The Indiana House apparently voted to cap minimum wage yesterday, apparently so that local cities and counties cannot hinder business by requiring larger amounts. I don't know the specifics, so this is a theoretical exercise rather than a clear critique.
As usual, the ethical calculus involves two primary considerations: fundamental principles and consequences, with a check on motivations.
Principles
The fundamental principle behind a social contract such as the US Constitution is mutual benefit. The driving force behind the origins of capitalism was utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. Philosophically, we might call this cocktail: universal ethical egoism. Western systems aim at the greatest good for all individuals.
This amounts to a system that aims at the greatest good for the greatest number, with protections for the individual. I consider this the most fundamental principled framework for a secular society. By a happy correlation, it also fits well with the fundamental Christian value of loving one's neighbor.
The goal of social structure is thus not to make a few very rich at the expense of the majority. The best social structure is one that tends to result in as many people as prosperous as possible while protecting the individual from the prosperity of others, in fact aiming to empower every individual at least to self-subsistence. Again, this is the fundamental ethical value of the United States and Western society in general.
Consequences
So given the goal, how does the minimum wage debate connect?
First, the goal in business--from the standpoint of societal structure--must be to prosper everyone in connection to that business as much as possible. This obviously is not the business owner but the employees and people who benefit from the business. Although it's easy to lose sight of it, this actually was the founding purpose of capitalism.
Capitalism holds that a system of competition will result in the greatest benefit both to buyer and seller. The buyer will seek out the lowest price and the seller will charge as high as they can. Ideally, they will meet in the middle with the most beneficial middle ground. But the goal of capitalism was not originally to make the owner of a business as rich as possible, which is why protections evolved for individuals like minimum wage and anti-trust laws.
Without those laws, capitalism had gone counter to its very founding purposes--mangling everyone it could in the service of the filthy rich. In my opinion, this is the trajectory we are on again, the Tea Party trajectory. We are now in the process of trying to peal back the protections of the individual, put in place at the end of the 1800s and beginning of the 1900s against capitalism gone amok. Unbridled capitalism does not accomplish its founding goals. This is the lesson of history. Only a moderately regulated capitalism does.
Minimum wage ensures that an individual worker can earn at least a subsistence level income. It would seem to be a fundamental value. Capitalism left alone will not evolve a fair wage because of the collusion of business. Places without minimum wages--Mexico, China--demonstrate the condition of their workers. Eventually, the global economy will evolve a world-wide minimum wage. We are in the throes of the transition, where American companies have temporarily shipped jobs elsewhere to get around the protections of the more evolved American system. But of course, that's an issue of union wages rather than minimum wage.
But it's not as simple as business versus worker. Low prices benefit the consumer, so the "greatest good for the greatest number" is not simply a calculus between business owner and employee. A thriving business benefits the broader economy. It benefits the people who buy the product in lower cost.
So the best minimum wage will be 1) one that reasonably allows an employee to live while 2) maximizing the benefit to consumers in the resultant prices and 3) does not demotivate the business owner from running the business. You can't put a precise number on these, unfortunately. The number changes from time to time and involves a significant element of cultural subjectivity.
But the last paragraph, in my opinion, is the ethical calculus for an optimal society.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Shhh--we're going covert
My wife Angela has been laughing at the announcement that the CIA will secretly be helping the Libyan rebels. Shhh... be sure not to tell anyone so Gaddafi doesn't find out.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
What did you make of Obama?
I'm in Chicago for the day and wasn't able to listen to Obama last night. What did he say? What is your evaluation?
I was thinking last night that it would be fun to start an electronic newspaper that solicited articles on topics with the goal of posting calmly argued but contrasting points of view on contemporary questions. Then maybe editors could post a summary of the debate, including the comments, the next day. The ground rules would simply be the rules of logic and the scientific method of using evidence to form hypotheses.
Oh well...
I was thinking last night that it would be fun to start an electronic newspaper that solicited articles on topics with the goal of posting calmly argued but contrasting points of view on contemporary questions. Then maybe editors could post a summary of the debate, including the comments, the next day. The ground rules would simply be the rules of logic and the scientific method of using evidence to form hypotheses.
Oh well...
Monday, March 28, 2011
Making Sense of Catastrophes
This was my seminary post this week and captures the gist of my sermon yesterday.
__________
If we were to survey the things various pastors have said from their pulpits about the recent tsunami in Japan, I suspect that we might find three types of comment: 1) those who see this event as God’s judgment on Japan for not believing, 2) those who see this event as part of the problem of evil, with God bringing peace and good news into the midst of the catastrophe, and 3) those who see God’s involvement in such events as somewhat of a mystery.
It is precisely in this sort of event when our theological questions cease being academic discussions and become either helpful or dangerous. For example, if we believe that this event was God’s judgment on the Japanese, we will be less likely to try to help the survivors. Or if we think giving help can only be motivated by the possibility of salvation, then our help may actually be counterproductive to its purpose. Help purely in the service of a narrowly defined sense of evangelism is more likely to turn others away from the gospel in disgust than to draw them in.
It is also a time when imprecision in our biblical theology goes from innocent to dangerous. For example, how do we reconcile 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1? The first says that God tempted David to take a census, while the second says that the Satan tempted David to take this very same census. Unless we want to allow for contradiction, the only solution I can think of is to see a development in theological precision between the earlier Samuel and the later Chronicles. The New Testament confirms this trajectory of understanding when James 1:13 says that God does not tempt anyone.
It seems an inescapable conclusion that some of what the older parts of the Old Testament ascribe to God’s direct action (like sending an evil spirit on Saul–1 Sam. 16:14) are likely things that God allows rather than directly causes. Similarly, many parts of the Old Testament–especially the historical books–have a very general sense of good and evil consequence: those who do good receive prosperity in this life; those who do evil suffer in this life. In the New Testament especially this view gains precision. After all, the most righteous man of all–Jesus–dies on a cross.
So a more precise understanding is that God does not directly cause all the bad things that happen. Further, both good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. The most accurate view is thus the third one, although with a bias toward the second. That is to say, unless God gives you a special revelation about the Japan crisis, we must ultimately accept that his will in such events is a mystery. We must also be confident that he is in control and does what is right.
