stories seriously misrepresent the actual text in question, even as reconstructed and interpreted by Israel Knohl, the chief proponent of the view that this text refers to a dying-and-rising messianic figure. For example, above the story on Time's website, we read:

A first-century BC tablet, thought to originate from the Jordanian bank of the Dead Sea, that tells the story of a Messiah who rose again after three days from the grave[.]

I immediately have two problems. First, nowhere in the actual report of the tablet's text does it refer to the figure in question as "Messiah." This is especially significant because scholars have been demonstrating for over two decades that messianic speculation in Second Temple Judaism was extremely variegated and disparate, with different Jewish groups nourishing (and being nourished by) different ideas regarding the messiah. This variety and diversity is only multiplied when we include speculation focused on people who aren't identified as "Messiah." And though the news piece doesn't acknowledge this problem, even Israel Knohl seems to be aware of it:

Professor Knohl contends that the tablet proves that messianic followers possessed the paradigm of their leader rising from the grave before Jesus was born.

Notice that, in this quote, the term "messianic" refers to Jesus' followers, not Simon's (see below); all that can be said about the potential parallel this text provides is that Jesus' followers could refer to another group's "leader" experiencing death and resurrection.

Second, in the blurb quoted above, we have a very serious problem with verb tense. The article on Time's website refers to "a Messiah [and we've already noted the problems with this label] who rose again after three days from the grave." But, according to the report, this is precisely what is not included in the text. [nb: Here lies one of the problems of commenting on a text without actually having access to that text; my comments here are based solely on the news pieces linked to above and may be mitigated by the actual text itself.] Here is the report in The Times:

Israel Knohl, a biblical studies professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, argued yesterday that line 80 of the text revealed Gabriel telling an historic Jewish rebel named Simon, who was killed by the Romans four years before the birth of Christ: “In three days you shall live, I, Gabriel, command you.”

Notice that, according to Knohl's own reconstruction (which itself is a matter of debate), the text reports a promise from the angel Gabriel to Simon that he would live after three days. As any biblical scholar knows (and this is not rhetoric; this actually is a very basic point among scholars), there are important generic differences between an angelic promise about what would happen and a narrative reporting what has happened. Note that I am not saying one is more historically reliable or accurate than the other, only that there are important differences here. Case in point: Famously, Mark's gospel contains multiple "passion predictions" in which Jesus tells his hapless disciples that he would die and, three days later, rise again. But the gospel also goes on to narrate that resurrection (however incompletely and cryptically, given the ending of that text at 16.8). But, at least according to the news pieces I've seen, nowhere does "Gabriel's [Vision of] Revelation" narrate Simon's resurrection.

There are more problems besides. Notice the claim that Prof. Knohl is actually interested in making by way of this text (which, by the way, is the very same point he made in his 2002 book prior to the discovery of this text; such neat confluences between hypothesis and evidence should automatically raise red flags):

Professor Knohl . . . said that New Testament writers could have adapted a widely held messianic story in Judaism to Jesus and his followers. “Resurrection after three days becomes a motif developed before Jesus, which runs contrary to nearly all scholarship. What happens in the New Testament was adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story.” [my emphasis]

Again, the problem is subtle but important. Scholars have long been resistant to the idea of a pre-Christian Jewish motif of a dying-and-rising messianic figure precisely because the evidence for such a motif was lacking. But even if this text proves that some Jews in the decades before Jesus' birth anticipated a "suffering Messiah" (again, remember the problems that attend to our use of "Messiah" here), the very fact that this text is so distinct from the rest of the extant evidence is significant in itself! That is, even if "Gabriel's [Vision of] Revelation" says exactly what Prof. Knohl claims it says, this does not in any way suggest such a motif was "a widely held messianic story." In fact, it would seem to be a very marginal messianic story, at least until it was taken up by later Christian tradents. But again, there are important generic differences between the Christian stories about Jesus and the angelic promise to Simon.²

As I am already getting weary of commenting on this story, perhaps only one more point will suffice. Here is an extended passage from Time's article:

This, in turn, undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up? But, as Knohl told TIME, maybe the Christians had a model to work from. The idea of a "dying and rising messiah appears in some Jewish texts, but until now, everyone thought that was the impact of Christianity on Judaism," he says. "But for the first time, we have proof that it was the other way around. The concept was there before Jesus." If so, he goes on, "this should shake our basic view of Christianity. . . . What happens in the New Testament [could have been] adopted by Jesus and his followers based on an earlier messiah story."

