Book Thoughts: Development Work

Note: I decided recently to comment on things I've noted in books over the years. I'm calling these Book Thoughts. This is the second post.

I wrote recently about Christian economic development work, and it reminded me of a thin little book I read called, Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. No graphs or ponderous math. Very readable.

In brief, the one lesson is this:

The art of economics consists of looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

Sounds absurdly simple, but as I watch the world go by, it seems clear to me that it is a simple lesson that is widely ignored.

Having said that, let me go back to my Christian Development topic with a little fable (any relation to real companies or towns is pure coincidence):

Missionary Bob works in the poor town of La Luna in a Latin American country. The Big Hiking Shoes company has just opened a factory there, paying an awful wage to its workers and no benefits at all. It would pay even less if it could, but if it did it would not attract enough people away from subsistence farming to make the factory work. So BHS reluctantly improves the people's standard of living by paying just a bit more than the prevailing wage.

But Bob gets mad. BHS is "exploiting" the people by "underpaying." So, when he is back in North America he visits BHS headquarters and tells them they need to pay more, provide day care for the workers' children, and low-cost health care. If you don't, Bob hints, he's got lots of friends and he may make a fuss and generate a lot of bad publicity.

Well, even more than cheap wages, BHS doesn't want bad publicity, so its says that, "Yes, Yes, of course we are very concerned about the problems you are bringing up, and thank you very much for bringing them to our attention and we will certainly do exactly what you suggest." And BHS lives up to its word, and Bob basks in the satisfaction of knowing how much he helped the poor people of the town, and he has pictures of himself taken with the happy children at the new daycare center and sends the photos to his supporters and says that you just have to stand up to these exploiters.

But what Bob doesn't see is that BHS was planning to expand its operations in town because it was so cheap, but because of the extra expenses Bob has imposed upon the company, it's not as cheap anymore, so BHS quietly decides not to expand there. Oh, the BHS PR lady stands with Bob and smiles for the camera and boasts about how caring the company is, but it opens its new factory in Vietnam.

Nor does Bob see that Larry's Boot Company, a BHS competitor, was about to follow BHS' lead and open a factory in La Luna, but seeing what happened to BHS, it goes to Thailand instead.

So Bob strangled the number of new jobs in town, but thinks he's a hero.

Instead, what if Bob, when back in North America, had stopped by and visited Larry's Boot Company and said, "Your competitor, BHS, has opened a factory in La Luna. The people there work for very little and do fine work. I'd be happy to show you the ropes down there if you wanted to open a factory, and BHS has spent a lot of money training people to do this work, and you could offer them a bit more and get a nice workforce without the cost of training. Etc. etc."

So Larry's, just as stingy a company as BHS, opens a factory and hires away a lot of BHS' employees at a bit more than they are currently being paid. Soon BHS gets tired of losing trained people, and reluctantly offers them more money. And because two factories require more workers than one, both companies hire more people from the community and the trained people start making more money. And because they have a bit more money to spend, a few retail stores open branches there, and employ more people. And so forth.

I'm not saying there is never a place for Bob's approach, but I think that in many cases Bob is simply not thinking out the effects of what he is doing. He may easily be doing far more harm than good.

The Book of Hosea

The Biblical book of Hosea is kind of like falling into a pit and then seeing a sunny garden at the end of a long, dark tunnel.

The prophet Hosea speaks of betrayal, of God's sorrow and anger, of defeat, of exile, of evil in religion and government, of human sacrifice, of punishment and of slaughter - even slaughter of pregnant women and young children. In this book there is ghastly real-world pain and suffering; it is not an old-time cowboy movie where the women and children come through safely. But on a deeper level, it is about God's love, specifically for his chosen people, Israel, even though it is a love answered by contempt and rebellion leading to suffering. But finally, and happily, it ends with God rescuing and renewing Israel.

Love, rebellion, falling into the pit of destruction, and then - far down the tunnel - restoration and renewal.

Although the book deals primarily with Israel during the depraved days before its first exile, it is also a picture of the sweep of human history, from our near and loving association with God in Eden, to our plunge into sin and suffering, to our redemption through Christ, and finally - and yet to come - to the renewal of all things.

Again, love, rebellion, destruction, restoration and renewal. An echo of Hosea's story.

Part One of the book (chapters 1 to 3) is a graphic and poetic in-the-flesh illustration painfully lived out in front of Israel by the prophet Hosea and his family. Hosea (representing God) was told to marry Gomer, an unfaithful woman (representing Israel), and by her he had children... or did he? But despite Gomer's unfaithfulness Hosea loved Gomer and payed a price to redeem her, just as God would pay a price through Christ to redeem Israel.

What is fascinating about this first section is that Hosea almost seems to be using the outline of soon-coming events (Israel's defeat, exile and, later, restoration) as a lens to look at a very similar disaster and restoration that will occur in the distant future, in the last days.

In Part Two (the rest of the book) Hosea gets down in gritty detail to the here-and-now, to the sin of the nation and its looming disaster. This part of Hosea is - until another glimpse of golden days at the end of the book - far from being poetic: it is blunt, detailed, and painful, hammering at the same themes, for clearly God did not want any griping from the people about their not being properly warned. They were warned, and in ways that should have made their hair stand on end. (I suspect this section may have been taken from a series of Hosea's sermons, which I would guesstimate are roughly chapters 4, 5-7, 8:1-8:14, 9:1-9:9, 9:10-10:15, 11:1-11:11, 12-14.)

Okay, with that intro, let me focus on just a few topics from Hosea (there are lots more and I'd encourage you to read the book):

The Last Days

First, I'd like to defend my contention that Hosea is thinking of the distant future - as well as near future - in chapters 1-3.