I will also confess that I have remained with the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition because I cannot make sense of Christianity if God directly causes everything that happens in the world. The notion that “God is love” seems to become meaningless. If I have to try to explain how God can be love in a world where pedophiles rape and murder children, the only answer that makes any sense at all is that a world in which God has given us some degree of freedom is a better world than one in which we are slaves to his will. But if God allows us the freedom to do evil, then some will do evil.
Romans 8:20 tells us that the creation is in the same boat with us. I can only make sense of things if God has granted the creation some of this same freedom to continue on its course following its laws and the effect of Adam’s sin. According to those laws, when tectonic plates build up enough pressure, massive earthquakes happen. And when massive earthquakes happen under water, massive tsunamis happen. And when people are living nearby, a lot of people are probably going to die.
Jesus warned his audience not to think that God was singling out the 18 who died when a tower fell on them. ”Don’t think they are worse sinners than you,” he said (Luke 13:1-5). And when Jesus’ disciples assumed a man was blind either because he or his parents had sinned, Jesus corrects them (John 9:1-3).
So how can we make theological sense of these sorts of events in the context of Christian faith? First, while God’s intentions in relation to such events is ultimately a mystery, given God’s revealed nature it is far more likely that he allows them rather than directly causes them. But even more importantly, our sense of his revealed nature will lead us to picture his Spirit reaching out to those who are suffering.
Is this not the picture of God we find in Romans 5:10 when it says that Jesus died for us when we were his enemies? And Jesus did not die only for those who would believe. He died for everyone, including those who ultimately reject him. For this reason, we cannot legitimately restrict evangelism–preaching the good news–to saving people’s souls. Nor can we legitimately distinguish between helping people’s souls and helping people’s bodies. The good news is one good news, to body and soul, to those who believe and those who do not believe.
__________
If we were to survey the things various pastors have said from their pulpits about the recent tsunami in Japan, I suspect that we might find three types of comment: 1) those who see this event as God’s judgment on Japan for not believing, 2) those who see this event as part of the problem of evil, with God bringing peace and good news into the midst of the catastrophe, and 3) those who see God’s involvement in such events as somewhat of a mystery.
It is precisely in this sort of event when our theological questions cease being academic discussions and become either helpful or dangerous. For example, if we believe that this event was God’s judgment on the Japanese, we will be less likely to try to help the survivors. Or if we think giving help can only be motivated by the possibility of salvation, then our help may actually be counterproductive to its purpose. Help purely in the service of a narrowly defined sense of evangelism is more likely to turn others away from the gospel in disgust than to draw them in.
It is also a time when imprecision in our biblical theology goes from innocent to dangerous. For example, how do we reconcile 2 Samuel 24:1 with 1 Chronicles 21:1? The first says that God tempted David to take a census, while the second says that the Satan tempted David to take this very same census. Unless we want to allow for contradiction, the only solution I can think of is to see a development in theological precision between the earlier Samuel and the later Chronicles. The New Testament confirms this trajectory of understanding when James 1:13 says that God does not tempt anyone.
It seems an inescapable conclusion that some of what the older parts of the Old Testament ascribe to God’s direct action (like sending an evil spirit on Saul–1 Sam. 16:14) are likely things that God allows rather than directly causes. Similarly, many parts of the Old Testament–especially the historical books–have a very general sense of good and evil consequence: those who do good receive prosperity in this life; those who do evil suffer in this life. In the New Testament especially this view gains precision. After all, the most righteous man of all–Jesus–dies on a cross.
So a more precise understanding is that God does not directly cause all the bad things that happen. Further, both good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. The most accurate view is thus the third one, although with a bias toward the second. That is to say, unless God gives you a special revelation about the Japan crisis, we must ultimately accept that his will in such events is a mystery. We must also be confident that he is in control and does what is right.
I will also confess that I have remained with the Wesleyan-Arminian tradition because I cannot make sense of Christianity if God directly causes everything that happens in the world. The notion that “God is love” seems to become meaningless. If I have to try to explain how God can be love in a world where pedophiles rape and murder children, the only answer that makes any sense at all is that a world in which God has given us some degree of freedom is a better world than one in which we are slaves to his will. But if God allows us the freedom to do evil, then some will do evil.
Romans 8:20 tells us that the creation is in the same boat with us. I can only make sense of things if God has granted the creation some of this same freedom to continue on its course following its laws and the effect of Adam’s sin. According to those laws, when tectonic plates build up enough pressure, massive earthquakes happen. And when massive earthquakes happen under water, massive tsunamis happen. And when people are living nearby, a lot of people are probably going to die.
Jesus warned his audience not to think that God was singling out the 18 who died when a tower fell on them. ”Don’t think they are worse sinners than you,” he said (Luke 13:1-5). And when Jesus’ disciples assumed a man was blind either because he or his parents had sinned, Jesus corrects them (John 9:1-3).
So how can we make theological sense of these sorts of events in the context of Christian faith? First, while God’s intentions in relation to such events is ultimately a mystery, given God’s revealed nature it is far more likely that he allows them rather than directly causes them. But even more importantly, our sense of his revealed nature will lead us to picture his Spirit reaching out to those who are suffering.
Is this not the picture of God we find in Romans 5:10 when it says that Jesus died for us when we were his enemies? And Jesus did not die only for those who would believe. He died for everyone, including those who ultimately reject him. For this reason, we cannot legitimately restrict evangelism–preaching the good news–to saving people’s souls. Nor can we legitimately distinguish between helping people’s souls and helping people’s bodies. The good news is one good news, to body and soul, to those who believe and those who do not believe.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Preaching this morning...
... from Romans 5:1-11. Simply outline:
1. God has been getting us ready for our sufferings.
2. God has been getting us ready for the end.
3. God is with us now, in suffering, leading to endurance, building our character, and confirming a hope that will not disappoint.
1. God has been getting us ready for our sufferings.
2. God has been getting us ready for the end.
3. God is with us now, in suffering, leading to endurance, building our character, and confirming a hope that will not disappoint.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Mike Savage...
Back home. We did end up stopping for a few hours sleep in Kentucky, but drove some into the night. About midnight, I heard Mike Savage and another guy afterward in Tennessee. Heard of Savage Nation but never actually heard him before. If I had to sum up what I heard (it did keep me awake ;-) in one word, it would be "poison."
