Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 354

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

This is vol­ume 354, which is the sum of the first four 4^th pow­ers: 1⁴+2⁴+3⁴+4⁴ = 1+16+81+256=354.

Things Glen Found Interesting

1. When to Dis­trust Your Pas­tor (Gar­rett Kell, Gospel Coali­tion): “Shep­herds should be known by their sheep. Appear­ing in the pul­pit is only a small part of a pastor’s respon­si­bil­i­ty. If church mem­bers lack any vis­i­bil­i­ty into their pas­tors’ lives, they are unable to ‘con­sid­er the out­come of their way of life, and imi­tate their faith’ (Heb. 13:7).”
2. Con­cern­ing mar­riage:
   • The ben­e­fits of mar­riage shouldn’t only be for elites (Brad Wilcox, Deseret News): “We’re think­ing here of the way in which the U.S. mil­i­tary has increased the rate of mar­riage among its ranks, many of whom are from work­ing-class back­grounds. What’s also inter­est­ing is the research sug­gests there is vir­tu­al­ly no racial gap in mar­riage in the mil­i­tary. Whites and Blacks mar­ry at about the same rate. What’s the military’s secret? It pro­vides great ben­e­fits and doesn’t give them to cohab­it­ing cou­ples. In oth­er words, it priv­i­leges mar­riage. The rest of the gov­ern­ment should do like­wise.” Inter­est­ing through­out.
   • I Mar­ried the Wrong Per­son, and I’m So Glad I Did (Tish Har­ri­son War­ren, New York Times): “I want to nor­mal­ize sig­nif­i­cant peri­ods of con­fu­sion, exhaus­tion, grief and unful­fill­ment in mar­riage. There’s an old­er cou­ple I know who are in their fifth decade of mar­riage. They are fun­ny and kind and, by almost any stan­dard, the pic­ture of #rela­tion­ship­goals. Ear­ly on in our mar­riage they told us, ‘There are times in mar­riage when the Bible’s call to love your ene­mies and the call to love your spouse are the same call.’ ”
3. Con­cern­ing Ukraine:
   • West­ern Lead­ers Ought to Take Esca­la­tion Over Ukraine Seri­ous­ly (Michael Lopate and Bear Brau­moeller, War On The Rocks): “Most wars will either be far less lethal or far more lethal than the medi­an. The bot­tom 50 per­cent of wars have an aver­age of about 2,900 bat­tle deaths, while the top 50 per­cent have an aver­age of 653,000, and it is effec­tive­ly a coin-flip which half any giv­en war will end up in. In Ukraine, after three months and with no end in sight, West­ern ana­lysts esti­mate at least 20,000 fatal­i­ties, putting this war well into the top half of con­flicts.”
     • The authors are polit­i­cal sci­en­tists at The Ohio State Uni­ver­si­ty (if you did not know, hav­ing “The” in the uni­ver­si­ty’s name is very impor­tant to Ohions).
   • Of Sanc­tions and Strate­gic Bombers (Tan­ner Greer, per­son­al blog): “This is most clear in our recent sanc­tions cam­paign against the Rus­sians. As with strate­gic bomb­ing, the entire enter­prise is premised on exploit­ing a psy­cho­log­i­cal and social divide between ruler and ruled that might not exist. Like our grand­fa­thers before us, we have a dif­fi­cult time accept­ing that the every­day cit­i­zen of an author­i­tar­i­an regime might be moti­vat­ed to sac­ri­fice their lives and liv­ing stan­dards for abstract, nation­al­ist ideals. As in World War II, we deny these civil­ians cul­pa­bil­i­ty for the war while simul­ta­ne­ous­ly devis­ing tac­tics that make them the first tar­get of our fury.”
     • This is an inter­est­ing cri­tique of eco­nom­ic sanc­tions as a tool in inter­na­tion­al rela­tions.
4. What Amer­i­ca Needs Is a Lib­er­al­ism That Builds (Ezra Klein, New York Times): “…the Empire State Build­ing was con­struct­ed in just over a year. We are rich­er than we were then, and our tech­nol­o­gy far out­paces what was avail­able in 1930. And yet does any­one seri­ous­ly believe such a project would take a year today?”
5. What Comes After the Reli­gious Right? (Nate Hochman, New York Times): “Rather than invo­ca­tions of Scrip­ture, the right’s appeal is a defense of a broad­er, belea­guered Amer­i­can way of life. For exam­ple, the lan­guage of parental rights is rarely, if ever, reli­gious, but it speaks to the per­va­sive sense that Amer­i­can fam­i­lies are fight­ing back against pro­gres­sive ide­o­logues over con­trol of the class­room.”
6. Your Kids Are Not Doomed (Ezra Klein, New York Times): “Over the past few years, I’ve been asked one ques­tion more than any oth­er. It comes up at speech­es, at din­ners, in con­ver­sa­tion. It’s the most pop­u­lar query when I open my pod­cast to sug­ges­tions, time and again. It comes in two forms. The first: Should I have kids, giv­en the cli­mate cri­sis they will face? The sec­ond: Should I have kids, know­ing they will con­tribute to the cli­mate cri­sis the world faces?”
7. The African Roots of the Day of Pen­te­cost (Daniel Isgrigg, per­son­al blog): “If Oden is right, the first Pen­te­costal church was in the home of an African dis­ci­ple. Is it any won­der, then, that the mod­ern Pen­te­costal Move­ment was launched by a prayer meet­ing at an African Amer­i­can home that was led by the a son of an African slave? Or that an African Amer­i­can mis­sion on Azusa Street became the nexus for a glob­al revival that changed Chris­tian­i­ty? Or is it any won­der that African spir­i­tu­al­i­ty has shaped Pen­te­costal wor­ship aes­thet­ics such as shout­ing, danc­ing, and tar­ry­ing?  Final­ly, if Pen­te­cost began in an African woman’s home, is it any won­der that Pen­te­costal­ism has includ­ed women as co-labor­ers and pro­claimers of the gospel around the world?”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

• This New Opti­cal Illu­sion is Strong Enough to Trick our Reflex­es (Sci Tech Dai­ly)
• When Peter real­ized he was walk­ing on water (Twit­ter)
• Stu­dents report that cry­ing dur­ing exams acti­vates schools’ anti-cheat soft­ware (Ryan Gen­er­al, Yahoo News): “ ‘One of my French exams got flagged for cheat­ing because I was cry­ing for the whole thing, and my French prof had to watch 45 min of me qui­et­ly sob­bing,’ anoth­er user wrote.”
• New Evi­dence Sug­gests That Cain’s Reject­ed Offer­ing Was Kale (Baby­lon Bee)
• Coun­tries Guess Who They Are (Foil Arms and Hog, YouTube): two and half min­utes
• This gang of cow­boys saved Okla­homa dri­vers from a loose cow on the inter­state, but the news guy’s play-by-play is what has me in stitch­es (Not The Bee): one and a half minute video

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Too Much Dark Mon­ey in Almonds (Scott Alexan­der, Slate Star Codex): “Every­one always talks about how much mon­ey there is in pol­i­tics. This is the wrong fram­ing. The right fram­ing is Ansolabehere et al’s: why is there so lit­tle mon­ey in pol­i­tics? But Ansolabehere focus­es on elec­tions, and the mys­tery is wider than that. Sure, dur­ing the 2018 elec­tion, can­di­dates, par­ties, PACs, and out­siders com­bined spent about $5 bil­lion – $2.5 bil­lion on Democ­rats, $2 bil­lion on Repub­li­cans, and $0.5 bil­lion on third par­ties. And although that sounds like a lot of mon­ey to you or me, on the nation­al scale, it’s puny. The US almond indus­try earns $12 bil­lion per year. Amer­i­cans spent about 2.5x as much on almonds as on can­di­dates last year.” It builds to a sur­pris­ing twist. High­ly rec­om­mend­ed. First shared in vol­ume 219.

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). And to the extent you can dis­cern my opin­ions, please under­stand that they are my own and not nec­es­sar­i­ly those of Chi Alpha or any oth­er orga­ni­za­tion I may be per­ceived to rep­re­sent. 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. If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.