A somewhat incomplete sermon on sin

A very abbreviated and slightly altered version of the sermon I preached on Sunday.

I've been noticing a theme running through my recent sermons and blog posts: you can't tell by looking. You can't tell who's hungry by looking; you can't tell who's poor by looking; you can't tell who's suffering by looking. And now, a new variation on the theme: you can't tell who's sinned by looking.

So let's talk a little bit about sin today. Won't that be fun?

First of all, the readings today are fun because of the way that they talk to each other. When you hear the gospel and it talks about the "woman in the city, who was a sinner," I don't know about you, but my mind immediately goes there, and I think you know what I mean. But then when you look at the Old Testament reading about David, who has just been caught out after his affair with Bathsheba and having Bathsheba's husband killed, he doesn't say, "I am a sinner." He says "I have sinned." And the reading from Galatians really drives the point home that this isn't about sex when Paul writes, "We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners." So a sinner in this context is someone who does not live according to Jewish law.

But how very different it is to hear that someone is a sinner as opposed to someone has sinned. The first says sin is a person's identity, and the second that sin is an activity. And those sound very different.

So Simon the Pharisee has in his mind that sin is not his identity. But in this gospel story, Jesus turns identification upside down by pointing out to Simon what the woman did -- and what Simon neglected to do. Things done and left undone, as we say in the confession. Simon didn't do anything wrong; he didn't break any laws. But there is a lot he left undone, and Jesus points that out to him. Simon didn't offer water for Jesus' feet; he didn't greet him with a kiss; he didn't anoint Jesus' head. And the woman did all of those things. Simon thinks he's gotten it all right, and what Jesus points out to him is that he's missed the essential point of loving God and loving neighbor.

That's what Paul is trying to drive home in his letter to the Galatians: that it's not in following the Law exactly right that we're going to be free from sin. Instead, it's in what we do, what we offer, what we share, how we love.

And if and when we sin, Paul promises that grace abounds more. It's not in our own goodness and our carefulness not to break the rules that we are free from sin, but in God's forgiveness freely given. God's grace comes to us not because we have been good, but because God is good.

Maybe instead of worrying about what we have done wrong, we should be looking at those around us and asking, "What has been left undone?" How can we offer our love to others today?

A Plea for Martha

Martha is up against Therese of Lisieux today in the first round of Lent Madness and I am completely partisan, having done the write-up for Martha (and as a big, big fan of hers). The Plea for Martha is not my own, however, but that of the Interpreter's Bible (1952), of which I am also a big, big fan. I mention one snip from this exposition in the Lent Madness write-up, but it is transcribed in full below.

The exposition is by Arthur John Gossip (1873-1954) who deserves a write-up of his own. He was a minister of the Free Church of Scotland and was a chaplain with the Glasgow Highlanders in WWI. He later served as professor of Christian Ethics and Practical Theology at the University of Glasgow from 1939-1945.

N.B.: I'm not responsible for the "weaker nature" comments about Mary. Remember: the author is a 70-year-old Scotsman, born in the 1870's. I'm simply happy to share him as a fellow Martha fan. Enjoy. And vote for Martha!

Commentary on John 11:1-2

A Plea for Martha. -- Although in these verses Mary is mentioned first, as if she were the more important, everywhere else throughout the narrative precedence is given to Martha, who would appear to have been the eldest of the family, as Lazarus almost certainly was the youngest; and indeed, in Luke  10:38 we are told that the house was hers.

As the records unfold themselves in the N.T., it seems that we are obviously meant to regard Mary as the finer of the sisters. Yet, obstinately and distinctly, may not one prefer Martha as being both the stronger character and the more likable as well? She looks at us out of the pages, a curiously vivid personality; downright, honest, practical, unselfish; a little flustered at times, it may be, by the lesser rubs of life, but in a major crisis splendidly and unshakably calm and steady-eyed. While Mary is of a softer and much more emotional type, apt to be swept away into extravagances of mood and action, a little trying surely for those round her. Thus, although Martha is obviously deeply wounded by her brother's death, an iron self-restraint allows no outward show of feeling; which terrible silence is as a rule the sign and proof of the most poignant grief of all. "I tell you hopeless grief is passionless." [E.S. Purcell, Life of Cardinal Manning (New York: The Macmillan Co, 1896), I 123.] When Manning lost his dearest, "Do not speak to me," he said, "I can just bear it when I keep quite quiet." But Mary's weaker nature could and did find relief in recurrent bursts of passionate weeping (vss. 31,33).

Again, Martha is much the abler of the sisters. When she meets Christ (vss. 20-27), there is something vastly impressive in the stanchness [sic] of her loyalty, and the depth and reach and stability of her faith. Whereas Mary says nothing, except to repeat that cry of the heart, "Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died," which Martha had already used; making one feel that the two desolate souls had often said to one another in the days of waiting, "Oh, if only he were here!" Martha it is who does things needing to be done, who takes command of sudden situations, who meets emergencies and sees them through, who spends herself for others. And if, in Luke 10:40, distracted with much serving, with half a hundred things to see to, hot and rushed and bustled that their guest might lack for nothing, she allows herself to be irritated because her younger sister, cool and at her ease, seems to have no wish to lend a hand in what she must know has to be done, but sits there drinking in what Christ was saying, oblivious of the fact that her sister was missing it all, had she not a right to be annoyed? She too would have preferred to listen. But someone had to get the meal prepared and think of the guest's comfort. And so Martha forgot herself and did it. Yet she was surprised at her sister; and so are we.

No doubt our Lord's surely smiling half rebuke implies that this willing energetic soul was almost fussy in her kindness, as such good people can be, and a little overwhelming in her determination to give her very best and do all that was in her power. Still, in comparison with Martha's thoughtfulness for others, Mary seems selfish, or at least self-absorbed, now in her own grief, now in her own spiritual profiting. And one can be as selfish about spiritual things as about anything else. And Martha was not selfish. Neither at home nor at Simon the leper's, could she sit still, letting others serve, but had to be up and about, in and out of the kitchen; again, on thinks, perhaps a little fidgety and fussy, but actively helpful. And when the Master reached her house of mourning and she went out to meet him, much as it mattered to her to be with him, she did not keep him to herself, but broke away to call her sister, that Mary too might miss nothing of Jesus Christ, the sister who, on her side, could sit so absorbed in listening to him that she forgot Martha altogether!

In any case, it is Martha, and not Mary, who is the patron saint of this generation; she, and not the other, who represents the type of goodness which we can understand and which we would like to reproduce. To our shame be it spoken, we have small aptitude for contemplation, and not much liking for communion with the Master in the hush and secret of his presence; and, compared with our forefathers, not much zeal in prayer. But we would fain be helpful to our fellow men, and long to leave a saner and more brotherly world behind us. [yes, yes, forefathers, men, brotherly. 1950's.] If Christ can accept that from us, we are ready to offer it. All of which may to some appear rootless and superficial. Yet the tests Christ gives us, whereby the value of our faith and lives is to be assessed at his judgment seat, are dreadfully practical. Not how much time we spent in prayer, but what came of our prayers in actual unselfishness and helpfulness to others; not simply what did we believe, but did these beliefs of ours compel us to spend our lives for those who needed kindliness and succor. That is the note that constantly rings out in the N.T, e.g., in the epistles of John, "We know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love remains in death....If any one has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him? Little children, let us not love in word or speech but in deed and in truth" (I John 3:14, 17-18). "He who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also" (I John 4:20-21).

In any case, it is written that Jesus loved Martha. And no more is said of Mary. And indeed what better could be said?

Interpreter's Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1952). Volune 8 "Luke, John," pp. 636-637.

Go team Martha!

Unless you want my tomatoes, quit asking for my tithe!

Seeing Father Tim's great post asking for music to put on a Stewardship Soundtrack made me realize I'd better get in quick if I wanted to get this off my chest:

It is just as inaccurate to talk about the Biblical tithe as proof you should give 10 percent of your income to the church as it is to talk about selected passages in Leviticus as proof that homosexuality is a sin.

