What's your hermeneutics number?

Wow. I scored a 65 on Scot McKnight's Hermeneutics quiz.

According to Scot,

The moderate hermeneutic might be seen as the voice of reason and open-mindedness. Moderates generally score between 53 to 65. Many are conservative on some issues and progressive on others. It intrigues that conservatives tend to be progressive on the same issues, while progressives tend to be conservative on the same issues. Nonetheless, moderates have a flexible hermeneutic that gives them the freedom to pick and choose on which issues they will be progressive or conservative. For that reason, moderates are more open to the charge of inconsistency. What impresses me most about moderates are the struggles they endure to render judgments on hermeneutical issues.

Dan Whitmarsh reports

Brad took it and got a 62.
Rick took it and got a 64.
I took it and got a 64.
Joanna took it and got a 54.

I wonder what Scot scored!

(oh, and for the record, I'm an INFP)

Just Wondering: Faithfulness and Health

I'm wondering....

Is being "healthy" the same as being "faithful?"
Is being "faithful" the same as being "healthy?"
Is "faithfulness" a component of "health?"
Is "health" a component of "faithfulness?"
Or are they both components of something bigger?

Of course, it depends on how we define our terms...
what does it mean to be "healthy?"
what does it mean to be "faithful?"
Where do we look for our definitions?
Which term is more accessible for us? Why?

I wonder...
can we be faithful without being healthy?
Can we be healthy without being faithful?
Do these terms refer to two necessary but individually insufficient conditions?

I did a Bible Gateway search for "faith" and "faithful" and for "health" and "healthy". Guess which one had more references?

I wonder what that means.

When the master says, "well done, good and faithful servant," is that different from saying "well done, good and healthy servant?"

There's lots that's been written about being a "healthy church," but when I google "faithful church" I get stuff like "Soul-winning, King James Bible Only, independent Baptist Church." Why it that? When did the term "faithful" develop such rigidity?

Is it because faithfulness has connections to truth, and we live in a time when truth is an res non grata?

Do we need to re-discover faithfulness?

Are we able to re-discover faithfulness, or is health what should now be our focus?
What do you think?

Looking Backwards or Remembering forward?

The past matters.
But it also matters what we do with the past.
I've been thinking a lot lately about the biblical distinction between looking backward and remembering.

Remembering

Scripture calls on us to do a lot of remembering. But what is it we are called on to remember? Not our past defeats or even our past victories. Instead, we are called on to remember Who God is, what He has said and done, and what He intends to do. When we remember our sins, it is for the purpose of being forgiven by Him. When we remember how we have been sinned against, it is so He can show us how to forgive. When we remember our hurts, it is so we can receive His comfort.

Psalm 77:11
I will remember the deeds of the LORD; yes, I will remember your miracles of long ago.

Psalm 78:35
They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer

Psalm 105:5
Remember the wonders he has done, his miracles, and the judgments he pronounced,

Psalm 119:52
I remember your ancient laws, O LORD, and I find comfort in them.

Psalm 119:55
In the night I remember your name, O LORD, and I will keep your law.

Psalm 143:5
I remember the days of long ago; I meditate on all your works and consider what your hands have done.

Luke 24:6
He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee:

Luke 24:8
Then they remembered his words.

2 Timothy 2:8
Remember Jesus Christ, raised from the dead, descended from David. This is my gospel...

Revelation 3:3
Remember, therefore, what you have received and heard; obey it, and repent

Simeon and Anna are models to us for how to deal with the past. As they see the baby Jesus, Simeon remembered the promises of ancient prophecy, and Anna "spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem."

However, to remember the past apart from the Lord's thoughts and actions puts us in the position of "looking backward" and tempts us to acedia.

Jeremiah 7:23-24
23 but I gave them this command: Obey me, and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all the ways I command you, that it may go well with you. 24 But they did not listen or pay attention; instead, they followed the stubborn inclinations of their evil hearts. They went backward and not forward.

The point of remembering is, paradoxically, to be able to better focus on God, so that we can continue moving forward toward a deeper relationship with Him through His Son and the Spirit. In this way, the past propels us to our proper end.

Looking backward

But as sinful creatures, we do not always allow the past to function positively. Instead, we ignore it or twist it so that the focus is on ourselves or on worldly matters, instead of on the Lord. Scripture calls this "looking backward," in contrast to "remembering."

Luke 9:57-62
He said to another man, "Follow me." But the man replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father." Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."

Still another said, "I will follow you, Lord; but first let me go back and say good-by to my family." Jesus replied, "No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God."

