The National Defense Authorization Act: Why We Should Care

04Dec11

I haven’t written any notes in a while. Really, I’ve just been too busy working on things to find something to say that really needed to be said to so many people. But I’ve learned recently of a rather disturbing piece of legislation that needs to be addressed, I think.Have you heard of the National Defense Authorization Act? It’s the bill that’s set the budget for the Department of War (now, Dept of Defense) for about 50 years now. Every year it’s renewed with different proposals for the budget and perhaps with different provisions in other areas. One provision this year is just downright disturbing.

This provision gives the President the authority to detain US citizens in military prison indefinitely and without trial. This is blatantly unconstitutional and not right. The senate had a chance to get rid of this specific provision, but they failed to do so. Both Texas senators and both Oklahoma senators (looking at you, Coburn!) voted to keep this horrendous provision within the Act. The previous link provides a list also of every senator who voted for or against removing that particular provision.

Only seven out of one hundred chose to oppose the bill’s final form, after the provision was kept. Here is a link to the entire bill. Or, if you just want to read the provision in question, it’s Section 1034, paragraphs 3 and 4.

SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.

Congress affirms that–

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who–

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing is that this reflects a “compromise”. Yet according to govtrack.us, this wording has remained unchanged. It wasn’t in the original introduction into the House on Apr 14th, but the Final (House) form on May 17th had it exactly like this. This “agreement” is apparently opposed by the Obama administration, and thankfully I believe he is serious on his veto threat. [Update: the compromise refers to the amending of other provisions in the bill, though this part was apparently not compromised. Our First, Fourth, and Fifth amendment rights, however...]

The scary thing is that this bill does not specifically state that U.S. citizens are exempt for this unconstitutional treatment. There was another time in history — at least one — when the US chose not to defend the freedom of speech of political dissidents. The Sedition Act of 1918 made it criminal to hinder recruiting efforts or criticize the government/military during war time. Try reading a NY Times article from Christmas Eve, 1921: “HARDING FREES DEBS AND 23 OTHERS HELD FOR WAR VIOLATIONS. Page two mentions Thomas Carey, a pacifist, put in prison for refusing to submit to the draft. Several Socialists (members of the I.W.W., the Industrial Workers of the World) are likewise there. Although some are listed as advocating armed resistance, others were simply vocal critics exercising their First Amendment rights. According to the article, these 24 prisoners may have been released, but they never had US citizenship reinstated. Another from 1917 details a man being arrested for suggesting to two young men not to register for the draft. Another documents a restriction on printing any political commentary in other languages — German, in particular — without providing an English translation. Untranslated political commentary is forbidden to even be carried or mailed. Another documents the arrest of then-somewhat-famous writer Cleveland Moffett for making a street corner speech that criticized Wilson. Another, well… I’ll just quote the mayor of New York:

This country is at war with Germany. Public denunciation of the action of the United States Government in co-operating with other Governments in fighting a common enemy is calculated to give aid and comfort to that enemy.

This mindset was here less than 100 years ago, folks. Criticizing the government publicly was at one point illegal, subject to fines and imprisonment. I shudder to think that this mindset may return. Honestly, I fear that it already has. Remember those 9/11 patriotic songs? Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue (Toby Keith). Love it or Leave (Lynyrd Skynyrd). My tired mind cannot think of others at the moment.

What can we do? Write the White House? Call our congressmen? These things may help. I support prayer as well. America is definitely in disarray beyond just the economy. May God watch over those who trust in Him. May He be present, and grant us a spirit of solidarity to replace fear. I pray that He would have mercy. Lord, come quickly!

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  Leave a Comment

Slavery and Marriage: Do conservative gender roles parallel slavery?

17Aug11

In a blog post about whether ὑποτασσω (hypotasso) in Ephesians 5:21 means “submit”, “respect”, or something else, a commenter by the name of Sue made the point that she rejects women’s submission the same way she rejects slavery, given that both slavery and marriage are within Ephesians 5. I responded that I don’t think those two parallel well. The Bible both regulates and perpetuates marriage and the model of marriage, yet the Bible only regulates slavery without perpetuating it. I wrote:

But these do not parallel. … There is nothing in the Bible that demands slavery or seeks to perpetuate it, though the Bible does regulate it. The Bible does, however, seek to both perpetuate and regulate marriage.

To which Kurk replies:

Gary, with your first statement here (your “nothing” one), aren’t you overgeneralizing to the extent that your making an assumption that cannot really be proved? Many preachers up to and during the Civil War in the USA would have strongly disagreed with you. Are you better able than they were to parse out what you see as the problem in Paul’s text (i.e., the regulation of slavery which only seems like a perpetuation of slavery) while retaining what you see as its solution (i.e., the perpetuation and regulation of marriage)?

In this post I seek to answer his question of why I believe the pro-slavery argument is not as credible, and can’t be paralleled, regardless of any similarities between the two conservative arguments. I also briefly respond to the other issues he raises.

In all three scenarios (marriage, parenting, employment), much has certainly changed between biblical times and now. Yet gender is a constant part of one’s inherent physical identity, while social standing and age are dynamic.

I believe we are all in a better position to evaluate the backgrounds of Scripture from a historical and archaeological standpoint (e.g. at what age people married, whether slaves were literate, whether having sex with a slave was permissible) specifically because we have the shoulders of more giants to stand on. This does not grant absolute certainty that we are right and they are wrong, however. We all have confirmation bias, and perhaps the worst thing any of us can do to fall pray to the Zeitgeist is to think we are beyond it.

While I accept my own fallibility, I do not think that complementarian arguments can properly be paralleled to pro-slavery arguments. Whatever other arguments there might be for slavery (the Bible doesn’t forbid it) or for comparing compism to slavery advocacy (Jesus was a slave -> church is bride of Christ), the strongest case for perpetuating either marriage or slavery is to be found in either A. a clear declaration by God, or B. an etiological explanation within the primordial history narrative. Marriage, particularly as something done by a man’s initiative, is enshrined as an instance of A within B (“for this reason…”).

The crucial slavery text within Genesis 1-11 is 9:18-29, in which Noah curses Canaan and says he will serve Shem. This is taken to mean that the Africans will serve the S(h)emitic European race. Yet this is when God stops speaking and the narrative morally degrades at a rapid pace. The first thing Noah did when God turned around was fall into debauchery, and he (drunkenly?) cursed his grandson for something his son did. Everything within the primordial history is to be taken as having epic repercussions, but that does not mean that God endorses a drunken man’s anger as normative. The extent to which God enforces Genesis 9-10 is debatable.

It seems more clear that God backs the texts of Genesis 2-3, or at least the blessings and punishments therein, given that God actually appears as a character and himself delivers said blessings and curses.

If we do a compare and contrast of Genesis’ overall tone towards slavery and overall tone towards women, we find something interesting. There are episodes where a slave comes through an entire episode as a good character (Abraham’s servant, ch 24), and there’s even an episode of role reversal where a mere slave becomes Pharaoh’s right-hand man.

But with women, there’s only two positive role models:
1. Sarah, who called Abraham her lord in the middle of scorning disbelief in God’s promises. Recording this as her redeeming quality is at best a backhanded compliment to her.
2. Unmarried Rebekah in Genesis 24. Rebekah simply goes downhill after that, not back-and-forth like her male counterpart.

Women deceive. They engage in sexual exploitation. They usurp authority. And, granted, male figures do all these things in Genesis, too, but male figures have more redeeming qualities to balance them out. There is no instance in Genesis of a woman taking initiative in place of her husband where something fully good results. Yes, Jacob gets the Blessing as God intended, but it required deceiving and grieving a dying old man who did nothing to deserve it. That was a woman’s idea, lest we forget.

Slaves do engage in actions of their own initiative, sometimes with mixed results as for Hagar (who thought to abandon her child), and sometimes with good results, as with Joseph. In Joseph we find a primary example of emancipation from slavery; Eliezar of Damascus, at least in theory, stood to gain control of all of Abraham’s estate, had he not fathered an heir (15:2).
Yet there is no Amazonesque example of throwing off patriarchy as a sign of divine redemption from brutal oppression, unless Gen 3:16 is taken in an unusual direction.

And so, if the primary text to visit is Genesis 1-11, and if the rest of the book’s stance of women and slaves should inform our understanding of how Genesis 1-11 views the status thereof, then we are left with a more clear impression of slaves gaining emancipation than women doing so. To use this text to back up slavery is to assume that God endorses the anger of a drunken man’s curse, which is debatable. Meanwhile, to use this text to support complementarianism is to assume that God supports his own words in Genesis 3, if nothing else. Slavery does not seem to be a permanent institution, nor necessarily life-long, whereas marriage is assumed to be lifelong and a natural social construct.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  3 Comments

Semiannual Update

09Jul11

I’ve all but given up blogging this year, it would seem. I got a job in December, you see. I was hired to be a sacker at a local grocery store that opened on January 11th. Ever since then, I’ve had little energy for blogging. Sort of anticlimactic to move to WordPress and then stop posting, huh? Sorry about that.

I have been promoted to overnight stocker. Tonight at 10 is my first shift. Honestly, it’s going to be challenging given that I already worked a five-day work week as a sacker. But, I’ll be given a consistent schedule, 50 cents more pay per hour, 8-hour shifts will be always the case rather than only “often”, and just more hours overall. 32 beats an average of 25, certainly.

I won’t be able to continue doing a Sunday School class if I continue working Saturday nights, I suspect. I will try and ask for at least every other Saturday night off.

In other news, my grandmother has decided to pitch in to help me buy a car. I just heard the news, and I’m overjoyed. I have saved over $2,000 from my minimum-wage job towards a car, plus my parents had a $2,300 rainy day fund set aside for me. But since my grandmother is going to pitch in for the rest as my inheritance from her, I am thrilled.

Also, there’s been some news about the Philippines. Although I never could acquire the funds to go in person, I have sent a few of my good spoons as prototypes for Filipino craftsmen to work on. I just found out the results today: http://arapallivelihood.shutterfly.com/woodenspoons

So, now Give a Goat has a parallel program called Wood for Food. What the people of the island of Cebu need, what these craftsmen need, is trade, not aid. A hand up, not a handout.

Salvador Cariaga, the founder of Give a Goat, would like to give me a share of the credit for this. But honestly, the idea was mostly his and so was its implementation. I gave prototypes, enthusiasm, and plenty of prayers.

Today is without a doubt one of the best days of my life. Hah. Let’s see what I think after my 10pm to 6 am shift, though!

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  5 Comments

On the Gender Discrimination Lawsuit against Walmart

20Jun11

In case you haven’t heard, some 12,000 individual claims by women of pay/promotion discrimination against Walmart have been lumped together into one class-action lawsuit. These women were suing on behalf of all female employees of Walmart within the past decade, a total of 1.4 million employees. The SC ruled unanimously that the circumstances of 1.4 million employees in different positions under different supervisors cannot seriously be lumped together. In a partial dissent, four “liberal” judges seem to believe it was wrong to dismiss the 1.5 million women as a class without letting them make a case for being considered a class. See Reuters and Associated Press reports for some background, or go straight to the SCOTUS blog.

This is one of those moments when I can’t help but think our system of thought is polarized and broken. I have an inherent dislike for Walmart, and just because I work for a competitor, but in all honesty it is fair to rule in favor of Walmart here. Our courts are supposed to set very high bars for determining guilt — innocent until proven guilty. If there is not a clearly measurable way to determine specific claims of discrimination, then by all rights the case should be thrown right out.

Walmart may indeed be guilty of gender discrimination. Heck, Walmart may indeed be guilty of many, many things in order to maintain their low prices, from bad employment conditions to throwing their weight around to get their stock from other countries at ridiculously low prices, thus shortchanging the poor overseas who work to make those 5-dollar t-shirts possible. Yes, Walmart may indeed be guilty. But the SC cannot rule based on anything other than clearly demonstrable evidence.

What effect will this decision have on class-action lawsuits in general?
It seems they will need to be rather specific with a clear common thread and a similar grievance given. If there are 1.5 million women employed by Walmart in the last decade, and only 12,000 or so file claims, one must wonder how statistically significant that is. A good statistical sample size is about 5% of the population you wish to analyze. However, that would be a hefty number of claims. 12,000 claims, honestly, is not statistically significant enough to determine with enough confidence what the issue is. Even though it’s theoretically possible that they’re all bogus claims, that’s not at all what I’m arguing. But 12,000 is a meager .8% of 1.5 million. That is nowhere near enough to get even a representative sample. We’d need to analyze at least 75,000 cases for that to work. The sheer immensity of this sort of lawsuit makes it an outrageous struggle.

From now on, class-action lawsuits will have to be done in more specific chunks. One may not simply refer to [demographic] vs. [huge corporation]. This does not make it impossible to bring down large corporations. Enough smaller-scale class-action lawsuits simultaneously in session would still be effective in delivering justice. If indeed all 12,000 of these cases are clearly as the plaintiffs suggest, they can still get justice. If they all win, it will definitely be enough of a PR blow for Walmart that the company would have to seriously revamp things.

So, while future class-action lawsuits may require a smaller scale, this SC decision does not make it impossible to get justice for legitimate class grievances.

Honestly, I’m not sure if this decision makes litigation easier or harder for the SC, for employees as plaintiffs, or for companies as defendants. It will complicate matters and require more lawsuits. The clear winners in this decision are the lawyers.

How this kerfuffle manifests our ridiculous polarization
Looking at the blogosphere is a fair way to determine how people can look at the same situation and see two completely different things. Really, you don’t even have to do that. The 5-4 split in the court shows that regardless of how knowledgeable our SC justices may be, the ideological majority still sometimes wins. Influence in law boils down to politics. While there may be exceptions, I think this case is rather the rule. Sadly, our law system is at the mercy of whichever political party manages to install the most of “their” Supreme Court justices.

Our legal-political system is organized chaos at best. But it’s better than anarchy, at least. Better for ideologies to fight with words in a drawn-out court battle than with swords and clubs.

Filed under: Human Rights, Men's Rights, Politics, Women's Rights   |  Leave a Comment

How often DOES Planned Parenthood perform abortions?

26Apr11

Allegedly, abortion is only 3% of what they do. Or so they’ve said. They’re doing a sleight of hand here. A breakdown of the numbers from their own site is more illuminating.

You will find the claim on page 3 of the linked report in the now-famous (skip to 1:30) pie chart.

On page 2, they report 7,021 “Prenatal clients” [not receiving abortions] and 332,278 abortions. “Prenatal clients”, presumably, means “pregnant women receiving services other than an abortion.” Whereas abortions refer to “pregnant women upon which we performed an abortion”.

Pregnant women visits, total: 339,299 (They do not provide this statistic; I had to derive it myself.)
Pregnant women visits, abortion: 332,278
Pregnant women visits, non-abortion: 7,021
Total services performed: 11,383,900

So, the question remains: in the case where a pregnant woman comes in for services, what are the chances that they will perform an abortion? Well, that’s easy:

You see, they don’t count the 332,278 visits as also being “prenatal clients” because then you’d put the numbers together and discover how often they perform abortions on pregnant women. I did the math, and it comes to: 332,278/(332,278+7,021)=0.9793073365969248 in my calculator, or, 97.93% in short. To find out what percentage of their services are abortion, all you have to do is divide 332,278 into 11,383,900. You get 2.9%.

So, you might be wondering how they could manipulate the data to make it seem that abortion is just a minor detail performed on the side. Answer: statistics can be manipulated easily by choosing what data to show and what to not show. It is deceptive, but sadly common, for people to arrange the data without actually fudging the numbers. This is what they did.

While it may be true (as far as I know) that only 3% of their total services were abortion procedures, that isn’t as much of statement as they make it out to be. If you are a scared 15-year-old girl and you go in with your 22-year-old boyfriend for an abortion, you may be offered a free HIV test, breast exam, pap smear, and a pack of condoms for the road. On paper it is made to look like abortion was only 20% of your reason for visiting rather than 100%. And hey — if they provided you with the pregnancy test two months ago that helped you find out in the first place, then that pads the numbers even better. Only 16% of your involvement with Planned Parenthood, as far as the numbers show, was for abortion in this hypothetical situation. Yet in reality, it was your main motive for going.

Note that their by the numbers page claims that only 12% of their clients receive abortion services. Once again, this is an obfuscation without directly lying (as far as I know); they do not say what percentage of their pregnant clients receive abortion services. This failure to specify is not an uncommon tactic among those who use statistics for their own agenda.

I will ask the question again: in the case where a pregnant woman comes in for services, what are the chances that they will perform an abortion? Planned Parenthood seeks to answer this question by saying “3% of our services are abortions”, or “12% of our clients receive abortion services”. This is a sleight of hand, as I’ve already said, because they provide the right answer to a question other than the one pro-lifers/sympathizers are asking. The answer, by their own numbers, is 97.93%.

They made less than 1,000 adoption referrals in 2009, by the way. But then again, parents seeking to adopt would actually be planning parenthood. If Planned Parenthood were about family planning, they should focus on adoption and not abortion. Then their name would be ingenious rather than disingenuous.

Filed under: Abortion, Human Rights, Planned Parenthood, Politics   |  1 Comment

2 Cor 2:5-3:6

30Mar11

My co-teacher, Brandon, did a lesson on this section almost three weeks ago. I was out sick, unfortunately. I’m, obviously, behind in my blogging. We’ve been using 21st Century Christian’s Life Links to God study materials for this class. I personally give it no more than a cursory glance and prefer to let the text speak to me on its own. Yet, sometimes the study aid does indeed come in handy.

Now, here’s my exposition of the NIV2011 text, courtesy of biblegateway.

Forgiveness for the Offender

5 If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. 6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. 7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9 Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10 Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11 in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.

It helps to remember that the text doesn’t come to us in neatly packaged chunks. Right before this, Paul had explained that his reason for not visiting as he had said he would is because he didn’t want to dampen their morale in his own gloom. Yet, he reaffirms how much he loved them just in 2:4. I repeat the ending of the previous lesson in saying how amazing it is for him to overcome the selfishness that usually comes with despair and instead focus on sending a letter to focus on the needs of others. This in and of itself is quite remarkable.

Now, this section raises a few questions about the background of the letter: Who is the guy who is causing grief? Perhaps the guy sleeping with his stepmother in 1 Cor 5? Is this the one whose grief-causing made Paul decide to not visit in person, or was the grief in Asia Minor the only issue? What was the majority’s reproving response to the guy’s grief-causing?

I don’t know the answer to any of those questions. But, to look at Paul’s phrasing in verse 5, he seems to be downplaying the offense by saying “if anyone has”. I sincerely doubt that the troublemaker is the guy from 1 Cor 5, even though 5:2 specifically mentions grief and then talks about a sufficient punishment: “handing over to Satan”. I would take a guess that this means temporary exile, but that is only a guess. Whatever happened to that guy, Paul took the matter fairly seriously. His tone is quite different in 2 Cor 2, so I suspect it is a different matter.

Who it was and what he did is not something Paul focuses on. His focus is on the church’s proper response to the guy’s (assumed) repentance. Whatever punishment was given, likely a public rebuke and temporary exile, is enough. I say this is the punishment likely, because I think “the majority” would likely punish through some social barrier rather than through something that could be done by only a few.

Now that the punishment is over with, it is time to forgive [lit. "show grace"] and to comfort him so that he will not be overwhelmed by [lit. "drown in"] sorrow. Paul reiterates that it is now time to love him back into the fold. The offense and its punishment were not worth mentioning by name, nor was it necessary to point out who the offender was; Paul’s focus is on the man’s redemption.

Verse 9 carries its own question: which letter is Paul talking about when he says he wrote to them? If this is the guy from 1 Cor 5, then he is saying that his motive in writing that part of that letter was to test them and see whether or not they would hand out the discipline he prescribed. But, if this is a different person, then he is saying that a partial motive in writing 2 Corinthians was to test and see whether they would forgive. Honestly, disciplining someone you care about is a difficult task, and it’s tempting not to. And paradox or not, it’s also hard to forgive someone you care about. This could go either way.

Paul says that he will forgive as they have done, “if there’s anything for [him] to forgive.” Once again he downplays the offense and its severity/reality. Assuming that this is a real offense, that is a sign of graciousness. Paul says that he forgives for their sake in the face [perhaps meaning "sight", "presence" through prayer, or "imitation"] of Christ. The purpose of forgiving is ultimately to be on guard against Satan and his well-known schemes. Satan would not want for the church to discipline someone who has gone astray, nor would he want for the church to practice forgiveness. Both actions foil his schemes.

I hope we can walk away from this section with a desire to use church discipline properly. Church discipline is very difficult in an age when the reprobate would be welcomed in a different church just down the street that affirms that behavior. Church is too easily replaced in our consumerist society. So, what we need to do is develop a proper sense of fellowship that is so deep and mutually affirmed that throwing it away is unthinkable. Proper church discipline will drive the offender to his/her knees instead of to the synagogue of Satan. Proper church discipline will cause tears for everyone involved, and will have the expressly spoken intent of showing the severity of the offense. Only if the world outside the church is so much darker than the world inside will temporary exile seem like being “handed over to Satan.”

12 Now when I went to Troas to preach the gospel of Christ and found that the Lord had opened a door for me, 13 I still had no peace of mind, because I did not find my brother Titus there. So I said goodbye to them and went on to Macedonia.
14 But thanks be to God, who always leads us as captives in Christ’s triumphal procession and uses us to spread the aroma of the knowledge of him everywhere. 15 For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life. And who is equal to such a task? 17 Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.

Apparently Paul was worried for Titus’ well-being. It seems that they split up in Asia Minor and Troas was their arranged meeting place. Though Paul had an opportunity presented [lit "door opened"] to preach, he didn’t have peace of mind without Titus. It was for this reason that he went straight to Macedonia by a detour and avoided Corinth & Athens. Surely, concern for the life and well-being of a dear brother in distress is a valid concern for changing plans without warning. If that’s not a good reason, I don’t know what is.

