Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 42

On Fri­days I share articles/resources I have found help­ful recent­ly in think­ing about broad­er cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom.

1. Jesus of Nazareth, Whose Mes­sian­ic Mes­sage Cap­ti­vat­ed Thou­sands, Dies at About 33 (Sam Roberts, Van­i­ty Fair): What would Jesus’ New York Times obit­u­ary have looked like? Clever, well-done, and Good Fri­day appro­pri­ate.
2. Anato­my of Doubt (Ira Glass, This Amer­i­can Life): this is an amaz­ing, dis­turb­ing sto­ry. There are com­pan­ion print pieces as well, but lis­ten to the pod­cast. 
3. Do We Still Need Pris­ons? (Paul Kir­by, Volte­face): this arti­cle by David Cameron’s for­mer direc­tor of pub­lic pol­i­cy is full of cre­ative ideas. Two relat­ed thoughts worth pon­der­ing: the Bible nev­er com­mands a gov­ern­ment to build pris­ons, and Jesus said He came to set the pris­on­ers free.
4. How well online dat­ing works, accord­ing to some­one who has been study­ing it for years (Rober­to Fer­d­man, Wonkblog): this an inter­view with a Stan­ford prof.  “It’s kind of super­fi­cial. But it’s super­fi­cial because we’re kind of super­fi­cial; it’s like that because humans are like that. Judg­ing what some­one else looks like first is not an attribute of tech­nol­o­gy, it’s an attribute of how we look at peo­ple. Dat­ing, both mod­ern and not, is a fair­ly super­fi­cial endeav­or.”
5. A Dia­log On Race and Speech at Yale (Conor Frieder­s­dorf, The Atlantic): the colum­nist has a very insight­ful email inter­change with a Yale under­grad.
6. Ban­ning Cred­it Checks Harms African-Amer­i­cans (Tyler Cowen): “In states that passed cred­it-check bans, it  became eas­i­er for peo­ple with bad cred­it his­to­ries to com­pete for employ­ment. But dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly, they seem to have elbowed aside black job-seek­ers.” — read a more thor­ough sum­ma­ry at Wonkblog.
7. A clus­ter of voic­es speak­ing about the reli­gious free­dom case recent­ly argued before the Supreme Court:
   • Stan­ford pro­fes­sor Michael McConnell’s take on the oral argu­ments: “At a time of ris­ing divi­sive­ness and polar­iza­tion, it would be great­ly calm­ing if the Court could unite in this case to pro­tect the rights of many with absolute­ly no injury to any­one else, or to the pub­lic good.”
   • Reli­gious Free­dom Deserves Def­er­ence: Our View Edi­to­r­i­al Board, USA Today): “To imag­ine that non-prof­its whose very exis­tence is tied to reli­gion do not deserve more def­er­ence than for-prof­it busi­ness­es is quite a stretch.”
   • Lit­tle Sis­ters, Big Case (Rus­sell Moore, The Hill): “Over 100 mil­lion Amer­i­cans don’t have health plans that must offer the government’s drugs. The gov­ern­ment exempts big busi­ness­es such as Exxon and big munic­i­pal­i­ties such as New York City, and does so just to reduce admin­is­tra­tive incon­ve­nience for these enti­ties. The gov­ern­ment even exempts itself, refus­ing to require the U.S. military—the nation’s largest employer—to pro­vide the same drugs they want to force the Lit­tle Sis­ters of the Poor to pro­vide.”
8. Quick Links
   • The best texts between Super­man and Bat­man
   • A com­ic about the hypocrisy of Hol­ly­wood
   • ISIS Is Using the Media Against Itself (Char­lie Win­ter, The Atlantic)

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it).

Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it.