Here, both men are captives of their past, and so are unable to be captivated by Christ. It is a familiar situation. The following passage presents yet another way fixation on the past-- instead of fixing on the God who Was and Is and Is to Come--can prevent us from reaching His goal for us. :

Numbers 11:4-6
The rabble with them began to crave other food, and again the Israelites started wailing and said, "If only we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we ate in Egypt at no cost—also the cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions and garlic. But now we have lost our appetite; we never see anything but this manna!"

Here the Israelites are not actually "remembering," but are rather "looking backward," as evidenced by the object of their attention: fruit and vegetables, instead of God. But the classic text of a backward-looker, however, is the story of Lot's wife:

Genesis 19: 24-26

Then the LORD rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the LORD out of the heavens. Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.

I can imagine Lot's wife, overcome with memories of the past, mourning her lost home and friends and market stalls. Against the men's specific warning not to look back in v. 17, she does look back. Furthermore, she doesn't just give a quick glance; she gives a long, dwelling gaze (as I have been told is indicated by the Hebrew text). Spiritually, if not physically, she is turned away from the Lord and focused on herself, on her own loss and pain. The consequences are fatal.

Conclusion

History is neither to be ignored nor idolized. Both can be means of "turning away" from God. It is impossible to faithfully live for the Lord in the present if we ignore the past. It is similarly impossible to live a life in step with Him, if in looking backward we are frozen by our own concerns.

The trick is to keep in step with the Spirit, who enables us to simultaneously move forward and remember:

John 14:26

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Global Seed Vault

Gardeners, you'll appreciate this one.

The Svalbard Global Seed Vault, or the Doomsday Vault as the media have nicknamed it, will be the ultimate safety net for the world’s most important natural resource.

According to an NPR report, "Monitoring of the seed vault will take place electronically — and no one will work at the site physically on a day-to-day basis....the seed vault's annual operating cost will be about $150,000." Carey Fowler, executive director of the Global Crop Diversity Trust, remarked, "We think that's about the cheapest insurance policy anybody can imagine for the world's most valuable natural resource."

I'm really glad there are still some Josephs around who are prudent, but who aren't paranoid survivalists! Seriously, this is an amazing project and the Norwegians deserve our deepest thanks. They're the ones who established it as a service to the world.

Read more about it here and here

The Blogging Spectrum

Continuing this idea of diagrams: here is a blogger who offers a classification scheme for the blogosphere. Instead of asking what color is your parachute, this diagram suggests the question, "What color is your blog?" (I think I'm green.)

Note to self, and to those who hope to use the internet as a tool for deconstructing ratio: "The left brains ye shall have always with you!"

To be or not to be: Linear or non-linear?

The blogging waters have recently been stirred by two very different topics which both share much the same methodology. It has been fascinating watching the responses.

First, there is Scot Knight's recent post, "Mapping Emerging" presenting Michael Patton's chart on orthodoxy and emergents. Brad at PIBC, Steve McKnight at Emergent Village and Earl Barnett have provided loci for discussion.

Then, James Choung presents the gospel in three minutes through a diagram on You Tube. (If you don't have time to watch the whole presentation, there's a write-up of this diagram on PDF.) Several blogs, including Kim's and Rick's give it high praise.

What is fascinating to me is that Patton's diagram has received lots of criticism for it's "linear" thinking (anticipating this, Scot wrote, "Yes, we all have our opinions about charts...") whereas Choung's diagram has not. Now, it is one thing to criticize the WAY Patton has drawn his chart (Brad rightly asks "how did Carson become the center of Orthodoxy?") but it is another thing to dismiss the whole endeavor of diagramming as "linear," and a completely other thing to criticize one diagram as linear while refraining from criticizing another diagram for the same "intellectual sin."

So I'm trying to figure this out. Can you help me? Is it the case that the folks who are down on the "linear" Patton diagram haven't yet seen the Choung diagram, and given the chance, will reject it as well? Or is it the case that the Choung diagram, being on YouTube, is perceived as more "relational" and "right brain" than the Patton diagram, which is not on YouTube? What is going on?

(Frankly, I like being able to work with both pictures/diagrams and ideas. It's even better when you can use them to lay out a position and then engage in a conversation/debate/dialogue. So, I have no problem with diagramming. The fun begins when you try to match the diagram to reality. Being Premodern, I'm thanking God for both sides of my brain and am praying that He will help me use it all for His glory. )

The Trinity, N.T .Wright, and Mohammad

Visiting today with A. and her Muslim "seeker" mother, Mamma D. and her deeply Muslim mother-in law, Mamma B. At one point the conversation turned to things theological. It was held simultaneously in English and Farsi translation. Mamma B. was actively involved; Mamma B. listened, but didn't say much.

