Kristol's Advice for McCain

Here's some interesting advice for McCain from Bill Kristol. I'm not sure if I agree with Kristol that the liberal tag will hurt Obama at this point. And it seems as if McCain is unwilling to draw attention to the Obama-Ayers connection, noted here in a February post by Ben Smith.

Review of Freddosa's Book on Obama

The Economist has up a review of NRO's (yes, a conservative publication) David Freddosa's work on Obama. Ultimately, Freddosa finds that Obama is, counter to public presentation, a rather conventional politician. Check out the article here.

Campaign 2008: Out with the Old and in with the, er, Old

Here's an article on how this presidential race stacks up against past one's. The author concludes--and I would have to largely agree with him--that Obama and McCain are for the most part running fairly convential campaigns.

Philippians 2.1-5

The material in Chapter 2 flows nicely in a thematic way from Paul's discussion in Chapter 1. We've mentioned before how Paul time and again seems to encourage imitation among his addresses—both of Christ and of himself. We see examples of both here.

Technically, a new section begins in 1:21, insofar as there the apostle explains his intentions to strive further in his ministry as this accrues to the benefit of the Philippians. This attitude, in fact, sets a tone for selfless service and concern for others that Paul wants to impress upon the church. In 1:27–30 he shifts his discussion to the church and begins to treat their responsibility in light of his absence. Even here he associates "living as citizens" (1.27) with a like-minded and harmonious common pursuit of the gospel. It is in the first part of Chapter 2, though, that Paul holds up Christ as an example and unpacks what kind of humility is required of citizens of heaven.

The "therefore" in 2.1 serves to pick up and further explicate Paul's command in 1.27. In this first section (2.1–5) what the apostle wants to do is describe a way-of-life that is characteristic of the follower of Christ. He will then follow up this description with a portrayal of Christ that reinforces his command and further fleshes it out.

While Paul begins Chapter 2 with a series of "if-then" commands, there is little doubt, on the one hand, that these conditions are indeed met and, on the other, that the resultant command must be obeyed. There is encouragement that results from one's residing in Christ [the grounding condition—note the "in" versus "of"—of the following conditions]; there is solace that emanates from [God's] love; true fellowship does indeed spring from the Holy Spirit's presence; and affection and compassion do characterize Christ's followers. Since these conditions are met, the Philippians are obligated to fulfill Paul's command, which oddly enough is to "complete" his joy (2.2).

What follows is Paul's explanation of his joy—that which the Philippians must complete. (This gives us a glimpse, therefore, into the apostle's mindset every bit as much as it describes actions to be undertaken.) Instead of understanding Paul to say "complete my joy by . . .," we should translate the passage "complete my joy, which is you being like-minded [lit., "thinking the same thing"]. When read this way, it's easier to see just how central unity was in Paul's thinking—unity, that is, that is grounded in the Gospel. His joy is a function of the church's unity. The following clauses should not be read as parallel statements with "you being like-minded," as if they are additional actions, but rather as explanations of how (means) to embody the like-mindedness that Paul envisions.

Paul explains how the Philippians are to embody the like-minded life-style by employing three sets of statements, the first strictly positive and the next two comprising alternative, positive-negative commands. (1) Firstly, they are to possess the same love, be harmonious, and focus on the same thing. There is a clear intent to emphasize "sameness" in the apostle's participial phrases; (2) secondly, instead (neg.) of acting according to the standards dictated by strife or vanity, the Philippians are to (pos.) regard others as being more important than themselves; (3) and thirdly, through the instrumentality of humility, which Christ-followers should possess, individuals are not (neg.) to look out for his or her own affairs, but instead (pos.) should look out for the concerns of others.

The above commands are based on and grounded in the model set by Christ, which Paul goes on to delineate in the following verses. . . .

Anti-Americanism in Europe

No wonder why America is so disliked. It's the polygamy!

Bernard Lagat's Coach

Here's an article in the NY Times about James Li, the coach of US runner, Bernard Lagat. I found this interesting about Lagat's training and Li's commentary on it:

Many distance runners train twice a day and run 125 or so miles a week. Lagat has maintained his health and sharpness by training once a day and running about 65 to 70 miles a week. “If I’ve been able to do one thing, it is to liberate myself from what is written in a book,” Li said.

Articles on Philippians, Part 1 (Provenance)

In the course of my study of Philippians I've read some interesting articles lately. They appear in the edited work New Testament Greek and Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne.

Frank Thielman, in "Ephesus and the Literary Setting of Philippians," examines arguments for both Rome and Ephesus as the birthplace of Paul's letter to the Macedonian church at Ephesus. Both proposals have their share of advocates, many utilizing poor arguments, in the estimation of hte author. Thielman's argument for Ephesus, rather than relying on external evidence, proceeds on literary grounds.

Thielman determines that an Ephesian provenance, at a time period near to the apostle's penning of Galatians and 1 Corinthians, provides a solution to two "puzzles" that plague one's interpretation of the epistle--1) why the sudden (sharp) change in tone at chapter 3; 2) why does the apostle seem to combat two opposite tendencies, nomism (3:2f) and anti-nomism (3:18f)? Apparently (per Th.) Paul wrote Philippians during his ministry to the Ephesians when "his conflict with Judaizers in Galatia was still fresh in his mind" (219). At the same time, Paul has had to contend recently with the Corithians, many of whom, because of their exalted view of their own spirituality and their cultural climate, allowed themselves wide latitude in indulging their bodily appetites. Thus, the apostle warns the Philippians against a similar move in their habits. In the way it is easy to see how the apostle might find it necessary to combat both practical errors before they take root among the Philippians.

Gospel of Judas

Here's an article giving a behind-the-scenes view of the scholarly infighting in the wake of the National Geographic documentary on the Gospel of Judas. Interesting stuff. (HT: Mark Goodacre)

Packing and Obama

I hate packing. It used to be that I didn't mind it so much, but I think I'm getting old.

Read this David Brooks column about Obama and his education policy on break. Check it out.

Tuesday Tidbits

Here's a couple more great columns by David Brooks.

On escaping the mundane.

On a brewing spiritual battle.

And a friend just passed along a Times article on today's Ireland, a must read. Check out the slideshow. For my money (figuratively and literally) experiencing pub life is the best part of visiting Ireland. Check out the article here.

Conservatism across the Pond

Here's an interesting column by David Brooks comparing the stature--and message--of today's British conservatives with America's. I'm intrigued by the British conservative projection, at least, of a positive concern for society (i.e., rather than just being against negative forces) that seems to be coupled with traditional conservative economic themes. Who knows how this will be manifested in practice. Surely America's conservatives should be watching the situation closely and rethinking what shape today's conservative movement should take.

Doc's Pep Talk

Here's some funny stuff from the Sports Guy. I don't have a lot of confidence in the Celtics at this point.

Philippians 1:27-30, Part 3

The relative clause "which" in verse 28 does not, I take it, refer to all of vv. 27–28 but only to this late statement concerning how the Philippian Christians are to respond to their opponents. Paul here unpacks the significance of fearlessness in the face of all kinds of adverse circumstances arranged by those who (literally) stand against the Christ-believers.

A fearless response to attacks on the gospels signals ["a sign of," g. of apposition] two things: for those who opposes, it essentially as a visible proclamation of destruction; the gospel itself, after all, was birthed in/through opposition! By contrast, fearlessness for the believer who proclaim the gospel, for reasons that Paul will go to elaborate, becomes evidence of salvation. Being "partakers of grace" (1:8) carries with it a hope that can not be extinguished by human opposition, that of being resurrected from the dead and transformed in the body (3:10, 21), being "with Christ" (1:26), and seeing "every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" (2:11). Ultimately, Paul takes care to note, the "salvation" that he Philippian believers enjoy comes "from God." This simple addition hints again at the inference that the opponents sponsored an approach to religion that relied heavily on personal achievement.

With an explanatory "since," Paul advances his argument for fearless suffering by undermining any element of surprise that such opposition may occasion for his church in Philippi. They are to understand that such opposition is their lot as followers of Christ. The passive "it has been granted to you" alerts the readers to the reality that God stands behind all circumstances that they encounter. And just as much as they have been chosen—not for their sake, but "for the sake of Christ" (1:29a)—to direct their belief to Christ, so too they have been selected to suffer "on his behalf" (1:29b). Suffering is part and parcel of the life of a Christ-believer. No big surprise given Christ's own bloody path to exaltation.

As the apostle does elsewhere, so too here he holds up himself as an example for the Philippians. While [temporal] they are engaged in suffering, they can realize they are walking the same path ("conflict") that their spiritual father, Paul, himself has gone down and continues to follow. They are to engage in imitation as a way of bolstering their confidence in Christ as they encounter opposition.

To summarize 1:27–30. Being citizens (1:27; cf. 3:20) of a heavenly kingdom requires a (i) unified approach, (ii) common striving for/in the interest of the gospel's message and purpose, and (iii) a fearless attitude toward opposition—which is a sign of (a) destruction for opponents and (b) salvation from God for believers, which is (c) founded on the call of God to suffer on behalf of Christ, and which process is (d) supported by the similar conflict endured by those who go before his in the faith [here, Paul].

Iran

Here's an interesting article in the Times from yesterday about Iran's nuclear program. The country recently released photos of a nuclear development facility in Nantanz, giving analysts plenty to debate about: why, for example, is the Ahmidinejad regime showing its cards? what do such cards reveal? is uranium being enriched for peaceful purposes (note the "bottom bearing" mentioned in the article).

What America's approach toward Iran will, I hope, be an important issue in this year's presidential campaign. While I certainly don't find myself agreeing with President Bush on all foreign policy matters (e.g., Iraq), particularly when it comes to a devaluation of diplomacy, I also can't help thinking that the an "Obaman" approach might be equally dangerous. Ultimately, a president's foreign policy approach to different countries and different conflicts should be, well, different, even when there's an operative well thought-out policy.

From experience, we know that taking a country at its word, as the US did with North Korea during the Clinton years, can pose certain hazards when the avowed enemy is adept at using deception and diplomacy to achieve its nefarious purposes. Iran, I think, resembles North Korea in this respect, declaring, against all past evidence, that its aims are peaceful. It might not be the wisest thing merely to take the leadership at its word or to engage in toothless diplomacy that might allow them, as it did North Korea, to gain more time in developing nuclear weapons (which, by the way, are likely to be completed by 2010-2015 according to current projections).

All's Not Wright with Obama

Though I'm not an Obama supporter, I do admire him and, consequently, feel sorry for him as the Rev. Wright stuff has dominated the news of the last few days. Of course I do find it hard to understand how some of Wright's positions and statements could have come as a surprise to Obama--could this really be a completely different side of Wright than Obama has encountered over the last twenty years? Yet still, I can understand how Wright and Obama may share a common understanding of some of the problems occupying American (esp. black) while dividing over how to frame those issues and what solutions to offer.

Clearly Wright is taking a more divisive approach while Obama, whether because of temperment or ideology, wants to provide unification in moving forward toward solutions. It's possible that what came across in their past dealings was a mutual agreement that these problems do exist, but, either because Wright didn't listen or because Obama didn't offer (Wright, after all, was the superior in the context of their relationship), Obama's more measured policy solutions were not understood by Wright. This does not seem improbable to me. And I do not hold Obama responsible for Wright's rhetoric.

Philippians 1:27–30, Part 2

The remainder of this section (1:27b–30) expresses what it means to live in such a way as the apostle envisions. Paul employs a purpose clause ("in order that") merely as a means to spell out how the Christians in Philippi should be behaving: the important thing is not, of course, whether he "is able to come and see" or "hear" the following things about them, but that they are in fact conducting themselves as he proceeds to spell out.

What comprises conduct worthy of the gospel is, in part, unity. Later Paul discusses unity in contrast to conceited, self-interested behavior, whose opposite is seen in Christ's self-denying obedience (2.1-8); here, he describes it ("stand in one Spirit," [manner]) as a stance Christ-believers should assume as they [temporal] "strive together [again, manner] for [i.e., 'in the interest of'] the faith." (By "the faith," Paul means the gospel.)

Just because different people may be declaring and fighting for the same gospel does not mean that they are doing so in a way that truly embodies that gospel and models unity. We recall how earlier in the same chapter Paul speaks of those who preached Christ "from envy and rivalry" (1:15). While he concluded there, however, that ultimately what was important was that "Christ is proclaimed" (1:18), here (1:28) he emphasizes that it does in fact matter how those proclaiming Christ stand in relation to the rest of the family of believers.

Next Paul moves to what must have been a central concern to his recipients: opponents of the gospel. Even as [temporal, parallel with the preceding clause] the Philippians are to stand together as a united body in their defense of the gospel, they are, outwardly, to protect themselves against fear of those who oppose them and/or their message.

It's not clear to whom Paul is referring here, but one might suppose, based on 3:1-2, that such opponents urge a more strict adherence to certain behavioral precepts (the law? circumcision?). Regardless of their identity, Paul is clear that the Philippians should not be frightened "in anything [means, i.e., 'by'] by those standing against you." Interestingly, the apostle does not care to elaborate why the Philippians ought not to fear, but instead chooses to dwell on the significance/repercussions of such an attitude.

For the Love of the Plant

This week I was listening to the Herd, IMHO the best sports radio show out there, and heard about the book, It's Just a Plant. Colin talks about a lot of stuff other than just sports, so I wasn't too surprised he brought this up. Hearing about this, though, I didn't know whether to laugh or shake my head (I did both). This, from an editorial review on Amazon:

"Jackie wakes up late at night and finds her parents smoking pot. They give a simple explanation and promise to talk to her about it the next day, which happens to be Halloween."

The goal of this book, apparently, is to acclimate one's children to the proper use of marijuana. It is, after all, just a plant.

From Syria to Pike Place

Here's an interesting article in the Times about the survival (barely) of Aramaic in several Syrian villages. The article notes how The Passion of the Christ stirred some interest in Malula's (a Syrian village) Aramaic heritage. Like the citizens of the village and the prof. at UCLA mentioned in the story, I also had a hard time following the Aramaic dialogue in the movie, because of the "different dialects of Aramaic, and the actors’ pronunciation made it hard to understand anything." But only for those reasons. Heh.

Meanwhile, Brian at Climb Jacob's Ladder has an interesting post up about "Libertarian strains in US Christianity and its boundaries." He examines the intersection of Christianity with government and manages to touch on the philosophical roots of the US constitution.

Tim Ricchuiti has provided some final thoughts (along with session-by-session summaries) of the 2008 Grear-Heard Forum at New Orleans Baptist Seminary. This would have been an awesome event to attend.

Oh, and for the record, I hate Starbucks' Pike Place Roast! It's weak. Sorry, Jason.

Philippians 1.27-30, Part 1

Paul is sure that he is going to "remain" yet longer because of the benefit that the Philippians stand to gain from his coming to them. Not surprisingly, for Paul this gain is ultimately the whole-hearted fixation—in thought (1:9), proclamation (1:18), and identification (3:8)—on Jesus Christ. The apostle exemplifies this reality in his own life, and he hopes that by his visiting the Philippian church, they too will approach this ideal. Most importantly ("only"), though, the believers are to behave (or "conduct yourselves as citizens") in a manner that is "worthy of the gospel of Christ" (1.27), that is, the good news that is characterized by Christ.

The verb in this sentence, politeuomai, is related to "city" (polis) and "citizen" (politeis) but in common usage at this time probably carried the general idea of "live," "conduct one's ways," etc., though one can easily see how the concepts are related, since being a citizen carried with it certain obligations. And because of this connection, it's not outside of the realm of possibility that Paul does intend the idea "conduct yourselves as citizens" to be understood by his readers as they are, as Christians, ones who live with a certain expectation of "the day of Jesus Christ" (1:6) that will "bring to completion" the work wrought within them. In fact, this work confirms that they already enjoy—together with all Christ-believers—"citizenship . . . in heaven" (3:19). Thus, even now they are bound by an obligation to live in a manner that corresponds to the person who has guaranteed their citizenship.

The remainder of this section (1:27b–30) expresses what it means to live in such a way. Paul employs a purpose clause ("in order that") merely as a means to spell out how the Christians in Philippi should be behaving: the important thing is not, of course, whether he "is able to come and see" or "hear" the following things about them, but that they are in fact conducting themselves as he proceeds to spell out.

Patriots Day and Boston Sports

Boy, I wish I were in Boston for Patriots Day (or the day it is celebrated). Aside from the historical significance of this holiday, there is much to appreciate it from a sports perspective, especially this year. Of course the Boston Marathon is a huge draw. (Too bad I'm an old man with a gimpy knee, or else I would join the field.) It looks like there was a pretty close finish today.

The Sox, of course, come in a close second in terms of importance. Today in downing the Rangers they completed a sweep at home. Way to go, Buchholz! Up next, Beckett faces the Angels and SP Weaver.

The Celtics last night proved their regular season dominance was no fluke as they crushed the Atlanta Hawks. Who would have thought a year ago that the Celtics would be co-favorites--along with the Pistons--to make it to the finals?! Even more surreal is the fact that they stand a good chance of meeting the LA Lakers if they do. What is this, the 80s all over again? Should both of these storied franchises indeed meet again in the momentous finals, I will be hard-pressed, as a traditional Lakers fan with new Celtic sensibilities, to decide who I want to win. A nice problem to have, nonetheless.

Well, I guess that's it. Oh wait, could it be true, could the Bruins really be jealous enough for some of the limelight so as to do something about it? Perhaps. At least they've already done the improbable as an eight seed in the playoffs--coming from behind 3-1 to tie the series 3-3 and force the one-seeded Montreal Canadiens to the brink of elimination. While it's not likely they will in fact upend the dominant team north of the border, there's still hope. After all, it is Patriots Day (kinda).