I ask you: how many times has your church talked about tithing as the Biblical standard of stewardship? And that tithing means you should give 10 percent of your income away? In all that time, has anyone actually ever even shown you the passages where it says that? It was only a couple of years ago that I realized I'd never actually looked at the texts, and since then each year I've only grown more peeved at how we have abused the Bible to, frankly, no good end.

Let's visit our old friend Leviticus, shall we? Here's Leviticus 27:30-32:

All tithes from the land, whether the seed from the ground or the fruit from the tree, are the Lord's; they are holy to the Lord. If person wish to redeem any of their tithes, they must add one-fifth to them. All tithes of herd and flock, every tenth one that passes under the shepherd's staff, shall be holy to the Lord.

Now from Numbers 18:11-13, 21

[The Lord spoke to Aaron:] This also is yours: I have given to you, togther with your sons and daughters, as a perpetual due, whatever is set aside from the gifts of all the elevation offerings of the Israelites; everyone who is clean in your house may eat them. All the best of the oil and all the best of the wine and of the grain, the choice produce that they give to the Lord, I have given to you. The first fruits of all that is in their land, which they bring to the Lord, shall be yours; everyone who is clean in your house may eat of it...To the Levites I have given every tithe in Israel for a possession in return for the service that they perform, the service in the tent of meeting.

And Deuteronomy 14:22-27

Set apart a tithe of all the yield of your seed that is brought in yearly from the field. In the presence of the Lord your God, in the place that he will choose as a dwelling for his name, you shall eat the tithe of your grain, your wine, and your oil, as well as the firstlings of your herd and flock, so that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always. But if, when the Lord your God has blessed you, the distance is so great that you are unable to transport it, because the place where the Lord your God will choose to set his name is too far away from you, then you may turn it into money. With the money secure in hand, go to the place that the Lord your God will choose; spend the money for whatever you wish—oxen, sheep, wine, strong drink, or whatever you desire. And you shall eat there in the presence of the Lord your God, you and your household rejoicing together. As for the Levites resident in your towns, do not neglect them, because they have no allotment or inheritance with you.

Got that? Tithing applies to agricultural products. This is why Jesus talks to the Pharisees about tithing "mint and rue and herbs of all kinds." And if you preferred to do cash instead, well, it cost 20 percent more, according to the Leviticus reading above.

Seriously, can you take those passages above and make a case for saying "This means today that you should give 10 percent of your income to your local parish"? If we are serious about Biblical context for other Old Testament texts, it's rather sloppy of us to say there's an easy equivalence between these texts and the annual pledge drive.

Here's the context: Unless you owned land and had crops and flocks, tithing did not apply to you. What applied to you non-landowner types was offerings.

Take a look at Exodus as an example. In Exodus 25,

The Lord said to Moses: Tell the Israelites to take for me an offering; from all whose hearts prompt them to give you shall receive the offering for me. This is the offering that you shall receive from them: gold, silver, and bronze, blue, purple, and crimson yarns and fine linen, goats' hair, tanned rams' skins, fine leather, acacia wood, oil for the lamps, spices for the anointing oil and for the fragrant incense, onyx stones and gems to be set in the ephod and for the breastpiece. And have them make me a sanctuary, so that I may dwell among them.

So here you see that gifts are asked of people--in no particular amount, but for the specific purpose of worship, "from all whose hearts prompt them."

But here's what's particularly interesting to me: in Exodus 36:2-6, we read

Moses then called Bezalel and Oholiab and every skillful one to whom the Lord had given skill, everyone whose heart was stirred to come do the work; and they received from Moses all the free-will offerings that the Israelites had brought for doing the work on the sanctuary. They still kept bringing him freewill offerings every morning, so that all the artisans who were doing every sort of task on the sanctuary came, each from the task being performed, and said to Moses, "The people are bringing much more than enough for doing the work that the Lord has commanded us to do." So Moses gave the command, and word was proclaimed throughout the camp: "No man or woman is to make anything else as an offering for the sanctuary." So the people were restrained from bringing; for what they had already brought was more than enough to do all the work.

So you've got two kinds of freewill offerings: the offerings of goods, and the offerings of services. And at a certain point, they had enough to do the work God wanted of them. It wasn't a set percentage based on income; it only had to do with the actual ministry and tasks to be performed!

Tithing is a quick and easy short-cut; 10 percent, done. You know you're set with God and the church for the year. But a) should we be bound by Old Testament law in the first place? and b) does setting the tithe as a standard do anything to help us examine either our hearts or understand our ministries? I would argue no, and no.

I feel that using the tithing short-cut actually damages our churches. Tithing sets up a disconnect between stewardship and mission, making giving all about "how much" and not what the gifts are supposed to do. In asking for a tithe, we ask church members to conform to an external standard rather than the more challenging work of coming to terms with God and one's own conscience.  It encourages guilty giving rather than joyful and generous giving. How can we be generous people if all we know is the demand of a certain dollar amount?

I really wish churches would think about stewardship in terms of getting the resources to do mission that stirs people's hearts to give rather than targeting people to commit a particular percentage amount of income to the church. The case for the Biblical tithe is flimsy at best, to begin with. Given that as Christians, we are no longer bound by the Law, it's irresponsible to use the tithe as our standard of giving, even if it weren't applicable to agricultural products.

On the other hand, I do have some zucchini to share.

Every wind of doctrine

Consider this your "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" Bible study post. But, hey, this passage will come up again:

We must no longer be children, tossed to and fro and blown about by every wind of doctrine, by people's trickery, by their craftiness in deceitful scheming. But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every ligament with which it is equipped, as each part is working properly, promotes the body's growth in building itself up in love.

Ephesians 4:14-16

Here's the thing that struck me reading it this time. So. It seems to me that people toss around that phrase "every wind of doctrine" to mean "every newfangled thought that comes along." Is that how you've heard it used? But it occurred to me that at the time the letter was written, Christianity was the newfangled thought. And Paul was an innovator even within this newfangled sect of Christianity, welcoming the uncircumcised, calling a slave his brother (and his owner's brother), expecting a radical equality among genders and races and incomes. He was doing crazily new stuff, way out of the mainstream.

So it makes me wonder if doctrine here doesn't mean new doctrine, but what we usually think of when we think of doctrine: those beliefs that are settled and static and cast in stone.

What if this isn't saying, "Don't be blown about by the latest fad," but instead is saying, "Don't be blown about by 'the way we've always done it'"? Don't be blown about by those forces that wish to deny new truths that have been brought to light through Jesus Christ. 

Remember that grim hymn "Once to ev'ry man and nation"? It has this great couplet:

New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,
They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

And of course let us not forget the great Thomas Cranmer's delightful introduction to the first Book of Common Prayer (1549, of course): "There was never any thing by the wit of man so well devised, or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted."

Darn right.

So the next time someone throws that old "every wind of doctrine" line at you, I'd recommend you say, "That's exactly why we need to speak the truth in love, so that we are not continually battered by doctrines that no longer fit our understanding of God and of the world." The winds of doctrine isn't about new ways of thinking; the winds of doctrine are the ones that try to blow us backwards as we attempt to make progress, promoting the body's growth.

Sermon prep for 9/11

I'm preaching this Sunday up at St. Michael's Fort Bragg and would love to get a little input as I mull over the readings. Specifically the gospel, which is this passage from Matthew:

Peter came and said to Jesus, "Lord, if another member of the church sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times?" Jesus said to him, "Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.

"For this reason the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his slaves. When he began the reckoning, one who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him; and, as he could not pay, his lord ordered him to be sold, together with his wife and children and all his possessions, and payment to be made. So the slave fell on his knees before him, saying, `Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.' And out of pity for him, the lord of that slave released him and forgave him the debt. But that same slave, as he went out, came upon one of his fellow slaves who owed him a hundred denarii; and seizing him by the throat, he said, `Pay what you owe.' Then his fellow slave fell down and pleaded with him, `Have patience with me, and I will pay you.' But he refused; then he went and threw him into prison until he would pay the debt. When his fellow slaves saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their lord all that had taken place. Then his lord summoned him and said to him, `You wicked slave! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. Should you not have had mercy on your fellow slave, as I had mercy on you?' And in anger his lord handed him over to be tortured until he would pay his entire debt. So my heavenly Father will also do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother or sister from your heart."

Here's the thing: the 10th anniversary of 9/11 seems like a great time to talk about forgiveness, but I don't want this to be cheap grace or easy platitudes. This is not an easy gospel, nor was 9/11 an easy moment; I don't think the sermon should be easy either. In fact, there are a lot of ways this gospel works against preaching about forgiveness. After all, are we talking about other members of the church? And weren't the events of 9/11 more than owing a few hundred denarii?

But there it is, and I think the gospel demands being faced head-on and in conjunction with all the remembrances and events. But this will require some care and consideration. And I'd love your help.

What comes to your mind, hearing this gospel in tandem with remembering 9/11?

Ground rules: State your own opinions and respect those of others. Personal reactions are just that: personal. If you have a completely different reaction it's because you are a completely different person with a different experience and perspective. How people should feel or what people should think is irrelevant. I am grateful for your honest thoughts; I hope that you will be kind to one another.

Tuesday Book Blogging: review of Blackout and All Clear; The Controversial Giving Tree

The Anonymous Historian and I have been playing phone tag since she returned from Paris so I haven't been able to get the "Can you believe when..." and "I knew that she..." stuff out of my system, so I hope the review below won't contain any spoilers.

The two-part book Blackout and All Clear concerns a group of time traveling historians, part of the same group of Oxford historians Connie Willis has introduced before. This time, they are in London during the Blitz--not the safest place to be. The anxiety level of the protagonists is high throughout the latter half of the first book and the first half of the second book, almost to the point where it was annoying. But then again, they were getting bombed every night, which would set anyone on edge, time-traveling woes or no.

The thing that was most powerful about this book was the feeling that you got of what it might be like to live through the Blitz. The constant uncertainty, the constant lack of sleep, the people you know getting hurt or killed. You also got a much better understanding of how many people were part of the war effort in one way or another. One of the historians is unhappy to be assigned to a theatrical group as part of her national service, but comes to see how this, too, was part of getting through the war. Another historian has come to study heroism, thinking it would be at Dunkirk. Instead he finds it...everywhere, and in the smallest things. A third historian, originally placed with child evacuees, comes to see even her incorrigible charges, the horrible Hodbins, have a role to play.

Despite their length, the books are incredibly well plotted. It's a very lean 1,100 page novel and a total page turner. I lost a lot of sleep reading way too late at night.

It was also simply fun to see familiar names, places, and events seen through different eyes. Alan Turing almost hits one of the historians while biking recklessly to Bletchley Park. The Queen of England, General Patton--and his dog--all make an appearance.

But mostly this is about all the people who won the war through their day to day efforts, and all the small events upon which history turned. In her acknowledgments, Willis thanks "the marvelous group of ladies who were at the Imperial War Museum the day I was there doing research on the Blitz--women who, it turned out, had all been rescue workers and ambulance drivers and air-raid wardens during the Blitz, and who told me story after story that proved invaluable to the book and to my understanding of the bravery, determination, and humor of the British people as they faced down Hitler." These books are dedicated to them, and are a worthy paean.

***

In other book news, Chaplain Mike over at Internet Monk posted a sweet entry about his favorite book The Giving Tree. Little did he know how many of us hate-- HATE with a white hot passion -- The Giving Tree, so much so that he ultimately had to close the comments.

What fascinates me is how wide the commentary on The Giving Tree runs. I thought this collection of brief responses to The Giving Tree captured the complexity of thought very well.

So what's your take on The Giving Tree? Tale of grace and generosity? Of environmental degredation? Of the subjugation of women? Love it? Hate it? I am now supremely curious to hear how other people hear this.

Quote of the Day

If we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason that respects the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for the living.

from David Souter's commencement address to Harvard, speaking of reading the Constitution. Spoken like a true Episcopalian. Sound advice for reading Scripture as well, methinks.

The mind and the senses

I was intrigued by an obituary I saw earlier this week for a psychologist named Richard Gregory. He was an experimental psychologist who was particularly fascinated by the way the brain fills in visual information. "He explained that perception involves two sorts of processing: the straightforward acceptance of what is in the retinal image; and the use of what we already know, or have learned, to fill in or complete the image."

Here he is explaining it himself:



"Well, blow me down!" he says.

A long time ago, I remember reading an interview with the documentarian Errol Morris who said "Believing is seeing and not the other way around." His further contention is that "Unhappily, an unerring fact of human nature is that we habitually reject the evidence of our own senses. If we want to believe something, then we often find a way to do so regardless of evidence to the contrary." But Professor Gregory also shows that sometimes our senses have no idea what to make of the evidence in front of us. Or that we make something of it because something in us compels us to make something of it.

I can't tell you how happy I am not to be preaching on the Trinity this Sunday. But if I were, I think I'd be talking about how desperately we want to explain things and how at this moment I am feeling very at ease knowing that I am unable to comprehend the Trinity even with the best efforts of my mind and senses. I know I'm filling in the blanks but I hope I also know that this is not because I understand but because I want to.

Ask culture and Guess culture

I thought this was fascinating and wanted to share.

Someone (back in 2007) wrote to a website to ask advice. A friend of the writer's wife asked to stay at their apartment in NYC for a couple of days while she was in town on business. Writer and wife are appalled at friend's rudeness and wonder how to turn her down. After much comment, some saying, "This isn't rude, just tell her no," and others saying, "How rude! Some people never get the hint," one comment stood out:

This is a classic case of Ask Culture meets Guess Culture.

In some families, you grow up with the expectation that it's OK to ask for anything at all, but you gotta realize you might get no for an answer. This is Ask Culture.

In Guess Culture, you avoid putting a request into words unless you're pretty sure the answer will be yes. Guess Culture depends on a tight net of shared expectations. A key skill is putting out delicate feelers. If you do this with enough subtlety, you won't even have to make the request directly; you'll get an offer. Even then, the offer may be genuine or pro forma; it takes yet more skill and delicacy to discern whether you should accept.

All kinds of problems spring up around the edges. If you're a Guess Culture person -- and you obviously are -- then unwelcome requests from Ask Culture people seem presumptuous and out of line, and you're likely to feel angry, uncomfortable, and manipulated.

If you're an Ask Culture person, Guess Culture behavior can seem incomprehensible, inconsistent, and rife with passive aggression.

Obviously she's an Ask and you're a Guess. (I'm a Guess too. Let me tell you, it's great for, say, reading nuanced and subtle novels; not so great for, say, dating and getting raises.)

Thing is, Guess behaviors only work among a subset of other Guess people -- ones who share a fairly specific set of expectations and signalling techniques. The farther you get from your own family and friends and subculture, the more you'll have to embrace Ask behavior. Otherwise you'll spend your life in a cloud of mild outrage at (pace Moomin fans) the Cluelessness of Everyone.

It explains so much!

So which one are you? Are you from Ask Culture or Guess Culture? Or does it depend on who you're with?

h/t The Lead.

Introducing...Ms. Beezle-Bubb

A new person has appeared in my life. Actually, she's been here a long time, but I'm beginning to hear her voice more clearly, and I wanted to introduce her to you. Here she is--the charming Ms. Beezle-Bubb.



Obviously very attractive, she takes care of herself, but is not vain--no, of course not. That's why she wears the heavy glasses. She only wants what's best for you, my dear, and anything she says is there to help you understand. She's particularly clear about grammar because grammar has very clear rules that anyone should be able to follow. Mostly, she hates it when you disappoint her, sweetie, because she knows you could do so much better than that. If you really tried and put your mind to it. Really, she just wants what's best for you.

I saw her posting a comment the other day on a blog under a pseudonym, but I knew right away it was really her. The post pointed out that God hates shellfish, calling them an abomination in Leviticus. I thought that was spot-on, but Miss Beezle-Bubb pointed out the error of anyone thinking that shellfish=abomination might have something to say about lying-with-a-man=abomination with this pithy reply:

I wonder why those on the episcopal left, after 7 years, have never really taken the time to understand why the shellfish argument is so embarrassingly bad? Really Scott, I expect better of you.

Indeed, the shame. Why haven't we taken the time when obviously those using Leviticus as a proof that homosexuality is sinful have clearly thought through all of the Biblical scholarship on the subject. Thank you, Ms. Beezle-Bubb, for shining the light of truth on the darkness and error of our ways.

I shall continue to share your wisdom whenever I hear your voice.

Update: She tells me that she prefers to be called Ms. I apologize for the error.

More news from Nigeria

Interesting and revealing to compare the NY Times and Al Jazeera coverage of the latest events in Nigeria.

The NY Times report from Senegal starts by saying, "The leader of a fundamentalist Islamic sect was captured and killed after he fled a climactic gun battle with the Nigerian military, news reports said Thursday."

The Al Jazeera report begins, "Nigerian police have claimed the killing of Mohammed Yusuf, the leader of an Islamic group Boko Haram while in detention." But later in the story,

Al Jazeera's Yvonne Ndege, reporting from Borno state in northern Nigeria, said: "One cannot be a hundred per cent sure of what the police are saying about the capture and death of Mohammed Yusuf for two reason.

"One, the military and police are under sustained political pressure to root out Boko Haram. Two, on Wednesday we were told that Yusuf and at least 300 of his supporters fled Maiduguru as they were being pursued by Nigerian security forces.

"What we have asked the Nigerian police force for is evidence that they have actually captured Mohammed Yusuf but we have not got it."

Props to Al Jazeera for not simply relying upon "news reports." I thought the NY Times WAS the news reports. Grumble, grumble.

BBC news also has a report here.

On partisanship

I think one of the things that most saddens me in the ongoing discussions in the news about torture is that there are any ongoing discussions at all.

Do we think for one blind minute that any conservative commentators would be justifying torture, or memos authorizing the use of torture, or calling them "enhanced interrogation techniques" if they had been employed by a Democratic administration? And I would hate to think that Democratic commentators would be doing the same kind of mental gymnastics that Republican commentators are currently doing had the situation been reversed, but I fear it might be so. Because the rule of the day seems to be Party Uber Alles. And it is amazing to me how few people seem willing to say "This is wrong" simply because it's wrong rather than because it's a chance to win.



This morning I read a commencement speech by David Foster Wallace (given at Kenyon College, actually), recommended by someone I follow on Twitter, that really hits its stride toward the end.

Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they're evil or sinful, it's that they're unconscious. They are default settings.

They're the kind of worship you just gradually slip into, day after day, getting more and more selective about what you see and how you measure value without ever being fully aware that that's what you're doing.

I suspect that's what we're seeing: partisanship as unconscious worship, as default settings. How far do that road do we have to go before we snap ourselves out of it?

On sources

There is an editorial by E.D. Hirsch, Jr. in the Times today about standardized testing. I think it caught my eye because of the baseball bit, but I thought this was interesting. The writer reports on a study from 1988:

Experimenters separated seventh- and eighth-grade students into two groups — strong and weak readers as measured by standard reading tests. The students in each group were subdivided according to their baseball knowledge. Then they were all given a reading test with passages about baseball. Low-level readers with high baseball knowledge significantly outperformed strong readers with little background knowledge.

I thought, Wow! That's really important! And the conclusion Hirsch draws is that "The experiment confirmed what language researchers have long maintained: the key to comprehension is familiarity with the relevant subject. For a student with a basic ability to decode print, a reading-comprehension test is not chiefly a test of formal techniques but a test of background knowledge." Which neatly supports some of my own prejudices.

So I thought I'd write about this on the blog and say, "See?" But there was a problem: there's no link to the study. There's no reference or footnote to find it. There's no actual way of telling exactly what that study shows, or if it even exists.

So I did what anyone would do: I googled. And I found something that might be the study referenced, but a) I can only get to the abstract; and b) there are some very pertinent differences.