The problem here is precisely with Knohl's evaluation of the significance of "Gabriel's [Vision of] Revelation," even if we grant his reconstruction tout court. While many Christians may indeed make arguments for the resurrection on the basis that such ideas were unheard of prior to the earliest Christians' proclamation that Jesus had risen from the dead, many (perhaps even most) Christians — and especially scholars from a wide spectrum of confessional perspectives — have long insisted that both the event of Jesus' resurrection and his followers' reports of the resurrection were influenced by and took up motifs from "an earlier messiah story." Thus Philip is reported to have explained to an Ethiopian eunuch that Isa. 53 speaks of Jesus' death and resurrection (cf. Acts 8.26–40), Peter is remembered as telling a crowd in Jerusalem that all the prophets had foretold of the Messiah's suffering (cf. Acts 3.18), and Jesus himself is said to have explained to the two disciples travelling to Emmaus and to the disciples as a group that what happened to him was foretold by Moses and all the prophets (cf. Luke 24.25–27, 45–48). More examples could be given. Far from "skak[ing] our view our basic view of Christianity," this text is yet another example of what the NT itself claims happened.

I was pleased to see that Time had consulted with Ben Witherington to provide some balance to Knohl's over-enthused claims. Surely the precise details of the text written on this stone tablet will require further analysis, as will the tablet's significance for modern confessional and scholarly perceptions of Christianity, both as an ancient phenomenon and in its current expressions. The Times's piece similarly acknowledges that other scholars have real concerns about Knohl's reconstruction. We can only hope that the wider public, whether Christian, atheist, or otherwise, can appreciate the surprisingly nuanced comment found at the end of the first paragraph in Time's article:

Such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone's faith.

UPDATE: Thanks to our surly-colleague-who-shall-not-be-named, I have become aware of a post on this very issue by one Rachel Lucas, who claims, "I am not a Christian nor am I a biblical scholar," and yet clearly sees one of the problems with such sensational reporting. Would that the world's journalists learn to grasp more firmly and clearly what the rest of us find so obvious.

---

¹ The square brackets are necessary because, as with most things regarding this "Dead Sea Stone," there is no agreement in the news pieces regarding the title of this text. This should come as no surprise, since in actual fact there isn't any agreement regarding the contents of this text!

² This point applies equally to the similar statement found in Time's piece: "If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day" (my emphasis). One smudgy reference on one stone tablet does not "a well-established paradigm" make.

New war law?

According to the Christian Science Monitor, the American people's assessment of Congress is plummeting faster than the fuel gage on an H2 Hummer. Here's a pull quote:

A recent Gallup Poll confirms what many lawmakers say they're hearing from their constituents: that confidence in Congress has never been lower. Only 12 percent of Americans say they have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in Congress as an institution – the lowest level ever for any US institution since Gallup began asking the question 35 years ago. Congressional job approval, a slightly different question, has dropped to 18 percent.

This raises a number of interesting questions, not least in view of the fact that both of our choices for POTUS no. 44 currently list "Senator" as their employer on their Facebook profiles.

It's from this angle that I would like to suggest we need to approach the proposal published in the NYT (and reported on by CNN) by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher, that "the next time the president goes to war, Congress should be required to say whether it agrees." On the surface this seems like a potentially effective solution to the problems that have arisen since the 2002–2003 consultations regarding Iraq in the months building up to the invasion and the plight of the Democratic majority to force the President to end the war since November 2006.

But this only seems to be the solution. The fundamentally reactive procedures motivating most legislative action, not least since September 2001, have consistently demonstrated themselves to be ineffectual for anticipating and preparing for the needs of the future. Examples could be cited (from banning finger nail clippers from commercial air travel to calls for the dissolution of the Electoral College in presidential politics). But beyond empirical arguments, this proposal suffers philosophical flaws, namely, by assuming that the best way to address problems with the [mis]application of existing laws is to pass new laws.

The American Constitution already makes provision for the waging of war, which is certainly not surprising in light of the recent experiences with the British Empire and a continuing political environment that would eventually erupt in the War of 1812. According to that document, Congress has the authority to wage war granted to them in the following: The Congress shall have Power

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11)

Of course, that same document also bestows certain rights and responsibilities on the President, notably,

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2)

This latter clause has been used to justify presidential powers to initiate military action in the case of attacks against the United States, but, as current political discourse and debate makes clear, the distinction between offensive and defensive military action isn't always so clear cut.