Verse 14 feels quite sudden in its transition; one moment he’s worrying about life and death, and the next minute he’s praising God for victory in Christ. (Sometimes Paul is spontaneous, jarring his readers with sudden transitions.) The text says that God leads us in procession, but is not specific as to whether Christ is the general, and we are the other soldiers receiving a victory parade, or whether we are the captives. Due to the paradox of being a sweet smell of victory and also a foretaste of the world’s doom, it is more likely the NIV text is correct in specifying that we are lead “as captives”.

Paul seems to have in mind that through our endurance in hardships, we are as captives as well as being slaves/servants of Christ. Yet our captivity is to God the sweet smell of Christ’s victory. Christ’s victory-scent makes us the potpourri “from life to life” [from Christ's sacrifice to our eternal life?] for those being saved, and “from death to death” [from Christ's death to their inevitable death?] for those who are perishing. I dislike how the NIV simplifies these concepts. Christ is the general who leads us as captives through the streets, with a company of priests burning sweet incense. This incense, to some on the sidelines of the procession, calls them to become Christians. To others, it is indicative of their ultimate destruction. This incense is the Gospel or the faith in the Gospel (see Philippians 1:27-28).

Paul again interrupts his own flow of thought: “and who is capable of such a task?” This suddenly slams the brakes on his previous line of thought: who is capable of spreading the aroma of Christ? While we are at once both the captives and the priests within the procession metaphor, the question still remains: what qualifies us to be anything more than condemned prisoners? Paul proceeds with a partial answer: “For we [Paul, Timothy, Titus, Silas] are not like the many who peddle the Word of God for profit: we don’t speak due to selfish ambition; rather, we speak due to God, before God, in Christ.” I translate it this way to show you Paul’s rhetorical flourish in repeating “we don’t speak due to – rather, we speak due to”. It is not selfish ambition that drives Paul, as some claim but are themselves guilty of; it is God’s action in his life that motivates Paul. God is not just his motive for speaking, He is the content Paul speaks of, and this is something that takes place in Christ.

2 Corinthians 3

1 Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? 2 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everyone. 3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
4 Such confidence we have through Christ before God. 5 Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. 6 He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

At this point, Paul realizes what he just said could be taken as a bald assertion of divine authority. He could be accused of hubris for it. So he doesn’t retract his point, but he does switch the angle of his approach to the question of his validity. The early churches used letters of recommendation to vouch for someone traveling from one congregation to another. This link provided an easy way to prove ones identity to a new congregation. However, it could perhaps be forged or otherwise abused. While the system was imperfect, Paul doesn’t seem to criticize the practice as is.

Rather, it seems that the false teachers at Corinth had letters of recommendation (forged or otherwise). Paul himself is above the need for such things among the Corinthians, since he is not foreign to them. The letters of introduction are for new people, not for an old friend like Paul. Even if the false teachers have such letters, that means nothing in comparison to how acquainted Paul was with them in person.

In place of having a letter of recommendation, Paul considers these churches to be the letter, with Christ as its author vouching for Paul, the letter-carrier. Paul is the messenger, Christ is the Author of the Message, and the Corinthians are living proof of the Message’s truth. In view of this, a physical letter of recommendation is a rather weak qualification.

The Message of the Gospel has brought permanent change and is inscribed on their hearts by the Spirit. What is written with ink is temporary and fades; what is written with the Spirit remains. This is part of Paul’s thought in this section, and he will continue along that vein very soon. But for now, he says in 3:6: “[God] also qualified us as ministers of a new covenant, not by the writing, but by the spirit/Spirit; for the writing kills, but the Spirit/spirit gives life.” This statement can be taken two ways.

First, if we interpret pneuma to mean the Holy Spirit, then it says that this new covenant which involves the pouring out of the Holy Spirit gives life, while the covenant that involved a written law gives death. Paul follows that line of thought in a moment. Secondly, pneuma also means “breath”, and could instead refer to a message delivered personally in oral form rather than textually in written form. This would mean that Paul is saying that regardless of the power of a written letter of recommendation, writings are not always so great. What is given personally in talking face-to-face is far superior. That second meaning for pneuma would be unusual and awkward, but Paul acts as an expert in rhetoric in this book, and I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility.

In the next section, Paul will converge both of those meanings with what he had said earlier:
1. The writing fades, but the Spirit remains.
2. The writing kills, but the Spirit gives life.
3. The covenant inscribed in writing kills, but the covenant given orally gives life.

Filed under: 2 Corinthians, Bible Study   |  Leave a Comment

2 Corinthians 1:1-2:4

13Mar11

This is the first text-unit covered in our 13-week class. I’m co-teaching with a friend on Sunday mornings, and I delivered this lesson on March 6th (along with the preliminaries). This post will be a bit more detailed, and I am using the NIV2011 courtesy of Biblegateway.com here. In class I used the CEB because I had an advance NT copy handy. I had spent two hours trying to work my own translation, but there are issues in the text I cannot rightly address without more time and resources, so defaulting to the NIV is my natural choice. We’ll take things one piece at a time.

Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother,

To the church of God in Corinth, together with all his holy people throughout Achaia:

2 Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The author, obviously, is Paul. Timothy is acting as his secretary. He’s writing to primarily the church in Corinth, but this chain letter is intended for the entire province of Achaia/Achea, which would also include churches in Athens, if there were any.

Note Paul’s greeting. “Grace” sounds very similar to the normal Greek way to say hello, and then “peace” is a traditional Jewish greeting. It’s genius how Paul takes a Hebrew greeting and a slight pun on a Greek greeting to make a uniquely Christian theological greeting.