The reason I think this is because, on the one hand, the passage seems to promise more than happened around the time of Israel's first exile, and on the other, because the events it mentions seem to dovetail with the last days. For example, God says that he would make a pact with the beasts and birds (2:18), and "Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land (2:18)," and that God would marry Israel "forever" (2:19), and that the Israelites will "seek the Lord their God and David their king" (3:5).

But as far as I can tell there was nothing different about the animals of Israel after the first restoration, and I know that war in Israel did not cease when Israel returned from its first exile, though that fits with the millenium, and I don't see any evidence that Israel has a "forever" wife-like relationship with God at this point, though that sounds a lot like "the bride of Christ" in the New Testament, and I don't think the people of Israel sought "David their king" since David was long dead even in Hosea's time, though in the last days the people of Israel will seek Jesus, the Son of David who sits on the throne of David (Lk 1:32). And - at the risk of being obvious - in 3:5 Hosea specifically says that at least some of these events would take place in "the last days."

Prophesy of Christ

I find Hosea's use of the name "Jezreel" quite interesting I think perhaps Jezreel is a hint or prophesy of Christ. There are a few things that suggest this, and other things that seem in accord with that conclusion. First, in the stage-play of his life, Hosea plays God, and Jezreel, like Jesus, is his first-born son (1:3 says Gomer bore "him" a son, suggesting that this child, at least, was really Hosea's son, and not the son of an adulterous lover). Further, it appears from 2:22 that during the last days it is Jezreel who calls out for and receives blessing for Israel. Jezreel certainly seems to be symbolic since he lives not only during the time of Hosea, but also during the restoration and the millenium.

Also, Jezreel (named after a slaughter in the town of Jezreel committed by one of King Jeroboam's ancestors) is a living rebuke of sin, as was Jesus. Jezreel was also a reminder of judgement ("Jezreel" means "God scatters"). But he is also God's planter (his name also means "God plants"), just as Jesus planted the good seed (Matthew 13:37). And he is apparently, like Jesus, Israel's leader at its ultimate restoration, which will be a "great" day for Jezreel (1:11).

Poetic Form

It seems that a big part of chapters 1-3 follows a pattern of Jewish poetry that goes from outer to inner and then back from inner to outer. Here's what that looks like in Hosea 1-3:

Gomer's fall and punishment

  Israel's fall and punishment

  Israel's redemption

Gomer's redemption

I don't know that there is a big lesson to be learned from this, but it may be helpful in understanding the structure of this part of the book.

God's Rejection and His Love

One thing that fascinates me about Hosea is the comparison of God's love for Israel to the faithful love of a humiliated and heartbroken husband for his ungrateful, contemptuous and adulterous wife.

In the book God reminds Israel of the things He has done for her, how he helped her and blessed her and provided good things, like a loving husband for his beautiful bride, only to have her take the things He gave her and (my analogy) spit in His face, intentionally and consistently ignoring Him, prostituting herself to others and shunning him; setting up idols, worshiping them, intentionally confusing them with the true God and treating God as some odd and unwelcome stranger.

As a result, God is angry! He condemns Israel, from the leaders down to the people. God is heartbroken at His straying wife. He blocks the way to her false lovers with hedges of thorns; He speaks gently to her; he punishes Israel softly (as a slow rot damages a building), he appeals to her through the preaching of Hosea, and through Hosea's family He provides a real-live, walking-around rebuke. But the response is contempt.

And also God threatens. He will be like a lion against sheep, ripping Israel apart. But Israel responds to nothing. And finally, in the face of her contempt He will turn away his face and let the enemy destroy the kingdom and carry away those who are left into exile.

Outwardly, this is not the even-tempered god some philosophers might imagine; this is the God who is hurt, who becomes angry, who loves and hates at the same time. But deeply underlying his anger and pain is a steady love which promises that ultimately, despite its rebellion and contempt, Israel will return to Him and flourish like a well-watered plant.

To see what I mean, look at 1:9-10. At the end of 1:9 God says "...you are not my people, and I am not your God." But then, the very next word (1:10) is "Yet," meaning this isn't the end of the story. The rest of the story is this: "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore" and "they will be called 'sons of the living God.'"

So God cuts off his outer love, his physical blessings, just as we might say that someone "withheld love" from from another person, meaning they did not show their love. But still, beneath His anger and rejection is God's steady and unfailing love, a love that desires the best for His beloved regardless of whatever immediate pain and suffering that may cause. And, ultimately, God will not simply restore the people of Israel to being "my people," but will go beyond that and promote them to being "sons."

This story should be both a prod and an encouragement to Christians; a prod to live faithfully in order to please God, knowing that wilful sin pains God and may bring us crushing discipline. But it should also be an encouragement, knowing that if God had mercy on an Israel that acted like an adulterous wife sneering at her husband on the way out the door to meet a lover, then - just as He promised - this merciful God will forgive our sins as well.

Jehu's Slaughter

The confusing thing about Hosea condemning the slaughter at Jezreel by the king's ancestor, Jehu, is that the killing was commanded by God. Some commentators have suggested that Jehu sinned in going beyond the immediate command. Possible, but I wonder if Hosea's condemnation is because Jehu's descendants betrayed the purpose of the killings - to replace evil with good - by becoming just as wicked as the rulers they replaced, thus turning what was intended to be deadly serious act of judicial righteousness into pointless murder that just replaced one group of thugs with another group of thugs.

Covenant With Animals

I find it interesting that in 2:18 - during what I understand to be the millenium - God will "make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air." Perhaps this is not to be taken literally, but I'm not sure why it shouldn't be. And if it is taken literally, perhaps it means that animals during the millenium will be endowed with enough intelligence to understand and abide by an agreement. And the picture of God condescending to talk to the animals and come to an agreement with them is wonderful to me.