What is more, the War Powers Resolution (passed 1973) already provides for "initial and regular consultations" between the President and Congress whenever American troops are or imminently may be involved in hostile actions. Interestingly, this is precisely what Baker and Christopher hope to achieve with their current proposal, which (according to CNN)

would create a new consultative process between the White House and Congress to help prevent a potential constitutional showdown.

One wonders what is "new" about the proposed "consultative process" and how it will succeed in light of the [apparent] breakdown of existing "consultative process[es]" legislated in 1973.

All of this means that there is already substantial and, I would suggest, adequate provision for the political requirements for the waging of war. If there were problems with the processes which led to the most current instances of armed conflict (and this is a matter of debate; even more so is the question of which problems these are) these need to be addressed within the constitutional and legislative framework already in place. In light of the President's woeful performance numbers and the (somehow) even more woeful approval ratings of Congress, one cannot help but suspect that the current proposal addresses political rather than actual problems.

If Baker and Christopher (and others) want to be more productive, they would be well-advised to examine why the current framework didn't achieve the goals for which it was developed. The current proposal, which will undoubtedly be popular for political reasons, will only succeed in helping us to feel like we've solved a real problem. That is, until the next time we face the same problem. Then someone will propose new legislative solutions that provide for yet more "new consultative process[es]" in the procedures for going to war.

Why do we pay these people?

CNN.com reports that Sen. John Warner (R-Va) has an idea: Lower fuel consumption by reintroducing a lower national speed limit. That's the problem, John: Americans are driving too fast. Not that we choose to drive cars that rate less than 30 mpg; not that our infrastructure was designed for people to drive everywhere; not that our current level of fuel supply is less than demand; not that the world's two largest populations are waking up to the joys of fossil fuels; not that governments across the globe attempt to regulate fuel consumption through the tax code.

Of course, my skepticism is challenged by the facts of the case:

Congress in 1974 set a national 55 mph speed limit because of energy shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo. The speed limit was repealed in 1995 when crude oil dipped to $17 a barrel and gasoline cost $1.10 a gallon.

I was born during the Carter administration, so naturally I don't remember that particular era. Perhaps someone with a bit longer memory can help me: Was it Congress's 1974 institution of the 55 mph speed limit that brought the cost of oil to less than $20 a barrel?¹

Obviously the current problems with the energy situation are complex, and any simple answer Congress puts forward will neglect more than it will address. But this is ridiculous. Do we really think that reducing 2% of our highway fuel consumption will make a dent in the world demand for oil and oil products?! This is a problem with the "baby steps" thinking that's popular in contemporary political problem solving. Not that changing our light bulbs or foregoing plastic shopping bags aren't good things to do, but by taking the "baby steps" we comfort ourselves that we're making a difference and we lose any motivation to make any real changes.

If I may offer an opinion, amateur though it may be (and what else are blogs for?): It seems that there is a positive and a negative side to the current energy climate. On the positive side, $145 a barrel oil provides significantly more motivation to develop alternative sources of energy and their concomitant technologies. If Warner's speed limit proposal has the same effect as it did in Carter's day, it will be hard to convince consumers (or developers!) to invest in hydrogen Hondas and hybrid Highlanders when oil is back down to a handful of Tic Tacs per barrel and a gallon of gas costs two buttons and a hair pin. Markets might not be comfortable, but this is how they work.

On the negative side, we are not yet to the point, technologically, to go cold turkey from fossil fuels. While our long-term problem may be that oil is not the future, our short-term problem is that oil is our present, and demand is out-pacing supply. Perhaps (perhaps!) driving more slowly could affect our national demand (though not significantly, not to mention its complete irrelevance to international demand), legislating a lower speed limit makes even less sense than adding a third of our corn supply to the gas we burn.

Regardless of which side of this debate you're on, I think the daily escalating gas prices is bound to move public opinion toward the solution suggested by the Energy Department's Angela Hill:

If Congress is serious about addressing gasoline prices, they must take action on expanding domestic oil and natural gas production.

I'd like to add an amendment to Ms Hill's suggestion: As we're expanding domestic energy supply capabilities, I would be willing to support a 5% pay increase for Sen. Warner and his colleagues (including those of the Lower House) if they would stop thinking about real issues and take up Monopoly.

---

¹ The CNN piece suggests this very thing: "Warner cited studies that showed the 55 mph speed limit saved 167,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2 percent of the country's highway fuel consumption, while avoiding up to 4,000 traffic deaths a year."

Facial diversity

Inside Higher Ed. reports on a study by a sociologist at Augsburg College on the discrepancy between the image of [racial] diversity portrayed in the recruiting materials of many institutions of higher education, on the one hand, and the actual diversity of the student body. The problem is, obviously, real, but the article does a commendable job of avoiding the easy criticism of these institutions as "hypocritical" or "deceitful." While colleges and universities need to be held accountable when the appearance of diversity suffices in the presence of a lack of any substantive diversity, the portrayal of a diverse campus can legitimately function as an expression of an administration's hopes and plans and may even encourage bringing about the reality the promotional pieces manufactured.

But the article hints at another problem, one I first encountered when working at a church in Uptown Cincinnati that legitimately (and somewhat successfully) strove to diversify its worshipping body as well as its ministerial staff. The problem is well-stated by Timothy Pippert, the sociologist behind the study.

Black equals diversity for many people. If you show African American students, people think that means your institution is diverse. [my emphasis]

Given the torrid (but not completely so) history of race relations in this country, this perception is understandable. But let's be clear: An absence of Black persons does not equal homogeneity, and vice versa. On my own campus I can think off the top of my head of only two current students, both of whom are biracial, who self-identify as African American and one recent graduate who is currently enrolled in one of our Masters programs who is Black. We also have (at least) one international Black student (though he is not African; the use of "African American" as a euphemism for "Black" runs into trouble precisely in the cases of non-Black African[-American]s and non-African Blacks). And while my institution has some way to go toward becoming a legitimately diverse campus (and knows it has its work cut out for it), our campus is more diverse than a simple count of Black (or even darker) faces would suggest.

My father is, to put it nebulously, a professional in the area of diversification and diversity-training. And though I would never claim to speak for him or on his behalf, he has said on numerous occasions something that we would all do well to remember: "Diversity means difference: young or old, American or international, male or female, Black, Caucasian, Latino/a, Asian (and so on)," all these things go some way toward promoting and expressing diversity. None of this excuses campuses that are content to operate without regard for racial minorities, but hopefully it does remind us that efforts toward diversification have be more than skin-deep.

real faith (real, real faith)

60 Minutes tells the story of the vicar of Baghdad, sent to minister to the Anglican community in Baghdad nine years ago (when Saddam Hussein statues still figured in official Iraqi decorating policy). The interview makes clear that Christianity was a religio licita under Saddam, and according to this criterion at least the current situation in Iraq is bleak indeed.



I recommend this piece with both a heavy heart and with some reluctance. I can't say the reporting was in any way impressive; Scott Pelley's ability to avoid the really interesting questions is certainly legendary and may in fact be unrivaled. But the man at the heart of the story is, perhaps, the most credible professional Christian I have seen on tv ever. The Reverend Canon Andrew White has done what most Christians (myself included) can only dream of — he's earned the right to be heard. When (apparently) all the other Christian men have fled Baghdad (and I type this last phrase without any sense of condescension or condemnation), White remains to minister to (one of?) the last underground Christian congregations in that war-torn city, leading our beleaguered sisters and brothers in worship, feeding the poor, and encouraging the faith of those who claim Doubting [!] Thomas as their spiritual ancestor.

The question Pelley didn't ask — the question I wanted to yell at the tele — was, Why, Reverend Canon White, do you stay in Baghdad to minister in what may be the most dangerous place on earth for confessing Christians?

I admit I have suspicions of an answer. But these are suspicions of my answers, and to be perfectly honest, I haven't earned the right to be asked that question. I want to know why Andrew White stays in Baghdad. And even if he answers exactly how I would have expected, the answer itself would have been legitimated for being his answer and not mine.

I would give my right ring finger to serve Holy Communion to a single woman or child of Reverend Canon White's congregation. But even then I wouldn't deserve such an honor. These are modern-day heroes of the faith. I am privileged to be called their brother in the Lord. This week, as I grade a half-dozen undergraduate assignments and continuing researching for a book idea I'm working on, I pray that my work for the kingdom might be the dimmest and distantest star shining in the same sky illumined by the blazing sun of the faith of Baghdad.