An expensive decision, no doubt, but one in keeping with a fundamental moral stance against abortion and one with which I completely agree:

“A Bible published by the Southern Baptist Convention to raise awareness and money for breast cancer has been pulled from shelves in America after Christians complained that the charity it was backing supported abortion provider Planned Parenthood. The Southern Baptist Convention’s publishing arm released its cancer awareness Bible in October “as a way to place God’s Word into the hands of those suffering through breast cancer”, it said, with $1 from each sale going to the Susan G Komen Breast Cancer Foundation for breast health education, screening and treatment programmes. But after it discovered “the overwhelming concern” that some of the foundation’s affiliates were donating funds to Planned Parenthood, the sexual healthcare and abortion provider, it made the decision to withdraw it.

And this is what LifeWay posted:

(more…)

Keep your eyes on this blog site because in ten days or so it will move to … Christianity Today. I’m looking forward to moving there but I am grateful over the years for BeliefNet and Patheos. I’ll be providing a link when I know what it is.

Fresh meals for the homeless is his calling:

CHICAGO — For the past seven years, Michael Airhart has started nearly every morning by packing his car with a grill and as many coolers of food as he can squeeze in.

Unlike shelters that often only have sandwiches to pass out, Airhart serves up pork chops, burgers, gyros and even steak hot off the grill to those who could use a good meal the most.

“Just because you’re homeless, doesn’t mean you’re not human. You still crave good food and deserve to have a decent meal,” Airhart said.

The effort he calls “Taste for the Homeless” isn’t Airhart’s job; he makes team mascots for a living. But he says feeding the hungry is “his calling.”

Since he depends on donations to buy the food, Airhart says some weeks there’s more than others, but he’ll serve up whatever he’s able to purchase.

“This isn’t government-funded. It’s not state-funded. It’s just people like yourself doing something kind for those down on their luck,” Airhart said. “I care about these people. They’re like family to me.”

On January 12, Airhart will be moving his grills to Columbus Park for an event for Chicago’s homeless. Through the help of volunteers and donations, he hopes those who make it will leave not only full, but also with a bag of clothes and necessary toiletries in hand.

Oxford’s manuscript scandal:

In total, the EES has now discovered that 120 fragments have gone missing from the Oxyrhynchus collection over the past 10 years. Since the appearance, in June 2019, of that fateful purchase agreement and invoice bearing Obbink’s name, the scale of the scandal has taken time to sink in. What kind of a person – what kind of an academic – would steal, sell, and profit from artefacts in their care? Such an act would be “the most staggering betrayal of the values and ethics of our profession”, according to the Manchester University papyrologist Roberta Mazza.

The alleged thefts were reported to Thames Valley police on 12 November. No one has yet been arrested or charged. Obbink has not responded to interview requests from the Guardian, and has issued only one public statement. “The allegations made against me that I have stolen, removed or sold items owned by the Egypt Exploration Society collection at the University of Oxford are entirely false,” he has said. “I would never betray the trust of my colleagues and the values which I have sought to protect and uphold throughout my academic career in the way that has been alleged. I am aware that there are documents being used against me which I believe have been fabricated in a malicious attempt to harm my reputation and career.”

It seems that Dr Dirk Obbink is either a thief, has been caught up in a colossal misunderstanding, or, perhaps most shockingly of all, is the victim of an elaborate effort to frame him.

A case for Inspector Morse, perhaps. But the real detectives in this case have been a transatlantic band of papyrologists, theologians, classicists and biblical scholars, who have turned their deductive and evidence-sifting professional skills to the mystery. For them, what started as intellectual curiosity has turned into something more like a crusade against the perversion of the ethics of their field.

This band of scholarly sleuths, who have published their findings in books and on blogs and social media, includes the theologian Candida Moss; Brent Nongbri, a scholar of early Christianity based at the Norwegian School of Theology; Mazza, whose investigations have sometimes made her feel, she said, as if she were in a Coen brothers’ movie; and the contributors to a blog called Evangelical Textual Criticism. The last, a forum “for people with knowledge of the Bible in its original languages”, has not, until now, had much call for “breaking news” banners.

We are looking at Michael LeFebvre’s recent book The Liturgy of Creation, and his argument that the creation week in Genesis 1 is a calendar narrative designed as a guide for faithful work and sabbath worship. He begins by looking at the calendar of the ancient world.

