Tag: abortion

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 203

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Heart of the Evan­gel­i­cal Cri­sis (Mark Gal­li, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “My next thought was, ‘Well, if I call myself a Chris­t­ian, I should have greater love and desire to know God more deeply. Per­haps I should pray for that.’ And that’s when some­thing occurred to me with great force: I wasn’t sure I want­ed that. I rec­og­nize that was an odd admis­sion for a per­son who claimed to be a good Chris­t­ian. But there it was. I didn’t think I real­ly want­ed to love God more. The rea­sons for that are com­plex and will be touched on lat­er, but the bot­tom line was: I real­ly didn’t want to love God.” First essay in a series.
  2. Abor­tion in Amer­i­ca, explained in 10 facts (Anna North, Vox): “Even though the abor­tion rate has declined, the pro­ce­dure remains com­mon­place. Accord­ing to a 2017 analy­sis by the Guttmach­er Insti­tute, 23.7 per­cent of women in the Unit­ed States will have an abor­tion by the age of 45. Nine­teen per­cent will have one by age 30, and 4.6 per­cent will have one by age 20.”
    • Debunk­ing 9 Myths Sur­round­ing Alabama’s Abor­tion Law (Car­ole Noviel­li, Live Action): “This bill, HB314, was spon­sored by a female law­mak­er, Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Ter­ri Collins, and was signed into law by female Gov­er­nor Kay Ivey. Pro-life orga­ni­za­tions are led by women. The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court deci­sion, on the oth­er hand, was imposed by all men.”
    • Alaba­ma and Geor­gia Are Throw­ing Down the Gaunt­let against Roe. Good. (David French, Nation­al Review): dif­fi­cult to excerpt. A good sum­ma­ry of the legal strat­e­gy the south­ern states are pur­su­ing.
    • I’m an anti-abor­tion Chris­t­ian. But Alabama’s ban will do more harm than good. (Kather­ine Kelaidis, Vox): “Dra­con­ian bans on abor­tion — and frankly any­thing oth­er than lib­er­al access to abor­tions along with com­pre­hen­sive sex edu­ca­tion and access to con­tra­cep­tion — fail to pro­tect human life, both in the womb and out­side of it. This, in itself, should be intol­er­a­ble to any Chris­t­ian, par­tic­u­lar­ly one who views abor­tion as moral­ly sus­pect.”
    • Why some anti-abor­tion con­ser­v­a­tives think Alabama’s abor­tion law goes too far (Jane Coas­ton, Vox): “A 2018 Gallup poll found that just 29 per­cent of Amer­i­cans believe abor­tion should be legal in all cir­cum­stances, but that out­weighs the 18 per­cent of Amer­i­cans who believe abor­tion should be ille­gal in all cir­cum­stances. The vast major­i­ty of Amer­i­cans think abor­tion should be legal, with restric­tions of some kind (abor­tions being per­mit­ted only with­in the first three months of preg­nan­cy, for exam­ple).”
    • That lat­est Pat Robert­son juridi­cal quote: Jour­nal­ists may want to note these inter­est­ing facts (Ter­ry Mat­ting­ly, GetRe­li­gion): “Robert­son is (a) mak­ing a com­ment about legal ques­tions linked to this Alaba­ma law and, (b) also about the polit­i­cal real­i­ties sur­round­ing it. Thus, I am ask­ing: Should jour­nal­ists con­sid­er adding one or two sen­tences to their reports not­ing that Robert­son is (a) a grad­u­ate of Yale Law School and (b) some­one who grew up in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., as the son of a U.S. Sen­a­tor? How many read­ers know these two facts about this famous reli­gious leader?” Wait. What? I had no idea.
    • Most Abor­tion-Mind­ed Women Aren’t Cal­cu­lat­ing Killers. They’re Afraid (Maria Baer, Gospel Coali­tion): the whole thing is worth read­ing — this bit caught my atten­tion but isn’t real­ly close to her main point: “Evil often begets more evil. While many who sup­port so-called abor­tion rights believe they’re serv­ing needy women, they’re over­look­ing one crit­i­cal real­i­ty: Women are often brought—reluctantly—to the abor­tion doc­tor. These women are com­pelled toward abor­tion not by their own empow­er­ing, my-body-is-my-own sense of auton­o­my, but by anoth­er per­son seek­ing con­trol. Angry boyfriends, angry hus­bands, angry moth­ers, angry employers—these are so often the wind at the back of an abor­tion-mind­ed woman.”
  3. Too many men: Chi­na and India bat­tle with the con­se­quences of gen­der imbal­ance (Simon Deny­er & Annie Gowen,South Chi­na Morn­ing Post): this arti­cle is a year old, it’s long but good. “Noth­ing like this has hap­pened in human his­to­ry. A com­bi­na­tion of cul­tur­al pref­er­ences, gov­ern­ment decree and mod­ern med­ical tech­nol­o­gy in the world’s two largest coun­tries has cre­at­ed a gen­der imbal­ance on a con­ti­nen­tal scale. Men out­num­ber women by 70 mil­lion in Chi­na and India…. In any giv­en age group, a pro­por­tion of men will fail to find brides, but they will stay in the mar­riage mar­ket, com­pet­ing with younger men to mar­ry younger women. The dis­pro­por­tion keeps grow­ing. By 2050, French demog­ra­ph­er Christophe Guil­mo­to esti­mates, there could be between 150 to 190 men for every 100 women in China’s mar­riage mar­ket.”
  4. A few brief obser­va­tions about think­ing clear­ly:
    • Account­ing Iden­ti­ties and the Implic­it The­o­ry of Iner­tia (Nick Rowe, Worth­while Cana­di­an Ini­tia­tive): “Ani­mals can be divid­ed into Car­ni­vores and Non-Car­ni­vores: A = C + NC. There­fore, if we add some wolves to an island of sheep, the num­ber of ani­mals on that island will increase. It’s easy to see why that argu­ment might not be right. Wolves kill sheep. But if you did­n’t know that fact about wolves and sheep, the argu­ment looks very appeal­ing. But the equa­tion A = C + NC tells us absolute­ly noth­ing about the world; it’s an account­ing iden­ti­ty that is true by def­i­n­i­tion. The only thing it tells you is how I have cho­sen to divide up the world into parts. And I can choose an infi­nite num­ber of dif­fer­ent ways to divide the world up into parts.” This is an impor­tant insight.
    • Why Do Exper­i­ments Make Peo­ple Uneasy? (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “One fac­tor which comes out of respon­dent com­ments is that the exper­i­ment forces peo­ple to reck­on with the idea that even experts don’t know what the right thing to do is and that con­fes­sion of igno­rance both­ers peo­ple. (This is also one rea­son why peo­ple may pre­fer pun­dits who always ‘know’ the right thing to do even when they man­i­fest­ly do not).”
    • Our first instinct is far too often wrong (Tim Har­ford, Finan­cial Times): “In a mul­ti­ple-choice test, you some­times write down an answer and then have sec­ond thoughts. Is it wise to stay with your first instincts, or bet­ter to switch? Most peo­ple would advise that the ini­tial answer is usu­al­ly bet­ter than the doubt-plagued sec­ond guess…. Researchers have been study­ing this ques­tion since the 1920s. They have over­whelm­ing­ly con­clud­ed both that indi­vid­ual answer changes are more like­ly to be from wrong to right, and that stu­dents who change their answers tend to improve their scores.”
    • The Big Sto­ry You Don’t Read About (David Brooks, New York Times): “How did we in our busi­ness get in the spot where we spend 90 per­cent of our cov­er­age on the 10 per­cent of our lives influ­enced by pol­i­tics and 10 per­cent of our cov­er­age on the 90 per­cent of our lives influ­enced by rela­tion­ship, com­mu­ni­ty and the places we live in every day?”
  5. When Male Run­ners Lose to Women (Ley­land Cec­co, The Wal­rus): “Stud­ies are start­ing to show that male and female bod­ies respond dif­fer­ent­ly to fatigue: dur­ing long peri­ods of exer­cise, the brain mon­i­tors and triages the body’s out­put, reg­u­lat­ing feel­ings of exhaus­tion to ensure the run­ner doesn’t overex­tend them­selves. If the cen­tral ner­vous sys­tem sens­es the activ­i­ty is becom­ing too intense, it reduces the muscle’s out­put…. ‘It turns out women have a slight­ly, it seems, bet­ter resis­tance to that kind of fatigue.’”
  6. The Incom­pat­i­bil­i­ty of Crit­i­cal The­o­ry and Chris­tian­i­ty (Neil Shen­vi & Pat Sawyer, Gospel Coali­tion): “Chris­tian­i­ty pro­vides us with an over­ar­ch­ing meta­nar­ra­tive that runs from cre­ation to redemp­tion: We are crea­tures made in God’s image, who have sinned against him, who need to be res­cued through the aton­ing work of Jesus, and who are called to love both God and neigh­bor. In con­trast, crit­i­cal the­o­ry is asso­ci­at­ed with a meta­nar­ra­tive that runs from oppres­sion to lib­er­a­tion: We are mem­bers either of a dom­i­nant group or of a mar­gin­al­ized group with respect to a giv­en iden­ti­ty mark­er. As such, we either need to divest our­selves of pow­er and seek to lib­er­ate oth­ers, or we need to acquire pow­er and lib­er­ate our­selves by dis­man­tling all struc­tures and insti­tu­tions that sub­ju­gate and oppress. In crit­i­cal the­o­ry, the great­est sin is oppres­sion, and the great­est virtue is the pur­suit of lib­er­a­tion.”
    • Relat­ed (at least in my mind): Chris­tians Can­not Be Mis­treat­ed (George Yancey, Patheos): “I believe that some indi­vid­u­als are unable to see anti-Chris­t­ian dis­crim­i­na­tion no mat­ter what evi­dence is pre­sent­ed to them. For them the cul­tur­al nar­ra­tive that Chris­tians are the dom­i­nant group is sim­ply too pow­er­ful for them to con­sid­er alter­na­tive infor­ma­tion.” The author, whose work I have fea­tured before, is a soci­ol­o­gist at the Uni­ver­si­ty of North Texas.
  7. The ‘3.5% Rule’: How A Small Minor­i­ty Can Change The World (David Rob­son, BBC): “Look­ing at hun­dreds of cam­paigns over the last cen­tu­ry, Chenoweth found that non­vi­o­lent cam­paigns are twice as like­ly to achieve their goals as vio­lent cam­paigns. And although the exact dynam­ics will depend on many fac­tors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the pop­u­la­tion active­ly par­tic­i­pat­ing in the protests to ensure seri­ous polit­i­cal change.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have an eye-open­ing (and dis­may­ing) arti­cle, What The Media Gets Wrong About Israel (Mat­tie Fried­man, The Atlantic). (first shared back in vol­ume 5): “one of the most impor­tant aspects of the media-sat­u­rat­ed con­flict between Jews and Arabs is also the least cov­ered: the press itself. The West­ern press has become less an observ­er of this con­flict than an actor in it, a role with con­se­quences for the mil­lions of peo­ple try­ing to com­pre­hend cur­rent events, includ­ing pol­i­cy­mak­ers who depend on jour­nal­is­tic accounts to under­stand a region where they con­sis­tent­ly seek, and fail, to pro­duc­tive­ly inter­vene.”

