Liberals, Conservatives, and Traditionalists

 I've been musing lately on a certain sociological phenomenon, that humanity (at least in the cultures with which I'm familiar) can be divided into three distinct categories. Now, whilst the categories are distinct, it's also a phenomenon that many people, and groups, can be placed into one category for one issue, and into yet another on a completely different issue, and that these positions can change over a generation, and over a lifetime. Now, the distinctions all relate to how people view change. Liberals embrace change, believing it by nature to be good; on the other end of the spectrum, traditionalist reject change, believing it by nature to be bad; and, in between, conservatives are reluctant to change, but do not resist it per se, realizing that it may result in an improvement, just not assuming so without testing it first. A conservative came up with these categories, so those in the other two camps may not agree that they even exist as described; being probably too close to the question to further describe one of the categories objectively, I'll just focus my detached objectivity on the others.

Liberals tend to confuse the other two categories, as the people within both categories will often line up on the opposite sides of an issue, and seem to be the same. But traditionalists will likewise confuse liberals with conservatives, as those two groups will often appear to line up on the opposite side, all depending in either case on whether the change in question has passed the testing and found the approval of the conservatives.

The labels themselves can also be problematic: traditionalists don't call themselves by that title, and even liberals often prefer a label like 'progressive'. So it's one thing to label the categories, and yet another to get people to accept the label that describes them best.

Another interesting thing is the instability seemingly inherent in two of these categories. One would think perhaps that traditionalists, who hold that no improvement is possible over the old ways, would have passed on that belief from ancient times. But it turns out that in many cases, today's traditionalists are less than a handful of generations removed from liberal who got tired of stridently proclaiming that every new thing was by its very nature an improvement over the old, decided to give the pendulum a nudge back toward the other side of the spectrum, and didn't know when or how to stop its momentum. And many liberals are but one or two generations removed from traditionalists who had made a similar decision, just in the other direction. Apparently few can long endure a residence on either edge of the spectrum; excepting those few, and of course the many for whom the pendulum has happily found rest at the bottom of the arc, all are on the move, across any given generation, in one direction or the other.

I have seen this happen over the past generation with the licensing of homosexual relationships, which has become official government policy in the USA, and indeed throughout most of the world, only within the past decade. For a long time before that it was becoming more widely acceptable to liberals, at least in theory, being part of the preference for change which their category demands. But once the public policy debate was over, and it actually began to happen, many liberal Christians found that they didn't really want to be that liberal after all—that here was one issue on which they did align more with the conservatives and traditionalists. Thus a split began between those liberals holding tight to that end of the spectrum, and those liberals (for now) who wanted to nudge things back in the other direction, and that division continues to this day among the large denominations in America. One may be tempted to think by this that some sort of revival is afoot, but it's more likely just revealing a sociological axiom at work.

No, I'm not dead

 Despite just over three months having elapsed since my most recent post, I'm not dead; just suffering from writer's block. Here's something I had intended to post before the deadline:

There are several questions that arise when translating John 7:22, and two of them arise in the context of familial relationships: How does one translate πατερων, referring to Abraham and Isaac, who began the custom of circumcising their sons in accordance with God's covenant, and how does one translate ανθρωπον, referring to the typical recipient of that sign of the covenant, be it performed even on the Sabbath?

For the first one, 19 of 62 English versions surveyed translated it 'patriarchs', and I believe this to be a commendable improvement over 'fathers' which prevailed in the earlier versions. If a language has this sort of distinction between near and far ancestors, the latter should be used. The essential meaning here is that these were the founders of the Hebrew nation; their priority in time to Moses, not their ancestry of him, is what is being emphasized. So any word which contains the meaning of “the ancient elders of the people” or “the founders” would capture that emphasis well, and may resonate much better in people groups which revere the founders of their customs.
English translators have faced a lot of difficulty in translating ανθρωπον here, because the traditional translation, 'man,' doesn't fit very well in describing a person being circumcised on his eighth day. In Greek, ανθρωπον is used primarily to distinguish a human being from other sorts of living beings such as animals or angels, and to a lesser extent to carry the connotation that one is referring to an adult human rather than a younger one. It is not typically used to distinguish a male from a female, but it's difficult do avoid doing so, both in English generally, and in the context of its use here: only males were circumcised, and only week-old males would ever have been circumcised on the Sabbath. So, even though “a man” was long the default translation of ανθρωπον, and still in many cases the one to be preferred, it is a less acceptable translations here—yet it prevailed in the earlier translations, and persists in 46 of the 62 versions surveyed. Others have used “a person” which is truer to the core meaning of ανθρωπον, or “a boy” which is truer to the specific context. The unspoken back story here, essential to understanding the context in which Jesus spoke these words, was that Moses had given two seemingly contradictory pieces of legislation: Don't work on the Sabbath, and circumcise all boys on their eighth day. Thus for a son who was born on the Sabbath (counting that day as the first, and the succeeding Sabbath as the eighth days), both laws could not be kept, and the very religious leaders accusing Jesus of violating the Sabbath by doing the “work” of healing a man (ανθρωπον) themselves had, on this question, come down on the side of working on the Sabbath. So, if explanatory footnotes are used at all, this is the place where one should be. Or, if the translator is more given to paraphrase, a few words could be added to the verse to explain this.

The last question that I see arising in this verse is how to convey the tense of the last verb. Περιτεμνετε is a second person plural active indicative verb with a habitual aspect. This can be conveyed in English as “you often circumcise” or “you will circumcise,” or simply as “you circumcise.”
Lastly, I give examples of two fairly recent ways of resolving the translation issues inherent in this verse; one a more strict translation, and the other a looser one. I'm not entirely satisfied with where either one ended up, but they are both improvements toward a better understanding of the verse when expressed in English.

However, because Moses gave you the practice of circumcision (not that it came from Moses, but from the forefathers), you circumcise a male child on the Sabbath. -NET

But you work on the Sabbath, too, whenever you obey Moses’ law of circumcision (actually, however, this tradition of circumcision is older than the Mosaic law); for if the correct time for circumcising your children falls on the Sabbath, you go ahead and do it, as you should. -TLB

The Duggar Disaster deepens

 I see that this blog is drawing in a number of people seeking information on Josh Duggar, so it's time for another update. First of all, Blogspot has announced that as of July, they will no longer be sending email updates whenever I post on this blog, so this may be the last such announcement you get. Google continues to limit my exposure, since I refuse to participate in this for mutual gain, so anything I post here will get a diminished number of views at any rate. 

Now, on to the Duggars. Josh Duggar turns out to be an incorrigible sexual addict after all, having found a way to work around every limit put on him to date. This is of course a source of deep grief to his parents; his wife appears to still be in denial (she is currently expecting their seventh child--which, if he ends up serving anywhere near the prison term he faces, is likely their last). 

Now, what can I say to all that. Well, a few things. First of all, I'm glad he got caught. As careful as he was, clearly the feds have ways of locating people who seek out and share material online that's not protected by the Bill of Rights. I'm rather astounded, though, that it was Homeland Security who investigated the matter. Obviously this sort of crimes occurred before HS was a department of the federal government, but for some reason the investigation of these crimes has been taken away from the FBI at some level and transferred to them. It is a bit of concern that a cabinet department, familiar to those in totalitarian countries as focusing on defending the ruling party from the members of the opposition, is now in charge of investigating unprotected speech. 

Secondly, I receive a lot of inappropriate emails, with (usually somewhat blurred) obscene suggestions right in the subject line. They all go directly to Spam, and I never open the images in them, or click on any link in them. But the mere fact that they are emails addressed to me means that, from the perspective of someone monitoring traffic on my server, it's possible that I look like someone who is viewing illegal material. And such material could well be sent to me disguised in such a way that I would unsuspectingly open it to view--this did happen once, several years ago. So don't be too quick to judge someone who comes under such an accusation. Josh Duggar, on the other hand, had clearly structured his computer in such a way as to hide what he was doing--even going so far as to set it up on his work computer, where he could close his office door and indulge without the risk of his wife or kids catching him in the act.

Lastly, a brief comment on the costs of fame and fortune. When the Duggars embarked on their public career, it was in the realm of politics: Jim Bob ran for an open Senate seat. He lost, big time, but the fame that ensued catapulted him into the State House, and from thence to a gig on cable television. The Duggars thought the exposure was worth the opportunity it gave them to proclaim the virtues of a godly lifestyle to the world. But was it? Less than quarter century in, it certainly doesn't look like the gain has been worth the loss. Once nice thing about poverty is that it puts a lid on one's ability to get deep into certain sins. If one has to choose between putting food on the table and purchasing an inappropriate magazine, or getting an internet subscription, it limits the temptation. So, the riches that fame brought to the Duggars did come with an intrinsic cost. And it was the laptop of a political operative that first yanked Josh out of his sheltered world and introduced him to the siren call of online pornography, so the politics that catapulted them to fame also held a hidden bite. It turns out that raising your children in an extremely sheltered environment may leave them totally unprepared for handling the real world when they are set loose in it.

I grieve with the Duggars--all three generations. It looks like those seven kids are going to pretty much grow up without a daddy, or at least with a very distant one, adultery having long ceased to be a capital offense on this continent. I grieve for the missed opportunities to have done something different, with different results.  I grieve for the failed experiment in having a lifestyle worth proclaiming to the world. But I am relieved that fame and fortune have eluded me, and my family. Whatever mistakes we have made, whatever opportunities we have missed, whatever failures we have been--it all could have been worse, far worse, had fame and fortune intervened. 

I pray for Josh--that he will not be out of the reach of full repentance. And that it will reach him before his prison term begins. 

A review of Contact, an alleged work of science fiction: Part One

I recently had the opportunity to view Contact, a movie that was released over two decades ago—almost the amount of time it would take for a transmission of it to reach the Vega system. I was struck from very early on in the production by the similarities between it and Isaac Asimov's famous story, Nightfall. I have written several posts reviewing that story, which are available here. I suggest reading them now, for background, before going any further. 

Now, I'll start out by saying that although I was aware of the movie when it came out, and that it was discussed in the Christian Media at the time, I've had no thoughts about it whatsoever for the past twenty plus years, so I trust that everything I say here will be uninfluenced by any other reviews. As I review Contact, I'll continue to allude to my earlier observations on this topic, which remain very relevant. Inasmuch as it's a long movie, I'll probably do this review in several installments. But, to begin at the very beginning:

The movie opens with the iconic roar of the MGM lion, framed by the Latin motto, Ars Gratia Artis--Art for Art's Sake. Not a single frame of the actual movie has yet been shown, but already we are being set up to believe that what follows is just pure entertainment--science fiction. But is it? Might there also be a deeper agenda, Art for the Sake of Persuasion? 

We then move into the opening sequence, which is a juxtaposition of animated video and archived audio. The animation is a zoom-out that begins with a satellite view of Cape Canaveral, tracking westward as the sun overtakes it from the east. Meanwhile the audio track is a montage of news broadcasts interrupted by brief bursts of contemporary music, working backward from the present day as the camera recedes from Earth, both tracks accelerating: the animation rapidly passes the Moon, Mars, the Asteroid Belt, Ceres, and Jupiter—already moving much faster than the speed of light—as the audio track has already reached a quarter century before present, to the Watergate Scandal of President Nixon, then immediately on to M.L. King's March on Washington. By the time Jupiter and its moons recede into the background we can hear an announcement of the assassination of President Kennedy. Then, as Saturn fades into the distance, we race through another two decades, passing through the McCarthy Era all the way to the beginning of the American involvement in World War Two. What is being hinted at is that news broadcasts are traveling into space at the speed of light, with the very earliest broadcasts leading the way into the rest of the galaxy. A bit of a stronger hint comes after the disappearance of Saturn, as the sun itself blinks out and we see a rapidly receding series of stars and galaxies as the audio takes us back through the Thirties to the earliest days of Radio. Then the audio itself gradually fades to background static, as we continue to back our way through a dusty nebula and into intergalactic space, where total silence reigns. Other galaxies zoom by with increasing rapidity, until the screen becomes a total blur which resolves into the left eyeball of our protagonist, the young Ellie Arroway. Meanwhile, the audio picks back up again as background static, resolving into the signal of a ham radio she is operating, with her voice now in real time, attempting to make contact with “anyone out there.” Thus the stage is set for a lifetime of hovering over a radio, seeking not only a signal from another rational being, but, most importantly, the opportunity for interaction therewith. And we see her determination as she scans the dials in search of a response, getting encouragement from her father to keep trying—then, when she finally lands a station out of Pensacola, he congratulates her for achieving the “farthest one yet.”

Okay, at this point in the actual screen-acting, we already move from the realm of science to science fiction, because that's just not how the propagation of ham radio waves works. One does not start out pulling in nearby signals, then progressively move to the outer limits on the country, then farther out into the hemisphere, and finally, with “a big enough antenna,” to the other side of the world. The propagation of radio waves on the frequencies of the amateur bands is such that one is actually more likely to land a station a thousand miles away, than an hundred. But, not to let the facts of science get in the way of a good story, the scriptwriters expect us to believe that Ellie will start small, and keep progressing until she is at the point of asking radio operators on the other side of the Universe to “come back.” 

But that's not Ellie's only goal: in the very next scene we see her asking her father, with growing excitement, how far out it is possible to hear: California? Alaska? China? The Moon? Jupiter? Saturn? Suddenly she grows reflective, and asks her dad the question only a ten year old could ask: Could we talk to Mom?

Ah, now the subject of Religion intrudes, because young Ellie is asking an existential question, one immeasurably beyond the reach of the technology that so fascinates her. Science she knows, geography and astronomy she is beginning to understand, but of the Eternal State, she is much the innocent child, asking questions far beyond her ken. Here her father fails her—being unable to give her the answer she wants—because he, like her, only believes in Science, and Science has no answers to any of the deeper questions of life. And here the movie reveals its main argument. Having, at the behest of her father, dismissed the possibility of making contact beyond the grave, Ellie turns to the next best thing: making contact beyond the Solar System. And here we stop to consider the implications.

”Hey Dad, do you think there's people on other planets?” she asks, again in all innocence. “I don't know Sparks, but it seems like if it's just us, that would be an awful waste of space.” And is precisely here that the movie lands on its main theme: this phrase will be repeated at crucial points in the plot, to drive the message home that somewhere, on a cosmic scale, there is a sense that it would be wrong for Earth to be the only populated planet. This doctrine is never proven, nor is there ever even seen any need to prove it. Ellie simply accepts it on faith, and goes on to make it the guiding belief in her life's work, which is to search for, and find, signs of intelligence in outer space. She will run into many obstacles in that quest—the entire plot of the movie consists of her overcoming them, one after the other—but she will never be shaken in her core belief that there MUST be someone else out there—and an unstated corollary to that belief is that they MUST be so immeasurably greater than humankind, both in intelligence and technology, that they will be able to bridge the unbridgeable gulf between us, and make meaningful contact. It only remains for us to let them know we are here, and to devotedly await their response.

Do you see where this is headed? One thing this movie does, and does well, is to demonstrate that humankind is incorrigibly religious: everyone is forced by their very nature to believe in a higher order of beings, ones whose powers and understanding are beyond our comprehension. And the movie will go on to demonstrate our absolute impossibility of approaching these beings using our own abilities, or of comprehending them using our own understanding. Atheistic Science is turned on its head, and shown to be just another religion after all. 

I think that's enough for the first installment; we are now fully seven minutes into a two-and-a-half-hour movie, and in the next scene we will see Ellie instantly transition to Dr. Arroway the astronomer, having finally achieved the ultimate in her muttered ten-year-old goal of "get[ting] a bigger antenna."

Lisa Miller, a sister in chains

 Here is the text of the latest letter from Lisa Miller, via Pablo:

Dear Brethren and Friends,

Greetings in the name of our Lord, the ONE Who is All-Knowing. I greet you today from the Florida Detention Center in Miami.  I arrived here on Jan 27 and I am still in quarantine -- day 21 (my bunkie tested positive for COVID, so instead of being released, today I took another swab COVID test and will wait for the results right where I am -- in quarantine.), in a 2 bunk, approximately 14 x 7 feet cell which is locked 24/7. 

My food is served through a 12 x 4 inch slot (within the main door) which is also kept shut and locked except when used to pass items such as mail, clothes and books from guard to inmate or when we needed to be handcuffed (we turn our back to the door, stoop a bit and thrust our hands through the opening).

I am so grateful that God knows all I need.  Even though I am in prison, God has blessed and spoiled me with rest and quietness after the experiences of being propelled through the realities of being handcuffed by marshals (I had 5 escorting me at one point!), patted down, strip searched, questioned endlessly, fingerprinted at every "station" of processing, and other such memorable actions before being placed in cell 31 of the Solitary Housing Unit (SHU) (in lieu of being brought directly into the women's unit).  My God knows just what I need.

Thank you to all who have written to me.  Words cannot express enough how I have been encouraged and built up in Christ by your kindness.  Even though you may not receive a personal thank you, (I am limited to how many stamps I can order per month and I am not permitted to receive stamps from the outside), please know that you have blessed me by your letters of encouragement and with your prayers for both my daughter and me.  THANK YOU!

Please continue to pray for my daughter.  Even though I believe God IS taking care of her she still needs the prayers of His people.  I miss her!  Even so, I feel comforted knowing that she has prayer coverage. 

Please continue also to pray for me.  Pray that I will "make myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them" (I Cor. 9:19b), and that I "give no offense to Jews or to Greek or to the church of God" ( I Cor 10:32).  Personally, I have prayed (for years) that God would put me in the places where He wants me to be; consequently, I know that I am to be here.  Please pray that I honor God in His choices for me.

In His Service,

Lisa Miller #27502-509 [note this number is different than provided on previous newsletter]

P.O. Box 019120

Miami, FL  33101

**Important:  Please note my current direct address. If you do not use this address with my correct prison inmate number of #27502-509, I may not receive my mail. :( 

Thank you!

Also, do not only put the name, address and prisoner's number on the envelope, but also directly on the letter or card you send.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And an update on Isabella:
https://www.eagletimes.com/ap/now-adult-in-same-sex-custody-battle-seeks-removal-from-suit/article_83fe3209-85e5-55c8-89e2-7c83a7061576.html

The now-18-year-old woman at the center of a yearslong, same-sex custody dispute that spanned Vermont to Nicaragua said in court documents filed Wednesday that she wants her name removed from a 2012 civil lawsuit filed in her name.

Lisa Miller is facing federal criminal charges in Buffalo for taking Isabella Miller to Nicaragua in 2009 rather than sharing custody with her former civil union partner, Janet Jenkins, of Fair Haven, Vermont.

In affidavits written and signed last month by Isabella Miller in Managua, Nicaragua, and filed in federal court in Burlington, Vermont, on Wednesday, the now-adult says she has been “happy, safe, healthy and I have been well cared for” since arriving in Nicaragua.

Isabella Miller said she remains outside the United States of her own free will.

“If (and when) I desire to return to the United States I will do so,” she said in the affidavit filed by Vermont attorney Deborah Bucknam.