Tag: Supreme Court

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 341

a lot about Rus­si­a’s inva­sion of Ukraine, but don’t sleep on the rest — there’s good stuff!

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 341, which when ren­dered in base 2 (34110=1010101012) is appar­ent­ly the small­est pseudo­prime in that base.

Also, there’s a lot hap­pen­ing this week and I feel under­in­formed. These are the things that stood out to me from the less-than-I-would-have-liked that I did read.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Rus­si­a’s Inva­sion of Ukraine:
    • Just war the­o­ry and the Rus­so-Ukrain­ian war (Ed Fes­er, blog): “One of the strik­ing fea­tures of the cat­a­stro­phe in Ukraine is how unam­bigu­ous­ly the prin­ci­ples of just war doc­trine seem to apply. On the one hand, Russia’s inva­sion can­not be jus­ti­fied giv­en the cri­te­ria of just war the­o­ry. On the oth­er hand, NATO mil­i­tary action against Rus­sia can­not be jus­ti­fied either.” The author, a Chris­t­ian, is a phi­los­o­phy pro­fes­sor at Pasade­na City Col­lege.
    • We Are All Real­ists Now (Ryan Feda­siuk, George­town Secu­ri­ty Stud­ies Review): “After a sleep­less night spent read­ing takes about every mod­ern geopo­lit­i­cal issue under the sun I found, hon­est­ly, that I could not care less about any of them. Can peo­ple get to safe­ty? Where are the med­ical facil­i­ties? How many refugees can the Unit­ed States admit? — These are the ques­tions that mat­ter. War may be an object of aca­d­e­m­ic study, but it is first and fore­most a human cat­a­stro­phe.” The author is pur­su­ing his mas­ter’s at George­town. This is brief and quite good. Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus.
    • Paus­ing at the Precipice (Tan­ner Greer, Schol­ar’s Stage): “This is a pow­er­ful frame­work for under­stand­ing for­eign pol­i­cy crises. Cat­a­stroph­ic mis­judg­ment rests on the con­ver­gence of two ele­ments: an emer­gent sense that there is a moral imper­a­tive to act paired with a break­down in the for­mal deci­sion-mak­ing process­es designed to force pol­i­cy mak­ers to care­ful­ly weigh the poten­tial con­se­quences of their deci­sions.”
    • The Absence Of A Trag­ic Sense (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “…we have just entered into an extreme­ly dan­ger­ous peri­od of life on this plan­et. Peo­ple who are thrilled over the moral clar­i­ty of the moment must have for­got­ten that the Cold War, with the ter­ror of nuclear war hang­ing over our heads con­stant­ly, was a time of moral clar­i­ty too.”
    • We Have Nev­er Been Here Before (Thomas L. Fried­man, New York Times): “…today’s world is rest­ing on two simul­ta­ne­ous extremes: Nev­er have the lead­ers of two of the three most pow­er­ful nuclear nations — Putin and Xi — had more unchecked pow­er and nev­er have more peo­ple from one end of the world to the oth­er been wired togeth­er with few­er and few­er buffers. So, what those two lead­ers decide to do with their unchecked pow­er will touch vir­tu­al­ly all of us direct­ly or indi­rect­ly. Putin’s inva­sion of Ukraine is our first real taste of how crazy and unsta­ble this kind of wired world can get. It will not be our last.”
    • Ukraine war: ‘My city’s being shelled, but mum won’t believe me’ (Maria Korenyuk and Jack Good­man, BBC): “My par­ents under­stand that some mil­i­tary action is hap­pen­ing here. But they say: ‘Rus­sians came to lib­er­ate you. They won’t ruin any­thing, they won’t touch you. They’re only tar­get­ing mil­i­tary bases’.”
    • Russ­ian Degra­da­tion and Ukrain­ian Hope: The Exam­ple of Chris­t­ian High­er Edu­ca­tion (Per­ry Glanz­er, The Gospel Coali­tion): “Russ­ian polit­i­cal lead­ers con­tin­u­al­ly exalt cor­rup­tion, dys­func­tion, and the pur­suit of pow­er. This leads them to under­mine bur­geon­ing efforts to rebuild civ­il soci­ety, improve reli­gious lib­er­ty, or expand reli­gious edu­ca­tion. Unfor­tu­nate­ly, the dom­i­nant Russ­ian Ortho­dox Church makes things worse. For­mer com­mu­nists large­ly con­trol the Russ­ian Ortho­dox Church, and they use this pow­er to sup­port a Russ­ian ver­sion of Chris­t­ian nationalism—making the church an instru­ment of the state. In Ukraine I have found hope and courage among edu­ca­tors and Chris­tians try­ing to build civ­il soci­ety in the con­text of reli­gious free­dom in ways that some polit­i­cal lead­ers sup­port­ed.” This was unex­pect­ed­ly inter­est­ing. The author is an edu­ca­tion prof at Bay­lor.
    • How Putin Wants Rus­sians to See the War in Ukraine (Masha Gessen, The New York­er): “While news chan­nels around the world broad­cast spe­cial reports from Ukrain­ian cities that are being bom­bard­ed by the Russ­ian mil­i­tary, Russ­ian news­casts on state-con­trolled chan­nels, which have a monop­oly on broad­cast tele­vi­sion, are short and unevent­ful.” Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
    • The West’s Green Delu­sions Empow­ered Putin (Michael Shel­len­berg­er, Bari Weiss’ Sub­stack): “Green cam­paigns have suc­ceed­ed in destroy­ing Ger­man ener­gy independence—they call it Energiewende, or ‘ener­gy turnaround’—by suc­cess­ful­ly sell­ing pol­i­cy­mak­ers on a pecu­liar ver­sion of envi­ron­men­tal­ism. It calls cli­mate change a near-term apoc­a­lyp­tic threat to human sur­vival while turn­ing up its nose at the tech­nolo­gies that can help address cli­mate change most and soon­est: nuclear and nat­ur­al gas.… Ger­many has trapped itself. It could burn more coal and under­mine its com­mit­ment to reduc­ing car­bon emis­sions. Or it could use more nat­ur­al gas, which gen­er­ates half the car­bon emis­sions of coal, but at the cost of depen­dence on import­ed Russ­ian gas. Berlin was faced with a choice between unleash­ing the wrath of Putin on neigh­bor­ing coun­tries or invit­ing the wrath of Gre­ta Thun­berg. They chose Putin.” Those last two sen­tences…
    • When the Man Meets the Moment (David French, The Dis­patch): “The future is opaque. The fog of war has descend­ed over the bat­tle­field. Much is unknown, but this much is clear: An ordi­nary man has answered the call of an extra­or­di­nary time, and he has sparked hope in his own peo­ple and in a cyn­i­cal and weary west.”
    • A Tale of Two Mas­culin­i­ties (Andrew T. Walk­er, World): “…com­pare the rival mas­culin­i­ties of Zelen­skyy and Vladimir Putin. Zelenskyy’s com­mon grace demon­stra­tion of healthy mas­culin­i­ty exudes lead­er­ship, courage, resolve, and sac­ri­fice. He does not tell you of his courage; he sim­ply shows it. And then there is the so-called ‘man­li­ness’ of Putin, who boasts of a mas­culin­i­ty with ridicu­lous pho­tos of him­self rid­ing hors­es while shirt­less.”
    • ‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes (Mau­ra Reynolds, Politi­co): “Putin is increas­ing­ly oper­at­ing emo­tion­al­ly and like­ly to use all the weapons at his dis­pos­al, includ­ing nuclear ones. It’s impor­tant not to have any illu­sions — but equal­ly impor­tant not to lose hope.” Not the main point of the piece, but my favorite part is when she says sanc­tions won’t be enough and then sug­gests stronger sanc­tions. Over­all a mixed arti­cle but worth read­ing if you’re inter­est­ed in the sub­ject.
    • Ukrain­ian sailor in Major­ca tried to sink yacht of Russ­ian boss (BBC): “He told a judge that he regret­ted noth­ing and would do it again.” Rec­om­mend­ed by an alum­nus.
    • For­mer Miss Grand Ukraine joins fight against Russ­ian inva­sion (Patrick Reil­ly, New York Post): “[Anas­ta­sia Lenna] had pre­vi­ous­ly worked as a mod­el and a pub­lic rela­tions man­ag­er in Turkey, accord­ing to her Miss Grand Inter­na­tion­al pro­file, a whole world away from the vio­lence of the bat­tle­field. She also speaks five lan­guages and has worked as a trans­la­tor.”
  2. Supreme Court:
    • Ketan­ji Brown Jack­son Thanks God for Supreme Court Nom­i­na­tion (Jack Jenk­ins, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Jack­son did not men­tion a spe­cif­ic faith tra­di­tion in her remarks, so it was not imme­di­ate­ly clear whether she would alter the reli­gious make­up of the Supreme Court, which cur­rent­ly con­sists pri­mar­i­ly of Catholic and Jew­ish jus­tices (Jus­tice Neil Gor­such was raised Catholic but attend­ed an Epis­co­pal Church in Col­orado).… Mis­souri Repub­li­can Sen. Josh Haw­ley not­ed Jack­son had served on the board of Mon­trose Chris­t­ian School. The Mary­land school, which has since been closed, oper­at­ed under a state­ment of faith that declared ‘we should speak on behalf of the unborn and con­tend for the sanc­ti­ty of all human life from con­cep­tion to nat­ur­al death’ and out­lined a belief that mar­riage exists only between a man and a woman. In respond­ing to Haw­ley, who said he agreed with the state­ments, Jack­son dis­tanced her­self from the school’s beliefs. She said she did not ‘nec­es­sar­i­ly agree with all of the state­ments,’ and was not pre­vi­ous­ly aware of their exis­tence.”
    • The Long Cru­sade of Clarence and Gin­ni Thomas (Dan­ny Hakim and Jo Beck­er, New York Times): “Gin­ni Lamp, as she was known then, was on a cheer squad for taller girls known as the Squires, bran­dish­ing a sword and a shield before foot­ball games. ‘She would march in front with that; she loved doing that,’ said Sue Nor­by, a class­mate. ‘My oth­er friends were on the pom­pom squad because they were so short, but Gin­ni was on a dif­fer­ent squad because she was tall, with oth­er tall girls. She was the war­rior woman.’”
      • I have men­tioned this before, but I am a suck­er for sto­ries about the Jus­tices. They are all such fas­ci­nat­ing peo­ple. Even ide­o­log­i­cal pieces like this reveal their idio­syn­crat­ic won­der­ful­ness. Warn­ing: this is very long.
  3. Covid Arith­metic for Anx­ious Par­ents (Bryan Caplan, blog): “The most ‘adult’ thing for par­ents and teach­ers to do on this March 1 [when Vir­ginia lifts its school mask man­date] is walk kids through the Covid math. Even third-graders should be able to fol­low it. And if you real­ly want to show your matu­ri­ty, you should con­fess that for the last two years, most adults have been act­ing like chil­dren. Life gave us a math project, yet we act­ed like it was a poet­ry assign­ment.”
  4. Walk­ing in the Pur­pose of God (Chris­tos Makridis, XA Alum­ni): “Put sim­ply, I nev­er would have guessed what I’m doing now three years ago. While my engage­ment in the cryp­tocur­ren­cy and NFT sphere ‘might’ have been pos­si­ble on paper, it wouldn’t have been near­ly this rich and diver­si­fied absent my say­ing ‘yes’ to the Lord one step at a time and sim­ply walk­ing in obe­di­ence.” Chris­tos is an alum­nus of XA at Stan­ford.
  5. Study Exam­ines Link Between Account­abil­i­ty to God and Psy­cho­log­i­cal Well-Being (Neu­ro­science News): “Reli­gious believ­ers who embrace account­abil­i­ty to God (or anoth­er tran­scen­dent guide for life) expe­ri­ence high­er lev­els of three of the four vari­ables of psy­cho­log­i­cal well-being – mat­ter­ing to oth­ers, dig­ni­ty and mean­ing in their lives, though not hap­pi­ness – accord­ing to a study from researchers with Bay­lor Uni­ver­si­ty, West­mont Col­lege and Hope Col­lege.”
  6. Against alco­hol, #6437 (Tyler Cowen, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “…a sud­den and unex­pect­ed nation-wide alco­hol sales ban in South Africa… causal­ly reduced injury-induced mor­tal­i­ty in the coun­try by at least 14% dur­ing the five weeks of the ban.” Links to a brief sum­ma­ry of some research with links to the orig­i­nal arti­cle.
  7. There’s No Cri­sis of Faith on Cam­pus (Ryan Burge, Wall Street Jour­nal): “Looked at in its entire­ty, the col­lege expe­ri­ence may actu­al­ly make stu­dents more sure of their reli­gious beliefs after they grad­u­ate. This is the idea known to psy­chol­o­gists as the ‘inoc­u­la­tion effect’: When some­one is con­front­ed with weak attacks on their beliefs, they become more pre­pared to defend those beliefs when they come under seri­ous attacks. This is essen­tial­ly how a vac­cine works: It gives an indi­vid­ual a weak­ened ver­sion of the virus, so that when the immune sys­tem encoun­ters the real thing, it can eas­i­ly fight off the vil­lain. Sim­i­lar­ly, chal­leng­ing a young per­son to defend their beliefs in a sup­port­ive, open envi­ron­ment like col­lege may leave them bet­ter pre­pared to hold firm to their con­vic­tions lat­er in life.“The author, whom I have cit­ed before, is a pas­tor and pro­fes­sor of polit­i­cal sci­ence at East­ern Wash­ing­ton Uni­ver­si­ty.