Paul starts his letter to the Romans making the case that all peoples are aware of God:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)

In Lystra, Paul and Barnabas expand on this idea connecting it with the regularity of the calendar:

We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and everything in them. In the past, he let all nations go their own way. Yet he has not left himself without testimony: He has shown kindness by giving you rain from heaven and crops in their seasons; he provides you with plenty of food and fills your hearts with joy.” (Acts 14:15-17)

In the ancient world the calendar was in the sky, governed by the sun and the moon. Michael LeFebvre argues that the awareness of God Paul refers to in the passages above is written in these days, months, and seasons marked by the motions of the sun and the moon.  As the Psalmist wrote “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.” (19:1)  The orderly progression of seasons, the cycle of rains and and sun, are essential to produce the food necessary for life.  All ancient peoples recognized the importance of the celestial calendar.

The year ran from equinox to equinox – from harvest to harvest or from planting to planting.  In Canaan, Sumer, Babylon, and Egypt the regular progression of seasons – times to sow and times to reap – are connected with conflicts between deities. Le Febvre points to the Baal Epic in Canaan, in Ur to a contest between Utu and Nanna, in Egypt to a tale involving Osiris, Set, and Horus. LeFebvre uses the term “myth” to refer to these stories of conflict between gods – “a myth is a story that explains present, this-worldly realities through a description of primeval, other-worldly causes such as battles between the gods.” (p. 14) This is a common, although somewhat limiting, definition of the word myth, but it helps LeFebvre make several important points.

The separation of seasons from “myth” (as defined by LeFebvre) is seen in Genesis 1:14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years.” The lights keep the calendar, marking the passage of time. They mark the fixed times for festivals (sacred times) that celebrate the changing seasons. The lights are utilitarian objects, serving the purposes ordained by God. Whether the peoples acknowledge it or not, they are all aware of the eternal nature and divine power of God who provides both rain and crops. Jesus uses this reality in teaching us to love our enemies for … He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. (Mt 5:45)

In ancient Israel the festivals were governed by the same seasons of the year as in the rest of the ancient near East, but they are connected to the exodus from Egypt instead of other-worldly battles between gods. Thus, rather than having a “mythical” foundation, they are grounded in the historical redemption of the people from captivity and slavery. The divinely ordained festivals are listed in Leviticus 23: the Sabbath every seventh day; the Passover, the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and Offering of the Firstfruits in the month of the spring equinox; the Festival of Weeks in the third month after the spring equinox; the Festival of Trumpets, the Day of Atonement, and the Festival of Tabernacles in the month of the autumn equinox. Some of these festivals are grounded in specific events of the exodus, while others recognize the providence of God in providing food for the people.

Genesis 1:14 connects the creation work of God with his ordained festivals in Leviticus. The lights do not simply designate seasons as many English bibles translate this verse. The greater light and the lesser light (sun and moon) serve to mark the sacred times – the times of the divinely ordained festivals, the times set aside for worship of the creator.

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

(The link above is a paid referral – try this one if you prefer: The Liturgy of Creation.)

What is faith? Is it trusting someone one or something, is it cognitively knowing something, is it a general approach to life (gotta have faith), or is it what we believe (the faith)? Yes, perhaps to all. Matthew Bates, in his two books, contends faith has to be connected to allegiance and loyalty (Salvation by Allegiance Alone and Gospel Allegiance), and now along comes Nijay Gupta, in Paul and the Language of Faith, to sort it all out!

We need this book. Every pastor who wants to sort this out needs this book. Nijay’s an accessible writer who cares about pastors and churches.

Why? First, because he updates scholarship on all the crucial passages. Second, because he offers cautious and wise conclusions. And, third, because preachers and evangelists need this book — they are often ones who are offered opportunities to call people to follow Jesus, to believe-trust-know, and they need to see the rich variety of variegation of this term in biblical theology.

With chapters on Paul and in non-biblical texts and the Gospels and some more in Paul and on “covenantal nomism” being updated to “covenantal pistism” and debates about “faith of Christ” (Christ’s faith or faith in Christ or both or neither?) … he comes to the following:

Faith, or better for the moment, the pist- word group, cannot be reduced to one English term or connotation.

One might call this polyvalence, using the idea of modulation. It is as if pistis falls on a spectrum from believing (cognitive/epistemological) faith to obeying (volitional/social/practical) faith. Depending on the context, the pragmatic meaning can be plotted somewhere on this continuum, with some cases where it appears to fall to one extreme or the other. And sometimes Paul used pistis in a more comprehensive or all-encompassing sense, where it could be called trusting faith.

Faith often means faithfulness or loyalty or allegiance.

It is the faith that dovetails with obedience; it is the energy that produces the movement that becomes outward obedience.

Faith often means “believing faith.” [Thus, “belief” or “faith.”]

But as far as Paul is concerned, his faith language is not primarily focused on correct knowledge as much as it is about the correct way of looking at all of reality. To use a computer metaphor, faith is not about having the right data or even the right software; it is about using the right operating system.

Faith at times means “trusting faith.”

Finally, Paul’s faith language in Galatians and Romans (1:16-17; cf. Hab 2:4) is interesting because he sometimes uses pistis in an absolute sense, that is, without descriptors (Gal 1:23; 3:23,25). In these cases it is as if pistis stands for something like Christianity, Christ, the Christian life, and so on. Just as Jews used pistis to refer to their relationship with God (in, e.g., Josephus and Septuagint), Paul employed faith language in reference to the human-divine relation.

It is then wrong to pose faith and works always as opposites.

For Paul, there was indeed a problem with a narrow emphasis on works, but not because it was too active or because it presumed self-righteousness. Rather, for Paul, works as works became problematic when they replaced or detracted from pistis. For Paul, (1) pistis had a relational core and (2) the Christ-relation is central to this relational dynamic. This can explain how Paul could use pistis as a kind of shorthand to talk about Christianity, the way of Christ, the religious experience of Jesus followers, the gospel of Jesus Christ, trust in Christ, and so on.

OK, the big one: pistis Christou, “faith of Christ” (faith in Christ, Christ’s own faithfulness?)

One of the biggest challenges for the third view (in whatever version) is the matter of translation: what is the easiest rendering in plain English? Neither “faith in Christ” nor “faithfulness of Christ” does justice to this perspective. While it may not be elegant, I suggest the “Christ-relation(ship),” which is properly Christ centered, respecting the relational aspect of pistis, but leaving understated who is doing what.

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

Taken up again in the Gospel of Matthew

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us”). (1:22-23)

Most Christians have a deep appreciation for the scriptures, both the Old Testament and the New Testament. For those who were not raised in the church however, or who have for any one of a number of reasons become distrustful of the reliability of the scriptures, the questions are quite different. Scripture relates some pretty incredible events and stories – the virgin birth is high on the list. Why should intelligent educated person in secular, modern or postmodern, enlightened, Western society take this seriously?

Dr. John Polkinghorne’s book Testing Scripture: A Scientist Explores the Bible can provide some useful insights here – whether one agrees with him across the board or disagrees with some of his conclusions. Dr. Polkinghorne was a very successful scientist, an expert and creative theoretical physicist involved in the discovery of quarks. He was Professor of Mathematical Physics at Cambridge University before he resigned to study for the Anglican priesthood. He has since been a parish priest, Dean of the Chapel at Trinity Hall Cambridge and President of Queen’s College, Cambridge. After retirement he continues to write, think, and lecture about the interface between science and faith. In Testing Scripture Polkinghorne isn’t dogmatic or defensive about about scripture, rather he is explaining why he, as a scientist, scholar, and Christian, takes scripture seriously. Both faith and reason play a role in his approach to scripture.

The Gospels record a reliable history. Within the historical conventions of their time they tell the gospel; the story of the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as the good news of God’s work in the world. Dr. Polkinghorne works through a number of different episodes and events as he describes his reasons for taking the Gospels seriously. One of the most interesting, though, is the one he leaves for last.

I have left till last what are among the best-known and best-loved narratives in the Gospels: the stories of the birth of Jesus. We find them only in Matthew 1.18-2.12 and Luke 2.1-20. John, after his timeless Prologue, and Mark, without any preliminaries, both start with the encounters between John the Baptist and Jesus at the beginning of the public ministry. We are so used to conflating the two gospel accounts that it is only when we read them carefully and separately that we become aware of how different they are. Luke seems to tell the story very much from the point of view of Mary, and the visitors to the newborn Jesus are the humble shepherds. Matthew seems to see things much more from Joseph’s perspective, and his visitors are the magi. … Luke gives us a very specific dating of the birth in relation to a Roman census, but there are severe scholarly difficulties in reconciling this with Matthew’s (plausible) statement that it took place during the reign of Herod the Great. A principle concern of both narratives is to explain why, if Mary’s home was at Nazareth, Jesus was born in Bethlehem, as Messianic prophecy required. I do not doubt that there is historical truth preserved in the birth stories, but establishing its exact content is not an easy task. (p. 67-68)

As with some of the other stories in the gospels and in other parts of scripture there are discrepancies that can be difficult to reconcile and harmonize. There is no strong reason, however, to doubt a historical root, down to and including the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

A Virgin Conceived. The conception of Jesus is a different issue. Matthew 1:18 relates the claim:

This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.

Joseph responds to Mary’s pregnancy by planning to divorce her and an angel in a dream reiterates the claim “what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” Luke 1:34-35 records Mary’s response when told she would conceive and give birth to a son, the Messiah.

“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.

The very idea that a virgin conceived and bore a son raises an eyebrow or two in our secular Western society – both modern and postmodern. At the risk of being a little too earthy – conception in humans requires input from two sources. After all, we all know that an egg from the woman requires the DNA from the sperm provided by a man to make it whole, capable of producing a new individual. One might, perhaps conceive of a clone of some sort using only Mary’s DNA – but this could only make a female, not a male. No Y Chromosome in Mary. If a virgin gave birth to a son it was a truly miraculous conception. The DNA had to come from somewhere. Did God just produce a a unique set of chromosomes to join with Mary’s? Was it Joseph’s DNA? Some other descendant of David? Was this a divine artificial insemination?

How and can an intelligent, educated, experienced person believe in a virgin birth?

Dr. Polkinghorne gives his reasoning:

Luke, very explicitly in his story of the Annunciation (1.34-35), and Matthew, more obliquely (1.18), both assert the virginal conception of Jesus. Christian tradition has attached great significance to this, often rather inaccurately calling it the ‘virgin birth’. Yet in the New Testament it seems nowhere as widely significant as the Resurrection. Paul is content to simply lay stress on Jesus’ solidarity with humanity: ‘God sent his Son, born of woman, born under the law’ (Galatians 4.4). The theological importance of the virginal conception lies in its lending emphasis to the presence of a total divine initiative in the coming of Jesus, even if this truth is much more frequently expressed by the New Testament writers simply in the language of his having been sent. Jesus was not opportunistically co-opted for God’s purpose when he was found to be suitable, but he was part of that purpose from the start. The virginal conception is a powerful myth, and I believe that in the religion of the Incarnation the power of story fuses with the power of a true story, so that the great Christian myths are enacted myths. On this basis, I find myself able to believe in the virgin birth, even if the motivating evidence is less extensive than for the belief in the Resurrection. (p. 68-69, emphasis added)

Interaction not Intervention. One of the most important criteria for thinking through the incredible claims in scripture is God’s interaction with his creatures rather than his intervention in his creation. The miracles ring true when they enhance our understanding of the interaction of God with his people in divine self-revelation. The virginal conception is part of the Incarnation, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us”. The magnificent early Christian hymns quoted by Paul in Col 1.15-20 and Phil 2.6-11 catch the essence of this enacted myth as well.

It makes no sense to try to defend the virginal conception, the resurrection, or any of the other signs or miracles related in the New Testament, separate from the story of the Gospel, the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus as God’s Messiah. In the context of God’s mission within his creation the miracles make sense and are truly miracles. Separate from this they will never make sense.

This is also a place where it is wise to avoid asking too many questions. Especially as there is no way these questions will ever find answers. I rather expect that the conception (insemination) was miraculous – but that a modern DNA test would have confirmed descent from the house and lineage of David in some manner. But this is really beside the point and unimportant. The point is the one that Dr. Polkinghorne emphasizes … Jesus was not opportunistically co-opted for God’s purpose but he was part of that purpose from the start. This was God’s plan and God’s doing.

What do you think? Do Dr. Polkinghorne’s reasons for believing in the virgin birth make sense?

What arguments are persuasive on this, or any other “difficult to believe” event?

If you wish to contact me directly you may do so at rjs4mail[at]att.net.

If interested you can subscribe to a full text feed of my posts at Musings on Science and Theology.

(This is an edited repost, always appropriate this time of year. The links above are paid referrals – try this one if you prefer: Testing Scripture.)

Thanks to all who have sent me links this week, especially Kris. Thanks, too, to Terri Fullerton for this beautiful rendition of Mary.

A beautiful story:

The government in my home state of Western Australia has just passed some of the most far-reaching euthanasia laws in the nation, and they are proud.  Gleeful even.

There was pushback, notably from one local MP who I know, Nick Goiran, who managed to get changes made in the weeks leading up to the passing of the bill.  But it was never going to be enough.  Assisted dying – as it is euphemistically called – is here to stay.  But not here to “stop” and stay.  The parameter will inevitably be widened.  That’s the way these things work.  Nothing will go backwards, everything  – according to a progressive way of thinking – must go forward.  But to what?

The usual media outlets have bolstered the laws in the sight of the public by publishing assisted dying stories and the liberties they bring to people.  Nary an article in sight that dissents.  It’s clear that personal narratives are the way this is being pushed.  Hard political and legal power is inevitably reinforced by soft cultural power.

Pushed under the carpet are issues surrounding elder-abuse, which is on the increase in the western world.  Older family members often have a right to fear their younger progeny.  These stories rarely get air time.  These don’t fit the narrative of progress in a society that has lost sight of the true meaning of the word “euthanasia” – which means “good death”.  A good death was one where someone died well in the sense of nothing being left undone that needed to be done, all relationships intact that needed to be intact, and a steadfast commitment to what was beyond death itself. …

It is almost three years since my own father died, of a horrible disease called Lewy Body Dementia.  A disease so bad that actor and comedian Robin Williams took his own life rather than face what it would do to him.

So someone asked me just today, in light of that legislation what I thought about euthanasia, given what my father went through in the last few years of his life.  I can partly speak for him, but mostly for me. And I want to say this:

In a late modern culture that is increasingly brutish and uncaring, with little sympathy for the truly weak such as the unborn and the old, the opportunity to look after my father in his long, slow, and debilitating death, changed something about me.  It changed something about me that we all need changed in us.

And what was that change?  It was the softening of my heart.  We live in an increasingly hard hearted, callous, time-is-money world, in which a person’s worth is determined by their identity; by what you can do for them; by their talents and looks; by what they contribute to society.

“That’ll learn ’em!”

A Colorado woman reportedly gave some porch pirates a taste of their own medicine this week by leaving trash-filled Amazon packages outside her front door.

Christine Hyatt told KKTV in Colorado Springs that thieves have stolen at least 20 packages from her porch and last Wednesday was the third time she was able to dupe the criminals into removing her garbage for free.

“We forgot to set our trash out for Thanksgiving, so we were overflowing with trash,” she told the station. “I’ve had packages stolen and I went, ‘You know what? I have extra boxes — let’s see if someone will take our trash!'”

Bees as comfort animals:

An Arizona man’s emotional support animal is creating quite a buzz.
Prescott Valley, Ariz., resident David Keller thinks the application process to register an emotional support animal is too easy — so he tried registering a swarm of bees as his service pet. It worked.

Prescott Valley, Ariz., resident David Keller thinks the application process to register an emotional support animal is too easy — so he tried registering a swarm of bees as his service pet.

“A lot of people thought it was hilarious and a lot of people were getting upset,” Keller tells CBS affiliate WTRF-TV. He recently went on a website called USAServiceDogRegistration.com and successfully uploaded a random photo of a beehive as a service animal “to bring awareness to the issue that anyone could do this,” he explains.

Keller was inspired to go through with the registration after seeing a service dog that was visibly untrained.

“I could very easily tell that it was not a service animal because it was pulling the owner to the parking lot,” says Keller. “I was thinking that it’s just too easy to get these animals to be service animals.”

The website he used to register his swarm is one of many that make the application process for emotional pets too easy, experts say.

And a Merry Christmas act of generosity by Khalil Mack:

Chicago Bears outside linebacker Khalil Mack is one of the NFL’s best defenders. And it turns out he’s a pretty good guy, too.

In a tweet sent out by Daniel Greenberg, a Chicago-based media personality, it was revealed that Mack made a generous donation to customers at the Walmart in his hometown of Fort Pierce, Ill.

Mack paid off the balance for layaway consumers at the local Walmart just in time for the holiday season.

Greenberg’s tweet shared a screenshot taken from the Fort Pierce Walmart’s Facebook page, which read: “We have some wonderful news! If you have an active holiday layaway account at your local Ft. Pierce Walmart, your account has been paid off! We here at Walmart would like to thank the Khalil Mack Foundation for your generosity, and for making so many families happy for the holidays! Everyone is truly grateful for everything you have done for them!”

The mission statement on the Khalil Mack Foundation’s website states: “Our mission is to positively affect the lives of intercity and under-privileged youth and families by providing for the community, through educational and extra-curricular initiatives, a safe and enjoyable environment where we intend to aid in learning successful character traits through sport, and creating opportunities to financial resources and meaningful experiences to all we serve.”

We’re staying put, digging deeper roots:

The story of America is one of moving. A total of 13.6% of Americans today were born in another country, and most of us are descended from immigrants. This story of migration also includes moving within the country. Over the last 200 years, Americans have settled the frontier, moved away from cities toward suburbs, and migrated away from cities in the Northeast toward the South and West.

This narrative that Americans are constantly moving within the country is no longer true. Over the last 35 years, the number of Americans who have moved—within their county, state, or out of state—has steadily declined to nearly half of their previous levels. Between March 2018 and 2019, only 1.5% of Americans moved from one state to another, and 5.9% moved from one home to another while remaining in the same county.