O Little Town of Bethlehem--No, Not That Bethlehem

Leading up to Christmas I was going through Matthew and Luke's birth narratives with my eighth graders. In order to give the students an appreciation of how arduous the journey may have been for Joseph and Mary to trek all the way down to Judea from Nazareth, I googled (yes, I know, very hard-core research) something like "distance from Nazareth to Bethlehem."

Imagine how surprised I was when a site popped up indicating the total distance as 7.4 miles. Perhaps I should have known this, but there is actually a second Bethlehem actually situated in Galilee, which means of course, that the journey would have been much more amenable to Joseph and his young wife. Who cares about that silly little business about Jesus being born in the city of David.

Clicking on one of the links that came up, I actually did discover that some scholars do in fact advocate that Jesus was born in the Bethlehem of Nazareth. Jim Davila, over at PaleoJudaica, came upon an article about an Israeli archaeologist who argues just that. Read Davila's excerpt from the article as well as his accompanying comments here.

Younger Leaders and the SBC

Here's an illuminating--ok, not really that illuminating for people who are familiar with SBC life--article from LifeWay about the declining percentage of younger leaders participating at the Southern Baptist Convention.

Here's what Stetzer has to say: "Of course, facts don’t convince everyone. My hope is that now, finally, we will stop debating and instead ask the hard question: ‘What is causing so many young leaders to stay away?’"

Maybe if the powers that be in the SBC would simply ask some of those younger leaders, they might gain a unique, though perhaps unwanted, glimpse into what at first glance might be judged apathy. (HT: Subverting Mediocrity)

Brewing Controversy

Our Church--Karis Community--has just made the news again. Gotta love the title of the article.

Gone Baby Gone and Male/Female Decision Making

Has anyone seen Gone Baby Gone? Recently P. and I went to view this movie bc quite superficially we had heard it is set in the Boston area, albeit a rough neighborhood, and wanted to take a walk down memory lane. Despite the depressing content, we enjoyed the movie, finding it to be very thought provoking. Oh, and by the, Casey Affleck is a much better actor than Ben. Ben actually directed this film, which has an incredible cast, notably Michelle Monaghan, Ed Harris, and Morgan Freeman.

Ok, here's the point: the movie concludes with the main characters forced to make a morally ambiguous (as the film wants us to see it) decision. The two protagonists, a male and female, are split to disheartening effect in how they frame the issue. While Monaghan's character focuses on the human consequence of the decision, Affleck's attention is fixated on the question of law and principle.

Interestingly enough, in discussing the issue afterward, P.'s and my perspectives seemed (though to a somewhat lesser degree) to reflect the same difference observed in the film between the lead characters. I wonder, is this a common male/female issue, whereby the male is drawn to the abstract while the female inclines more toward the personal? I certainly do not mean to stereotype nor to suggest that one extreme or the other by itself presents the whole picture. It's just a question that struck me.

If you haven't watched the film, do so when it comes out on DVD.

From Anime to Pakistan

Just taking a break from reading about anime in a freelance job I'm working on. I have a new appreciation for Japanese animation, I'll tell you that.

Winer, along with others at the counterterrorism blog, continue to provide analysis of the situation in Pakistan, including whether al-Qaeda affiliated elements may have been involved--as the government has naturally suggested. Should the infamous terrorist network be behind the assassination of Bhutto, the implications, Winer suggests, are chilling as they are extremely suggestive of al-Qaeda's intent: "they intend to take Pakistan and make it their kind of state."

I think we all know what that looks like. Just look at Taliban-run Afghanistan. Let's hope matters don't come to that and that some other democraticizing figure(s) step forward who can at once claim legitimacy and can wield power in an effective manner. Let's hope for a miracle, in other words.

Death in Pakistan

Benazir Bhutto was killed today in a suicide bombing in Pakistan. This is a sad day, not only because of the violent death of a former leader, but also because of the setback that this event probably represents for democracy in Pakistan.

MORE:

Here's an assessment both of Bhutto and what the assassination attempt means for Pakistan's--and indeed the region's--future over at the counterterrorim blog.

Elsewhere, the speculation centers on who was responsible--directly or indirectly--for Bhutto's murder.

Latest From Iowa

Ha ha. Looks like my Iowa (and New Hampshire) predictions may fall flat, as this latest info from CNN suggests. I wish people would just make up their minds.

Bethlehem Christians

Here's a good article about the plight of Bethlehem Christians that deserves reading--particularly on Christmas. I especially agree with this statement: "Israel cannot afford to lose the Palestinian Christians: They have long represented a moderating force."

Countdown to Iowa and New Hampshire

Who do you think will be the top three candidates from each party in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary? This is the question posed in a contest put on by Pajamas Media here. After agonizing over my choices for at least thirty minutes, I finally gave up the attempt for the moment.

It's a hard call. In Iowa, I tend to think that Huckabee will beat off Mitt Romney and John McCain will come in third--though he, Thompson, and Giuliani are bunched fairly close together in most polls. (I wouldn't mind if Thompson were a little closer to the top tier; he seems to have substantive stances on a lot of answers, but his campaign doesn't seem to be very well run at this stage.)

Even if Huckabee wins in Iowa, I don't think he will win in New Hampshire. If Romney wins in Iowa, I think he most certainly will win in New Hampshire. However, if Huckabee wins in Iowa and John McCain moderately well, I think the Arizona senator, who's already surging in the polls, stands a chance of beating Romney in the former governor's home territory. So in New Hampshire I'm betting Romney will still hold off McCain by a slim margin, and Giuliani will follow in third. Perhaps Huckabee will pass Giuliani if he wins Iowa, but I have a hard time seeing his influence in Iowa and elsewhere (read the South and Midwest) translating into results in the Northeast.

As for the Dems, I have sinking feeling--maybe it's just a fear--that John Edwards will win in Iowa. He has all but lived there since the last Democratic primary. Hillary seems on defensive mode, even trying to downplay expectations according to one report. I think I go Edwards, Obama, Clinton in Iowa.

I think Edwards will win in Iowa but not in New Hampsire. If Clinton places third in Iowa, I think her hold on New Hampshire will fall as well, as there are plenty of people committed to Clinton just because they think she is the most electable. Iowa might show this assumption false. In New Hampsire it will be Obama in a fairly substantial win with Edwards and Clinton virtually tied.

Is anyone else willing to handicap the race?

The Nativity Story

Just watched The Nativity Story for the first time the other day. I know: I'm seriously behind. Overall, I thought the movie was pretty good. This past week I tried to lead my students through the first chapters of Matthew and Luke, which forced me to rediscover a lot, and it was fun and moving at times to watch a movie presentation of the events. Mark Goodacre's review of the film is here.

The Problem with Circumcision, According to Johnny

Eight graders--apart from being frustrating to teach at times (more about that later, no doubt)--provide plenty of comic relief. A few days ago, I was drawing a parallel between the long wait Israel endured for their promised Davidic messiah and Abraham's wait (in skepticism) to see his wife, Sarah, conceive his promised son.

At this point, I decided to test their general bible knowledge. I asked if anyone remembered what it was that furnished the seeming obstacle [i.e., Sarah's age] to God's promise coming to fulfillment. A lovable student--we'll call him Johnny, to protect his identity--raised his hand in the back.

"Yes, Johnny?" "Um," he stammered, "wasn't Abraham unable to have kids because he was circumcised?"

I, and a few of his classmates, did my utmost to suppress a laugh. A chuckle might have slipped out though. I'm sure he's not going to hear the last of this from his friends.

Our Pastor

One thing that is weird about being back in a Southern Baptist environment is being exposed to Southern Baptist life all over again. Don't get me wrong, I have benefited much from my Southern Baptist education and am grateful for all the friends I've made along the way. I would not in any way want to paint the whole denomination with a broad brush--though I'm sure I have at certain times during the past. Prior to coming back to Columbia, I had almost forgotten about how much the alcohol issue consumes (no pun intended) many in the denomination, and especially here in Missouri. Unfortunately, our pastor, Kevin, has even had to contend with what I consider a near obsession with alcohol abstinence from certain quarters in Missouri Baptist life. Here's an interview with him posted on the Founders Ministries Blog. His gracious responses bear evidence to what a great pastor he is. I can only aspire to be as charitable.

Ping Goes Under

My lovely wife was baptized today at our soon-to-be official new church, Karis, in Columbia, MO. Our church meets in a hotel downtown, so we had to baptize her in another church nearby. The subplot of her baptism is that she has been attempting to have it done for a long time but has been twarted at severals points through the years. While in Boston, our beloved church was PCA, so the pastor, understanding that Ping had been sprinkled as an infant in a Presbyterian church, couldn't see any reason for baptizing her. Long story short, she was finally able to be baptized here in Columbia at our new (and already beloved) church. Here is pastor and friend Kevin Larson decked out in wadders (no, he didn't go fly fishing afterwards):

It was kind of a small baptismal but at the same time a cool one, because it was surrounded on all sides by glass, and so friends can gather and watch the dunking. Ping seems a little bemused by this feature:

Here's Ping preparing to descend into what, she hoped, would be warm water (I'm glad Kevin's not the type of guy to drown her in front of so many witnessess . . . or at all, for that matter):

Whew, she made it:

Kevin did a great job. Needless to say, it was a very special day for both Ping and I.

Mitchell Report

Yesterday I, along with countless other baseball fans, nervously awaited the release of the Mitchell Report on Steriod use in baseball. Almost every commentator I listened to on radio and TV leading up to the release tried their best to discredit it in advance: Any list would be incomplete; the names appearing thereon would be arbritary; owners and GMs effectively encouraged use of Steriods during the 90s; Mitchell had too much power and his connection with the Red Sox undermined his objectivity; heresay evidence was all that could be collected.

These and more judgments I listened to, but still I couldn't help but have butterflys in my stomach for fear that a few of my Sox favs--current and past--would be on the list, especially Big Papi, Mike Lowell, or Trot Nixon. Imagine my surprise, and horror, upon reading a leaked list that featured of all the unlikely suspects . . . Jason Varitek. No?! Not the Cap!



Thankfully, the list was later exposed as fraudulent. Now I can continue to harbor the illusion that none of my Sox heros (using the term loosely) touch the stuff. After all, they probably prefer HGH.