The first chapter discusses a number of misunderstandings in the Christmas story; one in particular is the “no room in the inn” part of the story.  That the word “inn” is likely mis-translated is not the main emphasis of the chapter, rather it is a discussion of how standard western interpretation of Joseph, Mary and Jesus having been ignored and shoved into a barn upon returning to their his hometown is not culturally consistent.  One of the most interesting sections of this chapter is a description of what houses looked like in Bethlehem at this time, and what life would have been like for families living in these houses.

The second chapter provided the title for this post.  It focuses on Joseph, and what is meant in Matthew 1:19 to say that he was a “just man”.  One interesting idea that is presented is that translation of the Greek word “enthymeomai” as “considered” may not be accurate in Matthew 1:20.  While not an incorrect translation of the word, enthymeomai has an alternate meaning of “becoming angry”.  This translation brings an entirely different perspective to this part of the story.  Joseph was not some flat character in a story, but was a real person with understandable emotions.  Moreover, the fact that he overcame these emotions (even if it did take a visit from an angel) makes this an even more interesting and applicable thread in the Christmas story.

Since the book is 400 pages, it’s probably not appropriate for one of our Bible study choices.  On the other hand, it is very readable and is broken up into sections: The Birth of Jesus, The Beatitudes, The Lord’s Prayer, Dramatic Actions of Jesus, Jesus and Women, and Parables of Jesus.  So, be prepared, if I’m feeling ambitious sometime when we’re choosing books, I may suggest a section from this one since I’m appreciating the additional perspective this book is bringing to my reading of the Bible.

First a brief summary, the author selected 5 equations that (from his perspective at least) had been particularly influential on science and our everyday lives.  But in case math wasn’t your favorite subject in school (tsk, tsk) let me say that there is almost no math in the book.  The book is more like Paul Harvey’s “… the rest of the story“.  There’s history, what was going on in the world during the time-period the equation was discovered (and yes, I fall into the “math is discovered not invented” camp), there’s intrigue, personal and family crisis lie as motivation for more than one of these equations, not to mention application to our modern lives.  Just a word of warning though – the cover is pretty dorky.

Anyway, the reason this is related at all to our group, arose in the chapter about the third equation: Michael Faraday’s Law of Electromagnetic Induction.  According to the book, in the 1770s, a scientist named Luigi Galvani discovered that if you touch the nerves of dissected frogs with a wire flowing with electricity, the legs contracted.  He thought he had discovered “the spark of life”.  After being ostracized from the scientific community, he went on a series of electric road-shows demonstrating this fact, and the audiences were amazed.  And in fact, John Wesley became aware of these experiments in “animal electricity” while a student at Oxford.  He was so influenced by this according to Dr Guillen,

… in 1784, he decided to include in the dissident religion’s new constitution the explicit conviction that “electricity is the soul of the universe.”

- p 139 Five Equations

This doesn’t sound too odd, but I decided to google up Wesley and electricity to see how deep an impression these experiments may have made.  It turns out that apparently Wesley was a believer in the power of electricity before the 1770s: Electrocleansing!  Wesley published a book/pamphlet/paper in 1760 entitled “The Desideratum, or Electricity made Plain and Useful by a Lover of Mankind and of Common Sense”, which described his findings having used (as the “medical” provider)  electricity in free medical clinics.  Moreover, if the internet is correct, he developed his own machine for delivering electricity to patients – including himself.   A more scholarly looking investigation can be found on scribd.

Am I the only one who missed this section of the biography of John Wesley given during the New Members class here at Glen Mar UMC?  Fascinating.

Anyway – I thought I’d try to jot down these ideas when they come up, just in case I get the opportunity to preach again.  Oh, and if any YAGers get tapped – feel free to borrow any of these if they strike a chord with you.

I just finished a book: Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar… by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein; the secondary title is “Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes”.  The book is very small (4″x6″, < 200 pages) and is about half jokes and half explanation describing an area of philosophy the joke illustrates.  Quite a few of the jokes had me laughing out loud, but the following wasn’t that kind – it was more if a “hmmmm – interesting” joke.  It was under the heading “Relativity of Values” (pp. 177-178) and, for me, falls into the “that’ll preach” category:

There was once a rich man who was near death, He was very much aggrieved because he had worked very hard for his money, and he wanted to be able to take it with him to Heaven.  So he began to pray that he might be able to take some of his wealth.

An angel heard his plea and appeared to him, “Sorry, but you can’t take your wealth with you.”  The man implored the angel to speak to God to see if He might bend the rules.

The angel reappeared and announced that God had decided to make an exception and was allowing him to take one suitcase with him.  Overjoyed, the man collected his largest suitcase, filled it with pure gold bars, and placed it beside his bed.

Soon afterward the man died and showed up at the pearly gates. St. Peter, seeing the suitcase, said, “Hold on, you can’t bring that in here!”

But the man explained to St. Peter that he had permission and asked him to verify his story with the Lord.  Sure enough, St. Peter returned saying, “You’re right.  You are allowed one carry-on bag, but I’m supposed to check its contents before letting it through.”

St. Peter opened the suitcase to inspect the worldly items that the man found too precious to leave behind and exclaimed, “You brought pavement?”

• Theological Challenges
• Political Challenges
• Administrative Challenges
• Pragmatic Challenges

The one “challenge” that struck me most was in the first category – “fitrah” or as the author puts it: “All Mankind is Created Muslim”.  The interesting point about this idea, is that there is not a notion of “converting to Islam”, rather it is more accurately stated that one “reverts to Islam”.