It's no wonder half of America is angry if they're listening to this sort of stuff. Good grief, he virtually called O'Reilly, Hannity, etc part of a Republican establishment conspiracy.
In the midst of my despair at the irrationality of America right now, I thought perhaps it is time to start a new movement. The word "Remodernism" came back to mind. Yes, we have learned from the postmodern challenge that we cannot be objective. But it's about time we started trying again. One sided talk shows on both sides are poisoning the populace.
We need to return to dispassionate debate across the board, moderated by neutrals, with all major positions represented and objectivity the goal. The bottom line playing field must be evidence and coherency, or the West is lost to tribalism.
It's no wonder half of America is angry if they're listening to this sort of stuff. Good grief, he virtually called O'Reilly, Hannity, etc part of a Republican establishment conspiracy.
In the midst of my despair at the irrationality of America right now, I thought perhaps it is time to start a new movement. The word "Remodernism" came back to mind. Yes, we have learned from the postmodern challenge that we cannot be objective. But it's about time we started trying again. One sided talk shows on both sides are poisoning the populace.
We need to return to dispassionate debate across the board, moderated by neutrals, with all major positions represented and objectivity the goal. The bottom line playing field must be evidence and coherency, or the West is lost to tribalism.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Shore Leave Ends
Coming home today from a wee spot of shore leave. No doubt IWU has launched a new program on the moon in my absence. ;-)
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Those Christ Came For...
I visited an organization yesterday in Florida that helps and distributes aid to a cadre of local individuals, most of whom have HIV. Most of them have some sort of Christian background, and I did my best to field all sorts of questions about everything from weird offshoots of Buddhism to whether we should pray to Christ or God the Father. Because of organizations like this one, they are not forgotten.
But to mainstream society, they are forgotten. I left thinking of Jesus' words in Luke 5:32: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." These are those that Christ came to earth for, I thought. He certainly died for everyone, but his earthly ministry was not directed at those who go to church. He did not come for those who keep the law. He did not come for the comfortable professor or legislator. He came for these.
This is the perspective of the gospels. The ironic parallel between the Pharisees of the gospels and the Christian climate right now is amazing. Let me contemporize. The Pharisees are worried over whether the immigrant's papers are legal. Jesus is helping a mugged immigrant by the road. The Pharisees rejoice in the justice of someone getting AIDS. Jesus is having dinner with them. The Congressmen are wanting Jesus to speak at their luncheon. He is giving bread to a homeless person on the street.
Got knows the hearts of those I spoke to yesterday. Some of them expressed their rejection by churches and Christians. Many of their heads are not what they might be, given years of drugs. I gave them my sense of things as a Wesleyan:
1. God looks on the heart. What direction are they moving in, and are they really trying to move toward him?
2. Don't hurt anyone. This is basically what it means to love our neighbor.
3. We try to understand God, the Bible, and the answers to life's biggest questions. But we will inevitably disagree on many things. We know God will do what is right, and we just have to trust him.
But to mainstream society, they are forgotten. I left thinking of Jesus' words in Luke 5:32: "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." These are those that Christ came to earth for, I thought. He certainly died for everyone, but his earthly ministry was not directed at those who go to church. He did not come for those who keep the law. He did not come for the comfortable professor or legislator. He came for these.
This is the perspective of the gospels. The ironic parallel between the Pharisees of the gospels and the Christian climate right now is amazing. Let me contemporize. The Pharisees are worried over whether the immigrant's papers are legal. Jesus is helping a mugged immigrant by the road. The Pharisees rejoice in the justice of someone getting AIDS. Jesus is having dinner with them. The Congressmen are wanting Jesus to speak at their luncheon. He is giving bread to a homeless person on the street.
Got knows the hearts of those I spoke to yesterday. Some of them expressed their rejection by churches and Christians. Many of their heads are not what they might be, given years of drugs. I gave them my sense of things as a Wesleyan:
1. God looks on the heart. What direction are they moving in, and are they really trying to move toward him?
2. Don't hurt anyone. This is basically what it means to love our neighbor.
3. We try to understand God, the Bible, and the answers to life's biggest questions. But we will inevitably disagree on many things. We know God will do what is right, and we just have to trust him.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
The Trajectory of the Literal: Feedback Welcome
One of the great things about this blog for me is the instant peer review. I have often been able to get immediate feedback from people doing doctoral level work on various topics of interest. I recently had a student ask me to explain an interpretation of history I have offered, namely, that one of the unintended consequences of the Protestant Reformation was a trajectory that would split the books of the Bible apart into historical islands. The claim is that the historical-critical method was, in many respects, a natural consequence of the drive only to read the Bible literally. The "problem of biblical theology," the difficulty of finding a historical basis by which to read the books of the Bible as a single book, was an untended consequence.
I explained the hypothesis in this way: "By rejecting non-literal modes of interpretation, the Protestant Reformation set us on a trajectory of not reading any biblical passage in any way other than within the limits of what it first meant. But if we are not allowed to read it beyond what it first meant, then it will be difficult for us to see the same significance in the story of Adam and Eve that Paul did or to find as much significance in the birth stories of Jesus as Christians do."
Any feedback on this hypothesis? I can't imagine that I am the first to suggest it.
I explained the hypothesis in this way: "By rejecting non-literal modes of interpretation, the Protestant Reformation set us on a trajectory of not reading any biblical passage in any way other than within the limits of what it first meant. But if we are not allowed to read it beyond what it first meant, then it will be difficult for us to see the same significance in the story of Adam and Eve that Paul did or to find as much significance in the birth stories of Jesus as Christians do."
Any feedback on this hypothesis? I can't imagine that I am the first to suggest it.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Navigating Worship Wars
I was in a service Sunday morning that left a smile on my face. It was a service of mostly older people with a size in the low 100s. It started with some choruses on a PowerPoint and one player on a synthesizer with piano-ish sound. The pastor led.
Then there was prayer.
After prayer we entered phase two. A new song leader came forward to lead hymns and a new cadre of musicians--a new pianist and now an organist.
I know this is old stuff for most of you. You've been through this years ago and made adjustments of this sort. I just smiled, though. I pictured the conflicts that led up to this common sense compromise: making sure everyone gets to play at some point, making sure everyone gets to lead at some point, satisfying those who don't like "contemporary" music (in this case, choruses ;-) while trying to hold on to some (relatively) younger people.