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 192

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Bible Says Jesus Was Real. What Oth­er Proof Exists? (Christo­pher Klein, History.com): “With­in a few decades of his life­time, Jesus was men­tioned by Jew­ish and Roman his­to­ri­ans in pas­sages that cor­rob­o­rate por­tions of the New Tes­ta­ment that describe the life and death of Jesus.”
  2. Jesus, Mary, and Joe Jonas (Jonathan Parks-Ram­age, Medi­um): “How, in famous­ly lib­er­al Hol­ly­wood and among sta­tis­ti­cal­ly pro­gres­sive mil­len­ni­als, had good old-fash­ioned evan­ge­lism [sic] gained pop­u­lar­i­ty? In this con­text, a church like Real­i­ty L.A. seemed like some­thing that could nev­er work. But that evening, as I reflect­ed on the trou­bled actress and the psy­chic bru­tal­i­ties inflict­ed by the enter­tain­ment indus­try, it occurred to me that I had under­es­ti­mat­ed Hollywood’s biggest prod­uct: lost souls.”
    • High­ly rec­om­mend­ed. Sto­ries like this are cat­nip for me. The author is gay, a fact which weighs heav­i­ly in his report­ing. A friend passed this my way, and I remind you that I always wel­come such sug­ges­tions.
  3. Con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians Just Retook the Unit­ed Methodist Church (Emma Green, The Atlantic): “In the final hours of the con­fer­ence on Tues­day, the debate turned acri­mo­nious: One del­e­gate alleged, with­out clear evi­dence, that peo­ple at the con­fer­ence were brib­ing oth­ers for votes. Anoth­er speaker’s mic was silenced when he threat­ened to fil­i­buster any vote before the end of the day. And the debate came to an abrupt halt: Del­e­gates had to clear out of the con­fer­ence hall so that it could be turned over for a mon­ster-truck ral­ly.”
    • That final sen­tence, while fac­tu­al, feels like a metaphor for some­thing.
    • I pre­dict the vic­to­ri­ous tra­di­tion­al­ists in the UMC will be far more mag­nan­i­mous toward church­es that wish to leave than the revi­sion­ists in oth­er denom­i­na­tions have been to their van­quished (I’m look­ing at you, Epis­co­pal Church).
  4. The Trau­ma Floor (Casey New­ton, The Verge): “One [Face­book con­tent mod­er­a­tor] walks the floor pro­mot­ing the idea that the Earth is flat. A for­mer employ­ee told me he has begun to ques­tion cer­tain aspects of the Holo­caust. Anoth­er for­mer employ­ee, who told me he has mapped every escape route out of his house and sleeps with a gun at his side, said: ‘I no longer believe 9/11 was a ter­ror­ist attack.’”
  5. Black men are less reli­gious than black women, but more reli­gious than white women and men (Kiana Cox and Jeff Dia­mant, Pew Research Cen­ter): “About sev­en-in-ten (69%) black men say reli­gion is very impor­tant to them, com­pared with 80% of black women. But black men place more impor­tance on reli­gion than white women (55%) and His­pan­ic women (65%), accord­ing to the 2014 Reli­gious Land­scape Study.”
    • I doubt many antire­li­gious peo­ple think of them­selves as racist, so they should real­ize that their attempts to erase reli­gion from the pub­lic square dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly harm black peo­ple.
  6. ‘Every day was about sur­vival’ : Inside the grad­u­ate stu­dent afford­abil­i­ty cri­sis (Char­lie Curnin, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “…when Shalev Marom wakes up with only $18 in her bank account, she finds it hard to be excit­ed about her finan­cial sit­u­a­tion. Shalev Marom, who relies on pick­ing pro­duce from cam­pus trees to sus­tain her­self, eats just one full meal a day…. At Stan­ford, Shalev Marom lives in the cheap­est hous­ing option open to her — and as an inter­na­tion­al stu­dent on a J‑1 visa, she is sub­ject to strict fed­er­al laws that reg­u­late any addi­tion­al income she could receive from fur­ther employ­ment. In each pay peri­od — rough­ly two-weeks long — she says she cur­rent­ly receives around $200 to $300 from her research assist­ant­ship, after the deduc­tion of hous­ing costs and Uni­ver­si­ty fees.”
    • This is heart­break­ing. If you know a Stan­ford stu­dent who can’t afford to eat, let me know. We can help.
  7. Main­stream Media Blacks Out The Democ­rats’ Infan­ti­cide Vote (David Harsyani, The Fed­er­al­ist): “So I was going to have a lit­tle fun at the expense of CNN this morn­ing, con­trast­ing the news site’s head­line for the Democ­rats’ gun restric­tion bill—’House to vote on guns back­ground check bill with bipar­ti­san support’—which has gar­nered exact­ly four Repub­li­can co-spon­sors, with its head­line for the Sen. Ben Sasse’s anti-infan­ti­cide bill, which I was cer­tain would be sole­ly about the “GOP” despite hav­ing four Demo­c­rat sen­a­tors vot­ing to move the bill for­ward. Turns out, it was even bet­ter. There was noth­ing to con­trast because, as far as I can tell, CNN doesn’t fea­ture a sin­gle sto­ry on their web­site regard­ing the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty block­ing of Sasse’s Born-Alive Abor­tion Sur­vivors Pro­tec­tion Act, which would have saved new­born babies who sur­vive abor­tion attempts from neg­li­gent homi­cide.”
    • A sur­vey of the results of a Google News search con­firms that this bill received almost no report­ing cov­er­age — almost all of the hits are opin­ion pieces.
    • Relat­ed: Ben Sasse Height­ens the Con­tra­dic­tions (Jake Meador, Mere Ortho­doxy): “The days in which “safe, legal, and rare,” could appeal to a wide swathe of Amer­i­cans are over. For pro-lif­ers, abor­tion is the tak­ing of inno­cent life, a thing which sim­ply should not be legal or should only be legal in the most extreme cas­es. For ‘repro­duc­tive jus­tice’ advo­cates, the right to legal abor­tion is about pro­tect­ing the auton­o­my of human per­sons, of pre­serv­ing the unen­cum­bered choice of women whose choice would oth­er­wise be nat­u­ral­ly encum­bered in ways that a man’s is not sim­ply because of their abil­i­ty to bear chil­dren.”
    • Relat­ed: The Abor­tion Debate Needs Moral Lament (Michael Wear, The Atlantic): “After decades of earnest attempts to find some com­mon ground on this most ten­der and per­son­al issue—think of Sen­a­tors Ted Kennedy and Sam Brownback’s work on a Down Syn­drome reg­istry, bipar­ti­san sup­port for the Hyde Amend­ment, and Pres­i­dent Obama’s first-term appeal for efforts to reduce the num­ber of women seek­ing abortions—that impulse has been vir­tu­al­ly erad­i­cat­ed among elect­ed offi­cials.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have How Can I Learn To Receive – And Give – Crit­i­cism In Light Of The Cross? (Justin Tay­lor, Gospel Coali­tion): “A believ­er is one who iden­ti­fies with all that God affirms and con­demns in Christ’s cru­ci­fix­ion. In oth­er words, in Christ’s cross I agree with God’s judg­ment of me; and in Christ’s cross I agree with God’s jus­ti­fi­ca­tion of me. Both have a rad­i­cal impact on how we take and give crit­i­cism.” This is based on a longer arti­cle (4 page PDF). (first shared in vol­ume 63)

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 188

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Assess­ing Bet­sy DeVos’s Pro­posed Rules on Title IX and Sex­u­al Assault (Jean­nie Suk Ger­son, New York­er): “The truth is that there is much to crit­i­cize in DeVos’s pro­pos­al but also much that would help to make schools’ process­es for han­dling sex­u­al mis­con­duct fair­er to all par­ties.” Ger­son, a Har­vard law prof, con­sis­tent­ly offers insight­ful per­spec­tive on issues sur­round­ing cam­pus sex­u­al assault.
  2. Cru­el and Unusu­al Pun­ish­ment (Lionel Shriv­er, Harpers): “The con­tem­po­rary impulse to rebuke dis­graced cre­ators by van­ish­ing their work from the cul­tur­al mar­ket­place exhibits a mean-­spirit­ed­ness, a venge­ful­ness even, as well as an illog­ic. Why, if you catch some­one doing some­thing bad, would you nec­es­sar­i­ly rub out what they’ve done that’s good? If you’re con­vict­ed of break­ing and enter­ing, the judge won’t send bailiffs around to tear down the tree house you built for your daugh­ter and to pour bleach on your home­made pie.”
  3. How I Knew the #Cov­ing­ton­Boys Video Was Click­bait (Clair Pot­ter, Pub­lic Sem­i­nar): “I think the most under­re­port­ed sto­ry about #Cov­ing­ton­Boys is how it got to us in the first place. It orig­i­nat­ed with a piece of click­bait that was cho­sen and edit­ed, by per­sons unknown, to pro­duce out­rage on the right and the left. Orig­i­nat­ing in a fake account, and pro­lif­er­at­ed by oth­er fake accounts, it was part of a pro­fes­sion­al social media cam­paign intend­ed to dis­rupt.”
    • Relat­ed: Bad, Press (Charles Cooke, Nation­al Review): “For a neat illus­tra­tion of how far­ci­cal things have become, take a look at the Wash­ing­ton Post’s most recent ‘fact check,’ which help­ful­ly informs its read­ers that the claimed ‘one thou­sand burg­ers’ Pres­i­dent Trump bought for the Clem­son foot­ball team were not, in fact, ‘piled up a mile high’ because, ‘at two inch­es each, a thou­sand burg­ers would not reach one mile high.’ Democ­ra­cy dies in dark­ness, indeed.”
  4. Imag­ine Nations Were Selfless—It’s No Par­adise (Brad Lit­tle­john, Prov­i­dence): “We hear often today about how we live in “a glob­al soci­ety” and have to take up the respon­si­bil­i­ties of “glob­al cit­i­zen­ship.” But what these exhor­ta­tions miss is that the expo­nen­tial growth in human knowl­edge over the past cen­tu­ry has not been matched by near­ly as rapid growth in human agency. It is now pos­si­ble for a house­wife in Ten­nessee to be aware of a rape in Bangladesh with­in hours or min­utes, but she is only mar­gin­al­ly more able to do any­thing about it now than she was 100 years ago.” The arti­cle as a whole is not great, but it makes a very inter­est­ing argu­ment: patri­o­tism is a nec­es­sary way to make our empa­thy pro­duc­tive.
  5. In polar­ized Wash­ing­ton, a Demo­c­rat anchors bipar­ti­san friend­ships in faith (Jack Jenk­ins, Reli­gion News Ser­vice): “A bridge builder with Repub­li­cans, Coons is known for help­ing cre­ate rare flick­ers of bipar­ti­san agree­ment. Part of his secret, it seems, is reli­gion…. Coons, who grew up attend­ing Red Clay Creek Pres­by­ter­ian Church in Hockessin, Del., explained that his faith has not only pro­vid­ed ground­ing for his own life but has also emerged as a point of con­nec­tion with Repub­li­cans, with whom he has forged last­ing rela­tion­ships — and leg­is­la­tion.”
  6. What The Estab­lish­ment Right Doesn’t Get (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): this essay, a large part of which is actu­al­ly com­men­tary from a read­er, is like a flamethrow­er. “…those who preach the bour­geois virtues can’t get a hear­ing if there is no sta­ble employ­ment for peo­ple who do the right thing. And, if those who do the right thing (by which I mean play by the rules: live lives of hard work, fair play, and self-dis­ci­pline) can find every­thing kicked out from under them all of a sud­den, it desta­bi­lizes the entire soci­ety.”
    • The fol­low-up, Lib­er­ty, Equal­i­ty — But Where’s The Fra­ter­ni­ty? is also stim­u­lat­ing.
    • Read­ing the lat­ter one brought to my atten­tion a very short essay by G.K. Chester­ton. I high­ly rec­om­mend it. “The Eng­lish peo­ple as a body went blind, as the say­ing is, for inter­pret­ing democ­ra­cy entire­ly in terms of lib­er­ty. They said in sub­stance that if they had more and more lib­er­ty it did not mat­ter whether they had any equal­i­ty or any fra­ter­ni­ty. But this was vio­lat­ing the sacred trin­i­ty of true pol­i­tics; they con­found­ed the per­sons and they divid­ed the sub­stance.”
  7. 4 Facts Every Amer­i­can Should Know About Third-Trimester Abor­tions (Joe Carter, Gospel Coali­tion): “As I not­ed in an arti­cle last week, Demo­c­ra­t­ic leg­is­la­tors in places like New York and Vir­ginia are mov­ing to cod­i­fy abor­tion rights in state law to pre­pare for the day when Roe and Doe are over­turned. When the Supreme Court throws the abor­tion issue back to the indi­vid­ual states, third-trimester abor­tions will still be pro­tect­ed in states that reit­er­ate Doe’s stan­dards for ‘via­bil­i­ty’ or ‘health.’”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have No Food Is Healthy. Not Even Kale. (Michael Ruhlman, Wash­ing­ton Post): Peo­ple can be healthy. Food can be nutri­tious. This is a won­der­ful essay about how we mis­use lan­guage to our detri­ment. If you’re sur­prised I includ­ed this, I believe that our cul­ture has a qua­si-reli­gious rela­tion­ship to health and to food, and I also believe that the use of lan­guage is pro­found­ly moral and that our cul­ture is a lin­guis­tic mess (to which I know of no fin­er guide than The Under­ground Gram­mar­i­an). (first shared in vol­ume 33)

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 171

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. So much ink about the Ford-Kavanaugh hear­ings! I’m going to avoid post­ing any arti­cles about it until a lit­tle more time has passed and more devel­op­ments have occurred, except for this insight­ful bit from the humor site The Baby­lon Bee: Suc­cess: After A Full Day Of Hear­ings, Every­one Believes Exact­ly What They Already Believed About Kavanaugh.
    • A verse that keeps com­ing to mind is Leviti­cus 19:15 — “Do not per­vert jus­tice; do not show par­tial­i­ty to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neigh­bor fair­ly.” In oth­er words, God’s stan­dard of jus­tice is straight­for­ward and with­out par­tial­i­ty. Rich peo­ple can sin against poor peo­ple, and poor peo­ple can sin against rich peo­ple. Men can sin against women, and women can sin against men. White peo­ple can sin against black peo­ple, and black peo­ple can sin against white peo­ple. True jus­tice comes from judg­ment that tran­scends our sym­pa­thies and prej­u­dices (a type of unjust pre­judg­ment). Per­haps Judge Kavanaugh sinned against Dr. Ford. Per­haps Dr. Ford is sin­ning against Judge Kavanaugh. Per­haps her mem­o­ry is faulty. Per­haps his mem­o­ry is faulty. We must not show par­tial­i­ty to her or favoritism to him. To do oth­er­wise is to per­vert jus­tice.
    • An alum­nus sent me this hymn which he found time­ly (and I con­cur): A Hymn: O God of Earth and Altar (G.K. Chester­ton): “O God of earth and altar, Bow down and hear our cry, Our earth­ly rulers fal­ter, Our peo­ple drift and die; The walls of gold entomb us, The swords of scorn divide, Take not thy thun­der from us, But take away our pride.”
  2. Why Athe­ists Are Not As Ratio­nal As Some Like To Think (Lois Lee, The Con­ver­sa­tion): “Impor­tant­ly, the sci­en­tif­ic evi­dence does not tend to sup­port the view that athe­ism is about ratio­nal thought and the­ism is about exis­ten­tial ful­fil­ments.” The author’s Ph.D. is in soci­ol­o­gy from Cam­bridge and she is a pro­fes­sor of reli­gious stud­ies at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Kent.
  3. Ter­mi­nal Lucid­i­ty: The Researchers Attempt­ing to Prove Your Mind Lives On Even After You Die (Zaron Bur­nett III, Mel): “In essence, ter­mi­nal lucid­i­ty is a mys­te­ri­ous flash of life and vital­i­ty that occurs in peo­ple just before they die. It’s most remark­able in peo­ple who have demen­tia, Alzheimer’s, menin­gi­tis, brain dam­age, strokes or were in a coma. There’s no known med­ical expla­na­tion for where this sud­den surge of vital­i­ty and func­tion­al­i­ty comes from. In large part because as sud­den­ly as it comes, with­in a few hours or even a day or two, it fades and the per­son dies, tak­ing any answers with them.” The open­ing anec­dote is wild.
  4. A Chris­t­ian Singer Is Big­ger Than Drake and Ari­ana Grande This Week (Amy X. Wang, Rolling Stone): “[Lau­ren Daigle’s] suc­cess high­lights some­thing broad­er, how­ev­er: the deep per­sis­tence of Chris­t­ian music in the U.S. audi­ence — an aspect of music con­sump­tion that has been large­ly skipped over by head­lines pro­claim­ing rap as the sole dri­ver of mod­ern music in Amer­i­ca. While rap and R&B have indeed risen to become the lead­ing genre of music con­sump­tion, Chris­t­ian music remains a siz­able minor­i­ty mass. Sol­id num­bers are hard to come by, but at its annu­al con­fer­ence in 2015, the Gospel Music Asso­ci­a­tion report­ed that 68 per­cent of Amer­i­cans had lis­tened to Chris­t­ian or gospel music with­in the last 30 days.”
  5. It’s time to rethink how much booze may be too much (Julia Bel­luz, Vox): “… the sto­ry about the health effects of mod­er­ate drink­ing is shift­ing pret­ty dra­mat­i­cal­ly. New research on alco­hol and mor­tal­i­ty, and a grow­ing aware­ness about the rise in alco­hol-relat­ed deaths in the US, is caus­ing a reck­on­ing among researchers about even mod­er­ate lev­els of alco­hol con­sump­tion.”
  6. Reflect­ing on “Racism Lives Here, Too”, Part One, see also Part Two, and Part Three (James Banker, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “As we’ve ral­lied around our dif­fer­ences, we’ve neglect­ed our com­mon­al­i­ties. We ascribe the max­i­mal­ly offen­sive and hos­tile inter­pre­ta­tions to the words and behav­ior of oth­ers. For fear of giv­ing offense or being offend­ed, we choose silence over dia­logue, as we retreat into ever more con­cen­trat­ed fac­tions of like-mind­ed peo­ple who think and speak like us. Lines have been drawn. Defens­es for­ti­fied. But along the way, we lost a com­mon lan­guage. With only the brute sig­nals for friend and foe, we com­mu­ni­cate across our divides like ships pass­ing in the night: only signs and silence.” The author is a recent Stan­ford law school grad and writes with unusu­al skill. Read­ing this felt more like read­ing an essay in the Atlantic or the New York­er than read­ing a typ­i­cal op-ed in the Dai­ly. Be sure to read all three parts.
  7. Were Evan­gel­i­cals Real­ly Silent about Roe v. Wade? (Thomas Kidd, Gospel Coali­tion): “It has become com­mon­place for his­to­ri­ans to say that evan­gel­i­cals had a mut­ed response to the Roe v. Wade deci­sion, which struck down state laws against abor­tion in 1973.… evan­gel­i­cals, both white and black, reg­is­tered grave con­cern about Roe and abor­tion-on-demand, how­ev­er. Evi­dence of this fact is not hard to find. Flag­ship evan­gel­i­cal mag­a­zine Chris­tian­i­ty Today wrote that ‘the deci­sion runs counter not mere­ly to the moral teach­ings of Chris­tian­i­ty through the ages but also to the moral sense of the Amer­i­can peo­ple.’ Like­wise, the Nation­al Asso­ci­a­tion of Evan­gel­i­cals said, ‘We deplore, in the strongest pos­si­ble terms, the deci­sion of the U.S. Supreme Court which has made it legal to ter­mi­nate a preg­nan­cy for no bet­ter rea­son than per­son­al con­ve­nience or soci­o­log­i­cal con­sid­er­a­tions.’” The author is a his­to­ry pro­fes­sor at Bay­lor Uni­ver­si­ty. I find this arti­cle fas­ci­nat­ing because I have heard the oppo­site pro­claimed con­fi­dent­ly so many times, but Chris­tian­i­ty Today and the NAE def­i­nite­ly rep­re­sent the main­stream of evan­gel­i­cal thought.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Deal­ing With Nui­sance Lust (Dou­glas Wil­son, per­son­al blog): “Min­i­mize the seri­ous­ness of this, but not so that you can feel good about indulging your­self. Min­i­mize the seri­ous­ness of it so that you can walk away from a cou­ple of big boobs with­out feel­ing like you have just fought a cos­mic bat­tle with prin­ci­pal­i­ties and pow­ers in the heav­en­ly places, for cry­ing out loud. Or, if you like, in anoth­er strat­e­gy of see­ing things right­ly, you could nick­name these breasts of oth­er woman as the ‘prin­ci­pal­i­ties and pow­ers.’ What­ev­er you do, take this part of life in stride like a grown-up. Stop react­ing like a horny and con­flict­ed twelve-year-old boy.” (first shared in vol­ume 148)

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 168

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Most Momen­tous Place? (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “The old city of Jerusalem is aston­ish­ing­ly small for a city with so many momen­tous places. One can walk from Christianity’s holi­est site to the holi­est site of Judaism, paus­ing to look at one of the holi­est sites of Islam, in less time than it takes to walk from my office on the cam­pus of George Mason Uni­ver­si­ty to the cam­pus Star­bucks.” Short and provoca­tive.
  2. Aus­trali­a’s new Pen­te­costal prime min­is­ter: Try to guess how the press is receiv­ing him (Ira Rifkin, GetRe­li­gion): “…the new prime min­is­ter, Scott Mor­ri­son, is an out­spo­ken, polit­i­cal­ly con­ser­v­a­tive Pen­te­costal Chris­t­ian. This mix­ing of reli­gion and pol­i­tics may be old-hat at this point for Amer­i­cans. But it’s an entire­ly new expe­ri­ence for Aus­tralians.”
  3. My nephew tried to school me on cul­tur­al appro­pri­a­tion. It did­n’t end well.(Jack Van­No­ord, Chica­go Tri­bune): fic­tion­al, amus­ing, and makes a seri­ous point about glob­al cul­tur­al exchange. “Most weeks, his less-woke friends go out for Taco Tues­days, but not Kyle. No more hum­mus. No more bagels. No mo’ pho. Poor Kyle. Liv­ing the unap­pro­pri­at­ed life is tough busi­ness. When­ev­er it rains, Kyle gets soaked. No more umbrel­las for him. Chi­nese. Kyle has stopped binge watch­ing ‘The Walk­ing Dead’ once I men­tioned the word for, and the con­cept of, zom­bies were appro­pri­at­ed from West Africa. Kyle was tak­ing a sum­mer math course at the com­mu­ni­ty col­lege. But he dropped out. It was just too hard. His home­work was tak­ing all evening. He was doing all his assign­ments using Roman numer­als since Ara­bic numer­als are … well, Ara­bic.”
  4. The Reli­gious Typol­o­gy (Pew Research Cen­ter): “ a new Pew Research Cen­ter analy­sis looks at beliefs and behav­iors that cut across many denom­i­na­tions – impor­tant traits that unite peo­ple of dif­fer­ent faiths, or that divide peo­ple who have the same reli­gious affil­i­a­tion – pro­duc­ing a new and reveal­ing clas­si­fi­ca­tion, or typol­o­gy, of reli­gion in Amer­i­ca.”
  5. A Prison That’s Also a Loony Bin (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “A trans­gen­der pris­on­er has admit­ted sex­u­al­ly assault­ing inmates at a women’s jail. Karen White, 51, who was born male but now iden­ti­fies as a woman, has plead­ed guilty to two counts of sex­u­al touch­ing at New Hall Prison, Wake­field.” The sto­ry is astound­ing.
  6. Bet­ter Dead Than Dis­abled? (Charles Camosy, Com­mon­weal): “pro­lif­ers are not imag­in­ing things: argu­ments in favor of the autonomous moral and legal choice to com­mit infan­ti­cide are easy to find…. [for exam­ple, a] 2012 arti­cle by moral philoso­phers Alber­to Giu­bili­ni and Francesca Min­er­va, which appeared in the respect­ed Jour­nal of Med­ical Ethics, was provoca­tive­ly titled ‘After-Birth Abor­tion: Why Should the Baby Live?’”
  7. Diary of a Con­cus­sion: What I Learned About Head Injuries By Hav­ing One (Eliz­a­beth Lopat­to, The Verge): “To have your per­son­al­i­ty altered by brain trau­ma seems to upset peo­ple more than hav­ing it altered by, for instance, emo­tion­al trau­ma. I don’t know why this is! …. If I thought I was my brain, prob­a­bly I would have found the injury more upset­ting. But I didn’t and don’t believe that; my self is an inter­ac­tion between my body and my brain.” This is a year old but I just stum­bled upon it. Super inter­est­ing.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have How To Pray A Psalm (Justin Tay­lor, Gospel Coali­tion): prayer life need a boost? Give this a try. (first shared in vol­ume 69)

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 163

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Chi­na and its creepy facial recog­ni­tion tech­nol­o­gy tar­gets Uighur Mus­lims (Julia Duin, GetRe­li­gion): “China’s Mus­lims are akin to Germany’s Jews in the 1930s; a group of hap­less peo­ple of a dif­fer­ent reli­gion that the gov­ern­ment gets to exper­i­ment on. They’re already shov­ing rough­ly 800,000 Mus­lims into intern­ment camps and oth­er Mus­lims world­wide aren’t real­ly notic­ing.” This is hor­ri­fy­ing.
  2. There was quite the clam­or recent­ly about anti­semitism at Stan­ford.
    • Stan­ford Stu­dent Threat­ens Vio­lence against Pro-Israel Stu­dents (Dov Green­burg, Nation­al Review): “In mid July, Hamzeh Daoud, a stu­dent at Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty, pub­licly post­ed on Face­book: ‘I’m gonna phys­i­cal­ly fight Zion­ists on cam­pus next year.’ If his mean­ing wasn’t clear enough, Hamzeh con­tin­ued, ‘And after I abol­ish your ass I’ll go ahead and work every day for the rest of my life to abol­ish your pet­ty ass eth­no-suprema­cist, set­tler-colo­nial state.’ While not reflec­tive of Stanford’s val­ues, the sen­ti­ment of this hate­ful post reveals the state of con­tem­po­rary life on cam­pus­es.”
    • Daoud resigns from Nor­cliffe RA posi­tion (Julia Ingram and Hold­en Fore­man, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “Hamzeh Daoud ’20 has resigned from his Res­i­dent Assis­tant posi­tion in Nor­cliffe House, he announced in a state­ment to The Dai­ly on Fri­day after­noon.”
    • Op Ed: State­ment from Hamzeh Daoud (Hamzeh Daoud, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “After spend­ing a few hours away from Face­book, I read over my post again and real­ized how infused it was with the same hatred that has caused my own fam­i­ly so much suf­fer­ing. It was the antithe­sis of why I chose this path in life. A slop­py com­ment made dur­ing an emo­tion-filled reac­tion to yet anoth­er lay­er of trau­ma, the com­ment did not con­vey my val­ues, who I am cur­rent­ly, or who I hope to become.”
    • I know some of you know Hamzeh, so this prob­a­bly feels a good deal more per­son­al than many of the arti­cles I share. Please remem­ber that what you put on social media actu­al­ly mat­ters. James 1:19 is a use­ful mem­o­ry verse for every­one with a Face­book or Twit­ter account: “My dear broth­ers and sis­ters, take note of this: Every­one should be quick to lis­ten, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”
  3. At Prayer Break­fast, Guests Seek Access to a Dif­fer­ent High­er Pow­er (Ken­neth P. Vogel and Eliz­a­beth Dias, New York Times): “Some describe the gath­er­ing as sim­i­lar to the World Eco­nom­ic Forum, except that Jesus is the orga­niz­ing principle….With its rel­a­tive lack of diplo­mat­ic pro­to­cols and press cov­er­age, the prayer break­fast set­ting is ide­al for for­eign fig­ures who might not oth­er­wise be able to eas­i­ly get face time with top Amer­i­can offi­cials, because of unsa­vory rep­u­ta­tions or a lack of an offi­cial gov­ern­ment perch, accord­ing to lob­by­ists who help arrange such trips. They also con­tend that it is eas­i­er to secure visas when the break­fast is list­ed as a des­ti­na­tion.”
  4. Jeff Ses­sions announces a reli­gious lib­er­ty task force to com­bat “dan­ger­ous” sec­u­lar­ism (Tara Isabel­la Bur­ton, Vox): “In a bold speech deliv­ered at the Jus­tice Department’s Reli­gious Lib­er­ty Sum­mit, Ses­sions char­ac­ter­ized the task force as a nec­es­sary step in fac­ing down the pre­vail­ing forces of sec­u­lar­ism. ‘A dan­ger­ous move­ment, unde­tect­ed by many, is now chal­leng­ing and erod­ing our great tra­di­tion of reli­gious free­dom,’ he said, which ‘must be con­front­ed and defeat­ed.’”
    • Relat­ed: Why Jeff Ses­sions thinks Chris­tians are under siege in Amer­i­ca (Christo­pher Shea inter­views Nel­son Tebbe, Vox): One part stood out to me: “The Supreme Court has not decid­ed a reli­gious free­dom case in a way that’s adverse to the inter­est of Chris­tians for the past few terms. I can’t think of a sin­gle reli­gious free­dom case that they’ve lost.”
    • The above point is very mud­dled. The things that keep going to the Supreme Court are pre­cise­ly the things we have a prob­lem with. Do you know what we don’t have a prob­lem with? Can­ni­bal­ism. We’ve got cul­tur­al con­sen­sus on that. But reli­gious lib­er­ty? That keeps going to the courts and get­ting suc­cess­ful­ly appealed to the very top because local and state gov­ern­ments keep try­ing to vio­late it. It is a sim­ple fact that sig­nif­i­cant voic­es in our cul­ture view reli­gious lib­er­ty with reac­tions rang­ing from sus­pi­cion to hos­til­i­ty. Exam­ples abound (includ­ing these two Vox arti­cles).
  5. How Catholic Bish­ops Are Shap­ing Health Care In Rur­al Amer­i­ca (Anna Maria Bar­ry-Jester and Amelia Thom­son-DeVeaux, FiveThir­tyEight): “Best esti­mates sug­gest that one in six hos­pi­tal beds and many of the nation’s largest non­prof­it health sys­tems are Catholic-owned or ‑affil­i­at­ed. From 2001 to 2016, the num­ber of Catholic-affil­i­at­ed hos­pi­tals in the U.S. grew by 22 per­cent, even as the total num­ber of hos­pi­tals in the U.S. shrunk, accord­ing to research by Merg­er­Watch and the Amer­i­can Civ­il Lib­er­ties Union.”
    • A response: Stan­dard Pro­ce­dures (Leah Libresco Sargeant, First Things): “When she lays out my options, there real­ly is just one option: the stan­dard of repro­duc­tive care. But I have two rea­sons to say no: I am a Catholic and I am a sta­tis­ti­cian. It was faith and rea­son, the two ways of know­ing that St. John Paul II called the ‘two wings on which the human spir­it ris­es to the con­tem­pla­tion of truth,’ that led me to dig in my heels dur­ing my third mis­car­riage.” FYI: the author used to write for FiveThir­tyEight.
    • Anoth­er response: What FiveThir­tyEight gets wrong about Catholic hos­pi­tals (Stephanie Slade, Amer­i­ca Mag­a­zine): “That the A.C.L.U. threw away its com­mit­ment to reli­gious free­dom in the name of abor­tion rights is bad enough. A jour­nal­is­tic enter­prise as osten­si­bly sane and data-dri­ven as FiveThir­tyEight­should think twice before fol­low­ing the same path.”
  6. “Hyp­not­ic Mass Phe­nom­e­na” (Flo­ri­an Schwab inter­view with Peter Thiel, Die Welt­woche): “The advanced tech­no­log­i­cal civ­i­liza­tion of the ear­ly 21st cen­tu­ry is a com­pli­cat­ed world where it is not pos­si­ble for any­body to think through every­thing for them­selves. You can­not be a poly­math in quite the way peo­ple were in the 18th cen­tu­ry enlight­en­ments. You can­not be like Goethe. So there is some need to lis­ten to experts, to defer to oth­er peo­ple. And then, there is always the dan­ger of that going too far and peo­ple not think­ing crit­i­cal­ly. This hap­pens in spades in Sil­i­con Val­ley.”
  7. Spies Are More Com­mon, and Bor­ing, Than You Think (Tyler Cowen, Bloomberg Opin­ion): “John Negro­ponte, for­mer direc­tor of nation­al intel­li­gence, admit­ted in 2006 that the U.S. was deploy­ing about 100,000 spies around the world. Giv­en that the U.S. is the world’s tech­nol­o­gy and mil­i­tary leader, and yet has a rel­a­tive­ly small share of glob­al pop­u­la­tion, is it so crazy to think the num­ber of peo­ple spy­ing on us is larg­er than that?”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have The Weight of Glo­ry (C.S. Lewis): It was orig­i­nal­ly preached as a ser­mon and then print­ed in a the­ol­o­gy mag­a­zine. Relat­ed: see the C. S. Lewis Doo­dle YouTube chan­nel – it’s real­ly good! (first shared in vol­ume 36)

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.

If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 147

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Inside the White House Bible Study group (Owen Amos, BBC): “But is a bible study for Cab­i­net mem­bers, with polit­i­cal themes, not a merg­ing of church and state? ‘I believe in insti­tu­tion­al sep­a­ra­tion, but not influ­en­tial sep­a­ra­tion,’ [Drollinger] says. ‘No mat­ter what the insti­tu­tion is — the fam­i­ly, com­merce, edu­ca­tion — it needs the bul­wark pre­cepts of the word of God in order to func­tion cor­rect­ly… But the minute I start to amal­ga­mate the church and the state insti­tu­tion­al­ly, then I’m into theoc­ra­cy.’”
  2. Why you stink at fact-check­ing (Lisa Fazio, The Con­ver­sa­tion): “First, peo­ple have a gen­er­al bias to believe that things are true. (After all, most things that we read or hear are true.) In fact, there’s some evi­dence that we ini­tial­ly process all state­ments as true and that it then takes cog­ni­tive effort to men­tal­ly mark them as false. Sec­ond, peo­ple tend to accept infor­ma­tion as long as it’s close enough to the cor­rect infor­ma­tion. Nat­ur­al speech often includes errors, paus­es and repeats. (‘She was wear­ing a blue – um, I mean, a black, a black dress.’) One idea is that to main­tain con­ver­sa­tions we need to go with the flow – accept infor­ma­tion that is ‘good enough’ and just move on.” The author is a psych pro­fes­sor at Van­der­bilt.
  3. One extra glass of wine ‘will short­en your life by 30 min­utes’ (Sarah Bose­ly, The Guardian): “The risks for a 40-year-old of drink­ing over the rec­om­mend­ed dai­ly lim­it were com­pa­ra­ble to smok­ing, said one lead­ing sci­en­tist. ‘Above two units a day, the death rates steadi­ly climb,’ said David Spiegel­hal­ter, Win­ton pro­fes­sor for the pub­lic under­stand­ing of risk at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Cam­bridge.” This is cer­tain­ly going to be con­test­ed research, but it caught my eye.
  4. The 10-Year Baby Win­dow That Is the Key to the Women’s Pay Gap (Claire Cain Miller, NY Times): “When women have their first child between age 25 and 35, their pay nev­er recov­ers, rel­a­tive to that of their hus­bands. Yet women who have their first baby either before 25 or after 35 — before their careers get start­ed or once they’re estab­lished — even­tu­al­ly close the pay gap with their hus­bands.”
  5. Two dif­fer­ent analy­ses of California’s state pol­i­tics:
    • CA is awe­some! The Great Les­son of Cal­i­for­nia in America’s New Civ­il War (Peter Ley­den and Ruy Teix­eira, Medi­um): “Cal­i­for­nia today pro­vides a mod­el for Amer­i­ca as a whole. This mod­el of pol­i­tics and gov­ern­ment is by no means per­fect, but it is far ahead of the nation in com­ing to terms with the inex­orable dig­i­tal, glob­al, sus­tain­able trans­for­ma­tion of our era. It is a thriv­ing work in progress that gives hope that Amer­i­ca can pull out of the polit­i­cal mess we’re in.”
    • CA is a train wreck! Cal­i­for­nia Is the Mod­el for Nation­al Divorce, Not Demo­c­ra­t­ic Dom­i­na­tion (David French, Nation­al Review): “…it turns out that Cal­i­for­nia pol­i­tics and poli­cies are repel­lent to mil­lions of Cal­i­for­ni­ans. Between 2007 and 2016 rough­ly 6 mil­lion Cal­i­for­nia res­i­dents left the state. Only 5 mil­lion peo­ple moved to Cal­i­for­nia from oth­er Amer­i­can states. And where did a plu­ral­i­ty of for­mer Cal­i­for­ni­ans go? Texas.”
  6. The Sam Har­ris Debate (Ezra Klein, Vox): this is a long, inter­est­ing debate part­ly about Charles Mur­ray but ulti­mate­ly about much deep­er issues.
    • Sam Har­ris: “How can we get to a world where the max­i­mum num­ber of peo­ple thrive? I view iden­ti­ty pol­i­tics as among the worst pieces of soft­ware you can be run­ning to try to get there. I want to get to a world where, I mean, it’s Mar­tin Luther King’s claim about the con­tent of your char­ac­ter, rather than the col­or of your skin. That is the goal, and if you want to reverse engi­neer that goal, giv­ing pri­ma­cy to iden­ti­ty is one of the worst things you can do.”
    • Ezra Klein: “To Har­ris… iden­ti­ty pol­i­tics is some­thing oth­ers do. To me, it’s some­thing we all do, and that he and many oth­ers refuse to admit they’re doing. This is one of the advan­tages of being the major­i­ty group: Your con­cerns get cod­ed as con­cerns; it’s every­one else who is play­ing iden­ti­ty pol­i­tics.”
  7. There was a big ker­fluff­fle about The Atlantic fir­ing colum­nist Kevin Williams over his views on abor­tion. I was real­ly stunned by how much ink was spilled over it — this is just a small sam­ple. The authors make inter­est­ing obser­va­tions about dis­agree­ment in Amer­i­ca.
    • Kevin Williamson, Thought Crim­i­nal (Jon­ah Gold­berg, The Nation­al Review): “Edi­tors or own­ers should have absolute author­i­ty to con­trol what appears in the pages of their mag­a­zines. How they exer­cise that author­i­ty, i.e., how much ortho­doxy they want to impose or how much free-for-all they want to encour­age, is a pru­den­tial ques­tion (and one I often have strong opin­ions about). What edi­tors should not have any con­trol over is what their writ­ers are allowed to think.”
    • Among The Abor­tion Extrem­ists (Ross Douthat, NY Times):  “…this is a case study in exact­ly the prob­lem estab­lish­ment edi­tors are try­ing to address by widen­ing their pool of writ­ers: the inabil­i­ty of con­tem­po­rary lib­er­al­ism to see itself from the out­side, as it looks to the many peo­ple who for some rea­son, class or reli­gion or his­tor­i­cal expe­ri­ence, are not ful­ly indoc­tri­nat­ed into its increas­ing­ly inco­her­ent mix of ortho­dox­ies. By this I mean that my pro-choice friends endors­ing Williamson’s sack­ing can’t see that his extrem­ism is mir­rored in their own…”
    • Bias against con­ser­v­a­tives works like any oth­er prej­u­dice (Megan McAr­dle, Wash­ing­ton Post): “In a bet­ter world, this moment would help us under­stand each oth­er, and come to some sort of rea­son­able agree­ment, rather than swear­ing mutu­al­ly assured destruc­tion. That’s because what con­ser­v­a­tives are say­ing about media bias sounds a lot like what lib­er­als are say­ing about race and gen­der — and vice ver­sa.”
    • Con­grats, Jeff Gold­berg. You Just Mar­tyred Kevin Williamson. (Jack Schae­fer, Politi­co): “I’ve long admired Williamson’s writ­ing, if not his ideas, for the way he’s inter­nal­ized Michael Kinsley’s warn­ing that if you’re afraid to go too far, you won’t go far enough. Williamson almost always goes too far, tak­ing his argu­ments to thought fron­tiers where there are no roads, no mobile phone ser­vice and some­times bare­ly enough air to breathe.”
    • A Twit­ter thread by Eliz­a­beth Bru­enig giv­ing anoth­er point of view: “So the mar­ket incen­tives inside the rightwing media world — the things you need to do to get ahead there — are oppo­site those out­side of it. To put it anoth­er way: You can get famous trig­ger­ing libs, but if you’re real­ly good at it, well…it works?”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