A:" So Mamma D. wants to know if God has children.

Me: (seeing where this is headed) Well, Jesus is His Son...and the Bible does call us His children....

A: But then God is not one?

Me: (frantic: how do you explain the Trinity, to Muslims, when you yourself cannot speak Farsi? Lord, thanks for the chance to speak about You. Help me not to mess it up!) No, God is one; he is one substance, but three persons....He is so great, so powerful, so amazing that who He is not be contained in just one person. (hopefully that will connect with the Muslim reverence for God's sovereignty and power.)

It's like an egg. (good old eggs!) There's the yolk and the white and the shell. It's all egg, but the yolk is not the white, and the white is not the shell, and the shell is not the yolk...but the yolk is egg; the white is egg, and the shell is egg.

A: (Smiles broadly as she translates my words, seeing that Mamma D. is understanding them and clearly entertaining the possibility that God could be one, and yet three.) So there are not three gods.

Me: NO! Not three gods! Only one God! Muslims say there is only one God; and Christians agree! But we say He is three persons, not just one person.

A: So Jesus is God. Muslims think he is just a prophet, think He is not God. But Christians believe He is really God.

(conversation continues, Mamma B. eventually leaves)

----------------------------------------------------------------

A: (still translating, with a doubtful look) Do Christians believe in reincarnation?

Me: No. We believe in resurrection.

A: So do Muslims. We believe after we die we either go to up to heaven or down to hell. [At this point the reader might want to read this.]

Me: Hmm. Well, we both believe in an afterlife, don't we. Christians think that when we die we go to be with God, but that when He is ready He will give us back new, even better bodies than these, and He will come and live with us. (I breathe a prayer of relief: Thank goodness for Bishop Wright's recent interview in Time! )

A: Muslims don't think that; they think we go live with God.

Me: Well, they're on the right track, but they just need to know that God loves his creation so much that someday, when Satan is gone and there are no more tears or pain, He will come "down" and live with us. Just like in the beginning, when He walked with Adam and Eve in the garden. (Remembering the Time article, it is clear to me that the picture of heaven Maria Shriver paints has much more in common with Mamma B's vision than with the Bible!)

A: (quite satisfied, and explaining this to her mother) We don't need to be afraid of God! Jesus is his Son. He makes us friends with God.

Me: Yes! (remembering Luke 10:20-22, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.

All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."

A: When I was Muslim I always afraid of God. I fear God. Beth, I confess something. I think I love Jesus more than God (she meant the Father). Is that bad?

Me: Well, A., it's understandable, since all your life when you think of God you think of someone scary. But Jesus comes to show us we don't have to be scared of His Father.

A: Mamma D. wants to know: if Jesus protect us from his angry Father we can do bad things and never be punished?

Me: (Aha! This is why I believe grace is infused/imparted, not simply imputed! ) Well, Jesus is not like a blanket that hides us from an angry Father, so God doesn't see us and gets fooled. No. Jesus not only comes to tell us how his father wants us to be, he came and showed us. And he comes and lives in us, when we invite him to. That means that His goodness and truth and beauty start "growing" in us, and we begin to be more and more like Him, not sinning. So when God looks at us, He sees we are not perfect, but he also sees Jesus working inside us to get rid of sin, and that makes Him happy.

A: (suddenly downcast.) Beth. I confess. I jealous. Mamma D. bring back DVD of my family, and they all dancing and happy and beautiful. And I jealous. I want to know why God not let me be healthy, and beautiful. I not beautiful. I am in pain. Very bad pain, all the time. God is greater than Satan! Why he not tell Satan to stop hurting me?

Me: (Oh no, the problem of evil!) Oh A! Someday God will stop Satan. It's just not time yet. (Just this past Sunday the lectionary included Matthew 4:1-11. I try to build on that.) Remember in Matthew when Satan tempts Jesus? Jesus is hungry, and Satan tries to get him to change stones into bread...and He tries to get Jesus to jump...

A: (Brightening) Oh yes! I remember that. I love that story. He try to get Jesus to jump from high building but Jesus say NO!

B: Well, A., if Satan is so bold that he tries to tempt Jesus, and God didn't stop him from tempting His own Son, then who are you and I to demand He stop Satan for us right now? The Bible says someday God will throw Satan into a lake of fire and he will be gone forever, and God himself will wipe away every tear from our eyes, and there will finally be no more sin or pain."