I thought it was brilliant. Everyone bent a little bit, everyone can live with the solution. I'm sure you have stories!
Then there was prayer.
After prayer we entered phase two. A new song leader came forward to lead hymns and a new cadre of musicians--a new pianist and now an organist.
I know this is old stuff for most of you. You've been through this years ago and made adjustments of this sort. I just smiled, though. I pictured the conflicts that led up to this common sense compromise: making sure everyone gets to play at some point, making sure everyone gets to lead at some point, satisfying those who don't like "contemporary" music (in this case, choruses ;-) while trying to hold on to some (relatively) younger people.
I thought it was brilliant. Everyone bent a little bit, everyone can live with the solution. I'm sure you have stories!
Monday, March 21, 2011
Making Ethical Decisions: Libya as Test Case
I hope to lay out sometime this week the basic process of formulating an ethical decision. The general contours of such decisions, it seems to me, involves something like the following:
1. We get a sense of the general moral principles involved and their relative places in the hierarchy of values. For Christians, love of God and neighbor stand at the top of the list.
2. We get a sense of the potential consequences of various courses of actions. These play into the way we prioritize our values.
3. We check our motivations.
4. We decide on a course of action in the interplay of these elements.
__________
So using the current Allied action in Libya, here are some thoughts.
1. The love principle makes us want to help those who are being oppressed. The love principle recognizes Gaddafi himself as an unambiguous force for evil in his country and, at least previously, in the world.
Another set of principles have to do with the sovereignty of nations. In this instance, Gaddafi does not seem to have the consent of the governed, he is in the act of squashing his people, and there is broad international support to act to protect his people.
Some Christians of course do not believe that war can ever be justified. Most Christians, however, believe that war is sometimes a necessary evil or sometimes can be justified as "just."
2. It is usually impossible to foresee consequences with clarity, but here are some thoughts. Sometimes when you cast a demon out, 7 more that are worse can come in. Also, what if we help the revolution and Gaddafi still wins? He would then be worse than ever.
The tricky consequences of invading a sovereign nation to dethrone a ruler have become fairly clear, again, after invading Iraq (not that they weren't clear before the invasion of Iraq). Economically, they are a major factor in our current debt crisis. Humanly, the war resulted in thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.
One potential consequence is the continued movement, just maybe, toward democracy in the Middle East. It is not clear, again, that Libya would necessarily move in that direction, but certainly helping out the revolution might result in a replacement government that was more friendly with the West than Gaddafi. Gaddafi's sons are looking to be another 50 years of the same.
There are also potentially bad unintended consequences. Can nations maintain these sorts of ethical standards once war has started? Can ethical caution be maintained uniformly from the highest levels down to the level of the individual soldier? I think history would teach us that all out war always involves atrocity on all sides.
Is there some future tyrant among the mercenaries of Gaddafi's army? Is there someone like bin Laden who fought with Afghanistan against the Russians?
3. False motivations could easily become involved. Since I've recently driven to Florida, that $3.50 a gallon price tag has me wanting to stabilize Libya's oil. Gaddafi is of course accusing the West of wanting his oil.
4. The current action, in my mind, seems justified. The main goal is to ground Gaddafi's air forces and stop the oppression of his people. Since we are not committing ground troops, it is possible that there will be no loss of life to Allied troops. Since we are mainly bombing air bases, the loss of life on their side will not be great either. The justification is to prevent atrocity on Gaddafi's part. Stabilizing oil, making friends are nice consequences, but they are not the primary motivation.
Because we are not invading, the rebels continue to be fighting for their own freedom rather than us fighting for them. Meanwhile, Gaddafi's soldiers tend not to be Libyans anyway, so we are not promoting one side in a civil war but discouraging a mercenary army. And we have broad international support. Indeed, the US did not lead this charge in the UN.
I think the current action can be justified in the light of the moral calculus above. Limited engagement, mostly to destroy equipment, with the goal of ending atrocity and enabling the removal of an evil dictator, with the support of the people and, as far as we can foresee, strongly beneficial consequences.
We'll see...
1. We get a sense of the general moral principles involved and their relative places in the hierarchy of values. For Christians, love of God and neighbor stand at the top of the list.
2. We get a sense of the potential consequences of various courses of actions. These play into the way we prioritize our values.
3. We check our motivations.
4. We decide on a course of action in the interplay of these elements.
__________
So using the current Allied action in Libya, here are some thoughts.
1. The love principle makes us want to help those who are being oppressed. The love principle recognizes Gaddafi himself as an unambiguous force for evil in his country and, at least previously, in the world.
Another set of principles have to do with the sovereignty of nations. In this instance, Gaddafi does not seem to have the consent of the governed, he is in the act of squashing his people, and there is broad international support to act to protect his people.
Some Christians of course do not believe that war can ever be justified. Most Christians, however, believe that war is sometimes a necessary evil or sometimes can be justified as "just."
2. It is usually impossible to foresee consequences with clarity, but here are some thoughts. Sometimes when you cast a demon out, 7 more that are worse can come in. Also, what if we help the revolution and Gaddafi still wins? He would then be worse than ever.
The tricky consequences of invading a sovereign nation to dethrone a ruler have become fairly clear, again, after invading Iraq (not that they weren't clear before the invasion of Iraq). Economically, they are a major factor in our current debt crisis. Humanly, the war resulted in thousands of American lives and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.
One potential consequence is the continued movement, just maybe, toward democracy in the Middle East. It is not clear, again, that Libya would necessarily move in that direction, but certainly helping out the revolution might result in a replacement government that was more friendly with the West than Gaddafi. Gaddafi's sons are looking to be another 50 years of the same.
There are also potentially bad unintended consequences. Can nations maintain these sorts of ethical standards once war has started? Can ethical caution be maintained uniformly from the highest levels down to the level of the individual soldier? I think history would teach us that all out war always involves atrocity on all sides.
Is there some future tyrant among the mercenaries of Gaddafi's army? Is there someone like bin Laden who fought with Afghanistan against the Russians?
3. False motivations could easily become involved. Since I've recently driven to Florida, that $3.50 a gallon price tag has me wanting to stabilize Libya's oil. Gaddafi is of course accusing the West of wanting his oil.
4. The current action, in my mind, seems justified. The main goal is to ground Gaddafi's air forces and stop the oppression of his people. Since we are not committing ground troops, it is possible that there will be no loss of life to Allied troops. Since we are mainly bombing air bases, the loss of life on their side will not be great either. The justification is to prevent atrocity on Gaddafi's part. Stabilizing oil, making friends are nice consequences, but they are not the primary motivation.
Because we are not invading, the rebels continue to be fighting for their own freedom rather than us fighting for them. Meanwhile, Gaddafi's soldiers tend not to be Libyans anyway, so we are not promoting one side in a civil war but discouraging a mercenary army. And we have broad international support. Indeed, the US did not lead this charge in the UN.
I think the current action can be justified in the light of the moral calculus above. Limited engagement, mostly to destroy equipment, with the goal of ending atrocity and enabling the removal of an evil dictator, with the support of the people and, as far as we can foresee, strongly beneficial consequences.
We'll see...
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Translation of Immigration Satire
Apparently some actually thought I was expressing my actual opinions in my immigration satire the other day. I chose satire because it has an effect that argument does not. It was meant to be funny--although I also understand that sometimes humor hits a little too close to home. I have no doubt but that Mike Delph and his supporters are not idiots like I portrayed in this piece. If Hoosiers are really illiterate and small minded, then I am too--I was born here and have worked here for the last 14 years.
The satire meant to expose--potentially, if the shoe fit--the hidden motivations and inconsistencies of the heart. Often what we say are our reasons, are not our real reasons, and we don't always even realize it. The other nice thing about humorous satire is that it does not require accuracy. For example, I recognize that illegal immigration is a problem that should be addressed. If you were to stereotype my actual positions as the opposite extreme to the satire, for example, you would be wrong.
So let me be more literal. Let me translate the satire for those who actually believed I was expressing my real opinions.
First, Jesus is my Christ, my Lord, my king. The last point was meant to show precisely how unChrist-like I think the current trend toward foreigners in America is, a xenophobia aggravated by 9-11 and typical of wartime periods. This paragraph was absolutely not my feeling--it was exactly the opposite of my feeling. Why do it, you say? Why say such vile things? Because I wanted to express in stark terms exactly what these attitudes represent in relation to Christ and the Bible. They are as un-Christian as the attitudes in the satire, a slap in the face to Christ and the Bible. Sometimes Christians adopt such positions without even realizing it and this paragraph was meant to be a wake-up call.
The "rule of law" argument will bear some weight. There is no point in having laws against coming into the country illegally if they are meaningless. However, we make the laws. The rule of law is not some Platonic ideal. And Delph wants to make more. To oppose Delph's laws is not to oppose the rule of law, for they are not the rule of law now. He is wanting to add laws. And was Reagan going against the rule of law when he made a path for citizenship in the 80s? Apparently not, since it was done legally.
Even more to the point, why now, why this motivation to kick people out unceremoniously? I don't think anyone could give me a good reason other than majority fear. I strongly suspect that most of the nice sounding words here is nothing but smokescreen, hiding darkness. Let's be honest. This is not about Hungarians. It's about people from Mexico. They're not terrorists. They're not here to break into our houses. Again, it's all smokescreen.
I've never quite understood the fervor of the "speak our language" argument. Maybe it's because I like to learn the languages of other people. Maybe it's because I like to travel to other places and learn their way of life. Sure, visitors are going to have to learn some English to do well here. Probably someone should have to speak a fair amount of English to be a US citizen. But I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the kind of legislation we're talking about here is anything other than "sticking it to them."
So there you have it. Schenck in translation. Should I apologize for writing a piece of rhetoric that was so effective that it really ticked some people off? No, I should not. Should I apologize for standing up for a people group that is currently oppressed in America, like Jesus did 2000 years ago? Absolutely not--in no uncertain terms!
I will apologize if anyone felt hated by what I posted. And I will apologize to those don't get satire and actually thought I was serious. That's why there was a smiley face at the beginning. ;-) Those who actually know me, know that I was laughing the whole time I wrote the piece. I'm sorry if some of you only saw a scowl.
The satire meant to expose--potentially, if the shoe fit--the hidden motivations and inconsistencies of the heart. Often what we say are our reasons, are not our real reasons, and we don't always even realize it. The other nice thing about humorous satire is that it does not require accuracy. For example, I recognize that illegal immigration is a problem that should be addressed. If you were to stereotype my actual positions as the opposite extreme to the satire, for example, you would be wrong.
So let me be more literal. Let me translate the satire for those who actually believed I was expressing my real opinions.
First, Jesus is my Christ, my Lord, my king. The last point was meant to show precisely how unChrist-like I think the current trend toward foreigners in America is, a xenophobia aggravated by 9-11 and typical of wartime periods. This paragraph was absolutely not my feeling--it was exactly the opposite of my feeling. Why do it, you say? Why say such vile things? Because I wanted to express in stark terms exactly what these attitudes represent in relation to Christ and the Bible. They are as un-Christian as the attitudes in the satire, a slap in the face to Christ and the Bible. Sometimes Christians adopt such positions without even realizing it and this paragraph was meant to be a wake-up call.
The "rule of law" argument will bear some weight. There is no point in having laws against coming into the country illegally if they are meaningless. However, we make the laws. The rule of law is not some Platonic ideal. And Delph wants to make more. To oppose Delph's laws is not to oppose the rule of law, for they are not the rule of law now. He is wanting to add laws. And was Reagan going against the rule of law when he made a path for citizenship in the 80s? Apparently not, since it was done legally.
Even more to the point, why now, why this motivation to kick people out unceremoniously? I don't think anyone could give me a good reason other than majority fear. I strongly suspect that most of the nice sounding words here is nothing but smokescreen, hiding darkness. Let's be honest. This is not about Hungarians. It's about people from Mexico. They're not terrorists. They're not here to break into our houses. Again, it's all smokescreen.
I've never quite understood the fervor of the "speak our language" argument. Maybe it's because I like to learn the languages of other people. Maybe it's because I like to travel to other places and learn their way of life. Sure, visitors are going to have to learn some English to do well here. Probably someone should have to speak a fair amount of English to be a US citizen. But I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the kind of legislation we're talking about here is anything other than "sticking it to them."
