Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 216

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. No, real­ly. I mean them and they mat­ter. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions, so if you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Cops Who Abused Pho­to­shop (Conor Frieder­s­dorf, The Atlantic): this is out­ra­geous. Dif­fi­cult to excerpt, but well worth read­ing. Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
  2. How Pornog­ra­phy Makes Us Less Human and Less Humane (Matthew Lee Ander­son, The Gospel Coali­tion): “Beneath pornog­ra­phy is the sup­po­si­tion that the mere fact of our desire for a woman makes us wor­thy of her. And so, not being bound by any kind of norm, desire must pro­ceed end­less­ly. It is no sur­prise that the indus­tri­al­ized, cheap-and-easy sex of pornog­ra­phy has answered and evoked an almost unre­strained sex­u­al greed, which allows us to be gods and god­dess­es with­in the safe­ty of our own fan­tasies. It is for deep and impor­tant rea­sons that the Ten Com­mand­ments use the eco­nom­ic lan­guage of ‘cov­et­ing’ to describe the bad­ness of errant sex­u­al desires.” Many insights in this essay.
    1. Relat­ed: In the Face of Sex­u­al Temp­ta­tion, Repres­sion Is a Sure-Fire Fail­ure (Rachel Gilson, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Repression and avoid­ance are ulti­mate­ly human-cen­tered respons­es. They stuff desire, suf­fo­cate it, ban­ish it, and yet rarely suc­ceed at engen­der­ing true puri­ty. By con­trast, Chris­t­ian asceti­cism reminds us that we are not stronger than desire and then invites us to cast our gaze toward the One who is. It asks the Chris­t­ian to fol­low the sight line of desire—like look­ing down the bar­rel of a gun—and train it on what all desire is ulti­mate­ly sat­is­fied by: the glo­ry of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:6).”
    2. Relat­ed What Genet­ics Is Teach­ing Us About Sex­u­al­i­ty (Steven M. Phelps and Robbee Wedow, New York Times): “…genetic dif­fer­ences account for rough­ly one-third of the vari­a­tion in same-sex behavior.” The authors are pro­fes­sors (one of biol­o­gy at UT Austin and the oth­er of soci­ol­o­gy at Har­vard). They are also both gay men. They are reflect­ing on research pub­lished in the jour­nal Sci­ence: Large-scale GWAS reveals insights into the genet­ic archi­tec­ture of same-sex sex­u­al behav­ior (which Wedow coau­thored).
  3. What Major­i­ty-World Mis­sions Real­ly Looks Like (Dor­cas Cheng-Tozun, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “In 2015, 9 of the top 20 send­ing countries—including Brazil, the Philip­pines, Chi­na, India, Nige­ria, and South Africa—were in the major­i­ty world (also referred to as the devel­op­ing world), with a total of 101,000 inter­na­tion­al missionaries.” For con­text, the com­bined total is close to the num­ber sent from the USA.
  4. Why do Chi­nese peo­ple like their gov­ern­ment? (Kaiser Kuo, SupChi­na): “It’s the rare per­son who can tru­ly sep­a­rate, at both an intel­lec­tu­al and an emo­tion­al lev­el, crit­i­cism of his or her coun­try from crit­i­cism of his or her country’s gov­ern­ment — espe­cial­ly if that gov­ern­ment is not, at present, ter­ri­bly embat­tled and is deliv­er­ing basic pub­lic goods in a rea­son­ably com­pe­tent manner.”
    1. Relat­ed: 9 ques­tions about the Hong Kong protests you were too embar­rassed to ask (Jen Kir­by, Vox): “”What began as a tar­get­ed protest against a con­tro­ver­sial extra­di­tion bill in June has trans­formed into what feels like a bat­tle for the future of Hong Kong. Pro­test­ers are not just fight­ing their local gov­ern­ment. They’re chal­leng­ing one of the most pow­er­ful coun­tries on earth: Chi­na.
    2. Relat­ed: Hong Kong Democ­ra­cy Activists Arrest­ed Ahead Of Planned March (Emi­ly Feng & Scott Neu­man, NPR): “Joshua Wong, Hong Kong’s most famous pro-democ­ra­cy leader, was arrest­ed on Fri­day along with fel­low activists and politi­cians in what appeared to be a coor­di­nat­ed sweep by the city’s police ahead of a mass anti-gov­ern­ment march that had been planned for the weekend.”
    3. Relat­ed: The One Unit­ed Strug­gle For Free­dom (David Brooks, New York Times): “Many sus­pect Amer­i­ca will nev­er step in to help. The Amer­i­can right no longer believes in spread­ing democ­ra­cy to for­eign­ers. The Amer­i­can left embraces a nation­al nar­ra­tive that empha­sizes slav­ery and oppres­sion, not that Amer­i­ca is a bea­con or an exam­ple. Nei­ther par­ty any longer sees Amer­i­ca as a van­guard nation whose very mis­sion is to advance uni­ver­sal democ­ra­cy and human dignity.”
    4. Relat­ed: China’s Spies Are On The Offen­sive (Mike Giglio, The Atlantic): “Espionage and coun­teres­pi­onage have been essen­tial tools of state­craft for cen­turies, of course, and U.S. and Chi­nese intel­li­gence agen­cies have been bat­tling one anoth­er for decades. But what these recent cas­es sug­gest is that the intel­li­gence war is escalating—that Chi­na has increased both the scope and the sophis­ti­ca­tion of its efforts to steal secrets from the U.S.” Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.
  5. Why Every­thing They Say About The Ama­zon, Includ­ing That It’s The ‘Lungs Of The World,’ Is Wrong (Michael Shel­len­berg­er, Forbes): “‘What is hap­pen­ing in the Ama­zon is not exceptional,’ said Coutin­ho. ‘Take a look at Google web search­es search for ‘Amazon’ and ‘Amazon Forest’ over time. Glob­al pub­lic opin­ion was not as inter­est­ed in the ‘Amazon tragedy’ when the sit­u­a­tion was unde­ni­ably worse. The present moment does not jus­ti­fy glob­al hysteria.’ And while fires in Brazil have increased, there is no evi­dence that Ama­zon for­est fires have.” I found this arti­cle quite infor­ma­tive.
  6. The Trump Admin­is­tra­tion Sides With Nurs­es Who Object to Abor­tion (Emma Green, The Atlantic): “Beyond its out­come, this case is a sig­nal of the Trump administration’s pri­or­i­ties: It sees reli­gious free­dom and con­science pro­tec­tions as cen­tral parts of Amer­i­can civ­il rights, and offi­cials plan to enforce those laws.”
    1. Relat­ed: By their tweets you will know them: The Democ­rat­s’ con­tin­u­ing God gap (Ryan Burge, Reli­gion News Ser­vice): “While the Nones have grown dra­mat­i­cal­ly over the last 20 years, it’s still impor­tant to real­ize that more than six in ten Amer­i­cans iden­ti­fy as a Chris­t­ian, accord­ing to the 2018 Coop­er­a­tive Con­gres­sion­al Elec­tion Study. If Democ­rats want to win back the White House, it would behoove them to reach out to those Chris­t­ian vot­ers. How­ev­er, at least on social media, Demo­c­ra­t­ic can­di­dates fail to do so.”
    2. Relat­ed: Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty embraces non­re­li­gious vot­ers, crit­i­cizes ‘reli­gious lib­er­ty’ in new res­o­lu­tion (Caleb Parke, Fox News): “The Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Com­mit­tee (DNC) passed a res­o­lu­tion Sat­ur­day prais­ing the val­ues of ‘religiously unaf­fil­i­at­ed’ Amer­i­cans as the ‘largest reli­gious group with­in the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Party.’ The res­o­lu­tion, which was unan­i­mous­ly passed at the DNC’s sum­mer meet­ing on Aug. 24 in San Fran­cis­co, Calif., was cham­pi­oned by the Sec­u­lar Coali­tion of Amer­i­ca, an orga­ni­za­tion that lob­bies on behalf of athe­ists, agnos­tics, and human­ists on pub­lic policy.”
    3. Relat­ed: Michael Wear’s com­men­tary on Twit­ter: “I just want to be clear. This is both polit­i­cal­ly stu­pid, but also, just stu­pid on a fun­da­men­tal lev­el that tran­scends elec­toral pol­i­tics.” (Wear was an Oba­ma staffer)
  7. Let’s have open bor­ders for peo­ple and closed bor­ders for cap­i­tal (Jeff Spross, The Week): “…human beings aren’t the only things that cross bor­ders: goods, ser­vices, and finan­cial cap­i­tal do it all the time as well. A bet­ter response to Trump might not be to debate whether bor­ders should be enforced, but rather enforced against what? Specif­i­cal­ly, the left-pro­gres­sive posi­tion on bor­ders should be some­thing like: max­i­mum enforce­ment against the move­ment of finan­cial cap­i­tal, mod­er­ate enforce­ment against goods and ser­vices, and min­i­mal enforce­ment against people.”
    1. Relat­ed: Chris­tian­i­ty and Cap­i­tal­ism Recon­sid­ered (Alan Jacobs, per­son­al blog): “[the claim] that cap­i­tal­ism makes us wealth­i­er, lets us live longer, and improves our ethics — could be right and even so Chris­tian­i­ty and cap­i­tal­ism might not be com­pat­i­ble. Maybe God doesn’t want us to be rich­er and longer-lived, and maybe there are cer­tain mat­ters of faith­ful­ness that tran­scend what most peo­ple call ‘ethics.’”

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 Eat, Pray, Code: Rule of St. Bene­dict Becomes Tech Developer’s Com­mu­ni­ty Guide­lines (Kate Shell­nutt, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “SQLite—a data­base man­age­ment engine used in most major browsers, smart phones, Adobe prod­ucts, and Skype—adopted a code of ethics pulled direct­ly from the bib­li­cal pre­cepts set by the ven­er­at­ed sixth‐century monk.” This arti­cle blew my mind. First shared in vol­ume 175.

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.

Celebration of Discipline: Worship

book cover - Celebration Of Discipline

Blog read­ers: Chi Alpha @ Stan­ford is engag­ing in our annu­al sum­mer read­ing project. As we read through an anno­tat­ed trans­la­tion of Pascal’s Pensees called Chris­tian­i­ty For Mod­ern Pagans, I’ll post the thoughts I’m email­ing the stu­dents here (which will large­ly con­sist of excerpts I found insight­ful). They are all tagged sum­mer-read­ing-project-2020. The read­ing sched­ule is online.

This week we come to one of the most vis­i­ble cor­po­rate dis­ci­plines in the Chris­t­ian life: wor­ship.

If I had to iden­ti­fy one chal­leng­ing aspect of wor­ship for Stan­ford stu­dents it would be this: wor­ship feels like a waste of time. Time spent in wor­ship is time not spent doing home­work. More altru­is­ti­cal­ly, time spent in wor­ship is time not spent wit­ness­ing to some­one. Fos­ter nails this men­tal­i­ty on page 161:

“The divine pri­or­i­ty is wor­ship first, ser­vice sec­ond…. The pri­ma­ry func­tion of the Levit­i­cal priests was to ‘come near to me to min­is­ter to me’ (Ezek. 44:15). For the Old Tes­ta­ment priest­hood, min­istry to God was to pre­cede all oth­er work. And that is no less true of the uni­ver­sal priest­hood of the New Tes­ta­ment. One grave temp­ta­tion we all face is to run around answer­ing calls to ser­vice with­out min­is­ter­ing to the Lord him­self.”

Richard Fos­ter, Cel­e­bra­tion of Dis­ci­pline, page 161

In Mark 3:14 we see Jesus select­ing the dis­ci­ples. What does it say? “He appoint­ed twelve that they might be with him and that he might send them out to preach.” They are first to be with him, then they are to serve him. God did not hire us, God adopt­ed us. Wor­ship must come first. In Deut 6:4 we are called to love Him with all our heart before we are called to love Him with all our strength.

While it is true that wor­ship means far more than music, it is also true that the largest book in the Bible is a book of songs. Singing praise to God is an impor­tant part of our spir­i­tu­al health, and often actions accom­pa­ny the singing. If I had to pick a sec­ond chal­leng­ing aspect of wor­ship for Stan­ford stu­dents it would be this: such wor­ship often feels undig­ni­fied.

Through­out Scrip­ture we find a vari­ety of phys­i­cal pos­tures in con­nec­tion with wor­ship: lying pros­trate, stand­ing, kneel­ing, lift­ing the hands, clap­ping the hands, lift­ing the head, bow­ing the head, danc­ing, and wear­ing sack­cloth and ash­es. The point is that we are to offer God our bod­ies as well as all the rest of our being. Wor­ship is appro­pri­ate­ly phys­i­cal. We are to present our bod­ies to God in a pos­ture con­sis­tent with the inner spir­it in wor­ship. Stand­ing, clap­ping, danc­ing, lift­ing the hands, lift­ing the head are pos­tures con­sis­tent with the spir­it of praise. To sit still look­ing dour is sim­ply not appro­pri­ate for praise. Kneel­ing, bow­ing the head, lying pros­trate are pos­tures con­sis­tent with the spir­it of ado­ra­tion and humil­i­ty. We are quick to object to this line of teach­ing. ‘Peo­ple have dif­fer­ent tem­pera­ments,’ we argue. ‘That may appeal to emo­tion­al types, but I’m nat­u­ral­ly qui­et and reserved. It isn’t the kind of wor­ship that will meet my need.’ What we must see is that the real ques­tion in wor­ship is not, ‘What will meet my need?’ The real ques­tion is, ‘What kind of wor­ship does God call for?’ It is clear that God calls for whole­heart­ed wor­ship…. Often our ‘reserved tem­pera­ment’ is lit­tle more than fear of what oth­ers will think of us, or per­haps unwill­ing­ness to hum­ble our­selves before God and oth­ers. Of course peo­ple have dif­fer­ent tem­pera­ments, but that must nev­er keep us from wor­ship­ing with our whole being.

Richard Fos­ter, Cel­e­bra­tion of Dis­ci­pline, pages 169–70.

Fos­ter says it well, but King David says it even bet­ter. In 2 Samuel 6:22, the Psalmist tells a crit­ic of his extrav­a­gant wor­ship, “I will become even more undig­ni­fied than this, and I will be humil­i­at­ed in my own eyes.”

Here are some of the ways we see wor­ship expressed in Scrip­ture. If you strug­gle with expres­sive­ness or self-con­scious­ness in wor­ship, med­i­tate on this list. Many more vers­es could be added along with much com­men­tary — this is far from a com­pre­hen­sive study. It is mere­ly meant to open your eyes to the var­i­ous expres­sions of wor­ship we find in the Bible. Some are com­mand­ed while oth­ers are mod­eled, all of these expres­sions are appro­pri­ate at dif­fer­ent times.

  • WE SING because in the Bible we read: “Let the mes­sage of Christ dwell among you rich­ly as you teach and admon­ish one anoth­er with all wis­dom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spir­it, singing to God with grat­i­tude in your hearts.” (Colos­sians 3:16)
  • WE PLAY INSTRUMENTS because in the Bible we read: “Praise him with the sound­ing of the trum­pet, praise him with the harp and lyre, praise him with tim­brel and danc­ing, praise him with the strings and pipe, praise him with the clash of cym­bals, praise him with resound­ing cym­bals.” (Psalm 150:3–5)
  • WE RAISE OUR HANDS because in the Bible we read: “I will praise you as long as I live, and in your name I will lift up my hands.” (Psalm 63:4)
  • WE CLAP because in the Bible we read: “Clap your hands, all you nations; shout to God with cries of joy.” (Psalm 47:1)
  • WE TESTIFY PUBLICLY because in the Bible we read: “I will give thanks to you, LORD, with all my heart; I will tell of all your won­der­ful deeds.” (Psalm 9:1)
  • WE LAUGH AND REJOICE because in the Bible we read: “Our mouths were filled with laugh­ter, our tongues with songs of joy. Then it was said among the nations, ‘The LORD has done great things for them.‘” (Psalm 126:2)
  • WE SHOUT because in the Bible we read: “Shout for joy to the LORD, all the earth, burst into jubi­lant song with music; make music to the LORD with the harp, with the harp and the sound of singing, with trum­pets and the blast of the ram’s horn— shout for joy before the LORD, the King.” (Psalm 98:4–6)
  • WE LAPSE INTO REVERENT SILENCE because in the Bible we read: “The LORD is in his holy tem­ple; let all the earth be silent before him.” (Habakkuk 2:20)
  • WE STAND because in the Bible we read: “They [the Levites] were also to stand every morn­ing to thank and praise the LORD. They were to do the same in the evening….” (1 Chron­i­cles 23:30)
  • WE BOW AND KNEEL because in the Bible we read: “Come, let us bow down in wor­ship, let us kneel before the LORD our Mak­er.” (Psalm 95:6)
  • WE LIE PROSTRATE because in the Bible we read: “Ezra praised the LORD, the great God; and all the peo­ple lift­ed their hands and respond­ed, ‘Amen! Amen!’ Then they bowed down and wor­shiped the LORD with their faces to the ground.” (Nehemi­ah 8:6)
  • WE LEAP because in the Bible we read: “Rejoice in that day and leap for joy, because great is your reward in heav­en.” (Luke 6:23a)
  • WE DANCE because in the Bible we read: “Let them praise his name with danc­ing and make music to him with tim­brel and harp.” (Psalm 149:3)
  • WE SPEAK IN TONGUES AND PROPHESY because in the Bible we read: “What then shall we say, broth­ers and sis­ters? When you come togeth­er, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruc­tion, a rev­e­la­tion, a tongue or an inter­pre­ta­tion. Every­thing must be done so that the church may be built up.” (1 Corinthi­ans 14:26)
  • WE CREATE ART because in the Bible we read: “Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘See, I have cho­sen Beza­lel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spir­it of God, with wis­dom, with under­stand­ing, with knowl­edge and with all kinds of skills— to make artis­tic designs for work in gold, sil­ver and bronze, to cut and set stones, to work in wood, and to engage in all kinds of crafts.… to make every­thing I have com­mand­ed you: the tent of meet­ing, the ark of the covenant law with the atone­ment cov­er on it, and all the oth­er fur­nish­ings of the tent— the table and its arti­cles, the pure gold lamp­stand and all its acces­sories, the altar of incense, the altar of burnt offer­ing and all its uten­sils, the basin with its stand— and also the woven gar­ments, both the sacred gar­ments for Aaron the priest and the gar­ments for his sons when they serve as priests, and the anoint­ing oil and fra­grant incense for the Holy Place.’ ” (Exo­dus 31:1–11)
  • WE PRAY SIMULTANEOUSLY because in the Bible we read: “When they heard this, they raised their voic­es togeth­er in prayer to God.” (Acts 4:24a)
  • WE LISTEN TO A SERMON because in the Bible we read: “…devote your­self to the pub­lic read­ing of Scrip­ture, to preach­ing and to teach­ing.” (1 Tim 4:13)

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 215

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

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The 1619 Project (many authors, New York Times Mag­a­zine): “…[many believe] that 1776 is the year of our nation’s birth. What if, how­ev­er, we were to tell you that this fact, which is taught in our schools and unan­i­mous­ly cel­e­brat­ed every Fourth of July, is wrong, and that the country’s true birth date, the moment that its defin­ing con­tra­dic­tions first came into the world, was in late August of 1619? Though the exact date has been lost to his­to­ry (it has come to be observed on Aug. 20), that was when a ship arrived at Point Com­fort in the British colony of Vir­ginia, bear­ing a car­go of 20 to 30 enslaved Africans. Their arrival inau­gu­rat­ed a bar­bar­ic sys­tem of chat­tel slav­ery that would last for the next 250 years. This is some­times referred to as the country’s orig­i­nal sin, but it is more than that: It is the country’s very ori­gin.” The link is to a PDF of the entire issue.
    • A pos­i­tive lib­er­al reac­tion: A Brief His­to­ry of the His­to­ry Wars (Rebec­ca Onion, Slate): “For the sake of our col­lec­tive car­dio­vas­cu­lar health, we would do bet­ter to rec­og­nize these skir­mish­es over Amer­i­can history—in which con­ser­v­a­tives demand that a pos­i­tive vision of our nation’s past, stud­ded with suc­cess­es, inven­tions, and ‘great men,’ take pride of place in our pub­lic culture—as recur­rent episodes in a par­tic­u­lar decades-old front of the cul­ture wars. That way, we could stop wast­ing our good faith on old, dead-end con­ver­sa­tions.”
    • A neg­a­tive lib­er­al reac­tion: The New York Times sur­ren­ders to the left on race (Damon Link­er, The Week): “Through­out the issue of the NYTM, head­lines make, with just slight vari­a­tions, the same rhetor­i­cal move over and over again: ‘Here is some­thing unpleas­ant, unjust, or even down­right evil about life in the present-day Unit­ed States. Bet you did­n’t real­ize that slav­ery is ulti­mate­ly to blame.’ Lack of uni­ver­sal access to health care? High rates of sug­ar con­sump­tion? Cal­lous treat­ment of incar­cer­at­ed pris­on­ers? White record­ing artists ‘steal­ing’ black music? Harsh labor prac­tices? That’s right — all of it, and far more, fol­lows from slav­ery.”
    • A com­pli­cat­ed con­ser­v­a­tive reac­tion: How slav­ery doomed lim­it­ed gov­ern­ment in Amer­i­ca (Philip Klein, Wash­ing­ton Exam­in­er): “A num­ber of con­ser­v­a­tives react­ed to the project by brand­ing it as anti-Amer­i­can. But I don’t think that’s fair, at least based on the lead essay I read from Nikole Han­nah-Jones. In fact, her piece is quite the oppo­site. Sure, it chron­i­cles the bru­tal­i­ty of the insti­tu­tion of slav­ery and the cen­tu­ry of oppres­sion, insti­tu­tion­al­ized dis­crim­i­na­tion, and racist ter­ror­ism that fol­lowed. Yet the piece is ulti­mate­ly about how she rec­on­ciles that his­to­ry with her patri­o­tism and comes to under­stand her own father’s love of a coun­try that treat­ed him so poor­ly.”
    • A neg­a­tive con­ser­v­a­tive reac­tion: How To Dele­git­imize A Nation (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “But who we imag­ine our­selves to be today shapes who we will become tomor­row. If The 1619 Project were mere­ly about expand­ing our com­mon under­stand­ing of the Amer­i­can ori­gins, who could object? It arrives, though, in the midst of an epic cul­ture war over who we are, and who we are going to be.”
    • Relat­ed: Black Amer­i­can His­to­ry Should Give Evan­gel­i­cals a Sense of Per­spec­tive — and Hope (David French, Nation­al Review): “If men and women have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to speak and pos­sess the courage to tell the truth, they have hope that they can trans­form a nation. What was true for black Amer­i­cans (includ­ing the black Amer­i­can church) in the most dire of cir­cum­stances is still true for con­tem­po­rary Chris­tians in far less try­ing times”
    • In response: In Defense Of Evan­gel­i­cal Cul­tur­al Pes­simism (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “This, I think, is a dis­tinc­tion that makes a big dif­fer­ence re: French’s argu­ment. You can’t cease to be black; you can cease to be Chris­t­ian, or at least mean­ing­ful­ly Chris­t­ian.” This piece is way too long but makes some good points.
  2. Don’t Use These Free-Speech Argu­ments Ever Again (Ken White, The Atlantic): “If you’ve read op-eds about free speech in Amer­i­ca, or lis­tened to talk­ing heads on the news, you’ve almost cer­tain­ly encoun­tered emp­ty, mis­lead­ing, or sim­ply false tropes about the First Amend­ment. Those tired tropes are bar­ri­ers to seri­ous dis­cus­sions about free speech. Any use­ful dis­cus­sion of what the law should be must be informed by an accu­rate view of what the law is.” White is best known under his inter­net alias Pope­hat. Rec­om­mend­ed to me by a stu­dent.
  3. The Real Prob­lem at Yale Is Not Free Speech (Natalia Dashan, Pal­la­di­um): “The cam­pus ‘free speech’ debate is just a side-effect. So are debates about ‘diver­si­ty’ and ‘inclu­sion.’ The real prob­lems run much deep­er. The real prob­lems start with Mar­cus and me, and the masks we wear for each oth­er…. In a world of masks and façades, it is hard to con­vey the truth. And this is how I end­ed up offer­ing a sand­wich to a man with hun­dreds of mil­lions in a for­eign bank account.” I liked this one a lot.
    • Relat­ed: ‘Lux­u­ry beliefs’ are the lat­est sta­tus sym­bol for rich Amer­i­cans (Rob Hen­der­son, New York Post): “…as trendy clothes and oth­er prod­ucts become more acces­si­ble and afford­able, there is increas­ing­ly less sta­tus attached to lux­u­ry goods. The upper class­es have found a clever solu­tion to this prob­lem: lux­u­ry beliefs. These are ideas and opin­ions that con­fer sta­tus on the rich at very lit­tle cost, while tak­ing a toll on the low­er class.”
  4. How Life Became an End­less, Ter­ri­ble Com­pe­ti­tion (Daniel Markovits, The Atlantic): “Escap­ing the mer­i­toc­ra­cy trap will not be easy. Elites nat­u­ral­ly resist poli­cies that threat­en to under­mine their advan­tages. But it is sim­ply not pos­si­ble to get rich off your own human cap­i­tal with­out exploit­ing your­self and impov­er­ish­ing your inner life, and mer­i­to­crats who hope to have their cake and eat it too deceive them­selves.” The author is a Yale law pro­fes­sor. I found his diag­no­sis more per­sua­sive than his prog­no­sis.
  5. The Com­ing Migra­tion out of Sub-Saha­ran Africa (Christo­pher Cald­well, Nation­al Review): “The pop­u­la­tion pres­sures ema­nat­ing from the Mid­dle East in recent decades, already suf­fi­cient to dri­ve the Euro­pean polit­i­cal sys­tem into con­vul­sions, are going to pale beside those from sub-Saha­ran Africa in decades to come.” Fas­ci­nat­ing.
  6. Why Nice­ness Weak­ens Our Wit­ness (Sharon Hodde Miller, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “We exist in a world that swings between sweet­ness and out­rage, two behav­iors that seem to be at odds with one anoth­er. In real­i­ty, they are two sides of the same coin: a lack of spir­i­tu­al for­ma­tion. When our civil­i­ty isn’t root­ed in some­thing stur­dy and deep, when our good behav­ior isn’t spring­ing from the core of who we are but is instead mere­ly a mask we put on, it is only a mat­ter of time before the façade crum­bles away and our true state is revealed: an entire gen­er­a­tion of peo­ple who are real­ly good at look­ing good.” I agree with the sub­stance of this arti­cle, but the title both­ers me. 
  7. Fact-Check­ing Satire — Is Snopes Seri­ous? (Bill Zeis­er, Real­Clear­Pol­i­tics): “the Bee’s founder and minor­i­ty own­er, Adam Ford, took par­tic­u­lar excep­tion to the tone of the Snopes assess­ment. In a lengthy Twit­ter thread, he called Snopes’ han­dling of the piece on Thomas ‘par­tic­u­lar­ly egre­gious’ and ‘dis­turb­ing.’ He point­ed to a sub­ti­tle that cas­ti­gat­ed the Bee for ‘fan­ning the flames of con­tro­ver­sy’ and ‘mud­dy­ing the details of a news sto­ry’ to the point that it was unclear if the piece qual­i­fied as satire. Ford com­plained that through­out the Snopes sto­ry, sup­pos­ed­ly an ‘objec­tive fact check,’ the assess­ment ‘veered towards pro­nounc­ing a moral judg­ment,’ seem­ing­ly accus­ing the satir­i­cal site of will­ful decep­tion. It is cer­tain­ly under­stand­able how Ford could feel this way: Snopes referred to the Bee’s ‘ruse’ and offered that ‘the Baby­lon Bee has man­aged to fool read­ers with its brand of satire in the past.’”

Less Serious Things Which Also Interested/Amused Glen

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have How the State Serves Both Sal­va­tion and Reli­gious Free­dom (Jonathan Lee­man, 9 Marks): “Two basic kinds of gov­ern­ments, then, show up in the Bible: those that shel­ter God’s peo­ple, and those that destroy them. Abim­elech shel­tered; Pharoah destroyed. The Assyr­i­ans destroyed; the Baby­lo­ni­ans and Per­sians, ulti­mate­ly, shel­tered. Pilate destroyed; Fes­tus shel­tered. And depend­ing on how you read Rev­e­la­tion, the his­to­ry of gov­ern­ment will cul­mi­nate in a beast­ly slaugh­ter of saint­ly blood. Romans 13 calls gov­ern­ments ser­vants; Psalm 2 calls them imposters. Most gov­ern­ments con­tain both. But some are bet­ter than others.” First shared in vol­ume 165. 

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.

Celebration of Discipline: Confession

book cover - Celebration Of Discipline

Blog read­ers: Chi Alpha @ Stan­ford is engag­ing in our annu­al sum­mer read­ing project. As we read through an anno­tat­ed trans­la­tion of Pascal’s Pensees called Chris­tian­i­ty For Mod­ern Pagans, I’ll post the thoughts I’m email­ing the stu­dents here (which will large­ly con­sist of excerpts I found insight­ful). They are all tagged sum­mer-read­ing-project-2020. The read­ing sched­ule is online.

This week we’re talk­ing about con­fess­ing our sins to oth­er peo­ple. Bib­li­cal­ly, we always con­fess our sins to the Lord in prayer and then we usu­al­ly also con­fess direct­ly to those we have wronged. Some­times in addi­tion we con­fess our sins to oth­er believ­ers for the sake of their or our spir­i­tu­al health. As an exam­ple of con­fess­ing for the sake of some­one else’s spir­i­tu­al health, I might con­fess a sin while preach­ing about how growth comes in a cer­tain area. As an exam­ple of con­fess­ing for my own spir­i­tu­al health, I might con­fess a sin to a friend while request­ing their coun­sel.

“Confession is a dif­fi­cult Dis­ci­pline for us because we all too often view the believ­ing com­mu­ni­ty as a fel­low­ship of saints before we see it as a fel­low­ship of sin­ners. We feel that every­one else has advanced so far into holi­ness that we are iso­lat­ed and alone in our sin. We can­not bear to reveal our fail­ures and short­com­ings to oth­ers. We imag­ine that we are the only ones who have not stepped onto the high road to heav­en. There­fore, we hide our­selves from one anoth­er in live in veiled lies and hypocrisy.”

Richard Fos­ter, Cel­e­bra­tion of Dis­ci­pline, p 145 9

A few thoughts about con­fes­sion:

  • Fos­ter’s advice is spot-on when he says, “…we must be pre­pared to deal with def­i­nite sins. A gen­er­al­ized con­fes­sion may save us from humil­i­a­tion and shame, but it will not ignite inner heal­ing” (page 151). This relat­ed quote has often run through my mind, “We con­fess our lit­tle faults to per­suade peo­ple that we have no large ones” (Rochefou­cauld). If we con­fess in a way that makes us look good, there’s some­thing amiss. When you con­fess, don’t mere­ly con­fess that you are not per­fect. Draw atten­tion to one or more of your par­tic­u­lar imper­fec­tions. Not sim­ply “I can be greedy some­times”; rather, “I have been so con­sumed with desir­ing that new iPhone that I almost stole mon­ey from my mom’s purse. I was shocked at my lev­el of greed.”
  • I said we usu­al­ly con­fess to the per­son we have wronged. That is not always the case, how­ev­er. For exam­ple, if you’ve been star­ing lust­ful­ly at some­one, it’s gen­er­al­ly unwise to tell that to the per­son you’ve been lust­ing after. You are reliev­ing your emo­tions by bur­den­ing theirs. It’s self­ish.
  • To whom do you con­fess when you are not con­fess­ing direct­ly to some­one you have wronged? Fos­ter’s coun­sel is wise: “The key qual­i­fi­ca­tions are spir­i­tu­al matu­ri­ty, wis­dom, com­pas­sion, good com­mon sense, the abil­i­ty to keep a con­fi­dence, and a whole­some sense of humor” (page 153).
  • In uni­ver­si­ty min­istry I some­times observe two extremes: a com­mu­ni­ty where no one con­fess­es any­thing to any­one else (usu­al­ly because of fear) or a com­mu­ni­ty whose wor­ship ser­vices some­times become pub­lic con­fes­sion cer­e­monies. I have thoughts about both:
    • A com­mu­ni­ty where no one con­fess­es any­thing to any­one else is held in bondage to sin. Peo­ple con­vince them­selves they strug­gle alone, and as result half of Satan’s work is done for him. He desires to iso­late Chris­tians as a pre­lude to destroy­ing us, and yet we fool­ish­ly iso­late our­selves.
    • A com­mu­ni­ty where peo­ple reg­u­lar­ly con­fess their sins in a pub­lic forum runs the risk of indi­rect­ly ele­vat­ing sin. If you’ve nev­er seen this done it is hard to describe, but I have seen it sev­er­al times. Some­one heads to the micro­phone and asks if they can share some­thing that they feel like they have to get off their chest. And then they con­fess a sin. And then some­one else wrestling with that same sin or a relat­ed sin makes a bee­line for the micro­phone after this. And then the dam breaks and it takes over the entire ser­vice. This is some­times a gen­uine response to the guid­ing of the Holy Spir­it (we see an exam­ple of this in Acts 19:18–19), but some­times it is an indi­ca­tor that healthy inter­per­son­al con­fes­sion is not hap­pen­ing and so this sub­sti­tute is emerg­ing as a replace­ment. The dan­gers are (a) it can make sin seem more per­va­sive than it is (5% of the peo­ple spend­ing 95% of the time talk­ing about their biggest mis­takes cre­ates a dis­tort­ed impres­sion of the com­mu­ni­ty), and (b) with­out wise pas­toral lead­er­ship the nor­mal emo­tions that accom­pa­ny pub­lic con­fes­sion can be mis­tak­en for the work­ing of the Holy Spir­it.
    • That’s in a wor­ship ser­vice. It’s usu­al­ly a healthy thing when this hap­pens in a small group (although here, too, it can some­times nor­mal­ize sin and min­i­mize the trans­form­ing pow­er of grace).

Here is my sug­ges­tion to you: today or tomor­row exam­ine your con­science and iden­ti­fy a spe­cif­ic sin to con­fess. Med­i­tate upon the sin until you clear­ly see its wrong­ness. Then this week find a fel­low believ­er (per­haps in Chi Alpha, per­haps in your church) and con­fess the sin to them. Then ask them to pray for you that God will lib­er­ate you from the pow­er of that sin. See what hap­pens and iter­ate mov­ing for­ward.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 214

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

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Revolt of the Fem­i­nist Law Profs (Wes­ley Yang, Chron­i­cle of High­er Edu­ca­tion): “The sex bureau­cra­cy, in oth­er words, piv­ot­ed from pun­ish­ing sex­u­al vio­lence to impos­ing a nor­ma­tive vision of ide­al sex, to which stu­dents are held admin­is­tra­tive­ly account­able.” This is a very good piece.
  2. Skillet’s John Coop­er on Apos­ta­sy Among Young Chris­t­ian Lead­ers (George Brahm, Cogent Chris­tian­i­ty: “I’ve been say­ing for 20 years (and seemed prob­a­bly quite judg­men­tal to some of my peers) that we are in a dan­ger­ous place when the church is look­ing to 20 year old wor­ship singers as our source of truth. We now have a church cul­ture that learns who God is from singing mod­ern praise songs rather than from the teach­ings of the Word.”
  3. Jef­frey Epstein and When to Take Con­spir­a­cies Seri­ous­ly (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “Most con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries are false. But often some of the things they’re try­ing to explain are real.” Refresh­ing san­i­ty.
  4. Depor­ta­tion of a Chaldean Chris­t­ian to Iraq, and where he died, gets some decent cov­er­age (Julia Duin, GetRe­li­gion): “The more you look into this sto­ry, the more dis­turb­ing it gets. Mindy Belz, report­ing for World, wrote that a third coun­try had offered to take Aldaoud but that U.S. immi­gra­tion author­i­ties refused. Putting him on a plane to Najaf was an inten­tion­al twist of cru­el­ty. Appar­ent­ly, it was not an acci­dent that he was sent there instead of Baghdad.”
  5. The Last Days of John Allen Chau (Alex Per­ry, Out­side Mag­a­zine): “.…to those who know the tribes best, John’s mis­sion did not spell the end of the Sen­tine­lese. To them, he rep­re­sent­ed a pos­si­ble means of survival.“ Chi Alpha makes an appear­ance in this arti­cle. Relat­ed links back in vol­umes 179 and 180.
  6. Jeff Bezos is qui­et­ly let­ting his char­i­ties do some­thing rad­i­cal — what­ev­er they want (Theodore Schleifer, Vox Recode): “Giving $100 mil­lion to non­prof­its based on lit­tle pro­vid­ed infor­ma­tion and then let­ting them run with it sounds, on its face, like a recipe for dis­as­ter. It con­jures the image of fat-and-hap­py char­i­ty lead­ers milk­ing extrav­a­gant salaries from oth­er­s’ gen­eros­i­ty, or prof­li­gate spend­ing on extra­ne­ous over­head — or even out­right fraud…. Well, here’s the sur­prise: Mul­ti­ple experts told Recode this strat­e­gy actu­al­ly makes a lot of sense. They think phil­an­thropies should give non­prof­its sub­stan­tial­ly more leeway.”
    1. Related(ish): Mis­sion­al Mis­con­cep­tion #1 (Sup­port Fig­ures) (Seth Calla­han, per­son­al blog): “If the [Post Office] were a non-prof­it, faith-based orga­ni­za­tion, with all of their employ­ees being respon­si­ble to cov­er their own oper­at­ing costs… then each employ­ee would need to have a month­ly sup­port lev­el of $11,837.69. That fig­ure does not rep­re­sent what your mail­man gets PAID, mind you. It is how much it COSTS for your mail­man to per­form the ser­vices that are required of him: trans­porta­tion and stor­age of goods, pack­ing sup­plies, vehi­cle main­te­nance, health­care, retire­ment, social security…etc. His take-home pay (what he lives off of) is a small per­cent­age of those oper­at­ing costs.”
  7. The Reli­gious Hunger of the Rad­i­cal Right (Tara Isabel­la Bur­ton, New York Times): “Unlike Islamist jihadists, the online com­mu­ni­ties of incels, white suprema­cists and anti-Semit­ic con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists make no meta­phys­i­cal truth claims, do not focus on God and offer no promise of an after­life or reward. But they ful­fill the func­tions that soci­ol­o­gists gen­er­al­ly attribute to a reli­gion: They give their mem­bers a mean­ing­ful account of why the world is the way it 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 Plan­et of Cops (Fred­die de Boer, per­son­al blog): “The woke world is a world of snitch­es, infor­mants, rats. Go to any space con­cerned with social jus­tice and what will you find? End­less sur­veil­lance. Every­body is to be judged. Every­one is under sus­pi­cion. Every­thing you say is to be scoured, picked over, ana­lyzed for any pos­si­ble offense. Everyone’s a detec­tive in the Divi­sion of Prob­lem­at­ics, and they walk the beat 24/7…. I don’t know how peo­ple can simul­ta­ne­ous­ly talk about prison abo­li­tion and restor­ing the idea of for­give­ness to lit­er­al crim­i­nal jus­tice and at the same time turn the entire social world into a kan­ga­roo court system.” First shared in vol­ume 161.

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.

Celebration of Discipline: Service

book cover - Celebration Of Discipline

Blog read­ers: Chi Alpha @ Stan­ford is engag­ing in our annu­al sum­mer read­ing project. As we read through Cel­e­bra­tion of Dis­ci­pline by Richard Fos­ter, I’ll post my thoughts here (which will large­ly con­sist of excerpts I found insight­ful). They are all tagged summer‐reading‐project‐2019. The sched­ule is online.

This week we come to the dis­ci­pline of ser­vice — the habit of “qui­et­ly and unpre­ten­tious­ly… car­ing for the needs of oth­ers.” (page 130).

This is a sol­id chap­ter and full of insights.