3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. 5 For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ. 6 If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. 7 And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort.

This section is Paul’s opening prayer. For him, it is not a mere formality. Whatever you may think Paul’s letter is about, you can probably find the main theme within his prayer. It is a key for unlocking the whole letter. In this case, the words “comfort”, “trouble”, “distress”, and “sufferings” leap off the page. In vv 3-4, the “we” refers to all Christians: God is worthy of praise because he comforts us in any and every trouble, and he pours out so much comfort that it spills over. When we are full of all we need, we give the same comfort to others that we have received from God. Psalm 23:5 comes to mind: “my cup overflows.” This is how God comforts us, and for this he deserves praise.

Paul switches gears in verse 6. Here the “we” refers to Paul, Silvanus/Silas, and Timothy: whether we experience trouble or comfort, it’s for your [Corinthians' and Athenians'] comfort. Paul views the fate of all his churches linked with his own fate. If he goes through a hard time and experiences opposition for the sake of the Gospel, then he’s going to stand firm and provide a heroic example. Paul will pay any price for the Gospel. Every time he is forced to prove that, he gives “comfort” by providing a confirmation of the truth of the Gospel. He wouldn’t pay any price if he wasn’t 100% convinced in the resurrection of the dead. Brave examples provide encouragement. And, if he manages to catch a break, then that should provide confirmation that God does indeed watch over his people. Either way, what happens to him should provide comfort to the Corinthians and Athenians. His comfort reminds them that they too will receive comfort in anything they suffer. Hence, it encourages them to stand firm and endure hardship.

Verse 7 builds rapport with the readers by restating the point that their fates are intertwined with Paul and co. They share the same sufferings and the same comfort, both of which are on account of faithfulness to the Gospel.

8 We do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about the troubles we experienced in the province of Asia. We were under great pressure, far beyond our ability to endure, so that we despaired of life itself. 9 Indeed, we felt we had received the sentence of death. But this happened that we might not rely on ourselves but on God, who raises the dead. 10 He has delivered us from such a deadly peril, and he will deliver us again. On him we have set our hope that he will continue to deliver us, 11 as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many.

Now Paul moves on to reporting on his recent events and current circumstances. This is a pretty typical thing in a missionary’s letter. Verse 8 and the first sentence of verse 9 establish a sense of foreboding, then verse 9 explains the reason for this distress: Paul was stretched beyond his ability so that he would learn to rely on God’s ability. This included believing he would die, and quite likely, Paul had to learn to “let go” of the churches and accept that they could continue without him. We should not gloss over the specific attribute Paul names: God is the one who raises the dead. Paul knew that his death would not be the end, either of the churches of or Paul.

Paul is confident that God will continue to rescue him both in life and through resurrection. Yet the prayers of the Corinthians and Athenians is worth mention in this rescue, too. The many who prayed for Paul’s well-being will also be able to give thanks because the prayer was answered. For Paul, it is an accomplishment in and of itself to get people to praise God and give thanks together. Unity is a central goal, and if it has to be unity in prayer to save Paul from distress, then it’s worth the distress that he has to endure. When that prayer is answered and there is unity in thanksgiving, it is all the more sweet. Paul never draws attention to his own ability in this section.

12 Now this is our boast: Our conscience testifies that we have conducted ourselves in the world, and especially in our relations with you, with integrity and godly sincerity. We have done so, relying not on worldly wisdom but on God’s grace. 13 For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand. And I hope that, 14 as you have understood us in part, you will come to understand fully that you can boast of us just as we will boast of you in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Now Paul begins to get into the meat of the letter. He takes pride in his clear conscience about conduct among these churches. He’s always been completely open and transparent with them. While he could have been “smart” about how to deal with people, he chose to be honest instead. If you choose to be honest rather than crafty, then God’s grace is all you’ve got going for you.

Verses 13-14 explain that Paul thinks his message should be pretty clear about his intention to come visit them (see below). While on the subject of understanding Paul, he hopes that at the very least they fully understand how they will be able to take pride in him on the Day of Christ, just as he takes pride in them. Rarely do discussions between Christians today revolve around the Day of Christ, but for Paul it is a pivotal moment that unites all Christians and it pops up in his discussions frequently. He takes pride in his churches’ growth in Christ and their endurance of suffering, and they likewise can take pride in him.

15 Because I was confident of this, I wanted to visit you first so that you might benefit twice. 16 I wanted to visit you on my way to Macedonia and to come back to you from Macedonia, and then to have you send me on my way to Judea. 17 Was I fickle when I intended to do this? Or do I make my plans in a worldly manner so that in the same breath I say both “Yes, yes” and “No, no”?

Paul has just expressed his confidence that there will be mutual pride and a strong comrade-bond in the Day of Christ, and now he explains that this bond is why he had intended to visit them, not only once, but twice. Paul expects that common sense will give his readers the answers to the rhetorical questions of verse 17. Obviously, His intent to visit them twice was not arbitrary, and he doesn’t change his mind like a girl changes clothes.

18 But as surely as God is faithful, our message to you is not “Yes” and “No.” 19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us—by me and Silas and Timothy—was not “Yes” and “No,” but in him it has always been “Yes.” 20 For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ. And so through him the “Amen” is spoken by us to the glory of God.

And now Paul switches gears. He lets those pointed rhetorical questions remain as the only defense of his own integrity, and now he focuses on God’s integrity. Paul’s own integrity is linked with the integrity of what he preaches. And he preaches Jesus Christ, God’s son. There is no pussyfooting around when we talk about Jesus — the answer is a consistent “yes”. If God is faithful [=consistent], and Paul preaches God’s son, then surely Paul considers consistency such a high virtue that he would seek to be consistent in his own promises, too.