So there you have it. Schenck in translation. Should I apologize for writing a piece of rhetoric that was so effective that it really ticked some people off? No, I should not. Should I apologize for standing up for a people group that is currently oppressed in America, like Jesus did 2000 years ago? Absolutely not--in no uncertain terms!
I will apologize if anyone felt hated by what I posted. And I will apologize to those don't get satire and actually thought I was serious. That's why there was a smiley face at the beginning. ;-) Those who actually know me, know that I was laughing the whole time I wrote the piece. I'm sorry if some of you only saw a scowl.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Wesley Study Bible Received!
Thanks to Abingdon for sending me a copy of the Wesley Study Bible to review. Not surprisingly, I hope to begin with Hebrews. The notes on Hebrews largely come from David deSilva, I believe. These notes feature quotes and insights relating to John Wesley and Wesleyan theology. It is NRSV, which is the standard version used in scholarly publication when the scholar is not providing his or her own translation.
I look forward to dabbling in it!
I look forward to dabbling in it!
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
5 Cheers for Mike Delph and Immigration Reform ;-)
I just realized five reasons why I should support the "Arizona style" immigration bill that Mike Delph got through the Indiana Senate today.
First, I know I'm not smart enough to learn another language, so I'll never know whether those people are talking about me. I'm frightened when I'm around people who are different from me and they're saying things I don't understand. Whatever happened to the Mid-West as a place of monolithic rural culture and one room school houses? I want the good old days back!
In fact, I think no one should be allowed to speak any language but English within the borders of the country, and, as I think they've introduced in Texas, we should not be teaching any foreign languages on the tax payer's bill. Why should I be asked to pay for someone to learn someone else's language?
And why limit it to illegal immigrants? I think we should send all immigrants back to wherever they came from. We should send the Chinese back to Africa where they came from, and Mexicans back to Cuba. Mike, I'm with you!
Secondly, I'm afraid they're going to mug me. You know, Chinese, Canadians, Mexa-ricans, blacks. I keep an eye on anyone who looks like they wouldn't have attended my Hoosier high school basketball games (that is, from my school--sometimes there were, you know, on the other teams that visited). You just can't trust foreigners and, you know. We need to send them all back because you just know they are waiting for you to let your guard down. I can hardly sleep worrying that some foreigner is going to break into my house. I'm with you, Mike!
Thirdly, I'm afraid they're going to take my job. I moonlight as a janitor at a local Motel 6 and you don't know how many cleaning jobs I got passed on because some foreigner beat me to it. I don't care whether they were legal or not. Whites should get first dibs. I'm with you, Mike!
Fourthly, a law is a law. I don't care that your parents brought you here when you were two months old and you don't speak Hungarian. Back to Hungary for you! I think J-walkers should be thrown in jail too, along with all those people who fudge on their income taxes. A law is a law--we're going to throw you into jail if you make personal copies on the company printer because we believe in justice here.
Better yet, let's send anyone who ever breaks any law to Guantanamo or some new island we'll call "ILLEGAL LAND." No, wait, we'll send them all to California, which hardly counts as American anyway. I'm with Michelle Bachmann, let's send all the un-American lawbreakers to California and then drop it in the ocean. I'm with you, Mike!
Finally, I'm with Mike. Jesus didn't know what the heck he was talking about. The Sermon on the Mount--what a bunch of bunk! And give a child a cup of water--if you're not legal or don't speak my language, no way you're getting water from me. That's justice, baby! That stuff in the Law about the stranger in the land; that stuff in the Prophets about the poor, the orphan, and the widow; that stuff Jesus said in the gospels--I've got one word for you: L-I-B-E-R-A-L! If that's Christianity, Glenn Beck and I want nothing to do with it.
I'm with you, Mike! We're Hoosiers. Education's for those liberal states like New York and California.
[For those who thought I was actually serious, here is the translation]
First, I know I'm not smart enough to learn another language, so I'll never know whether those people are talking about me. I'm frightened when I'm around people who are different from me and they're saying things I don't understand. Whatever happened to the Mid-West as a place of monolithic rural culture and one room school houses? I want the good old days back!
In fact, I think no one should be allowed to speak any language but English within the borders of the country, and, as I think they've introduced in Texas, we should not be teaching any foreign languages on the tax payer's bill. Why should I be asked to pay for someone to learn someone else's language?
And why limit it to illegal immigrants? I think we should send all immigrants back to wherever they came from. We should send the Chinese back to Africa where they came from, and Mexicans back to Cuba. Mike, I'm with you!
Secondly, I'm afraid they're going to mug me. You know, Chinese, Canadians, Mexa-ricans, blacks. I keep an eye on anyone who looks like they wouldn't have attended my Hoosier high school basketball games (that is, from my school--sometimes there were, you know, on the other teams that visited). You just can't trust foreigners and, you know. We need to send them all back because you just know they are waiting for you to let your guard down. I can hardly sleep worrying that some foreigner is going to break into my house. I'm with you, Mike!
Thirdly, I'm afraid they're going to take my job. I moonlight as a janitor at a local Motel 6 and you don't know how many cleaning jobs I got passed on because some foreigner beat me to it. I don't care whether they were legal or not. Whites should get first dibs. I'm with you, Mike!
Fourthly, a law is a law. I don't care that your parents brought you here when you were two months old and you don't speak Hungarian. Back to Hungary for you! I think J-walkers should be thrown in jail too, along with all those people who fudge on their income taxes. A law is a law--we're going to throw you into jail if you make personal copies on the company printer because we believe in justice here.
Better yet, let's send anyone who ever breaks any law to Guantanamo or some new island we'll call "ILLEGAL LAND." No, wait, we'll send them all to California, which hardly counts as American anyway. I'm with Michelle Bachmann, let's send all the un-American lawbreakers to California and then drop it in the ocean. I'm with you, Mike!
Finally, I'm with Mike. Jesus didn't know what the heck he was talking about. The Sermon on the Mount--what a bunch of bunk! And give a child a cup of water--if you're not legal or don't speak my language, no way you're getting water from me. That's justice, baby! That stuff in the Law about the stranger in the land; that stuff in the Prophets about the poor, the orphan, and the widow; that stuff Jesus said in the gospels--I've got one word for you: L-I-B-E-R-A-L! If that's Christianity, Glenn Beck and I want nothing to do with it.
I'm with you, Mike! We're Hoosiers. Education's for those liberal states like New York and California.
[For those who thought I was actually serious, here is the translation]
Monday, March 14, 2011
Allison: Pre-Passion Narrative 5
So far:
1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
3. pp. 395-99
4. pp 399-403
Today, pp. 403-5.
_________
Now Allison returns to Mark and John. He considers John to be independent tradition from Mark and so finds correlations between the two particularly significant. I don't know his back argument here. The more I read the more I sense that there is an intuitive element to his thinking, which pulls a little against the more scientific image.
I am much the same. My own sense of things--it not being my area--is that I find it hard to believe that the author of John did not know the Gospel of Mark, yet I consider John to incorporate many oral traditions that do not go through Mark directly.
I find Allison's chart on p.404 very persuasive. On the points he has extracted from Paul we find agreement in Mark and John (Jesus speaking in advance of his death, being handed over, Judeans involved, Romans triggering a crucifixion, etc.). Allison now asks the historical question. Which came first? Are the gospels based on Paul or are they both drawing on a pre-Markan passion narrative?
Allison goes for pre-Markan passion narrative. What is unclear to me is whether Allison is thinking of an oral or written source here. I completely agree that at least some often recounted oral version of Jesus' passion existed. How could it not have. I await being convinced if he means there was a written version of the passion prior to Mark. I'm very open. I just haven't seen the argument to convince me.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Allison: Judeans Involved 4
So far:
1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
3. pp. 395-99
Today I finish the section in which Allison conjectures what we would infer about Jesus' death if all we had were Paul's writings, pp. 399-403.
_________
5. In a couple pages, Allison considers what 1 Thess. 2:14-16 might mean when it speaks of the "Jews" killing Jesus. Allison I think rightly argues that this is a little hyperbolic. If Jewish magistrates handed Jesus over to Roman authorities, that would satisfy Paul's comment.
6. Would "Judeans" be a better translation than "Jews" here in 1 Thess. 2? Again, I am very sympathetic to Allison's "yes" answer.
7.1 Cor. 11:23 speaks of Jesus being "handed over" or "arrested" late at night.
8. Passages like Gal. 1:4; 2:20; and Phil. 2:8 seem to imply that Jesus did not resist his arrest.
9. A very significant observation is that 1 Cor. 11:23-25 indicates that Jesus foresaw his coming death.
10. Finally in this section, statements such as we find in 1 Cor. 15:4 and Rom. 6:4 indicate that Jesus was buried. Occasionally, someone like Crossan will suggest that Jesus' body might have been left in a dump as food for scavengers. Nope, doesn't seem likely given Paul's sense of things.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Allison: By Roman Hands 3
So far:
1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
Today, pp. 395-99
________
Two more points today in Allison's experiment--what could we infer about Jesus' death if all we had were Paul's writings.
3. We would infer that Jesus died at the hands of the Romans.
Allison points out that the Romans were pretty much the only ones that put people to death by crucifixion, indeed the only ones who put people to death in general. Allison also spends a good deal of time arguing that 1 Cor. 2:6-8 refers to human rulers of this age, which would primarily be the Romans.
4. Jesus was likely put to death as an insurrectionist, although not because he had actively led an insurrection.
I find Allison's argument here a bit less solid, but of course I'm convinced anyway. The references to Jesus as the Christ in itself points to an understanding of him as a king. Yet Paul speaks of him in terms of peace, as one who "became obedient to death."
Like I said, I agree that the historical evidence points toward Jesus' dying as a messianic "insurrectionist," without him ever leading an insurrection. But I'm not sure if Paul's writings alone could establish this point from a historical perspective.
1. pp. 387-92
2. pp 392-95
Today, pp. 395-99
________
Two more points today in Allison's experiment--what could we infer about Jesus' death if all we had were Paul's writings.
3. We would infer that Jesus died at the hands of the Romans.
Allison points out that the Romans were pretty much the only ones that put people to death by crucifixion, indeed the only ones who put people to death in general. Allison also spends a good deal of time arguing that 1 Cor. 2:6-8 refers to human rulers of this age, which would primarily be the Romans.
4. Jesus was likely put to death as an insurrectionist, although not because he had actively led an insurrection.
I find Allison's argument here a bit less solid, but of course I'm convinced anyway. The references to Jesus as the Christ in itself points to an understanding of him as a king. Yet Paul speaks of him in terms of peace, as one who "became obedient to death."
Like I said, I agree that the historical evidence points toward Jesus' dying as a messianic "insurrectionist," without him ever leading an insurrection. But I'm not sure if Paul's writings alone could establish this point from a historical perspective.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Allison: Jesus' Death via Paul 2
Previously: pp. 387-92
Now: pp. 392-95
_______
Now Allison begins to do an experiment. If all we had were Paul's writings, what would we suppose about Jesus' death. To many this will seem needlessly pedantic, but this is the work of an objective historian. No serious historian of any stripe questions that Paul wrote the bulk of the letters with his name on them. I myself further consider it historical incompetence (of any stripe, atheist or otherwise) to think that Paul's witness to this period is irrelevant to the historical particulars of Jesus and earliest Christianity.
So if we must prove everything, why not start with Paul.
These four pages whip off 2 of Allison's points via this "experiment."
1. Jesus was crucified. Paul mentions the cross and crucifixion many times.
2. Jesus' crucifixion involved nailing him (ropes could be used instead). We find references to blood, the marks (e.g., Gal. 6:17), etc. We find an interesting aside interspersed in this discussion. Roman Catholics have sometimes had a tendency to over-read Paul's mention of bearing the marks of Christ, as if he had stigmata like St. Francis. But Protestants have sometimes under-read Galatians 6:17, as if Paul couldn't possibly compare his scars with Jesus'.
This is what I like about scholars like Allison, Dunn, etc. Disagree with them we may, but they are really interested in the most likely conclusion, whatever it may be. They cut through so many games of so much scholarship aimed at reinforcing traditions denominational, liberal, and evangelical alike. It's just straight historical method, wherever they think it leads. It's a breath of fresh air to me.
Now: pp. 392-95
_______
Now Allison begins to do an experiment. If all we had were Paul's writings, what would we suppose about Jesus' death. To many this will seem needlessly pedantic, but this is the work of an objective historian. No serious historian of any stripe questions that Paul wrote the bulk of the letters with his name on them. I myself further consider it historical incompetence (of any stripe, atheist or otherwise) to think that Paul's witness to this period is irrelevant to the historical particulars of Jesus and earliest Christianity.
So if we must prove everything, why not start with Paul.
These four pages whip off 2 of Allison's points via this "experiment."
1. Jesus was crucified. Paul mentions the cross and crucifixion many times.
2. Jesus' crucifixion involved nailing him (ropes could be used instead). We find references to blood, the marks (e.g., Gal. 6:17), etc. We find an interesting aside interspersed in this discussion. Roman Catholics have sometimes had a tendency to over-read Paul's mention of bearing the marks of Christ, as if he had stigmata like St. Francis. But Protestants have sometimes under-read Galatians 6:17, as if Paul couldn't possibly compare his scars with Jesus'.
This is what I like about scholars like Allison, Dunn, etc. Disagree with them we may, but they are really interested in the most likely conclusion, whatever it may be. They cut through so many games of so much scholarship aimed at reinforcing traditions denominational, liberal, and evangelical alike. It's just straight historical method, wherever they think it leads. It's a breath of fresh air to me.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Ground Rules: Muslim Hearings
I increasingly try not to have a knee-jerk partisan reaction to things like the hearings on Muslim extremism in the House today. I don't know all the details. However, I do know the principles against which such things must be judged, both Christian and American.
Christian
Love your neighbor and love your enemy. This is easy to conceptualize. How would I want to be treated if the shoes were on the other feet? What if I were being scrutinized because some people who looked like me had done bad things? How would I want to be treated? I am not allowed to hate or persecute someone because they are not a Christian. No buts. This is one of very few Christian absolutes. You must love your neighbor as yourself. No exceptions.
American
1. Individuals are innocent until proven guilty, and a community can never be found guilty. Only individuals can. This is not only an irrefutable fact of logic, it is an indisputable fact of the US Constitution.
2. Islam is a fully permissible religion in America. Islam cannot be prohibited under the Constitution, and US citizens who are Muslim have every last right that non-Muslims have.
3. There is a history here. In times of war or crisis associated with particular groups, there is a tendency for those in power (=non-Muslims) to go psycho in a way that our children make fun of. The McCarthy witch hunt for communists, the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2, we have a history of over-reacting.
Can you think of any other ground rules? National security concerns are important, and in times of crisis, rights can be curtailed. But the burden of proof is always on those wanting to curtail rights. I feel confident that we're nowhere close to that planet right now.
Christian
Love your neighbor and love your enemy. This is easy to conceptualize. How would I want to be treated if the shoes were on the other feet? What if I were being scrutinized because some people who looked like me had done bad things? How would I want to be treated? I am not allowed to hate or persecute someone because they are not a Christian. No buts. This is one of very few Christian absolutes. You must love your neighbor as yourself. No exceptions.
American
1. Individuals are innocent until proven guilty, and a community can never be found guilty. Only individuals can. This is not only an irrefutable fact of logic, it is an indisputable fact of the US Constitution.
2. Islam is a fully permissible religion in America. Islam cannot be prohibited under the Constitution, and US citizens who are Muslim have every last right that non-Muslims have.
3. There is a history here. In times of war or crisis associated with particular groups, there is a tendency for those in power (=non-Muslims) to go psycho in a way that our children make fun of. The McCarthy witch hunt for communists, the internment of Japanese Americans during WW2, we have a history of over-reacting.
Can you think of any other ground rules? National security concerns are important, and in times of crisis, rights can be curtailed. But the burden of proof is always on those wanting to curtail rights. I feel confident that we're nowhere close to that planet right now.
Allison: Passion of Jesus 1
pp. 387-92
I start off my Lenten reading with chapter 5 of Dale Allison's Constructing Jesus, whose title is "Death and Memory." He sets up the chapter by acknowledging the issue that John Dominic Crossan decides in the negative. Crossan famously concludes that the biblical passion of Mark is "prophecy historicized" rather than "history remembered."
This question is old and the question is this. Did the earliest Christians make up the passion story out of prophetic proof texts? A large number of elements in the passion story correspond to phrases in the Old Testament. And just so we don't let ourselves off the hook too quickly, most of these are not predictions. In other words, we can't just make this an issue of whether one believes in prophecy or not. David flees to the Mount of Olives after learning he has been betrayed (2 Sam. 15). It is not a prophecy, but it is similar enough to what happens to Jesus for someone like Crossan to suggest that the whole Mt. of Olives part of the passion is made up to look like what happened to David.
Allison, whom I esteem as a straight shooter (which can make us uncomfortable, but we at least know he tries to follow the evidence wherever he thinks it leads), concludes with Mark Goodacre that Crossan's picture is too "either/or." Goodacre suggests instead that the passion is "history scripturalized," or as Allison puts it, "To biblicize is not necessarily to invent" (389).
Allison spends the next couple pages giving examples of Crossan's unjustified pessimism about Jesus' details.
I start off my Lenten reading with chapter 5 of Dale Allison's Constructing Jesus, whose title is "Death and Memory." He sets up the chapter by acknowledging the issue that John Dominic Crossan decides in the negative. Crossan famously concludes that the biblical passion of Mark is "prophecy historicized" rather than "history remembered."
This question is old and the question is this. Did the earliest Christians make up the passion story out of prophetic proof texts? A large number of elements in the passion story correspond to phrases in the Old Testament. And just so we don't let ourselves off the hook too quickly, most of these are not predictions. In other words, we can't just make this an issue of whether one believes in prophecy or not. David flees to the Mount of Olives after learning he has been betrayed (2 Sam. 15). It is not a prophecy, but it is similar enough to what happens to Jesus for someone like Crossan to suggest that the whole Mt. of Olives part of the passion is made up to look like what happened to David.
Allison, whom I esteem as a straight shooter (which can make us uncomfortable, but we at least know he tries to follow the evidence wherever he thinks it leads), concludes with Mark Goodacre that Crossan's picture is too "either/or." Goodacre suggests instead that the passion is "history scripturalized," or as Allison puts it, "To biblicize is not necessarily to invent" (389).
Allison spends the next couple pages giving examples of Crossan's unjustified pessimism about Jesus' details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