The Environment

God seems to be saying that sin affects everything, including the environment. In 4:3 the land mourns, the people waste away, the animals, birds and fish die because of the people's sin, and this sin does not seem to be pouring toxic chemicals in the water - though perhaps it would include that - but rather faithlessness, lovelessness, ignoring God, cursing, lying, murder, stealing, adultery and bloodshed. I don't see the connection, yet somehow it appears there is a connection between sin and damage to the environment.

The Non-Bright Spot

Chapter 5 ends with God saying Israel "will earnestly seek me," then comes a marvelous passage of repentance, and you think, "Whew! We've finally turned a corner and Israel is repenting," but then the narrative plunges right back into how God is fed up with them. You might think, "Huh? What was that all about?" I think that God was simply telling Israel how he wants them to "earnestly seek" Him, and He tells them by giving them an example of what real repentance looks like.

Admah and Zeboiim

In 11:8 God says he doesn't want to treat Israel like Admah or Zeboiim. What? Who are they? I had to look them up. They are almost-forgotten towns that were destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah. So why did Hosea choose such obscure towns for his illustration? I think that was the reason; they were obscure. They were destroyed not just physically, like Sodom and Gomorrah, but almost destroyed in memory as well.

Become What You Love

God says that when the people came to Baal Peor (9:10) they gave themselves to an idol "and became as vile as the thing they loved." It occurs to me that if it is our nature to become like the things we love, we should be sure to love the right things, and especially, to love God above all else.

Lessening Yourself

In 13:3 Hosea talks about Israel offering human sacrifice and kissing idols. Perhaps those who did this realized their actions would make them obnoxious in God's eyes, but did they also think that it might also make them important, sort of men-to-be-reckoned-with saying "I'm standing up against God"? If so, this passage should disabuse them - and us - of any notion that sin makes you a big shot. Rather, it makes you less, like a morning mist or dew that cannot even stand up to a gentle sunbeam, or like chaff and smoke that disappears before something as insignificant as a cool breeze.

The Big Warning

If this crescendo warning toward the end of the book (13:16b) wouldn't cause Israel to repent, I don't know what would. Will Israel heed even a warning that their way of living would result in the death of pregnant women and young children? God warns them of this and then immediately cries out to them (14:1) to repent. And if they do not, God would (as He did) punish them, taking away even those they love the best. Did God simply turn away from Israel, as it mentions in 9:12, and no longer protect the country, or did He actively prod the Assyrians to attack? I don't know and I'm not sure it makes a difference since God says it is His doing. But it is certainly a warning to us not to despise God, and to be thankful for his blessings and do our best to follow Him. (By the way, I suspect the reason the Assyrians would kill pregnant women and children is that they would be a hinderance during the trek into exile.)

Book Thoughts: Muhammad about Jesus

Note: I decided recently to comment on things I've noted in books over the years. I'm calling these Book Thoughts. This is the first post.

I remember occasionally stiffling the gag reflex when I'd hear some doe-eyed girl (or teacher) in high school say during a discussion that the world's problems would all be solved "if only we really understood each other."

People can understand each other clearly and still disagree, but still... the doe-eyed girl has a point; there are some problems that can be resolved just by making sure you understand what the other person is talking about, and I wonder (I'm not sure) if the following is one of them.

I was reading through a translation of the Koran (by N.J. Nawood) and repeatedly encountered passages in which Muhammad said that God never had a son and that it is wrong to say he did. And, of course, I kept saying to myself, "There's a point at which we disagree," but then I came upon this:

The angels said to Mary: 'God bids you rejoice in a Word from Him. His name is the Messiah, son of Mary. He shall be noble in this world and in the world to come, and shall be one of those who are favoured. He shall preach to men in his cradle and in the prime of manhood, and shall lead a righteous life.'

'Lord,' she said, 'how can I bear a child when no man has touched me?'

He replied: 'Even thus. God creates whom He will. When He decrees a thing He need only say: "Be," and it is.

[from the chapter, The 'Imrans]

On reading this I stopped and thought, "Hey, wait a minute! This is what we believe... so... why does Muhammad object to our saying Jesus was the Son of God?" And then it occurred to me that what Muhammad may have meant is that it is a horrible blasphemy to suggest that God is Jesus' father in the sense that he had sex with Mary to impregnate her and become his "father."

Yikes! And Yuck! If that is what Muhammad was saying, then he seems to be saying exactly what Christians have always been saying, and perhaps when he said these things he was refering to some blasphemous (or very ignorant) group of so-called Christians in Arabia who actually believed that God had sex with Mary to conceive Jesus.

With this thought in the back of my mind, I read along until I came to this passage about God which says:

How should He have a son when He had no consort?

[from the chapter, Cattle]

(The term "consort" here seems to be being used in the sense of "wife" or "concubine.")

This seemed to underline the idea that Muhammad's objection was to the blasphemous notion of God having sex with a woman. And again, I think all true Christians, near and far, now and before, would absolutely agree. And if there were so-called Christians in Arabia during the time of Muhammad who believed God had sex with Mary, then I think all true Christians would be as shocked as Muhammad and agree - on this point, at least - that he was absolutely right in rebuking them.

Finally, I'm not going to be the doe-eyed girl. I don't mean to suggest that there are no points on which Christians and Muslims disagree, but if this is not one of them, well ... great! One fewer thing to argue about.

Christian Development Work

This is my appeal to Christian development workers.

Over the past decade or so there has been a renewed emphasis in Christian circles on poverty relief and development work. I think this is a good thing, but it concerns me that development work be done correctly.

You say, "Duh," but it has been done so badly so many times that I think the point needs to be made again.