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 APA Meet­ing: A Photo-Essay (Scott Alexan­der, Slate Star Codex): “Were there real­ly more than twice as many ses­sions on glob­al warm­ing as on obses­sive com­pul­sive dis­or­der? Three times as many on immi­gra­tion as on ADHD? As best I can count, yes. I don’t want to exag­ger­ate this. There was still a lot of real­ly meaty sci­en­tif­ic dis­cus­sion if you sought it out. But over­all the bal­ance was pret­ty strik­ing…. If you want to mod­el the APA, you could do worse than a giant fire­hose that takes in phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­ny mon­ey at one end, and shoots lec­tures about social jus­tice out the oth­er.” This is fun­ny, ram­bling, insight­ful com­men­tary on the Amer­i­can Psy­chi­atric Association’s annu­al meet­ing. First shared in vol­ume 204

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 328

Every­thing from bap­tisms to abor­tion to per­ceived noos­es. Also self-repli­cat­ing robots which is noth­ing to wor­ry about at all.

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 328, which is the year that one of my favorite church lead­ers became a bish­op: Athana­sius.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Supreme Court recon­sid­ers abor­tion:
    • The Supreme Court seems poised to uphold Mississippi’s abor­tion law. (Adam Lip­tak, New York Times): “The Supreme Court seemed poised on Wednes­day to uphold a Mis­sis­sip­pi law that bans abor­tions after 15 weeks of preg­nan­cy, based on some­times tense and heat­ed ques­tion­ing at a momen­tous argu­ment in the most impor­tant abor­tion case in decades. Such a rul­ing would be flat­ly at odds with what the court has said was the cen­tral hold­ing of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 deci­sion that estab­lished a con­sti­tu­tion­al right to abor­tion and pro­hib­it­ed states from ban­ning the pro­ce­dure before fetal via­bil­i­ty, or around 23 weeks. But the court’s six-mem­ber con­ser­v­a­tive major­i­ty seemed divid­ed about whether to stop at 15 weeks, for now at least, or whether to over­rule Roe entire­ly, allow­ing states to ban abor­tions at any time or entire­ly.”
    • For a free, non­pay­walled analy­sis check out Major­i­ty of court appears poised to roll back abor­tion rights (Amy Howe, SCO­TUS­blog)
    • Why Roe Will Fall And Oberge­fell Won’t (Andrew Sul­li­van, Sub­stack): “In Roe, the Court tried to jump­start a con­sen­sus and failed to secure it, with pub­lic opin­ion very sim­i­lar now to where it was half a cen­tu­ry ago. In Oberge­fell, the Court wait­ed until there was major­i­ty sup­port, which arrived, accord­ing to Gallup, in 2011, and the Court then val­i­dat­ed a still-grow­ing soci­etal con­sen­sus four years lat­er.”
  2. Low­er­ing the Vot­ing Age (J. Budziszews­ki, per­son­al blog): “Peo­ple who dis­cuss low­er­ing the vot­ing age – not only those for it but also those against – assume that it would mean a trans­fer of polit­i­cal influ­ence to the young. That is absurd. It would mean no such thing. Although the very young are often very sure of their opin­ions and con­vinced that they have made up their own minds, they lack the matu­ri­ty to form their minds inde­pen­dent­ly. So to low­er the vot­ing age would not mean increas­ing the polit­i­cal influ­ence of the young. It would only mean increas­ing the polit­i­cal clout of those who have influ­ence through the young.”
    • That’s a real­ly good point I had­n’t con­sid­ered. The author is a pro­fes­sor of phi­los­o­phy and of gov­ern­ment at UT Austin.
  3. Horse Troughs, Hot Tubs and Hash­tags: Bap­tism Is Get­ting Wild (Ruth Gra­ham, New York Times): “Con­tem­po­rary evan­gel­i­cal bap­tisms are often rau­cous affairs. Instead of sub­dued hymns and mur­murs, think roar­ing mod­ern wor­ship music, fist pumps, tears and bois­ter­ous cheer­ing. There are pho­tog­ra­phers, self­ie sta­tions and hash­tags for social media. One church in Texas calls its reg­u­lar mass bap­tism event a ‘plunge par­ty.’ ”
    • This is an inter­est­ing arti­cle most­ly for how inter­est­ing utter­ly nor­mal things can seem to NY Times read­ers.
  4. She set out to save her daugh­ter from fen­tanyl. She had no idea what she would face on the streets of San Fran­cis­co (Heather Knight, San Fran­cis­co Chron­i­cle): “I asked Jes­si­ca if she thought she would ever leave San Fran­cis­co. ‘It’s like a vor­tex,’ she said. ‘I want to get out of here. But why the f— would I leave here if I have every­thing I need giv­en to me? It might be enabling or it might be keep­ing you in a cycle, but at least you can sur­vive,’ she con­tin­ued. ‘That’s bet­ter than a lot of places.’ ”
    • The wages of sin is death. What a gut-punch of a sto­ry.
  5. Race Pan­ic! Stan­ford inves­ti­gates “cords with loops that may rep­re­sent noos­es” (Maxwell Mey­er, Stan­ford Review): “Call­ing out and address­ing racism? No, these Stan­ford admin­is­tra­tors are com­mit­ted to invent­ing racism. Though, I must hand it to them: Dean Hicks and her ‘insti­tu­tion­al equi­ty’ side­kick Mr. Dunk­ley might not real­ize it, but there is a beau­ti­ful, almost poet­ic irony to the tim­ing of their email. They rushed to inform Stan­ford stu­dents of an alleged race inci­dent on the very day that the crim­i­nal tri­al of Jussie Smol­lett, the great­est of all race hoax­ers, began in Chica­go. That lit­tle coin­ci­dence is the cher­ry on top of this giant farce.”
    • Mey­er’s take is, as far as I can tell, entire­ly cor­rect. If those loops looked at all like noos­es we’d have pho­tos.
  6. Team builds first liv­ing robots—that can repro­duce (Joshua Brown, Uni­ver­si­ty of Ver­mont press release): “Some peo­ple may find this exhil­a­rat­ing. Oth­ers may react with con­cern, or even ter­ror, to the notion of a self-repli­cat­ing biotech­nol­o­gy. For the team of sci­en­tists, the goal is deep­er under­stand­ing.”
  7. The Busi­ness of Extract­ing Knowl­edge from Aca­d­e­m­ic Pub­li­ca­tions (Markus Strass­er, per­son­al blog): “I had to wrap my head around the fact that close to noth­ing of what makes sci­ence actu­al­ly work is pub­lished as text on the web. Research ques­tions that can be answered log­i­cal­ly through just read­ing papers and con­nect­ing the dots don’t require a biotech corp to be formed around them. There’s much less log­ic and deduc­tion hap­pen­ing than you’d expect in a sci­en­tif­ic dis­ci­pline.”
    • Long and poor­ly for­mat­ted, but with an inter­est­ing core idea. Empha­sis in orig­i­nal.

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 Elisha and the She‐bears (Peter J Williams, Twit­ter): an insight­ful Twit­ter thread about a dis­turb­ing OT sto­ry. The author is the War­den of Tyn­dale House at Cam­bridge. First shared in vol­ume 179.

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 318

First, a word to new stu­dents: wel­come! This might be your first email from Chi Alpha and if so you might be a lit­tle con­fused.

For the last sev­er­al years, I have been shar­ing articles/resources every Fri­day about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues.

I was inspired by the tribe of Issachar from the time of King David. They 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.

Be sure to see the dis­claimers at the bot­tom. Also, I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

All that hav­ing been said, here is 318th roundup of things I have found inter­est­ing (318, I am told, is the num­ber of unla­beled par­tial­ly ordered sets of 6 ele­ments).

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Amer­i­can Cri­sis of Selec­tive Empa­thy (David French, The Dis­patch): “…Amer­i­ca is expe­ri­enc­ing an empa­thy cri­sis. But it’s not quite the cri­sis you might think. Our empa­thy can over­flow for the peo­ple we love, for the peo­ple with­in our tribe—even when they make grave errors. But what about our empa­thy for ‘them,’ the peo­ple we dis­trust? Then empa­thy is in short sup­ply. Indeed, in some cas­es, the very con­cept of empa­thy is under fire.”
    • Relat­ed: The Lim­its of My Empa­thy for Covid Deniers (Tressie McMil­lan Cot­tom, New York Times): “Because I val­ue being a think­ing per­son, I hon­or emo­tions like empa­thy, fear, joy and trust to guide me around the pit­falls of my ego. Ego makes for real­ly slop­py analy­sis and writ­ing. I am at a point where head­lines about ill and dying Covid deniers do not pull at my empa­thy strings the way I want them to.”
  2. Norm Macdonald’s Spir­i­tu­al Jour­ney (Nic Rowan, First Things): “Mac­don­ald may have only been dab­bling in Chris­tian­i­ty, but his crit­i­cisms of the post-Chris­t­ian world were often inci­sive. He had no tol­er­ance for sci­en­tism and laughed at athe­ists. He fre­quent­ly lam­pooned the likes of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Maher. And he wasn’t afraid to make dark pre­dic­tions about a future dom­i­nat­ed by their suc­ces­sors.”
  3. Fired After Get­ting Vaccinated—And Encour­ag­ing Oth­ers to Do So (Emma Green, The Atlantic): “I was try­ing to use my plat­form to share the truth. You’re right that Chris­tians should be peo­ple of the truth—not just that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, but also the truth about what is real. The ques­tion is: How do you get the truth to peo­ple? We live in a time where infor­ma­tion is com­ing at us from all over. It’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly that peo­ple don’t want to believe the truth.” This is a sol­id inter­view. Dar­ling comes off very well.
  4. Effect size is sig­nif­i­cant­ly more impor­tant than sta­tis­ti­cal sig­nif­i­cance. (Ben Recht, per­son­al blog): “In either case we are talk­ing about a dif­fer­ence of 15 cas­es between the treat­ment and con­trol vil­lages in a pop­u­la­tion of 32,000 indi­vid­u­als.… If the effect size is so small that we need sophis­ti­cat­ed sta­tis­tics, maybe that means the effect isn’t real. Using sophis­ti­cat­ed sta­tis­ti­cal scaf­fold­ing clouds our judge­ment. We end up using sta­tis­ti­cal meth­ods as a crutch, not to dig sig­nals out of noise, but to con­vince our­selves of sig­nals when there are none.” The author is a pro­fes­sor of machine learn­ing and data analy­sis at Berke­ley.
  5. Why Amer­i­ca needs the Black church for its own sur­vival (Char­lie Date, Wash­ing­ton Post): “The dif­fer­ence between the Black church and any oth­er Chris­t­ian insti­tu­tion in Amer­i­ca is that rather than aban­don­ing Scrip­ture as a tool of our oppres­sion, we apply Scrip­ture as God’s rule for our lib­er­ty and liv­ing. The dif­fer­ence is in how our social eth­ic is root­ed in both right­eous­ness and jus­tice, not either right­eous­ness or jus­tice. The dif­fer­ence is that we’ve come to see Jesus and his pow­er to sus­tain and flour­ish us from the mar­gins with­out the ben­e­fit of large donors, polit­i­cal cap­i­tal or own­er­ship of media out­lets.” The author is pas­tor of a promi­nent Black church in Chica­go as well as a sem­i­nary pro­fes­sor.
  6. Roe Will Go (Robert P. George, First Things): “Let me offer a pre­dic­tion, free of any face-sav­ing hedge: Next year, the Supreme Court will hold that there is no con­sti­tu­tion­al right to elec­tive abor­tions. In Dobbs v. Jack­son Women’s Health Orga­ni­za­tion, a case pend­ing before the court, it will return the issue to the states for the first time in forty-nine years. It will do so explic­it­ly, call­ing out by name, and revers­ing in full, the two major cas­es that con­fect­ed and then entrenched a con­sti­tu­tion­al right to elec­tive abor­tion: Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Par­ent­hood v. Casey (1992). And the vote will be six to three.” The author is a law pro­fes­sor at Prince­ton.

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 A One Para­me­ter Equa­tion That Can Exact­ly Fit Any Scat­ter Plot (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “Over­fit­ting is pos­si­ble with just one para­me­ter and so mod­els with few­er para­me­ters are not nec­es­sar­i­ly prefer­able even if they fit the data as well or bet­ter than mod­els with more para­me­ters.” Researchers take note. The under­ly­ing math­e­mat­ics paper is well-written and inter­est­ing: One Para­me­ter Is Always Enough (Steven T. Pianta­dosi) — among oth­er things, it points out that you can smug­gle in arbi­trar­i­ly large amounts of data into an equa­tion through a sin­gle para­me­ter because a num­ber can have infi­nite dig­its. Obvi­ous once stat­ed, but I don’t know that it ever would have occurred to me. First shared in vol­ume 154.

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 270

this one has a lot more domes­tic polit­i­cal con­tent than my typ­i­cal roundup

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.

Things I’m look­ing for good arti­cles about: the Armenian/Aberbaijani con­flict, what is hap­pen­ing in Hong Kong, and Trump’s COVID diagono­sis. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Amer­i­cans Increas­ing­ly Believe Vio­lence is Jus­ti­fied if the Oth­er Side Wins (Lar­ry Dia­mond, Lee Drut­man, Tod Lind­berg, Nathan P. Kalmoe and Lil­liana Mason, Politi­co): “At the pres­i­den­tial debate this week, the Repub­li­can can­di­date voiced his con­cern about polit­i­cal violence—left-wing polit­i­cal vio­lence. And the Demo­c­ra­t­ic can­di­date like­wise voiced con­cern about polit­i­cal violence—right-wing polit­i­cal vio­lence. They were both right.” The authors are all aca­d­e­mics.
    • Relat­ed: The Truth About Today’s Anar­chists (Farah Stock­man, New York Times): “Mr. Quinn dis­cov­ered a thorny truth about the may­hem that unfold­ed in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man in Min­neapo­lis. It wasn’t may­hem at all. While talk­ing heads on tele­vi­sion rou­tine­ly described it as a spon­ta­neous erup­tion of anger at racial injus­tice, it was strate­gi­cal­ly planned, facil­i­tat­ed and adver­tised on social media by anar­chists who believed that their actions advanced the cause of racial jus­tice.” 👀 👀 👀. The author is on the NYT edi­to­r­i­al board, so take these claims seri­ous­ly.
  2. Justin Giboney’s Both/AND Pol­i­tics (Sarah Zyl­stra, The Gospel Coali­tion): “In 2015, Giboney, Bara­ka, and Angel Mal­don­a­do start­ed the AND Cam­paign, which aims to con­nect con­vic­tion and com­pas­sion. The orga­ni­za­tion sets out a plat­form you won’t find at either polit­i­cal convention—anti-abortion, pro-social safe­ty nets, pro-fam­i­ly, pro-crim­i­nal jus­tice reform. The point isn’t to endorse leg­is­la­tion or can­di­dates or judi­cial decisions—AND doesn’t do that—but to ‘bring Chris­tians of both par­ties togeth­er on those issues.’ The AND Cam­paign leans left, but has increas­ing­ly become a space for Chris­tians dis­sat­is­fied with both polit­i­cal par­ties.”
    • I have been fol­low­ing this move­ment with inter­est for some time and this is a good intro­duc­tion.
    • Relat­ed: Evan­gel­i­cal Biden Vot­ers Strad­dle Par­ti­san Divides(Kate Shell­nutt, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “The Pew Research Cen­ter recent­ly found few Amer­i­cans, Repub­li­cans or Democ­rats, have many close friends who sup­port a dif­fer­ent pres­i­den­tial can­di­date in the 2020 race. In reli­gious break­outs pro­vid­ed to Chris­tian­i­ty Today, evan­gel­i­cal Biden sup­port­ers emerged as the excep­tion. Just under half say their close friends dis­agree with them over the upcom­ing elec­tion.”
    • Relat­ed: Evan­gel­i­cal Vote Once Again Split on Eth­nic Lines (Aaron Earls, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Pres­i­dent Trump’s advan­tage among evan­gel­i­cals, how­ev­er, comes pri­mar­i­ly from white evan­gel­i­cals, among whom he leads Biden 73 per­cent to 18 per­cent. African Amer­i­cans with evan­gel­i­cal beliefs over­whelm­ing­ly plan to vote for Biden (69% to 19%). Among Amer­i­can evan­gel­i­cals of oth­er eth­nic­i­ties, how­ev­er, Trump has a 58 per­cent to 32 per­cent lead.”
  3. What is Pen­te­costal­ism? (Doug Clay, Assem­blies of God): “The mod­ern Pen­te­costal move­ment took its name from the moment of the Church’s birth on the Day of Pen­te­cost, as record­ed in Acts 2. Pen­te­costals and charis­mat­ics believe that the gifts of the Spir­it as described in the Bible are active today as the Holy Spir­it empow­ers Christ’s fol­low­ers. Researchers esti­mate this move­ment to now include 669 mil­lion peo­ple — or one in four Chris­tians glob­al­ly — mak­ing it the fastest-grow­ing move­ment in the his­to­ry of Chris­tian­i­ty.”
    • The author is the Gen­er­al Super­in­ten­dent (top leader) in the Amer­i­can branch of the Assem­blies of God, the denom­i­na­tion with which I am ordained. We had lunch once in a cafe­te­ria. Nice guy.
  4. For Con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian Women, Amy Coney Barrett’s Suc­cess Is Per­son­al (Ruth Gra­ham, New York Times): “Judge Bar­rett, for them, is a new kind of icon — one they have not seen before in Amer­i­can cul­tur­al and polit­i­cal life: a woman who is both unabashed­ly ambi­tious and deeply reli­gious, who has excelled at the heights of a demand­ing pro­fes­sion even as she speaks open­ly about pri­or­i­tiz­ing her con­ser­v­a­tive Catholic faith and fam­i­ly. Judge Bar­rett has sev­en chil­dren, includ­ing two chil­dren adopt­ed from Haiti and a young son with Down syn­drome.”
    • Amy Coney Bar­rett: A New Fem­i­nist Icon (Eri­ka Bachiochi, Politi­co): “Bar­rett embod­ies a new kind of fem­i­nism, a fem­i­nism that builds upon the praise­wor­thy antidis­crim­i­na­tion work of Gins­burg but then goes fur­ther. It insists not just on the equal rights of men and women, but also on their com­mon respon­si­bil­i­ties, par­tic­u­lar­ly in the realm of fam­i­ly life. In this new fem­i­nism, sex­u­al equal­i­ty is found not in imi­tat­ing men’s capac­i­ty to walk away from an unex­pect­ed preg­nan­cy through abor­tion, but rather in ask­ing men to meet women at a high stan­dard of mutu­al respon­si­bil­i­ty, reci­procity and care.”
    • Amy Coney Bar­rett Deserves to Be on the Supreme Court (Noah Feld­man, Bloomberg): “I got to know Bar­rett more than 20 years ago when we clerked at the Supreme Court dur­ing the 1998–99 term. Of the thir­ty-some clerks that year, all of whom had grad­u­at­ed at the top of their law school class­es and done pres­ti­gious appel­late clerk­ships before com­ing to work at the court, Bar­rett stood out. Mea­sured sub­jec­tive­ly and unsci­en­tif­i­cal­ly by pure legal acu­men, she was one of the two strongest lawyers. The oth­er was Jen­ny Mar­tinez, now dean of the Stan­ford Law School.” The author is a pro­fes­sor at Har­vard Law.
    • The Peo­ple of Praise, Charis­mat­ic Catholics, and Fringe Reli­gious Groups (Ed Stet­zer, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “For peo­ple on the out­side, the charis­mat­ic and Pen­te­costal move­ments may seem odd. But glob­al­ly, some 600 mil­lion peo­ple are affil­i­at­ed with the charis­mat­ic and Pen­te­costal move­ment world­wide. This is not ‘remark­ably out of the main­stream’ as one com­men­ta­tor indi­cat­ed. There are 80 mil­lion Angli­cans in the world, com­pared to 600 mil­lion Pen­te­costal / charis­mat­ic / third wave Chris­tians (and, yes, that includes many Angli­cans).”
    • Amy Coney Bar­rett and the New Fem­i­nism of Inter­de­pen­dence (Ser­e­na Sig­illi­to, Newsweek): “It’s time for a new kind of fem­i­nism to emerge—and for GOP law­mak­ers to demon­strate that their com­mit­ment to fam­i­ly val­ues is more than just lip ser­vice. That will require two sig­nif­i­cant shifts. The first is a philo­soph­i­cal one, defin­ing a new fem­i­nism of inter­de­pen­dence rather than rad­i­cal auton­o­my. The sec­ond is a polit­i­cal one, pur­su­ing a pro-fam­i­ly eco­nom­ic agen­da.”
  5. New Research Shows Reli­gious Lib­er­ty Dri­ves Human Flour­ish­ing – And Why This Mat­ters Now More Than Ever (Chris­tos Makridis, Real Clear Reli­gion): “…reli­gious lib­er­ty is an inte­gral pre­req­ui­site for demo­c­ra­t­ic gov­er­nance, aid­ing the process for civic engage­ment and women’s empow­er­ment and reduc­ing the poten­tial for pub­lic and polit­i­cal cor­rup­tion.” Chris­tos is an alum­nus of our min­istry. 
  6. The Woke and the Un-Woke (Matthew Schmitz, Tablet Mag­a­zine): “In the 1950s, the soci­ol­o­gist Will Her­berg famous­ly described Amer­i­ca as divid­ed into three reli­gious camps: Protes­tant, Catholic, and Jew. These divi­sions were a mat­ter of belong­ing rather than belief. Even an unbe­liev­er would count as belong­ing to one of the three cat­e­gories on the basis of his back­ground and milieu. If a sim­i­lar study were con­duct­ed today, the pic­ture would be rad­i­cal­ly dif­fer­ent… Woke, Trad, and None.”
    • Is the Cul­ture War Lost? (Sarah Haider, Let­ter): “Near­ly all our edu­ca­tion­al, media, and non-prof­it insti­tu­tions (includ­ing major grant-mak­ing orga­ni­za­tions) are advanc­ing in one direc­tion. Mean­while, the hearts and minds of the glob­al elite are almost uni­form­ly sup­port­ive of this new sec­u­lar faith.” The author
  7. Rod Dreher Is Not Pes­simistic Enough (Per­ry L. Glanz­er, The Gospel Coali­tion): “We will increas­ing­ly be tempt­ed to deny bits of Chris­t­ian the­ol­o­gy and ethics to keep our lev­el of com­fort. God save us and help us stand against that spread­ing evil.”
    • This is a review of Rod Dreher’s book Live Not By Lies (which was, inci­den­tal­ly, the num­ber one sell­er on Ama­zon when it was released). Dreher is one of the colum­nists who is often found in these emails. 