It is through Christ that the early Christians spoke the “Amen” [="yes"] at the end of each prayer or act of praise. It affirms that God is real, and that they really mean their prayers. Paul here explains that they say the “Amen” in Christ because Christ is God’s “yes”. Since Christ is faithful, it is simply fitting that we say “yes” to God through him. After all, it is in him that God’s promises have their “yes” to us, also. Christ, then, acts as the “yes” bridge both ways between us and God.

Paul’s defense of his own integrity is utterly fascinating and mind-blowing because he turns it into a lesson on God’s faithfulness and (successfully, I might add!) turns self-defense into an act of God-praise.

21 Now it is God who makes both us and you stand firm in Christ. He anointed us, 22 set his seal of ownership on us, and put his Spirit in our hearts as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come. 23 I call God as my witness—and I stake my life on it—that it was in order to spare you that I did not return to Corinth. 24 Not that we lord it over your faith, but we work with you for your joy, because it is by faith you stand firm.

Paul just spent a considerable amount of time explaining that God is faithful, and now he says that God is the link between him and the Corinthians: it is the same God that makes them stand firm in Christ. If that’s true, then God’s faithfulness links them. Paul then lists several things God has done: he put his stamp on us and gave the Spirit as a down payment of everything we will someday have. It is this faithful and giving God that Paul calls upon as a witness on his behalf (who could be a more faithful witness than God?). He swears by his own life, with God (who sets the standard for faithfulness and honesty) affirming it, that Paul’s reason for not visiting the Corinthians was to spare them the heartache of seeing him as an emotional (and physical?) wreck.

2:1 So I made up my mind that I would not make another painful visit to you. 2 For if I grieve you, who is left to make me glad but you whom I have grieved? 3 I wrote as I did, so that when I came I would not be distressed by those who should have made me rejoice. I had confidence in all of you, that you would all share my joy. 4 For I wrote you out of great distress and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to grieve you but to let you know the depth of my love for you.

Paul then elaborates on why he decided not to visit them after all. “If I’m down, and I go and bring you down, then who’s gonna cheer me up since I just brought you down?” He decided instead to write them a very important and personal note. It’s much easier to keep your composure in writing than in person, especially back before electronic media. Every note took a few hours to a few days, so any emotional bursts could be erased before sending the final draft.

Yet because of his love for them, he wanted to write them and not simply leave them in the dark. If he loved them enough to want to visit them twice, yet he doesn’t visit at all, he must be pretty darned distressed. And if he’s willing to write them despite his distress, then he must really love them. He chose not to become self-absorbed in his pain, but instead focused his concern outward toward those who mean the world to him.

We could certainly learn a lot from that.

Filed under: 2 Corinthians, Bible Study   |  Leave a Comment

2 Corinthians Study: Some Preliminaries

13Mar11

Sunday, the only people who showed up for our 9 am young adults class were me, the co-teacher I alternate with, and an older gentleman who wasn’t too thrilled with the study in his other group. This sort of turnout is not uncommon for young adults, sadly. There’s not much incentive to get up and study the Bible an hour before church. But, that’s another story. It was a start, at least.
_______

I want to start this study by giving a general idea of the city of Corinth so we can understand what life was like for the Corinthian Christians.

[Click "view image" for a larger version.]

Corinth was a rich port city in the province of Achaia. The isthmus of Corinth connected the land of Achaia, which made it difficult to pass goods through that area, yet it nonetheless was possible to take goods by land to the other side of the isthmus and then use boats to continue the shipment. So, despite that oddity, the city was a fairly rich port town with just the right location to be a hub for sailing to/from Rome.

In addition to the decadence that comes with wealth, there’s the vice that comes with sailors on shore leave: gambling, binge drinking, and prostitution. On that last note, there was a temple to Aphrodite on the Pinnacle of Corinth, a mountain just south of the city. One could easily hire out a sacred prostitute and “worship” the deity.

Surrounded by decadence, (sometimes) dishonest business practices, and sexual immorality, we could say that the Corinthians lived in what today we could call a mix between L.A. and Las Vegas.

Now that we’ve gotten a handle on what sort of city Corinth was, I want to do a brief overview of what an epistle normally looks like.

Introduction: The author states his name and the name of his scribe, then the intended recipients, followed by a greeting. Back in those days, the author dictated aloud what he wanted to be written, and his scribe would jot it down in shorthand. Then, they’d go over it together and make corrections as needed, double-checking both what the scribe thought he heard and what the author meant. Then the scribe would write a second draft in complete words which was to be sent.

Opening prayer: Sometimes a mere formality, the opening prayer was a way to show concern for the person you were writing to. It was a natural way to build a connection before moving to the body of the letter. For most authors, it held no more genuine meaning than the “Dear so-and-so” of our letter formatting does.

After this was the body of the letter, and then closing greetings. Since not everyone had the resources or time to write, someone might hear that you’re writing to so-and-so and say, “oh! Tell them I said hi!” And that was usually put at the end.

Filed under: 2 Corinthians, Bible Study   |  Leave a Comment

General update on life

07Mar11

I haven’t been very active with my blogging because I have a job now. In August ’09, my roommates and I went our separate ways, since two of the five of us had found wives. The remaining three didn’t want to remain in the same place since the cost of rent was going to increase (not to mention the difference in splitting three ways as opposed to five), so I quit my job and moved back to Fort Worth with my parents. Little did I know how difficult it would be to find a job for someone who has no degree, no car, and no particular skill at writing resumes!

