misplaced priorities (?)

I was bothered by the little blurb about Edwards continuing his campaign in spite of the resurfacing of his wife's cancer. Granted, there are naturally pieces of the story that have probably been left out; but the face value presentation of the article gives the impression of Edwards saying: "Yep, she has cancer; we'll deal with it as we go . . . What's the next stop on our tour?" This is not some kind of some minor bout with bronchitis or a bad case of the runs because of some weird Chinese food; this is cancer! Not only is it bad enough that it's cancer, the article explicitly states that it is "incurable". Edwards . . . hello??!!

The other interesting (yet, bothersome) part about the article is that the decision to remain in the race for Presidency appears to be his and his alone. None of his comments suggests that he cleared this with his wife before deciding to continue on his (current losing) trail;* and none of the comments mentioned from her speak about his campaign. Instead, the implication seems to be her willingness to fight with further implication that she is in this fight alone. Again, there may be another set of comments that are not mentioned in the article; but that's precisely my problem with it. If there are other comments, they should be included so that a really bad light is not shining on Edwards right now. If there are no other comments, then Edwards is the one holding the bad light and shining it upon himself.

The reason this bothers me is because it appears as though he is more focused on achieving a personal goal (if not trying to make a statement--i.e., "I'm better than Bush; elect me and I'll prove it") than caring for his wife--the one he committed his life to when he said, "I do". She is more important than this campaign. She is more vital to his life than making a statement. She is more valuable than any personal goal he could ever attain. But the article--and his decision to remain in the race--seems to flip those comparisons in a really bad way. Edwards, if you read this (though I highly doubt that he will): Step down from the race and care for the most important person in your life--unhindered. There is no problem in doing so. I would highly respect you for doing so. She needs you more than this country needs you--and that's not being rude or impolite.

____________________________________

*According to recent polls, Edwards is a bit behind in the race.

current media consumption

This is just a random post--to stay in step with the title of this blog. I took my cues for this from two different sources: 1) my brother's blog inserted this type of material, and I thought it was kinda cool; and 2) I came across something that simply asked: "What are you reading, watching, and listening to right now?" So, here is the answer to that question:

BOOKS:*

Reading for Class

Gordon Fee, New Testament Exegesis
Harold Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary
Andrew Lincoln, Ephesians
Daniel Wallace, Basics of New Testament Greek Syntax

Reading for Fun

WD Davies, An Invitation to the New Testament
GWF Hegel, Philosophy of History
James Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt
CS Lewis, A Grief Observed
Andrew Lincoln, Hebrews: A Guide
Martin Marty, Martin Luther
John McRay, Paul: His Life and Teaching
Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars
JRR Tolkien, Lord of the Rings (the complete set)
NT Wright, Paul: Fresh Perspectives

MOVIES:

Recently Watched

The Departed
Hannibal Rising
Sum of All Fears
One Fine Day

Favorites

A Few Good Men
Christmas Vacation
O, Brother, Where Art Thou?
Monty Python: Holy Grail
Princess Bride
Great Escape

MUSIC:

(I'll just list who's in my iTunes playlist)

Live, Sting, 3 Doors Down, Dave Matthews, David Grey, The Times, Coldplay, Susan Tedeschi, Project 86, Third Day, STP, Counting Crows, Jars of Clay, U2, Primus, John Mayer, Evanescence, John Scofield, Kenny Wheeler, San Francisco Jazz Collective, Yo-yo Ma, and a bunch of other classical composers

___________________________________

*In case the question comes up: the answer is "yes", I am reading all of these at the same time. This list does exclude the books and articles that I have to read for my Masters thesis; but that list is way too long to post.

scattered thoughts about scattered findings

This post deals with the (not-so-) recent findings about the so-called tomb of Jesus, which is being over-sensationalized by James Cameron. The reason I say "not-so-recent" is simply because this (initial) discovery was done in the 80's--about the same time Geraldo Rivera did his live Capone story, which revealed about the same result as I think Cameron's findings will. There seem to be good reasons for why the initial discovery in the 80's received very little attention and/or media coverage--here are two:

Amos Kloner, the first archaeologist to examine the site, said the idea fails to hold up by archaeological standards but makes for profitable television. "They just want to get money for it," Kloner said.

William Dever, an expert on near eastern archaeology and anthropology, who has worked with Israeli archeologists for five decades, said specialists have known about the ossuaries for years. "The fact that it's been ignored tells you something," said Dever, professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. [1]

In light of the fact that the findings have been known for some time and ignored because of their implausibility, I have noticed a slight trend in how things (re-)emerge in our culture. To oversimplify this trend: something hits the market, it does well for a time, and then fizzles out to near extinction. Then, at some point later--typically when those who were a part of the original trend have passed or who are no longer a loud voice heard within trend-setting conventions--the trend resurfaces under the illusion that it is newer, better, and revolutionary. An oversimplified example of this would be certain fads that are coming into vogue among the teenage population. Today's clothing styles and fashions are nothing more than a (painful) repeat of the 80's with a higher sticker price.

This trend, to me, is obviously not exclusive to general venues such as the clothing industry. Dan Brown's book, The DaVinci Code was not new in the sense that he was the first to investigate the supposed back-story of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and document his findings. His presentation was nothing more than a recapitulation of a legend that had been discounted by serious historians on the grounds that it was anything but historical. But something about the cultural climate allowed his book to become overly popular and considered a real threat to the historical integrity of the Christian message. The same could be said in this case with James Cameron's attempt to discredit the ascension story of Jesus by claiming to have found Jesus' final resting place--which is anything but heavenly.

Before commenting any further, it would be good to remember the astute observations of the New Testament scholar, Luke Timothy Johnson, who shows a consistent pattern within those who claim to have found new evidence about something related to Jesus and/or Christianity.[2] Here is the pattern he notices:

1. It all begins by parading the credentials of the author and his amazing research.

2. Promises are given concerning some new, and maybe even suppressed, interpretation of who Jesus really was and the stories about him.

3. This new interpretation--often considered to be the new "truth" about Jesus--is discovered in sources outside the Bible, which allows the Gospels to be read in a new way which is said to be at odds with the traditional readings/interpretations.

4. This new interpretation is often overly provocative and even controversial to the traditional views. Examples: Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children together; he was the leader of a hallucinogenic cult; or, he was simply a peasant cynic philosopher.

5. Traditional Christian beliefs are therefore claimed to be undermined and in need of revision.

Johnson goes on to stress that the undercurrent within this pattern is an attempt to bifurcate history and faith--i.e., the two cannot exist. Because such a distinction must exist, and because we are the bastard children of the Enlightenment, what is unseen must cohere with what is seen because what is seen can be proved with certainty. Many, if not all, of the above elements can be found in Cameron's "Lost Tomb of Jesus"--with the possible (though I believe unlikely) exception of #5. His own comments suggest that he is not trying to undermine traditional Christianity, for his findings do not affect the "faith" that emerged from the stories concerning the historical Jesus. Here is a quote from the Discovery Channel website:

If Jesus’ mortal remains have been found, this would contradict the idea of a physical ascension but not the idea of a spiritual ascension. The latter is consistent with Christian theology.

What's interesting is that the idea of only a "spiritual" ascension, which is said to be believed by "some Christians", is not consistent with traditional Christian theology. So to push the idea that the ascension was only spiritual does in deed (attempt to) undermine traditional Christianity. What is also interesting about this claim is that it focuses on the ascension of Jesus instead of the resurrection, which used to be the common target of dispute. To go after the ascension like this would be a significant attack on the fundamental claims of Christianity, which do in fact claim that Jesus actually ascended into heaven after giving the parting instructions to his followers. Cameron and those in tow cannot make the claim that their supposed findings will not cause a few ripples in the pool of Christianity.

But before we get too worried about these supposed findings that may supposedly undermine traditional Christianity, it is best to consider the facts about the findings themselves:

1. It is interesting that Amos Kloner was not a part of Cameron's team[3]--seeing that Kloner was one of the first to investigate the site in the 80's when it was first discovered. His original 1980 publication is noted by the site, which seems to support the intentions of the production; but, conveniently enough, Kloner's 1996 article, which openly claims that the findings of the tomb are not as positive as many had hoped.
   
2. It's also interesting that the inscriptions on the ossuaries are not only as conclusive as Cameron touts, but at least one of them is in Latin rendering of a Hebrew name, which just seems a bit odd. (There may be later theological interests for why this particular name is given in Latin).
   
3. The patina evidence is also intriguing to the overall find. (Patina is a chemical residue that forms on stuff that is really old and it can be a tool for determining date and other important data). It is admitted, on the website, that the patina on the James ossuary--the one that received media coverage a few years ago (and turned into a decent book)--matches the patina of the ossuaries found in the find being filmed by Cameron. The website even says that this James ossuary is most likely the missing 10th ossuary from the other nine under investigation. Here's the fun part: the inscription found on the James ossuary has been deemed a forgery; and since the patina matches that found in the supposed burial chamber of Jesus' family, that immediately calls into question the reliability of the other nine ossuaries. (Cameron seems to shoot himself in the foot by making this conenction).
4. The inscriptions are somewhat problematic.[4] The one with Jesus' name is odd, for he is called "Jesus, son of Joseph". The reason for the oddity is that Jesus is never called "Jesus, son of Joseph" by those who knew him either during his ministry or during the time of the early church. The one with the supposed title "Mara", which is promoted to be a form of the word for "master" is incorrect--"Mara" is shorthand for "Martha". Those who wish it to read "master" have an agenda which seeks to connect the whole deal with the legends (re)popularized by Dan Brown's book.
5. With respect to the supposed DNA evidence: the DNA found in the ossuaries is not able to determine the gender of the bones' original owner. The bigger issue here is also the lack of comparative DNA. Because there is no historical DNA for the historical Jesus, there is absolutely no way Cameron and his crew will be able to prove with any certainty that the DNA found in the ossuaries does in fact belong to Jesus of Nazareth. If by some chance of last-ditch stupidity, Cameron and his crew compare this DNA with anything found on the Shroud of Turin[5]; their efforts will only confirm that the comparison was a last-ditch attempt. If anything, if such a connection is made between the two, it will only prove that an earlier attempt was made at discrediting the story of Jesus' resurrection and ascension.
   

And we've come full circle. That's all I've got on this issue. I would highly recommend those who actually read this blog to read the posts by the scholars who are far more able than me to speak on these matters. I will conclude this post with an interesting link to an article that was posted nearly a year ago. It's a bit on the pastoral side in its presentation, but it still worth reading.

_____________________________________

[1] This quotation was originally found here.
[2] The following list is adapted from Johnson's book, The Real Jesus: the Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (San Francisco, 1996), 31.
[3] Interestingly enough, however, Kloner is cited to be one of the original few who first studied the tomb
[4] Much of this point (and the next) is taken from Ben Witherington's blog, which I highly recommend.
[5] Personally, I see the Shroud as a joke with respect to historical accuracy and probability. The nature and structure of the Shroud goes against not only the burial practices of the time but also the explicit details found in John 19.40 and especially 20.5-7.

weighing in on the issue of global warming

Before this post proceeds, please know that everything stated is said with absolute respect. Nothing of what will be stated is a personal attack nor will it be said with any ounce of ill-will. The reason for this post stems from a comment I made to a close friend's blog concerning Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. My friend, Jake, then responded to my comment (found here), which prompted a response from me. Because my response wound up being much longer than I anticipated, I chose to submit it as a post--mainly because I did not want to overwhelm his comment page with a lengthy comment. That being said, here we go.

In all fairness, here is my original comment:

I cannot make any judgments on Gore's politics, simply because I haven't had the time to keep up with them. But I do find a bit of irony (if I could even call it that) in the whole enterprise, which leads me to the question of: how much jet-fuel did Gore burn while promoting his endeavor to be more friendly to the environment? It seems to me that if you want to be a poster child for being more eco-friendly, then you should find other ways to market your ideas instead of using ones that only contribute to the problem.

On a completely different but slightly connected note: I also found it interesting this past weekend that, while watching the History Channel, some scientists were working out scenarios of how to cope with a possible mini Ice Age--much like the one that hit in the 14th century. Here's why it strikes me as interesting: these scientists are running predictions for such an event taking place this century. Yet, other scientists are running predictions for global warming for this century.

Now, I cannot include Jake's response to these two comments simply because it was quite lengthy. :-) So, I refer you to the link noted above in the disclaimer. (I would maybe recommend that you open both posts in two different windows; that way, you can see them side by side).

First and foremost, both of my comments were said mostly in jest; and, as we all know, things said in jest have an element of truth in them. (I was no exception to this rule in that instance). So, my comments were originally more for fun than for anything else.

I will have to disagree with Jake (obviously) about the fallacy within my first point. I was not attacking Gore personally; my arguments were specifically aimed at the inconsistencies in his. (I have made it a point in my life to never attack a person; I only go after the arguments made). :-) To essentially say: the massive influx of fuel consumption and the unchecked emissions of dangerous gases into the atmosphere is one of the leading causes for the problem with global warming; while doing that very thing in order to convey that message is, to me, a glaring inconsistency in the argument being made. That's all I was pointing out with my first statement.

I will say that I was bit surprised by Jake's comment:

This observation may or may not be true, although I would argue that if Gore is successful in getting his message heard, what is gained is probably much more than the fuel he uses.

(The "this" in question is a reference to my first argument).

The reason for my surprise comes from the Machiavellian underpinnings of this statement--i.e., the ends justify the means.* The basic premise of my argument was: if there are other means that generate the same ends, then they should be considered--especially if those "other" means are more conducive for the greater good.** I completely understand the need for personal interaction and the benefits that come from that--especially in a public forum. In light of the message Gore wants to give, however, he could have simply made the sacrifice of having that personal touch and advertise the movie like crazy. Given the nature of our current culture, movies are one of the greatest forms of mass communication. (This is just one of the many different "other" means that he could have used to convey his message).

I should also say that I am not opposed to the arguments concerning global warming, nor am I against the issue itself. I do firmly believe that we, as a (global) human race, are doing things to our environment that are not conducive to the plant's eco-system. I do believe that if we continue on this path, we will certainly have to deal with the consequences of our journey--i.e., we ain't going to like where we end up. Where I hesitate, however, is on whether or not we have all the facts. (If this winds up sounding like an inconsistency, I apologize; I am still sorting through this issue, seeing that I am still a newcomer to it).

With respect to the issue of: our planet is steadily getting warmer and will continue to do so if we do not do something about our attitudes concerning the environment; I am not so sure that the first component necessarily stems from the second. As far as scientific evidence is concerned, we truly only have about 150 years worth of hard temperature data, so our pool of intell in this regard is not that deep. In an earlier post, I noted that several scientists in Britain were toying with the possibility that the earth's temperature is greatly affected by the state/activity of the sun--or, the existence or non-existence of sun spots. The conclusion of their findings was the possibility that the earth's temperature goes through cycles, which are reflective of the sun's solar activity. I will also point out that these same scientist rightly promoted the need to be more eco-friendly simply because not being more eco-friendly can have serious consequences when the earth happens to go through one of its cycles. This, to me, is an example of keeping the two components separate.

My second comment, which Jake addressed, dealt with the apparent contradiction between scientists who say that our planet is being threatened with a possible ice age and the scientists who say that our planet is being threatened with a possible global oven. My point in making that comment was that the way in which it was presented on the History Channel gave the impression of a contradiction. Jake's (valuable) insight about an ice age stemming from global warming is probably the way it should have been stated on the HC. My point was that they did not present it in this way. They presented this potential ice age as something separated from the issue of global warming. In fact, one of the closing scientists on the show basically said: is an ice age coming, or will we suffer from global warming; we cannot be sure with any certainty. That, to me, postures the whole issue as being two separate scenarios--not one caused by the other, which would be more likely.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jake about the definite need to be more conscious about what we are doing to the environment--for the sake of generations after us. And, as Jake so aptly pointed out, as Christians we should be more concerned about the state of our environment simply because God gave us that responsibility. To ignore that responsibility has global consequences--it is not something that only effects those who make such a choice. British scholar, NT Wright, once said that it's interesting that we as Christians do not take better care of this planet, when it is this planet that we will return to at the end of all things.*** The point was made in connection with the parable found in Matthew 25.14-28. God has given each person the responsibility of doing something in the service of him. What that "something" is another issue; what matters is how that person handles the responsibility given to them. We, as Christians, have been given the responsibility of caring for the home on which we live, and that responsibility was given to us by God. Therefore, to ignore the responsibility is (essentially) to ignore God; and that is an option that we cannot justifiably make while calling ourselves "Christian."

_____________________________________

*That is an ethical fallacy; and given the ethical nature of the global warming issue, making this kind of fallacy does more harm than good for the arguments made.
**My philosophical tendencies coming out in an obvious way. :-)
***One should not run the counterargument: "well, when the end of all things happens, God will simply wipe out the whole deal and start over with something greater" or, "God's going to fix everything in the end anyway, so why bother?" The parable noted is a large part of the reason why such arguments cannot and should not be made.