“Of all the clas­si­cal Spir­i­tu­al Dis­ci­plines, ser­vice is the most con­ducive to the growth of humil­i­ty. When we set out on a con­scious­ly cho­sen course of action that accents the good of oth­ers and is, for the most part, a hid­den work, a deep change occurs in our spir­its.”

Richard Fos­ter, Cel­e­bra­tion of Dis­ci­pline, page 130

As I some­times remark, “God’s plan A for your life is humil­i­ty. Plan B is humil­i­a­tion. Choose wise­ly.” Pur­su­ing humil­i­ty through ser­vice is coun­ter­cul­tur­al at an ambi­tious place like Stan­ford, and so we need to con­stant­ly remind our­selves of the mod­el of our Lord. Jesus showed us that lead­ers are exam­ples and not excep­tions. A posi­tion of lead­er­ship does not exempt us from ser­vice — it gives us an oppor­tu­ni­ty to serve more peo­ple.

How can we tell if we are using a posi­tion as a plat­form for ser­vice? Robert Green­leaf, who was an exec­u­tive at AT&T, wrote

“The best test [of your ser­vant lead­er­ship], and dif­fi­cult to admin­is­ter, is: Do those served grow as per­sons? Do they, while being served, become health­i­er, wis­er, freer, more autonomous, more like­ly them­selves to become ser­vants? And, what is the effect on the least priv­i­leged in soci­ety? Will they ben­e­fit or at least not be fur­ther deprived?”

Robert Green­leaf, The Ser­vant as Leader

The pas­sage I found most help­ful, though, is Fos­ter’s insight on the dif­fer­ence between serv­ing and being a ser­vant:

“When we choose to serve, we are still in charge. We decide whom we will serve and when we will serve. And if we are in charge, we will wor­ry a great deal about any­one step­ping on us, that is, tak­ing charge over us. But when we choose to be a ser­vant, we give up the right to be in charge. There is great free­dom in this. If we vol­un­tar­i­ly choose to be tak­en advan­tage of, then we can­not be manip­u­lat­ed. When we choose to be a ser­vant, we sur­ren­der the right to decide who and when we will serve. We become avail­able and vul­ner­a­ble.”

Richard Fos­ter, Cel­e­bra­tion of Dis­ci­pline, page 132

Years ago some­one told me that one of the truest tests of your ser­vant­hood is how you react when you are treat­ed like a ser­vant. It stuck with me, prob­a­bly because I had recent­ly felt the sting of being tak­en for grant­ed. I had been treat­ed like a ser­vant and it both­ered me, which meant that I did not yet see myself as a ser­vant. In Philip­pi­ans 2:7 we are taught that Jesus took “the very nature of a ser­vant” (NIV). I came to see that if my goal was to have the very nature of a ser­vant, then being treat­ed like a ser­vant was actu­al­ly a mark­er of suc­cess.

What pre­vents this from becom­ing destruc­tive is rec­og­niz­ing that although we are ser­vants we are not serv­ing the whims of peo­ple. Colos­sians 3:23–24 says, “What­ev­er you do, work at it with all your heart, as work­ing for the Lord, not for human mas­ters, since you know that you will receive an inher­i­tance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serv­ing.” He gets at the same idea in 2 Corinthi­ans 4:5, “For what we preach is not our­selves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and our­selves as your ser­vants for Jesus’ sake. ”

In oth­er words, our ulti­mate ser­vice is to the Lord. This lim­its the way we serve any spe­cif­ic per­son. I must not serve oth­ers in a way that under­mines my abil­i­ty to ful­fill God’s pur­pos­es in my life.

  • I will help you move but not on my son’s birth­day. I owe ser­vice to you but I also owe ser­vice to my son, and I owe him greater pri­or­i­ty in ser­vice than I do to you. God has made me my son’s father and so my oblig­a­tions in that regard will some­times trump my oblig­a­tions to serve you.
  • You don’t need to give your friend a ride to the air­port when you are sup­posed to be tak­ing an exam. Christ brought you to Stan­ford and you need to hon­or that part of His call upon your life.
  • And see­ing your­self as ser­vant does­n’t imply that you should only apply for min­i­mum wage ser­vice jobs. If God is call­ing you to become a pro­fes­sor or an entre­pre­neur or a doc­tor or what­ev­er, pur­sue that whole­heart­ed­ly and do what you need to do to pre­pare for that — and serve peo­ple at every step along the way.

Apply­ing this prin­ci­ple requires wis­dom, because if you are suf­fi­cient­ly clever you can jus­ti­fy for­go­ing almost any act of ser­vice or expres­sion of humil­i­ty. That’s real­ly the clue, though. If you’re con­stant­ly seek­ing a way to avoid serv­ing then you don’t have the heart of a ser­vant, so stop ratio­nal­iz­ing and start serv­ing. If your heart, how­ev­er, does not first say “must I?” but “can I?” when you see an oppor­tu­ni­ty to serve, then you are in lit­tle dan­ger of using this prin­ci­ple to indulge your self­ish­ness.

Next week we come to the cor­po­rate dis­ci­plines — the way that we live life togeth­er in the King­dom.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 213

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. Sev­er­al arti­cles relat­ed to the mass shoot­ings:
  2. Con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians have a porn prob­lem, stud­ies show, but not the one you think (Jana Riess, Reli­gion News Ser­vice): “Drawing on numer­ous stud­ies, Per­ry finds that, despite the sta­tis­ti­cal find­ing that con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians are less like­ly to use porn, the per­cep­tion with­in evan­gel­i­cal church­es is that this has become an enor­mous prob­lem for the faithful.”
  3. What Ails the Right Isn’t (Just) Racism (Conor Frieder­s­dorf, The Atlantic): “Put anoth­er way, the right is cor­rect that cry­ing wolf mat­ters. And the left is cor­rect that The Boy Who Cried Wolf ends with a wolf feast­ing on folks who con­clud­ed that they shouldn’t wor­ry about wolves because one kid fibbed.” I found this far more inter­est­ing than the title led me to antic­i­pate.
  4. Against Against Bil­lion­aire Phil­an­thropy (Scott Alexan­der, Slate Star Codex): “I wor­ry the move­ment against bil­lion­aire char­i­ty is on track to dam­age char­i­ty a whole lot more than it dam­ages billionaires.” This is a very inter­est­ing essay, and he has a fol­low-up, High­lights From The Com­ments on Bil­lion­aire Phil­an­thropy, which thought­ful­ly responds to crit­i­cisms. High­ly rec­om­mend­ed.
  5. How (and Why) to KISSASS (Kevin Mims, Quil­lette): “…if you’re not a mem­ber of the pro­fes­sion­al class, the key to get­ting your per­son­al essays pub­lished in promi­nent pub­li­ca­tions is KISSASS—Keep It Short, Sad, And Sim­ple, Stupid.” This is a fol­low-up to an arti­cle I shared pre­vi­ous­ly and I found it fas­ci­nat­ing.
  6. Car­ol Swain Worked to Hold Politi­cians Account­able. Then She Felt God Call Her to Run. (David Roach, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “For Swain, change has been a recur­ring theme in her life. She went from low-income sin­gle moth­er to Ivy League aca­d­e­m­ic, from Demo­c­rat to Repub­li­can media com­men­ta­tor, and from Jehovah’s Wit­ness turned non-church­go­er to com­mit­ted fol­low­er of Christ.” What a fas­ci­nat­ing lady.
  7. Why I’m Not A Lib­er­al (Michael Bren­dan Dougher­ty, Nation­al Review): “Because lib­er­al­ism is based on indi­vid­ual rights, it nat­u­ral­ly favors the indi­vid­ual assert­ing his rights against tra­di­tion­al social sub­jects, whether they be the com­mu­ni­ty, the fam­i­ly, or even his own mar­riage. If a clas­si­cal­ly lib­er­al sys­tem has no effect on the val­ues of soci­ety, it is an aston­ish­ing coin­ci­dence that wher­ev­er lib­er­al polit­i­cal arrange­ments emerge, a new lib­er­al under­stand­ing of mar­riage even­tu­al­ly replaces the pre­vi­ous Chris­t­ian under­stand­ings as the legal and social reality.” This essay cov­ers a lot of ground.

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 Dis­solv­ing the Fer­mi Para­dox (Scott Alexan­der, Slate Star Codex): “Imagine we knew God flipped a coin. If it came up heads, He made 10 bil­lion alien civ­i­liza­tion. If it came up tails, He made none besides Earth. Using our one para­me­ter Drake Equa­tion, we deter­mine that on aver­age there should be 5 bil­lion alien civ­i­liza­tions. Since we see zero, that’s quite the para­dox, isn’t it? No. In this case the mean is mean­ing­less. It’s not at all sur­pris­ing that we see zero alien civ­i­liza­tions, it just means the coin must have land­ed tails. SDO say that rely­ing on the Drake Equa­tion is the same kind of error.”  First shared in vol­ume 159.

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.

Celebration of Discipline: Submission

book cover - Celebration Of Discipline

Blog read­ers: Chi Alpha @ Stan­ford is engag­ing in our annu­al sum­mer read­ing project. As we read through Cel­e­bra­tion of Dis­ci­pline by Richard Fos­ter, I’ll post my thoughts here (which will large­ly con­sist of excerpts I found insight­ful). They are all tagged summer‐reading‐project‐2019. The sched­ule is online.

I’m dou­bling up this week because I missed last week’s sum­ma­ry due to my trav­els. With this update we should be back on track.

This week, we exam­ine the dis­ci­pline of sub­mis­sion, which entails the rejec­tion of the lust for pow­er and even the pre­sump­tion of auton­o­my.

“Sub­mis­sion is an eth­i­cal theme that runs the gamut of the New Tes­ta­ment. It is a pos­ture oblig­a­tory upon all Chris­tians: men as well as women, fathers as well as chil­dren, mas­ters as well as slaves. We are com­mand­ed to live a life of sub­mis­sion because Jesus lived a life of sub­mis­sion, not because we are in a par­tic­u­lar place or sta­tion in life. Self-denial is a pos­ture fit­ting for all those who fol­low the cru­ci­fied Lord…. the one and only com­pelling rea­son for sub­mis­sion is the exam­ple of Jesus.”

Richard Fos­ter, Cel­e­bra­tion of Dis­ci­pline page 117

Our cul­ture cel­e­brates the autonomous indi­vid­ual, and con­cepts such as “self-actu­al­iza­tion” and “self-ful­fill­ment” are per­va­sive. Our soci­ety’s main atti­tude toward the self is to indulge it, but Scrip­ture’s main atti­tude toward the self is to deny it. The habit of sub­mis­sion denies self in a pow­er­ful way, and so two of the main oppor­tu­ni­ties we have to deny self are to sub­mit to God and to sub­mit to legit­i­mate human author­i­ties.

Sub­mit­ting our­selves to God means obey­ing His Word, espe­cial­ly when we are puz­zled by His com­mands. There is a very real sense in which we are not sub­mit­ting until we dis­agree (or at least don’t under­stand). When we do what God says because it makes sense to us, it is not God we are obey­ing but our­selves. Med­i­tat­ing on Romans 12 might prove help­ful as you think about this.

Sub­mit­ting our­selves to legit­i­mate human author­i­ties means that we hon­or gov­ern­men­tal lead­ers even when we dis­agree with them. Dis­agree­ing with our polit­i­cal lead­ers is not uncom­mon; in fact, I can­not imag­ine a Cal­i­for­nia vot­er who is simul­ta­ne­ous­ly thrilled with both gov­er­nor Gavin New­some and pres­i­dent Don­ald Trump. Nonethe­less, we hon­or and pray for both. Not only do we hon­or and pray for them, we also obey them when they are act­ing with­in their sphere of author­i­ty. Like­wise, we hon­or spir­i­tu­al author­i­ties such as pas­tors and obey them when they are act­ing with­in their sphere of author­i­ty. We also hon­or our par­ents and obey them when they are act­ing with­in their sphere of author­i­ty.

I keep repeat­ing “when they are act­ing with­in their sphere of author­i­ty” because keep­ing that in mind is what pro­tects us from abu­sive and tox­ic sit­u­a­tions. Every human author­i­ty has lim­its placed upon them, and when they step out­side of their realm they should not be obeyed. Tyran­ni­cal gov­ern­ments, cultish reli­gions, con­trol­ling work­places, tox­ic fam­i­ly sys­tems — wise Chris­tians flee from or stand against these things.

Spend time think­ing Bib­li­cal­ly about the prop­er spheres of human author­i­ty — it will bear great fruit in your life. Some­times, like in Acts 5:27–29, the point is made very clear — the gov­ern­ment has no right to for­bid you to obey God (I’m look­ing at you, Chi­na). But oth­er times the les­son is an impli­ca­tion of the text rather than its main point. For exam­ple, Acts 5:3–4 pre­sup­pos­es that Peter would have had no right to com­mand Ananais to sell his prop­er­ty or to give all of the pro­ceeds to the church. That illus­trates an impor­tant lim­it on spir­i­tu­al author­i­ty. These are just two exam­ples from one chap­ter of Scrip­ture — I encour­age you to keep the con­cept of spheres of author­i­ty in the back of your mind as you read Scrip­ture. You’ll find insights in unex­pect­ed places.

Celebration of Discipline: Solitude & Preface

Blog read­ers: Chi Alpha @ Stan­ford is engag­ing in our annu­al sum­mer read­ing project. As we read through Cel­e­bra­tion of Dis­ci­pline by Richard Fos­ter, I’ll post my thoughts here (which will large­ly con­sist of excerpts I found insight­ful). They are all tagged summer‐reading‐project‐2019. The sched­ule is online.

In this chap­ter, Fos­ter invites us to the spir­i­tu­al dis­ci­pline of soli­tude: peri­ods of phys­i­cal iso­la­tion which make us into peo­ple who are con­tent regard­less of the judg­ments of oth­ers. It is close­ly relat­ed to remain­ing silent.

book cover - Celebration Of Discipline

“One rea­son we can hard­ly bear to remain silent is that it makes us feel so help­less. We are so accus­tomed to rely­ing upon words to man­age and con­trol oth­ers. If we are silent, who will take con­trol? God will take con­trol, but we will nev­er let him take con­trol until we trust him. Silence is inti­mate­ly relat­ed to trust. The tongue is our most pow­er­ful weapon of manip­u­la­tion. A fran­tic stream of words flows from us because we are in a con­stant process of adjust­ing our pub­lic image. We fear so deeply what we think oth­er peo­ple see in us that we talk in order to straight­en out their under­stand­ing.”

Richard Fos­ter, Cel­e­bra­tion of Dis­ci­pline, pages 100–101

There are relat­ed com­ments in the chap­ter on study:

“If we will observe the rela­tion­ships that go on between human beings, we will receive a grad­u­ate-lev­el edu­ca­tion. Watch, for exam­ple, how much of our speech is aimed at jus­ti­fy­ing our actions. We find it almost impos­si­ble to act and allow the act to speak for itself. No, we must explain it, jus­ti­fy it, demon­strate the right­ness of it. Why do we feel this com­pul­sion to set the record straight? Because of pride and fear, because our rep­u­ta­tions are at stake!”

Richard Fos­ter, Cel­e­bra­tion of Dis­ci­pline, page 74

When I was in col­lege some­one asked what per­cent­age of my words were devot­ed to influ­enc­ing how oth­ers thought about me. The ques­tion gripped me, and so I tried to keep track for a few days. Every time I said some­thing I asked myself whether or not I had said it most­ly to make oth­er peo­ple think bet­ter of me. The results were shock­ing — it was a HUGE per­cent­age of my con­ver­sa­tions. I resolved to strike any­thing from my speech whose pri­ma­ry pur­pose was either to impress oth­ers or to cor­rect a pos­si­ble mis­in­ter­pre­ta­tion of my motives.

In ret­ro­spect, I often went too far and made things awk­ward for every­one else. Pur­su­ing soli­tude and silence is not an excuse for being rude. We are com­mand­ed to love God and peo­ple, so if your spir­i­tu­al prac­tices make you act in less lov­ing ways then you’re doing them wrong. You will like­ly make mis­takes as you exper­i­ment in this area. Don’t beat your­self up over them, just apol­o­gize and recal­i­brate as nec­es­sary. If you resolve not to speak for a day and some­one asks you for direc­tions, give them any­way. If you decide to spend the next Sat­ur­day in soli­tude and an elder­ly neigh­bor asks you to help them move some stuff, resched­ule your soli­tude. If you want to avoid jus­ti­fy­ing your­self but some­one asks you a point-blank ques­tion about your motives, answer hon­est­ly and sim­ply.