  • Grace­ful­ly Graces Me (YouTube): I am grate­ful that our wor­ship team doesn’t sing songs like this
  • Nev­er Throw Any­thing Away (Pearls Before Swine): I am pig, to the tremen­dous con­ster­na­tion of my wife.
  • What is Skim Milk? The FDA ver­sus Dairy Farm­ers (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “South Moun­tain Cream­ery sells skim milk, i.e. milk with the fat skimmed off. The FDA, how­ev­er, wants skim milk to con­tain as many vit­a­mins as whole milk so they define skim milk as includ­ing vit­a­min A and D. If farm­ers want to sell skim milk and call it ‘skim milk’ they have to add vit­a­mins. To avoid pros­e­cu­tion the FDA is requir­ing South Moun­tain Cream­ery to label their skim milk, ‘imi­ta­tion skim milk’! Yes. War is Peace. Free­dom is Slav­ery. Real Skim Milk is Imi­ta­tion Skim Milk.” This is actu­al­ly true. I still found it amus­ing.

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have some thoughts about slav­ery and the Bible – Does The Bible Sup­port Slav­ery? (a lec­ture giv­en by the war­den of Tyn­dale House at Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty, the link is to the video with notes) and Does God Con­done Slav­ery In The Bible? (Part One – Old Tes­ta­ment) and also Part Two – New Tes­ta­ment (longer pieces from Glenn Miller at Chris­t­ian Think­tank). All three are quite help­ful. (first shared in vol­ume 76)

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.

If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 143

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

 

  1. I’m a schol­ar of the “pros­per­i­ty gospel.” It took can­cer to show me I was in its grip. (Kate Bowler, Vox): “Every day I pray the same prayer: God, save me. Save me. Save me. Oh, God, remem­ber my baby boy. Remem­ber my son and my hus­band before you return me to ash­es. Before they walk this earth alone. I plead with a God of Maybe, who may or may not let me col­lect more years. It is a God I love, and a God that breaks my heart.” The author is a pro­fes­sor at Duke Divin­i­ty School.
  2. Two intrigu­ing arti­cles on the trans­gen­der move­ment in Amer­i­ca:
    • The Dis­ap­pear­ance of Desire (Sohrab Ahmari, Com­men­tary Mag­a­zine):  “Sex­u­al­i­ty is a bod­i­ly expe­ri­ence. It stretch­es creduli­ty to sug­gest that a trans person’s deci­sion to alter his or her sexed body has noth­ing to do with what he or she wish­es to do with that body—and whom he or she wish­es to attract. Yet, as with gen­der itself, the trans activists treat sex­u­al desire as an abstract and dis­em­bod­ied thing.”
    • Divorc­ing The Trans­gen­der Com­mu­ni­ty (Gretchen Rachel Ham­mond, Tablet Mag­a­zine): the lan­guage in this one is uncouth. “It was then that I began to notice that those trans­gen­der peo­ple who start­ed to speak out as an activist, jour­nal­ist, celebri­ty, orga­niz­er, com­men­ta­tor or even via a social media post were com­ing under attack, not just from the usu­al crowd of Evan­gel­i­cal Con­ser­v­a­tive hys­ter­ics, but increas­ing­ly and unnerv­ing­ly from their own com­mu­ni­ty.”
  3. For the lawyers: Dis­agree­ment is Not Always Dis­crim­i­na­tion: On Mas­ter­piece Cakeshop and the Anal­o­gy to Inter­ra­cial Mar­riage (Ryan Ander­son, George­town Jour­nal of Law and Pub­lic Pol­i­cy): “Col­orado is part of a larg­er nation­al trend in which author­i­ties are using antidis­crim­i­na­tion statutes as swords to pun­ish already mar­gin­al­ized peo­ple (such as sup­port­ers of the con­ju­gal under­stand­ing of mar­riage), rather than as shields to pro­tect peo­ple from unjust dis­crim­i­na­tion (such as African Amer­i­cans in the wake of Jim Crow and today).… sup­port for mar­riage as the union of hus­band and wife is essen­tial­ly dif­fer­ent from oppo­si­tion to inter­ra­cial mar­riage, and that the sta­tus of African Amer­i­cans is impor­tant­ly dif­fer­ent from that of Amer­i­cans who iden­ti­fy as gay. As a result, First Amend­ment pro­tec­tions for peo­ple who act on the belief that mar­riage unites hus­band and wife dif­fer in crit­i­cal ways from hypoth­e­sized First Amend­ment pro­tec­tions for racists—and the courts can dis­tin­guish the two cas­es…. pro­tec­tions for cit­i­zens who sup­port the con­ju­gal under­stand­ing of mar­riage bear much more sim­i­lar­i­ty to pro­tec­tions for pro-life cit­i­zens.”
  4. The Igno­ble Lie (Patrick Deneen, First Things): “This helps explain the strange and often hys­ter­i­cal insis­tence upon equal­i­ty ema­nat­ing from our nation’s most elite and exclu­sive insti­tu­tions. The most absurd recent instance was Har­vard University’s offi­cial effort to elim­i­nate social clubs due to their role in ‘enact­ing forms of priv­i­lege and exclu­sion at odds with our deep­est val­ues,’ in the words of its pres­i­dent. Harvard’s oppo­si­tion to exclu­sion sits com­fort­ably with its admis­sions rate of 5 per­cent (2,056 out of 40,000 appli­cants in 2017). The denial of priv­i­lege and exclu­sion seems to increase in pro­por­tion to an institution’s exclu­siv­i­ty.” The author is a pro­fes­sor of Con­sti­tu­tion­al Stud­ies at Notre Dame.
  5. Sex, Lies, and Spies (Dar­rell Cole, Prov­i­dence): “Once the case for employ­ing a spy in the first place has been made, the ques­tion of how to spy comes into focus, and thus one of the major moral prob­lems for spies is try­ing to make a case that lying and sex are just (com­bat) tac­tics…. We can make a clear and con­vinc­ing case that the Chris­t­ian tra­di­tion may sup­port the idea that lies told for the pub­lic good are jus­ti­fi­able. When spies tell such lies in the line of duty, their decep­tions fall into that cat­e­go­ry and, so, are jus­ti­fi­able. Can the same be said for sex in the line of duty? Can manip­u­la­tive sex for the pub­lic good be jus­ti­fi­able?” A fas­ci­nat­ing dis­cus­sion of a ques­tion that had nev­er crossed my mind. The author is an ethics pro­fes­sor at Drew Uni­ver­si­ty.
  6. The Last Temp­ta­tion (Michael Ger­son, The Atlantic): “In a remark­ably free coun­try, many evan­gel­i­cals view their rights as frag­ile, their insti­tu­tions as threat­ened, and their dig­ni­ty as assailed. The sin­gle largest reli­gious demo­graph­ic in the Unit­ed States—representing about half the Repub­li­can polit­i­cal coalition—sees itself as a besieged and dis­re­spect­ed minor­i­ty. In this way, evan­gel­i­cals have become simul­ta­ne­ous­ly more engaged and more alien­at­ed…. It is true that inso­far as Chris­t­ian hos­pi­tals or col­leges have their reli­gious lib­er­ty threat­ened by hos­tile lit­i­ga­tion or gov­ern­ment agen­cies, they have every right to defend their insti­tu­tion­al identities—to advo­cate for a prin­ci­pled plu­ral­ism. But this is dif­fer­ent from evan­gel­i­cals regard­ing them­selves, hys­ter­i­cal­ly and with self-pity, as an oppressed minor­i­ty that requires a strong­man to res­cue it. This is how Trump has invit­ed evan­gel­i­cals to view them­selves.” The author worked in the Bush White House and describes him­self as an evan­gel­i­cal.
    • In response: The True Sin of Amer­i­can Evan­gel­i­cals in the Age of Trump (David French, Nation­al Review): “it mat­ters exact­ly how Evan­gel­i­cals arrived where they are today. It wasn’t the hys­ter­i­cal reac­tion of a self-pity­ing peo­ple. For most it was the sad result of a series of tough choic­es — made in response to dif­fi­cult and unrea­son­able chal­lenges. Even today there are mil­lions of Evan­gel­i­cals — peo­ple who still count them­selves reluc­tant Trump sup­port­ers — who are deeply uneasy with the pres­i­dent and the state of their own reli­gious move­ment. It serves no one’s inter­ests to min­i­mize the legit­i­ma­cy of their deep polit­i­cal con­cern.”
    • My take: Gerson’s essay is very good and French adds a need­ed per­spec­tive. Bonus quote from Gerson’s essay: “The ban­ish­ment of fun­da­men­tal­ism from the cul­tur­al main­stream cul­mi­nat­ed dra­mat­i­cal­ly in a Ten­nessee cour­t­house in 1925. William Jen­nings Bryan, the most promi­nent Chris­t­ian politi­cian of his time, was set against Clarence Dar­row and the the­o­ry of evo­lu­tion at the Scopes ‘mon­key tri­al,’ in which a Ten­nessee edu­ca­tor was tried for teach­ing the the­o­ry in high school. Bryan won the case but not the coun­try. The jour­nal­ist and crit­ic H. L. Menck­en pro­vid­ed the account accept­ed by his­to­ry, dis­miss­ing Bryan as ‘a tin pot pope in the Coca-Cola belt and a broth­er to the for­lorn pas­tors who bela­bor half-wits in gal­va­nized iron taber­na­cles behind the rail­road yards.’ Fun­da­men­tal­ists became com­ic fig­ures, sub­ject to world-class con­de­scen­sion. It has large­ly slipped the mind of his­to­ry that Bryan was a peace activist as sec­re­tary of state under Woodrow Wil­son and that his pol­i­tics fore­shad­owed the New Deal. And Menck­en was even­tu­al­ly revealed as a racist, an anti-Semi­te, and a eugen­ics advo­cate.” Empha­sis mine. I con­sid­er myself fair­ly well-informed about Amer­i­can reli­gious his­to­ry and found the bold­ed details sur­pris­ing.
  7. The real Down syn­drome prob­lem: Accept­ing geno­cide (George Will, Wash­ing­ton Post): “Ice­land must be pleased that it is close to suc­cess in its pro­gram of geno­cide, but before con­grat­u­lat­ing that nation on its final solu­tion to the Down syn­drome prob­lem, per­haps it might answer a ques­tion: What is this prob­lem? To help under­stand why some peo­ple might ask this ques­tion, meet two chil­dren. One is Agus­ta, age 8, a cit­i­zen of Ice­land. The oth­er is Lucas, age 1, an Amer­i­can cit­i­zen in Dal­ton, Ga., who recent­ly was select­ed to be 2018 ‘Spokes­ba­by’ for the Ger­ber baby food com­pa­ny. They are two exam­ples of the prob­lem. Now, before Ice­land becomes snip­py about the descrip­tion of what it is doing, let us all try to think calm­ly about geno­cide, with­out get­ting judg­men­tal about it. It is sim­ply the delib­er­ate, sys­tem­at­ic attempt to erase a cat­e­go­ry of peo­ple. So, what one thinks about a geno­cide depends on what one thinks about the cat­e­go­ry involved. In Iceland’s case, the cat­e­go­ry is peo­ple with Down syn­drome.”
    • Relat­ed: a Face­book post from one of our sopho­mores (shared with his per­mis­sion): “My par­ents were told that I would be born with down syn­drome and advised to abort me. In response my father pulled us out of the hos­pi­tal’s manda­to­ry coun­sel­ing pro­gram, spent a lot of time in prayer, and decid­ed emphat­i­cal­ly that I would be born. I had no say in the mat­ter, as I was too small to com­mu­ni­cate or under­stand. I could­n’t cry or plead for my life. I could­n’t even look the peo­ple in the eyes who want­ed to kill me. 20 years lat­er, I have my God and my par­ents to thank for defend­ing me, defend­ing an unborn child wrong­ly accused of a crime that car­ried a death sen­tence: a defect. My par­ents had no idea exact­ly where God want­ed to take me, but because of their defense, I’m here, down syn­drome free, sit­ting in a class­room at Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty.” (source) By the way, he was was not only admit­ted to Stan­ford. He was admit­ted to every sin­gle Ivy League school.

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Every Place Has Detrac­tors. Con­sid­er Where They’re Com­ing From.(Megan McCar­dle, Bloomberg View): “There is grave dan­ger in judg­ing a neigh­bor­hood, or a cul­ture, by the accounts of those who chose to leave it. Those peo­ple are least like­ly to appre­ci­ate the good things about where they came from, and the most like­ly to dwell on its less attrac­tive qual­i­ties.” Bear this in mind when lis­ten­ing to con­ver­sion tes­ti­monies (both sec­u­lar and reli­gious). (first shared in vol­ume 62)

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.

If this was for­ward­ed to you and you want to receive future emails, sign up here. You can also view the archives.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 137

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. My Lar­ry Nas­sar Tes­ti­mo­ny Went Viral. But There’s More to the Gospel Than For­give­ness. (Mor­gan Lee inter­view­ing Rachael Den­hol­lan­der, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “One of the areas where Chris­tians don’t do well is in acknowl­edg­ing the dev­as­ta­tion of the wound. We can tend to gloss over the dev­as­ta­tion of any kind of suf­fer­ing but espe­cial­ly sex­u­al assault, with Chris­t­ian plat­i­tudes like God works all things togeth­er for good or God is sov­er­eign. Those are very good and glo­ri­ous bib­li­cal truths, but when they are mis­ap­plied in a way to damp­en the hor­ror of evil, they ulti­mate­ly damp­en the good­ness of God. Good­ness and dark­ness exist as oppo­sites. If we pre­tend that the dark­ness isn’t dark, it damp­ens the beau­ty of the light.”
  2. Want to see a spat between two bril­liant the­olo­gians?
    • The New Tes­ta­ment in the strange words of David Bent­ley Hart (N.T. Wright, The Chris­t­ian Cen­tu­ry): “When a the­olo­gian of the stature of David Bent­ley Hart offers a ‘piti­less­ly lit­er­al trans­la­tion’ of the New Tes­ta­ment that is ‘not shaped by lat­er the­o­log­i­cal and doc­tri­nal his­to­ry’ and aims to make ‘the famil­iar strange, nov­el, and per­haps new­ly com­pelling,’ we are eager to see the result. He promis­es to bring out the ‘wild­ly indis­crim­i­nate polypho­ny’ of the writ­ers’ styles and emphases, con­verg­ing on their ‘vibrant cer­tain­ty that his­to­ry has been invad­ed by God in Christ in such a way that noth­ing can stay as it was.’ But his two main claims (to be ‘lit­er­al’ and ‘undog­mat­ic’) are not borne out, and the promise of dis­play­ing the strange­ness of ear­ly Chris­t­ian life dis­ap­pears behind dif­fer­ent kinds of strange­ness.”
    • A Reply To N.T. Wright (David Bent­ley Hart, Eclec­tic Ortho­doxy): “[A rebut­tal] where­in, at long last, our author unbur­dens him­self of a great num­ber of com­plaints he has long wished to make against that pious man’s earnest but prob­lem­at­ic approach to the New Tes­ta­ment, embell­ished with a few moments of sly mock­ery, but ulti­mate­ly intend­ed as a good-natured—albeit inflexible—expression of deep dis­agree­ment.”
    • Trans­lat­ing the N. T. Wright and David Bent­ley Hart Tus­sle  (Caleb Lind­gren, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “While the ver­bal spar­ring is both sharp and enter­tain­ing (and per­haps off-putting to cer­tain sen­si­bil­i­ties), there is a valu­able point at the heart of this debate—one that is worth not­ing as these two Bible schol­ar­ship heavy-hit­ters take swings at each other’s work.”
  3. Fake porn is the new fake news, and the inter­net isn’t ready (Nicole Lee, Engad­get): “Moth­er­board recent­ly uncov­ered a dis­turb­ing new trend on Red­dit, in which users cre­ate AI-gen­er­at­ed porno­graph­ic clips by swap­ping oth­er peo­ple’s faces onto porn stars…. Need­less to say, this has fright­en­ing con­se­quences. Not only does this open the door for a hor­ri­fy­ing new kind of revenge porn, where a venge­ful ex could slap your face on an X‑rated video, it also opens a Pan­do­ra’s box of fears where noth­ing on the inter­net can ever be trust­ed.” The embed­ded (non-sketchy) gif is alarm­ing­ly real­is­tic. The tech­nol­o­gy is already good enough that we’re at a tip­ping point, and it will only get more effec­tive in the future.
  4. A Work­out-Track­ing App Acci­den­tal­ly Revealed The Loca­tion Of A Bunch Of Secret Mil­i­tary Bases And Sol­diers’ Names (Digg): “Stra­va, a GPS-enabled mobile app that allows users to track their run­ning, bik­ing and swim­ming work­outs, is attract­ing con­tro­ver­sy after observers noticed that its glob­al work­out heatmap appar­ent­ly revealed the loca­tion of secret mil­i­tary bases and the exer­cise habits of indi­vid­ual troops on those bases.” Oops. Tech­nol­o­gy has con­se­quences. Remem­ber that, you star­tup­py types.
  5. The Abor­tion Memo (David Brooks, New York Times): “I’m ask­ing us to rethink our pri­or­i­ties. What does Amer­i­ca need most right now? One of our talk­ing points is that late-term abor­tions are extreme­ly rare. If they are extreme­ly rare, why are we giv­ing them pri­or­i­ty over all of our oth­er issues com­bined?”
  6. The female price of male plea­sure (Lili Loof­bourow, The Week): “Because if you’re going to wax poet­ic about male plea­sure, you had bet­ter be ready to talk about its secret, unpleas­ant, ubiq­ui­tous cousin: female pain. Research shows that 30 per­cent of women report pain dur­ing vagi­nal sex, 72 per­cent report pain dur­ing anal sex, and ‘large pro­por­tions’ don’t tell their part­ners when sex hurts.” First, fas­ci­nat­ing because I had no idea. Sec­ond, because the author is so cocooned in assump­tions stem­ming from the sex­u­al rev­o­lu­tion that she doesn’t seem to have con­sid­ered whether this is a symp­tom of the whole thing being unhealthy and mis­tak­en on key points.
  7. Show­ing Off To the Uni­verse: Bea­cons For The After­life of Our Civ­i­liza­tion (Steven Wol­fram, per­son­al blog): “There’s a thought exper­i­ment I’ve long found use­ful. Imag­ine a very advanced civ­i­liza­tion, that’s able to move things like stars and plan­ets around at will. What arrange­ment would they put them in? Maybe they’d want to make a ‘bea­con of pur­pose’. And maybe—like Kant—one could think that would be achiev­able by set­ting up some ‘rec­og­niz­able’ geo­met­ric pat­tern. Like how about an equi­lat­er­al tri­an­gle? But no, that won’t do. Because for exam­ple the Tro­jan aster­oids actu­al­ly form an equi­lat­er­al tri­an­gle with Jupiter and the Sun already, just as a result of physics. And pret­ty soon one real­izes that there’s actu­al­ly noth­ing the aliens could do to ‘prove their pur­pose’. The con­fig­u­ra­tion of stars in the sky may look kind of ran­dom to us (except, of course, that we still see con­stel­la­tions in it). But there’s noth­ing to say that looked at in the right way it doesn’t actu­al­ly rep­re­sent some grand pur­pose.” A long but fas­ci­nat­ing essay about how dif­fi­cult it is to encode a mes­sage that unam­bigu­ous­ly com­mu­ni­cates intel­li­gence. Rel­e­vance to nat­ur­al the­ol­o­gy should be obvi­ous (although Wol­fram, being an athe­ist, goes in a dif­fer­ent direc­tion).
  8. Some of our stu­dents and alum­ni have pub­lished things recent­ly:
    • The One Les­son We Do Not Learn at Stan­ford (Hugh Zhang, The Stan­ford Review): “If we fail to devel­op the type of char­ac­ter need­ed to resist temp­ta­tion when the stakes are so low, how can we be trust­ed to resist them when they are high­er? What we do at Stan­ford is less harm­ful than the fail­ings of the pow­er­ful. But it is only less harm­ful because our pow­er is yet lim­it­ed. When those in promi­nent posi­tions act as we do, we right­ly fear for society’s well being…. If we tru­ly believe that the duty of a uni­ver­si­ty is to pre­pare us for our respon­si­bil­i­ties in the world beyond these idyl­lic palm trees, then the most impor­tant les­son we can learn here at Stan­ford is the age old les­son of integri­ty: the abil­i­ty to do what is right even when no one is look­ing.”
    • Can I Help You? (Ryan Eber­hardt, per­son­al blog): “My friend Arjun com­mit­ted sui­cide last Sep­tem­ber. I’m ‘over it’ in as much of a func­tion­al sense as pos­si­ble, but I still think about him all the time. I miss him so much. He was among my best friends in high school…. I wish I could tell him about all the things I’m up to these days, brain­storm things for me to pur­sue after grad­u­a­tion, and ask for his advice. That will nev­er hap­pen again. But here’s the fun­ny thing: I don’t know if I would be so eager to talk to him if he weren’t dead. Death has an inter­est­ing way of doing that.”
    • Revers­ing the Curse: A Spir­i­tu­al Guide to Decod­ing Kendrick Lamar’s DAMN (Femi Olu­tade, Medi­um): “For those of you who are root­ed in a faith tra­di­tion but can’t under­stand how a pop­u­lar, ‘sec­u­lar’ rap album can be a faith­ful wit­ness to Jesus’s life and mis­sion, Kendrick — and Jesus for that mat­ter — may sur­prise you. For any­one who is still search­ing for how truth and jus­tice emerge from the shad­ow of racism and oppres­sion, I present to you the sto­ries of hip hop and Judeo-Chris­t­ian scrip­tures in the hope that you can find in them the kind of trans­for­ma­tion that I have expe­ri­enced.” Femi releas­ing this free online book bit by bit. Seth, who writes the for­ward is also one of our alum­ni.
    • Med­ical edu­ca­tion sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly ignores the diver­si­ty of med­ical prac­tice (Rebekah Fen­ton, Kev­in­MD): “Med­ical edu­ca­tion sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly ignores the diver­si­ty of med­ical prac­tice dur­ing the class­room phase. Why do we only show rash­es on Cau­casian patients? Why do we only learn to rec­og­nize how men present with MIs? Why do we not address how obe­si­ty impacts exam find­ings? Med­ical edu­ca­tion favors the white, thin, male patient. I’ve seen his chest X‑ray, I’ve exam­ined his abdomen, I know his symp­toms, and I’ve seen his rash­es.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Inside Grad­u­ate Admis­sions (Inside High­er Ed, Scott Jaschick): if you plan to apply to grad school, read this. There is one reveal­ing anec­dote about how an admis­sions com­mit­tee treat­ed an appli­ca­tion from a Chris­t­ian col­lege stu­dent. My take­away: the pro­fes­sors tried to be fair but found it hard to do, and their stat­ed con­cerns were most­ly about the qual­i­ty of the insti­tu­tion rather than the faith of the appli­cant. Trou­bling nonethe­less. (first shared in vol­ume 32)