Once upon a time I believe God would have looked with patience upon a good-hearted Christian doctor who prescribed bloodletting for his patient. After all, the established medical belief was that removing some blood was a good thing and so the doctor would have been acting according to the best current knowledge and in the best interest of his patient.

But, as we now know - or think we know - bloodletting is almost always bad and potentially life-threatening.

So today, if a doctor prescribed a bloodletting to tone up the body, I believe God would condemn that.

Why? In both cases the doctor prescribed bloodletting. Why tolerate it in once case and condemn it in another? Because in the first case the doctor acted according the best knowledge he had available and with the best interest of his patient at heart. In the second case the doctor was either lazy and did not inform himself about his profession, or he had malicious intent toward the patient.

I think the same analogy applies to development work. If you don't know what you are doing, you can - despite the best of intentions - make things a lot worse. So first study and really understand what works! Don't rely on what common sense tells you ought to work, or what you think is "fair," or what your professor in college thinks should work, or what your political party says should work, but start by learning and relying upon what has actually worked in the real world! Then go from there.

MemorizeNow in the News

One of my websites, MemorizeNow.com, which I wrote primarily for memorizing Bible passages, just got a couple of unexpected and nice notices at Lifehacker and at MakeUseOf. Thanks, folks!

Junk Exchanges

The other day I bought a little D-ring key holder thinking it would serve a particular purpose.

It didn't, and I stood there looking at the ring and wondering what to do with it. It's a nice ring, so I didn't want to throw it away, and it doesn't need to be recycled since it works fine, but on the other hand, since it isn't what I need, it is just junk cluttering up my house.

It led me to realize that there is a category of stuff that is neither trash nor recyclables, good stuff you don't need but which might be useful to someone else but is too inexpensive to bother selling.

So... what if cities or community organizations (churches, Rotary clubs Lions clubs, whatever) sponsored junk exchanges ("treasure exchanges?") two or four times a year at a local park or parking lot. You could bring your not-being-used stuff for other people to take home and then pick through everybody else's discards to find things you might need.

Wow! I'd give my little D-ring - and a lot of other stuff - in a flash, knowing it would have a good home. And it would declutter my house and I might even find something useful, and for free!

Top Christian Colleges - 2009

Here is a comparison of Christian colleges taken out of the 2009 Forbes list of America's Best Colleges. Please note that a) Forbes leaves out a lot of Christian colleges, so this is very incomplete, and b) Forbes is not grading colleges on their quality as Christian schools. Also, keep in mind that there may be schools that I have simply missed. (And sorry about that if I have.)

Nevertheless, it is quite interesting. Perhaps it will bring a few colleges into view that you had not considered before. The number on the left is Forbes' ranking of the college. Here's the list:

58 - George Fox University Oregon
97 - Huntington University Indiana
103 - Wheaton College Illinois
109 - Oklahoma Baptist University Oklahoma
110 - Carson-Newman College Tennessee
120 - Mississippi College Mississippi
155 - Oklahoma Wesleyan University Oklahoma
172 - Houghton College New York
177 - Goshen College Indiana
185 - Covenant College Georgia
198 - Whitworth College Washington
212 - Northwestern College Iowa
222 - Westmont College California
245 - Erskine College South Carolina
278 - Union University Tennessee
279 - Bob Jones University South Carolina
289 - Cedarville University Ohio
291 - Northwestern College Minnesota
306 - Master's College California
314 - Biola University California
316 - John Brown University Arkansas
335 - Taylor University Indiana
364 - Grove City College Pennsylvania
384 - Asbury College Kentucky
394 - Dordt College Iowa
395 - Vanguard University California
407 - Abilene Christian University Texas
426 - Gordon College Massachusetts
451 - Seattle Pacific University Washington
455 - Calvin College Michigan
483 - Baylor University Texas
510 - Azusa Pacific University California
515 - Corban College Oregon
542 - Messiah College Pennsylvania

See the 2008 list here.

Another helpful college tool for masters degrees, is MastersDegree.com.

Too Much Community

It seems that there is a new emphasis on "Community" going around in Christian circles.

I've gone along with this without any fuss, because, well, community is important, but the emphasis has always made me a bit wary, and I've only recently gotten around to asking myself why I'm wary.

As I think about it, I believe the answer is that I am wary for the same reason that other emphases make me wary. I get wary when I think an emphasis is gaining such prominence that it might upset the bedrock emphasis that Jesus gave us in Matthew 22:37-40, that the most important command is to love God, and the second most important command (into which developing community would fall) is to love one's neighbors as one's self. When command number two starts to nudge out command number one, I start to get fidgety.

Also, I am a bit concerned that focusing on community can mean focusing on ourselves, as the church, and maybe forgetting those outside the church.

Another thing that kind of bothers me about "Community" (with a capital C), is that there is nothing inherently noble about communities. There are communities that do good works and there are communities of robbers and murderers. There are communities where the members are kept in misery and ignorance by abusive leaders. There are communities that don't want to be communities, such as prisoners in jail. You can't get away from communities. You probably belong to dozens of them. Your neighborhood, your city, your state or province, your country, your race, your religion, your hobbies, your work, your Facebook friends. Nazi Germany was a community, Soviet Russia was a community, Communist North Korea is a community. Communities are often sources of conflict as people identify themselves with their community as opposed to other communities.

Good and bad, they are all over the place and I don't think you can get away from community unless you are a self-sufficient hermit living in the outback of Australia or Alaska.

So I really don't think there is any particular need to emphasize the importance of community any more than there is a need to emphasize the importance of air. It is important; we all know it is important; and for the most part, it is just there.

And as for the church, the church IS a community, whether it wants to be or not, so I'm not sure I see much value in telling people, "We need to be a community" when that is what they already are. Instead, I think the church should emphasize being a good community, a godly community, worshiping God together and helping each other out and reaching out in love beyond our church community.

Happily, for the most part, even if I'm not entirely comfortable with their choice of words, I think that is what most people mean when they emphasize community, and so for the most part I applaud, but I just think we should be careful not to promote command number two to replace command number one.

MemorizeNow.com

During a Bible study last year we were challenged to memorize some passages from the book of II Corinthians, and I got to thinking that maybe a website could help people memorize Bible verses or whatever else they want to memorize.

Making a website like that was (and is) a bigger project than I bargained on, but I think it is somewhat presentable now, and I invite you to take a look:

MemorizeNow.com

I've started using it myself and will hopefully make a few little improvements here and there, but anyway, if you're interested, there it is.

Thanks for giving it a look!

Farmer Cal's Geese

Once upon a time there was a wonderful farm by the sparkling sea. The sun was gentle, the mountains nearby were beautiful, the beaches were warm and the geese who lived on the farm were very happy.

True, farmer Cal took an egg from most of the geese once a year. From those who didn't lay eggs he took nothing, but from quite a few he took a golden egg.

But that was okay because Cal sold the eggs and used the money to keep the farm tidy and the water running, and he kept a little for himself, but that didn't bother the geese because he did a good job and deserved to be paid for his work and the geese got to keep most of what they made.

But farmer Cal grew old and died, and his children took over the farm. They looked enviously at the geese who laid the golden eggs, and came up with a plan.

"Oh geese," they said. "It is not right that some of you live in poor twig nests. We will collect a few more golden eggs and provide better things for the poor among you."

"Yes!" said the poor geese.

"That sounds good," said the geese who laid the golden eggs. "We're willing to give more so everybody can have nice things." But two or three grumbled that if they wanted to help poor geese, they didn't need Cal's children to help them.

So farmer Cal's children collected more golden eggs and built themselves very nice houses, and spent part of the money to help the poor geese.

And everything was still fine on Cal's farm.

But soon Cal's children wanted more, so they said, "Oh geese, some among you still are poorer than the others, so we will take a few more golden eggs and use them to help the poor.

"Yes!" said the poorer geese.

"Well... I guess." said the golden geese.

So Cal's children took more golden eggs and bought themselves Mercedes and spent part of the money to help the poor geese.

Some of the golden geese began to grumble, and some flew away to neighboring farms and some decided to retire from the golden egg business since they didn't get to keep as much as before. But most kept working and stayed. After all, they did want to be kind to the poor, and besides, the weather was still very nice and the mountains and sea were still beautiful.

Soon Cal's kids found they were not collecting as many golden eggs as before since some of the golden geese had left and some had retired and very few of the younger geese wanted to get into the golden egg business - at least not on Cal's farm.

And so Cal's children came to the geese once again:

"Oh geese," they said, "the supply of golden eggs is down and the poor among you are suffering! We will have to take more golden eggs to continue helping them."

"Yes!" said the poorer geese.

"No!" said the golden geese.

But now there were many more poor geese than golden geese, and so the objections of the golden geese were lost in the roar of approval.

But soon, when farmer Cal's kids came to get more golden eggs, they didn't find as many as before because many of the golden geese had left, and those who stayed had decided to get out of the golden egg business.

And with so few golden eggs Cal's children barely had enough eggs to pay for the gas and insurance for their Mercedes and for heating their swimming pools, so there was almost nothing left over for the poor geese.

So Farmer Cal's children went to the geese and said: "Oh geese, you can see for yourselves how greedy the golden geese are! They want to keep all the eggs for themselves! They don't care about the poor."

"Yeah!" said the poor geese, and they spat on the few golden geese that were left.

And the golden geese said nothing. They just flew off to a neighboring farm.

The Google Book Deal

This is a little bit dated, but a while ago I was asked to give my thoughts for a small missions books publisher about the recent Google book settlement. (As background, Google was sued for copyright violations by a consortium of book publishers because it has been scanning and making available online portions of books, or complete books.) I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as having any legal weight, but here are a few wild speculations that might be interesting:

One big problem in the publishing industry is trying to figure out who owns the copyright to what. There must be tens of thousands of copyright owners, and companies that own copyrights are started and go out of business with great regularity, and people die, and who owns the rights to what is often very mysterious. Google wanted to digitize all the books and publications it can get its hands on, but tracking down all the copyright holders to get permission from each one would have been a continuing nightmare.

So - and this may be my imagination, but I'm tempted to see a grand design by Google - Google executes this plan:

First, it does something that some would say is of dubious legality by digitizing in-copyright publications. This, of course, ticked-off the copyright owners, who generally have no more cohesion than a herd of cats, and forced them to band together to fight for their interests.

Ah-ha! Google has now forced its legal opponents to form a single, unified group. Now Google only has one organization to bargain with instead of tens of thousands of mostly-unknown copyright holders. Nightmare solved!

Google then seals a deal with the copyright-holders group, thereby covering itself legally and opening new business possibilities (such as putting ads on the pages of the digitized books). But since the basic legal issue (whether Google was within the law by digitizing the books) remains undecided, this would appear to mean that any competitors who want to copy Google's digitizing plan will have to overcome these legal hurdles on their own.

Also, and I think most importantly for society and the publishing industry, the deal creates an independent, nonprofit organization tentatively called "The Registry," which will represent copyright holders in their relations with Google. The Registry is being given the task (among other things) of keeping track of the contact information for the rights owners and doing business deals for their benefit with Google.

Wow! This registry could be a very positive thing. It could facilitate publishers and authors contacting copyright holders to obtain permission to excerpt or reprint their works. Wedded to the Internet, it could be the basis for a "Permissions Marketplace," where copyright holders could offer a license to their works for sale at whatever price they choose. People could simply pay the price online and use the material without any further fuss. I think this could be a big boon to publishers in general.

The Unity of The Bible

One of the things that struck me hard during my study of how the New Testament views the law is how neatly the Old and New Testaments are tied together.

Obviously, the Old Testament starts with the beginning and the New Testament closes with the end, but aside from those obvious bookends, what really hit me is the progression of the two.

The Old Testament is the outer, and the New Testament is the inner; or, as the book of Hebrews puts it: "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves (Heb 10:1)."

After this study I am willing to take a bit of a leap and suggest that everything in the Old Testament has not only the everyday reality described by the Old Testment, but also a deeper, spiritual meaning.

As I've mentioned in the previous post, the New Testament uncovers the inner law beneath the outer law of the Old Testament, but also, the New Testament gives a new meaning to circumcision (Acts 15:1-2, 5-11, Rom 2:25, Gal 6:15, Titus 1:10, etc.), to the Passover lamb (it is Jesus himself), to unleavened bread (1 Corinthians 5:7-8), to the Temple in Jerusalem (Hebrews 8:5), to the implements used in the Temple (Hebrews 9:2-5), to the activities in the Temple (Hebrews 9:6-7) to individuals in the Old Testament (Sarah and Hagar) (Galatians 4:21-25), to places in the Old Testament (Jerusalem and Mt. Sinai) (Galatians 4:24-26), to the rock providing water in the desert (1 Corinthians 10:1-4), and so forth.

I think that perhaps everything - or just about everything - in the Old Testament also has a deeper, spiritual meaning. This struck me in part in an earlier post I wrote about how I was stunned to see how the history of the nation of Israel was a foreshadowing of Christ. I see now that this foreshadowing is far more extensive than I realized.

Now, I hasten to add that realizing that there is a deeper spiritual meaning to everything in the Old Testament doesn't mean we have to figure it all out. The apostle Paul condemns bickering over genealogies and the law (Titus 3:9), so I'll be safe and go along with Paul and say that if a discussion about the deeper spiritual meaning of some Old Testament passage leads to bickering, the wise - and biblical - thing to do is just drop the matter.

But anyway, it just excited me to discover this amazing unfolding in the Bible, going from the beginning to the end, proceeding from the outer to the deep, inner, spiritual reality.

Are We Under the Law or Not?

Even a casual reading of the New Testament will highlight two themes, each of which is clear in itself but not at all clear when put together. One: We are free from the law. We have died to the law and are no longer under it's authority. Two: There are things we must do; laws we must follow. Jesus came to fulfil the law, not abolish it. Not a stroke of the pen will disappear from the law until heaven and earth disappear.

Confusing? Well, yes, at first, but when you look at it more carefully it makes excellent sense.

So, the question is this: Do Christians need to obey the law?

On the one hand we have Jesus saying that he has not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it, and that the law will remain until heaven and earth disappear, and that nobody should teach otherwise (Matthew 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). But then we find him almost making a habit of apparently violating the law by performing healings, i.e. working, on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9-13, Mark 3:1-5, Luke 13:10-16, 14:3-4, John 7:22-24), and then we find him telling a man to work on the Sabbath when he tells him to "take up your mat and walk" (John 5:10-11), and we find him defending his disciples who were accused of picking grain on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-27).

Hmm. Seemingly two different messages here.

And then there is Paul. Paul is famous for saying that we have died to the law and been released from the law (Romans 7:6) and that we have been saved by grace, not by works (Ephesians 2:8), and that Christ is the end of the law for those who believe (Romans 10:4). Sure sounds as if Paul is saying that the law no longer applies, but then Paul also says that the law is good if used properly (1 Timothy 1:8), and that faith does not nullify the law, but upholds it (Romans 3:30-31) and - oh my! - Paul gives lists (Romans 12 and 13) and lists (Galatians 5:19-6:10) and lists (Ephesians 4:25-6:20) of instructions on how to live - "laws," if you will.

Again, seemingly two different messages, but, they are the same two messages. You may find it confusing, but it is consistent.

So, what is going on here?

Well, the writers of the New Testament are simply saying that the outward law of the Old Testament is a shadow of the true, inner, spiritual law that was always at the heart of the Old Testament law, and that inner law is just as alive as it ever was.

This inner law is what Paul calls "the law of the Spirit" (Romans 8:2) or "God's law" (Romans 7:22, 25) and what James calls "the perfect law that gives freedom" (James 1:25, 2:12-13) and the "royal law" (James 2:8).

We can see this emphasis on the inner instead of the outer throughout the whole New Testament.

For example, the writer of Hebrews says that "The [old] law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming - not the realities themselves" (Heb 10:1). And Paul says that we "serve in the new way by the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code" (Romans 7:6), and that the dietary laws and special celebrations of the Old Testament are "a shadow of things that were to come; the reality, however is in Christ" (Colossians 2:17). And again, Paul says says that "a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart", (Rom 2:28). And he adds that there is "a new covenant - not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6). And there is lots more.

None of these authors want to throw out the true law, but only its old, outer expression. When you crack open a peanut shell, you throw away the shell and eat the peanut. Underneath the outer law is the inner law, and that is the law we Christians need to keep. As Christians we can observe the outer law if we feel like it - for example to avoid causing offense (as Paul attempted to do by being ceremonially clean in Acts 24:18; he explains his logic in 1 Cor 9:20-21), or to avoid violating our consiences (Romans 14:1), but it serves no further spiritual purpose.

Okay, but does Jesus agree with these writers? Oh yes!

Right after Jesus insists that he had not come to abolish the law he starts giving the true underlying meaning of a lot of Old Testament laws. He says that the deep meaning of the law is that murder is not just the physical act, but is a sin of the heart (Matthew 5:21-22); that adultery is not just the physical act, but a sin beginning in the heart (Matthew 5:27-28); that we should speak the truth because it is the right thing to do, not because we have spoken an oath (Matthew 5:33-37); that the deeper truth behind the eye-for-eye rule (which limited revenge) is that we should not return evil for evil but instead we should love our enemies (Matthew 5:38-44). And he teaches that our good deeds (Matthew 6:1-4) and prayers (Matthew 6:5-6) and fasting (Matthew 6:16-18) should not be done with people as our audience, but with God as our audience.

And as for Jesus violating the Sabbath, I think he was actually pointing to the deeper meaning of the Sabbath, that it was set aside by God to give people a time of rest and restoration. In obedience to that deep meaning, Jesus provided restoration to those who needed healing, just - as he pointed out - the Pharisees would provide restoration to an ox by pulling it out of a well on the Sabbath (Luke 14:3-4). Jesus is the lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), so he knows exactly what the Sabbath is about.

Also, notice that Jesus complains that the Pharisees were clean cups on the outside, but dirty on the inside, and whitewashed tombs - pretty on the outside but dirty on the inside (Mat 23:23-27), and he says that it isn't what goes into a person that makes them unclean, but what comes out of them (Mk 7:14-23).

Deeper, deeper, deeper. Inner, inner, inner. It's a theme that pervades the New Testament. Jesus and all the writers of the New Testament agree that the real core meaning of the law is deeper than the mere outward letter of the law.

Okay, but what is that deeper meaning?

If you are a Christian, you know what it is! You've heard it countless times. In fact, I found it a little humbling to spend months studying this topic and end up right back at what every first-grade Sunday school student knows:

The deepest meaning of the law, Jesus says, is first to love God and then to love our neighbor (Matthew 22:34-40, Mark 12:28-31, Luke 10:25-27, John 15:12, 15:17). And Paul agrees. The one thing that counts, he writes, is "faith expressing itself through love" (Galatians 5:6), and, he adds, we should serve one another in love (Galatians 5:13), and - of course - Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 13, the famous "love chapter," with the great line: "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." And James agrees as well: "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbor as yourself,' you are doing right."

So, for the Christian, the outer law is irrelevant, but the true inner law of love underlying the old law remains as valid as it every was.

Picasso and God

I had coffee the other day with my friend Chumly (not really; I'm making up a story) and between sips on his grande, half-caff extra-hot latte with two (not one) packets of Equal, he explained to me there is no God because if there was, he would have designed the human eye to be like the more-efficient octopus eye.

I thought maybe God figured we could be dangerous enough with the eyesight he gave us, but instead, I stared vacantly out the window and then said, "Hmmm ... Did you know that Picasso never existed?"

"What are you talking about?" Chumly asked.

"Have you ever looked at the portraits they say were painted by him? The nose is pasted on sideways, the mouth and eyes are in the wrong places and are the wrong size and the colors are garish and not human?"

"We were talking about God, not Picasso! But I will digress long enough to urge you not to be an idiot. There are books about Picasso; there are people alive today who knew Picasso; there are photographs of Picasso. Of course Picasso existed!"

"But what about the portraits? They're all wrong!"

"Look, just because you don't understand or like Picasso's style doesn't mean he didn't exist."

"I rest my case."

"What?" Chumly said. (Chumly never was very quick on the uptake.)

"Just because you don't understand or like God's style doesn't mean He doesn't exist."

Dirty Spiritual Feet

In John 13: 2-17 is the well-known story of Jesus washing his disciples feet. At the end of this sermon-by-demonstration, Jesus tells the disciples that he has given them an example that they should follow. Most teachers I have heard understand Jesus to be saying that we should serve one another in all sorts of ways, not just by washing feet.

All well and good. I agree.

But as I read the passage recently, I suddenly noticed in the middle of the story an interesting little sermon-within-a-sermon. Jesus replied to Peter - who had in his impetuous Peter-like way insisted that Jesus wash all of him, not just his feet - that, "A person who has had a bath needs only to wash his feet; his whole body is clean. And you are clean, though not every one of you."

As is so often the case, Jesus takes an exterior example to make an interior point. If Jesus was talking about dirt on the body, it seems unlikely he would have excluded Judas from the ranks of the clean. And this seems especially unlikely since John specifically indicates (13:11) that the reason one of the disciples (Judas) was not clean was because he would betray Jesus. So it seems quite clear that Jesus is saying that his disciples (except Judas) were spiritually clean, and - if I may extrapolate a bit - fit for heaven.

But, if they were clean, then why did Jesus need to wash their feet?

I think Jesus meant that though they were clean and devoted to God, just walking around in this dirty world tends to stain them (and us) with various sins. We say and do bad things on the spur of the moment, or in a flash of passion or anger or inattention or weariness, things that smudge us with the dirt of sin. And though we are basically clean inside - we really do love Jesus and we really are citizens of heaven - we still need to have Jesus wash away those daily sins.

Longest Words

For a project I needed to repeatedly type a word (any word) and click the mouse button. I got annoyed taking my hand off the mouse to reach over for a key, so I wrote a little program to find the longest words that you can type with a single hand on a standard keyboard (without cheating and reaching over with the other hand), thereby allowing one hand to remain on the mouse.

Here are the results of my having too much time on my hands:

Longest words for left hand typing, winner is "reverberates" with 12 characters:

reverberates
abracadabra
aftereffect
desegregate
effervesces
exaggerated
reverberate
vertebrates
aftertaste
afterwards

And a few shorter left-hand favorites:

stagecraft
stewardess
beverages

Longest words for right hand typing, winner is "hypophyllum" with 11 characters:

hypophyllum
Plinlimmon
homophony
houyhnhnm
Killymoon
Kouyunjik
monophony
nonillion
pollinium
polyphony

Awful set of words, huh?

And a few shorter right-hand favorites:

Honolulu
lollipop
monopoly
million
opinion
pumpkin

Let me know if you can find any longer words for either category, and I'll add them. And let me know if you don't want me to use your name, otherwise I may.

15-Minute Church

If I was the pastor of a little, dying church, I think I know what I'd try. I think I'd have about 12 15-minute services each Sunday morning, each separated by five minutes of coming-and-going time.

It's a shame, but people these days are so busy that I wonder if even an hour each Sunday seems like too big a committment to them. I wonder if it would be attractive for some people to be able to drop in just about any time throughout the morning, or even throughout the day, and maybe even on Saturdays, too.

People who don't normally go to church might stop by on their way to play golf, or on their way to the beach, or after Sunday brunch at the local restaurant, or whatever.

And as for content, I actually think a lot can be packed into 15 minutes. A couple good songs, a prayer and a short sermon. Shortening things often makes them better, more pointed.

I know! I know! It seems this encourages a rather casual, uncommitted attitude toward gathering together. It may, but I'd rather have 15 minutes of their time than none of their time, and I'm not aware that the Bible says exactly how long a church meeting has to be. In any case, I envision this as an introduction, and that some people would step up from this into a deeper and more active level of commitment, perhaps by getting involved in a Bible study group.

Just an idea.

Galatians 2:17-18

In rereading the book of Galatians, it suddenly struck me what Paul was talking about when he wrote in verses 2:17-18 (NIV):

If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.

This has always been a bit perplexing to me. Why would it become particularly obvious that we are sinners while we seek to be justified in Christ? And why would anyone think that if we slip up in trying to follow Christ, that this means Christ promotes sin? Also, why does rebuilding what I destroyed prove I'm a lawbreaker?

I was reading the passage rather quickly this time, so I still had in mind Paul's rebuke of Peter (verses 2:11-14) for encouraging Gentiles to live like Jews when he himself had been living like a Gentile... at least until some Jews belonging to the "circumcision group" came along and he began to shy away from the Gentiles.

It occurred to me that in verses 2:17-18 Paul is still talking about Peter, or rather, about the type of sin Peter had committed.

So if I might paraphrase the passage, I would say:

If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are "sinning" by violating the old ceremonial law, such as the law of circumcision, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! In fact, it is the other way around: If I rebuild the old, ineffective, ceremonial law that I destroyed - the way Peter has just been doing - that would really make me a lawbreaker.

Evil and God's Existence

One of the arguments I've heard repeatedly - and recently - is that the existence of evil in this world shows that God does not exist.

The argument is essentially parallel to this: "I've heard that there is a guy named Andrew who stabs people with knives. Stabbing people with knives is evil, therefore Andrew doesn't exist."

Sigh.

It may be that this argument is evidence that Andrew is an evil person (or is a heart surgeon), but by no stretch of the imagination is it an argument that Andrew does not exist. In the same way, the existence of evil in this world is not evidence that God does not exist.

I think people can legitimately look at evil and ask whether God is good and wonder how a good God can permit evil, and if they do this I think they will find answers to those questions since the whole Bible is essentially about that topic. All that, I think, falls into the category of reasonable questioning, but if they use the "evil-means-no-God" argument, then all they do is make themselves look exceedingly foolish.

Is Religion the Chief Cause of Suffering?

I just read yet again about how religion is the main cause of inhumanity in this world.

This is such an absurd contention that I don't understand how it survives. But it does. So in what is probably a vain attempt to counteract it, I did a quick Internet search to compare Christianity (since it is Christianity that most concerns me) against the only specifically God-free political philosophy I am aware of - communism.

So, my question was this: Which has caused the most human deaths, Christianity or communism? I am very sure I have left tragic events out here, but even if I missed a lot, I don't think it would come anywhere close to changing the outcome. I am also including just events where the motivation for the killings was mostly Christianity. Frankly, I think that even in this list the motivation was not always purely religion. For example, in his book, For the Glory of God, Rodney Stark points out that the killing of witches was most frequent in areas where the church had less influence and was often done despite the church, and while religion was involved in the 30 Year's War, the fact that France (a Catholic country) often supported the Protestants in Germany in an apparent effort to weaken Germany suggests that nationalistic forces were perhaps stronger than religious forces in that ugly conflict. Nevertheless, I'm throwing them all into the pot because religion is generally considered to be the major factor in these events.

Okay, for Christianity:

Number Killed	Event
1-5 million	Crusades
20,000-900,000	"Witches" killed
14,000	Jews killed, scapegoats for Black Death
1 million	Albigensian Crusade
2-4 million	Catholic vs. Huguenot (France)
900,000	Waldensians
100,000	Peasants War (Germany)
31,912	Spanish Inquisition
11.5 million	Thirty Years War
13,445,912	High Total
6,565,912	Low Total

Now let's take communism:

Number Killed	Event
20 million	Joseph Stalin
40 million	Mao Zedong
2 million	Pol Pot (Cambodia)
62 million	Total

Source

Okay, so if we take the most wildly generous estimates of people killed by those who claim to be Christians, it is 13.5 million. For communism it is 62 million.

Communism wins! In less than 100 years it killed about 62 million people, more than four and a half times the number of people those who claim to be Christians have killed over the course of nearly 2,000 years, or more than nine times as many if you accept the lower estimate for Christianity.

My suspicion is that a lust for power and fame and loot and glory are far more central to man's inhumanity to man than every religion in the world added together.

So PU-lease! Don't tell me how religion is the major cause of violence or suffering in this world. It is nonsense.