think hard, think well

I was in the restroom today (which is the only place I read magazines anymore), and I was browsing this week’s issue of Time. I don’t usually care much for Joe Klein’s column, but he has some astute observations about the Senate race in Kentucky. I was a big fan of Dr. Ron Paul back in ’08; he seemed to have some traction that I wish the Libertarian Party had been able to harness. But now Congressman Paul’s son, Dr. Rand Paul, is running for the Senate seat vacated by HoF pitcher Jim Bunning.

Regarding the younger Paul, Klein writes:

The campaign has not been a comfortable experience for Paul; he has been forced to eschew the courage of his father Ron Paul’s convictions. Libertarianism is a basic American political impulse, but ideology isn’t. People don’t want the government on their backs, except for when they do. And so Paul on the stump seems a man perpetually in the act of biting his tongue. His Fancy Farm speech limned the more popular libertarian talking points: the tax code is 16,000 pages long; the federal regulatory code is 79,000 pages long. But the real meat of his message consisted of four words: “Barack Obama … Nancy Pelosi.” In fact, he would just say each name, let it hang in the air and then repeat it.

Klein has put his finger on two problems with political discourse. The average American will of course affirm that he likes liberty, freedom and individual responsibility–until he needs welfare, unemployment benefits, or a book banned from the library. We are quick to compromise some ideal of liberty when someone else’s liberty gets in the way of what we want. Second, the span of our collective attention is about that of a fruit fly’s life on this earth. Dr. Paul could deliver an articulate, thoughtful speech, some of which the crowd will like and some of it they won’t. But when they leave the rally, all they will remember is those “four words.”

My son is three weeks old. Sometimes when he’s crying, I’ll just blow gently in his face. He gets flustered, sputters a bit–and then forgets what he was crying about. Too often, our elected stooges are able to divert our attention just as easily:

Right now, I’m listening to an interesting book called Evolving in Monkey Town, by Rachel Held Evans. A young evangelical, Evans chronicles her experiences growing up fundamentalist in the American South and attending a very conservative Christian college.

So far, much of her experience seems similar to mine. I plan to review the book when I’m done, but I’d be interested to know if and what you’ve heard of the book, and what you thought of it.

Here’s some more pictures that are not up on Facebook…

If, as some cultures believe, a photograph steals a bit of its object’s soul, then my son ran out of soul last Thursday. As the first grandchild, great-grandchild, nephew, grandnephew, etc., on both sides of the family, this kid has been shot more times than A-Rod going for his 600th homer. Here are a few more…

When I read a text, I feel that it is important to read that text “on its own terms,” insofar as I am able.  By this, I mean reading it in its original context as best as I can understand it.  Some texts lend themselves quite naturally to application in other contexts: Aesop’s Fables are didactic, fictional parables designed to teach a lesson; one of the reasons we enjoy poetry is that it evokes feelings within us or communicates and elaborates feelings we already have.  The text lends itself to being read in a certain way, and so applying that text is being faithful to it.

Is it possible to violate a text?  I believe so.  To affirm that texts can be used unfaithfully or inappropriately is to assume that there is an objective standard by which a use of a text can be judged.  Who is that judge?  What appropriations might be considered to be out of bounds, and how can we know?

Maybe it’s just something we know intuitively, like Justice Potter Stewart said of pornography: “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it.”  Well, I know that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is out of bounds–but why?

Regarding biblical texts, I believe that there are valid and invalid (faithful and unfaithful) appropriations of these texts in various contexts.  My tendency is to overemphasize the historical situation of a text and underappreciate the application of a text in an alien context.  This stems from my perception that modern Christian interpretation has abandoned a rich redemptive-historical reading of Scripture in favor of a purely exemplaristic or “applicationalistic” reading of the Bible; rather than letting the text say what it “wants to say,” we mine the text for things that interest us personally.

But maybe I’m too restrictive.  Is it arrogant to think that history matters?  I think that we need permission from the genre and situation of the text to draw application in other contexts.  For example, the poems of the Psalter have been composed, edited, compiled and preserved for liturgical use; therefore, it is right that Christians and Jews read them personally (though historical perspective still provides an added dimension of meaning).  Other texts can be more complicated to read.  Ezra-Nehemiah, for example, provides examples of people who are obedient to God—excellent.  However, the message of the book demonstrates that YHWH’s presence is not fully with his people after the Return as it was before the Exile.  Both readings are important, but the text itself points us toward the latter.  (And my Christian faith certainly affects my reading of Ezr-Neh, because I want to see Jesus as the true Return of YHWH to dwell with his people.)

The very fact that these texts were preserved for us means that they are supposed to be read and perpetuated in the life of the faith community.  So, there is “application”—or at least import—to the genealogies, the Holiness Code, the laments, the histories of Esau and Hezekiah.  What is it?

YHWH, your mercies are new in the morning and great at night. You are faithful to your promises, remembering your covenant to children, and to children’s children.

YHWH God, my sins are great. I stand before you as Israel: broken and lost, in need of your grace. My only plea is the blood and righteousness of your Son, your Messiah, your faithful suffering Servant, the one in whom Israel’s and Adam’s purposes are summed up.

For Jesus’ sake, and for the sake of your covenants of promise: forgive my sins, restore me to fellowship through your Holy Spirit, and grant that my life would henceforth be honoring and pleasing to you, for your satisfaction and for the sake of your Name.

Amen.

I’ve commented on Bekah’s lengthy but excellent post over at The Primary Word entitled, "My Personal Jesus and the Story of Israel."

More pics of Daniel and family are now up on Facebook. Thanks for all your well-wishes!

Introducing Daniel Joseph Giffone, born 7/25, 12:51am, 8 lbs. 0 oz., 21 in.

Mother and child are fine. Corrie was so fast that they didn’t even get a chance to get the epidural in, so she was all natural. We got the hospital at 10:15pm after we suspected that her water had broken. From there, contractions were so hard, close together and fast that the little guy didn’t have any chance of staying in there any longer. What a night!

The hospital wifi blocks Facebook, but I’ve attached a couple of pictures as a "preview of coming attractions" until I can get home. Thanks for all your thoughts and prayers.

Benj

I’m at Barnes & Noble with my lovelily pregnant wife, enjoying a cool java on a scorching day. Did you know that you cannot use a Starbux gift card at the Starbuxes (Starbuces?) within B&N? There’s something paradoxical about that–is it really a Starbux if you can only use B&N gift cards?

Ψυχη is Greek for 'soul'--and for 'butterfly'

On our way here, I was stopped at a light and saw a beautiful monarch butterfly on the pavement in front of me. I don’t know what was wrong with it–perhaps it was the heat, or it had been hit by a car, or it had just emerged from its chrysalis–but it could not quite get off the ground no matter how hard it fluttered. Up and down, a few inches high, a few inches forward–I only saw its orange and black wings for ten seconds, but it was quite compelling for some reason. I swerved slightly to avoid it, but I can’t imagine it survived much longer under the onslaught of vehicles that followed.

Such an inspiring and saddening considered making a foray into poetry or songwriting. Then I remembered how fruitful my last few attempts at poetry have been, and decided against it. So, for all you singer-songwriters out there, here’s a metaphor for…something.

On Fred’s recommendation I purchased and began reading Writing Your Dissertation in Fifteen Minutes a Day. This book has been an incredible comfort to me; Joan Bolker knows and understands the highs, lows, emotions, distractions and fears of the doctoral student. As a professional writing consultant, she advises doctoral students at Harvard, Brandeis and several other schools in the Boston area. This very practical book is a wonderful companion that will always been within easy reach of my desk for those debilitating cases of writer’s block.

On that note, it’s back to the dissertation…