Funerals for 16,000 this Saturday

This Saturday, funerals will be live-streamed on the internet for the 16,000 children reported to have died on February 11, 2012 from hunger-related causes. "That's one child every five seconds" according to Bread for the World.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has strongly defended his decision to have flags flown at half-staff Saturday, despite receiving emails and other messages criticizing him.

However the outpouring for these children on Twitter and Facebook has been unprecedented.  Among the celebrities tweeting their memorials:

• Mariah Carey: "Heartbroken and in tears..."
• Justin Bieber: "just heard the news. so crazy..."
• Katy Perry: "So devastating. We will always love you..."
• Ricky Martin: "...Sending my love and deepest condolences..."
• Khloé Kardashian Odom: "...So sad... RIP."
• Kourtney Kardashian: "Wow! I just heard... Very tragic."
• Ryan Seacrest: "At Grammys rehearsal... Everyone here is absolutely stunned."

At the Grammys, the tributes to the tragic and untimely death of those so young poured in from the performers and presenters. "We've had... death in our family," said LL Cool J, Grammycast host, "And so at least for me, for me, the only thing that feels right is to begin with a prayer for... our fallen ..."

Then LL Cool J introduced a clip of the children; the crowd got up on its feet and roared its approval.

In tribute to these children who died so unnecessarily, the host rightly concluded, "This night is about something much bigger than any one of us..."

So much bigger than any one person.

Funeral arrangements are still being made for the 16,000 children who died of hunger-related causes on February 12th, and 13th, and 14th...

Deli Reform

Rabbis and deli owners across the nation are warning that new rules implementing President Barack Obama's deli meat reform law are making them "hog wild."  Jews are fired up because the regulations force all delis, including kosher ones, to provide ham and other pig products for their customers and employees - even though that violates the Torah Law (Leviticus 11:7-8; Deuteronomy 14:8).

The fury started when the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) ruled that virtually all private delis will be required to include ham and other pig products because of the excellent protein they provide.

Pressed on the matter this week, the White House responded, "the administration believes that this proposal strikes the appropriate balance between respecting religious beliefs while increasing access to the important proteins available in pork products."

The administration argues that one report last year found that a majority of Jews have tried, or even eat regularly, ham or other pork products despite the Torah's teachings.  Moreover, not all employees or customers of kosher delis are Jewish.  Since most employees are entitled to a free lunch while working or other discounts on deli products, is it fair that their access to free or discounted ham be so restricted?  And since equal access to ham is a fundamental American right, guaranteed by our meat-loving founding fathers, what would happen if a kosher deli was the only one in town?

However, as one kosher deli owner said, "This ruling essentially says that freedom of religion pertains only to freedom of worship and religious teaching but not to the practice of religious faith in the commercial sphere."  Asked his opinion of the new regulations, he emphatically responded, "BOLOGNA! ...which now we're going to have to start offering."

Why are we a people worth saving?

On Facebook, one of my friends posted Lt. Col. Allen West response to the marines urinating on dead Taliban:

“I have sat back and assessed the incident with the video of our Marines urinating on Taliban corpses. I do not recall any self-righteous indignation when our Delta snipers Shugart and Gordon had their bodies dragged through Mogadishu. Neither do I recall media outrage and condemnation of our Blackwater security contractors being killed, their bodies burned, and hung from a bridge in Fallujah. 

“All these over-emotional pundits and armchair quarterbacks need to chill. Does anyone remember the two Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division who were beheaded and gutted in Iraq? 

“The Marines were wrong. Give them a maximum punishment under field grade level Article 15 (non-judicial punishment), place a General Officer level letter of reprimand in their personnel file, and have them in full dress uniform stand before their Battalion, each personally apologize to God, Country, and Corps videotaped and conclude by singing the full US Marine Corps Hymn without a teleprompter. 

“As for everyone else, unless you have been shot at by the Taliban, shut your mouth, war is hell.”

My friend's post was met by a rousing chorus of "likes" and comments to the effect of "piss on them all" and "the only thing they did wrong was get caught."

In the 2003 Battlestar Galactica miniseries, Commander Adama asked in his speech at the decommissioning of Galactica, "You know, when we fought the Cylons, we did it to save ourselves from extinction. But we never answered the question, why? Why are we a people worth saving?"




That question resounds loudly in this situation.

Lieutenant Colonel West has instructed those of us who are not being shot at to "shut your mouth." If we are "the good guys," why does West's command sound so much like the Taliban - "the bad guys" we are fighting?

And of course there was no "self-righteous indignation" or "media outrage" when the 'bad guys' desecrated the bodies of American soldiers.  That type of behavior is exactly why the Taliban has been deemed "a people not worth saving."

So if America decides to lower herself and treat others in the same barbaric and backward way as the people we are seeking to destroy (limiting the speech of dissenters or desecrating the bodies of enemy soldiers), it begs that question: Why are we a people worth saving?

I think America is worth defending and saving because we choose to stand for human dignity, even when that human disagrees with us or is our mortal enemy.  As we fight the enemy, let us not become them - a people not worth saving.

Why I'm reading the ESV (until I get my Babel fish)

I want a Babel fish.  For the unenlightened, in the book The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, we learn that:

The Babel fish is small, yellow, leech-like, and probably the oddest thing in the universe. It feeds on brain wave energy, absorbing all unconscious frequencies and then excreting telepathically a matrix formed from the conscious frequencies and nerve signals picked up from the speech centres of the brain, the practical upshot of which is that if you stick one in your ear, you can instantly understand anything said to you in any form of language: the speech you hear decodes the brain wave matrix.

Until the Babel fish is discovered, we must do with our imperfect efforts to translate.  There is a great interview at NPR about the difficulties of translation (with a reference to the Babel Fish!): 'A Fish In Your Ear': What Gets Lost In Translation.  The interviewee, David Bellos, author of Is That a Fish in Your Ear?: Translation and the Meaning of Everything, explains the tension saying:

For translation to exist, you have to accept the fact that languages are all different and they don't describe the world in quite the same way. You also have to accept that languages are all the same in that anything you can say in one language can be said in any other.

So until the discovery of the Babel fish, we endure the tension and imperfections of translation. This means that for those of us who seek truth in the Bible, we must either learn Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek or rely upon one of the plethora of English translations available today.

Every Bible translation has its strengths and weaknesses - some translate more "word-for-word" making them awkward to read in English while others translate more "thought-by-thought" and are easier to read English but are not as close to the original languages.  You can read more about some translation difficulties and decisions in one of my other posts: Brothers, sisters, and the inside of the coconut.

In 2012, our church is reading through the Bible together and I've decided to try a new translation - the ESV (English Standard Version).  Why?

This pdf article, Why our church switched to the ESV by Kevin DeYoung, offers an excellent summary on the strengths of the ESV especially in comparison to the translation I have most often used, the NIV.  Don't get me wrong, the NIV remains an excellent translation, but as I have begun using the ESV I have come to appreciate the 7 points that Kevin DeYoung makes in his pamphlet:

1. The ESV employs an "essentially literal" translation philosophy
2. The ESV is a more transparent translation (which means the ESV leaves interpretive ambiguities unresolved, so that the reader can determine the most accurate meaning).
3. The ESV engages in less over translation (other dynamic translations tend to add extra interpretative words that aren't necessary)
4. The ESV engages in less under translation
5. The ESV does a better job of translating important Greek or Hebrew words with the same English word throughout a passage or book.
6. The ESV retains more of the literary qualities of the Bible
7. The ESV requires much less "correcting" in preaching 

So that is why I'll be giving the ESV a try this in 2012... at least until I get a Babel fish that can read.

Just As I Am

Travis Cottrell's new album When The Stars Burn Down was just released today.  I cannot wait to introduce the song, Just As I Am with the powerful new refrain Cottrell has written.  Buy the song - it is worth it.  The lyrics are below.

Just As I Am by Travis Cottrell

Just as I am, without one plea,
But that Thy blood was shed for me,
And that Thou bidst me come to Thee,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Just as I am, and waiting not
To rid my soul of one dark blot,
To Thee whose blood can cleanse each spot,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

refrain:
I come broken to be mended
I come wounded to be healed
I come desperate to be rescued
I come empty to be filled
I come guilty to be pardoned
by the blood of Christ the Lamb
And I’m welcomed with open arms,
praise God just as I am.

Just as I am, I would be lost,
But mercy and grace my freedom bought,
And now to glory in your cross,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.
refrain

The Right to Rites

The debate in San Francisco about criminalizing male circumcision (Criminalizing Circumcision | Christianity Today) raises a good question about the nature of circumcision. In fact, it is the same question that might be asked about marriage. Are circumcision and marriage essentially religious rites or essentially secular practices? The answer is important because it determines who has the right to these rites.

While both rites have undeniably taken on secular dimensions (male circumcision for suggested health benefits and marriage for extending legal rights and benefits to a partner), if circumcision and marriage are by their nature religious rites then who has the right to change them? Should the state or a majority vote have the right to regulate how or to whom churches, synagogues, temples, or mosques might administer any religious rite, such as Baptism, Communion/The Lord's Supper, Ordination, Bar Mitzvah, etc.? Despite their secular trappings, by whom should circumcision and marriage, which have undeniable roots as religious rites, be regulated?

I wrestle with these questions while confessing two things. First, even if you believe homosexual behavior is immoral, justice, love for neighbor, and basic decency demand homosexual partners be offered some sort of basic legal rights and protections. There are many people who engage in behavior or lifestyles that would be considered immoral by others, but we do not withhold from them basic legal rights and protections. However if marriage is at its core a religious rite, does the state or a majority vote have the power to alter that essentially religious rite? Rather should some other secular provision be made (such as civil unions)?

Secondly, when discussing circumcision I am talking exclusively about male circumcision, not female circumcision. Male circumcision has a long religious history for the three world religions that trace their roots to Abraham (Genesis 17:10-14); it has never definitely been proven detrimental to male function, pleasure, or psychology; and many studies have demonstrated both its safety (rate of complications resulting from circumcision [between 0.2% and 0.6%] is lower than ear piercing [about 20% of baby girls suffer minor complications; about 3% major ones]) and suggested its possible benefit (including helping prevent HIV infection, lowering the risk of STD's, decreasing the risk of urinary tract infections, and helping prevent penile cancer - see: Ban Circumcision? Why not Ear Piercing?).

However, female circumcision has unquestionably been demonstrated harmful to female function, pleasure, and psychology; it has no demonstrable benefits (see what the World Health Organization has to say about it); and any religious connection is sketchy at best. Male and female circumcision are two completely different things. My arguments are only made on behalf of male circumcision.

So again I ask, if male circumcision is at its core a religious rite, does the state or a majority vote have the power to alter or prevent that rite?

Who has the right to religious rites?

Certainty, Science, and God

I appreciated very much the observations in this article: Why certainty about God is overrated – USATODAY.com.

I've written often about the leaps of faith that we make:

• in Life: The Leap of Faith and Birth
• in Faith: Surrender To It
• in Science: Common Foundation of Faith and A View From Nowhere

I just wanted to share some of my favorite observations from this article:

For instance, does [Polkinghorne] know for certain that there is such a thing as a quark? Of course not, because no one has actually seen one. In fact, in a debate with Polkinghorne at the Smithsonian in 1999, Steven Weinberg, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, said this: "We don't believe in quarks because we've seen them. We believe in quarks because the theories that have quarks in them work."

Likewise, Polkinghorne doesn't know for sure that there is a God... In addition to believing that quarks exist, [Polkinghorne] believes in a God who is driven by love to continuously create a world that is beautiful. For him, the theories that have God in them work. But he doesn't really know for sure. And he's OK with that.

AND

...What do any of us know for certain? Not much.

Polkinghorne's level of comfort with uncertainty has its roots in reading the Hungarian chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi, who used the term "motivated belief," and who called into question the idea that scientists deal in objective facts.

"Complete objectivity as usually attributed to the exact sciences is a delusion and is in fact a false ideal," Polanyi wrote in the 1950s. In other words, we're all coming from some kind of vantage point — always. Facts always come with interpretation. People of science are motivated to believe certain things as they proceed with their experiments, and people of faith are motivated to believe certain things as they proceed with their beliefs. Living with doubt leaves one open to additional discovery, both in science and faith.

AND

Some atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are similarly locked into their certainty about the non-existence of God. If something has a religious whiff to it, their certainty takes over and reasonable discourse is the victim. Religion, politics and science all have their fundamentalists who are blinded by their so-called certainty.

AND

At 80, Polkinghorne doesn't let his own doubts keep him from believing, any more than he let his doubts about quantum physics keep him from solving problems. He still prays, still celebrates the Eucharist, still believes in some kind of life eternal.

As for belief in God, "It's a reasonable position, but not a knock-down argument," he said. "It's strong enough to bet my life on it. Just as Polanyi bet his life on his belief, knowing that it might not be true, I give my life to it, but I'm not certain. Sometimes I'm wrong."

Scientist and Theologian alike make leaps of faith.

What are you betting your life on? Where are you leaping too?