Monday, July 31, 2006

After awhile

... you just get sick of the same thing at the top of your blog and have to post something, anything, to make it new and exciting again (after all, an ever-shrinking audience awaits). So here's a thought that's been rolling around my head for awhile:

Pirate Brandon posted awhile ago a very existential piece about the archetypal struggle between chaos and order. Now, most of our lives are very far removed from chaos, in the ancient sense at least. The ancients all lived on the edge of civilization. They had a much stronger memory for the toil of creating order in nature--clearing fields, digging irrigation canals, building walls and houses that fell apart. We are so surrounded by order (vs. nature) that we have no fear of chaos anymore. Moreover, we have learned through scientific study about the order that exists within nature, much of which we can predict and manipulate. There are, of course, forces of natural chaos that still jump up and bite us--hurricanes, incurable diseases, etc. But for the most part, we regard those as exceptional, and as enemies whose days are numbered. A city gets destroyed by a hurricane, and we blithely decide to rebuild it--expecting to figure out a way to beat the next force of chaos (?).

Now, our separation from the fear of chaos hinders our understanding of the human past. Most accounts of creation (from anywhere in the world) begin with chaos and show how the gods introduced order. Even the account in Genesis, which is unique in many crucial ways, shows how Yahweh imposed order on the watery void. Then, in a terrifying sequel in chapter 6, he judges humans by returning the world to that watery chaos--covering the land with a flood. But we think of Noah and all the cute animals in the ark, and feel none of the fear that would have come upon the ancient audience.

Of course, the other side of this issue is that "modern" humans have rediscovered in our own time a fear of a different kind of chaos--the chaos within ourselves and our societies. Order is giving way to chaos in the form of suicide bombers and artillery shells. Or if we feel utterly unaffected by the chaos on the news, we look at our own lives and feel surrounded by emotional and relational chaos. We have no rest from our anxieties, no confidence that we will ever be able to "fix" what's wrong with ourselves, our careers, our kids (? he wondered, having no kids yet. But worrying about them nonetheless). When will we stop running? When will we have rest? How long before Iran can arm Hezbollah with a nuclear bomb? And when I buy my $3.25 gas from Citgo, am I bringing that day closer? (It's a stretch. Maybe.)

"When Lamech had lived one hundred eighty-two years, he became the father of a son; he named him Rest, saying "Out of the ground that Yahweh has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands."

Monday, July 24, 2006

My boys


From Lileks' tour of Highway 10:

Someday these will be in my front lawn, if my wife has anything to say about it.

Thursday, July 20, 2006

Chavez thoughts

Thanks, Special K, for responding, and recommending the website. Several thoughts are drifting through my head:

1. Venezuela's oil wealth being used to raise the standard of living for its poorest citizens is much better than its accumulation in the hands of a few. If Venezuela can use this natural resource to reverse the legacy of colonialism and build a society of democratically minded people, so much the better.

2. My eyebrows raised at the headline "Chavez advances toward election without a rival." When I read that, I think "despot" (not necessarily "dictator"). Such a level of political dominance is not good for the soul, of an individual or a nation. But reading this article and others, it seems that the blame for a lack of functioning opposition cannot be laid on Chavez. I'm willing to accept for the moment that there's no foul play involved.

3. Special K mentioned the "network" that Chavez is building. An interesting little network it is, too. This is what worries me most about the direction Chavez is going. Part of my worry is selfishly nationalistic, I must admit. The unity of oil-producing nations increases their leverage over the oil-consuming nations, and I can't blame them for standing together.

On the other hand, one would hope that Venezuela's unity with Arab nations would not extend to their, shall we say, less noble aims. I would love to buy gas a Citgo and send my money to a democracy rather than a nation like Saudi Arabia. But the closer Chavez comes to things like supporting armed resistance against Israel and helping Iran gain greater leverage in world affairs, the more I wonder whether it makes any difference.

I was going to say above in my comparison of Venezuela and Saudi Arabia that at least the former allows missionaries to operate. Then I remembered that Chavez revived the missionaries-as-spies libel and threatened to kick out some SIL staff. Anyone know what happened to them?

Tuesday, July 18, 2006


So Chavez is apparently a snooze, huh? In that case, I'll just post my favorite painting in this spot:

Pat Dochety, one of my favorite people from my time in Edinburgh, brought be a postcard of this painting after he visited the church where it hangs. Pat, whatever happened to you? You're not on facebook, you're not on myspace...I should try google.

[interlude]

Do you teach at De La Salle Blackfeet School, Browning, MT with Katie Krzysik?

Hmm, this is interesting. A spam-bot's dream: a page full of email addresses. But wait--there's a dire warning at the top for any spammers. Pat did go to Davidson, so I guess I'll give this email a shot.

Thursday, July 13, 2006

Academic Friday!

I'm posting for three reasons:

3. It's academic Friday (meaning I have no class on Fridays, hence Thursday becomes Friday)
2. I haven't posted in too long.
1. I don't want to do the dishes.

What should I talk about? Well, I just talked for a few minutes with a guy from Colombia. He encouraged me to visit South America, which I have wanted to do for a long time. The goal has faded in recent years, as my highest international travel priorties are Africa and a return to Europe. ("Why?" you ask--Because I want to see where the Church has been and where it's going--horribly oversimplified, but there it is).

Anyway, I thought about Special K's stay in Venezuela (I almost called it a "trip," and I always hated when people referred to my study abroad like that). Then I thought about Venezuela, Chavez, the oil, the elections, the whole deal. So I put it to you to inform me, Special K, and invite all readers (what the heck, let's let the illiterate in on this one too) to comment:
Is Hugo Chavez a despot? An enlightened despot? Is he building a people's paradise or a personal portfolio? Is he trying to revive Bolivar's dream of a Gran Colombia? Does he really care what Pat Robertson says?

Monday, July 03, 2006

Philemon

I have a small ambition to figure out the letter to Philemon. Why? Because it's short (I told you it was a small ambition). Seriously, I've come across what I think is a major interpretive issue in the letter. Few of my colleagues are discussing it, however, so another small ambition is to bring it up all the time.

Philemon is one of the shortest letters in the New Testament; we have no background in the NT on any of the prominent people mentioned other than Paul. Yet we all have heard the interpretation that Onesimus is a runaway slave belonging to Philemon. Supporters of slavery in the U.S. called the text "the Pauline Mandate" and used it to justify the institution. But NT scholar Allen Callahan argues that Philemon and Onesimus were estranged brothers, not master and slave. It all turns on verse 16, where Paul refers to Onesimus both as a slave (maybe) and as Philemon's physical brother (maybe): ουκετι ως δουλον αλλ υπερ δουλον αδελφον αγαπητον μαλιστα εμοι ποσω δε μαλλον σοι και εν σαρκι και εν κυριω. (NASB) "no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother, especially to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord." (Thanks to biblegateway for the texts).

Slave and Brother. Which one is the metaphor?

The runaway slave interpretation is so universal for us that most people don't even realize that "brother ... in the flesh" is in the text. The NIV translates the verse with the presumption of the runaway slave story as a "hermeneutical grid," if you will. Callahan argues that this interpretation isn't any older than John Chrysostom (347-407).

I don't know if the argument can be resolved on linguistic grounds, but I plan to study the use of ως "as" in the Greek New Testament to determine what sort of contexts it's used in. It may shed light on to what extent it tends to be used in the "counter-factual" sense that Callahan argues. More crucial to resolving the issue is probably research into the history of interpretation within the church.