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 If Lib­er­als Won’t Enforce Bor­ders, Fas­cists Will (David Frum, The Atlantic): “Dem­a­gogues don’t rise by talk­ing about irrel­e­vant issues. Dem­a­gogues rise by talk­ing about issues that mat­ter to peo­ple, and that more con­ven­tion­al lead­ers appear unwill­ing or unable to address: unem­ploy­ment in the 1930s, crime in the 1960s, mass immi­gra­tion now. Vot­ers get to decide what the country’s prob­lems are. Polit­i­cal elites have to devise solu­tions to those prob­lems. If dif­fi­cult issues go unad­dressed by respon­si­ble lead­ers, they will be exploit­ed by irre­spon­si­ble ones.” I high­light­ed a piece by Frum with a sim­i­lar theme back in issue 175. This is a very thought­ful arti­cle. First shared in vol­ume 194.

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 269

I share a few per­son­al thoughts about crim­i­nal jus­tice reform in this one. Just a few.

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. Some thoughts fol­low­ing the Bre­on­na Tay­lor ver­dict:
    • Cor­rect­ing the mis­in­for­ma­tion about Bre­on­na Tay­lor (Radley Balko, Wash­ing­ton Post): “We could pre­vent the next Bre­on­na Tay­lor. We could ban forced entry raids to serve drug war­rants. We could hold judges account­able for sign­ing war­rants that don’t pass con­sti­tu­tion­al muster. We could demand that police offi­cers wear body cam­eras dur­ing these raids to hold them account­able, and that they be ade­quate­ly pun­ished when they fail to acti­vate them. We could do a lot to make sure there are no more Bre­on­na Tay­lors. The ques­tion is whether we want to.”
    • From a month ago, but time­ly now: Supreme Court Prece­dent Killed Bre­on­na Tay­lor (David French, The Dis­patch): “Some­thing (or some things) have to give, and those ‘things’ are no-knock raids and qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty. Indi­vid­ual lib­er­ties should not be sac­ri­ficed on the altar of police drug raids, and vic­tims of civ­il rights abus­es should be enti­tled to receive com­pen­sa­tion for their loss­es, includ­ing their injuries and wounds.”
    • My 2 cents: Amer­i­ca’s jus­tice sys­tem would be great­ly improved if no-knock raids and qual­i­fied immu­ni­ty were either elim­i­nat­ed or great­ly con­strained. And if we get rid of civ­il asset for­fei­ture at the same time — wow.
  2. Review: ‘Domin­ion: How the Chris­t­ian Rev­o­lu­tion Remade the World’ by Tom Hol­land (Tim Keller, Gospel Coali­tion): “…the shame-and-hon­or cul­tures of old, pagan Europe—of the Anglo-Sax­ons, the Franks, and the Germans—thought that the Chris­t­ian eth­ic of for­giv­ing one’s ene­mies and of hon­or­ing the poor and weak to be com­plete­ly unwork­able as a basis for soci­ety. These ideas would’ve nev­er occurred to any­one unless they held to a uni­verse with a sin­gle, per­son­al God who cre­at­ed all beings in his image, and with a Sav­ior who came and died in sac­ri­fi­cial love. The ideas only could’ve grown from such a worldview—they don’t make sense in a dif­fer­ent one. If, instead, we believe we’re here by acci­dent through a process of sur­vival of the fittest, then there can be no moral absolutes, and life must be, if any­thing, about pow­er and the mas­tery of oth­ers, not about love. That, declared Niet­zsche, is the only way to live once you are tru­ly will­ing to admit that the Chris­t­ian God does not exist.”
  3. We Are All Algo­rithms Now (Andrew Sul­li­van, Sub­Stack): “In the past, we might have turned to more reli­able media for con­text and per­spec­tive. But the jour­nal­ists and reporters and edi­tors who are sup­posed to per­form this func­tion are human as well. And they are per­haps the ones most trapped in the social media hellscape…. The press could have been the anti­dote to the social media trap. Instead they chose to become the prof­itable push­er of the poi­son.“ This was writ­ten before news of RBG’s death and is even more time­ly now.
  4. Con­cern­ing the Supreme Court:
    • Lead­ing Repub­li­can politi­cians have flip-flopped What Sen­ate Repub­li­cans have said about fill­ing a Supreme Court vacan­cy (one minute video, YouTube)
    • Lead­ing Demo­c­ra­t­ic politi­cians have flip-flopped What lead­ing Democ­rats have said about fill­ing a Supreme Court vacan­cy (two minute video, Twit­ter) 
    • A thought from the left: Down With Judi­cial Suprema­cy! (Jamelle Bouie, New York Times): “The Supreme Court has the pow­er to inter­pret the Con­sti­tu­tion and estab­lish its mean­ing for fed­er­al, state and local gov­ern­ment alike. But this pow­er wasn’t enu­mer­at­ed in the Con­sti­tu­tion and isn’t inher­ent in the court as an insti­tu­tion. Instead, the court’s pow­er to inter­pret and bind oth­ers to that inter­pre­ta­tion was con­struct­ed over time by polit­i­cal and legal actors through­out the sys­tem, from pres­i­dents and law­mak­ers to the judges and jus­tices them­selves.”
    • A thought from the right: How the G.O.P. Might Get to Yes on Replac­ing Ruth Bad­er Gins­burg (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “Since I became opposed to abor­tion, some­time in my lat­er teens, I have nev­er regard­ed the Supreme Court with warmth, admi­ra­tion or patri­ot­ic trust. What my lib­er­al friends felt after Bush v. Gore or after Brett Kavanaugh’s con­fir­ma­tion or in imag­in­ing some future rul­ing by Amy Coney Bar­rett, I have felt for my entire adult life.”
  5. On faith and pol­i­tics:
    • How Faith Shapes My Pol­i­tics (David Brooks, New York Times): “In a soci­ety that is grow­ing rad­i­cal­ly more sec­u­lar every day, I’d say we have more to fear from polit­i­cal dog­ma­tism than reli­gious dog­ma­tism.” 
    • Relat­ed: This just in! Evan­gel­i­cals are actu­al­ly Amer­i­ca’s least politi­cized group of church­es (Richard Ostling, GetRe­li­gion): “…the emerg­ing sce­nario appears to indi­cate a rel­a­tive­ly small and unrep­re­sen­ta­tive band of evan­gel­i­cal par­ti­sans at the nation­al lev­el has — aid­ed by mas­sive amounts of news cov­er­age — dis­tort­ed the pub­lic image of grass-roots white evan­gel­i­cal­ism.”
    • What are your Expec­ta­tions of Jesus’ Local Church? (Adam Sin­nett, church web­site): “Over the last six months the elders of DCC have received numer­ous ques­tions, rec­om­men­da­tions, and crit­i­cisms in rela­tion to what we should be doing as a church in regards to: our pan­dem­ic response, the rela­tion­ship between church and state, tim­ing and con­tent of com­mu­ni­ca­tion, grow­ing unem­ploy­ment, the home­less­ness cri­sis, polit­i­cal par­ti­san­ship, sys­temic injus­tice, police bru­tal­i­ty, social protests, and more.”
    • Fol­low-up: Who Does What in the Life of the Church? (Adam Sin­net, church web­site): “If we think of the church pri­mar­i­ly as ‘the lead­ers’ we’ll place the bur­den of respon­si­bil­i­ty for the life of the church on the pas­tors. If we think of the church pri­mar­i­ly as ‘the peo­ple’, we’ll place the bur­den of respon­si­bil­i­ty on the indi­vid­u­als. If we think of the church pri­mar­i­ly as an ‘insti­tu­tion’, we’ll place the bur­den of respon­si­bil­i­ty on the orga­ni­za­tion, its struc­tures, and process­es. Who then is respon­si­ble for ful­fill­ing God’s pur­pose for his church? Is it the lead­ers, or the peo­ple, or the insti­tu­tion? Put sim­ply, every­one is respon­si­ble, though in dif­fer­ent ways.”
    • Mark Dev­er’s Capi­tol Hill Bap­tist Sues to Not For­sake the Assem­bly (Kate Shell­nut, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “…the DC congregation’s legal fight is unique­ly tied to its the­o­log­i­cal beliefs around how a church should gath­er. Dev­er has long resist­ed mul­ti-site, mul­ti-ser­vice mod­els of church, though they are very pop­u­lar among fel­low South­ern Bap­tists. The DC Bap­tist church does not stream ser­vices online, and hasn’t made an excep­tion to that rule dur­ing the pan­dem­ic.”
    • Capi­tol Hill Bap­tist, a large evan­gel­i­cal church, sues DC May­or Muriel Bows­er over coro­n­avirus restric­tions (Michelle Boorstein, Wash­ing­ton Post): “The vote Sun­day at a mem­bers meet­ing to pur­sue lit­i­ga­tion was 402 in favor, 35 against, mem­bers said, though church lead­ers would not con­firm spe­cif­ic num­bers.”
  6. Two ran­dom arti­cles touch­ing on race:
    • This Is How Biden Should Approach the Lati­no Vote (Ian Haney López and Tory Gav­i­to, New York Times): “Pro­gres­sives com­mon­ly cat­e­go­rize Lati­nos as peo­ple of col­or, no doubt part­ly because pro­gres­sive Lati­nos see the group that way and encour­age oth­ers to do so as well. Cer­tain­ly, we both once took that per­spec­tive for grant­ed. Yet in our sur­vey, only one in four His­pan­ics saw the group as peo­ple of col­or.”
      • I am unin­ter­est­ed in the par­ti­san angle of this op-ed, but the sta­tis­tic I excerpt­ed stood out to me. I won­der what per­cent­age of Stan­ford stu­dents would have pre­dict­ed it? I sus­pect the over­whelm­ing major­i­ty of Stan­ford stu­dents would have bet on the oppo­site.
    • The Pre­tense That Prince­ton Is Racist (Conor Frieder­s­dorf, The Atlantic): “I object to the entire witch hunt of an inves­ti­ga­tion, which Repub­li­cans would rec­og­nize as a fla­grant abuse of fed­er­al pow­er were it aimed at Lib­er­ty Uni­ver­si­ty. No rea­son­able per­son could con­clude that an oner­ous probe of Prince­ton for anti-Black racism is the best use, or even a good use, of scarce resources to safe­guard civ­il rights. The deci­sion to grap­ple with racism should not trig­ger a fed­er­al inves­ti­ga­tion, whether or not that grap­pling is total­ly hon­est.”
  7. Tea Time: The Chris­t­ian Mis­sion to Pre­serve Cul­ture (Lyman Stone, The Plough): “As strange as it may seem for a white Amer­i­can mis­sion­ary to be teach­ing an eight-year-old Chi­nese girl from the tea cap­i­tal of the world how to pour tea, such I under­stood to be my Chris­t­ian duty.”

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 Jesus, Mary, and Joe Jonas (Jonathan Parks-Ramage, Medi­um): “How, in famous­ly lib­er­al Hol­ly­wood and among sta­tis­ti­cal­ly pro­gres­sive mil­len­ni­als, had good old-fashioned evan­ge­lism [sic] gained pop­u­lar­i­ty? In this con­text, a church like Real­i­ty L.A. seemed like some­thing that could nev­er work. But that evening, as I reflect­ed on the trou­bled actress and the psy­chic bru­tal­i­ties inflict­ed by the enter­tain­ment indus­try, it occurred to me that I had under­es­ti­mat­ed Hollywood’s biggest prod­uct: lost souls.” First shared in vol­ume 192

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 160

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. Democ­rats Are Wrong About Repub­li­cans. Repub­li­cans Are Wrong About Democ­rats. (Per­ry Bacon Jr., FiveThir­tyEight): “Blacks made up about a quar­ter of the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty, but Repub­li­cans esti­mat­ed the share at 46 per­cent. Repub­li­cans thought 38 per­cent of Democ­rats were gay, les­bian or bisex­u­al, while the actu­al num­ber was about 6 per­cent. Democ­rats esti­mat­ed that 44 per­cent of Repub­li­cans make more than $250,000 a year. The actu­al share was 2 per­cent. Peo­ple also over­stat­ed the num­bers of these stereo­typ­i­cal groups with­in their own par­ty — Democ­rats thought 29 per­cent of their fel­low Democ­rats were gay, les­bian or bisex­u­al — but they weren’t off by as much as mem­bers of the oth­er par­ty.”
  2. The Social­ist Net­work (Gilad Edel­man, Wash­ing­ton Month­ly): “At the heart of the split between lib­er­als and social­ists, at least in the­o­ry, is the ques­tion of what to do about cap­i­tal­ism. Lib­er­als tend to see it as some­thing that needs to be fixed. Social­ists see it as some­thing to be defeat­ed. They say they do, any­way. As we’ve seen, the Mil­len­ni­al social­ist intel­lec­tu­als aren’t real­ly call­ing for gov­ern­ment takeover of indus­try.”
  3. Affirm­ing Dis­ad­van­tage (John McWhort­er, The Amer­i­can Inter­est): “Do I oppose affir­ma­tive action? Not at all. But I sug­gest that what we now ‘affirm’ is dis­ad­van­tage suf­fered by all kinds of peo­ple.” The author is a lin­guis­tics pro­fes­sor at Colum­bia. He earned his Ph.D. at Stan­ford, btw.
  4. Cul­ture War As Class War: How Gay Rights Rein­force Elite Pow­er (Darel E. Paul, First Things): “Priv­i­leg­ing the nor­mal­iza­tion of homo­sex­u­al­i­ty rather than, say, racial inte­gra­tion allows elites to have their diver­si­ty cake and eat it, too.” The author is a pro­fes­sor of polit­i­cal sci­ence at Williams Col­lege.
  5. If You Care About NATO You Should Care About Ger­man Mil­i­tary Readi­ness (David French, Nation­al Review): “…Germany’s mil­i­tary made head­lines when it used broom­sticks instead of machine guns dur­ing a NATO exer­cise because of a short­age of equip­ment. The lack of real weapons in the Euro­pean Union’s most pop­u­lous nation was seen as symp­to­matic of how under­fund­ed its mil­i­tary has long been.” This is scary.
  6. Learn­ing From ‘The Final Pagan Gen­er­a­tion’ (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): this is a long and illu­mi­nat­ing post. “Under­stand that we, like the final pagan gen­er­a­tion [in ancient Rome], might think we are fight­ing for tol­er­ance, but our oppo­nents are fight­ing for vic­to­ry. We have to change our tac­tics.” (empha­sis removed)
  7. Pres­i­dent Trump has nom­i­nat­ed Brett Kavanaugh to be a Supreme Court Jus­tice. I’ve got a lot of links here — just pick one or two.
    • It Took a Vil­lage to Raise Kavanaugh (David Brooks, New York Times): “Kavanaugh is the prod­uct of a com­mu­ni­ty. He is the prod­uct of a con­ser­v­a­tive legal infra­struc­ture that devel­ops ideas, recruits tal­ent, links ris­ing stars, nur­tures genius, molds and launch­es judi­cial nom­i­nees…. If you empha­size pro­fes­sion­al excel­lence first, if you gain a foothold in society’s main­stream insti­tu­tions, if you build a cohe­sive band of broth­ers and sis­ters, you can trans­form the land­scape of your field.”
    • As Trump picks Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, evan­gel­i­cals rejoice: ‘I will vote for him again’ (Julie Zauzmer, Wash­ing­ton Post): “Many evan­gel­i­cal pas­tors and activists said they would have been pleased with any of the names report­ed to be on Trump’s short­list for the nom­i­na­tion. After all, that was the gam­bit that won Trump so many evan­gel­i­cal votes in 2016: He made the unusu­al move of releas­ing, before he was even pres­i­dent, a list of judges he would con­sid­er for the Supreme Court if elect­ed. And evan­gel­i­cals liked what they saw.”
    • Brett Kavanaugh, Don­ald Trump’s Supreme Court pick, explained (Dylan Matthews, Vox): “Kavanaugh con­tin­ued to com­pile a legal record that would lead to Durbin’s descrip­tion of him as ‘the Zelig or For­rest Gump of Repub­li­can pol­i­tics. You show up at every scene of the crime … whether it is Elián González or the Starr Report, you are there.’”
    • Will Brett Kavanaugh Pass the Reli­gious Right’s New Lit­mus Test? (Sarah Pos­ner, The Nation): “Even with­out the Trump-appoint­ed Kennedy suc­ces­sor, the Court had already expand­ed ‘reli­gious free­dom’ to include pre­vi­ous­ly unimag­ined reli­gious rights.” This is an extreme­ly mis­lead­ing arti­cle, but inter­est­ing in the mis­un­der­stand­ings it reveals.
    • You’ll Hate This Post On Brett Kavanaugh And Free Speech (Ken White, Pope­hat): “Kavanaugh has been an appel­late judge for 12 years and has writ­ten many opin­ions on free speech issues. They trend very pro­tec­tive of free speech, both in sub­stance and in rhetoric.”
    • Judge Kavanaugh and the Sec­ond Amend­ment (David Kopel, Volokh Con­spir­a­cy): “Judge Kavanaugh­’s text, his­to­ry, and tra­di­tion method­ol­o­gy for Sec­ond Amend­ment cas­es will not please peo­ple who believe that all gun con­trol is imper­mis­si­ble, nor will it please advo­cates who want to make the Sec­ond Amend­ment a sec­ond-class right.”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

I thought the Baby­lon Bee was excep­tion­al­ly fun­ny this week. Maybe I was just feel­ing gig­gly.

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

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

Why Do You Send This Email?

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

Disclaimer

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

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

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 130

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. There is a small but vocal group of skep­tics who claim that Jesus nev­er exist­ed. Lar­ry Hur­ta­do, a pro­fes­sor of ear­ly Chris­tian­i­ty, takes them down in a series of blog posts.
