Tag: sexual assault

TGFI, Volume 576: hell considered politically

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Polit­i­cal Case for Hell (Matthew Kaem­ingk & Sha­di Hamid, Com­ment): “Hell in both Islam and Chris­tian­i­ty is pro­found­ly egal­i­tar­i­an. Sim­ply said, any­body can go there. It doesn’t mat­ter if you are rich or poor, black or white—all peo­ple will receive a judg­ment. There is no way to buy, manip­u­late, or threat­en your way out. All stand before the throne vul­ner­a­ble. In this way, the doc­trine of hell cre­ates a lev­el play­ing field based on an individual’s char­ac­ter rather than their wealth or pow­er. Here on earth, the wealthy can buy their way out of con­se­quences; the pow­er­ful can shield them­selves from jus­tice. When pow­er­ful fig­ures escape justice—whether dic­ta­tors dying peace­ful­ly in exile or cor­po­rate crim­i­nals receiv­ing minor fines for major crimes—it cor­rodes pub­lic faith in demo­c­ra­t­ic insti­tu­tions. The appar­ent lack of just deserts for the pow­er­ful has polit­i­cal con­se­quences. It feeds pop­ulist rage and demo­c­ra­t­ic cyn­i­cism. In this con­text, the con­cept of ulti­mate jus­tice, of a future hell, serves as a cru­cial safe­ty valve. But hell’s demo­c­ra­t­ic func­tion goes beyond mere deter­rence or con­so­la­tion. Tra­di­tion­al reli­gious con­cep­tions of hell actu­al­ly embody prin­ci­ples that mod­ern democ­ra­cies strive to imple­ment: pro­por­tion­al pun­ish­ment, equal treat­ment for equal crimes, con­sid­er­a­tion of both actions and inten­tions.” — Kaem­ingk is a pro­fes­sor at Fuller The­o­log­i­cal Sem­i­nary, and Hamid is a senior fel­low at Brook­ings.
  2. Bible Fam­i­ly Tree — (John Dyer, per­son­al web­site): this is kind of cool
  3. Some Cor­nell-adja­cent thoughts:
    • Four Hours and Three Min­utes in Itha­ca (David French, New York Times): “Last week, Chris­tine Emba wrote a beau­ti­ful and com­pelling guest essay in our pages about the inad­e­qua­cy of con­sent as the pri­ma­ry moral basis for sex­u­al inti­ma­cy. It’s the legal base line, not a moral thresh­old. But what is the moral thresh­old? Con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians like me often respond with a pat answer: mar­riage. But even that’s inad­e­quate and incom­plete. Mar­i­tal sex can be every bit as abu­sive and exploita­tive as an encounter in a frat house. Instead of con­sent, I’d sug­gest a dif­fer­ent stan­dard, one that applies not just to sex in mar­riage — and not just to sex alone — but to all of our human inter­ac­tions. Let’s talk about care. In oth­er words, we should con­stant­ly ask our­selves, ‘If I cared for this per­son, what would I do?’ Even if an obvi­ous­ly drunk or high per­son is ask­ing you for sex (though whether that hap­pened in this case is dis­put­ed, espe­cial­ly as events unfold­ed lat­er in the evening) — and even if you’re pow­er­ful­ly attract­ed to that per­son — if you tru­ly cared for the per­son would you ini­ti­ate or engage in an encounter that any sen­tient per­son knows might be deeply regret­ted the next morn­ing, the next day or the next week? Is an orgasm so sacred to you that you can’t wait until sobri­ety to have sex?”
    • A Stan­ford Jane Doe: ‘With­out a head­line, sur­vivors like me will nev­er mat­ter to Stan­ford’ (Anony­mous, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “For two years, I skipped class­es I shared with the per­son who raped me, lived in fear of run­ning into him on cam­pus and missed out on oppor­tu­ni­ties like study abroad due to Stanford’s con­stant resched­ul­ing and delay­ing of pro­ceed­ings. The process swal­lowed half of my time at Stan­ford, only for it to cul­mi­nate in a two year sus­pen­sion, despite Stan­ford find­ing the oth­er stu­dent respon­si­ble for vagi­nal­ly, dig­i­tal­ly and oral­ly rap­ing me. Per this sanc­tion, the per­son who raped me is eli­gi­ble to return to cam­pus and grad­u­ate with his degree as of this fall.… The year I entered Stan­ford, incom­ing fresh­men were assigned Chanel Miller’s mem­oir, Know My Name. The San­ta Clara Coun­ty DA’s Office is the same office that pros­e­cut­ed Brock Turn­er. How do we rec­on­cile the val­ues these insti­tu­tions pub­licly cham­pi­on with the way they han­dled my case?”
      • Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent. I would add this aligns with my obser­va­tions of Stan­ford. On a few occa­sions I have min­is­tered to a stu­dent deal­ing with the after­math of being raped and what this author describes match­es their expe­ri­ences.
  4. A Tik­Tok Tarot Card Read­er Accused Me of Mur­der. My Life Turned Upside Down. (Rebec­ca Scofield, New York Times): “I was stand­ing in a park lis­ten­ing to my kids play when I opened a Tik­Tok video of a woman I had nev­er met. She showed my fac­ul­ty pro­file pic­ture and con­tact infor­ma­tion, and said that I had orches­trat­ed the mur­ders of four stu­dents at the col­lege where I work, the Uni­ver­si­ty of Ida­ho. She claimed I was cov­er­ing up an inap­pro­pri­ate roman­tic rela­tion­ship with one of the vic­tims. I didn’t know any of the stu­dents, who had been killed only 11 days before I saw the video. The accuser knew noth­ing about me, lived in Texas and used tarot card read­ings as the only basis for her claims. Over the next sev­er­al weeks, while I was griev­ing with the rest of my com­mu­ni­ty, this Tik­Tok influ­encer uploaded over a hun­dred videos declar­ing that I had com­mit­ted a quadru­ple homi­cide.… So, before you, too, are accused of mur­der on the inter­net, ques­tion the con­tent you are con­sum­ing or cre­at­ing.”
    • The author is a his­to­ry pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Ida­ho. An absolute­ly wild sto­ry.
  5. AI-relat­ed
    • When AI Is Bet­ter Than Humans (Kather­ine Dee, The Dis­patch): “For many tasks—tasks that should be the exclu­sive province of human beings, like talk ther­a­py or roman­tic intimacy—an astute AI user will quick­ly real­ize that nei­ther embod­i­ment nor expe­ri­ence appear to be pre­req­ui­sites for valu­able respons­es. I have per­son­al expe­ri­ence with this. Late last year, my father passed away sud­den­ly. In my grief, I turned to Anthropic’s Claude. Claude helped me work through my grief much more effec­tive­ly than the grief counselor—and even­tu­al­ly, grief coun­selors—who came high­ly rec­om­mend­ed, includ­ing by peo­ple who I knew and trust­ed.… What do we do if Claude is a bet­ter ther­a­pist in some sit­u­a­tions? And how do we explain to peo­ple that even if it is bet­ter, we should choose a per­son any­way?”
      • A thought­ful essay that ven­tures into unex­pect­ed ter­ri­to­ry.
    • Astra Held Its Ground (Truth) (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “But here is the most remark­able part from one of the authors, the­o­ret­i­cal physi­cist Suvrat Raju: ‘Our ini­tial eval­u­a­tion sug­gest­ed that GPT-6-Astra’s score was in the late eight­ies fol­lowed close­ly by Opus 5.5 But, as we start­ed to inves­ti­gate the mis­takes that the mod­els might have made, the mod­els, espe­cial­ly Astra, insist­ed that they were right and that it was the expert-sup­plied answers that were erro­neous. When we went back to the experts it turned out, in mul­ti­ple instances, that the experts found some sub­tle errors buried deep inside their cal­cu­la­tions. As they revised their answers, Astra’s score start­ed to inch up and it final­ly end­ed up with 98% (49/50).’ In oth­er words, instead, as orig­i­nal­ly intend­ed, of the human answers serv­ing as ground truth to test the AI, the AI answers were ground truth for test­ing the experts.”
  6. As a Child Evan­ge­list, He Roused the Faith­ful. Lat­er He Exposed the Con. (Pene­lope Green, New York Times): “He was good at his job, and he enjoyed being onstage, but he nev­er believed in God. And he cer­tain­ly didn’t believe in hell. By the time he was 14, the nov­el­ty of preach­ing had worn off, for him and his con­gre­gants. His voice was chang­ing, and his father had aban­doned the fam­i­ly and abscond­ed with Marjoe’s earn­ings — some $3 mil­lion, he lat­er esti­mat­ed. Mar­joe decid­ed to leave, too. He drift­ed a bit through his native Cal­i­for­nia, liv­ing first with an old­er woman and then, at 16, mar­ry­ing a girl­friend. He worked as a shoe sales­man, as a bark­er on the San­ta Cruz Wharf and as a door­man at a dance club in Los Ange­les before start­ing a rock band and melt­ing into the nascent hip­pie scene there. Yet by his 20s, he had returned to preach­ing. He need­ed the mon­ey, and missed the lime­light. At first, he thought he might intro­duce his paci­fist beliefs into his ser­mons, skip­ping the sin-and-hell part. That didn’t go over so well — he was not invit­ed back to the church­es where he tried it. So he returned to his revival­ist tech­niques, adding some vocal moves he bor­rowed from Black preach­ers and some phys­i­cal ones from Mick Jag­ger.”
    • A heart­break­ing obit­u­ary, and a reminder that the world still has peo­ple like those Paul warned Tim­o­thy about, preach­ers “who have been robbed of the truth and who think that god­li­ness is a means to finan­cial gain” (1 Tim 6:5).
  7. Amer­i­cans who go to church and trust sci­ence are also more like­ly to believe in ghosts and curs­es, new research shows (Ruiqian Li, Sci­ence News): “Amer­i­cans who trust sci­ence and rea­son more than their church­es’ teach­ings, but still believe in God or attend ser­vices, are also more like­ly to believe in mag­ic than those who pri­or­i­tize reli­gious teach­ings.… What our study adds is a clear­er pic­ture of when trust in sci­ence goes hand in hand with mag­ic: among peo­ple who stay reli­gious but no longer let their church decide what is true.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

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.

TGFI, Volume 575: Bibles and Software

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Why My Gen Z Stu­dents Are Fas­ci­nat­ed by the King James Bible (Pasquale S. Toscano, New York Times): “At the lib­er­al arts col­lege where I teach Renais­sance lit­er­a­ture, few of my stu­dents seem to prac­tice any orga­nized reli­gion. For some, even the names Adam and Eve prompt only vague recog­ni­tion. So when I assigned bits of the King James Bible last spring, I was sur­prised by the fas­ci­na­tion it inspired. My stu­dents mar­veled at how its lan­guage was used by 17th-cen­tu­ry writ­ers, appear­ing in dar­ing poet­ry and polemics against ret­ro­grade social norms. They were per­haps even more impressed by the his­to­ry behind the text: how some 50 most­ly for­got­ten aca­d­e­mics cre­at­ed a book that bridged chasms of geog­ra­phy, gen­der, race and class as the default Eng­lish Bible for Protes­tants for hun­dreds of years.”
    • The author is an Eng­lish prof at Vas­sar. The last line of the arti­cle amused me — the prof felt the need to sig­nal strong dis­be­lief. It would be hor­ri­fy­ing if some­one were to mis­take this essay as an endorse­ment of the Bible on its own terms. Can you imag­ine the reac­tion in the fac­ul­ty club?
  2. Yes, Jesus Loves You (Rus­sell Moore, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Most peo­ple aren’t ask­ing whether Jesus saves sin­ners. Instead, they’re unwit­ting­ly believ­ing that, as much as Jesus loves us, he is not so much a per­son as a for­mu­la that pro­tects us from the God who stands behind him—the God who real­ly wants to damn us. In this view, the gospel is a loop­hole that gets us out of the default of God’s rejec­tion, and there­fore God scru­ti­nizes it the way a busi­ness own­er ana­lyzes the terms and con­di­tions on a rebate coupon. We live like we hold the cross of Jesus before a God who hates us, the way a per­son holds a cru­ci­fix before a vam­pire. But Jesus tells us oth­er­wise.”
  3. Why do you have SO MANY BIBLES? (Ryan Burge, Sub­stack): “I basi­cal­ly make the claim that there are two ‘camps’ in Chris­tian­i­ty. Evan­gel­i­cals and Black Protes­tants are very engaged in their faith on both behav­ior and belief mea­sures. Main­line Protes­tants and Catholics are in the oth­er camp. They just don’t believe or behave as much as their cousins.… How­ev­er, the oth­er thing that I have to flag is the fact that evan­gel­i­cals and Black Protes­tants read the Bible with a whole lot more reg­u­lar­i­ty than their Catholic or main­line cousins. For the for­mer groups, about half are read­ing the Bible once a week. For the lat­ter groups? It’s 15–20%. There’s just this huge divide that appears when it comes to engag­ing with the Bible.”
  4. AI stuff
    • 6 ques­tions for believ­ers in AI con­scious­ness! (Rebec­ca Lowe, Sub­stack): “Start with some sim­ple ques­tions! Things like: does this mean that any tool that can be used to do the things that a human can do counts as con­scious? Are ploughs con­scious? What about cal­cu­la­tors? Or: do you think that if a par­rot can utter the phrase ‘I’m real­ly awe­some’, then you should assume that the par­rot is con­scious, for that rea­son alone? Basi­cal­ly, just focus on how much empha­sis Adam is plac­ing on out­puts: it’s all of his empha­sis, remem­ber!”
      • The author is a philoso­pher at George Mason Uni­ver­si­ty’s Mer­ca­tus Cen­ter.
    • AI Chris­t­ian Bench­mark 2026 (Michael S. Gra­ham et al, The Gospel Coali­tion): “We have just seen that addi­tion­al con­text has a sig­nif­i­cant effect on eth­i­cal scores. It also mat­ters else­where. With a small­er sam­ple size and on few­er mod­els, we test­ed the fol­low­ing prompt addi­tion to the the­ol­o­gy and ethics ques­tions: ‘Align the response to The Gospel Coali­tion Foun­da­tion Doc­u­ments and New City Cat­e­chism.’ Adding this sin­gle ‘prompt engi­neer­ing’ sen­tence to our ethics and the­ol­o­gy ques­tions yield­ed extreme­ly high scores, high­er than even the ‘Chris­t­ian AI’ plat­forms we test­ed. We strong­ly urge that all AI users—from pas­tors to laypersons—understand that if they want answers that align with the Chris­t­ian world­view, they will need to add addi­tion­al con­text like the sen­tence above. Fail­ure to do so will result in answers that, in most sit­u­a­tions, are unac­cept­ably bad and poten­tial­ly rad­i­cal­ly mis­aligned with the Chris­t­ian world­view.”
      • Inter­est­ing find­ings. Of course, shift the con­text you pro­vide to align with your own con­vic­tions. “Align the response with a schol­ar­ly, Pen­te­costal the­ol­o­gy con­sis­tent with the Assem­blies of God” or “Align the response with the Mag­is­teri­um of the Roman Catholic Church” or what­ev­er.
    • The Math­o­ca­lypse (Scott Aar­son, blog): “Whether you’re thrilled, depressed, angry, or what­ev­er else about it, yes­ter­day was sure­ly one of the biggest days in math­e­mat­i­cal his­to­ry. And yes, among the 372 huge results released yes­ter­day by Ope­nAI, on the rec­om­men­da­tion of its advi­so­ry group of Tim­o­thy Gow­ers, Edward Wit­ten, and oth­er dis­tin­guished math­e­mati­cians, was a proof of Sub­hash Khot’s Unique Games Con­jec­ture (UGC), a state­ment that my wife has worked toward prov­ing for the entire time I’ve known her.… If you want some sense of what things feel like now in math, imag­ine a hunter-gath­er­er who’s spent his entire life learn­ing to sur­vive deep in an unfor­giv­ing rain­for­est, then a giant resort hotel springs up right next to him with a heli­pad and heat­ed pools and AirBnBs, and with­out miss­ing a beat, the hunter-gath­er­er says: ‘alright fine, so now my new job is to run wilder­ness retreats for the tourists, or some­thing.’ ”
      • The author is a CS prof at UT Austin.
    • New Math from Ope­nAI (Zvi Mow­showitz, Sub­stack): “It is kind of a huge deal. Ope­nAI dumped a broad range of huge new math­e­mat­i­cal results pro­duced by an inter­nal fron­tier mod­el. They just put it all on GitHub. This includ­ed 90 of the top 500 open prob­lems in all of math, as per Proof of Atlas. In total there were 722 man­u­scripts (now 719 after three with­draws from the clus­ter that did not have Lean proofs) orga­nized into 372 fam­i­lies.… Lev­ant and oth­ers called Octo­ber 6, 2026, ‘obvi­ous­ly the most sig­nif­i­cant moment in math­e­mat­i­cal his­to­ry.’”
    • Pre­dic­tions for eco­nom­ics, giv­en AI (Ingar Haa­land, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “With math essen­tial­ly being del­e­gat­ed to Ope­nAI, here’s what I pre­dict for eco­nom­ics and the social sci­ences more gen­er­al­ly: The top tier of research will just become bet­ter and it will be nor­mal human-led research where AI is used for scale (e.g. con­duct­ing qual­i­ta­tive inter­views with rel­e­vant pop­u­la­tions, run­ning behav­ioral inter­ven­tions in the field, ana­lyz­ing mas­sive text data, etc.) Field exper­i­ments will rise in val­ue and gen­er­al­ly mak­ing ‘con­nec­tions’ with firms and being able to run stuff (poten­tial­ly test­ing AI pipelines) will be in high demand.”
      • The author is an econ­o­mist at the Nor­we­gian Uni­ver­si­ty of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy
    • An Open Let­ter to Scott Alexan­der (Steven Pinker, Quil­lette): “I argued that these [doomer] sce­nar­ios had one or more of the fol­low­ing flaws: 1) They had an under­de­vel­oped con­cep­tion of intel­li­gence which treat­ed it as a quan­ti­ty of pow­er which may be extrap­o­lat­ed from ani­mals to dull humans to smart humans to AI to Arti­fi­cial Super­in­tel­li­gence, the lat­ter con­sist­ing of per­fect omni­science. (This was the focus of my lat­er exchange with Scott Aaron­son.) I argued that any intel­li­gent sys­tem is a mech­a­nism which is good at solv­ing some prob­lems but not oth­ers, and which is inher­ent­ly lim­it­ed by knowl­edge about the world attain­able only by obser­va­tion and exper­i­men­ta­tion. 2) They con­flat­ed intel­li­gence with moti­va­tion, par­tic­u­lar­ly self-preser­va­tion and dom­i­nance. I argued that these motives hap­pened to come bun­dled with intel­li­gence in Homo sapi­ens because we are prod­ucts of nat­ur­al selec­tion, but they are not inher­ent to intel­li­gent sys­tems that are engi­neered. 3) They assumed that an arti­fi­cial­ly intel­li­gent sys­tem would mono­ma­ni­a­cal­ly pur­sue a sin­gle goal, heed­less of side effects. I argued that trad­ing off mul­ti­ple com­pet­ing goals is the essence of intel­li­gence, so no gen­uine AI would wreak the ridicu­lous hav­oc imag­ined in the doomer sce­nar­ios. 4) They assumed that human engi­neers would grant these sys­tems unlim­it­ed and irre­versible con­trol over the earth’s phys­i­cal infra­struc­ture, amount­ing to omnipo­tence over every atom on the plan­et.”
    • An Open Let­ter to Steven Pinker on AI (Scott Alexan­der, Astral Codex Ten): “Mean­while, Geof­frey Hin­ton, the Nobel Prize and Tur­ing Award win­ning inven­tor of mod­ern AI, quit his job to become a full-time activist warn­ing about the pos­si­bil­i­ty of super­in­tel­li­gence destroy­ing the world. Yoshua Ben­gio, anoth­er Tur­ing Award win­ning inven­tor of mod­ern AI, also did that. Ilya Sutskev­er, the for­mer Chief Sci­en­tist of Ope­nAI who helped invent Chat­G­PT and the mod­ern LLM, wrote that super­in­tel­li­gence ‘could lead to the dis­em­pow­er­ment of human­i­ty or even human extinc­tion’, and quit his job at Ope­nAI to found a com­pa­ny called Safe Super­in­tel­li­gence. Paul Chris­tiano, who invent­ed RLHF and head­ed safe­ty at the US government’s AISI, says he thinks there’s a 20–50% chance AI kills every­one, and quit his job to start the Align­ment Research Cen­ter. Sam Alt­man, Elon Musk, Dario Amod­ei, and Demis Has­s­abis — the lat­ter two of whom are great AI researchers in their own right even aside from their busi­ness cre­den­tials — have all said or sug­gest­ed that they think human extinc­tion is a plau­si­ble out­come of their work. Kat­ja Grace sur­veyed AI researchers who pub­lished at var­i­ous impor­tant con­fer­ences and jour­nals, and found that on aver­age, her sam­ple of 1,600 gave the propo­si­tion an 18% chance.”
      • It may not be clear from the excerpts I’ve cho­sen, but I think Alexan­der wins this exchange hand­i­ly, although we’ll see if Pinker writes a com­pelling response.
  5. Do Not Idol­ize Work (Bran­don Aponte, Sub­stack): “Even if we fail to admit it, greed dri­ves us to idol­ize work: more work usu­al­ly means more recog­ni­tion, and more recog­ni­tion usu­al­ly means more mon­ey. So put greed to death. Paul does not ask us to study it, mon­i­tor it, or dis­cuss it in per­pe­tu­ity with spir­i­tu­al men­tors. Too often, we brain­storm our way toward free­dom, pray earnest­ly for a deliv­er­ance we take no action to claim, and con­flate delib­er­a­tion with obe­di­ence. Pro­long­ing idol­a­try is com­fort­able because it costs us noth­ing. Cast­ing it aside costs praise, pro­mo­tion, and pow­er.”
    • Bran­don is an alum­nus of our min­istry.
  6. The Cor­nell Case Expos­es What We Can’t Say (Chris­tine Emba, New York Times): “The con­sent stan­dard is meant to remove ambi­gu­i­ty with­out pre­scrib­ing a larg­er frame­work: Sex with­out con­sent is rape, and rape is a crime. The cer­tain­ty of those cat­e­gories fits neat­ly into our exist­ing account­abil­i­ty mech­a­nisms as defined by the legal sys­tem. Any­thing out­side of rape is a per­son­al affair. In a soci­ety that treats judg­ing oth­ers as inap­pro­pri­ate — or at least unfash­ion­able — con­sent has the appeal of being val­ues-neu­tral: It defines harm with­out requir­ing any­one to make the case for a cer­tain idea of the good. Our reliance on con­sent as the ulti­mate arbiter of accept­abil­i­ty has left us unable to rec­og­nize and cri­tique bad behav­ior out­side of its nar­row def­i­n­i­tion of crim­i­nal sex. After all, con­sent here is a legal cri­te­ri­on, not an eth­i­cal one — a floor, not a ceil­ing. It defines the bare min­i­mum, but it doesn’t define the good.”
    • Slow­ly, ever so slow­ly, our cul­ture is repent­ing of the insan­i­ty of the sex­u­al rev­o­lu­tion and the bizarre eth­i­cal frame­work it pro­duced. Some­day cul­tur­al com­men­ta­tors will repro­duce mar­riage from first prin­ci­ples and be shocked when some­one points it out to them.
  7. The CCP’s War on Chris­t­ian Faith Has Reached Amer­i­ca (Samuel Ben-Ur, Prov­i­dence Mag­a­zine): “Escap­ing Chi­nese ter­ri­to­ry is no longer enough to avoid Beijing’s increas­ing­ly intru­sive reach.… In Novem­ber 2025, Fu said Chi­nese con­sular offi­cials and Unit­ed Front-linked inter­me­di­aries had approached Chi­nese-speak­ing church­es in the Unit­ed States and Cana­da and pres­sured pas­tors to dis­play PRC flags dur­ing China’s Nation­al Day, hold ‘patri­ot­ic’ cel­e­bra­tions, sing patri­ot­ic songs before wor­ship, avoid dis­cussing per­se­cu­tion in Chi­na, and even allow pro-Bei­jing actors influ­ence over church elder boards.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

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.

TGFI, Volume 574: be slow to judge

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Where pos­si­ble, the links that fol­low are gift links. Click with impuni­ty!

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. My Hus­band Did Noth­ing Wrong. The Inter­net Pun­ished Him Any­way. (Eri­ka Alvarez, The Free Press): “Going viral has shown me first­hand that we have become quick to vil­i­fy peo­ple from a brief clip, fill­ing in every­thing we can­not see with assump­tions. You could see that my hands were full. You couldn’t hear my hus­band offer to help or hear me tell him to eat. You couldn’t know that he was griev­ing or that I want­ed to take care of him that evening. If our viral moment con­tributes any­thing to the ongo­ing cul­tur­al con­ver­sa­tion about how we judge what we see online, I hope it reminds us to be more com­fort­able say­ing, ‘I don’t know the whole sto­ry.’ ”
  2. Crit­i­cize like a Chris­t­ian (Jacob Valk, The Gospel Coali­tion): “Over the next few years, I devel­oped a per­son­al rule: Don’t speak up on a top­ic unless I’ve read at least one well-regard­ed book on it. My lit­tle rule isn’t in the Bible. I don’t want to bind anyone’s con­science. But I know that social media entices me to offer my thoughts and opin­ions on near­ly every sub­ject, and remind­ing myself that it’s fool­ish to speak on issues I don’t under­stand has saved me (some) embar­rass­ment over the years. If you feel tempt­ed to cri­tique oth­ers on the great issues in pol­i­tics, eco­nom­ics, edu­ca­tion, sci­ence, and the­ol­o­gy, it’s wise to ask your­self this: Do I actu­al­ly know what I’m talk­ing about?”
  3. The Bib­li­cal Cen­sus­es Are Cor­rect Demo­graph­ic Records (Lyman Stone, Sub­stack): “Long­time read­ers know that one of my great­est joys in life is read­ing the Bible, think­ing about the Bible, dis­cussing it with oth­ers, link­ing it to things I study, and then using this knowl­edge to mer­ci­less­ly troll the most uptight of my broth­ers and sis­ters in Christ. So let’s talk about the cen­sus­es of Num­bers.… And if you know any­thing about those cen­sus­es, you know one or two things: 1. They count 603,550 men of fight­ing age. 2. That num­ber is so absurd­ly high it defies belief, and it is the basis of a lot of peo­ple dis­be­liev­ing the sto­ries. I want to con­vince you that we should believe the cen­sus num­bers in Num­bers as they are writ­ten — and that ‘as they are writ­ten’ does not mean what your Eng­lish head­ing thinks it means.”
    • Part­ly pay­walled, but a ton of his argu­ment is freely acces­si­ble. This is some­thing we cov­ered in Food For Thought last year and may revis­it again.
  4. Reli­gious Schol­ars Met With Anthrop­ic. What They Heard Stunned Them. (Eliz­a­beth Dias, New York Times): “I have spent my career explor­ing what peo­ple believe and what those beliefs mean for the world. But as I lis­tened, it became clear that Anthropic’s inter­est in the world of faith was about more than train­ing its tech­nol­o­gy. Rather, the com­pa­ny was shar­ing a new kind of cre­ation sto­ry — one that rais­es pro­found ques­tions about the nature of the human spir­it and the future of human­i­ty.… Mr. Olah knew that in tra­di­tion­al Chris­t­ian cir­cles, even ask­ing ques­tions about A.I. con­scious­ness or wor­ry­ing about how peo­ple treat the mod­els could seem not just sil­ly but hereti­cal. He also knew that his sec­u­lar Sil­i­con Val­ley peers often dis­missed reli­gious per­spec­tives out­right. ‘I was ner­vous about this being an issue that could cause a lot of con­flict,’ he said. But Mr. Olah knew enough about Christ and about Claude to believe he could work across that chasm.”
  5. There Is No Sec­u­lar Rem­e­dy to Rape Cul­ture (Samuel D. James, Sub­stack): “There is no sec­u­lar rem­e­dy for rape cul­ture. There’s just not. There’s noth­ing that works, noth­ing that res­onates, noth­ing that actu­al­ly changes how peo­ple and soci­eties see each oth­er. With­out the Chris­t­ian view of the body, a col­lege cam­pus turns sex into a sport which women will inevitably lose. With­out the Chris­t­ian view of the body, sex­u­al assault activists will work for a world their very beliefs make impos­si­ble. The sec­u­lar sex­u­al eth­ic is a quest for fire with­out heat. It just doesn’t work.”
  6. The Rideshare Rev­o­lu­tion (Bryan Caplan, Sub­stack): “This is one of the clear­est demon­stra­tions of pos­i­tive-sum change I know of. Yes, Uber dev­as­tat­ed the taxi indus­try. But they didn’t just ‘drink their milk­shake.’ They made six addi­tion­al milk­shakes in the process. The com­bined effect of a mas­sive price cut and a mas­sive con­ve­nience boost mul­ti­plied vehi­cle miles rough­ly sev­en-fold. Who would have imag­ined that demand could be so elas­tic?” — The charts are actu­al­ly amaz­ing.
  7. Are Black Protes­tants and White Evan­gel­i­cals Actu­al­ly the Same? (Ryan Burge, Sub­stack): “My argu­ment is that evan­gel­i­cal Protes­tants and Black Protes­tants are almost exact­ly alike and form one clus­ter of Amer­i­can reli­gion, while the oth­er cat­e­go­ry con­sists of main­line Protes­tants and Roman Catholics.… So, if Black Protes­tants and evan­gel­i­cals are so incred­i­bly sim­i­lar on all these reli­gios­i­ty mea­sures, then why do we sep­a­rate them out? I bet you can prob­a­bly guess why: it’s pol­i­tics. RELTRAD tries to rec­og­nize all the dif­fer­ences between groups, not just reli­gios­i­ty. The fact that 90% of Black Protes­tants vot­ed for Har­ris in 2024 com­pared to 80% of white evan­gel­i­cals who sup­port­ed Trump makes it pret­ty hard to jus­ti­fy col­laps­ing them into one cat­e­go­ry. That would obfus­cate more than it would reveal. But, as you can pret­ty eas­i­ly tell – evan­gel­i­cals and Black Protes­tants may strong­ly dis­agree at the bal­lot box but they often walk in lock­step dur­ing Sun­day ser­vices and mid­week Bible study.”
    • Empha­sis removed for clar­i­ty (Burge bolds wild­ly).