Here's the abstract:

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the effect of expert knowledge and metacognitive knowledge on strategy acquisition using an ecologically valid task. Fourth- and fifth-grade boys were poor readers and baseball experts were trained in the use of a reading strategy (asking why questions), with instruction being embedded in either baseball or nonbaseball stories. The boys were tested for strategy use, recall, and accuracy of monitoring 1 to 3 days after training, then again after 2 to 3 weeks later. Boys trained using baseball stories demonstrated greater strategy use at both post-tests than boys trained using nonbaseball stories, indicating that knowledge base aided in the acquisition of a reading comprehension strategy. Boys with higher declarative metacognition scores demonstrated better strategy acquisition and increased literal recall. All types of recall were higher for baseball stories.

[emphases in bold mine]

So, similarities: an experiment on reading comprehension involving baseball. Differences: a different grade level, only poor readers, using baseball stories for instruction on strategy, rather than using the baseball story as the test story itself.

All of which casts doubt for me on the validity of this editorial.

Where is this study? What does it say? What was its methodology? And have there been follow-ups? One study over 20 years ago does not a scientific conclusion make.

I hate feeling that I have to be skeptical of everything I read in the papers.

St. John, post script

Read the first St. John entry below before reading this one.

OK, have you read the other one? Well then.

This editorial captures well the difference between John's gospel and the synoptics. To summarize, it says that most Americans believe religions other than theirs can lead to eternal life. "This threw evangelicals into a tizzy," says Charles Blow. But I think this can be explained in Biblical terms.

Now, referring to the same Wikipedia table that I mentioned earlier, the basis of personal salvation in the synoptics is good works, helping the poor, sick, imprisoned, and needy. It is only in John that salvation depends upon belief in Jesus as the Son of God. What this editorial suggests is that the synoptic view of Jesus is prevailing in American opinion. (And in mine, too.)

The still small voice

If you are the type to pay attention to these things, you'll see that I'm posting this at a little after 6 a.m. on a Sunday morning, and that can mean only one thing: I went to bed without figuring out the end of my sermon. Luckily, I've got a big pot of Awake tea right next to me, AND I have finished the sermon. It's in note form rather than manuscript because much of it is simply relating the events in the life and ministry of Elijah, but I went to bed with a question I still haven't answered: What is the still small voice?

The NRSV translates it differently (and, according to the much beloved (by me) Interpreter's Bible 1954, more accurately) as "a sound of sheer silence." The Interpreter's Bible (1954) says the Hebrew is "a sound of a gentle stillness." (Here's the passage in the NRSV.)

But the thing that struck me this time reading this passage is that the word of the Lord comes to Elijah both before and after this sound/not sound. It's the word of the Lord that tells Elijah to "Go out and stand on the mountain before the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by."

Now, I can't tell you how many times I have acted under the presumption that in listening for the still, small voice I was listening for the word of the Lord. I was listening for God to speak to me. But this passage -- the actual passage from which that phrase emerges -- completely counters that. The Lord speaks to Elijah all over the place.

No wonder that still small voice is so hard to hear: it's not even there! It's an incorrect interpretation of an incorrect translation taken out of context!

The problem is this doesn't answer the question of how to hear the word of the Lord. But it at least frees it up so that I could hear the Lord speaking in all sorts of places and times and contexts: through Scripture, through others, in sermons and books (and blogs!), on retreat, at work, in silence and in sound.

May the Lord give us ears to hear.

The laborers are few

Last night, at a parish meeting, we looked at the passage from Luke where Jesus says, "The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few;" and I realized for the first time that the next part is not "Therefore, you should work much, much harder." Instead, Jesus says, "therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest."

I've always heard this passage interpreted with the "harvest" being souls in need of saving. But that doesn't make sense to me, looking at the full statement. It sounds to me like the harvest is some other good thing, and that the more people to make that harvest happen, the better. I'm not sure saving anyone has anything to do with it--not the other laborers, not the harvest. It was just interesting to me. I'll have to ponder this.