    • Why The Myth­i­cal Jesus Claim Has No Trac­tion With Schol­ars (Lar­ry Hur­ta­do, per­son­al blog): “The attempts to deny Jesus’ his­tor­i­cal exis­tence are, for any­one acquaint­ed with the rel­e­vant evi­dence, bla­tant­ly sil­ly.”
    • Focus, Focus, Focus! (Lar­ry Hur­ta­do, per­son­al blog): “Anoth­er read­er seems great­ly exer­cised over how much of the Jesus-tra­di­tion Paul recounts in his let­ters, and how much Paul may have known…. Paul ascribes to Jesus a human birth, a min­istry among fel­low Jews, an exe­cu­tion specif­i­cal­ly by Roman cru­ci­fix­ion, named/known sib­lings, and oth­er named indi­vid­u­als who were Jesus’ orig­i­nal com­pan­ions (e.g., Kephas/Peter, John Zebedee).  Indeed, in Paul’s view, it was essen­tial that Jesus is a real human, for the res­ur­rect­ed Jesus is Paul’s mod­el and pro­to-type of the final redemp­tion that Paul believes God will bestow on all who align them­selves with Jesus.”
    • Gee, Dr. Car­ri­er, You’re Real­ly Upset! (Lar­ry Hur­ta­do, per­son­al blog): “This exam­ple will ade­quate­ly serve to illus­trate why Carrier’s work hasn’t had any impact in schol­ar­ly cir­cles.  He gets him­self into a mud­dle.”
  2. Four Ques­tions About Amer­i­can Great­ness (Bret Stephens, New York Times): Dif­fi­cult to excerpt but good. Stephens says Amer­i­ca is great and that to retain our great­ness we must have a prop­er atti­tude toward immi­grants, inde­pen­dent think­ing, fail­ure, and glob­al lead­er­ship. Rec­om­mend­ed by a friend — thank you!
  3. A Police Killing With­out a Hint of Racism (Conor Frieder­s­dorf, The Atlantic): “No unjust killing of a black per­son should go uncov­ered. But I sus­pect it would be in everyone’s inter­est if jour­nal­ists and activists paid more atten­tion to egre­gious police killings of white peo­ple. If you’re hor­ri­fied by Daniel Shaver’s untime­ly death, yet against Black Lives Mat­ter, con­sid­er that Shaver might well be alive if only the Mesa police depart­ment had long ago adopt­ed reforms of the sort that Black Lives Mat­ter sug­gests.” There is a fol­low-up arti­cle — Footage Of A Police Shoot­ing Jurors Chose Not To Pun­ish.
  4. The world is rely­ing on a flawed psy­cho­log­i­cal test to fight racism (Olivia Gold­hill, Quartz): “meta-analy­ses showed that the [Implic­it Asso­ci­a­tion Test] is no bet­ter at pre­dict­ing dis­crim­i­na­to­ry behav­ior (includ­ing microag­gres­sions) than explic­it mea­sures of explic­it bias, such as the Mod­ern Racism Scale, which eval­u­ates racism sim­ply by ask­ing par­tic­i­pants to state their lev­el of agree­ment with [racist state­ments].”
  5. Sur­vey: Evan­gel­i­cal Label, Beliefs Often At Odds (Bob Smi­etana, Bap­tist Press): “Few­er than half of those who iden­ti­fy as evan­gel­i­cals (45 per­cent) strong­ly agree with core evan­gel­i­cal beliefs…. Only two-thirds (69 per­cent) of evan­gel­i­cals by belief self-iden­ti­fy as evan­gel­i­cals.” This is impor­tant to remem­ber both when read­ing the news and when talk­ing with oth­ers — the label evan­gel­i­cal does­n’t mean what it should. Use­ful­ly illus­trat­ed in visu­al form on Twit­ter.
  6. The Ori­gin of Sil­i­con Valley’s Dys­func­tion­al Atti­tude Toward Hate Speech (Noam Cohen, The New York­er): “Cen­sor­ing a news­group, he explained to those who might not be famil­iar with Usenet, was like pulling a book from cir­cu­la­tion. Since ‘Mein Kampf’ was still on the library shelves, it was hard to imag­ine how any­thing else mer­it­ed removal.” The arti­cle is about Stan­ford, and it led me to entire­ly dif­fer­ent con­clu­sions than the author intend­ed.
  7. The Church’s Fate Is Not Elec­toral: Our Roy Moore Moment (Greg Forster, Gospel Coali­tion): ”There are no Flight 93 moments for the church; there nev­er have been and nev­er will be. Cer­tain­ly God’s peo­ple will con­tin­ue to face per­se­cu­tion from world­ly pow­ers, as we always have. But the idea that we have to com­pro­mise moral stan­dards in order to pre­vent the destruc­tion of the church reflects an appalling fail­ure to grasp where the church’s fate real­ly lies. The church’s fate is not elec­toral; it’s escha­to­log­i­cal. The church’s tri­umph over its ene­mies comes with the King’s return.”
  8. The Supreme Court heard argu­ments on Tues­day about the Col­orado bak­er who refus­es to bake cakes for events he find objec­tion­able — includ­ing gay wed­dings.
    • Argu­ment analy­sis: Con­ser­v­a­tive major­i­ty lean­ing toward rul­ing for Col­orado bak­er (Amy Howe, SCO­TUS­blog): “Although mak­ing pre­dic­tions based on oral argu­ment is always dan­ger­ous, it seemed very pos­si­ble that there are five votes for Phillips among the court’s more con­ser­v­a­tive jus­tices, even if it is less clear how broad­ly they will rule.”
    • A Baker’s First Amend­ment Rights (Robert P. George and Sherif Gir­gis, New York Times): “You need the First Amend­ment pre­cise­ly when your ideas offend oth­ers or flout the majority’s ortho­dox­ies. And then it pro­tects more than your free­dom to speak your mind; it guards your free­dom not to speak the mind of anoth­er.”
    • We’re lawyers who sup­port same-sex mar­riage. We also sup­port the Mas­ter­piece Cakeshop bak­er. (Dou­glas Lay­cock & Thomas Berg, Vox): “The case tests the nation’s com­mit­ment to lib­er­ty and jus­tice for all. And we aren’t doing well on the part about ‘for all.’ Too many Amer­i­cans, left and right, reli­gious and sec­u­lar, want lib­er­ty for their own side in the cul­ture wars, but not for the oth­er side.” The authors are not just lawyers — they are pro­fes­sors of con­sti­tu­tion­al law.
    • How Not To Advance Gay Mar­riage (David Brooks, New York Times): “If you want to know why we have such a polar­ized, angry and bit­ter soci­ety, one rea­son is we take every dis­agree­ment that could be addressed in con­ver­sa­tion and com­mu­ni­ty and we turn it into a law­suit. We take every moral­ly sup­ple sit­u­a­tion and we hand it over to the legal priest­hood, which by neces­si­ty is a sys­tem of tech­no­crat­ic ratio­nal­ism, strained slip­pery-slope analo­gies and implied coer­cion.”