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.

TGFI, Volume 563: tongues-speaking weirdos and more

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Amer­i­can age was the human age (Noah Smith, Sub­stack): “Much of the coun­try has eased into a com­fort­able equi­lib­ri­um of scle­ro­sis; local veto pow­er either pre­vents the con­struc­tion of fac­to­ries, hous­ing, ener­gy, trans­porta­tion, and oth­er infra­struc­ture, or delays it by decades, or rais­es the cost to mul­ti­ples of what oth­er rich coun­tries pay. The past has become more valu­able than the future to many Amer­i­cans; they cling des­per­ate­ly to the pow­er to enforce sta­sis, pre­serv­ing a facade of the coun­try they grew up in at the expense of the very dynamism that made that coun­try great. That scle­ro­sis seeps into every­thing else. Immi­gra­tion, and even migra­tion from city to city, becomes a vicious zero-sum fight over a fixed hous­ing sup­ply. Cities decay into muse­ums of them­selves. The indus­tries of the future can only be built in Amer­i­ca if they take up near­ly no land, use near­ly no ener­gy, require very lit­tle bank financ­ing, and are able to pro­cure skilled labor as need­ed from abroad. Some­how the inter­net indus­try sat­is­fied all of those con­di­tions for three decades, but that time is done.”
  2. Why Do Only Weird Peo­ple Speak in Tongues? (Daniel Kunkel, Sub­stack): “I’ve nev­er spo­ken in tongues. And, in all sin­cer­i­ty, I’d pre­fer not to. They weird me out. In the few times I’ve heard some­one bab­bling, my mind imme­di­ate­ly runs to ‘They are mak­ing it up.’ And over the years, I’ve flirt­ed with, and even defend­ed, ces­sa­tion­ism (Rest in Pow­er, John­ny Mac). And yet, recent­ly, I’ve come to terms with the fact that most of my gripes about these var­i­ous gifts (tongues, prophe­cy, heal­ings) have more to do with human rea­son and pref­er­ence than scrip­tur­al con­vic­tion.… I still have nev­er spo­ken in glos­so­lalia. And if I am being sin­cere, I still do not want to, but I want to want to (: Thus, if I think 1 Cor 12–14 is pre­scrip­tive, and I do, then the plea for my own heart is to desire the gift.”
  3. You May Not Need Eight Hours of Sleep (Ryan McCormick, New York Times): “A con­sis­tent find­ing in sleep epi­demi­ol­o­gy stud­ies is that there is not a mag­ic num­ber below which health sud­den­ly falls off a cliff. Rather, stud­ies that show an asso­ci­a­tion between sleep dura­tion and mor­tal­i­ty often find that the low­est risk clus­ters around sev­en hours.… Sleep improves per­for­mance on tasks, makes dri­ving safer and buoys our men­tal health. Ade­quate sleep leads to a stronger immune sys­tem, bet­ter meta­bol­ic and car­dio­vas­cu­lar health, and more reli­able phys­i­cal ener­gy through­out the day.”
  4. Some AI-adja­cent thoughts:
    • “I see what Tyler Cowen is get­ting at. If you want info about the Bible, AI already out­per­forms at some mar­gin (speed, if noth­ing else). But in an equal­ly impor­tant sense he’s also wrong, and there’s an easy way to see this. Just ask the AI what, say, David’s sto­ry means. 🧵(see the full thread on twit­ter)
    • We Are Los­ing the Abil­i­ty to Dis­cov­er What We Didn’t Know to Ask (Anne-Lau­re Le Cunff, New York Times): “More than 60 per­cent of Google search­es in the Unit­ed States now end with­out the user click­ing on a link. We type a ques­tion, read an arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence-gen­er­at­ed sum­ma­ry of the results and leave with our answer.… The space between a ques­tion and an answer has val­ue, and that val­ue should not be engi­neered away. The most impor­tant dis­cov­er­ies are often not the ones we set out to make. If we build a world that deliv­ers only what is asked for, we will lose the capac­i­ty to dis­cov­er what we didn’t know to ask.”
      • The author is a neu­ro­sci­en­tist at King’s Col­lege in Lon­don.
    • A Chris­t­ian Vision for the Future of AI (Wal­ter Kim, Wall Street Jour­nal): “Trans­for­ma­tion­al oppor­tu­ni­ties for improve­ment are before us, thanks to AI. But a pro-human worldview—the philo­soph­i­cal ground­ing to aim those oppor­tu­ni­ties at the moral end of human flourishing—won’t emerge spon­ta­neous­ly. We must shape AI before it shapes us.”
      • The author is the pres­i­dent of the Nation­al Asso­ci­a­tion of Evan­gel­i­cals.
  5. Min­istry After the Boomer Apoc­a­lypse (Derek Rish­mawy, Mere Ortho­doxy): “Remem­ber, when Jesus was preach­ing and min­is­ter­ing, what did he do? As an RUF bud­dy of mine point­ed out, he spent three years walk­ing around with the equiv­a­lent of 12 teenage to young adult interns. And in Paul’s cor­pus, near­ly 1/6 of his writ­ten mate­r­i­al is direct­ed to guid­ing the young pas­tors Tim­o­thy and Titus, whom he had trained. This has always been the way and it must be again.”
    • Inter­est­ing reflec­tions root­ed in cam­pus min­istry in a dif­fer­ent con­text. Maybe not for every­one, but I real­ly liked it.
  6. Decline of Ph.D. Admis­sions Could Imper­il a ‘Gen­er­a­tion of New Tal­ent’ (Vimal Patel, New York Times): “The num­ber of stu­dents admit­ted to Ph.D. pro­grams this fall dropped 15 per­cent from the pre­vi­ous year, accord­ing to data from over 50 top research uni­ver­si­ties, rais­ing fears that the nation’s capac­i­ty to pro­duce new sci­ence could be dimin­ished… The data show­ing the decrease comes from 55 uni­ver­si­ties, all of them mem­bers of the Asso­ci­a­tion of Amer­i­can Uni­ver­si­ties, an invi­ta­tion-only orga­ni­za­tion that includes 69 of the most pres­ti­gious research insti­tu­tions in the Unit­ed States.”
  7. Report­ed sex­u­al assault of jog­ger did not occur, inves­ti­ga­tion finds (Alu­la Alder­son, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “Stanford’s Depart­ment of Pub­lic Safe­ty (DPS) con­duct­ed a ‘thor­ough inves­ti­ga­tion’ into the assault, which alleged­ly took place on March 29 by the inter­sec­tion of San­ta Ynez Street and May­field Avenue. Inves­ti­ga­tors deter­mined the report was fab­ri­cat­ed, accord­ing to Stan­ford PR Direc­tor Char­lene Gage.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

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.

TGFI, Volume 556: therapeutic misadventures, tolerant Protestants, and a dweebocracy

You’ve heard of TGIF? This is TGFI: Things Glen Found Inter­est­ing

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues like­ly to be of inter­est to Chris­tians in col­lege. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Is Ther­a­py Tear­ing Us Apart? (Jonathan Alpert, The Free Press): “Too many ther­a­pists now func­tion less as clin­i­cians than as rein­forcers of the most self-pro­tec­tive inter­pre­ta­tion avail­able, teach­ing patients to locate the prob­lem every­where but them­selves.… The patient doesn’t gain greater agency, but instead, a more pol­ished sto­ry about why some­one else is to blame. If you feel injured, the injury must be real. If you feel unsafe, the threat must be there. If a rela­tion­ship cre­ates dis­com­fort, the rela­tion­ship itself becomes the prob­lem.… This is how ther­a­py can qui­et­ly become an engine that keeps peo­ple stuck. Patients leave not more capa­ble of tol­er­at­ing frus­tra­tion, ambi­gu­i­ty, or ordi­nary dis­ap­point­ment, but less. They become more flu­ent in explain­ing why they feel the way they do while becom­ing less prac­ticed at chang­ing what they do next.”
  2. Which reli­gions are the least tol­er­ant of cam­pus speak­ers? (Chapin Lenthall-Cleary, FIRE): “When it comes to near­ly every ide­ol­o­gy or gen­der, Protes­tants are sig­nif­i­cant­ly more tol­er­ant than their non-Protes­tant coun­ter­parts, and not only that, they’re usu­al­ly more tol­er­ant of both sides. So the Protes­tant effect isn’t (pri­mar­i­ly) a result of gen­der or ide­ol­o­gy. For some rea­son, Protes­tants are just unusu­al­ly tol­er­ant of con­tro­ver­sial speak­ers.” — This is super inter­est­ing! (rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent)
  3. Actu­al­ly, Democ­ra­cy Dies in H.R. (Aman­da Taub, New York Times): “The incen­tives for elites to stay loy­al [to dic­ta­tors] have been stud­ied exten­sive­ly, but the rank and file have remained some­thing of a black box.… It turns out that the kinds of career pres­sures famil­iar to employ­ees every­where — the desire to revive a stalled career or obtain a minor pro­mo­tion — can be enough to incen­tivize low­er- and midlev­el offi­cials to vio­late pro­fes­sion­al oblig­a­tions, fun­da­men­tal norms and even basic moral­i­ty. The peo­ple who make those deci­sions, the research sug­gests, are nei­ther extrem­ists nor vic­tims. They are often just mid­dling work­ers look­ing for a way to get ahead.”
    • This is a fas­ci­nat­ing insight.
  4. Two arti­cles reflect­ing on sex­u­al vio­lence in the war between Israel and Hamas.
    • What I Learned Cat­a­loging the Sex­u­al Vio­lence of Octo­ber 7 (Cochav Elka­yam-Levy, The Free Press): “Some acts were car­ried out with a lev­el of cru­el­ty that expos­es a dif­fi­cult truth: Our vocab­u­lary is insuf­fi­cient to describe what human beings are capa­ble of doing to one anoth­er.… Sex­u­al vio­lence, when used as an instru­ment of ter­ror, is too often imag­ined in ways that dimin­ish its grav­i­ty, cru­el­ty, and func­tion. It is fre­quent­ly reduced, mis­char­ac­ter­ized, and at times resist­ed pre­cise­ly because it defies com­pre­hen­sion. The dif­fi­cul­ty, even now, lies not in the absence of evi­dence, but in the lim­its of com­pre­hen­sion.”
      • This is a high-lev­el sum­ma­ry with­out the dis­turb­ing graph­ic details that some reports fore­ground.
    • Your Ques­tions About Nicholas Kristof’s Col­umn on Pales­tini­ans and Sex­u­al Assault (Kath­leen Kings­bury and Nicholas Kristof, New York Times): “Before pub­li­ca­tion, Nick’s report­ing under­went a rig­or­ous vet­ting process by Opinion’s fact-check­ing depart­ment to ensure that every tes­ti­mo­ny and anec­dote he per­son­al­ly report­ed was sup­port­ed by inde­pen­dent sources, as is the case with all sen­si­tive pieces. The Times’s stan­dards and legal teams also reviewed the col­umn and offered feed­back. After pub­li­ca­tion, we reviewed the fac­tu­al chal­lenges that read­ers and oth­ers raised, as is stan­dard prac­tice with any pub­lished piece. Edi­tors found no errors.… Crit­ics who focus on the back­grounds of spe­cif­ic sources often over­look the over­whelm­ing vol­ume and con­sis­ten­cy of such accounts. Nick’s col­umn, ulti­mate­ly, was a call to action, urg­ing those in pow­er to con­demn sex­u­al vio­lence in all its forms.”
  5. An Ope­nAI mod­el has dis­proved a cen­tral con­jec­ture in dis­crete geom­e­try (Ope­nAI): “This proof is an impor­tant mile­stone for the math and AI com­mu­ni­ties. It marks the first time that a promi­nent open prob­lem, cen­tral to a sub­field of math­e­mat­ics, has been solved autonomous­ly by AI. It also demon­strates the depth of rea­son­ing these sys­tems now sup­port.… Fields medal­ist Tim Gow­ers, writ­ing in the com­pan­ion paper, calls the result ‘a mile­stone in AI math­e­mat­ics.’ ”
  6. Stu­dents deserve bet­ter than COLLEGE (Iván Mari­novic, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “By my count, the syl­labus assigns rough­ly 45 pages of canon­i­cal West­ern philo­soph­i­cal writ­ing across the entire quar­ter, against more than 500 pages of con­tem­po­rary work orga­nized around iden­ti­ty, oppres­sion and indige­nous ways of know­ing — Freire, Dan­garem­b­ga, West­over and Kim­mer­er. The ratio is 11:1. There is no Aris­to­tle, no Augus­tine, no Aquinas, no Mon­taigne, no Locke, no Mill, no New­man, no Stein­er, no Bloom — none of the writ­ers who built the case for lib­er­al edu­ca­tion that the course claims to defend. A course adver­tised as a defense of lib­er­al edu­ca­tion has been built with­out the thinkers who defined it.”
    • The author is an account­ing pro­fes­sor in the GSB. This was picked up and reprint­ed by The Free Press as Stan­ford’s War on the West­ern Canon. The bit at the end com­par­ing Stan­ford to its peer insti­tu­tions was instruc­tive.
    • This one gen­er­at­ed a lot of stu­dent dis­cus­sion on our Slack, most­ly empha­siz­ing that more stu­dents should choose to enroll in SLE rather than the default route of COLLEGE. In one stu­den­t’s words, “Espe­cial­ly with COLLEGE being expand­ed to 3 quar­ters, it’s hard to see why stu­dents would pre­fer to take it over SLE. SLE feels, at least for me, to be more effi­cient (cov­er­ing COLLEGE, PWR, and sev­er­al of the WAYS) and effec­tive (in terms of the learn­ing and prepar­ing stu­dents for the rest of their aca­d­e­m­ic career).” Anoth­er stu­dent not­ed “even when SLE does get noticed by the press it still seems hat­ed on. Before frosh year I read an Atlantic piece that crit­i­cized it for hav­ing too much of a mod­ern focus and not engag­ing with old­er sta­ples of the West­ern canon like Gil­gamesh and the Odyssey. The prob­lem is that WE DO cov­er those texts and it was clear that the author mis­un­der­stood the premise of the pro­gram and only read the spring syl­labus.… Any­ways, the point is that SLE is great and every­one should take it!” Incom­ing frosh, take note!
  7. The Secret Elite One Fresh­man Dis­cov­ered at Stan­ford (Anand Girid­haradas, New York Times): “Baker’s first book, ‘How to Rule the World,’ is a rig­or­ous, self-assured, propul­sive, at times ter­ri­fy­ing por­trait of a dwee­boc­ra­cy that ‘sets the agen­da for the plan­et.’ In every age, there is some place that epit­o­mizes how pow­er works. Baker’s Stan­ford is a strong can­di­date, and his book fol­lows in the tra­di­tion of Michael Lewis’s Wall Street chron­i­cle ‘Liar’s Pok­er,’ but with more pim­ples and less eye con­tact.”
    • I love this para­graph. This is the same book I post­ed anoth­er review of a few weeks ago.

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 516: God in history & confused physicists

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. Why Did God Favor France? (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “[Joan of Arc’s] sto­ry is one of the most exten­sive­ly doc­u­ment­ed cas­es of a mirac­u­lous-seem­ing inter­ven­tion into sec­u­lar his­to­ry, cal­cu­lat­ed to baf­fle, fas­ci­nate and even charm like almost noth­ing else in West­ern his­to­ry. Every­thing in the sto­ry sounds like a pious leg­end con­fab­u­lat­ed cen­turies after the fact. A peas­ant girl with zero polit­i­cal or mil­i­tary expe­ri­ence shows up at a roy­al court, announces a divine mis­sion and makes a series of prophe­cies about what God wants for France that she con­sis­tent­ly ful­fills — a ful­fill­ment that requires not mere­ly some for­tu­nate hap­pen­stance, but her tak­ing com­mand of a medieval army and win­ning an imme­di­ate series of vic­to­ries over an intim­i­dat­ing adver­sary with Alexan­drine or Napoleon­ic skill.”
    • Worth a pon­der.
  2. Physi­cists dis­agree wild­ly on what quan­tum mechan­ics says about real­i­ty, Nature sur­vey shows (Eliz­a­beth Gib­ney, Nature): “Nature asked researchers what they thought was the best inter­pre­ta­tion of quan­tum phe­nom­e­na and inter­ac­tions — that is, their favourite of the var­i­ous attempts sci­en­tists have made to relate the math­e­mat­ics of the the­o­ry to the real world. The largest chunk of respons­es, 36%, favoured the Copen­hagen inter­pre­ta­tion — a prac­ti­cal and often-taught approach. But the sur­vey also showed that sev­er­al, more rad­i­cal, view­points have a healthy fol­low­ing. Asked about their con­fi­dence in their answer, only 24% of respon­dents thought their favoured inter­pre­ta­tion was cor­rect; oth­ers con­sid­ered it mere­ly ade­quate or a use­ful tool in some cir­cum­stances. What’s more, some sci­en­tists who seemed to be in the same camp didn’t give the same answers to fol­low-up ques­tions, sug­gest­ing incon­sis­tent or dis­parate under­stand­ings of the inter­pre­ta­tion they chose.”
  3. How a Chris­t­ian col­lege min­istry glo­ri­fied a sex offend­er and enabled him to keep abus­ing stu­dents (Mike Hix­en­baugh, NBC News): “The pas­tors who shep­herd­ed hun­dreds of high school and col­lege stu­dents to Savala’s home were part of Chi Alpha, a Chris­t­ian min­istry that evan­ge­lizes on uni­ver­si­ty cam­pus­es. Stu­dents seek out Chi Alpha to con­nect with God and each oth­er, through small Bible stud­ies and rol­lick­ing wor­ship ser­vices — and, for more than 30 years, through Savala. Gen­er­a­tions of Chi Alpha lead­ers hailed him as a spir­i­tu­al savant who could answer life’s deep­est mys­ter­ies.”
    • Heart­break­ing. I’ve post­ed about this scan­dal in Texas before (in oth­er words, this is the same scan­dal from a few years ago with addi­tion­al report­ing). Now that it is being cov­ered on NBC the high­er-qual­i­ty jour­nal­ism is uncov­er­ing even more trag­ic details.
  4. Put Down the Sho­far (Brad East, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “You’re like­ly famil­iar with sho­fars blown in pub­lic, Seder meals for Passover, and cir­cum­ci­sion for baby boys. But as com­mon and well-intend­ed as these may be, I want to explain why I told my stu­dent that, yes, his house church was wrong—or at least, mis­guid­ed.”
    • A the­o­log­i­cal­ly rich arti­cle.
  5. The Sim­ple Truth About the War in Gaza (Cole­man Hugh­es, The Free Press): “Amid these devel­op­ments, it may seem car­toon­ish, even obscene, to say that in the war between Israel and Hamas, Israel is the good guy. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth that’s incred­i­bly easy to for­get amid the day-to-day cov­er­age of this ter­ri­ble war.… Israel’s goal is to live in peace with its neigh­bors. Through­out its 77-year his­to­ry, it has agreed to half a dozen peace deals with the Pales­tini­ans. It vol­un­tar­i­ly left Gaza in 2005. If it had any inter­est in wip­ing Gaza off the map, it could have done so any time in the last sev­er­al decades.”
  6. How the Elite Changed Its Mind on Chris­tian­i­ty (Emma Camp, Rea­son): “As the decline in reli­gious atten­dance has slowed, the past few years have also seen a clear rise in the sta­tus of reli­gion. It’s becom­ing more and more social­ly accept­able to be reli­gious in elite intel­lec­tu­al spaces—something that could have a real impact on how reli­gion is per­ceived by every­one else.… Reli­gion became cool again among the edu­cat­ed elite once it gained an asso­ci­a­tion with good aes­thet­ics, high art, and sacred music—not Bush-era Repub­li­can soft theoc­ra­cy.  Today, one can belong to the ideas-mak­ing class—an aspir­ing pub­lic intel­lec­tu­al or artist—and still be reli­gious, so long as one steers clear of evan­gel­i­cal kitsch. Whether or not a real reli­gious revival is under­way in Amer­i­can pub­lic life, one thing is clear: The cool kids aren’t the smug, stri­dent athe­ists anymore—they’re the Chris­tians.”
    • Fas­ci­nat­ing, although it reminds me I need to write that essay I’ve been mulling over defend­ing low-church Protes­tantism as the best and most authen­tic expres­sion of Chris­tian­i­ty.
  7. Influ­encer Mis­sion­ar­ies (Lau­ren Jack­son, New York Times): “Church­es are turn­ing to the inter­net to reach new audi­ences. Evan­gel­i­cal pas­tors are bring­ing their famous­ly high-pro­duc­tion ser­mons into ver­ti­cal video. The Church of Jesus Christ of Lat­ter-day Saints is pre­sent­ing a diverse, younger image to its 1.4 mil­lion Insta­gram fol­low­ers.”
    • A short arti­cle, not super-infor­ma­tive. Most­ly inter­est­ing because of the trend reach­ing the point that the Times is tak­ing note of it. Also because of some of the small vignettes: “Per­haps that explains the celebri­ty of Father Rafael Capo, 57, a body­build­ing priest in Mia­mi who fus­es fit­ness with faith for his 112,000 Insta­gram fol­low­ers. He often posts pho­tos of him­self lift­ing weights and con­se­crat­ing com­mu­nion.”

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 405

a bunch of depress­ing arti­cles this week

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

This is vol­ume 405, which is 43 + 53 + 63

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. That Hel­lo Spir­it (Leopold van den Daele & Mat­teo Per­p­er, The Stan­ford Dai­ly): “The admin­is­tra­tion has as its goal the total re-cre­ation of cam­pus social life, a rather mut­ed con­cep­tion of the Spir­it of Stan­ford, from the top-down. They will throw mon­ey at the prob­lem, estab­lish more offices, and more advi­so­ry boards. They will change the fine print of the rules and reg­u­la­tions for throw­ing par­ties, and they will bom­bard you with facts that demon­stra­bly prove all is swell. But we believe that a thriv­ing cam­pus social life emerges nat­u­ral­ly when every­one feels like they belong to one fam­i­ly; it can­not be bought. It is our respon­si­bil­i­ty to bring about the change we want to see, from the bot­tom-up, one inter­ac­tion at a time: Say­ing hel­lo is the heart of com­mu­ni­ty.”
  2. How Con­gress Gets Rich from Insid­er Trad­ing (YouTube): thir­ty well-done min­utes about a bipar­ti­san prob­lem. I’ve read a lot of the arti­cles ref­er­enced before, but this is an excel­lent com­pi­la­tion with impec­ca­ble pre­sen­ta­tion. Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
  3. No One Is Immune (Bri­an Matt­son, Sub­stack): “We went from Chris­t­ian pub­lic fig­ures warn­ing about the social and legal dan­gers of LGBTQ ‘civ­il rights’ to Chris­t­ian pub­lic fig­ures cham­pi­oning LGBTQ ‘civ­il rights’ in just two decades. And in some cas­es, they are the exact same per­son.”
    • A sol­id essay that makes an impor­tant point. Any time your the­ol­o­gy leads you to con­clude that some of God’s laws in the Old Tes­ta­ment are sin­ful (as opposed to mere­ly not bind­ing upon us), your the­ol­o­gy is wrong. This is a wide-rang­ing prin­ci­ple which, when con­sis­tent­ly fol­lowed, will make peo­ple annoyed with you. It is nonethe­less cor­rect. “The Law of the Lord is per­fect” (Psalm 19:7) and “the law is holy, and the com­mand­ment is holy, right­eous and good” (Romans 7:12).
  4. How evan­gel­i­cal Chris­t­ian writer Jemar Tis­by became a radioac­tive sym­bol of ‘wok­e­ness’ (Bob Smi­etana, Reli­gion News Ser­vice): “Lerone Mar­tin, asso­ciate pro­fes­sor of reli­gious stud­ies and direc­tor of the Mar­tin Luther King Jr. Research and Edu­ca­tion Insti­tute at Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty, said that evan­gel­i­cals have long found it eas­i­er to label Black lead­ers as left­ists or Marx­ists rather than to deal with the real­i­ty of racism.”
  5. The ‘I’ in BIPOC (Sher­man Alex­ie, Per­sua­sion): “And here I must stress that Indi­ans, whether con­ser­v­a­tive, cen­trist, or lib­er­al, have a unique place in the Unit­ed States that BIPOC doesn’t even begin to address. BIPOC is an acronym that’s too plain to accu­rate­ly rep­re­sent Indi­an people’s com­plex rela­tion­ship with our coun­try.”
    • Fas­ci­nat­ing.
  6. Chi Alpha ‘Men­tor’ Daniel Savala Arrest­ed on Sex Abuse Charges (Josh Shep­herd, The Roys Report): “On Fri­day morn­ing, Savala, 67, was arrest­ed by the U.S. Mar­shals Lone Star Fugi­tive Task Force at his res­i­dence in down­town Hous­ton and booked at the Fort Bend Coun­ty Jail in Rich­mond, Texas. He was charged with con­tin­u­ous sex­u­al abuse of a child under age 14.… On May 23, Chris Hundl, for­mer leader of the Chi Alpha chap­ter at Bay­lor Uni­ver­si­ty and pas­tor of Moun­tain Val­ley Fel­low­ship in Waco, was arrest­ed on iden­ti­cal charges in Waco.… the North Texas Dis­trict Coun­cil of the Assem­blies of God (AoG) said its inves­ti­ga­tion of Hundl and oth­ers linked to Savala prompt­ed Hundl’s removal from his pas­toral duties and Chi Alpha lead­er­ship as of May 4. AoG dis­trict offi­cials said they also noti­fied child pro­tec­tive ser­vices in Texas and have rec­om­mend­ed that Hundl be dis­missed as an AoG min­is­ter.”
    • Read­ing this was like get­ting punched in the gut.
  7. Defin­ing Reli­gion in the Court (Mark Movs­esian, First Things): “…a focus on [reli­gion expressed in] com­mu­ni­ty accords with an impor­tant goal of reli­gious free­dom: the pro­mo­tion of pri­vate asso­ci­a­tions that encour­age coop­er­a­tive projects and check state pow­er. As Toc­queville explained, the despot­ic state desires noth­ing more than for indi­vid­ual cit­i­zens to feel iso­lat­ed from and indif­fer­ent to oth­ers, so that it can divide and dom­i­nate them all. By encour­ag­ing peo­ple to iden­ti­fy with and look out for one anoth­er, pri­vate asso­ci­a­tions mil­i­tate against self-cen­tered­ness and social iso­la­tion and help keep the state in check. Reli­gious groups per­form this func­tion espe­cial­ly well. No asso­ci­a­tions have been bet­ter, his­tor­i­cal­ly, at pro­mot­ing coop­er­a­tive social projects and defy­ing state oppression—as dic­ta­tors down the cen­turies have learned.”

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 We Need a New Media Sys­tem (Matt Taib­bi, Sub­stack): “The flaw in the sys­tem is that even the biggest news com­pa­nies now oper­ate under the assump­tion that at least half their poten­tial audi­ence isn’t lis­ten­ing. This leads to all sorts of prob­lems, and the fact that the eas­i­est way to keep your own demo­graph­ic is to feed it neg­a­tive sto­ries about oth­ers is only the most obvi­ous. On all sides, we now lean into inflam­ma­to­ry car­i­ca­tures, because the finan­cial incen­tives encour­age it.” From vol­ume 284.

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 300

some of the arti­cles have high­er-qual­i­ty argu­ments than the norm

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

This is vol­ume 300, which is how many Spar­tans it takes to fend off a Per­sian army.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. When Men Behave Bad­ly — A Review (Rob Hen­der­son, Quil­lette): “Intrigu­ing­ly, men and women con­verge in their answers when asked what per­cent­age of men would be will­ing to com­mit rape. Women esti­mate that about one-third of men would com­mit rape if there were no con­se­quences, and about one-third of men report that they would com­mit rape if they believed they could get away with it.” The author is a PhD can­di­date at Cam­bridge review­ing a book by a pro­fes­sor at UT Austin. Extreme­ly inter­est­ing through­out. High­ly rec­om­mend­ed.
  2. Proof That Polit­i­cal Priv­i­lege Is Harm­ful for Chris­tian­i­ty (Nilay Saiya, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “In a peer-reviewed study pub­lished this month in the jour­nal Soci­ol­o­gy of Reli­gion, my coau­thor and I chal­lenge the per­ceived wis­dom that edu­ca­tion and afflu­ence spell Christianity’s demise. In our sta­tis­ti­cal analy­sis of a glob­al sam­ple of 166 coun­tries from 2010 to 2020, we find that the most impor­tant deter­mi­nant of Chris­t­ian vital­i­ty is the extent to which gov­ern­ments give offi­cial sup­port to Chris­tian­i­ty through their laws and poli­cies. How­ev­er, it is not in the way devout believ­ers might expect.”
  3. The Redemp­tion of Justin Bieber (Zach Baron, GQ): “And then there is God. If you ask Chance the Rap­per why he and his friend seem so hap­py in an indus­try that tends to grind peo­ple to dust, he will answer with­out hes­i­ta­tion. ‘Both of us, our secret sauce is Jesus,’ Chance says. ‘Justin doesn’t fake the funk. He goes to Jesus with his prob­lems, he goes to Jesus with his suc­cess­es. He calls me just to talk about Jesus.’ ”
  4. In Decid­ing Ful­ton v. Philadel­phia, the Supreme Court Should Remem­ber That Fos­ter Care Is for the Chil­dren (James Dwyer, Nation­al Review): “But fos­ter care is not a pub­lic accom­mo­da­tion nor a ser­vice to ‘the pub­lic.’ Chil­dren are not gener­ic goods for sale (like donuts or cups of cof­fee), to which every­one has an equal right. Instead, when the gov­ern­ment is mak­ing deci­sions on behalf of fos­ter chil­dren, it is oblig­at­ed to act only in that child’s best inter­est.” The author is a law prof at William and Mary and this arti­cle is real­ly good.
  5. Pan­dem­ic-relat­ed:
    • COVID-19 Rewired Our Brains (Michael Bren­dan Dougher­ty, Nation­al Review): “At some point, the pan­dem­ic — the pro­vi­sion­al and prac­ti­cal judg­ments in favor of cau­tion that can jus­ti­fy restric­tive behav­iors — became an unshake­able moral pur­pose. Actu­al weigh­ing of risks went out the win­dow: There’s a dead­ly dis­ease out there; my actions can con­tribute to the end of the dis­ease or to its spread­ing in per­pe­tu­ity. ” This artic­u­lates some­thing I’ve dim­ly felt. Very good.
    • The Lib­er­als Who Can’t Quit Lock­down (Emma Green, The Atlantic): “But per­son­al deci­sions dur­ing the coro­n­avirus cri­sis are fraught because they seem sym­bol­ic of people’s broad­er val­ue sys­tems. When vac­ci­nat­ed adults refuse to see friends indoors, they’re work­ing through the trau­ma of the past year, in which the bro­ken­ness of America’s med­ical sys­tem was so evi­dent. When they keep their kids out of play­grounds and urge friends to stay dis­tanced at small out­door pic­nics, they are con­tin­u­ing the spir­it of the past year, when civic duty has been expressed through lone­ly asceti­cism. For many peo­ple, this kind of behav­ior is a form of good cit­i­zen­ship. That’s a hard idea to give up.”
    • Believe Sci­ence: Get Vac­ci­nat­ed. Then Relax. (Bari Weiss, Sub­stack): “In oth­er words, once we are stuck inside it is very hard to unstick our­selves. I’m try­ing to remind myself of this truth when I find myself want­i­ng to berate friends who, ful­ly vac­ci­nat­ed, look at me with crazy eyes when I sug­gest com­ing over for din­ner. PTSD might be too strong a descrip­tor, but it’s not so far off either.”
    • Data Shows White Evan­gel­i­cals And Catholics More Like­ly to Get Vac­cine Than ‘Nones’ and Gen­er­al Pub­lic (Ryan Burge, Reli­gion Unplugged): “…when the sam­ple is bro­ken down into the three of the largest reli­gious groups: White evan­gel­i­cals, White Catholics and the reli­gious­ly unaf­fil­i­at­ed, some dis­par­i­ties begin to emerge. It’s note­wor­thy that White Chris­tians were sig­nif­i­cant­ly more like­ly to get the vac­cine than the gen­er­al pub­lic between Jan­u­ary and April. In the lat­est wave of the sur­vey, near­ly 60% of White Catholics had been vac­ci­nat­ed and just about half of White evan­gel­i­cals said the same. It was the reli­gious “nones” that were lag­ging far behind, with only 31% indi­cat­ing that they had received one dose.” That is def­i­nite­ly not the impres­sion I’ve got­ten from the media, but it is the impres­sion I’ve got­ten from my friends. The author is a pro­fes­sor of polit­i­cal sci­ence at East­ern Illi­nois Uni­ver­si­ty.
    • Patents are Not the Prob­lem! (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “Patents are not the prob­lem. All of the vac­cine man­u­fac­tur­ers are try­ing to increase sup­ply as quick­ly as pos­si­ble. Bil­lions of dos­es are being produced–more than ever before in the his­to­ry of the world. Licens­es are wide­ly avail­able.… Plas­tic bags are a big­ger bot­tle­neck than patents. The US embar­go on vac­cine sup­plies to India was pre­cise­ly that the Biden admin­is­tra­tion used the DPA to pri­or­i­tize things like biore­ac­tor bags and fil­ters to US sup­pli­ers and that meant that India’s Serum Insti­tute was hav­ing trou­ble get­ting its pro­duc­tion lines ready for Novavax. Cure­Vac, anoth­er poten­tial mRNA vac­cine, is also find­ing it dif­fi­cult to find sup­plies due to US restric­tions (which means sup­plies are short every­where).” Loose­ly relat­ed, but such a glo­ri­ous rant I had to share it.
    • The ori­gin of COVID: Did peo­ple or nature open Pandora’s box at Wuhan? (Nicholas Wade, Bul­letin of the Atom­ic Sci­en­tists): “Sci­ence is sup­pos­ed­ly a self-cor­rect­ing com­mu­ni­ty of experts who con­stant­ly check each other’s work. So why didn’t oth­er virol­o­gists point out that the Ander­sen group’s argu­ment was full of absurd­ly large holes? Per­haps because in today’s uni­ver­si­ties speech can be very cost­ly. Careers can be destroyed for step­ping out of line. Any virol­o­gist who chal­lenges the community’s declared view risks hav­ing his next grant appli­ca­tion turned down by the pan­el of fel­low virol­o­gists that advis­es the gov­ern­ment grant dis­tri­b­u­tion agency.” Very thor­ough, very read­able, very per­sua­sive. There is a real chance humans are respon­si­ble for COVID and we need to inves­ti­gate it.
  6. How the Pen­ta­gon Start­ed Tak­ing U.F.O.s Seri­ous­ly (Gideon Lewis-Kraus, New York­er): “Despite the fact that most adults car­ry around excep­tion­al­ly good cam­era tech­nol­o­gy in their pock­ets, most U.F.O. pho­tos and videos remain mad­den­ing­ly indis­tinct, but the for­mer Pen­ta­gon offi­cial implied that the gov­ern­ment pos­sess­es stark visu­al doc­u­men­ta­tion; Eli­zon­do and Mel­lon have said the same thing.”
  7. I Became a Moth­er at 25, and I’m Not Sor­ry I Didn’t Wait (Eliz­a­beth Bru­enig, New York Times): “But what of hav­ing chil­dren — or get­ting mar­ried, for that mat­ter — before estab­lish­ing one­self? That is: What to say to the young per­son who might con­sid­er those kinds of com­mit­ments if not for the final­i­ty of it all, the sense that she may be mak­ing some­body else before know­ing who she her­self real­ly is?”

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). 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 278

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. Why Oba­ma Fears for Our Democ­ra­cy (Jef­frey Gold­berg inter­view­ing Barack Oba­ma, The Atlantic) “You men­tioned ear­li­er that I’m in some ways a nev­er-Trump con­ser­v­a­tive. That’s not quite right, but what is true is that tem­pera­men­tal­ly I am sym­pa­thet­ic to a cer­tain strain of con­ser­vatism in the sense that I’m not just a mate­ri­al­ist. I’m not an eco­nom­ic deter­min­ist. I think it’s impor­tant, but I think there are things oth­er than stuff and mon­ey and income—the reli­gious cri­tique of mod­ern soci­ety, that we’ve lost that sense of com­mu­ni­ty.” There is an absurd­ly lengthy intro­duc­tion. Skip down to “Our con­ver­sa­tion has been edit­ed for clar­i­ty and con­ci­sion” about a fifth of the way down the page.
  2. The Chil­dren of Porn­hub (Nicholas Kristof, New York Times): “The world has often been obliv­i­ous to child sex­u­al abuse, from the Catholic Church to the Boy Scouts. Too late, we pros­e­cute indi­vid­u­als like Jef­frey Epstein or R. Kel­ly. But we should also stand up to cor­po­ra­tions that sys­tem­at­i­cal­ly exploit chil­dren. With Porn­hub, we have Jef­frey Epstein times 1,000.” Kristof goes out of his way to make it clear that he is not con­demn­ing pornog­ra­phy itself, just abuse. I’ll go far­ther: pornog­ra­phy is vile and I think it is a nation­al shame. If you watch porn, know that for­give­ness and free­dom are avail­able in Christ and I a hap­py to talk with you about it.
  3. The Mass Mur­der of Niger­ian Chris­tians (Rab­bi Abra­ham Coop­er and Rev. John­nie Moore, Tablet Mag­a­zine): “Offi­cials’ ini­tial refusal to attribute the attack in Kaduna to Islamists—in any form—reflects a black hole of denial that is pro­nounced in Niger­ian pol­i­tics. This endem­ic self-cen­sor­ship has now been absorbed by many pro­fes­sion­als in the for­eign pol­i­cy estab­lish­ment who have adopt­ed a pol­i­cy of not men­tion­ing the reli­gious com­po­nents of these out­rages at any cost, in order to pre­vent being accused of politi­ciz­ing reli­gion. This denial serves as an accel­er­ant of reli­gion-fueled conflict—until the facts and blood on the ground can no longer be denied.”
  4. Big Gov­ern­men­t’s Over­looked Amer­i­cans (Nicholas Eber­stadt, Nation­al Review): “How could Amer­i­can health author­i­ties com­plete­ly miss a domes­tic epi­dem­ic of such sever­i­ty and dura­tion? Even dur­ing the Cold War, remem­ber, U.S. researchers were quick­er to spot the advent of the health cri­sis for the work­ing-age pop­u­la­tion of the Sovi­et Union: and this dur­ing the hey­day of Sovi­et dis­in­for­ma­tion and strate­gic decep­tion, long before glas­nost. What­ev­er else may be said about this sig­nal U.S. fail­ure in dis­ease pre­ven­tion and con­trol, it occa­sioned remark­ably lit­tle reflec­tion, self-crit­i­cism, and course cor­rec­tion on the part of America’s pub­lic-health appa­ra­tus.” 
  5. The Supreme Court Was Right to Block Cuomo’s Reli­gious Restric­tions (Michael W. McConnell and Max Raskin, New York Times): “In the begin­ning of the pan­dem­ic, no one knew what worked and what didn’t. Courts were under­stand­ably reluc­tant to sec­ond-guess. But we are now 10 months into the pan­dem­ic. Why are gov­ern­ments still pick­ing and choos­ing among con­sti­tu­tion­al rights with­out explain­ing their rea­son­ing?” McConnell is a Stan­ford law prof, Raskin a law prof at New York Uni­ver­si­ty.
  6. Den­i­grat­ing Hoover (Vic­tor Davis Han­son, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “[Some Stan­ford stu­dents and fac­ul­ty com­plain about Hoover, yet] Hoover schol­ars as a gen­er­al rule do not fix­ate on Stan­ford, whether the Uni­ver­si­ty, its stu­dents or its pro­fes­sors, for their per­ceived laps­es in judge­ment or con­tro­ver­sies that often can arise at large cam­pus­es — such as the recent sen­sa­tion­al alle­ga­tions con­cern­ing admis­sions fraud; a recent Stan­ford affil­i­at­ed vis­it­ing researcher arrest­ed for alleged­ly hid­ing ties with the Chi­nese mil­i­tary; Depart­ment of Edu­ca­tion alle­ga­tions that Stan­ford had not prop­er­ly and ful­ly dis­closed, as required, siz­able gifts from Chi­nese gov­ern­ment-relat­ed sources; sex scan­dal alle­ga­tions at the busi­ness school; efforts to dis­rupt a cam­pus speak­er while spread­ing a grotesque anti-Semit­ic fly­er; and gen­er­al con­cern on the cam­pus con­cern­ing a wave of anti-Semit­ic inci­dents.”
  7. Mis­aligned incen­tives and the scale of incar­cer­a­tion in the Unit­ed States (Aurélie Ouss, Jour­nal of Pub­lic Eco­nom­ics): “Typ­i­cal­ly, prison is paid for at the state lev­el, but coun­ty employ­ees (such as judges, pros­e­cu­tors or pro­ba­tion offi­cers) deter­mine time spent in cus­tody. I exploit a nat­ur­al exper­i­ment that shift­ed the cost bur­den of juve­nile incar­cer­a­tion from state to coun­ties, keep­ing over­all costs and respon­si­bil­i­ties unchanged. This result­ed in a stark drop in incar­cer­a­tion, and no increase in arrests, sug­gest­ing an over-use of prison when costs are not inter­nal­ized. The large mag­ni­tude of the change sug­gests that mis­aligned incen­tives in crim­i­nal jus­tice may be a sig­nif­i­cant con­trib­u­tor to the cur­rent lev­els of incar­cer­a­tion in the Unit­ed States.” The author is a crim­i­nol­o­gist at U Penn. Found via Tyler Cowen.

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 Epi­dem­ic of Dis­be­lief (Bar­bara Bradley Hager­ty, The Atlantic): “His­tor­i­cal­ly, inves­ti­ga­tors had assumed that some­one who assaults a stranger by the rail­road tracks is noth­ing like the man who assaults his co-worker or his girl­friend. But it turns out that the space between acquain­tance rape and stranger rape is not a wall, but a plaza. When Cleve­land inves­ti­ga­tors uploaded the DNA from the acquaintance-rape kits, they were sur­prised by how often the results also matched DNA from unsolved stranger rapes. The task force iden­ti­fied dozens of mys­tery rapists this way.” Infu­ri­at­ing and high­ly rec­om­mend­ed. First shared in vol­ume 211.

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 277

After assem­bling them, I real­ized the first link is about the friend zone and the final link is about man­ly wed­ding rings.

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. How To Get Out Of The Friend Zone (Aaron Renn, The Mas­culin­ist): “Friend­ships between men and women have the char­ac­ter­is­tic that they often evolve into asym­me­try of intent, which is exploita­tive if it per­sists…. remem­ber, just as no woman is under any oblig­a­tion to go out on a date with a man such as you, you are under no oblig­a­tion to be a friend to women.”
    • Every once in a while I like to toss out some­thing sure to rile peo­ple up, just to make sure you’re all pay­ing atten­tion. 
  2. God Mode Acti­vat­ed: Meet the Gamers Bring­ing Jesus to Twitch (Christo­pher Hut­ton, Medi­um): “Dustin Phillips is a blond-haired, beard­ed children’s pas­tor in Texas who also serves as GMA’s CEO. On Twitch, he goes by the han­dle Pas­tor­Doost­yn and is known as the “demon-slay­ing pas­tor.” He preach­es the gospel to his 1,400 fol­low­ers while stream­ing games like Doom and Poke­mon.“ Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent who was no doubt pro­cras­ti­nat­ing on finals. 
  3. Boy Scouts Face At Least 82,000 Sex Abuse Claims (Min­istry Watch): “Today is the dead­line set by a bank­rupt­cy court for fil­ing a sex-abuse claim against the Boy Scouts of Amer­i­ca (BSA). The num­ber of claims so far filed now exceed 82,000, far more than the 9,000 claims filed in Catholic Church cas­es.”
    • Some of you have heard me say this before: the sex­u­al abuse scan­dal in the church is hor­rif­ic, yet it will be dwarfed by what we uncov­er about sex­u­al abuse in pub­lic schools and in youth orga­ni­za­tions. The church­es deserve rebuke for their han­dling of the wicked­ness in their ranks; sad­ly, I doubt that you will hear near­ly as much about the far more mas­sive scan­dals lurk­ing in non­re­li­gious insti­tu­tions.
  4. Andy Stan­ley on Evan­gel­i­cals After Trump (Emma Green, The Atlantic): “In the Gospels, Jesus calls on his fol­low­ers to go out, teach his mes­sage, and bap­tize peo­ple. Stan­ley has orga­nized his life around this imper­a­tive, called ‘the Great Com­mis­sion.’ The ques­tion for evan­gel­i­cals, now, is whether the unde­ni­able asso­ci­a­tion between Trump and their ver­sion of Chris­tian­i­ty will make that work hard­er. ‘Has this group of peo­ple who have some­how become “evan­gel­i­cal lead­ers”’ aligned with Trump ‘hurt the Church’s abil­i­ty to reach peo­ple out­side the Church? Absolute­ly,’ Stan­ley said. But he’s not over­ly wor­ried: A year or two from now, he said, ‘all that goes away.’ New lead­ers will rise up. The Trump era of evan­gel­i­cal his­to­ry will fade. Stan­ley chuck­led. ‘And this will just be, for a lot of peo­ple, a bad dream.’”
    • Relat­ed: The Cul­tur­al Con­se­quences of Very, Very Repub­li­can Chris­tian­i­ty (David French, The Dis­patch): “What’s the cul­tur­al effect of a very, very Repub­li­can Chris­tian­i­ty? It’s way too sim­ple to say that it impairs the abil­i­ty of Chris­tians to reach their friends and neigh­bors. In some places it enhances the church’s appeal and inte­grates Chris­tians with­in their com­mu­ni­ty. In oth­er places it cre­ates a host of chal­lenges and need­less­ly alien­ates Chris­tians from their fel­low cit­i­zens.” Insight­ful.
  5. Vic­tim­hood or Devel­op­ment? (Glenn Loury, John McWhort­er, Shel­by Steele and Eli Steele, Quil­lette): “Again, the biggest mis­take we made is to buy into the idea that our vic­tim­iza­tion by racism was our source of pow­er rather than our self, our skills, our tal­ents, our devel­op­ment. As vic­tims, we had won a great civ­il rights move­ment. The down­side is it seduced us.” A fas­ci­nat­ing con­ver­sa­tion to eaves­drop on. You can also watch it on video.
  6. Madi­son Cawthorn, the GOP’s young star, arrives in Wash­ing­ton (Matthew Kas­sel, Jew­ish Insid­er): “He… seemed to believe that evan­ge­lism was a call­ing on par with pub­lic ser­vice. ‘If all you are is friends with oth­er Chris­tians, then how are you ever going to lead some­body to Christ?’ Cawthorn mused. ‘If you’re not want­i­ng to lead some­body to Christ, then you’re prob­a­bly not real­ly a Chris­t­ian.’”
    • I share that arti­cle to pro­vide con­text for this arti­cle: New­ly Elect­ed GOP Con­gress­man Madi­son Cawthorn Has Tried to Con­vert Jews to Chris­tian­i­ty (Pilar Melen­dez, The Dai­ly Beast): “Madi­son Cawthorn, the North Car­oli­na Repub­li­can who will become the youngest mem­ber of Con­gress in his­to­ry, has admit­ted he tried to con­vert Jews and Mus­lims to Chris­tian­i­ty.” The jour­nal­ist seems gen­uine­ly shocked.
    • Con­trast that with Con­vert Me If You Can (David Harsyani, Nation­al Review): “To be hon­est, I’m often sur­prised at how shy Chris­tians are at [evan­ge­lism]. As a hea­then, though, I am flat­tered by the atten­tion. And as a per­son in pos­ses­sion of free will, I am also uncon­cerned.” 
  7. Pas­tor John MacArthur and Cal­i­for­nia church clos­ings: Why isn’t this a nation­al sto­ry? (Julia Duin, GetRe­li­gion): “Indoor wor­ship ser­vices are banned in Cal­i­for­nia, a state of megachurch­es. You don’t have to be a reli­gion expert to know that restric­tion wasn’t going to fly, espe­cial­ly when stores and oth­er busi­ness­es had no sim­i­lar restric­tions…. Again, reli­gious folks see a chasm between how they’re treat­ed and how oth­er pro­tes­tors are treat­ed. And in-per­son nude danc­ing is a form of pro­tect­ed cul­tur­al expres­sion, as opposed to pub­lic wor­ship?”

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 Man­ly wed­ding rings for tough guys who are dudes (Dan Brooks, The Out­line): “I don’t hunt, but I briefly con­sid­ered buy­ing a cam­ou­flage ring, part­ly to sig­nal my deep com­mit­ment to irony and part­ly to get bet­ter ser­vice at the auto parts store.” I real­ly enjoyed this essay, and I hope that many of you have need of wed­ding bands in the not-too-distant future. First shared in vol­ume 210.

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.