We wound up praying together: A in the middle of the sofa, Momma D. on her left, me on her right. We thanked God for bringing A's family to be with her, and asked him to help her endure her pain, and even take it from her, if that were possible. We asked him to forgive us of our sins, and help us to be more like His son. Momma D. couldn't understand our English, but I think--I pray-- she was in agreement with us.

Redefining Postmodernism and The Truth of All Things

Ken Schneck has a brief and helpful discussion entitled "Redefining Postmodernism" here.

Ken writes: "The truth of the term 'pre-modern' is the sense that most human cultures have tended to be unreflective toward the reasons underlying what they believe to be true."

There's one little clarification I would make:

It is accurate to say that premoderns take metaphysics to be "first philosophy" rather than epistemology. However, we must be careful not to think that this makes premoderns "unreflective." It's just that the first questions they asked were ones about what is real, rather than how we know what is real.

Ultimately, by middle ages, it was not unusual to speak of "the truth of all things," insofar as all things image God to some degree. Things are both real and true. But by the time we get to Kant, it is an either or: things are either real (noumenal) or they are true (phenomenal). Once again, then, I find the difference between premodern and modern thought to be able to be expressed in terms of both/and and either/or.

Wisdom from Josef Pieper:

"If you study any philosophical treatise of our present era you will with almost absolute certainty not encounter the concept, and much less the expression, "the truth of all things." This is no mere accident. The generally prevailing philsophical thinking of our time has no room at all for this concept; it is, as it were, "not provided for." It makes sense to speak of truth with regard to thoughts, ideas, statements, opinions--but not with regard to things. Our judgements regarding reality may be true (or false); but to label as "true" reality itself, the "things," appears rather meaningless, mere nonsense. Things are real, not "true."

Looking at the historical development of this situation, we find that there is much more to it than the simple fact of a certain concept or expression not being used: we find not merely the "neutral absence, as it were, of a certain way of thinking. No , the nonuse and absence of the concept, "the truth of all things" is rather the result ofa long process of biased discrimination and suspression or, to use a less aggressive term, of elimination."
--Josef Pieper: An Anthology (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989).

Church and Culture Conference: "Christianity and Politics"

The 19th Church and Culture Conference , a joint ministry of Valley Covenant Church and Church of the Servant King, Eugene, OR, will be February 15-17, 2008:

"Christianity & Politics"

with speaker Chad Pecknold

C. C. Pecknold, PhD (Cambridge) teaches in the Department of Theology at Loyola College in Maryland. Previously he was a research fellow in the Centre for Advanced Religious and Theological Studies at the University of Cambridge (UK) and prior to that worked in the U.S. Senate Chaplain's Office. Pecknold is the author of Transforming Postliberal Theology (T & T Clark, 2005) and the editor of Liturgy, Time and the Politics of Redemption (Eerdmans, 2006). His next book, Christianity and Politics in America, will be published by Cascade Books.

Schedule

(all at Valley Covenant Church, 3636 W. 18th , Eugene, Oregon):

February 15, 7:00 p.m. - Session 1:
"How the Church Reshaped the Western Political Imagination
without Even Trying"

February 16, 10:00 a.m. - Session 2:
"Dividing the Body of Christ, or, How We Got into the State We're In"

February 16, 7:00 p.m. - Session 3:
"Communion and the Drama of Political Desire "

February 17, 10:30 a.m. - Sermon (during worship at Valley Covenant)

About the Church & Culture Conference

The Church and Culture series is a joint effort of Valley Covenant Churchand Church of the Servant King/Windows Booksellers. We seek to bring challenging Christian thinkers to the Eugene/Springfield community for a weekend of thoughtful presentation and discussion. The community is welcome. For more information about previous conferences and past speakers, or upcoming conferences and future speakers, look here

Tapes/CDs/MP3

Tapes are currently available for lectures and sermons by, Benson, Bouma-Prediger, Budde, Gorman, Hauerwas, Johnston, Kuehne, Laytham Long, Lysaught, Ken Myers, Jay Wood and Ralph Wood. Tapes for subsequent speakers will be available after the event - preorders are welcome. $3/session or sermon includes postage. Beginning with Anderson, the lectures are available on MP3 or audio CD. Please send check to:

Church & Culture Tapes
Valley Covenant Church
3636 W. 18th Ave.
Eugene, OR 97402

We now pause for a test

We interrupt this blog for a test of the Emergency Logical System:
Bweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

(A and B is not the logical equivalent of A and not A.) eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

Thank you. This has been a test of the Emergency Logical System. We now return to the regular blogging.

It's difficult keeping the alleluia buried...

It's Lent, and we're burying the Alleluia at VCC, but this morning when A. came in part-way through the praise songs, and flanking her, her mother D. and her mother-in-law, B., it was difficult to resist screaming HALLELUJAH!

So we gave a round of applause instead!

Neither D. nor B. speak any English, and none of us speak Farsi, but I think they felt the love of Christ this morning. I was especially thankful that at this, their first experience in Christian worship, we celebrated communion. Whereas it was impossible for A. to keep up translating Steve's sermon for them, she was able to whisper some explanation about what was happening with the bread and the cup and all the people going forward and sharing in the meal. The Spirit took care of the rest.

Afterward the service ended, A removed her shoes, kneeled and bowed before the altar to pray, as is her custom. "Mamma B" and "Mamma D" did the same, behind her. Kent and I joined them and we all praised God in English and Farsi. He has brought A. through 8 rounds of the strongest chemo available. He has overcome the bureaucracies of two nations to reunite B. with her daughter. And perhaps most amazing of all, he is moving in A's father-in-law's heart, so that he is wanting to read more about Jesus. When Mamma B. pointed to the large cross on the wall behind the altar, and said, "Isa Masi--AMAYN!" we couldn't have agreed more!

My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. (Col. 2:2-3)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Postscript:

Rowan Williams has reflected here on his church's practice of "burying the alleluia" while visiting Sudan.

Yes, we need to be reminded by abstinence and restraint that the world is still a Good Friday sort of place, shadowed by abandonment, terror, pain. But what if you don't really need reminding? What if, like the Sudanese believers, you have lived so long with abandonment and terror and pain that you can never forget or ignore it? These were people whose whole life was a particularly awful and crushing 'Lent'.

Yet they could not stop saying, singing, shouting, 'Alleluia'. If they lived in a long-term Lent, they also lived in an unceasing awareness of Easter. They had come through the horrors of war and oppression with the confidence intact that God was always there on the far side or in the depths of what they were enduring. If everyone else forgot them, God would not and could not. Because he was alive, they could live too - to echo the words of Jesus in John's gospel.

What he writes could also be said of A: almost all her life has been one long Lent, yet --as she says, "thanks God"-- she lives with an unceasing awareness of Easter. Because Jesus is alive, she is, too. And that Life flows back and forth and around and through.

Meditation for Worship, Feb. 10, 2008

We fell for it, Lord.

We believed Lucifer’s lie, that being a creature wasn’t good.

Creatures are limited, he said.

Creatures are forever having to rely on God, he said. Always having to be what You want us to be.

The serpent told us

we could have it our way,
and we feared being a creature

more than we feared You.
It wasn’t enough for us to be splendid, good creatures.

We wanted to be You.

So you gave us the desires of our hearts,

and now we are sinful and frightened.

"Fear the LORD, you his saints, for those who fear him lack nothing."

But instead of fearing You, Father, we fear doing without.
We can’t live on stones; we need food. And lots of other stuff.
We fear not having enough.
We fear not having the latest things.
We fear we won’t be able to get more stuff.
We’re afraid, Lord.
Teach us to fear rightly: to revere every word that comes from your mouth.

Father, instead of fearing You, we fear not looking good.
We want to make a splash in the world, so people will notice us.
We’re afraid of not impressing others.
We’re afraid of losing face.
We’re afraid of being ugly.
We’re afraid Lord.
Teach us to fear rightly: to be frightened of putting you to the test.

Instead of fearing You, we fear being isolated and powerless.
We want to be in control.
We’re afraid to submit to anything beyond ourselves.
We’re afraid of being overruled.
We’re afraid of being alone.
We’re afraid Lord.
Teach us to fear rightly: to worship you alone, and to serve only you.

For the fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom,
and when we fear You, Father, we will lack no good thing.

The Future lies in the Past

Deuteronomy 32:7,29
Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you. ...They are a nation without sense, there is no discernment in them.

If only they were wise and would understand this and discern what their end will be!

Romans 15:4
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

2 Peter 3:2
I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.

"We need intimate knowledge of the past. Not that the past has any magic about it, but because we cannot study the future, and yet need something to set against the present, to remind us that the basic assumptions have been quite different in different periods and that much which seems certain to the uneducated is merely temporary fashion.

A man who has lived in many places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village: the scholar has lived in many timeas and therefore is in some degree immune from the great cataract of nonsense that pours from the press and the microphone of his own age.

--C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, "Learning in War-time," p. 28-29.

"By studying the past we can learn not only historical but metaphysical or transcendental truth."

--C.S. Lewis, The Discarded Image, p. 174.

A couple of weeks ago Ted showed me this article in CT: Chris Armstrong's "The Future lies in the Past."

Yesterday, my colleague Bonnie at EBC told me about hearing Leonard Sweet speak recently about the need to rediscover the past. (Wow. Has he ever done a 180 since Soul Tsunami. Forgive me, but my skepticism is surfacing here. Why is it that I am having such a hard time not believing that he hasn't sniffed where the publishing and speaking winds are about to blow, and so is poised for profit? )

Phyllis Tickle is blogging about the ancient future church.

The Spirit is on the move! Among a postmodern people who idolize their present experience, He comes to remind us that "that history is a story with a divine plot." You can't have a Story without a beginning, a middle and an end.

And if Hauerwas is right in his damning criticism of postmodernism,"Who told you the story there is no Story?" then the only way to make sense of our present experience is to re-discover the metaphysical and transcendent truth inherent in the past, and see how it relates to the Divine Plot.

I hope Louis Bouyer is able to see all this.

I hope I live long enough to see it develop and flourish.

Oregon's Primary Might Matter After All

Even though we're not a territory, some Oregonians feel like we have about as much political clout in this primary as Guam. Keith Smith, visiting assistant professor in the U of O department of Political Science gives us some reassurance.

By KEITH W. SMITH

Tomorrow, the nation will hold what is essentially its first national primary. Voters in 24 states - large states like California, smaller states like Delaware and swing states like New Mexico - will cast votes for the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. Almost 1,700 (out of about 4,000 total) delegates to the Democratic National Convention and 1,100 (out of about 2,400) delegates to the Republican National Convention will be committed as a result of these events.

It is possible that both parties will decide their nominees tomorrow. Certainly the media will try to declare a winner. Among Republicans, Sen. John McCain appears to be emerging as the consensus choice, but former Gov. Mitt Romney may yet win. On the Democratic side, Sen. Hillary Clinton holds poll leads over Sen. Barack Obama in many of these states.

Over three months later, on May 20, Oregon voters will finally have the opportunity to voice their preferences. Even if there is no clear winner on tomorrow, by the time Oregon voters cast their ballots, 94 percent of the pledged Democratic delegates and 91 percent of the Republican delegates will have been decided. Only four states (Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota and Nebraska) will hold Republican contests after Oregon; just two states (Montana and South Dakota) plus Puerto Rico will hold Democratic contests. The likelihood that Oregon will cast the deciding vote in either party is exceedingly small.

One might conclude from these facts that Oregon's voice will not matter in the nominating contests. One might further conclude that because Oregon voters will cast their ballots after the nominations will have likely been determined, they have essentially been disenfranchised. Both conclusions are wrong.

Let's consider these thoughts in reverse order.

First, participation in the nomination process is a privilege not a right. America is unique in that the national parties allow voters the opportunity to participate. There is no constitutional requirement or federal law that makes them do so. In most democracies voters are simply presented with a set of party nominees. We get to choose ours.

In fact, only the Democratic Party mandates voter participation and it has done so only since 1972. Previously, primaries were beauty contests that demonstrated electability but ultimately did not determine the nominees. In 1968, then Vice President Hubert Humphry became the Democratic nominee without participating in a single primary. Even today, Republican voters in some states (like Wyoming) do not have the opportunity to vote on the nominees. Party leaders pick delegates for them at conventions.

Second, the conclusion that because Oregon voters will cast their ballots so late in the process their votes will not count is based on an erroneous assumption. It assumes that in order for my vote to be meaningful, I have to decide the final outcome. Clearly this is wrong. Having the right to participate in the nomination process is a very different thing than being decisive to the outcome.

Consider the plight of the 220 New Hampshire voters who cast their ballots for former Ambassador Alan Keyes in the Republican primary, which McCain won with over 88,000 votes (37 percent of the Republican vote). Alan Keyes stood as much of a chance then of winning nomination as Fred Thompson does now after having exited the race - none. Does that mean that those votes did not count? Does that mean that the 220 people who voted for Alan Keyes were disenfranchised because he never stood a chance of winning? Not at all. Those 220 voters were able to go to the polls and express their political preferences just like everybody else.

In the same way Oregon voters will have the opportunity to cast their ballots in May for whomever they choose. Our choices may be more constrained than in other states as candidates exit the race, but the range of choice does not necessarily affect the meaning of the vote.

Consider the plight of Michigan Democrats on Jan. 15. People who wanted to vote for Obama or New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson in the Democratic primary could not. Both candidates withdrew their names from the ballot. Were those voters disenfranchised because they could not vote for their preferred candidate? Not at all. (A better argument would be that they were disenfranchised because their state knowingly violated Democratic and Republican Party rules and as a consequence was stripped of its delegates to the national convention, but that's another issue.)

We are regularly presented with limited voting choices; for example, we vote up or down on ballot measures not whether or how they ought to be modified. Constrained ballot choice is actually a good thing - too many choices in a plurality-voting system like ours can lead to confusion and undesirable outcomes.

Is Oregon's voice unimportant, then? Will we be the moral equivalent of Alan Keyes supporters screaming into the New Hampshire wind? At the individual level, it doesn't matter as long as we have the ability to do so. At the party or national level, Oregon's vote will still be important for several reasons.

First, the delegates that Oregon sends to the conventions will play an important role in determining the content of each party's policy platforms. The media may not pay attention to this fact, but candidates and party leaders do. The size of the candidate delegations affects their ability to influence the positions each party takes, and in closely fought nomination contests like we are seeing platform fights can be important.

Second, turnout in the Oregon primaries will also be an important political signal about the strength of the two parties. Thus far, turnout in Democratic nominating events has exceeded turnout in Republican events. If turnout is higher among Democrats in Oregon, even though its primaries come so late in the process, national political leaders will take it as a sign that the energy is on the Democratic side in 2008.

Third, on the off (but not improbable) chance that the nominations are undecided when Oregon votes we will play a very important role in the nomination process. As one of the last states to vote before the national conventions, our choices will be watched with great interest by party leaders and the national media. Small changes in support from one candidate to another will be imbued with outsized significance.

So while Oregon voters may feel left out as much of the nation votes tomorrow, we should not feel like we do not matter or that our voice will not be heard. We do. It will be.

Meditation: Thoughts on Ash Wednesday

Mysteries aren't only proper to divinity, but also to the things God has created in His image. But evil is not a mystery: it is an absence, a "privation" in what ought to be. It is absurd. Evil is the cavities in the teeth of the universe, the eating away of what was real and true and good and beautiful, leaving only spiritual, intellectual and moral holes.

I'm certainly not a Calvinist fulminating about total depravity, but I'm also not a "happy pagan" who is oblivious to sin. Wherever things are not the way the Lord meant them to be, there is sin, and where there is sin, there is death, and where there is death, there is evil. (Remember that line, "evil" is "life" spelled backwards?) --my message to J., 2-6-08.

"...Every disability conceals a vocation, if only we can find it, wh.[sic] will 'turn the necessity into glorious gain.'" --C.S. Lewis, A Severe Mercy, chapter 6, pp. 147-148.

Today I am being reminded I have been created as an agent, in the image of God, not simply as an object or event. But I am desperately ill. That image is being eaten away by sin. I am disabled. Tonight, I will be invited to name my disabilities, and to find my vocation. The ashes on my forehead signify not only my penitence but alert the world to my true condition, and the way I will be healed.

Lord,

deliver me from evil,

so that death might not erupt in me, with its fallout of sin.

Forgive me, and turn my spirit around

to Your goodness and truth,

so that Your life will surge in me,

with its abundant crop of virtue and works pleasing to you.

Let me hear your call, so that I might discover my vocation;

A vocation that leads to transfiguration.

Your kingdom come.

Your will be done.

In me--in us-- on earth;

and it will be heaven.

Ash Wednesday Humor

(Thanks to Dave Walker,
www.cartoonchurch.com/blog/2006/02/ )

If it is true that Satan hates to be laughed at, then let's use humor as a spiritual discipline this Lent.

Happy Birthday, "Otello!"

Today marks the 121st anniversary of the debut of Verdi's Otello: Feb. 5, 1887, at La Scala in Milan.

To my mind it is Verdi's greatest opera, the work of his mature genius. His librettist, Arrigio Boito, distilled Shakespeare's tragedy into its purest form. Boito provided Iago with a devilish "Credo" which Shakespeare never wrote, but which telegraphs Iago's nihilism. Watch a chilling Justino Diaz sing it here. This is what he is singing, in translation:

I believe in a cruel God who created me
Similar to Himself, and whom I name in my wrath.
From the baseness of a germ or an atom,
Basely I was born.
I am wicked
Because I am a man;
And I feel the mud of my origin in me.
Yes! This is my creed!
I believe with a firm heart, just as
The little widow in church believes,
That the evil I think, the evil that comes from me,
Is wrought by my destiny.
I believe the honest man is a mocking actor
In his face and in his heart,
That everything in him is falsehood:
His tears, kiss, gaze,
Sacrifice, and honor.
And I believe that man is the plaything of
unjust fate
From the germ of the cradle
To the worrn of the grave.
After so much derision comes Death.
And then?
And then? (long pause)
(whispering) Death is Nothingness
(shouting) And heaven an old wives' tale.
(laughter)

Currently, Placido Domingo owns the title role, and can be heard on various excellent recordings. He appears on DVD in Franco Zefirelli's lush production. It is a visual delight, but for many his idiosyncratic cutting of Desdemona's Willow song is a musical travesty. My favorite recording is conducted by Sir John Barbirolli, and features James McCracken as Otello, Gwyneth Jones as Desdemona, and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau as Iago.

Martina Elicker has written a fascinating postmodern analysis of Shakespeare's theatrical Othello, Verdi's musical Otello, and Zeferrelli's video Otello. She observes:

This paper focuses on a critical comparison of the theme of Ot(h)ello's "otherness" as depicted in Shakespeare's play, the opera adaptation by Verdi/Boito, and the 1986 movie version by Franco Zeffirelli. The main aim of the analysis is to point out the different types of mechanisms at play in creating "otherness" in the three media: with the help of language, music, visual signs, etc. Ot(h)ello's character is clearly outlined and his life - past and present -, attitudes, religious beliefs, and cultural background are juxtaposed with those of the other characters firmly embedded in Western, Christian societies and traditions. For obvious reasons, Zeffirelli makes use of visual signs and symbols the most, at the same time drawing on (con-)textual elements of the play and the musical texture of the opera, and thus further emphasizes Ot(h)ello's outsider status among the Venetians and Cypriots. In the context of "The Unifying Aspects of Culture," it is particularly interesting to note Zeffirelli's own Italian Catholic background when discussing his selection of musical, textual, and visual signs which stress "difference", "otherness" - rather than "unity", "unification."

See. I told you it was a postmodern analysis. ; )

Did Adam and Eve get a kiss good-bye?

This afternoon the house was empty

so I cranked up the Metropolitan opera broadcast of Wagner's Die Walkure. Almost everyone knows the famous "Ride of the Valkyries" (or has heard it thanks to Apocolypse Now). But for me the best comes last: the closing scene, "Wotan's Farewell," (which you can start watching here and finish watching here. ) In the final act, one of the Valkyries, Brunhilde, disobeys her father, the god Wotan. Here is the Met synopsis of the scene:
Left alone with her father, Brunhilde pleads that she was really doing what he wished. Wotan will not relent: she must lie in sleep, a prize for any man who finds her. But as his anger abates, she asks the favor of being surrounded in sleep by a wall of fire that only the bravest hero can pierce. Both sense this hero must be the child that Sieglinde will bear. Sadly renouncing his daughter, Wotan kisses Brünnhilde's eyes with sleep and mortality before summoning Loge, the spirit of fire, to encircle the rock. As flames spring up, Wotan invokes a spell forbidding the rock to anyone who fears his spear (fire music).

I have often imagined the expulsion from Eden to have been a fiery, thunderous affair, rather like the Archangel Michael wielding his flaming sword in Respighi's Church Windows. But now I wonder if it wasn't more the way Donald MacIntyre (as Wotan) sadly kisses Gwyneth Jones (as Brunhilde) good-bye. Like Adam and Eve, Brunhilde's disobedience results in a Fall. Wotan, like Yahweh, punishes in order to preserve justice. Both do so with simultaneous love and pain. Wotan gently lowers Brunhilde onto a ledge where she will sleep in safety, awaiting her fate. Yahweh graciously makes garments of skin for his naked, rebellious children before he banishes them, for their own good.

There are similarities, but there are also important differences. Wotan cannot redeem. He can only wander off into the distance and await his destruction, and hope that the flames will protect his beloved daughter from harm. As the dispirited Wotan kisses Brunhilde goodbye, he knows that he is condemning her her to her eventual death. Perhaps he even sees his own future, wherein his spear, symbolizing his power, is broken.

But Yahweh is the Almighty, who, even as He judges, works to restore and renew. Instead of imprisoning us in our own private, unconscious Edens, He sent us out-- together--to witness and share His salvation, unleashed by a soldier's spear (John 19:34). We are protected not by flames, but by faith in Him. (1 Peter 1). Our story is the reverse of Brunhilde's; she starts out immortal and ends up a mortal; we start out mortal, and we end up immortal (1 Cor. 15:53-54). Wotan cannot redeem, but Yahweh can and does.

So. Did God kiss Adam and Eve goodbye?

I don't know. But there's something I'm wondering about even more: will He kiss us hello when we rise from death?

Somehow I think He will.

NOTE: Want to learn more about Wagner's Ring?Here's Eric Rawlins' straitforward, non-threatening, amateur's introduction. You might also be interested in his analysis of the musical themes in The Lord of the Rings, here.