Things Glen Found Amusing

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

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

Why Do You Send This Email?

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

Disclaimer

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

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

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

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 55

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues, with a pref­er­ence for con­tent from aca­d­e­mics and influ­en­tial voic­es. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom.

Articles I Found Interesting

  1. Britain vot­ed to leave the Euro­pean Union.
  2. Relat­ed To Orlan­do:
    • Omar Mateen’s Mul­ti­ple Motives (Kirsten Pow­ers, USA Today): “Almost as quick­ly as the mas­sacre of inno­cents in Orlan­do unfold­ed, Amer­i­cans retreat­ed to their ide­o­log­i­cal cor­ners to inter­pret the moti­va­tions of the mass mur­der­er, Omar Mateen.”
    • FBI Inves­ti­ga­tors say they have found no evi­dence that Orlan­do shoot­er had gay lovers (Mol­ly Hen­nessy-Fiske, LA Times): huh. This is still a devel­op­ing sto­ry, do not assume this is the final word.
    • The Gun Con­trol We Deserve (Patrick Blanch­field, n+1): “As many crit­ics have observed, we would be naïve to think that heavy-hand­ed gun con­trol mea­sures would not involve the same dis­pro­por­tion­ate racial tar­get­ing and police vio­lence we right­ly con­demn in the War on Drugs and in every­day encoun­ters in places from Bal­ti­more to Fer­gu­son to Cleve­land to Oak­land.” A very thought­ful piece.
  3. Elon Musk Is Wrong. We Aren’t Liv­ing In A Sim­u­la­tion (Ric­car­do Man­zot­ti and Andrew Smart, Vice): “The world we live in is made of real stuff. Sim­u­la­tions are things made of the same stuff. Musk’s argu­ment does not show that we are get­ting any clos­er to pro­duc­ing an alter­na­tive real­i­ty. Rather it shows that we are get­ting bet­ter and bet­ter at shap­ing the phys­i­cal world.” The authors take unwar­rant­ed pot shots at dual­ism, but make very good points over­all. Relat­ed: SMBC “Heap Prob­lem.”
  4. The Sotomay­or and Kagan Dis­sents in Utah vs Stri­eff (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “If out­stand­ing war­rants were few and far between and dis­trib­uted more or less ran­dom­ly the case would have been wrong­ly decid­ed but of lit­tle prac­ti­cal impor­tance. Out­stand­ing war­rants, how­ev­er, are com­mon and much more com­mon in some com­mu­ni­ties than oth­ers. As I wrote in 2014, in Fer­gu­son, MO a major­i­ty of the pop­u­la­tion had out­stand­ing war­rants and not because of high crime:”
  5. Ban the Box or Require the Box? (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “Sad­ly, a pol­i­cy that was intend­ed to raise the employ­ment prospects of black men ends up hav­ing the biggest pos­i­tive effect on white men with a crim­i­nal record…. Poli­cies like ban the box try to get peo­ple to do the ‘right thing’ by blind­ing peo­ple to cer­tain types of infor­ma­tion. But blind­ed peo­ple tend to use oth­er cues to achieve their inter­ests and when those oth­er cues are less infor­ma­tive that often makes things worse.”
  6. I’m A Sin­gle-Issue Vot­er On Mul­ti­ple Issues And So Are You (Den­ny Burk, per­son­al blog): “Sin­gle-issue vot­ing is not the idea that being right on any sin­gle issue qual­i­fies a can­di­date for office. Sin­gle-issue vot­ing is the idea that being wrong on a sin­gle issue may dis­qual­i­fy a can­di­date from office.”
  7. My Holy Land Vaca­tion (Tom Bis­sell, Harpers): “I excuse myself and stroll out­side. I notice that some­one else has also walked out ear­ly: Pas­tor Mar­ty. He tells me that he was trou­bled by the vio­lence of the Israeli Redneck’s speech. I tell Pas­tor Mar­ty that I don’t fault a man who’s fought in four wars for sound­ing like a lunatic. What both­ers me is the way peo­ple were applaud­ing him.” High­ly rec­om­mend­ed.

A Quote To Ponder

“Stan­ford stu­dents are good at being good at things. Your Chris­tian­i­ty can’t just be one more thing you’re good at. To be good miss­es the point. The point is not what you do but what Jesus has done.” Seth Vil­le­gas

Something Amusing To End On

Why Do You Send This Email?

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

Disclaimer

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

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

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 6

In the time of King David, the Bible says that 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.

To that end, I share articles/resources I have found help­ful recent­ly in think­ing about broad­er cul­tur­al and soci­etal issues (be sure to see the dis­claimer at the bot­tom). May these give you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

  1. From the sex­u­al­i­ty depart­ment: in light of the Supreme Court’s deci­sion to rede­fine mar­riage to include same-sex cou­ples I’ve got some sug­gest­ed read­ings.
  2. From the some­thing-com­plete­ly-dif­fer­ent depart­ment: On Obsti­na­cy In Belief (C.S. Lewis, The Sewa­nee Review): I was not aware of this C.S. Lewis essay before this week. It was reward­ing.
  3. From the if-it-is-not-news-can-it-be-dis­ap­point­ing-news depart­ment: How Aca­d­e­mics View Con­ser­v­a­tive Protes­tants (Yancey, Reimer, and O’Connell, Soci­ol­o­gy of Reli­gion): The lead author, a soci­ol­o­gist, blogs at Black, White and Gray and I fre­quent­ly ben­e­fit from what he shares there.

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.