Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 166

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. God’s May­or in Guatemala (Dale Han­son Bourke, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “In the so-called North­ern Tri­an­gle of Cen­tral Amer­i­ca, the coun­tries of Hon­duras, El Sal­vador, and Guatemala form a vio­lent tri­ad. The mur­der rate is high­er in this region than in most active war zones. Gangs, car­tels, and vig­i­lantes impose their will, tak­ing over or co-opt­ing legit­i­mate police forces and rou­tine­ly ter­ror­iz­ing aver­age cit­i­zen­s…. In the mid­dle of this vio­lence sits the town of San Cristóbal Acasaguastlán, a pic­turesque oasis of calm with a pop­u­la­tion of about 6,000 peo­ple. What sets this place apart are the efforts of Jeaneth Ordoñez, the Chris­t­ian may­or who has unit­ed the towns­peo­ple in their quest to keep the munic­i­pal­i­ty free of the vio­lence and upheaval that sur­rounds them.”
  2. No alco­hol safe to drink, glob­al study con­firms (Lau­rel Ives, BBC): “A large new glob­al study pub­lished in the Lancet has con­firmed pre­vi­ous research which has shown that there is no safe lev­el of alco­hol con­sump­tion. The researchers admit mod­er­ate drink­ing may pro­tect against heart dis­ease but found that the risk of can­cer and oth­er dis­eases out­weighs these protections.” The under­ly­ing research: Alco­hol use and bur­den for 195 coun­tries and ter­ri­to­ries, 1990–2016: a sys­tem­at­ic analy­sis for the Glob­al Bur­den of Dis­ease Study 2016 (The Lancet. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31310–2)
  3. Chris­tians to Sci­ence: Leave Ani­mals the Way God Designed Them—Except Mos­qui­toes (Rebec­ca Ran­dall, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Messing with nature or God’s plan was a top con­cern for those opposed to engi­neer­ing ani­mal meat to be more nutri­tious (22%), bring­ing back an extinct species (23%), or mak­ing aquar­i­um fish glow (18%). The rea­son cit­ed most often to oppose cre­at­ing glow­ing fish was sim­ply that it is unnec­es­sary and friv­o­lous (48%).” Appar­ent­ly I am an out­lier. Make the fish glow, make meat more nutri­tious, and deal with mos­qui­to-borne dis­ease. I real­ly like the way the Kenyan researcher quot­ed in the arti­cle encour­ages us to tar­get the par­a­site and not the car­ri­er. We are made in the image of God so that we can exer­cise domin­ion over Cre­ation!
  4. The Peter Prin­ci­ple is a joke tak­en seri­ous­ly. Is it true? (Tim Har­ford, Finan­cial Times): “The authors of the paper dis­cov­ered that the best sales­peo­ple were more like­ly to be pro­mot­ed, and that they were then ter­ri­ble man­agers. The bet­ter they had been in sales, the worse their teams per­formed once they arrived in a man­age­r­i­al role. What’s more, peo­ple were not pro­mot­ed for behav­iour that might seem cor­re­lat­ed with man­age­r­i­al abil­i­ty — in par­tic­u­lar, those who col­lab­o­rat­ed with oth­ers were not reward­ed for doing so. What mat­tered were sales, pure and simple.” It may be the case that you should dress for the job you want, but if you want to get pro­mot­ed you had bet­ter rock the job you have.
  5. Gay Men Are Dif­fer­ent, Says Gay Male Read­er (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “Well-meaning straight lib­er­als just do not get it, and lots of gay men will not crit­i­cize any­thing gay men col­lec­tive­ly do because they think it will result in both lots of anger from oth­er gay men as well as the empow­er­ment of ide­o­log­i­cal ene­mies who want to, say, ban gay mar­riage. Men and women are fun­da­men­tal­ly dif­fer­ent and a male-female sex­u­al cul­ture is not going to be the same as a male-male sex­u­al culture.” I sus­pect this will con­sid­ered con­tro­ver­sial by one set of read­ers and com­mon sense by anoth­er, and that the groups will not break down along pre­dictable lines.
  6. How the inter­net has changed dat­ing (The Econ­o­mist): “…a 2013 study researchers from Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty and the Uni­ver­si­ty of Chica­go showed that mar­riages that start­ed online were less like­ly to end in break-up and were asso­ci­at­ed with high­er lev­els of sat­is­fac­tion than mar­riages of the same vin­tage between sim­i­lar cou­ples who had met offline: the dif­fer­ence was not huge, but it was sta­tis­ti­cal­ly significant.”
  7. What Trump Knew and Vot­ers Did­n’t (Conor Frieder­s­dorf, The Atlantic): “…Trump vot­ers went to the polls unaware that a sum exceed­ing most of their annu­al salaries was expend­ed to keep that [Trump paid off a porn star] from them. Even if the pay­ment had been total­ly legal, it would’ve con­sti­tut­ed a delib­er­ate, immoral, clas­si­cal­ly politi­cian-like effort to mis­lead vot­ers about the choice before them. But the pay­ment was not legal. It vio­lat­ed cam­paign-finance laws—and it was not a mere­ly acci­den­tal and tech­ni­cal vio­la­tion of an over­ly com­pli­cat­ed or con­tro­ver­sial provision.” This arti­cle is a pret­ty good and suc­cinct sum­ma­ry of the cur­rent debate about Trump.

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).

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.

The Four Loves: Eros

The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis

Blog read­ers: Chi Alpha @ Stan­ford is engag­ing in our annu­al sum­mer read­ing project. As we read through three books by C. S. Lewis, I’ll post my thoughts here (which will large­ly con­sist of excerpts I found insight­ful). They are all tagged sum­mer-read­ing-project-2018. The sched­ule is online.

I’m at a con­fer­ence right now with a pret­ty packed sched­ule, so I’m dash­ing this email off quick­er than nor­mal. Apolo­gies for typos or inco­her­ent thoughts. 🙂

One thing I great­ly appre­ci­at­ed in this chap­ter is Lewis’s dis­cus­sion of how amus­ing human romance is. Not every­one gets this.

I remem­ber I was once at a con­fer­ence host­ing a table dis­cus­sion with stu­dents about romance and rela­tion­ships and sex. I was mak­ing the point that sex is an objec­tive­ly absurd thing. I was, if I may say so, on top of my game that day and they were roar­ing with laugh­ter.

One of the stu­dents at my table sud­den­ly stopped laugh­ing and said, “I have a ques­tion. I just over­heard the table host at the oth­er table crit­i­cize us for laugh­ing at sex. He said that we don’t under­stand how seri­ous and sacred sex is. That laugh­ing at it like this shows that we’re imma­ture and we’re going to get our­selves into trou­ble because we don’t approach it with solem­ni­ty. What do you think about that?”

Every­one stopped laugh­ing as though they had been slapped, for indeed they had been.

I can­not remem­ber in detail how I went on to defend my thoughts that day (although I recall fur­ther and per­haps exces­sive ridicule of my critic’s per­spec­tive was deployed), but I am pleased to report that this chap­ter reveals that C.S. Lewis shared my per­spec­tive.

For I can hard­ly help regard­ing it as one of God’s jokes that a pas­sion so soar­ing, so appar­ent­ly tran­scen­dent, as Eros, should thus be linked in incon­gru­ous sym­bio­sis with a bod­i­ly appetite which, like any oth­er appetite, tact­less­ly reveals its con­nec­tions with such mun­dane fac­tors as weath­er, health, diet, cir­cu­la­tion, and diges­tion. In Eros at times we seem to be fly­ing; Venus gives us the sud­den twitch that reminds us we are real­ly cap­tive bal­loons.

And lat­er:

So the body. There’s no liv­ing with it till we recog­nise that one of its func­tions in our lives is to play the part of buf­foon. Until some the­o­ry has sophis­ti­cat­ed them, every man, woman and child in the world knows this. The fact that we have bod­ies is the old­est joke there is.

And again:

Noth­ing is falser than the idea that mock­ery is nec­es­sar­i­ly hos­tile. Until they have a baby to laugh at, lovers are always laugh­ing at each oth­er.

So here is my encour­age­ment to you in your roman­tic jour­ney: see the humor in it.

But romance is not just amus­ing — it is also pro­found. If it was only amus­ing it would not be worth so much ener­gy and atten­tion. It would be at most a hob­by. Romance is far more than that. Lewis explains one of the spir­i­tu­al dynam­ics at work in roman­tic love:

The event of falling in love is of such a nature that we are right to reject as intol­er­a­ble the idea that it should be tran­si­to­ry. In one high bound it has over­leaped the mas­sive wall of our self­hood; it has made appetite itself altru­is­tic, tossed per­son­al hap­pi­ness aside as a triv­i­al­i­ty and plant­ed the inter­ests of anoth­er in the cen­tre of our being. Spon­ta­neous­ly and with­out effort we have ful­filled the law (towards one per­son) by lov­ing our neigh­bour as our­selves. It is an image, a fore­taste, of what we must become to all if Love Him­self rules in us with­out a rival. It is even (well used) a prepa­ra­tion for that…. Can we be in this self­less lib­er­a­tion for a life­time? Hard­ly for a week. Between the best pos­si­ble lovers this high con­di­tion is inter­mit­tent. The old self soon turns out to be not so dead as he pretended—as after a reli­gious con­ver­sion. In either he may be momen­tar­i­ly knocked flat; he will soon be up again; if not on his feet, at least on his elbow, if not roar­ing, at least back to his surly grum­bling or his men­di­cant whine.

That’s it for this week. Next week: agape!

The Four Loves: Friendship

The Four Loves by C. S. Lewis

Blog read­ers: Chi Alpha @ Stan­ford is engag­ing in our annu­al sum­mer read­ing project. As we read through three books by C. S. Lewis, I’ll post my thoughts here (which will large­ly con­sist of excerpts I found insight­ful). They are all tagged sum­mer-read­ing-project-2018. The sched­ule is online.

Now we turn to the sec­ond human love Lewis con­sid­ers: phil­ia (φιλία — friend­ship). 

Even if you’ve got­ten behind on the read­ings I encour­age you to go through this chap­ter. While much has changed in the way we think about friend­ship nowa­days (for instance, we val­ue it more than did Lewis’s con­tem­po­raries), much has not. And the nature of friend­ship has changed not at all. Lewis’s insights will help you forge bet­ter friend­ships and be a bet­ter friend.

Three com­ments before we dive in:

On to the con­tent! This is one of my favorite obser­va­tions by Lewis:

In each of my friends there is some­thing that only some oth­er friend can ful­ly bring out. By myself I am not large enough to call the whole man into activ­i­ty; I want oth­er lights than my own to show all his facets. Now that Charles is dead, I shall nev­er again see Ronald’s reac­tion to a specif­i­cal­ly Car­o­line joke. Far from hav­ing more of Ronald, hav­ing him “to myself’ now that Charles is away, I have less of Ronald. Hence true Friend­ship is the least jeal­ous of loves. Two friends delight to be joined by a third, and three by a fourth, if only the new­com­er is qual­i­fied to become a real friend. (page 783)

In case you were won­der­ing, Charles is Charles Williams (a nov­el­ist, poet, and edi­tor at Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty Press) and Ronald is J. R. R. Tolkien (yes — that Tolkien). They along with Lewis were the cen­tral mem­bers of a lit­er­ary dis­cus­sion group called the Inklings. They would read their writ­ings aloud to one anoth­er and cri­tique each oth­er. If you’re ever in Oxford you can vis­it the pub they used to meet in — The Eagle and Child.

Back to the main topic. This idea of two friends bring­ing things out of each oth­er that allow me to appre­ci­ate each of them more is beau­ti­ful, and Lewis’s the­o­log­i­cal appli­ca­tion of it is one that I have found help­ful when think­ing about the glo­ry of heav­en:

…the very mul­ti­tude of the blessed (which no man can num­ber) increas­es the fruition which each has of God. For every soul, see­ing Him in her own way, doubt­less com­mu­ni­cates that unique vision to all the rest. That, says an old author, is why the Seraphim in Isaiah’s vision are cry­ing “Holy, Holy, Holy” to one anoth­er (Isa­iah VI, 3). The more we thus share the Heav­en­ly Bread between us, the more we shall all have. (page 783)

More prac­ti­cal­ly, Lewis has some thoughts on how friend­ships begin:

Friend­ship aris­es out of mere Com­pan­ion­ship when two or more of the com­pan­ions dis­cov­er that they have in com­mon some insight or inter­est or even taste which the oth­ers do not share and which, till that moment, each believed to be his own unique trea­sure (or bur­den). The typ­i­cal expres­sion of open­ing Friend­ship would be some­thing like, “What? You too? I thought I was the only one.” (page 785)

This is one rea­son why col­lege is so exhil­a­rat­ing. You have so many more peers than you did in high school that you can eas­i­ly find peo­ple who share your inter­ests. Your friend­ships in Chi Alpha espe­cial­ly have the poten­tial to become so sat­is­fy­ing because you’ve already got your faith in com­mon, and on top of that Stan­ford itself, and on top of that your expe­ri­ence of Chi Alpha instead of anoth­er Chris­t­ian com­mu­ni­ty, and if you add on top of that just one more thing like a cer­tain sport or a spe­cif­ic fan­dom or a shared sense of humor then the odds that a sig­nif­i­cant friend­ship will form are quite high. 

Not every­one acquires those friend­ships, of course. Some respond by look­ing for friends. Lewis points out why look­ing for friends direct­ly is often coun­ter­pro­duc­tive:

That is why those pathet­ic peo­ple who sim­ply “want friend­s” can nev­er make any. The very con­di­tion of hav­ing Friends is that we should want some­thing else besides Friends. Where the truth­ful answer to the ques­tion Do you see the same truth? would be “I see noth­ing and I don’t care about the truth; I only want a Friend,” no Friend­ship can arise— though Affec­tion of course may. There would be noth­ing for the Friend­ship to be about; and Friend­ship must be about some­thing, even if it were only an enthu­si­asm for domi­noes or white mice. Those who have noth­ing can share noth­ing; those who are going nowhere can have no fel­low-trav­ellers. (page 786)

So if you feel lone­ly — pur­sue some­thing you’re inter­est­ed in. And then chat with those around you who are engaged in the same pur­suit. Friend­ship will often emerge. This will prove to be espe­cial­ly use­ful advice once you grad­u­ate and have to forge friend­ships with­out the aggres­sive help of Stan­ford Res Ed.

Lewis also address­es a peren­ni­al ques­tion among col­lege stu­dents: can guys and girls can be just friends?

When the two peo­ple who thus dis­cov­er that they are on the same secret road are of dif­fer­ent sex­es, the friend­ship which aris­es between them will very eas­i­ly pass—may pass in the first half-hour—into erot­ic love. Indeed, unless they are phys­i­cal­ly repul­sive to each oth­er or unless one or both already loves else­where, it is almost cer­tain to do so soon­er or lat­er. (page 786)

Lewis is cor­rect, and at this junc­ture I refer you to one of my favorite YouTube videos: Why Men and Women Can’t Be Friends

Near the end of the chap­ter he gives us a help­ful reminder:

…we think we have cho­sen our peers. In real­i­ty, a few years’ dif­fer­ence in the dates of our births, a few more miles between cer­tain hous­es, the choice of one uni­ver­si­ty instead of anoth­er, post­ing to dif­fer­ent reg­i­ments, the acci­dent of a top­ic being raised or not raised at a first meeting—any of these chances might have kept us apart. But, for a Chris­t­ian, there are, strict­ly speak­ing, no chances. A secret Mas­ter of the Cer­e­monies has been at work. Christ, who said to the dis­ci­ples “Ye have not cho­sen me, but I have cho­sen you,” can tru­ly say to every group of Chris­t­ian friends “You have not cho­sen one anoth­er but I have cho­sen you for one another.” (pages 801–802)

Thank God for your friends!

Next week, roman­tic love…

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 152

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. Love, Again: on a celi­bate breakup and what hap­pened after. (Wes­ley Hill, Com­ment Mag­a­zine): “For a long time, I found absti­nence rel­a­tive­ly easy. It’s not trendy to admit this, but I didn’t expe­ri­ence a sex­less adult­hood to be a fate worse than death, in part, per­haps, because I tried not to rev up my libido by see­ing how close I could get to the line of inter­course with­out step­ping over it…. What I didn’t real­ize, though, is that, for the inten­tion­al­ly absti­nent, giv­ing up sex is only part of the deal, and there’s more than one line you can step across.”
  2. Let’s Not For­get How Wrong Our Crime Data Are (Cathy O’Neil, Bloomberg): “A year after Trump was elect­ed, the num­ber of report­ed rapes among the Lati­no pop­u­la­tion of Hous­ton declined by 40 per­cent, a strong indi­ca­tion that peo­ple became afraid to report the crimes. Police often don’t take rape vic­tim­s’ reports seri­ous­ly, a prob­lem that is prob­a­bly even worse for male vic­tims. So how can we get a bet­ter under­stand­ing of the under­ly­ing rate of crime? Sur­veys typ­i­cal­ly don’t help: Peo­ple who get away with com­mit­ting seri­ous offens­es aren’t like­ly to admit it, even if they’re guar­an­teed anonymi­ty. The one notable excep­tion is mar­i­jua­na use, which — though still ille­gal in most places — is mild and social­ly accept­able enough that peo­ple are will­ing to tell the truth. Hence, if we com­pare the report­ed rate of mar­i­jua­na use to the arrest data, we can gain some insight into how use­ful the lat­ter real­ly is. The pic­ture isn’t pret­ty. The lat­est gov­ern­ment sur­veys, for exam­ple, sug­gest that black and white Amer­i­cans use mar­i­jua­na at about the same rate. Yet blacks get arrest­ed about four times more often than whites — and 15 times more often in Man­hat­tan, accord­ing to a recent New York Times analysis.” The author has her Ph.D. in math­e­mat­ics from Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty.
  3. This week the US moved our embassy in Israel to Jerusalem on the 70th anniver­sary of Israel’s mod­ern instan­ti­a­tion. Vio­lence ensued.
    • Israel faces out­cry over Gaza killings dur­ing Jerusalem embassy protests (Oliv­er Holmes and Hazem Balousha, The Guardian): “Gaza has had its blood­i­est day in years on Mon­day after Israeli forces shot and killed 58 Pales­tini­ans and wound­ed at least 1,200 as tens of thou­sands protest­ed along the fron­tier against the open­ing of the US embassy in Jerusalem.”
    • The Real Dis­pute Dri­ving the Israeli-Pales­tin­ian Con­flict (Yos­si Klein Hale­vi, The Atlantic): “Abbas’s speech only con­firmed for many Israelis that this con­flict isn’t pri­mar­i­ly about redress­ing the Pales­tin­ian griev­ances over the con­se­quences of the events of 1967—the occu­pa­tion of the West Bank and Gaza—but of 1948: the cre­ation of Israel. Even if we were to uproot every last set­tle­ment and with­draw to the 1967 lines, some Israelis say, it won’t bring us any clos­er to peace, because the real Pales­tin­ian griev­ance is Israel’s exis­tence…. Israelis and Pales­tini­ans are caught in what could be called a “cycle of denial.” The Pales­tin­ian nation­al move­ment denies Israel’s legit­i­ma­cy, and Israel in turn denies the Pales­tini­an­s’ nation­al sov­er­eign­ty. The cycle of denial has defined this shared exis­tence since the cre­ation of Israel 70 years ago.”
    • Pulling an arti­cle I first shared back in vol­ume 5: What The Media Gets Wrong About Israel (Mat­ti Fried­man, The Atlantic): “…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.”
    • Israel’s Mas­sacre of Pales­tin­ian Civil­ians Should Spark Horror—and Action (Ian S. Lustick, The Nation): “As doc­u­ment­ed by the Israeli mil­i­tary, there are now more Pales­tini­ans under the con­trol of the Israeli state than there are Jews. Indeed, for all intents and pur­pos­es the Pales­tini­ans of Gaza and of the West Bank are already with­in the Jew­ish state. They are cit­i­zens of no oth­er coun­try, no oth­er rec­og­nized state. As mea­sured by how much impact the State of Israel has over the inti­mate details of their lives, and indeed over whether they will live at all, they are as much inhab­i­tants of the State of Israel as black slaves were inhab­i­tants of the Unit­ed States or as Africans in the Ban­tus­tans were inhab­i­tants of apartheid South Africa.” The author is a poli sci pro­fes­sor at Penn.
    • Israel Has the Right and Oblig­a­tion to Defend Its Bor­der with Dead­ly Force (David French, Nation­al Review): “What would you have Israel do when thou­sands of peo­ple march on the bor­der, some armed, some not? What would you have Israel do when you know that ter­ror­ists are cer­tain­ly mixed in that crowd, peo­ple who’d glad­ly shoot or stab Israeli civil­ians if they were ever to gain access to Israeli towns?”
  4. Basic Income, Not Basic Jobs: Against Hijack­ing Utopia (Scott Alexan­der, Slate Star Codex):  “I grudg­ing­ly for­give cap­i­tal­ism the mis­ery it caus­es, because it’s the engine that lifts coun­tries out of pover­ty. It’s a pre­con­di­tion for a free and pros­per­ous soci­ety; attempts to over­throw it have so con­sis­tent­ly led to pover­ty, tyran­ny, or geno­cide that we no longer believe its pro­po­nents’ earnest oaths that this time they’ve got it right. For right now, there’s no good alter­na­tive. But if we have a basic jobs guar­an­tee, it will cause all the same mis­ery, and I won’t for­give it.“ This is a long arti­cle — skim it. Over­all a very strong argu­ment.
  5. An athe­ist Mus­lim on what the left and right get wrong about Islam (Sean Illing, Vox): “I think the left has a blind spot when it comes to Islam and the right has a blind spot when it comes to Muslims.” This arti­cle is an inter­est­ing mix of insight and fol­ly.
  6. Inter­est­ing obser­va­tions from a polit­i­cal sci­en­tist (Cor­rinne McConaughy, Twit­ter): “How hard is it to reach into pol­i­tics and say simul­ta­ne­ous­ly that you are owed more and less than you have been giv­en? Like, that’s a hard argu­ment to make—so hard that the elites try­ing to explain this sort of ten­sion keep whiff­ing past it.” She is a polit­i­cal sci­en­tist at George Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty. I don’t know if she is a Chris­t­ian, but the way she word­ed that bit was very gospel­ish.
  7. The Fall of The Ger­man Empire (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “And think­ing about the Euro­pean Union this way, as a Ger­man­ic empire as well as a lib­er­al-cos­mopoli­tan project, is a help­ful way of under­stand­ing how it might ulti­mate­ly fal­l…. if the test of Europe’s uni­ty feels like a test for lib­er­al democ­ra­cy, it’s a mis­take to see it only in those terms. It is also a strug­gle of nations against empire, of the Continent’s small­er coun­tries against Ger­man mas­tery and North­ern Euro­pean inter­ests, in which pop­ulist par­ties are being elect­ed to resist poli­cies the cen­ter sought to impose upon the periph­ery with­out a vote.”

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 20 Argu­ments For God’s Exis­tence (Peter Kreeft, per­son­al web­site): “You may be blessed with a vivid sense of God’s pres­ence; and that is some­thing for which to be pro­found­ly grate­ful. But that does not mean you have no oblig­a­tion to pon­der these argu­ments. For many have not been blessed in that way. And the proofs are designed for them—or some of them at least—to give a kind of help they real­ly need. You may even be asked to pro­vide help.” I was remind­ed of this by a con­ver­sa­tion with an alum­nus. The author is a phi­los­o­phy pro­fes­sor at Boston Col­lege. (first shared in vol­ume 116)

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 148

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. This col­lege pro­fes­sor gives her stu­dents extra cred­it for going on dates (Lisa Bonos, Wash­ing­ton Post): “She sees con­ver­sa­tions about dat­ing as part of the big ques­tions her class­es tack­le, such as: How should I live my life? What kinds of rela­tion­ships help me to become the kind of per­son I want to be? If stu­dents don’t learn how to date while they’re in col­lege, while sur­round­ed by thou­sands of peers all in a sim­i­lar stage in life, Cronin says, it only gets hard­er to build those skills after graduation.” The pro­fes­sor in ques­tion, Ker­ry Cronin, is a philoso­pher at Boston Col­lege.
    • She has these rules for a first date: “The stu­dent has to ask in per­son (“texting is the dev­il; stop it,” she says in one of her YouTube videos), and the recip­i­ent has to know it’s a date. And if they say they’re busy and to check back with them lat­er, don’t. Just move on. ‘That’s a great skill to build, so that you can have a thick­er skin,’ Cronin says. She believes that the per­son who asks, pays. And the first date shouldn’t cost more than $10, include drugs or alco­hol, or last longer than 90 minutes…”
    • Those are good guide­lines. Read them again.
  2. I think the fol­low­ing two arti­cles will prove to be among the most con­tro­ver­sial I’ve ever shared. I also think they both con­tain much prac­ti­cal wis­dom that will prove rel­e­vant as the weath­er warms:
    • For the gents: 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.”
    • For the ladies: Sis­ter… Show Mer­cy! (Dan Phillips, Team Pyro): “Sister, if there’s one thing you and I can cer­tain­ly agree on, it’s this: I don’t know what it’s like to be a woman, and you don’t know what it’s like to be a man. We’re both prob­a­bly wrong where we’re sure we’re right, try as we might. So let me try to dart a telegram from my camp over to the distaff side.”
    • I am aware that these two arti­cles only deal with things from a male per­spec­tive. Sad­ly, I haven’t come across any insight­ful arti­cles that help ladies deal with their own lust or give gen­tle­men advice on how to be help­ful to them. Ladies, if you’ve read some­thing you found tru­ly help­ful, let me know.
  3. Jesus, Take the Con­trol Wheel: South­west Pilot Saw Fly­ing as Min­istry (David Roach, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Tammie Jo Shults—the pilot who guid­ed Flight 1380 to the ground April 17 after a mid­flight engine fail­ure shot debris through a win­dow, killing one passenger—is a rec­og­niz­able fig­ure at the Texas Hill Coun­try church, which aver­ages 900 in wor­ship…. Mul­ti­ple media reports have cit­ed a blog post in which Shults stat­ed being a pilot gave her ‘the oppor­tu­ni­ty to wit­ness for Christ on almost every flight.’” You can glo­ri­fy God in almost any pro­fes­sion — make it your ambi­tion.
  4. Five Great Books on African Amer­i­can Evan­gel­i­cal His­to­ry (Thomas Kidd, The Gospel Coali­tion): “If I had to pick one African Amer­i­can church leader I wish more Chris­tians knew about, it would prob­a­bly be [Lemuel] Haynes. A Rev­o­lu­tion­ary War sol­dier, Haynes went on to become a pas­tor of a large­ly white church in New Eng­land, a crit­ic of Amer­i­can slav­ery, and an advo­cate of the New Divin­i­ty the­ol­o­gy of Jonathan Edwards’s successors.”
  5. Don­ald Trump, Trag­ic Hero (Vic­tor Davis Han­son, Nation­al Review): “Tragic heroes, as they have been por­trayed from Sopho­cles’ plays (e.g., Ajax, Antigone, Oedi­pus Rex, Philoctetes) to the mod­ern west­ern film, are not intrin­si­cal­ly noble. Much less are they like­able. Cer­tain­ly, they can often be obnox­ious and pet­ty, if not dan­ger­ous, espe­cial­ly to those around them.” Han­son is a fel­low at Stanford’s Hoover Insti­tu­tion.
  6. The Face­book Tri­als: It’s Not “Our” Data (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “…I have hun­dreds of friends on Face­book, most of whom I don’t know well and have nev­er met. But my Face­book friends are friends. We share com­mon inter­ests and, most of the time, I’m hap­py to see what they are think­ing and doing and I’m pleased when they show inter­est in what I’m up to. If, before Face­book exist­ed, I had been asked to list ‘my friends,’ I would have had a hard time nam­ing ten friends, let alone hun­dreds. My Face­book friends didn’t exist before Face­book. My Face­book friend­ships are not sim­ply my data—they are a unique co-cre­ation of myself, my friends, and, yes, Facebook.”
  7. Google Will Now Answer Your The­o­log­i­cal Ques­tions (OpenBible.info): “Google just announced an AI-pow­ered exper­i­ment called Talk to Books, which lets you enter a query and find pas­sages in books that are seman­ti­cal­ly sim­i­lar to your query, not mere­ly pas­sages that hap­pen to match the key­words you chose. For the­ol­o­gy- and Bible-relat­ed ques­tions, it often presents an evan­gel­i­cal per­spec­tive, per­haps because U.S. evan­gel­i­cal pub­lish­ers have been eager for Google to index their books.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

  • A Divid­ed Coun­try (Pearls Before Swine): this one actu­al­ly made me laugh and not mere­ly chor­tle sen­si­bly.
  • Christ Chel­la (John Crist, Face­book): this is amaz­ing­ly detailed and the more you know the evan­gel­i­cal cul­ture the fun­nier it is

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have On Polit­i­cal Cor­rect­ness (William Dere­siewicz, The Amer­i­can Schol­ar): a long and thought­ful arti­cle. “Selective pri­vate col­leges have become reli­gious schools. The reli­gion in ques­tion is not Method­ism or Catholi­cism but an extreme ver­sion of the belief sys­tem of the lib­er­al elite: the lib­er­al pro­fes­sion­al, man­age­r­i­al, and cre­ative class­es, which pro­vide a large major­i­ty of stu­dents enrolled at such places and an even larg­er major­i­ty of fac­ul­ty and admin­is­tra­tors who work at them. To attend those insti­tu­tions is to be social­ized, and not infre­quent­ly, indoc­tri­nat­ed into that reli­gion…. I say this, by the way, as an athe­ist, a demo­c­ra­t­ic social­ist, a native north­east­ern­er, a per­son who believes that col­leges should not have sports teams in the first place—and in case it isn’t obvi­ous by now, a card-car­ry­ing mem­ber of the lib­er­al elite.” (first shared in vol­ume 92)

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 88

1 Chronicles 12:32 - they "understood the times"
1 Chron­i­cles 12:32 — they “under­stood the times”

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. Sleep-Deprived Judges Dole Out Harsh­er Pun­ish­ments (Chris Barnes, Har­vard Busi­ness Review): this is clever. The author turned day­light sav­ings time into a nat­ur­al exper­i­ment and ana­lyzed the effects of mild sleep depri­va­tion on judge’s deci­sions. After los­ing 40 min­utes of sleep the judges appar­ent­ly became 5% harsh­er in their ver­dicts. Apply to your own sleep debt and moral conundrums. 
  2. The Hottest Invite In Town: Don­ald Trump’s Sup­per Club (Sara Mur­ray, CNN): “Long after the Pres­i­den­t’s offi­cial day has end­ed, his worka­holic ten­den­cies have him host­ing a rotat­ing sup­per club at the most cov­et­ed address in Wash­ing­ton. At least four nights a week, he wel­comes a steady stream of Cab­i­net mem­bers, staffers and mem­bers of Con­gress to the res­i­dence to brush up on nation­al secu­ri­ty issues and for­eign affairs over steak, fish and sal­ads, accord­ing to Trump aides.” This is sur­pris­ing­ly infor­ma­tive.
  3. Watch­ing Wikipedi­a’s extinc­tion event from a dis­tance (Andrea James, Boing Boing): “Wikipedia went from peo­ple writ­ing an ency­clo­pe­dia to peo­ple writ­ing rules about writ­ing an encyclopedia…” I can attest to the ten­den­cy the author describes and am gen­uine­ly wor­ried about Wikipedia’s tra­jec­to­ry.
  4. The Soul Of Evan­gel­i­cal­ism: What Will Become Of Us? (Scot McK­night): “Let’s get the stan­dard def­i­n­i­tion of evan­gel­i­cal­ism on the table first: an evan­gel­i­cal is com­mit­ted to these four ele­ments: the Bible, the cross as the place of atone­ment, the neces­si­ty of per­son­al con­ver­sion, and an active Chris­t­ian life both in missions/evangelism as well as jus­tice, peace and rec­on­cil­i­a­tion. On top of this, evan­gel­i­cal­ism is non-denom­i­na­tion­al and cross-denominational.”
  5. The Great Shame Of Our Pro­fes­sion: How The Human­i­ties Sur­vive on Exploita­tion (Kevin Birm­ing­ham , The Chron­i­cle of High­er Edu­ca­tion): it doesn’t get good until para­graph six (search for the word ‘remiss’ and begin there). “If his­to­ry is any guide, there will be about nine times as many new Ph.D.s this year as there are job­s…. Why do our nation’s Eng­lish depart­ments con­sis­tent­ly accept sev­er­al times as many grad­u­ate stu­dents as their bespoke job mar­ket can sus­tain? Eng­lish depart­ments are the only employ­ers demand­ing the cre­den­tials that Eng­lish doc­tor­al pro­grams produce.”
  6. An Ivy League pro­fes­sor who spent 4 months work­ing in a South Bronx check-cash­ing store says we’re get­ting it all wrong (Alex Mor­rell, Busi­ness Insid­er): “Over and over again, Ser­von heard and observed that check cash­ers met cus­tomers’ needs bet­ter than banks did. She dis­cov­ered there were three main rea­sons peo­ple used these ser­vices instead of banks: cost, trans­paren­cy, and service.”

Things Glen Found Amusing

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 74

1 Chronicles 12:32 - they "understood the times"
1 Chron­i­cles 12:32 — they “under­stood the times”

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Men Are More Like­ly to Be Sex­u­al­ly Attract­ed to Their Oppo­site-Sex Friends (Drake Baer, Sci­ence of Us): “the study found that guys are more like­ly to define a female friend as ‘a mem­ber of the oppo­site sex to whom I am attract­ed and would pur­sue giv­en the oppor­tu­ni­ty’ and ladies to define their oppo­site-sex friends as sim­ply ‘a friend of the oppo­site sex.’” For an amus­ing take on this idea, see this three-minute video (it’s got over 9 mil­lion views).
  2. The New Evan­gel­i­cal Moral Minor­i­ty (Kele­fa San­neh, New York­er): this is a well-writ­ten essay focus­ing on the South­ern Bap­tist ethi­cist Rus­sell Moore, of whom I am a huge fan and with whom I usu­al­ly agree. High­ly rec­om­mend­ed, although the author’s snark shows through occa­sion­al­ly. The author, inci­den­tal­ly, is the son of famed Chris­t­ian mis­si­ol­o­gist Lamin San­neh.
  3. In Love and Mar­riage, Prac­tice Doesn’t Make Per­fect (Scott Stan­ley, Psy­chol­o­gy Today):  “We found that hav­ing more sex­u­al and cohab­it­ing part­ners before mar­riage is asso­ci­at­ed with low­er rela­tion­ship qual­i­ty once mar­ried. In par­tic­u­lar, hav­ing only ever lived with or had sex with one’s spouse was asso­ci­at­ed with high­er mar­i­tal quality.” The author is a research pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Den­ver. The research upon which this arti­cle was based is avail­able here.
  4. Pos­i­tive Par­ent­ing is Ide­al, But Many Chil­dren Need Time-Outs, Too (Robert Larzelere, Insti­tute For Fam­i­ly Stud­ies): “Yes, the worst out­comes were for the type of author­i­tar­i­an par­ent­ing that Dr. Coul­son oppos­es, which can be defined as strict enforce­ment with­out love. But the sec­ond-worst 10-year out­comes were for over­ly per­mis­sive parents…” When we sing that God is a good, good Father we should should remem­ber we are cel­e­brat­ing the fact that he both encour­ages and disciplines. 
  5. North Kore­a’s War On Chris­tian­i­ty: The Globe’s Num­ber One Reli­gious Per­se­cu­tor (Doug Bandow, Forbes): “[Christian Sol­i­dar­i­ty World­wide] reports doc­u­ment­ed cas­es of believ­ers being ‘hung on a cross over a fire, crushed under a steam­roller, herd­ed off bridges, and tram­pled underfoot.’”
  6. The Case Against Democ­ra­cy (Caleb Craine, The New York­er): I’m a monar­chist, truth be told. In the King­dom I call home we don’t get a vote, but we wel­come any­one who wish­es to immi­grate. Join us! #king­je­sus  

Things Glen Found Amusing

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 39

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

  1. This is the research paper behind the sto­ry I shared in my ser­mon this week: Spon­ta­neous Human Speech Mim­ic­ry By A Cetacean (Cur­rent Biol­o­gy), a read­able sum­ma­ry is The Whale Who Talked (Nature) and to hear it your­self, here is a one minute YouTube video about Noc. (the video describes his voice as kazo­o­like, which is apt).
  2. How The Church Helps Black Men Flour­ish In Amer­i­ca (Wilcox and Wolfin­ger, The Atlantic): “The black church’s suc­cess val­i­dates the cul­tur­al argu­ments made by con­ser­v­a­tives and the struc­tur­al argu­ments made by lib­er­als regard­ing race in America.”
  3. Who Are The Gay Evan­gel­i­cals? (Mol­ly Worthen, NY Times):  “In an era when gay mar­riage is legal and a range of gay Chris­tians are mod­el­ing dif­fer­ent ways to rec­on­cile sex­u­al­i­ty and faith, are the deci­sions of young believ­ers like Lani­ra Postell still a result of coer­cion and con­fused self-hatred? I asked her what she thought about those lib­er­al crit­ics who might think so. ‘I under­stand where they’re com­ing from, that to them what I’m doing doesn’t make any sense,’ she said. ‘That’s why being a Chris­t­ian is not com­mon. It’s weird. It is unnat­ur­al for me to deny myself what I desire, but I do it because of the love of God.’”
  4. Are You A Fem­i­nist If You Always Let Him Pay? (Aman­da Fitzsim­mons, Elle): def­i­nite­ly not writ­ten from a Chris­t­ian per­spec­tive. I found it fas­ci­nat­ing through­out and insight­ful at points. “…of all the myr­i­ad rea­sons I’ve enter­tained as to why a guy did­n’t call me or a friend back (and, believe me, I’ve not lacked for cre­ativ­i­ty in this area), the fact that we did­n’t offer to pay the bill nev­er once occurred to me.”
  5. As the elec­tion draws ever clos­er, some stim­u­lat­ing con­tent:

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.

Past emails are archived at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links (you can also sign up to receive them at that site)

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 37

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

Also, I nor­mal­ly include arti­cles from a vari­ety of sources, but this week I noticed that I’m includ­ing a bunch from GetRe­li­gion. I guess they’ve been on fire lately. 

  1. Death, The Pros­per­i­ty Gospel, and Me (Kate Bowler, NY Times): This piece is mov­ing and fun­ny and also not quite right… despite her study she still mis­un­der­stands some aspects of the Charis­mat­ic and Pen­te­costal world. All in all well worth read­ing. “No word of a lie: I once saw a megachurch pas­tor almost choke to death on his own fog machine. Some­one had cranked it up to the Holy Spir­it maximum.”
  2. Think Pieces on Jus­tice Scalia, Funer­al Ser­mons, Humil­i­ty, and the First Amend­ment (Ter­ry Mat­ting­ly, GetRe­li­gion): Scali­a was such a fas­ci­nat­ing man.I like what one of our lawyer alum­ni post­ed on Face­book: “Jus­tice Scalia! You wrote your opin­ions with so much life, I guess I thought you’d nev­er die. The world has lost a great grumpy con­ser­v­a­tive. Rest easy.”
  3. Why Is The Atlantic Sur­prised That Ear­ly Pro-Lif­ers Were, Uh, Lib­er­als? (Julia Dulin, GetRe­li­gion): This is an arti­cle about some arti­cles about a book. Meta but fas­ci­nat­ing.
  4. Lit­tle Sis­ters of the Poor on Supreme Court case: Why we can’t “just sign the for­m” (Con­stance Veit, Catholic Review): Moth­er Theresa’s com­pa­tri­ots explain their con­sci­en­tious objec­tion in their own words.
  5. Vote For Trump! Vote For Hilary! Vote For Jesus At This Racial­ly Diverse S.C. Megachurch! (Bob­by Ross, GetRe­li­gion): Inter­est­ing. Also, a reminder that reporter­s’ per­spec­tives on church­es often miss signif­i­cant details.  “None of the rough­ly 1,300 words in the Times report is ‘Jesus.’”
  6. Caus­es and Con­se­quences of the Protes­tant Ref­or­ma­tion (Beck­er, Pfaff & Rubin, a work­ing paper): There’s a lot here. Rec­om­mend­ed for social sci­en­tists. One cool bit: “They argue that the spread of uni­ver­si­ty stu­dents from Protes­tant strong­holds (Wit­ten­berg and Basel, the intel­lec­tu­al homes of Luther and Zwingli) and ortho­dox Catholic strong­holds (Cologne and Lou­vain) had a sig­nif­i­cant impact on whether a town ulti­mate­ly adopt­ed the Reformation.” Which is a very fan­cy way of say­ing God uses uni­ver­si­ty stu­dents.
  7. On the ran­dom side:

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.

Past emails are archived at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links