Also, don’t make your plans in this area vows to the Lord. Vows to God are potent things and should be made rarely, yet I often speak with stu­dents who have made a promise to God to do (or not do) some­thing. In almost all cas­es the vow was an unnec­es­sary add-on meant to give their plan more oomph, and now they are in dan­ger of break­ing a vow to God. If you are con­sid­er­ing mak­ing a vow, first med­i­tate on Eccle­si­astes 5:4–6, Deuteron­o­my 23:21–23, Matthew 5:33–37, and James 5:12.

My per­son­al prac­tice of soli­tude cur­rent­ly looks like this. When I wake in the morn­ing I come down­stairs and put my phone where I can­not eas­i­ly get to it. I pre­pare my break­fast and begin read­ing a spir­i­tu­al­ly ben­e­fi­cial book. After a bit (usu­al­ly a few chap­ters), I boot up my lap­top, open a word proces­sor, and write some­thing that will be help­ful to oth­ers. I don’t check my email or any social media while I’m doing this. Once I’ve writ­ten enough, I retrieve my phone to check for any text mes­sages that may have come in overnight and also open my brows­er to check my email.

My habit is sim­i­lar to the thir­ty-minute absten­tion from tech­nol­o­gy Fos­ter describes in the pref­ace. His pre­scrip­tion reminds me of an old-school say­ing: “No Bible, no break­fast.” In oth­er words, we must remem­ber to nour­ish our spir­i­tu­al life before we nour­ish our phys­i­cal life. Per­haps a mod­ern par­al­lel is “No Spir­it, no screens.” Don’t check your email until you’ve checked in with God. Leave your text mes­sages unread until you’ve read the Word. This is not an absolute rule, for there are sea­sons of life when it might be unwise or even wicked to cut your­self off from com­mu­ni­ca­tion. Are you a sur­geon on call? Turn your ringer up to max vol­ume!

If you do engage in a dai­ly prac­tice of soli­tude you will even­tu­al­ly find your­self want­i­ng some­thing more. Remem­ber that you can always dri­ve over to Fast­ing Prayer Moun­tain of the World for a per­son­al day-long (or even overnight) retreat. More info at https://www.fpmw-sv.com/about-us

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 212

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. Tourist Jour­nal­ism Ver­sus the Work­ing Class (Kevin Mims, Quil­lette): “To uni­ver­si­ty-edu­cat­ed media pro­fes­sion­als like Car­ole Cad­wal­ladr, James Blood­worth, and John Oliv­er, an Ama­zon ware­house must seem like the Black Hole of Cal­cut­ta. But I’ve done low-pay­ing man­u­al labor for most of my work­ing life, and rarely have I appre­ci­at­ed a job as much as my role as an Ama­zon associate.” I learned many things from this arti­cle.
  2. Six­teen and Evan­gel­i­cal (Lau­ra Turn­er, Slate): “A world with­out God wouldn’t make sense to me. But it now makes sense to many of my friends. I final­ly under­stand that we nev­er had a shared faith struc­ture. We went to the same church, some of us for years. We heard the same ser­mons, slept in the same cab­ins at camp, read the same books of the Bible, lis­tened to the same music. But we went home to dif­fer­ent families.” The author is John & Nan­cy Ortberg’s daugh­ter.
  3. Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty Report­ed­ly Bans All Mar­tial Arts Groups With­out Warn­ing Over Email (Jin Hyun, NextShark): “According to Choi, the university’s jus­ti­fi­ca­tion behind the shut­down can be sum­ma­rized in four points: ‘the groups like to unof­fi­cial­ly prac­tice dur­ing dead week, they recruit pro­fes­sion­al, inter­na­tion­al­ly renowned coach­es to run their prac­tices, they com­pete and reg­u­lar­ly win nation­al cham­pi­onships with­out Uni­ver­si­ty help, they par­tic­i­pate heav­i­ly in the local com­mu­ni­ty by teach­ing stu­dents, alum­ni, and com­mu­ni­ty members.’”
    • Stan­ford often seems con­flict­ed about whether its under­grads are future lead­ers to be empow­ered or lia­bil­i­ties to be micro­man­aged.
  4. As admin­is­tra­tors walk back ‘insufficient’ response, police reveal noose may have been on cam­pus since March (Ele­na Shao and Daniel Mar­tinez-Krams, Stan­ford Dai­ly): “The new infor­ma­tion comes amid crit­i­cism of Uni­ver­si­ty admin­is­tra­tors’ response to the inci­dent, and one day after they held a sol­i­dar­i­ty ral­ly and town hall. A self-care event is sched­uled to take place Fri­day afternoon.” There have been a lot of arti­cles about this — but this once grabbed me with the tid­bit in the head­line. SINCE MARCH?
  5. On Court Prophets and Wilder­ness Prophets  (Tim­o­thy Dal­rym­ple, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Whether you view Trump as a David or an Antipas, whether you serve at the court of the resplen­dent king or stand over against the court from the wilder­ness, one thing Nathan and John the Bap­tist held in com­mon was that both were will­ing to con­demn unright­eous­ness in their rulers—even if it cost them everything.”
    • Also polit­i­cal: The Demo­c­ra­t­ic Par­ty Is Actu­al­ly Three Par­ties (Thomas Edsall, New York Times): “What the data demon­strates is that the group con­tain­ing the largest pro­por­tion of minor­i­ty vot­ers is the most skep­ti­cal of some of the most pro­gres­sive poli­cies embraced by Demo­c­ra­t­ic can­di­dates like Eliz­a­beth War­ren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris.” Per­haps the most inter­est­ing part of this op-ed is when he talks about the unin­tend­ed con­se­quences of favor­ing small donors over large donors.
  6. In Hong Kong Protests, Faces Become Weapons (Paul Mozur, New York Times): “The police offi­cers wres­tled with Col­in Che­ung in an unmarked car. They need­ed his face. They grabbed his jaw to force his head in front of his iPhone. They slapped his face. They shout­ed, ‘Wake up!’ They pried open his eyes. It all failed: Mr. Che­ung had dis­abled his phone’s facial-recog­ni­tion login with a quick but­ton mash as soon as they grabbed him.”
  7. Canada’s bizarre trans-wax­ing con­tro­ver­sy (Bren­dan O’Neill, Spiked): “Yaniv says if the case is lost then a dan­ger­ous prece­dent will be set for trans peo­ple. In truth, the real dan­ger is if Yaniv wins the case, because that would set a prece­dent where­by the law could require that women must touch penis­es or risk los­ing their jobs. It would be pro­found­ly misogynistic.” The lan­guage in this piece is vul­gar at times but in my esti­ma­tion not reck­less­ly so. Rod Dreher sums things up pith­ily with the head­line: From ‘Bake My Cake’ to ‘Wax My Tes­ti­cles’ (The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive)
    • Relat­ed: Lib­er­als’ aston­ish­ing­ly rad­i­cal shift on gen­der (Damon Link­er, The Week): “Slaves every­where pre­sum­ably know that they are unfree, even if they accept the legit­i­ma­cy of the sys­tem and the mas­ter that keeps them enslaved. But what is this bondage we could­n’t even begin to per­ceive in 2009 that in under a decade has become a bur­den so oner­ous that it pro­duces a demand for the over­turn­ing of well-set­tled rules and assump­tions, some of which (‘the gen­der bina­ry’) go all the way back to the ear­li­est ori­gins of human civ­i­liza­tion?”

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 Are Satanists of the MS‐13 gang an under‐covered sto­ry on the reli­gion beat? (Julia Duin, GetRe­li­gion): this is a fas­ci­nat­ing bit of news com­men­tary. My favorite bit: “How does one get out of MS‐13? An opin­ion piece in the New York Times this past April gives a sur­pris­ing response: Go to a Pen­te­costal church.” High­ly rec­om­mend­ed. First shared in vol­ume 158.

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.