It took 16 months for a real opportunity to present itself. Although there are a few businesses close to my house, none were hiring except for one little restaurant, and though I applied with them twice in person after having a nice little meal, the manager never considered me. I find that surprising, given that it was an Italian place and I had a year’s experience with pizza at Papa John’s. Yes, I know, PJ’s isn’t real Italian, but it’s still some related experience.

In late November last year, I was having lunch after church with a friend and his mother. His mom mentioned that there was a job fair the next weekend at the church for a brand-new grocery store. Well, I perked right up at hearing that! I filled out an online application and went in for an interview.

Now, this new Kroger is huge — three acres in size. It dwarfs some Walmarts, in fact. As such, they needed to hire quite a few people, so they did group interviews. I did well both on the group and the individual interviewing processes, and they hired me to be a courtesy clerk. In short: a grocery sacker + cart pusher.

So, I’ve been doing that 4-5 days a week since the grand opening on Jan 11th and really haven’t had much energy for writing or studying. Although I am thrilled to be employed, I do feel a keen sense of loss in that I don’t have the free time to pursue study goals. 99% of people, or so I hear, end up settling down and just taking a job to get by instead of pursuing their dreams. I want to keep reminding myself that this is temporary.

I will save up the money for a decent used car or small truck, and then I’ll save up a good amount to take care of gas for a while, and then I’m going to apply for school again somewhere. I can’t decide whether to switch my major to linguistics or to classics. Perhaps I’ll dabble in one and major in the other.

I haven’t given up biblical studies, in case you’re wondering. Not by a long shot. Since leaving Oklahoma Christian in 2007, the amount of studying I’ve done on the side pretty much puts me on par with graduate students. Why bother continuing an undergrad degree if I already grasp the material at the grad level? It would be better to switch to a complementary field, at least for undergraduate studies. Besides, Bible and Ministry credits don’t exactly transfer to very many other schools, anyway, and since 90% of my friends have graduated from OC by now, I don’t feel particularly compelled to return there, either.

Work is going OK. There are interesting stories to share sometimes, but I won’t drag on too long in this post. Most customers are cheerful and willing to engage in a bit of conversation, though some just want in and out. Very few, thankfully, are outright rude. The main difficulty in this position is that I look much younger than 25 and most other courtesy clerks are high school students. The managers treat me with respect because I’ve earned it through hard work and dedication. A few customers tip, and that’s cool. I got a $5 last week as well as a $2 in change and also a $2 in ones. I don’t get tipped even weekly, so it is completely random, but it’s always exciting when I get one!

My shift usually runs from morning to afternoon, such as 7-3 or 8-4 or 9-5. I get somewhere between 20 and 40 hours, generally between 25 and 35. Since my parents don’t charge rent, I’m doing great in saving up money. The job gets me some good exercise, too, as well as social interaction.

In church, I’m co-teaching a class on II Corinthians for the next 13 weeks. I plan to post my lesson plans here, if you care to follow along.

Filed under: Uncategorized   |  1 Comment

Anti-Christian bias in Academics

11Feb11

It’s real.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has been in controversy for a while over what the Canadian National Post calls a “witch hunt.” Essentially, there are four small Christian schools that they’ve been investigating because the CAUT believes that these small schools, whose student bodies together total about 6,000, are not academically free because they require standards of Christian conduct as well as faculty statements of faith. You can find their statement of faith on academic freedom here. They believe that while individuals may be able to hold whatever biases they want, institutions must grant the absolute freedom “without restriction by prescribed doctrine” and without institutional censorship.

While I respect their beliefs, I’d ask them not to force it on me. Given that we live in a world with people of diverging faiths, it’s fair to have non-confessional institutions. However: is access to their definition of academic freedom threatened? Is the existence of academic freedom at stake in blacklisting four very small, private Christian universities?

It is not. One can very easily find it by going to one of the numerous non-confessional institutions situated throughout Canada and the U.S.

For more specific details in the case of one of the four schools, OnCampus has an article explaining some of the complications. That particular case seems like a gray area, and there were actual faculty complaints involved. In the other three schools, however, it does not seem that any complaints were involved.

The CAUT’s academic freedom statement of faith is clarified by their model clause on academic freedom, a template for universities to adopt. Their statement’s sixth bullet point says this:

Academic freedom must not be confused with institutional autonomy. Post-secondary institutions are autonomous to the extent that they can set policies independent of outside influence. That very autonomy can protect academic freedom from a hostile external environment, but it can also facilitate an internal assault on academic freedom. To undermine or suppress academic freedom is a serious abuse of institutional autonomy.

However, the counterpart in their model clause says

Academic freedom as a right belongs to individuals and not to the institution. Institutional autonomy shall not take precedence over academic freedom. Any claim by the employer that institutional autonomy takes priority over the academic freedom of individuals is a form of institutional censorship.

I believe this is the root of the problem: institutions themselves do not have academic freedom. This means that while individuals may commit to Christianity, it is unacceptable (they say) to have a Christian institution. If that were true, then institutions could be only nominally Christian in the same way Notre Dame is nominally Irish. Whereas genuine racial segregation in schooling is unacceptable, how is religious segregation of this sort also unacceptable?

To be part of a religion is not to have a strong tendency towards a particular worldview. No; it is to lay all the chips down and hold nothing back. 100% commitment is just part and parcel of what it means to be Christian. If the institution cannot demand this, then essentially it is unlawful to form a Christian institution.

For info on hiring bias in the other direction (secular school refusing to hire an evangelical), see also: the Inside Higher Ed piece “New Stars Shine on Christian Researcher” (HT: John Hobbins)

Filed under: Education, Human Rights, Politics, Religion   |  1 Comment