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.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 125

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.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. In my ser­mon this week I allud­ed to the glob­al impact of the Protes­tant Ref­or­ma­tion and men­tioned two out­comes you might have found sur­pris­ing — the spread of democ­ra­cy and the rise of sci­ence. To learn more about the first, check out Robert Wood­ber­ry’s arti­cle The Mis­sion­ary Roots of Lib­er­al Democ­ra­cy, for the sec­ond go inspect Peter Har­rison’s book The Bible, Protes­tantism, and the Rise of Nat­ur­al Sci­ence. For sim­i­lar­ly edi­fy­ing aca­d­e­m­ic reads, check the list of resources at The Gospel and Green Library.
  2. Tues­day was the 500th anniver­sary of the Protes­tant Ref­or­ma­tion. I found two unex­pect­ed­ly sim­i­lar respons­es to it:
    • From a Protes­tant: Which Hen­ry Caused The Ref­or­ma­tion (Carl True­man, First Things): “But if we are tru­ly to under­stand the prob­lems the church faces in today’s world, and respond appro­pri­ate­ly to them, we need to move beyond the blame game, and beyond see­ing the mat­ter in pure­ly the­o­log­i­cal or ide­o­log­i­cal terms. It was the motor car, not Luther nor Calvin, that made the church just one more con­sumer choice. And there­in lies the prob­lem.”
    • From a Catholic: Who Won The Ref­or­ma­tion? (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “First, [the dom­i­nant cul­tur­al nar­ra­tive] goes, Protes­tantism replaced the author­i­ty of the church with the author­i­ty of the Bible. Then, once it became clear that nobody could agree on what the Bible meant, the author­i­ty of con­science became pre-emi­nent — and from there we entered nat­u­ral­ly (if with some bloody resis­tance from var­i­ous reac­tionary forces) into the age of lib­er­ty, democ­ra­cy and human rights.”
  3. How the pros­per­i­ty gospel is spark­ing a major change in pre­dom­i­nant­ly Catholic Brazil (Sarah Pul­liam Bai­ley, Wash­ing­ton Post): “Brazil, which has the most Catholics of any coun­try in the world, is under­go­ing reli­gious debates sim­i­lar to those sparked in 1517 by a fiery Ger­man preach­er named Mar­tin Luther — over church rich­es and cor­rup­tion, polit­i­cal pow­er, and the prop­er way to read the Bible. By 2030, Catholics, now the reli­gious major­i­ty in Brazil, are pro­ject­ed to become a reli­gious minor­i­ty.” Rec­om­mend­ed.
  4. Across Myan­mar, Denial of Eth­nic Cleans­ing and Loathing of Rohingya (Han­nah Beech, New York Times): “‘We do some­thing that we call edu­cat­ing the peo­ple,’ said U Pe Myint, the nation’s infor­ma­tion min­is­ter. He acknowl­edged, ‘It looks rather like indoc­tri­na­tion, like in an author­i­tar­i­an or total­i­tar­i­an state.’” This is insane. Also, read­ing this may cause you to revise your opin­ion of the intrin­si­cal­ly peace­ful nature of Bud­dhism and the sig­nif­i­cance of the Nobel Peace Prize.
  5. Jobs Are A Cost, Not A Ben­e­fit (Tim Worstall, Forbes): “It is sim­ply non­sense that we should pre­fer using the labour of more peo­ple to achieve a goal than using less labour to achieve the same goal. Absolute, arrant, non­sense…. Labour is, after all, the sweat of the brow and the break­ing of the back for those who have to do it: peo­ple who would prob­a­bly pre­fer to be enjoy­ing a lit­tle more of that work life bal­ance and some leisure with loved ones if they did­n’t have to be climb­ing wind­mills in the mid­dle of a North Sea gale.” Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus.
  6. ‘I Am a Man With Down Syn­drome and My Life Is Worth Liv­ing’ (Conor Frieder­s­dorf, The Atlantic): “Par­ents who car­ry a fetus with Down syn­drome to term, or who are con­flict­ed about whether or not to do so, will almost cer­tain­ly speak with a med­ical pro­fes­sion­al, and per­haps with a coun­selor or reli­gious advis­er. But they are unlike­ly to hear from an adult with Down syndrome—and per­haps unaware that many are lov­ing their lives, bring­ing joy to oth­ers, and giv­ing them­selves to their com­mu­ni­ties.”
  7. Is Athe­ism Irra­tional? (Kel­ly J. Clark, Big Ques­tions Online): “Accord­ing to a cul­tur­al­ly influ­en­tial nar­ra­tive, reli­gious beliefs are irra­tional because they are caused by unre­li­able cog­ni­tive mech­a­nisms, where­as athe­ism is ratio­nal because it is the prod­uct of ratio­nal reflec­tion on true beliefs. We have debunked a por­tion of the nar­ra­tive: athe­ism, at least in some cas­es, is cor­re­lat­ed with and medi­at­ed by a cog­ni­tive deficit.”
  8. Pros­ti­tu­tion Reduces Rape (Tyler Cowen, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): Huh. I find it inter­est­ing that even though pros­ti­tu­tion is con­demned through­out the Bible, it was not actu­al­ly out­lawed in Old Tes­ta­ment Israel except in cer­tain spe­cif­ic cir­cum­stances. In light of this research, that makes a lot of sense. See http://www.openbible.info/topics/prostitution to skim some of the key Bible vers­es.

Things Glen Found Amusing

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have some thoughts about slav­ery and the Bible – Does The Bible Sup­port Slav­ery? (a lec­ture giv­en by the war­den of Tyn­dale House at Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty, the link is to the video with notes) and Does God Con­done Slav­ery In The Bible? (Part One – Old Tes­ta­ment) and also Part Two – New Tes­ta­ment (longer pieces from Glenn Miller at Chris­t­ian Think­tank). All three are quite help­ful. (first shared in vol­ume 76)

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.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.