I’m still trying to wrap my brain around the implications of this seemingly simple concept.

At first glance, it’s sort of like the Princess Bride (in case you don’t have a copy – the title page for the story says “The Princess Bride: S. Morenstern’s Classic Tale of True Love and High Adventure – The “Good Parts” Version Abridged by William Goldman”).

From Jefferson’s perspective, this is the “good parts” of the gospels.   Thomas Jefferson thought it would be helpful to gather together all of the teachings of Jesus from the gospels into  a single narrative, and he wasn’t the only one – Joseph Priestley (the discoverer of Oxygen) and John Adams supported such an undertaking.

It seems that Jefferson believed that all mention of the supernatural was just a distraction from the important teachings of Jesus.  So while the Jefferson Bible (also known as The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth) contains all of the lessons and parables, it does not contain any of the healing and miracles. So briefly – what is NOT included:

• Jesus’s conception (a miracle)
• All of the healing
• The resurrection (and everything after that)

So, what to make of this?  On the positive side, it might be a way to reach people.  Perhaps there are people who are turned off by the mysteries surrounding Jesus, but if they read the parables and lessons, they might have their heart opened.  The Preface of the version I read claimed just that – his (Forrest Church’s) eyes had been closed, turned off by all of the miracles, but upon reading The Jefferson Bible, they were opened, and he went on to become a Unitarian minister.

Other positives: the story flows very well, is short (110 very small pages of large print), and does force you to think about familiar stories with fresh eyes (as many times not all of the verses are there).

A con: it’s depressing.  Seriously.  I was enjoying reading it until the end.  After Jesus dies – The End.

This is when it became clear that this was indeed NOT the “good parts” version of the gospels.

If you take away the resurrection, what do you really have?

If you recall, the first section (6 chapters) describes and begins to address challenges from various worldviews.  Chapter three is “Challenges from Youth”.  The main point of the chapter seems to be emphasizing how important it is to teach apologetics to teens before they go off to college.  In particular, pointing out what a grave disservice it is if the youth go off to college with a “heart” religion but not a “brain” religion.

One of the primary ideas reinforced by the chapter is how important it is for adults to model Christian behavior; and not just on Sunday mornings.  What we choose to do with our time, what we choose to do with our money, snide comments made about celebrities and politicians, how much time we spend focusing on our appearance, etc., are reflections as to how close our relationship to Jesus can appear.  The author recounts a story (p.51):

When The Times of London asked Britain’s leading intellectuals what they thought was the problem with the world, G.K. Chesterton sent back a postcard response saying, “I am.”  We are what is wrong with the world.  The same goes for what is wrong with the teenage world; you and I, as adults are the problem.

This is of course not the first time I’ve thought about this – it comes up in our Monday night discussions not infrequently.  But it always is convicting to think about what my day-to-day life says to others about God.  Yikes!

And in case the idea of teaching apologetics to teens (or even trying to understand what apologetics even is) sounds daunting, the simplicity of the conclusion may help:

In my and my colleagues’ experience, teens actually enjoy and deeply desire to be trained by us; they are open to being influenced by our love and example.  This does not require a PhD in apologetics.  We ordinary adults can make a profound difference in the lives of young people simply by asking them meaningful questions and by providing a safe place where they can respond.  The most persuasive apologetic we can offer our children is not a series of carefully constructed verbal arguments, but a life beautifully lived close beside them.

To possibly illustrate the hilarity, here are a couple postable results from last night’s gaming. I may be saving the others for gloomy days when a laugh is needed. Thank you P&L for the great time by the fire in  your cozy house vs our cold, wet tents.  (View the papers as two colums)

The first few chapters discuss how to address common questions and accusations raised by various other worldviews about Christianity.  Chapter two focused on Atheism.  One particularly interesting point that was discussed was the idea presented by Karl Marx that religion “… is the opium of the people.”  There are many spots on the web that give a more complete quote of Marx on this subject, and discussions about what he may have meant (here for example).  A simplified argument that is often made, inspired by this quote, is that Christianity is just giving false hope to the hopeless; and prevents people from searching for true happiness as they believe their suffering on earth will somehow translate into happiness upon entering a Heavenly existence (think the Beatitudes).

The argument presented by Alister McGrath (the author of this chapter and former atheist) is that the opposite is actually true.  While Christianity does provide hope, it does so by acknowledging that there is a higher power, and that our choices and actions here on earth do have eternal consequences.  Whereas Atheism can more accurately be described as an opiate for the masses since it suggests or even more encourages people to do whatever they like since there are no eternal consequences for choices made in this life.

Of course I have simplified the argument, but to me it was interesting to consider that sometimes objections raised by a particular worldview are a reflection of an inconsistency in their own perspective.  The chapter on Atheism is only 20 pages, so if anyone is interested in reading the more complete article – let me know and I can let you borrow the book.

The team consisted of three 5k runners and four 10k runners and came in second place.  We also had two winners – Sandi: first place for the women in the 5k, and Tom: for finishing his first race AND winning the “Trader Joe’s Bag-o-goodies”! (Semi-complete results can be found here.)

A little “Where’s Joel” shot to prove he ran the race (though his chip malfunctioned so he doesn’t appear on the results page).

and the 5k winner: