Feed aggregator

From here:

Bishop Robinson will attend a "Transgender Conversation" with the Dallas Transgender Advocates, and Allies(DTAA) to share with us his wisdom and faith and to learn of the transgender struggle for equality.

Bishop Robinson has bravely stepped forward to answer questions regarding religion and it's influence on progressive social action, and to share with us what he has learned from the recent Lambeth and how his diocese situation parallels the Queer and Transgenders class struggle against social, religious and political exclusionary and revisionist agendas.

Citigroup Inc. will probably get rescued by the U.S. government after a crisis in confidence erased half its stock-market value in three days, investors and analysts said.

Citigroup has more than $2 trillion of assets, dwarfing companies such as American International Group Inc. that got U.S. support this year. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke may favor a rescue to avoid the chaotic aftermath of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s bankruptcy in September.

“There is no question that Citi is in the category of ‘too big to fail,’” said Michael Holland, chairman and founder of Holland & Co. in New York, which oversees $4 billion. “There is a commitment from this administration and the next to do what it takes to save Citi.”

Read it all.

It is interesting that Obama chose Geithner over Larry Summers and other names like Paul Volcker. Geithner is a young guy at 47 years old. And to the country at large and most of the Washington political establishment, he’s a new face.

Yes indeed, change is coming.

Read it all.

(The essay subtitle is: On Doing What it Takes to Get What You Want--KSH).

The changes now well underway simply described are these. At present, TEC’s Constitution renders the General Convention and the Office of the Presiding Bishop as instruments of its various Dioceses. The change sought by the Office of the Presiding Bishop and many within the House of Bishops would alter this arrangement by rendering each Diocese a creature of the General Convention. Along with this change comes another. The Office of the Presiding Bishop at present serves to execute the policies of the General Convention but does not stand in a hierarchical relation to TEC’s various Dioceses. The change now in progress would place the Office of Presiding Bishops in a hierarchical relation to these Dioceses, and in so doing give the holder of that office executive powers within the several Dioceses not accorded by the Constitution.

In times such as these actions of this sort are by no means unusual. Times of stress almost always lead those in power to stretch the law in order to achieve their purposes. Churches are no more immune to this temptation than are civil governments. Within TEC, one can see this dynamic clearly at work in two recent incidents, each of which reveals a strategy on the part of the Office of the Presiding Bishop to circumvent the requirements either of TEC’s Constitution or its Canons. I have in mind the replacement of the Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquin and the deposition of Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh.

These claims are both bold and controversial. Of this fact, I am fully aware.

“The 'assured results of modern scholarship' as to the way in which an old book was written, are 'assured', we may conclude, only because the men who know the facts are dead and can't blow the gaff.”(CS Lewis:Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism in “Fern Seed and Elephants”)

In my former response to Dr. David Handy, I argued that the terminological criterion by which those who follow the Documentary Hypothesis distinguish the four “sources” of the Pentateuch JEPD, does not produce reasonable results.

Documentarians make an unfounded leap from the recognition of different names for God, places, and people to the existence of entirely separate authors and documents. They fail to recognize: that single authors can and often do use a variety of terms for the same objects, people, and places over time; that over the long history of manuscript transmission copyists no doubt “updated” certain place names for the benefit of their contemporaries; that the wide variations in the use of key terminology (such as Yahweh and Elohim) between the Masoretic manuscripts and the Septuagint make it difficult if not impossible to identify terminological variations definitively; that the two “names of God” consistently vary in keeping with the narrative context and genre in which they are used pointing to an intended and purposeful alternation from Yahweh to Elohim, not two separate divergent source documents; and finally that the “proper name” of God is not what is meant when a Hebrew speaks of knowing “the name of God.”

Now we turn to David's section on literary style. He rightly admits that this is perhaps the weakest criterion but suggests that the Literary differences between the four documents remain “very discernible nonetheless.”

“II. LITERARY STYLE.  This is more subjective and harder to quantify, but very discernible nonetheless.  J and E are very similar actually in style as old epic narrative sources, but both are very different in character from D, and all three of them are clearly very different from P.”

One of the most evident weaknesses of the “literary style” criterion is the propensity of source critics to leap on any stylistic change in a given text as evidence of a different writer. This weakness has been illustrated by a number of “source critical analyses” posted at Stand Firm. Below, for example, is a source critical analysis of an Integrity Press Release I wrote in 2006:

The Integrity press release (PDF) regarding the two non-celibate homosexual nominees for bishop of California published yesterday is either a wonderful example of willed intellectual schizophrenia or, more likely, the later redaction of two distinct sources.

The first source, the “fundamentalist” source, or “F”, provides a limited commentary on the canons of the Episcopal Church utilizing a rigid literalist hermeneutic that bespeaks a rather primitive, unscientific worldview. Take this passage:

As it has in the past, Integrity expects General Convention to follow canonical procedures to the letter-giving consent to the bishop-elect if there is no justifiable impediment to his/her consecration. The canons clearly state that, “No one shall be denied rights, status or access to an equal place in the life, worship, and governance of this Church because of race, color, ethnic origin, national origin, marital status, sex, sexual orientation, disabilities or age.

Notice that “F” suggests applying the canon in question according to “the letter.” Why no attention to context or metaphor? The “F” source seems utterly unconcerned with nuance or historical setting. What was going on in the canonist’s community when this canon was written? Do we really know the mind of the author or the struggles within her social context?

To the modern reader, familiar with contemporary hermeneutical principles, the canon itself reads like a polemic of some sort directed toward the canonist’s rivals. It seems to have much more to do with the social dynamics and struggles within the specific context of the canonist’s particular people group than those facing the Church today. Of course, contemporary readers also know that the task of interpretation is more like that of a conversation. The reader brings her truth to the truth contained in the text and somewhere, in the reconciling tension between two truths, a new deeper truth emerges. But the “F” source seems to have no inkling of modern interpretive techniques.

Moreover, the “F” source’s mechanistic understanding of human behavior betrays a deep pre-modern ignorance of human psychology. The document reads as if there is no space for the human will between “orientation” and behavior. For “F”, if a non-celibate candidate were to be rejected on the basis of his or her homosexual behavior, it would be the same as a rejection based on his or her sexual orientation. A person’s sexual behavior is, according to this document, utterly determined. Such an unsophisticated assumption indicates a pre-critical understanding of the human mind.

And yet the document is not dominated by the “F” source. In the second half of the document, the redactor seems to have found a post-modern source. We’ll refer to this source as “P”.

“P” displays the characteristic postmodern proclivity for deconstruction. Take, for example the following passage:

…it must be remembered that the Windsor Report is a set of recommendations with no binding authority.

There are actually two options here. “P” was either written before the Windsor Report (WR) was received and approved by the primates, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC, at a time when indeed it was simply a list of recommendations, or it was written afterwards. In which case, it is simply one more example of the postmodern ability to create pluralities out of absolutes. Since “P” is embedded inextricably within a section of the document that deals with the current nominees, I tend to favor the second option.

“P” knows that the Episcopal Church could in fact be suspended and ultimately expelled from the Anglican Communion if it chooses not to comply with the WR as received and approved by the primates.

But “P” chooses to obscure that that truth by substituting an unrelated truth: the WR does not “bind” the Episcopal Church to any course of action. This is true. But it is also irrelevant. The Episcopal Church can, clearly, choose to proceed with absolute, unfettered, freedom, but the result of ECUSA’s unfettered choice could be expulsion.

In all, the redactor has done a creative if incomplete job of bringing together two inherently contradictory sources. I suspect that later redactors will attempt a fuller and smoother integration of “F” and “P” but this manuscript provides crucial insight into the process of modern revisionist redaction and for that all historical/critical students of IntegrityUSA are rightly grateful.

Here is Sarah Hey's use of the "Literary Style" criterion to identify several distinct source documents in JRR Tolkien's “Lord of the Rings”

And, finally, toward the end of the now infamous “inerrancy thread” of over 407 posts I conducted a source critical analysis of David Handy's texts, and discovered at least three distinct sources: the N source, the R source and the A source. Read it all here.

It is, as those less than serious examples show, not at all difficult to subject the work of any single contemporary writer to a “literary” analysis and discover a multitude of “sources”.

The fact is that human authors are not univocal. They speak and write in a wide variety of styles depending upon the purpose for which they communicate, the genre they employ, the time and place in which they take up the task and the audience addressed. That means that a document written by one author in one place, time, and circumstance may carry a radically different “voice” or style than a second document written by the same author in a different place, time, and circumstance. Alister McGrath's academic papers written as a molecular biophysicist will likely not bear many similarities to his books written as a theologian. His college term papers may not resemble his professorial lectures. His letters home may not resemble his sermons.

In the same way, Moses transmitting the law may not resemble Moses preaching the law. Moses recording the history of the patriarchs may not resemble Moses recording the events of his own day. Moses describing the furniture of the Tabernacle may not resemble Moses meeting God at the burning bush. And yet despite these differences, there is no reason to suppose that the author is anyone but the very Moses to whom Christ, the apostles, and the Pentateuch ascribed authorship.

Attempting to second guess the authorship of an ancient document on the basis of perceived literary style differences is a fruitless and probably vain endeavor, as Dr. Handy demonstrates below:

OK, moving on to my second type of evidence noted above, i.e., significant differences in LITERARY STYLE among the four main sources of the Pentateuch.  As I’ve already confessed, this is more subjective than the lexical data above, but it’s still quite striking and even beginners in serious Bible study can notice these things.
For now, let’s just look at the stark differences in style between P and D, and how radically both differ from the older epic sources, J and E.  I admit that it’s hard to tell the latter two apart stylistically.  But that again, is why I keep emphasizing that this is a cumulative argument built on multiple converging lines of evidence.
All you have to do is to compare any 2 or 3 chapters of Leviticus (P) with any 2 or 3 of the first 11 chapters of Deuteronomy (D).  The differences are glaringly obvious.  There are lots of ways of describing it, I suppose, but here are a few.  Leviticus, or P, is quite dry and technical and precise in its specification of the details of the ritual law.  Whereas Deuteronomy 1-11 is noticeably different, much more homiletical, if you will, or hortatory.  It’s highly repetitious and verbose in piling up rhetorical phrases that are essentially synonymous.  There is lots of exhortation to “love” YHWH in D, to “obey” him and “cling” faithfully to him, and so on.  One way to put it is that P is very much a left-brain, logical style of writing, whereas D is much of an intuitive, right-brain, more emotional style of writing.  In P, it’s assumed that it’s enough just to spell out exactly what the law requires.  In D, there is obviously great concern to motivate the people to obey God’s commands, his “statutes and ordinances.” P takes such obedience for granted.

One characteristic of those who argue for the DH that you might notice already NRA's argument is the tendency to ignore the obvious, simple, explanation offered in the text itself in favor of a, frankly, tortured one that fits the documentary hypothesis. There is a reason that Deuteronomy 1-11 is “much more homiletical, if you will hortorary...”--an explanation contained in the text itself (Deut 1:1-4). Deuteronomy 1-11 seems much more homiletical because it is, in fact, a homily. Deuteronomy is Moses' farewell “sermon” to his people and features Moses' recitation of important laws and his exhortations to follow them. Here's the introduction to the text:

..These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel beyond the Jordan in the wilderness, in the Arabah opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth, and Dizahab. 2 It is eleven days' journey from Horeb by the way of Mount Seir to Kadesh-barnea. 3 In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses spoke to the people of Israel according to all that the Lord had given him in commandment to them, 4 after he had defeated Sihon the king of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon, and Og the king of Bashan, who lived in Ashtaroth and in Edrei. 5 Beyond the Jordan, in the land of Moab, Moses undertook to explain this law, saying, 6 “The Lord our God said to us in Horeb, ‘You have stayed long enough at this mountain. 7 Turn and take your journey, and go to the hill country of the Amorites and to all their neighbors in the Arabah, in the hill country and in the lowland and in the Negeb and by the seacoast, the land of the Canaanites, and Lebanon, as far as the great river, the river Euphrates. 8 See, I have set the land before you. Go in and take possession of the land that the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give to them and to their offspring after them.’

And then Moses proceeds to recount the record of the people's disobedience, remind the people of the divine law they had received and exhort them to love and obey God. Here is the conclusion of the section NRA identified as oddly homiletical:

26 “See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse: 27 the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you today, 28 and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside from the way that I am commanding you today, to go after other gods that you have not known. 29 And when the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, you shall set the blessing on Mount Gerizim and the curse on Mount Ebal. 30 Are they not beyond the Jordan, west of the road, toward the going down of the sun, in the land of the Canaanites who live in the Arabah, opposite Gilgal, beside the oak of Moreh? 31 For you are to cross over the Jordan to go in to take possession of the land that the Lord your God is giving you. And when you possess it and live in it, 32 you shall be careful to do all the statutes and the rules that I am setting before you today. (11:26-32)

“Homiletical” indeed. That'll preach.

And the reason it will preach is precisely because it is a sermon.

DH theorists, as I noted in my first response, however, not only deny that Moses is the author of this text but assert that Deuteronomy as a whole is a fabrication, something akin to the infamous Donation of Constantine, created to bolster the authority of King Josiah and his high priest Hilkiah's theocratic reforms, re-focusing the worship of Judah to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and away from the high places. Deuteronomy, according to DH is little more than a cheap political lie—but, according to Christian advocates of DH, a cheap political lie inspired and approved by God.

Even apart from stylistic assessments which merely serve to confirm the internal claim of the text, the overall character of the book is not conducive to the DH claim as Gordan Wendham, currently lecturing at Trinity College, Bristol argues in his brief article, The Date of Deuteronomy the Linch-pin of Old Testament Criticism. Here is a key portion:

The chief argument for supposing that Deuteronomy was written in the seventh century is its repeated insistence that worship should be limited to 'the place which the LORD will choose'. This is generally taken as a code word for Jerusalem, so we should regard Deuteronomy either as the programme for or a justification of Josiah's centralization measures. This reading of Deuteronomy is, it is held, confirmed by 2 Kings 22 which mentions that a law book was discovered in the course of the reform.

Now there are several objections to this equation of Deuteronomy with the Josianic reform programme. The first oddity is that the book never specifies where 'the place' is. It is generally explained as reflecting the writer's unwillingness to put obvious anachronisms into the mouth of Moses. But if pseudonymous writing was as acceptable as liberals usually allege, why such coyness? If Moses was the greatest of the prophets, as Deuteronomy certainly claims (18:15-22; 34:10-12), why should he not have predicted that Jerusalem would be the chosen city? It would certainly have added credibility to Josiah's reformation. If an unnamed prophet of Bethel could be credited with predicting three centuries beforehand that King Josiah would carry out his reforms (1 Ki. 13:2), why should not the much better known Moses have been allowed to name Jerusalem?

Secondly, the usual critical contention that Deuteronomy limits all worship to Jerusalem is demonstrably false. Nowhere does the book specify what place is meant by 'the place which the LORD your God will choose'. It is just a guess that Jerusalem is intended. But Deuteronomy does specify by name one place where an altar is to be built and sacrifices offered. Read Deuteronomy 27:4-8. There you will see that sacrifices must be offered on Mount Ebal, a hill near Shechem, approximately forty miles north of Jerusalem. At least Shechem was an important shrine in the days of Joshua (Jos. 8:30-35; 24) and also in the tenth century in the days of Rehoboam (1 Kings 12). Then it faded out as a significant centre until it became the capital of the Samaritans in postexilic times.

It must be admitted that it is totally incongruous for a book which is supposed to be vitally concerned with limiting all worship to Jerusalem to state that Moses ordered sacrifice to be offered at Mount Ebal, at what Josiah would have called a high place. In the light of chapter 27 it seems impossible to regard the present book of Deuteronomy as either the programme for or as a tract justifying centralization of worship. Chapter 27 would surely have been omitted if that were the book's purpose. For this reason it seems very difficult to believe that Deuteronomy was written in the seventh century BC in Jerusalem.

Rather surprisingly, few critical scholars pay much attention to the problems posed by chapter 27 for the usual dating of Deuteronomy. There seems to be a blind spot here with many: they have been so conditioned to believe that Deuteronomy wants to limit all worship to Jerusalem that they overlook what chapter 27 is saying...

He goes on to point out some historical difficulties with late dating Deuteronomy to Josiah's Reform:

...It is often supposed that the ideology of Deuteronomy supports the case for a seventh-century date. The warnings of judgment and the threats of exile match the situation Judah faced with the Assyrian and Babylonian attacks on Jerusalem. The relevance of Deuteronomy to this situation is undoubted, witness the use Jeremiah and Ezekiel make of deuteronomic ideas, but whether this proves Deuteronomy was specially written for this period is another matter. As Peter Craigie argued in his commentary,30 the themes that are most prominent in Deuteronomy, the promises to the patriarchs, the covenant, the kingship of God, holy war and the conquest of the land are exactly those found in what is often regarded as the earliest poem in the Old Testament, the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15. This poem is unquestionably early, as its grammatical forms show, and was presumably composed soon after the crossing of the Red Sea which it celebrates. The coincidences between Exodus 15 and Deuteronomy are striking, but owing to our limited knowledge of the development of religious ideas in Israel, we cannot appeal to the parallels as proof that Deuteronomy must be early. However at least they show that there is no theological incongruity in positing an early date for Deuteronomy.

Marriage laws
Similarly the civil law of Deuteronomy fits the second millennium as well if not better than the first millennium. The demand for multiple witnesses for conviction is a recognized principle of old Babylonian laws. The double inheritance of the first-born and the practice of Levirate marriage are attested in Middle Assyrian Law. Though the extra-biblical parallels cited come from the second millennium, it seems likely that similar legal principles continued to operate later.

However the large group of laws on sex and marriage in Deuteronomy 22 do seem closer to second-millennium legal requirements than to what we know of Jewish practice in the late fifth century BC.32 This is strange if Deuteronomy were only written a century or two earlier. Deuteronomic definitions of and punishments for adultery find close parallels in old Babylonian and Hittite laws (1750/1500 BC). The arrangements about bride money also fit early practice well. But in the Jewish colony of Elephantine divorce rather than death was the penalty for adultery, and the bridal payments were lower. It must be admitted that this evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of the second-millennium origin of the deuteronomic laws. We are not exactly comparing like with like when comparing official collections of law like Hammurapi's or Deuteronomy with private legal documents like those found at Elephantine. Nevertheless it does suggest that the legal parts of Deuteronomy could also have originated early: they do not require a seventh-century date, indeed they are difficult to square with it...more

There is then, no reason to reject the internal witness of Deuteronomy and no reason to search beyond the differences in genre to explain the stylistic differences between Leviticus the law book and Deuteronomy the homily.

Or take the P sections of Genesis and compare them with the J parts.  An obvious example is to compare the two creation accounts.  Although there may be many ways to describe how the style of the first one (P) differs from the style of the second (J), anyone can see that the two accounts are radically different in literary style. The Priestly account in Gen. 1:1-2:4a is formal, elegant, highly repetitious and tightly structured with recurring formulas: “Let there be X and there was X.” “And there was evening and there was morning, the Yth day” “And God/Elohim saw that it was good,” etc.  The style is majestic, the perspective is cosmic, and the way God creates everything strongly stresses his utter transcendence of his creation.  He merely speaks, and instantly it is done.  It portrays an awesome God, but one who might seem rather remote and distant and perhaps rather unapproachable all by itself. “OTOH, the second (J) account is as different as it can be.  The Yahwist’s Creator is much more human-like, and the whole story is less liturgical and more folkloric.  This time, God stoops down and forms a man out of the wet mud, and then gives him CPR and breathes into him the breath of life.  This is definitely a “hands-on,” personal kind of God.  He walks and talks with Adam and Eve in the Garden.” “And stylistically, one of the most charateristic features is that J delights in puns.  Thus the word for Man (’adam) and earth/ground (Hebrew, ‘adamah) are clearly paired for effect.  And this is typical of J, who relishes puns greatly.  Whereas P would never stoop to such a primitive thing.”

There is no reason to object too strongly to Moses' polemic use of two distinct pagan sources as the background for Genesis 1 and 2 (although there is no necessary reason to demand it either)...a sort of divinely inspired re-writing and coopting of pagan creation stories that were themselves no more than corrupted folk histories, perhaps warped shadows of remembered oral history from the dawn of human existence, memories of the real of Adam and Eve. Such a co-opting does not necessarily de-historicise Adam and Eve or the Garden fall, it simply sets these things within the husk of well known creation stories at the time. Pagan creation myths preceded Moses and would have been well known to him. There is no reason to reject or deny that Moses was the inspired author of the polemic “correction” of these stories (perhaps in accordance with a direct divine revelation to him on Sinai) in such a way that God is revealed as Creator and sovereign, who creates all things, and the historical disobedience of Adam and Eve is made known. The sources Moses may have used, then, serve as mere platforms for the true story of creation and the fall so that the true God is exalted.

But the stylistic differences alone do not by any means demand such a solution nor do they by any means demand two distinct authors. This is certainly Bruce Waltke's (Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Studies at Reformed Theological Seminary) view (PDF):

Moses' revelation of God, given through the Holy Spirit's inspiration, conflicted diametrically with the concepts of the gods and goddesses found in the nations all around him. Moses differed with the pagan religions precisely in the conceptualization of the relationship of God to the creation. To all other peoples of the ancient Near East, creation was the work of gods and goddesses. The forces of nature, personalized as gods and goddesses, were mutually interrelated and often locked in conflict. Moreover, their myths about the role of these gods and goddesses in creation were at the very heart of their religious celebrations. These stories about Ninurta and Asag, Marduk and Tiamat, Baal and Yamm, did not serve to entertain the people, nor did they serve merely to explain how the creation originated. The adherents of these myths believed that by myth (word) and by ritual (act) they could reenact these myths in order to sustain the creation. Life, order, and society, depended on the faithful celebration of the ritual connected with the myth. For example, concerning the Enuma elish, Sarna wrote:

Recorded in seven tablets, it was solemnly recited and dramatically presented in the course of the festivities marking the Spring New Year, the focal point of the Babylonian religious calendar. It was, in effect, the myth that sustained Babylonian civilization, that buttressed its societal norms and its organizational structure.

But the revelation of God in Scripture is diametrically opposed to these degraded notions about God. If, then, the essential difference between the Mosaic faith and the pagan faith differed precisely in their conceptualization of the relationship of God to the creation, is it conceivable that Moses should have left the new nation under God without an accurate account of the origin of the creation?

To this writer such a notion is incredible. Anderson touched on the source critic's problem when he noted: "Considering the impressive evidences of the importance of the creation-faith in pagan religion during the second millennium B.C., it is curious that in Israel's faith during its formative and creative period (1300-1000 B.C.), the belief in Yahweh as Creator apparently had a second place."His choice of the word curious for this tension is curious. The dilemma for the critic is intolerable. The only satisfying solution is to grant Mosaic authorship to the narrative of Genesis 1. Once that is clear, the theological function of the chapter is also clear. Moses, the founder of the new nation, intended this introductory chapter to have both a negative and a positive function. Negatively, it serves as a polemic against the myths of Israel's environment; positively, it teaches man about the nature of God.

There is no need to resort to JEDP to explain the stylistic and terminological distinctions between the two Genesis creation accounts. The first account reveals God the mighty creator exercising dominion and power over all things. The second account, as David points out, is indeed very personal. God is an amazing God who revealed himself to our first ancestors in the garden in intimate ways. Moses' own personal knowledge of God's character and his access to and inspired polemical co-opting of extant sources provides a simple and ready explanation for the data found in Genesis 1 and 2.

David continues:

FWIW, perhaps too much shouldn’t be made of this, but it’s highly apt anyway that when the P account starts, it says that God/Elohim made “the heavens and the earth” (i.e., moving from the grand cosmic picture down to earth), whereas the J version does the opposite, and speaks of how YHWH (not Elohim) formed “the earth and the heavens.” The latter story is very earth-centered indeed, and there is none of the focus on ritual and a highly ordered universe as in P, where the seven days of creation lead up to the climatic creation of the Sabbath (a major priestly interest, of course).

Yes, Moses, who knows the Name of the Lord, his character and nature, skillfully weaves these two stories together to reveal God as both transcendent and immanent in relationship to his creation. In previous threads, for some odd reason, David has asserted that these two notions, divine transcendence and divine immanence could not possibly be embraced by one ancient author.

Enough.  Again, this is only a sample of patterns that we find consistently throughout the Pentateuch.  P is interested, even obsessed with exact dates, numbers, precise measurements, and so on in a way that none of the other three sources are.  D is openly and directly sermonic and hortatory in a way the other three aren’t.  And J and E delight in puns and folkloristic etymologies in a way that P avoids like the plague and that D indulges in sparingly.But the real point is that the patterned differences in literary style MATCH UP with the consistent differences in terminology throughout the Pentateuch.

And, as we saw in my first response, where the patterns do not match up documentarians simply gerrymander the boundaries between the documents to force the errant texts into their a priori imposed source categories.

The consistency between style, terminology, theological content, and purpose, where these elements do match up may be, again, more readily explained by the use of different genres for different purposes at different times and in the context of different circumstances in way that is consistent with the scripture's own internal witness and does not require the whole-cloth creation of rival communities and “source” documents for which there are no compelling evidences.

From San Francisco Chronicle The state Supreme Court plunged back into the same-sex marriage wars Wednesday, agreeing to decide the legality of a ballot measure that repealed the right of gay and lesbian couples to wed in California. Six months after its momentous ruling that struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage, the court granted requests [...]

At first glance, the continuing clash between the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, and Washington's Historic Preservation Review Board looks like dozens of others that have roiled American cities. A declining congregation considers demolishing its expensive-to-maintain church, only to be opposed by local preservationists, who argue that the building should be made a landmark.

The actions taken are the familiar ones. The congregation, which bitterly opposed landmark designation in December 2007, filed a federal lawsuit this August arguing that the designation violated its First Amendment rights by restraining its ability to practice religion freely. The District of Columbia responded by asking the court to dismiss the complaint on technical grounds, but urging the court to wait until the mayor's agent -- the chairman of the office of planning, which oversees the review board -- makes a decision. The mayor's agent has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday. If her decision goes against the District -- which seems unlikely -- all will be settled. Otherwise, both parties will return to federal court.

From USA Today Barry Kosmin, one of the nation’s top researchers on the demographics of faith, argues in a book he co-authored, Religion in a Free Market, that competition among religious groups keeps interest in God high in the USA, even as denominational identity is fading. Now, you can see that "market" in action: The final formal [...]

Like girls sifting through dresses at Macy's, the teens milled through aisles of sparkling pastel- and florescent-hued homecoming gowns, stepping into dressing rooms to try them on and then modeling them before their mothers.

But it wasn't Macy's. The girls were at a South Florida flea market where the charity Becca's Closet gives used and new gowns to high school students unable to afford one. One mom said her hours as a nurse's aide had been cut. Another whose mortgage payment had increased said she felt humiliated to ask for help.

"I heard money was really tight, especially in our household," said Desiree Banton, a 16-year-old who attends a technical school and was trying on peach, lime green and bright blue gowns. "And my birthday is around the same week, so I knew it was gonna be really difficult to get everything done for homecoming."

Read it all.

Find this article here.

Inside Catholic (www.insidecatholic.com)

Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the “hot, angry tears of betrayal” by beginning a new sentiment where one is “with Jesus, sick because of love.”

WASHINGTON, D.C.(Inside Catholic) - Cardinal Stafford was the Archbishop of Denver before Archbishop Chaput. He was in the Vatican for many years and is now the Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary for the Tribunal of the Holy See. Last Thursday night he spoke at Catholic University of America.

I'm amazed his speech has not made the headlines, but then, give it time.

I have been told that most of the Vatican curia were hoping Obama would be elected. Well, Cardinal Stafford is definitely not one of them.

“For the next few years, Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden,” Stafford said, comparing America’s future with Obama as president to Jesus’ agony in the garden. “On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake.”

Cardinal Stafford said Catholics must deal with the “hot, angry tears of betrayal” by beginning a new sentiment where one is “with Jesus, sick because of love.”

I've interviewed Stafford before -- he is a man who speaks his mind, always. Some of what he said to me, I didn't put in print, to protect him from a media backlash.

Again quoting from the very fine article in the Catholic University newspaper:

“If 1968 was the year of America’s ‘suicide attempt,’ 2008 is the year of America’s exhaustion,” said Stafford, an American Cardinal and Major Penitentiary of the Apostolic Penitentiary for the Tribunal of the Holy See. “In the intervening 40 years since Humanae Vitae, the United States has been thrown upon ruins.”

This destruction and America’s decline is, in part, due to the Supreme Court’s decisions in the life-issue cases of 1973, specifically Roe v. Wade. Stafford asserted these cases undermined respect for human life in the United States.

“Its scrupulous meanness has had catastrophic effects upon the unity and integrity of the American republic,” said Stafford.

It's nice to know that there is someone other than Archbishop Burke [corrected] in the Vatican who understands the reaction of many American Catholics to the election.

Stafford pointed, as have many others, to the continued importance of Humanae Vitae in understanding the tide of contemporary culture:

Humanae Vitae (“On Human Life”) reaffirms traditional Catholic teachings regarding abortion, contraception, and other human life issues. Pope Benedict XVI said in May it is “so controversial, yet so crucial for humanity’s future…What was true yesterday is true also today.”

The article in the CUA paper has a nicely edited video of the Cardinal's address.

Congratulations to Catholic University, its president, Fr. David O'Connell, the JP II Institute for Marriage and Family, and all concerned for hosting Stafford's lecture.

I'm sorry I missed it.


Here is the full text of the Cardinal's address: http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/document.php?n=780

What was Captain Foley’s motivation? Benno Cohn, who negotiated with him for several thousand Palestine Certificates, later wrote: “Foley was a real Christian for whom help to others was the first commandment. He often told us that, as a Christian, he wanted to prove how little the Christians, governing Germany then, had to do with [...]

Keep an eye on the new gay rights projects....

Find this article here.

Gay rights advocates are rethinking their political strategy after losing the right to marry in California.

"There will be some hard questions asked about where marriage ranks on the list of possibilities and priorities" gays should focus on, says Steve Ralls of Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG).

Votes in California, Florida and Arizona that bring to 29 the number of states whose constitutions ban same-sex marriage are likely to prompt more focus on passing legislation to include gays in laws covering hate crimes and discrimination, advocates say.

"Marriage is just an issue where the public is not there yet," says Clyde Wilcox, co-editor of The Politics of Gay Rights.

Many gays welcomed Barack Obama's victory. An Edison-Mitofsky survey at polling places found that 70% of gay voters chose Obama, compared with 53% of voters overall.

"We are very much a part of (Obama's) plan when he looks at the diverse patchwork that is America," says Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group.

Obama has voiced support for civil unions and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act so gays could enjoy the federal benefits, such as Social Security survivor payments, that married couples do. He opposes same-sex marriage but does not favor amending the Constitution to ban it. He has said he would work with the military to repeal the policy that bars gays from serving openly.

Amy Balliett, whose website, jointheimpact.wetpaint.com, mobilized thousands Saturday to protest the reversal of gay marriage in California, plans more demonstrations, but she says the economy must come first. "Barack Obama can't put his initial focus" on gay marriage, says Balliett, who wed her partner in California last month. "That is just not fair to our nation."

Gay advocates predict swift action on a federal hate-crimes bill that would allow federal aid to investigate crimes committed because of sexual orientation or gender identity. The measure, which then-senator Obama co-sponsored, passed Congress last year but was dropped from a defense authorization bill after President Bush threatened a veto.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would extend workplace protections to gays, also could resurface for an early vote, says Rea Carey of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. Obama has favored the bill.

As for marriage, advocates say they will focus on education to sway not only lawmakers but the public. PFLAG plans programs in January in California, New York and Iowa in which parents of gays will talk to members of their churches, especially in minority communities where opposition to same-sex marriage is strong.

Most attention is on the Northeast, though. Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only two states where same-sex couples may marry. New York could be the next gay-marriage arena:

The Human Rights Campaign spent $120,000 to help Democrats take control of the state Senate, whose Republican leaders have blocked gay marriage bills passed in the majority Democratic Assembly.

From OneNewsNow.com.

Congratulations, tolerance mau-mauers: Your shakedown of a heterosexual-targeted dating website worked. Homosexuals will no longer be denied the inalienable "right" to hook up with same-sex partners on eHarmony. What a landmark triumph for social progress, eh?

New Jersey plaintiff Eric McKinley can now crown himself the new Rosa Parks -- heroically breaking down inhumane barriers to Internet matchmaking by forcing a law-abiding private company to provide services it was never created to provide. "Men seeking men" has now been enshrined with "I have a dream" as a civil rights rallying cry of the 21st century. Bully for you, Mr. McKinley. You bully.

Neil Warren, eHarmony's founder, is a gentle, grandfatherly businessman who launched his popular dating site to support heterosexual marriage. A "Focus on the Family" author with a divinity degree, Warren encourages healthy, lasting unions between men and women of all faiths, mixed faiths or no faith at all.

Don't like what eHarmony sells? Go somewhere else. There are thousands upon thousands of dating sites on the Internet that cater to gays, lesbians, Jews, Muslims, Trekkies, runners, you name it.

No matter. In the name of tolerance, McKinley refused to tolerate eHarmony's right to operate a lawful business that didn't give him what he wanted. He filed a discrimination complaint against eHarmony with the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights in 2005.

To be clear: eHarmony never, ever refused to do business with anyone. The company broke no laws. Their great "sin" was not providing a politically correct service that a publicity-seeking gay plaintiff demanded they provide. For three years, the company battled McKinley's legal shakedown artists -- and staved off other opportunists as well. The dating site had been previously sued by a lesbian looking to force the company to match her up with another woman, and by a married man who ridiculously sought to force the company to find him prospects for an adulterous relationship.

This case is akin to a meat-eater suing a vegetarian restaurant for not offering him a rib-eye, or a female patient suing a vasectomy doctor for not providing her hysterectomy services. But rather than defend the persecuted business, the New Jersey attorney general intervened on behalf of the gay plaintiff and wrangled an agreement out of eHarmony to change its entire business model.

The company agreed not only to offer same-sex dating services on a new site, but also to offer six-month subscriptions for free to 10,000 gay users, pay McKinley $5,000 and fork over $50,000 to New Jersey's Civil Rights division "to cover investigation-related administrative costs." Oh, and that's not all. Yield, yield to the grievance-mongers:

Additional terms of the settlement include:

-- eHarmony, Inc. will post photos of same-sex couples in the "Diversity" section of its website as successful relationships are created using the company's same-sex matching service. In addition, eHarmony, Inc. will include photos of same-sex couples, as well as individual same-sex users, in advertising materials used to promote its same-sex matching services;

-- eHarmony, Inc. will revise anti-discrimination statements placed on company websites, in company handbooks and other company publications to make plain that it does not discriminate on the basis of "sexual orientation";

-- The company has committed to advertising and public relations/marketing dedicated to its same-sex matching service, and will retain a media consultant experienced in promoting the "fair, accurate and inclusive" representation of gay and lesbian people in the media to determine the most effective way of reaching the gay and lesbian communities.

I have enormous sympathy for eHarmony, whose attorney explained that they gave in to the unfair settlement because "litigation outcomes can be unpredictable." The recent mob response to the passage of Proposition 8, the traditional marriage measure in California, must have also weighed on eHarmony management's minds. But capitulation will only yield a worse, entirely predictable outcome: more shakedowns of private businesses that hold views deemed unacceptable by the Equality-at-All-Costs Brigade.

Perhaps heterosexual men and women should start filing lawsuits against gay dating websites and undermine their businesses. Coerced tolerance and diversity-by-fiat cut both ways.

From OneNewsNow.com.

The proposal for a homosexual school in Chicago has been withdrawn, but a pro-family advocate believes it will be submitted again next year.

Social Justice Solidarity High School was supposed to be a safe haven for homosexual youth and would have featured homosexual-friendly curriculum, but the school ran into opposition from both sides. Pro-family advocates opposed the use of taxpayer money to fund the school, while some homosexual groups opposed the school because they claimed it amounted to segregation. (See earlier story)

Laurie Higgins, director of school advocacy at the Illinois Family Institute, says proponents of the school had watered down the proposal to focus on all so-called "disenfranchised" students. "Some of the people on the design committee were unhappy with the watering down of the proposal, and they hope to finalize some plans and resubmit them with a stronger proposal, which I think means more affirmation of homosexuality," she explains. "That was a very disturbing report."

She opposes the school on the grounds that it uses taxpayer money. Higgins contends that Chicago schools have other problems that the money would be better used to address. "Listen, we do need to make schools comfortable places as best we can for all students, but those means do not justify the ends of affirming ideas that are both fallacious and destructive to individuals and society," she concludes.

Homosexual advocates plan to introduce new plans for the school in 2009.

From OneNewsNow.com.

According to a conservative media watchdog, the mainstream media is completely ignoring a wave of quasi-fascism that has descended upon California and several other states by radical homosexual activists who don't respect the will of the people.

Brian Fitzpatrick, senior editor at the Culture and Media Institute, recently wrote a column called "Crouching Fascism, Hidden Media." He says on November 4, a majority of voters in liberal California approved Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment declaring that only marriages between a man and a woman are valid in the state. But he points out that militant homosexuals have not respected that decision and have vandalized property, threatened people, and mailed white powder to Mormon churches. Fitzpatrick calls that "fascism."

"Fascism rejects democratic values. We see outright rejection of democracy in California. We see people trying to turn to the courts," he explains. "We see people trying to victimize or punish people who voted against them -- and this is not the American way. It's a very frightening cultural development."

The national media, Fitzpatrick adds, has been AWOL concerning these incidents. "All we've seen is continued coverage of this issue as a civil rights battle or this issue as a blow against homosexuals and homosexual couples. We see emotional pitches," he says. "We see no serious analysis of the significance of homosexual or same-sex marriage, whether it's good or bad for society."

Fitzpatrick, whose columns appear regularly at OneNewsNow, believes America has not yet seen political violence of the kind that led to takeovers of Germany and Italy by fascist elements before World War II. He contends if media outlets do not investigate these current incidents, expose the perpetrators, and pressure the government to press charges, only greater political violence can be anticipated -- even eventually against the media themselves.

by Debi A. Grebenik, Ph.D., Focus on the Family "With a heart of faith you can find the wisdom that God desires to give you as a parent to your particular child." The adoption journey is resplendent with unforeseen detours, mountaintop experiences, formidable challenges — and magnificent views of God’s grace all along the way. Without preparation, [...]

Read it and weep. This is the guy who turned Colorado from red to blue. he also took down Marilyn Musgrave, a Congresswoman, in that state. Find it online here.

A tough loss can be hard to swallow, and plenty of defeated politicians have been known to grumble about sinister conspiracies. When they are rising stars like Danny Carroll, the Republican speaker pro tempore of Iowa’s House of Representatives, and the loss is unexpected, the urge to blame unseen forces can be even stronger—and in Carroll’s case, it would have the additional distinction of being justified. Carroll was among the dozens of targets of a group of rich gay philanthropists who quietly joined forces last year, under the leadership of a reclusive Colorado technology mogul, to counter the tide of antigay politics in America that has generated, among other things, a succession of state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage. Carroll had sponsored such a bill in Iowa and guided it to passage in the state House of Representatives, the first step toward getting it on the ballot.

Like many other state legislatures last year, Iowa’s was narrowly divided. So all it would take to break the momentum toward a constitutional marriage ban was to tip a few close races. If Democrats took control of the House and Senate, however narrowly, the initiative would die, and with it the likelihood of further legislation limiting civil rights for gays and lesbians. And, fortuitously, Carroll’s own reelection race looked to be one of the closest. He represented the liberal college town of Grinnell and had won the last time around by just a handful of votes.

Over the summer, Carroll’s opponent started receiving checks from across the country—significant sums for a statehouse race, though none so large as to arouse suspicion (the gifts topped out at $1,000). Because they came from individuals and not from organizations, nothing identified the money as being “gay,” or even coordinated. Only a very astute political operative would have spotted the unusual number of out-of-state donors and pondered their interest in an obscure midwestern race. And only someone truly versed in the world of gay causes would have noticed a $1,000 contribution from Denver, Colorado, and been aware that its source, Tim Gill, is the country’s biggest gay donor, and the nexus of an aggressive new force in national politics.

Carroll certainly didn’t catch on until I called him after the election, in which Democrats took control of both legislative chambers, as well as Carroll’s seat and four of the five others targeted by Gill and his allies. Carroll was just sitting down to dinner but agreed to talk about his loss, which he attributed to the activism of Grinnell College students. A suggestion that he’d been targeted by a nationwide network of wealthy gay activists was met with polite midwestern skepticism. But Carroll was sufficiently intrigued to propose that we each log on to the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board’s Web site and examine his opponent’s disclosure report together, over the telephone.

Scrolling through the thirty-two-page roster of campaign contributors revealed plenty of $25 and $50 donations from nearby towns like Oskaloosa and New Shar­on. But a $1,000 donation from California stood out on page 2, and, several pages later, so did another $1,000 from New York City. “I’ll be darned,” said Carroll. “That doesn’t make any sense.” As we kept scrolling, Carroll began reading aloud with mounting disbelief as the evidence passed before his eyes. “Denver … Dallas … Los Angeles … Malibu … there’s New York again … San Francisco! I can’t—I just cannot believe this,” he said, finally. “Who is this guy again?”

To continue reading, click here.

Find this article on-line here.

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass said today she is "appalled" at the hostility that has been directed at African-Americans since the passage of Proposition 8.

According to exit polls, 70 percent of black voters supported the gay marriage ban measure, which has caused friction between gays and blacks.

But during a meeting with The Bee's Capitol bureau, Bass said that lost in the post-mortems over Proposition 8 is that black support for the measure was "a generational issue" that divided younger and older African-Americans.

The Los Angeles Democrat, who is California's highest-ranking African-American elected official, said she was "really appalled at how quickly (the issue) was racialized, and it wasn't even analyzed."

"I have friends in Los Angeles, who are African-Americans in the (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community, and they went out to protest the vote and had racial epithets hurled at them," Bass said. "A couple of them were fearful and they left because they were threatened."

Bass, who opposed Proposition 8, said she was "appalled at how quickly some members of the LBGT leadership went there, as opposed to saying, 'what did we or didn't we do in the campaign?'"

The No on 8 campaign, she said, failed to do enough campaigning in the black community "and the LBGT leadership is looking back at that."

"I do think that people have pulled back a way from some of the hostility - I mean it got out of hand," she said.

Bass said she was contacted by some LBGT "leaders who asked me if I would be helpful in terms of negotiating and mediating."

"I declined because I felt that they were bypassing black LBGT leadership," she said.
The speaker said "there's a lot of healing that needs to take place."

"But I think the first place that the healing needs to happen is in the LBGT community - white and black," she said.

Bass said leaders in the gay community need to do a better job of outreach in the black community.

She said that while campaigning for an Assembly candidate in San Diego, she was surprised when a group of African-American ministers told her they supported Proposition 8 because of "liability" concerns.

The speakers said the ministers were worried they would be sued by gay church members if they declined to marry them.

But in a decision in May that sanctioned gay marriage in California - before it was repealed by the voters - the state Supreme Court ruled "no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples."