2014-01-23T05:58:11+00:00http://jfmjourney.comParsec Internals2013-04-22T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/Tech/2013/04/parsec-internals<p>I’ve spent quite a bit of time looking through the internals of Haskell’s Parsec monadic parser combinator library. This post is intended as a brain dump so what in six months when I’ve forgotten it all I can come back and remember what I’ve forgotten. This post is based on parsec-3.1.3 which is the current version as of April 22, 2013.</p>
<p>What I am particularly interested in for this post is the way the <code>ParsecT</code> monad is constructed and the implications that has for stretching the Parsec Library beyond its original design.</p>
<h3 id='parsect'>ParsecT</h3>
<p>Like all truly well made Haskell code, the lowest level of Parsec is amazingly small and flexible. Most of the code in the Parsec library is there to present concise forms of the most used combinators. It is a big library with a small core. The core consists of the <code>ParsecT</code> monad, the <code>manyAccum</code> and <code>try</code> combinator, the <code>TokenPrimEx</code> parser, and the functions <code>runParsecT</code> and <code>mkPT</code>. The documentation in the code suggests that most of these need not be used directly. All else is some combination this core.</p>
<p>Without going any further, lets list the <code>ParsecT</code> data type:</p>
<pre><code>newtype ParsecT s u m a
= ParsecT {unParser :: forall b .
State s u
-> (a -> State s u -> ParseError -> m b) -- consumed ok
-> (ParseError -> m b) -- consumed err
-> (a -> State s u -> ParseError -> m b) -- empty ok
-> (ParseError -> m b) -- empty err
-> m b
}</code></pre>
<p>There is a lot of rather opaque stuff in this so lets unpack it beginning with the type parameters (<code>s u m a</code>).</p>
<p>The first <code>s</code> is the type of stream of tokens to be parsed. The original, and still most natural structure is a simple list of tokens. For a parser without a scanner, this could in fact be a list of <code>Char</code>, and Parsec has a higher-level parser that makes that choice. While it is not listed here because it doesn’t need to be, all actual implementations of ParsecT will insist that <code>s</code> be a part of a Stream class. More on this below. A final cautionary note, ‘s’ is more often used in the code as a reference to a State rather then a Stream.</p>
<p>The next parameter <code>u</code> is a user defined state. This is what allows Parsec to parse context-sensitive grammars. There are no restrictions on <code>u</code> and it acts like the state variable of a State monad.</p>
<p>Third, ‘m’ is the underlying monad. ‘ParsecT’ is a monad transformer and can stack on top of any other Monad. If that Monad is a MonadIO then the parser can perform IO during a parse. Note that while functions that use ParsecT insist on <code>m</code> being a monad the type definition does not.</p>
<p>Finally, <code>a</code> is the contained type of the resulting monad. In simple terms it is the result of what has been parsed.</p>
<p>Now lets turn to the structure of ParsecT itself. It is really nothing more then a function. The function takes a state which among other things contains the current token stream, and four continuation functions. The result is absolutely generic, <code>forall b . m b</code>. The only way for a parser to create a result is to call one of the four continuations. The only place where <code>b</code> becomes concrete is in the definition of <code>runParsecT</code>.</p>
<p>To understand what is happening here, lets look back at the definition of <code>ParsecT</code> in 3.0.0:</p>
<pre><code>data ParsecT s u m a
= ParsecT { runParsecT :: State s u -> m (Consumed (m (Reply s u a))) }
data Consumed a = Consumed a
| Empty !a
data Reply s u a = Ok !a !(State s u) ParseError
| Error ParseError</code></pre>
<p>Notice that ‘runParsecT’ was accessors to the data type, so a <code>ParsecT</code> was directly runnable. The result of feeding a state to this function was a somewhat complicated looking result. (Note that this is the same result currently given by <code>runParsecT</code> in 3.1.3) This result can be summarized into one of four results if we for the moment assume <code>m</code> is Identity: 1) input consumed, good result; 2) input consumed, error; 3) no input consumed, good result; 4) no input consumed, error.</p>
<p>The structure is created this way so that the GC can through out the head of the input stream as soon as it is successfully parsed (unless there is a <code><|></code> combinator holding some part of the stream in its closure).</p>
<p>The difficulty is that this structure slows down the common case where <code>m</code> is Identity. Bind must evaluate the underlying monad at each combination which slowed the parser down 1.8 times over the non-transformer version. To remedy this the resultant data structure was converted to its functional form (<a href='http://panicsonic.blogspot.com/2009/12/adventures-in-parsec.html' title='Adventures in Parsec'>see Latter</a>). The four continuations in the 3.1.3 version each represent one of the possible results: consumed ok <code>cok</code>, consumed error <code>cerr</code>, empty ok <code>eok</code>, and empty error <code>eerr</code>. A parser will call one of these results.</p>
<h3 id='parsect_as_a_monad'>ParsecT as a Monad</h3>
<p>The genius of this is in <code>ParsecT</code>’s bind operator. Bind builds up a stack of continuations for good parse, but just passes the continuations for errors through to each parser. When a parser encounters an error it calls one of the error continuations without having to unwind a call stack or plow through the back end of a bound chain of more clearly failing parsers.</p>
<p>Let’s take a look at the code for bind:</p>
<pre><code>parserBind m k
= ParsecT $ \s cok cerr eok eerr ->
let
-- consumed-okay case for m
mcok x s err =
let
-- if (k x) consumes, those go straigt up
pcok = cok
pcerr = cerr
-- if (k x) doesn't consume input, but is okay,
-- we still return in the consumed continuation
peok x s err' = cok x s (mergeError err err')
-- if (k x) doesn't consume input, but errors,
-- we return the error in the 'consumed-error'
-- continuation
peerr err' = cerr (mergeError err err')
in unParser (k x) s pcok pcerr peok peerr
-- empty-ok case for m
meok x s err =
let
-- in these cases, (k x) can return as empty
pcok = cok
peok x s err' = eok x s (mergeError err err')
pcerr = cerr
peerr err' = eerr (mergeError err err')
in unParser (k x) s pcok pcerr peok peerr
-- consumed-error case for m
mcerr = cerr
-- empty-error case for m
meerr = eerr
in unParser m s mcok mcerr meok meerr</code></pre>
<p>I find it easiest to read this from bottom to top. (I also prefer <code>where</code> to <code>let</code> when I can get away with it.) The phrase <code>unParser m s mcok mcerr meok
meerr</code> is going to run the parser to the left of bind (<code>m >>= k</code>) called <code>m</code> in this function. But, instead of using the closures provided, it is going to use four newly created closures (<code>mcok</code>, <code>mcerr</code>, <code>meok</code>, and <code>meerr</code>) found further up in the let binding.</p>
<p>Now in point of fact two of those new functions (those representing errors) are exactly identical to the closures passed into the combined parser. It is now a question of what to do when the first parser, <code>m</code> succeeds. The functions <code>mcok</code> and <code>meok</code> both pass continuations on to the parser derived from the monadic function <code>k</code>. This function (<code>k :: a -> ParsecT s u m b</code>) uses the result of <code>m</code> (called <code>x</code>) to create a new parser. <code>(k x)</code> is this parser. It then runs <code>(k x)</code> using the state remaining after <code>m</code> (confusingly also called <code>s</code>) and a set of closures named with ‘p’ prefixes that are modifications of the input closures.</p>
<p>The difference between <code>mcok</code> and <code>meok</code> stems from needing to describe whether the combined parser consumed input. In the <code>meok</code> case the only changes made to the provided continuations is the merging of error messages a process that is beyond the scope of this document. In <code>mcok</code> however, <code>m</code> has consumed input. This means that even if <code>(k x)</code> is empty the combined parser must always use the consumed closures. <code>peerr</code>, the empty error closure for (k x) get promoted to call <code>cerr</code>. Likewise, <code>peok</code> gets promoted to use the <code>pcok</code> closure.</p>
<p>Before moving on, I want to point out some interesting things about the monad instance of <code>ParsecT</code>. Like in all monads, when we call bind the second argument takes the results of the first as an argument. In the world of parsers this is rather unique. Most parsers are Applicative Functors but distinctly <em>not</em> monads. In the language of parser theory we say they are “context free.” There is a parser combinator very similar to Parsec called Attoparsec that fits this context free, Applicative Functors model. It claims greater speed then Parsec but is less expressive. As a monad, Parsec can form context sensitive parsers.</p>
<p>Another interesting element that comes from using closures instead of Algebraic data types is the lack of constraint on the monad transformer. <code>ParsecT</code> caries an underlying monad and is therefore a monad transformer. Most instances of a monad transformers the monad instance is constrained by having the underlying instance be a <code>Monad</code>, ie <code>instance (Monad m) => Monad (transT
m) where ...</code>. On the other hand, <code>ParsecT s u m</code> is a Monad whether or not <code>m</code> is also. Only at the point where <code>(k x)</code> requires a monadic action does <code>m</code> need to become a monad. When <code>m</code> is Identity there is no transformer overhead.</p>
<h3 id='some_interesting_primitive_parsers_and_combinators'>Some interesting primitive Parsers and Combinators</h3>
<p>An interesting example of how the continuation format can be manipulated is found in the <code>try</code> parser:</p>
<pre><code>try :: ParsecT s u m a -> ParsecT s u m a
try p =
ParsecT $ \s cok _ eok eerr ->
unParser p s cok eerr eok eerr</code></pre>
<p>What on its face looks like it ought to be a very complicated combinator is in fact very strait forward. We create a new parser that acts just like <code>p</code> but will call the “empty error (<code>eerr</code>) continuation even if <code>p</code> consumed input. The state <code>s</code> is actually captured in <code><|></code> rather then <code>try</code>.</p>
<p>Now there is a small “gotcha” here. Every parser I have written has used some kind of list as its stream; either a list of <code>Char</code> as for a typical string parser or a list of <code>Token</code>’s generated by Alex. But one could, in theory use parsec to read directly from a file handle or network socket. In this case a subtle note in the documentation should through up a big red flag, “A <code>Stream</code> instance is responsible for maintaining the ‘position within the stream’ in the stream state @s@. This is trivial unless you are using the monad in a non-trivial way.” The short version of this is that a stream must be able to “back up” to the point it was at when it was captured in a closure. A simple handle or socket will fail when used with <code>try</code> because there is not logic to rewind the stream.</p>
<p>The obvious solution to this is to read the contents into memory - potentially in a lazy fashion - and allow the GC to collect the head of that stream when it is no longer needed.</p>
<p>There is only one primitive parser that actually consumes input, <code>tokenPrinEx</code>. This function uses a lot of functions to handle error reporting and source position tracking. Ignoring all this we can just look at the final argument and result, <code>[...] -> (t -> Maybe a) -> ParsecT s u m a</code>. It takes a <code>test</code> function and applied that function to the next token in the stream. If the result is <code>Nothing</code> then the parser has failed without consuming input so calls <code>eerr</code>. Otherwise it has succeeded and calls <code>cok</code> with the provided result.</p>
<p>Note that <code>tokens</code> also consumes input. It could well be written as a combination of <code>token</code> and <code>>>=</code> but is not for performance reasons. We therefore do not consider it primitive.</p>
<p>The final combinator to look at is <code>manyAccum</code> which is the primitive combinator for all the sequence combinators such as <code>many</code>, <code>many1</code>, and etc.</p>
<pre><code>manyAccum :: (a -> [a] -> [a])
-> ParsecT s u m a
-> ParsecT s u m [a]
manyAccum acc p =
ParsecT $ \s cok cerr eok eerr ->
let walk xs x s' err =
unParser p s'
(seq xs $ walk $ acc x xs) -- consumed-ok
cerr -- consumed-err
manyErr -- empty-ok
(\e -> cok (acc x xs) s' e) -- empty-err
in unParser p s (walk []) cerr manyErr (\e -> eok [] s e)</code></pre>
<hr />
<h2 id='references'>References</h2>
<p><a href='http://legacy.cs.uu.nl/daan/download/papers/parsec-paper.pdf'>Parsec: Direct Style Monadic Parser Combinators for the Real World</a> (pdf). Daan Leijen and Erik Meijer. October 2001. This paper by the original authors of parsec goes into the theory and use of Monads to create a Parser Combinator. This paper is rather dated with respect to the current code base, but is a good overview of the basic strategy of Parsec.</p>
<p><a href='http://panicsonic.blogspot.com/2009/12/adventures-in-parsec.html' title='Adventures in Parsec'>Adventures in Parsec</a>. Antoine Latter. December 2009. The current maintainer of Parsec lays out the rational for the changes made from Parsec 2 to Parsec 3. In particular the curious but quite ingenious final form of <code>ParsecT</code> in the 3.1.3 code base.</p>Baseball2012-10-28T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/10/baseball<p>The San Francisco Giants have just won the World Series. They deserved it. What a final game! The Dodgers will be back next year. Some may wonder why, when I live 90 miles from San Francisco, I continue to root for the Dodgers. Here’s why:</p>
<p>Ten is the perfect age for baseball. Any younger and you lack the attention span for a 9 inning game. At ten you may not have all the nuance of the game down, but you know the rules, you’ve had a chance to play a year or two of tee-ball, and you believe you know everything about the game because you have memorized the stats on the back of all your baseball cards. Ten is young enough to still have larger-than-life heroes. It is young enough to still imagine yourself standing at home plate in the bottom of the ninth with the bases loaded and hear the crowd cheer as you take you plastic bat and launch a wiffle ball over the back yard fence.</p>
<p>I was ten in 1988. Coincidentally, the last year in which the Dodgers won the world series. Dad had been a Dodgers fan sense, as a freshman in college in 1966, he tuned in Vin Scully while driving to Cal Poly and became a fan for life. During the whole of the 1988 season, we had watch the Dodgers on television, but with the sound off and Vin’s Irish tenor coming through the radio making the game come alive in a way the TV image just never could. 1988 was the year I started collecting baseball cards. The year I traded my neighbor one of my Jose Canseco cards for some pitcher from the Dodger’s named Orel Hershiser.</p>
<p>The post season seemed to go on forever that year. The Dodgers were a long-shot, especially facing the Oakland A’s Bash Brothers, Jose Canseco and Mark McGwire. All the predictions came true when Canseco hit a grand slam in the first inning of game one. By the bottom of the ninth, the Dodgers are still down by a run and find themselves with their last out with a man on first.</p>
<p>“And look who’s coming up to bat…” Vin said as Kirk Gibson, suffering from a pulled groin limped up to home plate. It was the longest of longshots and dad and I both knew it. He swung at the first pitch with half an effort and a grimace, then proceeded to work the count full. Down to their last strike, Gibson hits a 3-2 backdoor slider over the right field fence. I was jumping in front to the TV and dad, who watched baseball, politics and life always with commentary and opinion but also with the calm reserve necessary to survive life as a High School shop teacher, sprung from his chair grabbed me by the shoulders and jumped around in front of the TV with me.</p>
<p>The Dodgers went on to win the series in five games. I remember nothing about the other four.</p>
<hr />
<p>There is no good time to lose your parent to death, but 56 is still much too young. Dad died of cancer in 2003. He was honored with a memorial service at in the football stadium of Atascadero High School; the school he had graduated from in 1966; the school he taught at for 28 years. Except for a few seasons as an assistant wrestling coach and two as the JV soccer coach while I was in high school, dad did not coach a sport. But, when he died, the athletic director told us it took 13 people to replace him. He ran the scoreboard for football, basketball, and volleyball, counted the ticket sales and made the deposits after the football games, and helped out with numerous other sports as well. But his favorite was to score and announce Baseball games.</p>
<p>Dad loved baseball, and his closest friend was the varsity baseball coach. After every home game Mr. Greenman would call, and he and dad would go over the game play by play using their score books. My dad, as I have said, was a dedicated Dodgers fan, and Mr. Greenman was just as dedicated to the Giants. They shared both the love of the game and the intense rivalry form thier respective teams.</p>
<p>During the memorial service, Mr. Greenman stepped onto the field and up to the podium wearing his Atascadero Greyhound baseball jersey and a Dodgers baseball cap. He said that the most fitting way he knew to show how much dad meant to him was to wear the colors of my dad favorite team and the Giants biggest rivals.</p>
<hr />
<p>Somewhere in Northern California tonight there is a ten year old celebrating a clutch hit by Marcos Scutero with his dad. A child who has learned something deeply human about his parent because of an amazing baseball game. That child will grow up, and move to New York or Chicago or possibly even LA. But from tonight forward he will be a Giants’ fan for life. There will be something about tonight that will be felt so deeply that neither any amount of time nor any amount of geography will ever dislodge it.</p>
<p>Congratulations to the World Champion San Francisco Giant. <strong>Go Dodgers!</strong></p>Sermon: The Debate2012-10-15T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/Sermons/2012/10/proper22<hr /><p class='forward'>
This is the text of a sermon I gave at <a href='http://allsaintssacramento.org'>All Saints Episcopal Church, Sacramento</a>
on October 7, 2012. It is based on the readings from the Revised Common Lectionary
for <a href='http://www.lectionarypage.net/YearB_RCL/Pentecost/BProp22_RCL.html'>Proper 22, year B</a>.
Please see my <a href='/sermon-disclaimer.html'>standard sermon disclaimer</a>.
</p><hr />
<p>The stage is set for this morning’s debate. At one podium, in long robes and phylacteries are the Jewish elders, the Pharisees. At the other, standing by himself, is Jesus. There is no moderator, Jim Lehrer being unavailable. So the two sides square off by asking each other questions.</p>
<p>The Pharisees come out swinging with a hard-hitting question on Tax Policy. Jesus tells them to “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and Unto God what is God’”<sup><a href='#endnote1'>[1]</a></sup></p>
<p>Next, someone fires off a question about the resurrection, trying to catch Jesus in a logic trap. Jesus rebuts the point and fires back with some brilliant logic of his own. “Have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”<sup><a href='#endnote2'>[2]</a></sup></p>
<p>Now it is Jesus’ turn He dishes out a theological stumper about the kinship and authority of the Messiah and leaves his opponents fumbling for an answer.<sup><a href='#endnote3'>[3]</a></sup> So they ask Jesus about his authority. Jesus turns the question back on them, asking them about the authority of John and catches them in a political no win situation.<sup><a href='#endnote4'>[4]</a></sup></p>
<p>Another question: what the greatest commandment is and more importantly, “Who is my neighbor”? Jesus fills in the gaps with a parable about a Samaritan whose heart knows better than the legal position espoused by his opponents about how to treat other people. He ends with a real zinger, challenging them to “go and do likewise.”<sup><a href='#endnote5'>[5]</a></sup></p>
<p>So the Pharisees are getting desperate, and decide to try a “Family Values” approach, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife”? This is not a difficult question in itself. The answer is in <a href='http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=217330023'>Duet. 24</a> and Jesus makes the Pharisees give it.</p>
<p>The Pharisees are not asking this to see if Jesus knows the law. They were hoping for a follow- up about under what circumstances divorce was justified. A question as messy and controversial then as it is today.</p>
<p>Jesus instead does what commentators today would call a “pivot.” He takes a question about the legal morass of divorce and answers it with a statement about the Ideal of Marriage. He speaks about what marriage ought to be like. He takes a question about the particulars of an unhappy reality and confronts them with the ideal vision that we should aim for.</p>
<br />
<p>I’ll be honest with you. I make it a point never to look at the readings before accepting an offer to preach to you. If I had looked this week’s, I would have declined.</p>
<p>I believe, and the Episcopal Church agrees, that there are times when a divorce is better than perpetuating a bad marriage.</p>
<p>I also believe, and the Episcopal Church agrees, that the ideal of marriage is that it be a loving, lifelong commitment that enriches the not only the lives of both people but also the life of the community.</p>
<p>There are people in this room who have been divorced. There are members of this congregation who are here because certain other Christian traditions with very similar liturgies could not accept the reality of a failed marriage. There are also people in this room whose marriages have endured half a century and more. There are those here who have lost a spouse to death and those who still fight for the right to marry the person they love. There are some whose marriages are just starting out and some who are not married. My call is to speak to all and sundry of you about how I can read this Gospel and come to the beliefs I just stated.</p>
<p>It’s really hard … and when the life of a preacher gets hard, it’s time to read Job.</p>
<p>I’ll come back to the Gospel, honestly.</p>
<br />
<p>Job is an interesting book. It is among the last of the Old Testament books to be written. It is an extended parable; Job is more of an Archetype then a historical figure. Its theology is intentionally a counterpoint to much of the Old Testament</p>
<p>It is this last point I want to get to.</p>
<p>An overriding motif of the Old Testament is that God rewards faithful and righteous people with land and wealth and happiness and victory in battle. This is most prevalent in the earliest writings, but as the lives and prosperity of the Hebrew people begin to decline, particularly during the periods of exile, a second motif enters. A theology of a God who is disappointed with Israel, a God who is vengeful and full or righteous wrath. Suffering is the just punishment for sin.</p>
<p>Then there is Job. We are told he is a righteous man. In fact he is the ideally righteous man. And in the beginning Job fits the model of a righteous man having lands and flocks and camels and servants. But through no fault of his own, everything goes bad for him, archetypically bad. He loses all his possessions to calamities, his children to disasters, and, in the end, even his health.</p>
<p>The main body of Job is a philosophical discussion between Job and his three friends trying to decide if a righteous man would be made to suffer like this.</p>
<p>Job is a story of trying to reconcile an ideal: that righteousness is rewarded, with a reality: even righteous people suffer.</p>
<p>The character of Job is not upset with God because he is suffering. He is angry instead that God will not explain to him why. He demands that God tell him what he has done to cause God to despise him so. While Job’s friends try to sort out the difference between Job’s reality and their ideals, Job wants to know if God still Loves and Cares for him</p>
<p>We all struggle to hold and affirm our ideals in the face of reality. We try to justify our actions and the exceptions we sometimes make to our best intentions. In this election season, it seems that there is a heightened tension between ideals and reality.</p>
<p>It is possible to have ideals and to work diligently for those ideals, and yet still accept that even for the best of people, reality will not always be ideal. More importantly, accepting people who have fallen short of our ideals does not in any way imply that we are not still striving towards what President Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature”</p>
<p>The linchpin in reconciling this is Grace.</p>
<p>Job does not ask for his idyllic former life back. He really only wants to know if God still cares about him. Jesus does not offer the Woman at the Well … the one who is cheating on husband number five. He doesn’t offer her marriage advice. Instead, he assures her that in spite of everything God still loves her.<sup><a href='#endnote6'>[6]</a></sup> God loves and cares for us when we are reaching for the best of what we can be, and God loves us when reality shatters those ideals. I was once at a conference where Archbishop Desmond Tutu was the keynote speaker. I will never forget what he said to us: “There is nothing you can do that can make God love you any more. There is also nothing you can do that can make God love you any less.”</p>
<p>The Pharisees in the Gospel today are trying to get Jesus to tell them about the minimum required to “be a good person.” Jesus responds by telling them how far they can go in doing justice and loving mercy and walking humbly with God. He asks them and us to focus on and work for our ideals, not to dwell on how little we can get away with in reality.</p>
<p>The larger section of Mark of which this gospel is a part, ends with Jesus telling the disciples just how hard it is to live the ideals he has put forth. Jesus tells his followers “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” One of the Disciples asks Jesus, “Then who can be saved?” Jesus tells them, “For mortals it is impossible, but not for God; for God all things are possible”<sup><a href='#endnote7'>[7]</a></sup></p>
<br />
<p>I have fallen short of my ideals. It does not mean I have given up on them, nor that God has given up on me. Yet I have done things which I ought not to have done and left undone those things I ought to have done. I am not perfect, though I try to be closer to perfect. And even with my imperfections I hope that you, my community, will love and care for me, as I believe God loves and cares for me. In return I will try to love and care for each of you, as I believe God loves and cares for of you. And I will do this even, perhaps especially, when reality does not meet ideals. Know as well, that this is an ideal that I strive for, but do not always meet.</p>
<p>Remember today as we come together in the presence of God and as we go out into the presence of God’s creation that while all have fallen short of the Glory of God, God still Loves and cares for all people, and it is our call to share the Good News of that love with the world.</p>
<hr /><div class='endnotes'>
<p id='endnote1'>1. <a href='http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=217363803'>Mark 12:17</a></p>
<p id='endnote2'>2. Mark 12:26</p>
<p id='endnote3'>3. Mark 12:35-37</p>
<p id='endnote4'>4. Mark 11:27-33</p>
<p id='endnote5'>5. Luke 10:25-37</p>
<p id='endnote6'>6. John 4:4-42</p>
<p id='endnote7'>7. Mark 10:25-27</p>
</div>Ford's Burgers Closes after ADA Suit Filed2012-10-01T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/10/fords_burgers_closes<img alt='Ford's Burgers c.2011' height='270' src='/images/fords.jpg' width='300' />
<p>Ford’s Burgers, a classic burger joint on Sutterville Rd. across from Land Park, closed yesterday after a more then half a century in business. The business had been struggling for a while but a lawsuit from a serial ADA litigant and quadriplegic, Carmichael attorney Scott N. Johnson was the straw the broke the camel’s back. (<a href='http://www.news10.net/rss/article/211752/2/Fords-Real-Hamburgers-flips-last-burger'>Coverage from New10</a>)</p>
<h2 id='remembering_fords'>Remembering Ford’s</h2>
<p>Ford’s was close to where I work, and actually right on my commute. I didn’t go there often, though if I had known they were closing I would have made a special effort to get a last burger. As many of the reports point out, the food was anything but cheap, and the burgers while award winning, where in my opinion, not the best. (I never could convince them to melt the cheese on the patty)The one strong connection I did have to Ford’s was with Christmas for All.</p>
<p>Christmas for All is one of the oldest outreach programs at All Saints. The church provides food “baskets” to about 20 needy families. These baskets are actually four banana boxes with everything one needs for a complete Christmas dinner, food for a week, and presents for the children. There are two families who have been organizing the whole thing since the beginning and they are on their second generation. The whole event is full of traditions. Between the final packing in the morning and the arrival of the families in the afternoon, the organizers would go and get a burger at Ford’s. It was one of many traditions that had become part of Christmas for All, an event that one of the participants has told me is absolutely necessary for her to have Christmas.</p>
<p>I know that Ford’s was part of many peoples stories. We will miss Ford’s. <a href='/2012/08/burgess-brothers-burgers/'>Burges Brother Burgers</a> has bought out some of Ford’s equipment and recipes and will start serving some of their offerings in a similar style. It is my hope that they can become a fixture in the community just as Ford’s was.</p>
<h2 id='thoughts_on_the_ada'>Thoughts on the ADA</h2>
<p>I cannot however let this story go without making a few comments on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as it exists in California.</p>
<p class='pullquote'>California has 12% of the nations disabled residents, but ac­counts for 40% of the nations ADA com­plaints.</p>
<p>The ADA was signed into law by George H. W. Bush in 1990. It was a broad and far reaching bill written specifically to cover as many situations as possible for the disabled. It was modeled on the 1964 Civil Rights act. Among its many requirements, the most well known are Title I, that employers make reasonable accommodations for disabled people, and Title III, which requires that public buildings be accessible.</p>
<p>One of the problems was that the law was written to apply broadly, but details like what accommodations were “reasonable” or what it meant for a building to be “accessible,” or even what constituted a disability were intentionally left to the courts to decide on a case-by-case bases. Even business that had made efforts to comply, could end up spending huge amounts of money defending the sufficiency of those efforts in court.</p>
<p>The ADA also has a provision for private enforcement. Many laws covering public accommodation can only be enforced by the government. For example, if one were to observe an emergency exit blocked by storage, that person would have to ask the fire marshal or code enforcement division of a city to bring suit. For an ADA violation on the other hand a private individual can go to court directly.</p>
<p>Nationally, this right of private suit is limited to some extent by a provision that limits damages to attorneys’ fees and corrective action. This would mean that, again on a national level, there was no financial incentive to bring a lawsuit if one could instead get the business owner to voluntarily comply. These provisions were meant to prevent shakedown lawsuits. Unfortunately the attorneys’ fees provision has allowed disabled attorneys to act as their own council and collect huge fee settlements when they file suit.</p>
<p class='pullquote'>"Simply put, this litigation abuse of the ADA results in the exact harmful consequences that Congress sought to eradicate by passing the ADA."<br /> - Judge Cormac J. Carney</p>
<p>California is a little different, and worse. Remember how I said that the ADA was structured on the 1964 Civil Rights Act? That structure caused the ADA to interact with a California statute called the Unruh Civil Rights Act which allowed people suing in state court to collect $4,000 per violation in statutory damages. California has 12% of the nations disabled residents, but accounts for 40% of the nations ADA complaints.</p>
<p>The upshot of all this is two fold. First, Businesses – particularly in California – exist under a constant cloud of doubt about the intentions of people potentially covered under the ADA. A law that was intended to make life easier on people with disabilities has also led to those same people being treated with fear and suspicion rather than openness and respect. U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney of the Central District of California put it best in ruling on a simular case, “Simply put, this litigation abuse of the ADA results in the exact harmful consequences that Congress sought to eradicate by passing the ADA.”<sup><a href='#endnote1'>[1]</a></sup></p>
<p>Second it has led to public outcry against the ADA. Reading comments in the news reports about Ford’s closing, one finds almost exclusively anger and frustration directed towards the ADA.<sup><a href='#endnote2'>[2]</a></sup> These feelings of ill will are often extended not just to the law or the sleazy lawyers abusing it but to anyone with a disability. Public sentiment that in 1990 pushed a Republican President and Congress to enact an immense set of new government regulations has now turned hard the other way, particularly as long established businesses that have been anchors in their communities close or relocate because they cannot afford to become ADA compliant.</p>
<p>This year Gov. Brown signed <a href='http://dl5.activatedirect.com/fs/d:l/yru394rhc1hyt0/10uyesvmu6pmiw7/3'>SB1186</a>(pdf) which places significant limits on ADA lawsuits and drastically cuts California’s statutory damages. It also, according to an e-mail from Matthew Hargrove, Senior Vice President of Governmental Affairs at the California Business Properties Association, prevents lawyers from demanding money to settle an ADA claim:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[SB 1186] prohibits pre-litigation “demands for money” by attorneys; puts into place new provisions to prevent “stacking” of multiple claims to increase statutory damages; reduces statutory damages and provides litigation protections for defendants who correct violations; and establishes priorities for the California Commission on Disabled Accessibility that promote and facilitate disability access compliance.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The final result of all this: Another landmark business closes in south Sacramento – instead of an accessible restroom we get a vacant lot; a scummy lawyer makes another quick buck at the cost of one business, seven jobs, and tremendous ill will towards the group of people the law was intended to protect; and a well intended, popular and much needed Civil Rights law get pilloried, limited, and faces an uncertain future. Not a good day for anyone.</p>
<hr /><div class='endnotes'>
<p id='endnote1'>1. "The Price of Access: Part 1: Visionary law's litigious legacy" The Sacramento Bee. November 13, 2006; Page 1A. (<a href='http://www.sacbee.com/2006/11/12/75520/the-price-of-access-part-1-visionary.html'>http://www.sacbee.com/2006/11/12/75520/the-price-of-access-part-1-visionary.html</a>.)</p>
<p> See Also: <a href='http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2005/05/23/story2.html?page=all'>Frequent ADA litigant faces attempt to shut him down</a> The Sacramento Buisness Journal: "Unfortunately, the ADA filings make shop and restaurant owners leery of customers with disabilities, said one local store owner sued by Johnson. Shane Singh agreed. He is an attorney with Kring & Chung in Sacramento who has represented several clients sued by Johnson. 'A disabled person might meet suspicion and fear when he enters the restaurant,' Singh said, 'missing out on the usual greeting and proper service.'"</p>
<p id='endnote2'>2. For example see "<a href='http://www.theonion.com/articles/congress-passes-americans-with-no-abilities-act,541/?ref=auto'>Congress Passes Americans With No Abilities Act</a>" from the satirical publication <a href=''>The Onion</a>.</p>
</div>One Crazy Idea for the Political Season2012-09-25T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/09/one_crazy_idea<p>I find modern politics frustrating. No, it is not that I don’t care about the issues. It is that the issues are not discussed. Politicians have learned that being vague and using feeling language it the way to win elections without tying themselves too closely to any unpopular positions. We elect black box politicians based on how their branding makes us feel. I read, for example, the Lincoln-Douglas debates and feel sad that such candor and actual debate of specific issues does not happen in contemporary politics.</p>
<p>So here is a crazy idea to change that. I propose that each candidate for president be allowed to put forward the text of three bills at the time they officially accept their parties nomination. The three pieces of legislation from the winning candidate would become law 100 days after the election unless each house of congress voted to block them. Gov. Romney for example could pass his tax cuts without fear of a senate filibuster, but he would have to spend two months defending those cuts and the loopholes and deductions he would eliminate as well. We would get to see exactly what the plan was and find out whether the Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction was on his potential chopping block. (It seems likely that it is, but such a move would be so unpopular that he dares not say it aloud)</p>
<p>In the same way, Pres. Obama could have gotten the Health Care plan he really wanted enacted in 2008. Of course, he would have had to run with his cards on the table, and perhaps if everyone had seen it to start, he might not have won election, or maybe he would have. It would have been interesting to see what the McCain version would have looked like.</p>
<p>It will never happen. People don’t want the other guy to get a free pass on three laws, and the candidates certainly don’t want to have to be that detailed. Instead we will continue to get flattering mush and scripted drivel from out black box candidates and I will continue to vote for the person I hope is the lesser of two evils.</p>Issues of Translation: Pronouns, Gender and the Bible2012-09-21T07:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/Issues of Translation/2012/09/pronouns<hr /><div class='forward'>
<p>"Issues of Translation" was originally a series of articles I wrote
for <a href='http://allsaintssacramento.org/page33a.html'>The Crown</a>, the
newsletter for All Saints, Sacramento published between May 2010 and March 2011.
It was spured originally by an article about the King James bible which lead
several members of the congregation to ask why there are so many different
translations, and what makes one better then another. Rather then try to answer
that question directly, I undertook to write a few articles showing why it is
not obvious how to translate scripture.</p>
<p>Rather then allow these articles to languish on my hard drive, I have decided to
repost them here. I plan to put one out each Friday.
In the articles I occasionally refer to traditions common to
The Episcopal Church or our parish. You should know then that for most scripture
readings we use the New Revised Standard Version of the bible. Some of our
liturgical sources (i.e. Rite I) still use language from the Authorized
Version (now known as the King James Version or KJV). Choral Evensong services
also have reading from the KJV. "Our hymnal" referers to The Hymnal 1982 of The
Episcopal Church, and "our prayer book" refers to the 1979 Book of Common
Prayer.</p>
</div><hr />
<p>Beginning in the mid 1960’s a new issue arose for biblical translation. Society became fare more aware of gender in language and with it both the overt and subtle forms of discrimination that gendered language embodied. Over the next decade the English language was pulled, sometimes gently, but often with much discord, towards a more gender neutral form. Words like “fireman” became “fire fighter;” “mailman” became “mail carrier” and “policeman” became “police officer.”</p>
<p>This change was particularly hard on biblical translations. With the change in gender marked language, words changed meaning in such a way that older translations now sounded out of touch or rude to modern ears. To people younger then a certain age the masculine no longer includes the feminine. Words like “he” “brothers” or “men” have a strictly male import. <p class='pullquote'>Translators face two problems: translating from strongly gender marked source languages into a gender neutral contemporary English, and overcoming English’s own gender marked pronouns.</p> Indeed, there is some linguistic research that implies that it really never did. Look at the following example, “When a typical American comes home from work, he wants to be comfortable. He removes his coat, takes off his panty-hose, and puts on slippers.” If you found the second example jarring, you are not alone. While this sentence is grammatically correct for English circa 1950, the American Heritage Dictionary observes, “Thus <em>he</em> is not really a gender-neutral pronoun, rather, it refers to a male who is to be taken as the representative member of the group referred to by its antecedent.”<sup><a href='#endnote1'>[1]</a></sup></p>
<p>Translators face two problems: translating from strongly gender marked source languages into a gender neutral contemporary English, and overcoming English’s gender marked pronouns.</p>
<p>There are a number of translations, where gender is simply translated directly including the venerable Authorized Version (King James, KJV), and New International Version (NIV). When reading these versions, one must realize that when one sees a word like “brothers” that it almost certainly a generic term which includes women as well.</p>
<p>Other popular translations like the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and New Living Translation (NLT) will change to a more accurate, but less direct “brothers and sisters” or change from “fathers” to “ancestors.” Some would claim that this is altering the text, but I and many other scholars claim that when, for example, Isaiah refers to “The God who brought your fathers/ancestors out of bondage in Egypt.” that the word ancestors is more accurate. The difficulty comes when it is not clear whether the word in question is a generic or intentionally refers to just one gender. This can become a theological issue, and good translation strives to be as theologically neutral as possible.</p>
<p>The other issue is the well-known case of third-person singular pronouns. We are stuck with “he” or “she.” Translators, like the rest of us, must work with or around this part of our language. There are a couple strategies that readers might see in their translations. One is to change a generic to the second person – changing “he” to “you.” Another is to move from singular to plural. Even Paul does this when he quotes Isa 52:7 “How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings” as “How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good tidings” (Romans 10:15a KJV). A favorite technique of the NRSV is to replace the pronoun with its antecedent. The NRSV translates Isa 52:7 as “…the feet of the messenger who announces peace.”<sup><a href='#endnote2'>[2]</a></sup></p>
<p>As a conclusion, I want to again point out that none of these translations are trying to change the meaning of the bible. Instead each is trying to present that meaning accurately using the sometimes limited tools of the English language, which as I pointed out is a moving target. In addition, there is a strong desire not to have a translation that is on the one hand awkward or on the other rude. There is also the weight of history and the competing voice of theology; all of these factors must be balanced by each translation. There is no “best” translation, only different balances which suit the desires of various readers.</p>
<hr /><div class='endnotes'>
<p id='endnote1'>1. Poythress, Vern S. “Gender and Generic Pronouns in English Bible Translation” as republished at <a href='http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Gender-and-Generic-Pronouns-in-English-Bible-Translation'>http://www.cbmw.org/Resources/Articles/Gender-and-Generic-Pronouns-in-English-Bible-Translation</a></p>
<p id='endnote1'>2. Examples in this article are taken from Strauss, Mark L and David Wegener, “The Inclusive Language Debate” as republished at <a href='http://www.equip.org/articles/the-inclusive-language-debate'>http://www.equip.org/articles/the-inclusive-language-debate</a></p>
</div>Issues of Translation: Hebrew, Greek, Latin, English and the Issue of the Virgin Birth2012-09-14T07:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/Issues of Translation/2012/09/virgin-birth<hr /><div class='forward'>
<p>"Issues of Translation" was originally a series of articles I wrote
for <a href='http://allsaintssacramento.org/page33a.html'>The Crown</a>, the
newsletter for All Saints, Sacramento published between May 2010 and March 2011.
It was spured originally by an article about the King James bible which lead
several members of the congregation to ask why there are so many different
translations, and what makes one better then another. Rather then try to answer
that question directly, I undertook to write a few articles showing why it is
not obvious how to translate scripture.</p>
<p>Rather then allow these articles to languish on my hard drive, I have decided to
repost them here. I plan to put one out each Friday.
In the articles I occasionally refer to traditions common to
The Episcopal Church or our parish. You should know then that for most scripture
readings we use the New Revised Standard Version of the bible. Some of our
liturgical sources (i.e. Rite I) still use language from the Authorized
Version (now known as the King James Version or KJV). Choral Evensong services
also have reading from the KJV. "Our hymnal" referers to The Hymnal 1982 of The
Episcopal Church, and "our prayer book" refers to the 1979 Book of Common
Prayer.</p>
<p>Note: this particular article was published in the December issue of The Crown.
The reading refered to are those for <a href='http://www.lectionarypage.net/YearA_RCL/Advent/AAdv4_RCL.html'>
Advent 4, Year A</a>.</p>
</div><hr />
<p>On the fourth Sunday of advent this year, we will hear a very strange thing in the reading of scripture. The bible will quote itself, and have a hard time doing so. The readings will be Isaiah 7:10-16 and Mathew 1:18-25. The New Revised Standard Version will translate Isa 7:14 as “Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.” Then it will translate Matt 1:23 as “Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel.” There are some subtle differences, and one huge change. Why did “young woman” become “Virgin” in Matthew?</p>
<p>To understand why this happened and why it gives translators such headaches, I want to take you through the early history of biblical translation. Our story starts with the creation of a translation of Hebrew Scriptures called the Septuagint. In the third century B.C. Greek became the common language of the Eastern Mediterranean. There was great demand for a translation of scripture from Hebrew to Greek. The story goes that King Ptolemy II gathered 70 scholars (Septuagint means 70) and asked them to independently translate the ancient scriptures. According to the story, each scholar produces an identical translation. By the time of Jesus’ birth the Septuagint was the standard version of the Hebrew Scriptures.</p>
<p>However, no translation is perfect. Hebrew has two words <em>betulah</em>, for a virgin, and a more general word, <em>`almah</em>, for a young woman. Greek at the time of the Septuagint only had a word for Virgin, <em>parthenos</em>. When the Hebrew was translated into Greek the passage changed meaning. By the time of Jesus’ birth it was commonly understood that the Messiah would have to be born of a virgin.</p>
<p>When the Gospel of Matthew was written, the evangelist quoted the version of Isaiah that everyone was familiar with, probably unaware that there was any difficulty. Reading the Greek Gospel next to the Greek Isaiah would have shown an exact quotation.</p>
<p>Early Christian theologians continued to depend on and quote extensively from the Septuagint including in the creation of the Apostles Creed. In the fourth century St. Jerome began creating an authoritative translation of the bible into Latin. This version, known as the Volgate, contains a very free, and Christocentric translation of the Old Testament based partially on the Hebrew texts but strongly influenced by the Greek Septuagint. For the next 1000 years western Christian theologians would refer almost exclusively to this translation, and more importantly, the liturgy would be derived from its words. In the Volgate, like the Septuagint, Matthew contains an exact quotation of Isaiah.</p>
<p>It was not until the reformation that the next historically significant attempt at a new translation came. When the scholars hired by King James came to do the English translation, they began with the original languages and often would correct translation errors in the Latin, but when it came to a passage as well known and theologically important as Isa 7:14 they let 1500 years of Christian tradition and scholarship prevail over a literal translation. Again, in the Standard (King James) Version, Matthew successfully quotes Isaiah.</p>
<p>In the early part of the 20<sup>th</sup> century life took one last turn. Along with a desire for a translation in modern English, scholars wanted a translation that incorporated many of the more ancient manuscripts and linguistic insights made available through modern archeology. This time when translators for the Revised Standard Version got to Isaiah they chose to give the famous verse back its more general meaning, but still translated Matthew’s Greek word from the Septuagint. The New Revised Standard Version which we read from during services has done the same. And that is why on the fourth Sunday of Advent the Gospel Matthew will not match the passage in Isaiah it is trying to quote.</p>A Trip to Lassen2012-09-10T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/09/trip-to-lassen<a href='/images/bumpass_hell.jpg'><img height='163' src='/images/bumpass_hell_small.jpg' width='635' /></a>
<p>This past Saturday, we took a trip to <a href='http://www.nps.gov/lavo/index.htm'>Lassen Volcanic National Park</a>. We had wanted to get away for a while and this was a good excuse.</p>
<p>Our original intent had been to got to Yosemite, but continuing reports of visitors becoming infected with <a href='http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/09/yosemite-hantavirus-more-cases-new-worries.html'>hantavirus</a> got us to choose a different park.</p>
<a href='/images/beth_lassen.jpg'><img src='/images/beth_lassen_small.jpg' /></a>
<p>Our first stop was the visitors center where we added to our collection of refrigerator magnets from national parks. We also obligated ourselves to send a few postcards to relatives, once we manage to get them written.</p>
<p>The main event of the day was a hike to Bumpass Hell (pictured above) a 3.5 mile round trip with a moderate amount of elevation change that leads to a thermal area.</p>
<p>This picture of Beth is from the at near the trail head with Brokoff mountian in the background. We had a few rough spots getting down the dusty and slick last half mile with Beth sliding and landing hard on her bum and arm. Fortunatly nothing got broken and we wer able to make it into the thurmal basin.</p>
<p>As someone who has spent I a lot of time in and around the features in Yellowston Park, this was a slightly underwelming. There are no geysers because the rock it too brittle, but the rushing steam, boiling pools and sloshing mud pots were still cool to look at. <a href='/images/bumpass_bwk.jpg'>"<img src='/images/bumpass_bwk_small.jpg' /></a></p>
<p>In fact many of the sights, sounds, and smells made me remember how long it has been since we have been to Yellowstone. who would think that the smell of sulfur would have have such pleasant memories. This picture show one of the boardwalks in Bumpass Hell very reminiscent of those in Yellowstone Park.</p>
<p>Rather then eat in the basin, we walked just a little further up the trail and found a shady spot under some accomidating pine trees to have lunch. There is just something very fulfilling about eating a ham and cheese sandwitch in someplace beautiful.</p>
<img src='/images/friendly_native.jpg' />
<p>We were of course joined by some of the natives hoping for a handout.</p>
<p>We then hiked back out, taking lots of pictures along the way. Before leaving the park we drove a little further, past Mount Lassen itself, and stopped to tour The Desolation Area. This is the area that was buried during the eruptions of May 1915. The short loop trail has several interperitive pannels describing the geology and aftermath of the eruption. This trail is ADA complient, and each pannel has a solar powered speaker that reads the text of the and describs the scene for the visually impaired (and other tired hikers).</p>
<p>As evening was approching, we headed out the north end of the park and followed little used country roads back to Red Bluff where we ate dinner before driving home.</p>
<p><em>Click on the slideshow below for a larger view</em>:</p>
<p class='rightpull'><embed flashvars='host=picasaweb.google.com&hl=en_US&feat=flashalbum&RGB=0x000000&feed=https%3A%2F%2Fpicasaweb.google.com%2Fdata%2Ffeed%2Fapi%2Fuser%2F108452011112977825593%2Falbumid%2F5786749035264516465%3Falt%3Drss%26kind%3Dphoto%26hl%3Den_US' height='422' pluginspage='http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer' src='https://picasaweb.google.com/s/c/bin/slideshow.swf' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' width='635' /></p>Issues of Translation: The Bible's Poetry2012-09-07T07:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/Issues of Translation/2012/09/biblical-poetry<hr /><div class='forward'>
<p>"Issues of Translation" was originally a series of articles I wrote
for <a href='http://allsaintssacramento.org/page33a.html'>The Crown</a>, the
newsletter for All Saints, Sacramento published between May 2010 and March 2011.
It was spured originally by an article about the King James bible which lead
several members of the congregation to ask why there are so many different
translations, and what makes one better then another. Rather then try to answer
that question directly, I undertook to write a few articles showing why it is
not obvious how to translate scripture.</p>
<p>Rather then allow these articles to languish on my hard drive, I have decided to
repost them here. I plan to put one out each Friday.
In the articles I occasionally refer to traditions common to
The Episcopal Church or our parish. You should know then that for most scripture
readings we use the New Revised Standard Version of the bible. Some of our
liturgical sources (i.e. Rite I) still use language from the Authorized
Version (now known as the King James Version or KJV). Choral Evensong services
also have reading from the KJV. "Our hymnal" referers to The Hymnal 1982 of The
Episcopal Church, and "our prayer book" refers to the 1979 Book of Common
Prayer.</p>
</div><hr />
<p>Usually, when we discuss the merits of different biblical translations, we do so with an eye towards accuracy and authority. Holy writ in these cases is something to be studies and pondered. But, in the history of Christianity – and even before – the biblical text has also been sung, prayed, and generally felt through the heart as well as the studied intellectually.</p>
<p>The bible contains a great deal of poetry. In the most common translations these are rendered by the translator in a very precise but not very poetic language. In this article we examine those translations that attempt to transmit the linguistic feel of biblical verse across time, culture and language; not, as you will understand an easy thing to do.</p>
<p>Before we dive in to translations, let us look at where and how poetry exists in the bible. The most famous collection is of course the Psalms. This is the ancient hymnal of the Hebrew people. It contains songs that express every aspect of the human condition. Sung words are easily remembered and singing caries with it the emotional content as well as the words. It is no wonder then that the Book of Psalms is the Old Testament book most quoted by New Testament authors. There are also entire books of poetry. The Song of Solomon (a love song) and Lamentations are both single long poems. Many other Old Testament books contain poetry interspersed with prose. In the New Testament there is far less poetry. There some examples, however, among them The Song of Mary (Luke 1:46-55), The Song of Zechariah (Luke 1:68-79) and the Song of Simeon (Luke 2:29-32). (see <a href='http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=211477789'>the NRSV version</a> of these passages.) Revelation also contains a number of poetic sections.</p>
<p>Poetry in the Hebrew style (which includes that found in Luke) is rather different then English poetry. To understand why, we must first state that in English there is a stronger distinction between poetry and prose. The nature of Hebrew is to be much more rhythmic. Hebrew naturally approximates iambic rhythm (like “Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled peppers”) so all speech had a natural rhythm to it. Rhyming on the other hand is almost unknown. Instead, the main feature of Hebrew poetry is called parallelism. A verse is divided into two parts with the second part restating or in some way augmenting the first. Most decent translations and ancient manuscripts will echo the structure by putting each part of the verse on its own line with the secondary lines indented slightly. There is also a common tradition of alliteration (using the some beginning sound or letter) both within the verse and also more commonly at the beginning of each verse. When this is done with successive letters of the alphabet, it is know as an acrostic. There are a number of acrostic psalms, but the prime example is psalm 119 where there are seven verses for each Hebrew letter. When we read this Psalm during the Tenebre service in Holy Week, the Hebrew letter beginning each verse is included as part of the spoke text.</p>
<p>What happens when we want to sing or read this poetry in English with its tradition of special rhythms and terminal rhyming? There are translations of the bible that place more emphasis on creating poetic English. When this is done with the Psalms the result is a psalter. The prayer book contains its own psalter which we use during worship. Due to an explosion during the 18<sup>th</sup> and 19<sup>th</sup> century of churches who only sang biblical texts, numerous translations of the psalms now exist which can be sung to tradition hymn tunes. Texts from these metrical psalters are found in our hymnal. In all there are more then 30 psalms set to music. For example Hymn 517 which is a metrical translation (paraphrase) of psalm 84: <blockquote>
How lovely is thy dwelling place<br />
 O Lord of hosts to thee.<br />
My thirsty soul desires and longs<br />
 within thy courts to be.<br />
My very heart and flesh cry our,<br />
 O living God, for thee.<br />
</blockquote></p>
<blockquote>
<p>  From The Psalms of David in Meter, 1650</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We use other poetry in our service as well. Translated poetry that is not a psalm is called a Canticle. The prayer book has 14 of these. The contemporary translations can be found beginning on page 85; with seven in traditional English beginning on page 47. You may note that a few are not actually biblical texts but instead poetry from the earliest centuries of the Christian tradition that have been part of the worship of the church almost since its beginning. With the use of the Revised Common Lectionary, canticles are being used in place of psalms on some Sundays.</p>
<p>The question remains are these “good” translations. Some will question whether they are translations at all and insist that they are instead a type of paraphrase. It is clear if you read the text above next to a more academic translation of Psalm 84:1-2 that some liberties have been taken to make the meter are rhyme fit. Yet, the experience of singing this stanza is far closer to the experience the psalmist intended. In these translations we find a reminder that the bible is as much a collection of the faith-filled experiences as it is commandments and theological expositions. I contend that to the extent these “loose” translations warm our hearts, thrill our souls or even express our anguish in ways simple prose cannot, they are in fact far truer to the original meaning.</p>A Response to "A Growing Church is a Dying Church"2012-09-06T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/09/growing-is-dying<p>A few facebook friends have been sharing a link to a blog post titled “<a href='http://streetpastor.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/a-growing-church-is-a-dying-church/'>A Growing Church is a Dying Church</a>” by Pastor J. Barrett Lee who blogs at <a href='http://streetpastor.wordpress.com/'>The Theological Wanderings of a Street Pastor</a>. This is actually one of a number of different blog posts I seen recently from clergy who feel like their congregations expect too much from them. The thrust of this article is that clergy cannot grow the church, God does that. What they can and do try to do is to make changes to a church that will allow it to grow. These changes and the new people they <em>might</em> attract, necessarily lead to the dying (in the sence of Good Friday) of the original stuck congregation.</p>
<p>Go ahead and <a href='http://streetpastor.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/a-growing-church-is-a-dying-church/'>read the whole thing</a> this post will still be here when you’re done.</p>
<p class='pullquote'>Being a faith community takes passion and imagination, creative energy, prayer and faith; all the more so when a transition is happening.</p>
<p>I find a number of premises in this post a little off the mark, but let’s begin by looking at where we agree. Most obviously, I think we would both agree that there is no magic bullet that will automatically bring more people into church. The better part of the success of any congregation is found in God’s Grace. On the other hand, I think we would both agree that this grace should not be expected to fall like pennies from heaven. No congregation can be so naive as to make no attempt to improve their community and just pray that God keeps sending them people. Being a faith community takes passion and imagination, creative energy, prayer and faith; all the more so when a transition is happening.</p>
<p>This is all well and good, but Pastor Lee and I have some differences of opinion on what growth means to a congregation, how exactly a congregation might go about making space for growth, and what the responsibility of the clergy in in that process.</p>
<h2 id='growth_means_killing_off_the_existing_community'>Growth Means Killing Off the Existing Community</h2>
<p>My largest hesitation comes from what Pastor Lee assumes growth will mean to a congregation:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[New members] won’t fit in with the old guard. They won’t know about <em>how you’ve always done it.</em> They’ll want to make changes of their own. Their new ideas will make you uncomfortable. Your church won’t look or feel like it used to. You’ll feel like you’re losing control of this place that you’ve worked so hard to preserve. It will feel like your church is dying.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I have certainly seen churches grow this way. In my experience one of three things happens. either 1) The church becomes the place of the new and the old either drift away or remain but cease to contribute to the community, 2) Long time members rebell against the changes and most of the new members leave usually at about the same time the clergy does, 3) the congregation grows what one of my seminary professors called <em>the Mickey Mouse ear</em>. There are now two distinct communities connected by a very small overlap. In many Episcopal churches this would be “the 8 o’clockers” and “the 10 o’clockers.”</p>
<p>Too many clergy on taking a new call hope for number 1, but are only able to implement number 3, and ultimately find themselves at number 2. The reason, this happens is spelled out in Lee’s long fourth and fifth paragraphs about what the new pastor is going to do to the church. The basic model that we all learned is, “Its not working. Try something different.” Only, <em>it is working</em>, at least for the people who are actually there. From my perspective, it is far too common for clergy (and lay leaders) to abandon the dedicated members in the pews for the mythical people of whom Pastor Lee says, “You <em>might</em> see a <em>few</em> new faces in the crowd. There won’t be many of them. Some might stick around but most won’t.”</p>
<p>I think the dirty little secret is that some clergy would like their new calling more if it didn’t come with an existing congregation. Many clergy look at all the opportunities a healthy church would have to live the Gospel their church’s neighborhood, if only their congregations would let them do it. Some find it very tempting to use “We’ll grow the church” as an excuse to collect members for a new community whose vision is more in line with that of the clergy.</p>
<p>This in turn is connected to congregations and clergy not being matched well. Clergy, like everyone else feel pressure to “land a job” and will take a call that may not fit their ministry calling because its better than being unemployed. Congregations also take anybody with a “plan to save your congregation” even if that plan involves killing off the current community.</p>
<h2 id='the_only_chance_for_growth'>The Only Chance for Growth</h2>
<p>I next want to address what I perceive to be a difference of opinion about what need to be done to get a church to grow. Here I’m going to go out on a limb, and put words into Pastor Lees mouth .. er .. blog. He spends a good two-thirds of his words answering the question “What can a your pastor do?” He then goes on at length about some of the most common and generally beneficial changes new pastors make in congregations, framing each in the ironic negative context in which such a change might be seen by a congregation displeased with the change. The implied message seems to be: The pastor has to force through unpopular changes for your own good. You are all going to hate it, but you have got to suck it up.</p>
<p>Let me as a counterpoint offer three conditions that I have found a congregation need to start growing. The congregation must be healthy, happy and active. Healthy means that the level of internal conflict is so low that it is not noticeable on Sunday Mornings. (No, you can’t hide it you really do have to resolve at least the majority of it.) Happy, means that most of the people you talk to after church are excited by at least one thing in the church and want to tell you about it. And active means that I can see evidence the people besides the clergy are doing ministry. Congregations need to also do some of the baseline ministries of a christian church like having a decent worship experience including music, outreach ministry, acceptable financial stewardship and at least a passing attempt to be hospitable to visitors who might be thinking about joining.</p>
<p>Now consider the idea of ramming through unpopular changes, and consider whether this leads to a healthy, happy, active membership. I would propose that even in the event such changes were absolutely essential, making them in such a way that alienates the existing membership is still counterproductive.</p>
<p>Now admittedly, the final thrust of Pastor Lee’s argument is that congregations need to be more open to needed changes in their community, not only because they <em>might</em> draw in new members, but as he points out in his conclusion, it will have great benefits to the old members as well. My assertion is that a successful pastor ought to start by selling any change as good for the existing congregation, and as Pastor Lee says let God grow those seeds into a larger congregation in God’s time.</p>
<h2 id='ministerial_responsibility'>Ministerial Responsibility</h2>
<p class='pullquote'>This growth has made the con­grega­tion feel more whole rather than more divided. Like we were adding people we were missing not trying to ac­com­mod­ate people who didn’t fit.</p>
<p>Pastor Lee is clearly articulating a frustration that is common among clergy. They are held responsible for every success or failure the church experiences, and many feel like they have very little control over whether the congregation they serve succeeds or fails. I agree, I just don’t think the line ought to be as close to “no responsibility at all” as i think Pastor Lee puts it.</p>
<p>In part that is because I have see two different leaders face the same challenges in the same congregation with one succeeding much more clearly than the other. The first did a fine job following Pastor Lee’s playbook, and found himself with a bifurcated congregation with lots of conflict between old and new. When he had to retire for health reasons – health reasons that he would admit were caused in part by the stress of running a congregation in conflict – most of the new members his efforts had helped to bring in left. The conflict died away but so did the growth.</p>
<p>Our current co-rectors came into our congregation in a state very similar to where the last rector had found it. Instead of focusing on what needed to change in order to grow, the focused on what needed to change in order to become healthy. Not all of them were immediately popular, and the decision drop any contemporary music and return to all traditional hymnody in particular probably resulted in an initial drop in attendance as those members left to seek a worship experience that spoke to them and their tastes. But over a period of three or more years the congregation got to a place where we were happy healthy and active. We have grown, and much of that growth can only be attributed to God blessing us with an abundance of the right resources at the right moment. About the best we can say is that when God dropped a chance for growth on us, the congregation had the energy and enthusiasm to respond.</p>
<p>This growing has been different in another way as well. The people who are coming feel like they belong in our congregation. There are some that would rightly argue that too many of our new members are too white, too old, or too privileged. In other words they look a lot like the people we already had. On the other hand, this growth has made the congregation feel more whole rather than more divided. Like we were adding people we were missing not trying to accommodate people who didn’t fit. The remarkable thing is that as we have grown a wider variety of people have been able to find connections and feel like they are a part who we are as a congregation. We have changed, but it has been a natural expansion into new opportunities rather than the tare it down and rebuild model. I think it is healthier this way. I know that I am happier this way.</p>
<p>Pastor J. Bennett Lee’s post makes it sound like the only way to grow is to change who and what a congregation is; that a congregation that needs to grow is not working and need to be fixed, even if doing so will lead to a kind of death for the congregation. I do not doubt that there are some congregations where this is the case, but I believe they are few and far between. I believe it is better ministry for clergy to grow the congregation they have then to try to create the congregation they think they can grow.</p>Telemarketers: A Rant2012-09-05T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/09/telemarketers-a-rant<p>Would you like to know one never-fail way to ensure I never buy your product or service? Call me on the phone and tell me about it while I’m working on something important.</p>
<p>I’m sure at some point telemarketing was new and cool. A fancy new take on the door-to-door salesman. Today it is the last refuge of scams and junky things that can’t find a place on the shelves at Walmart. Nothing sold over the phone is worth buying, and most of it is actually illegal or at best a great way to separate fools from their money.</p>
<p>But, even if you are selling advanced copies of the final Wheel of Time book or a reliable car that even I could afford, making my phone ring while I’m focused on something else is an excellent reason not to buy anything from you. I often just let the answering machine pick up for me. I’ve even set it for two rings not four. Sometimes, however, I’m expecting a call and I need to answer in person. That 500ms silence after I answer is the bane of my existence.</p>
<p>I wish I had the guts to do <a href='http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7OgWcwgB50'>what this guy did</a>. but generally I don’t even want to devote that much time. I usually just hang up the phone without another word and try to get back to what I was doing. Usually I don’t succeed. Occasionally I’ll get out “please put me on your do-not-call list but not often.</p>
<p>I guess the point of this post is to say that with the coming election and push-polling ramping up I just don’t have the emotional energy to drop what I’m doing to listen to another sales pitch for siding or lowering the interest rate on the credit card or especially a robo-call from senator so-and-so asking me to vote for someone. I’m just letting it go to the machine. Leave a message and if you are not a telemarketer, I’ll call you back when I’m done with the project I’m currently working on.</p>Freemuim2012-09-04T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/09/freemium<img alt='freemuim logo' height='93' src='/images/freemium.png' width='223' />
<p><a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemium'>Freemium</a> is a business model where a substantial portion of the services (they are almost always service oriented) are given away for free to most users, while a small portion pay for premium services. The premium members cover the cost for themselves and the free members as well.</p>
<p>There is a lot of debate about how to make the business model work, and for the most part I’m not going to get into that. Instead, I am going to give some examples of the freemium services where I pay for the upgrade, and what got me to do it. I’ll also throw in a couple of example of times I choose not to pay and why.</p>
<p>For me there are three thing a freemium service has to do to get my money: have a better free service than anyone else, or at least be among the very best; have something truly valuable to offer if when I put my money on the table, not just a feature I don’t use or that others offer for free; and instill a sense that I am financially supporting something that I have a personal connection with and would be sad to see disappear.</p>
<h2 id='what_i_pay_for_and_why'>What I Pay for and Why</h2>
<p><strong><a href='http://arsetechnica.com'>Ars Technica</a></strong> : $50/year. Ars Technica is a science and technology news site, now affiliated with Condi Nast who own Wired Magazine and Vanity Fair. They, in my opinion, did everything right. First, the free content (all the articles, most of the forums) was really good. Good enough to keep me coming back for years. Even though I didn’t give them any money, I was a loyal reader, and I cared about the continued success of the business. In fact, I’ve been reading Ars since it was little more than a project for some recent college grads, (and a few grad students) trying something before they got a real job. Back then there was not premium membership.</p>
<p>But, the content was good, the site grew and the content got better. The site became add supported just as internet ads got both highly annoying and easy to block. (Has it been long enough to ask if anyone has morbid nostalgia for the “punch the monkey” ad?). I blocked the ads and kept on reading. Then they did a second thing right, they asked me to stop freeloading. In a well written article, the chief editor explained the costs the site had and the difficulty they were experiencing because of block ads. Their tech savvy readership blocked ads ar upwards of 70% and it was causing financial problems. He asked readers to keep the site running the way we all wanted it to by either unblocking ads or buying a $50/year subscription.</p>
<p>That article got to to check the subscription page where they did a third thing right. They offered me something of real value. In my case a complete Atom feed, but it is not important what. Just that it was something that I could not get otherwise, and something that I wanted. I would not have payed just for the feed, but it pushed me over the edge into the premium spot.</p>
<p><strong><a href='http://github.com'>GitHub</a></strong>: $7/year. A very similar. GitHub host code. If you are a programmer, you already know what it is. If not, I’m not going to try to explain a Distributed Revision Control system to you beyond that. GitHub is great if you just use it for free. The site owners make a point of being the face of their product, they use it, and they try to get others to as well. Finally my premium subscription gets me a private repository that I really wanted. GitHub has one more thing going for it as well. It benefits from the network effect. The more people use the service the more useful it becomes, so Premium Subscribers don’t feel put upon by all the free users. The more users there are the more valuable GitHub becomes.</p>
<p><strong>National Public Radio</strong> : $10/month. Beth and I give money to both Capital Public Radio and KQED in San Francisco. NPR is my main source of professional news. We don’t do TV, so NPR really is it. There is no doubt that I use the free service a lot, and anyone who has suffered through a pledge drive knows that they have the ask down. What is different here is that with the exception of a tote bag there is no difference in service. Radio just doesn’t allow for that. Still it is a free service that I pay for anyway.</p>
<h2 id='what_i_use_for_free'>What I use for Free.</h2>
<p><strong>The Sacramento Bee</strong>: This is something I probably ought to pay for but don’t. The Bee did a number of things that ensured that I will read the news they offer for free on there site but not send them any money. One reason is the product that I get. There are lots of news gathering organizations in Sacramento, and they all report the same 6-10 news stories. If the Bee decided it didn’t want me to read their news I could switch to two other local papers and three TV news stations and get the same stories. I am a bit of a news junky. When I was in College I ran worked weekends at the Current Periodicals desk. I read at least 6 different papers from across the country while waiting for partons. What I discovered was that the first 500 words of a story were about the same in every paper. It was the content after that that was different and interesting. Today, most of the stories in the Bee don’t reach that 500 word threshold. I can get the sme news anywhere, and it is not worth paying for.</p>
<p>The second problem the Bee has is that its premium version is all about home delivery of a print edition. I read all my news through my electronic devices. Newsprint in my world is only useful for packing fragile objects. I don’t really want to pay the Bee for the privilege of recycling their ads.</p>
<p>Finally, there is the sense of supporting something I care about. The Bee burnt that bridge when they spent two years calling me once a week begging to send me a free copy of the paper. They did this to spite repeated request to end the telemarketing calls. In this case their overly aggressive marketing cost them any chance at a potential sale in the future. In short, the Sacramento Bee got all three pieces wrong – they didn’t respect the relationship with their readers, they do not offer a compelling product that is better than the free competition, and the premium product they do offer is not a valuable addition but in fact devalues the service.</p>
<p><strong>Yahoo mail</strong>: This is another thing I use everyday for free. It is an important service but not irreplaceable. In fact if I were starting over I would use Google’s service instead, but I’ve had my yahoo address since 1998 and it is the one everyone and everything has. Yahoo again fails all three tests. Its free service is if anything sub-par compared to other free competitors. Most of what Yahoo has tried to sell as premium – more space, larger attachments, fewer ads – they have backed away from because other services gave them away for free. Finally rather than trying to humanize the Yahoo experience, the company has done everything it can to make it feel like you dealing with a lumber faceless completely automated system designed to cut costs not inspire good will.</p>
<h2 id='lessons_for_church'>Lessons for Church</h2>
<p>Churches work on a freemium model. Worship, fellowship, and most pastoral services are given to anyone for free. On the back end members are asked to voluntary pledge both as a spiritual commandment, and to the practical end of paying for salaries, utilities and programs. Churches can learn from the businesses above</p>
<p><strong>Be a great church</strong>: There is a chicken-and-egg problem with churches that say, “we will be really great, once we have enough money.” The lesson I take from successful freemium businesses is that you have to be great first, then the money will come. Brand (neé denominational) loyalty is no longer an effective tool for most traditions. Some group of people need to look at any church and think “This is going to be the best possible place I can worship.”</p>
<p><strong>Build good realtionships</strong>: Churches ought to be all about relationships, but too often when it comes time to give to the church those relationships are either ignored or worse abused. Part of successful Stewardship is reminding people how important their community is. Find the middle way between an over-bearing demand and a silently hoping that someone will give.</p>
<p><strong>Give something back</strong>: It is not part of the christian tradition to give better “premium” service to pledging members. Paul actually makes a number of proclamations decrying such behavior. It is appropriate, I would argue, to let the families that give to the church know that they are appreciated and that their gift is being spent wisely. Thank you notes, quarterly reports, and open financial leadership are just as important as totebags and wine club subscriptions. So is affirming the theology of generous giving.</p>
<h2 id='conclusion'>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Whether it is a for-profit business or a church, if you give your product away fro free, then ask people to pay for extra benefits, the key to success seems to be having a great product to get people hooked and build loyalty, make a clear and convincing case for support building on the value of the relationships that have been developed, and offer something of true value to those who give, even if it is only the clearly articulated assurance that they have done the right thing.</p>Issues of Translation: The Long Nose of God2012-08-31T07:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/Issues of Translation/2012/08/long-nose-of-god<hr /><div class='forward'>
<p>"Issues of Translation" was originally a series of articles I wrote
for <a href='http://allsaintssacramento.org/page33a.html'>The Crown</a>, the
newsletter for All Saints, Sacramento published between May 2010 and March 2011.
It was spured originally by an article about the King James bible which lead
several members of the congregation to ask why there are so many different
translations, and what makes one better then another. Rather then try to answer
that question directly, I undertook to write a few articles showing why it is
not obvious how to translate scripture.</p>
<p>Rather then allow these articles to languish on my hard drive, I have decided to
repost them here. I plan to put one out each Friday.
In the articles I occasionally refer to traditions common to
The Episcopal Church or our parish. You should know then that for most scripture
readings we use the New Revised Standard Version of the bible. Some of our
liturgical sources (i.e. Rite I) still use language from the Authorized
Version (now known as the King James Version or KJV). Choral Evensong services
also have reading from the KJV. "Our hymnal" referers to The Hymnal 1982 of The
Episcopal Church, and "our prayer book" refers to the 1979 Book of Common
Prayer.</p>
</div><hr />
<p>Did you know that God has a long nose? At least that is what God says of himself to Moses in Exodus 36:6. However, if you look up this verse in any bible I know, you will find no references to noses. “Long of nose” is a Hebrew idiom. One of a great many found throughout the bible.</p>
<p>Idioms are short phrases that have a meaning other then what the words literally say. We use them in English all the time. Phrases like “kick the bucket,” “Baloney Sausage,” or “hang out” are all idioms that would not work well if they were translated out of English in a word-for-word fashion. There are lots of reasons that cultures mess up there language like this. Some times it is to make a serious subject less so. Think of all the idioms we have to avoid directly saying someone died. Other idioms provide socially acceptable ways to discuss otherwise unsavory subjects. (Think sex and defecation, but not for too long because both are not discussed directly in polite company within our culture.) Finally, they are a way to talk about concepts for which suitable words simply do not exist in our language. These are rare in modern English. Our culture prefers instead to borrow words form other language (particularly French, German and Latin) instead.</p>
<p class='pullquote'>Hebrew is a very physical Language, and lacks words for almost all of the psychological and emotional states we are accustom to using in English.</p>
<p>In biblical Hebrew, on the other hand, this last kind is very common. The language is a very physical one, and lacks words for almost all of the psychological and emotional states we are accustom to using. Instead a raft of common idioms are used. Most are built by describing the form or posture of a part of the body. As I mentioned above the nose, (more literally in Hebrew “both nostril”) represent anger or temper. A long nose means an even temper – or to use an idiom from English having a cool head. On the other hand, flared nostrils are found on an upset person, and someone in a fit of rage is said to have their nose aflame.</p>
<p>The hand is by far the most common part of the body to find use in an idiom. The hand symbolizes a persons ability to act, and its gestures are a sign of character. Describing a king as having a strong hand denotes power, while a high hand denotes the use or abuse of power. To put a thing into the hand is to give control over it. For example “given into the hand of the sward” is to die in battle. The prophet who accuses the nation of living with clenched fists is accusing the people of being greedy.</p>
<p>Other parts include the heart which represents thought or intellect (and not emotion in the way it does in English), the eye which describes intent towards or relationship to another<sup><a href='#endnote1'>[1]</a></sup>, the face which represent pride or honor, the feet which represent personal space, private things or modesty, the stomach and genitals which represent lust and passion, the kidneys that represent emotion, and the forehead and neck which are both used to describe a persistent or stubborn person.</p>
<p>The problem is how to translate all of these into English. There are no hard and fast rules here. Some idioms, such as “long-nosed” will always be rendered with their meaning. So “long-nosed” always turns into “slow to anger” or “long suffering.” Others including nearly without exception any idiom involving hand or heart will be translated word for word. In fact, history is probably the most solid indicator of which path will be taken. Many, of the bibles idioms have entered into secular speech with their meanings (almost) intact, and so are rendered literally while obscure or counter-intuitive idioms will be replaced a phrase with similar meaning. Hence, there is the lack of a lengthy divine nose that might be construed with a similar English idiom meaning meddlesome or rudely inquisitive.</p>
<p>In other cases, scholars are either in disagreement about whether the phrase is idiomatic or literal, or disagree over its meaning. These again are commonly rendered as literal (and sometime nonsensical) phrases with each reader left to their own interpretation. In these cases a good commentary is very helpful. In any case as you read the bible remember that there is a translator who has had struggled with meanings verses words and who is counting on you to do the same.</p>
<hr /><div class='endnotes'>
<p id='endnote1'>1. When speaking of actual vision ‘eyes’ is plural when used idiomatically ‘the eye’ is singular. A good eye or a light in the eye is to be empathetic, a bad or dim (unlit) eye is showing hostility or indifference. Read <a href='http://bible.oremus.org/?ql=211476591'>Matthew 6:22-23</a> with this in mind.</p>
</div>Monday Bike Ride2012-08-27T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/08/monday-bike-ride<p>If you look at the side bar, you will notice a new widget. I have linked my Strava profile into my blog. As of today it also has a new ride. I extended my favorite airport loop ride out to <a href='http://app.strava.com/rides/19941827'>31.5 miles</a> today, taking advantage of the sunny but significantly cooler weather.</p>
<p>This is my first non-<a href='/wiki/bicycle-commuting.html'>commute</a> ride since I took a spill back in May. It took longer to get back in shape this time, then it got hot. real <em>hot</em>. I enjoy riding but not in 109° weather. So when today the high was in the 80’s and clear with almost no wind, I knew I had to make time for a ride.</p>
<p>The only thing that spoiled the ride today was a broken spoke. I knew something wasn’t quite right when the derailleur started tapping the spokes in low gear. When I got home it only took a second to find a spoke that was no longer connected to the hub. So that means that this afternoon I will need to take a trip down to the bike shop and have the spoke replaced. And, I was just starting to think that with $4.00 pre gallon gas I might catch up to my expenses.</p>
<p>If the weather holds, I’m looking forward to another ride on Friday. For now, it’s time to hit the shower.</p>Issues of Translation: Thou and Thy2012-08-24T07:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/Issues of Translation/2012/08/thou-and-thy<hr /><div class='forward'>
<p>"Issues of Translation" was originally a series of articles I wrote
for <a href='http://allsaintssacramento.org/page33a.html'>The Crown</a>, the
newsletter for All Saints, Sacramento published between May 2010 and March 2011.
It was spured originally by an article about the King James bible which lead
several members of the congregation to ask why there are so many different
translations, and what makes one better then another. Rather then try to answer
that question directly, I undertook to write a few articles showing why it is
not obvious how to translate scripture.</p>
<p>Rather then allow these articles to languish on my hard drive, I have decided to
repost them here. I plan to put one out each Friday.
In the articles I occasionally refer to traditions common to
The Episcopal Church or our parish. You should know then that for most scripture
readings we use the New Revised Standard Version of the bible. Some of our
liturgical sources (i.e. Rite I) still use language from the Authorized
Version (now known as the King James Version or KJV). Choral Evensong services
also have reading from the KJV. "Our hymnal" referers to The Hymnal 1982 of The
Episcopal Church, and "our prayer book" refers to the 1979 Book of Common
Prayer.</p>
</div><hr />
<p>We are all aware that the English language shapes the way we view the view the bible, but did you know that translating the bible also influences our Language? Phrases like “the apple of my eye” or “on eagles wings” come out of scripture.</p>
<p>One curious case is the persistence of some old pronouns in our liturgy long after they fell out of use in vernacular speech and writing. “Thou” “thy” and some related words are part of the traditional language of our church, but why did these hang on when so many other words were dropped? It is part of the history of our language.</p>
<p>Let’s start by talking about what these word actually mean. ‘Thou’ is the second person singular pronoun and ‘thy’ is its possessive form. In modern English we have replaced the words with “you” and “your,” but this leads to some ambiguity because ‘you’ is also the second person plural pronoun so that unless it is clear from context you are never sure how many of <em>you</em> there are. (Folks in the south have solved this problem with “ya’ll,” but that’s another story) Prior to the loss of the word in the early 17<sup>th</sup> century, addressing God as ‘you’ would have been polytheistic, and therefore condemned.</p>
<p>So what happened in the 17th century? As early as the 13<sup>th</sup> century, it had been a custom to address royalty in the plural form. Gradually “you” became the mode of formal address with the singular pronoun reserved for family, close friends, children, and servants. It actually became an insult to “thou” someone in public, mocking them as not worthy of formal address. The church however maintained its insistence in using thou and thy for God, noting not only that it was the singular pronoun but also that in following Christ’s example the church ought to address God on familiar terms.</p>
<p>The irony here is that we now have a liturgical tradition of using the singular form of the second person pronoun only in addressing God. It has become instead a formal and “holy thou.” Almost the opposite of its original meaning.</p>
<p>At this point in time, use of these words springs more from a desire for tradition then any real difference in meaning. Our language changes and is still changing, but we hold on to pieces of the past because they do not translate pleasantly into modern usage. There is always a balance to be struck between our love of the familiar and traditional and the barrier that it places on those for whom the words seem foreign.</p>Weekend Recap2012-08-23T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/08/weekend-recap<p>It was another busy weekend for the Millers. We did our usual loop through our two families, but with a twist. This trip included a family reunion with Beth’s Family in Van Nuys.</p>
<h2 id='trip_to_the_beach'>Trip to the Beach</h2>
<p>Before heading to the reunion we made a quick stop in Atascadero to see my mom before she goes back to school in Berkeley. Mom had a <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craniosacral_therapy'>Craniosacral</a> appointment in cayucos so Beth and I took the opportunity to go to the beach. First we stopped at <a href='http://www.menuclub.com/californiarestaurantguide/cayucosrestaurants/duckieschowderhouse-1731.php'>Duckie’s</a> fro fish and chips and clam chowder.</p>
<p>We went to Morro Strand State beach and walked a couple miles down the shore. The tide was way out when we were there. Beth spent her walk collecting sand dollars which were plentiful. We also found an abalone shell. At the end of the beach there were some large rocks the low tide had left unusually well exposed. It was fun to see all the tidal creatures buttoned up waiting for the surf to return. One species in particular, the <a href='http://www.marinebio.net/marinescience/03ecology/tphi.htm'>Gooseneck Barnacles</a> were fun to play with. When disturbed they hunch their necks up tight, so rubbing a hand over the formation causes them to all scrunch together. The effect is hard to describe but fun to watch.</p>
<p>We tried to stay on the coast for dinner, but the tourists have not yet gone home for the summer and our favorite place – <a href='http://www.bonniemarietta.com/Dockside-Restaurant.htm'>Tognazzini’s Dockside Restaurant</a> – was all booked. Instead we ate at a sushi restaurant in Atascadero. Times have certainly changed. When I was growing up there no one would have dreamed that there would be a sushi place in Atascadero, much less that our family would choose to go there. We finished off the evening with ice cream at Cold Stones. There they have a wall of fame for Atascadero High School Athletics. I was surprised how many people on that wall I knew.</p>
<h2 id='a_hilltop_reunion'>A Hilltop Reunion</h2>
<p>The reunion with Beth’s Dad’s family took place at in Van Nuys in a gated development and at the top at an enormous hill overlooking the San Fernando Valley. Along with Doris and Harvey and their four children and families was Harvey’s brother Ralph and his three daughters with accompanying spouses a few children and grandchildren. Someone needed to sell programs. Many of these people had not seen each other in twenty years, and most of us in-laws had never met the other side of the family.</p>
<p class='pullquote'>The highlight of the day was getting Harvey and Ralph to sit down and tell stories.</p>
<p>The highlight of the day was getting Harvey and Ralph to sit down and tell stories. Someone had the good sense to bring a recorder so there will be more than just memories of the day. I’m afraid that I personally spent most of my time with the other in-laws who always seem to hang out together at things like this. Sort of an “I married a Bondurant” support group.</p>
<p>Speaking of in-laws, there is a new one in the works. Beth sister Janice is engaged to a wonderfully funny guy who she met in theater. That is actually saner than it sounds. They are both actors and clearly enjoy each others presence a lot. The in-law to be holds down a regular – that is non-theater – job as an activities director at a memory care facility in Bakersfield, where he enjoys entertaining the Seniors as much as he does the audience on stage. On the other hand his employer likely would not appreciate some of what he does outside of work hours, and as he has worked hard to keep his name out of Google, I will not spoil things by mentioning it here. (You know who you are m’lord)</p>
<p>The other exciting news is that Beth’s niece, Madeline, and her husband, White Eagle, have purchased a house in bakersfield. They are now experiencing some of the same joys and frustration of home ownership that we went through. White Eagle has a good job at the family business, a metal fabrication shop and they are sharing the place with his brother. We didn’t make it back in time to go visit, but the picture look nice.</p>
<p>Most of the family left about 3:00 but a few of us stuck around to hang out with the three Aunts (cousins actually from our perspective) and their mother. We had a good time talking about the family and why different people are the way they are. The best part for me however was the chance to be open about my favorite baseball team. Most of my close friends (and anyone who looks at the sidebar of this blog) knows I am a fan of the LA Dodgers. Living just 90 miles from San Francisco, that is not something I can be overly open about without taking a few jab from the hordes of Giants fans. (Especially after they swept the dodger in a 3 game series this week.) We could share stories about going to games and hearing Vin Scully’s play-by-play echo from all the transistor radios, or stories about where we were when Kirk Gibson hit the homerun. It was just nice to be a Dodger fan among others.</p>
<p>We actually left later then we ought to have, and only the rapidly setting sun and the prospect of having to drive down that astonishing hill in the dark finally got us out the door. We did have to go over the Grapevine in the dark, however. It has been years since I have been over that particular stretch of road, and I think this is the first time I have been the one driving. It is fast, the lanes are narrow, and the semis have no regard for human life, but we made it back to Bakersfield alright, and even managed a stop at In-n-Out burger.</p>
<h2 id='odds_and_ends'>Odds and Ends</h2>
<p>We spent Sunday evening at Beth’s folks house and to spite our good intentions of getting an early(ish) start we didn’t actually make it out the door until after 2:00. In part that was because Beth wanted to start sorting through the stuff she still has at her parents house. Doris and Harvey are going to move closer to town next year, and before then all the stuff in that has been stored in their house need to find a new place to be. It was said a number of times at the reunion that the Bondurants are collectors (or pack-rats depending on who was in earshot) and there are whole rooms full of <em>odds</em> that need to find their ends.</p>
<p>It wasn’t all work however. We did sit down and enjoy a couple games of Rummikub together. I am amazed how many people play this game - which perhaps deserves a blog post of its own. we taught it to Doris and Janice, and it has become a favorite for them. White Eagle’s family plays it with fervor, I’m told and even Janice’s fiancé plays.</p>
<p>Our ride home was quite an uneventful, except for the fact that we took 99 home instead of I5. There was construction on I5 just North of Bakersfield and the signs said to expect 60- to 90-minute delays. 99 is actually marginally shorter, but takes longer because it goes through the middle of so many cities in the valley where the speed limit drops to 65 or even 55. On the other hand there is certainly more to look at. We made it home just before dark, unpacked the car and had dinner then went to bed. It is amazing how tiring it is to just sit in a car for five hours. The treasures we brought home from Bakersfield have been stacked behind the couch. I’m lobbying for a trip to Ikea to buy some shelving.</p>
<p>The rest of this week has been busy at work which is why this post is so late in coming. Rather than try to write any more I will simply hit the post button…</p>Wiki: A Layout Editor's Gripes2012-08-23T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/wiki/2012/08/editors-gripes<p>After a long day editing The Crown, I felt I just had to write down some helpful hints for people who are going to be sending me things to put in church publications. It is probably good advice for anyone who writes but another formats.</p>Burgess Brothers' Burgers2012-08-22T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/08/burgess-brothers-burgers<img alt='Burgess Brothers' Burgers logo' height='317' src='/images/bbb.png' width='320' />
<p>There is a new place to eat in the neighborhood I work. <a href='http://www.burgessbrothersburgers.com/'>Burgess Brothers’ Burgers</a> opened Monday at 2114 Sutterville Road. In my time this place has been at least two pizza places, a cafe and now a burger shop. Regardless of what it is this place has always held a special place in the hearts of those who work at All Saints. Sandy Burgess is the most recent in a string of small business entrepreneurs to try to make a living out of this little shop across from city college, and we will enjoy cheering her on and being regular contributors to her success.</p>
<p>So, on Tuesday I wandered over to see what the latest incarnation of 2114 Sutterville had become. Burgess Brothers’ Burgers is a hamburger stand with barbecue sauce. The menu is mostly centered around ground beef patties, but there are also ribs on there, as well as some other barbecue specials.</p>
<p>The place has a Police / Firefighter theme inspired by the epitomes <a href='http://home.comcast.net/~webmann/bbb/about.html'>Burgess Brothers</a> – one a Fireman with Sac Metro Fire, the other an officer with the CHP. It is a bit of a switch to see the eclectic art displays of United Cafe (the former incarnation of this building) replaced with pictures of police and firefighters doing what they do best, along with uniforms and memorabilia of the same theme.</p>
<p>The food is good, there is no doubt about that. It seems to me to be inspired by firehouse fare. I had a Puppy Burger which is a hamburger with barbecued pork on top. definitely tasty, but unless you run into burning building for a living, not the kind of thing you can eat once a week and maintain your current weight. I wanted to start with something that was the house speciality, but I may need to look at other parts of the menu, because we all know that it will be too tempting to just walk down the street a few doors when I get hungry.</p>
<p>Perhaps the best part of Burgess Brothers’ Burgers is Sandy Burgess, the owner. I love being able to walk into a place and have the owner know who I am. She is working very hard not just to find clients but develop relationships with her customers. She is the kind of small business owner who you want to succeed, and I hope she does.</p>Issues of Translation: Wind and Spirit2012-08-17T07:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/Issues of Translation/2012/08/wind-and-spirit<hr /><div class='forward'>
<p>"Issues of Translation" was originally a series of articles I wrote
for <a href='http://allsaintssacramento.org/page33a.html'>The Crown</a>, the
newsletter for All Saints, Sacramento published between May 2010 and March 2011.
It was spured originally by an article about the King James bible which lead
several members of the congregation to ask why there are so many different
translations, and what makes one better then another. Rather then try to answer
that question directly, I undertook to write a few articles showing why it is
not obvious how to translate scripture.</p>
<p>Rather then allow these articles to languish on my hard drive, I have decided to
repost them here. I plan to put one out each Friday.
In the articles I occasionally refer to traditions common to
The Episcopal Church or our parish. You should know then that for most scripture
readings we use the New Revised Standard Version of the bible. Some of our
liturgical sources (i.e. Rite I) still use language from the Authorized
Version (now known as the King James Version or KJV). Choral Evensong services
also have reading from the KJV. "Our hymnal" referers to The Hymnal 1982 of The
Episcopal Church, and "our prayer book" refers to the 1979 Book of Common
Prayer.</p>
</div><hr />
<p>It is tempting to think that languages are merely different word for the same set of concepts, and that a one-to-one correlation exists between a word in one language and a word in another. Unfortunately this is not the case, and because language is the basis for so much of human cognition, these differences can lead to more then just differences in translation, they can have philosophical and theological consequences as well.</p>
<p>An easy illustration of this is the word <em>Ruach</em> in Hebrew. If you look it up in a Hebrew to English dictionary you will see three definitions: wind, breath, and spirit. The first two make sense together as both imply moving air the difference being where the air is moving, but our concept of spirit is not related in any way to the movement of atmospheric gas.</p>
<p class='pullquote'>Breath and spirit don’t share the same phoneme (word), they are, to a speaker of ancient Hebrew, the same concept.</p>
<p>We might then be inclined to see <em>Ruach</em> as a homophone, like the English word “bat,” which means both a stick and a flying mammal. It is just an unhappy coincidence that baton got shortened into a word that already had another meaning.</p>
<p>But <em>Ruach</em> is not like that. It has only one meaning. Breath and spirit don’t share the same phoneme (word), they are, to a speaker of ancient Hebrew, the same concept. When a translator encounters this word, a choice must be made, “do I say breath or spirit?” Neither choice is completely accurate. Let’s look at a passage where this is an issue, Ezekiel 37 and the story of the dry bones:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The hand of the Lord came upon me, and he brought me out by the <strong>spirit</strong> of the Lord and set me down in the middle of a valley; it was full of bones. He led me all round them; there were very many lying in the valley, and they were very dry. He said to me, ‘Mortal, can these bones live?’ I answered, ‘O Lord God, you know.’ Then he said to me, ‘Prophesy to these bones, and say to them: O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: I will cause <strong>breath</strong> to enter you, and you shall live. I will lay sinews on you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put <strong>breath</strong> in you, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.’</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>So I prophesied as I had been commanded; and as I prophesied, suddenly there was a noise, a rattling, and the bones came together, bone to its bone. I looked, and there were sinews on them, and flesh had come upon them, and skin had covered them; but there was no <strong>breath</strong> in them. Then he said to me, ‘Prophesy to the <strong>breath</strong>, prophesy, mortal, and say to the <strong>breath</strong>: Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four <strong>winds</strong>, O <strong>breath</strong>, and <strong>breathe</strong> upon these slain, that they may live.’ I prophesied as he commanded me, and the <strong>breath</strong> came into them, and they lived, and stood on their feet, a vast multitude.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Ezekiel 37:1-10 New Revised Standard Version</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I have highlighted all the instances of the word <em>Ruach</em> in the text. Most become “Breath” here. In English that would seem to imply that breathing was part of putting bones back together, but try reading this passage with the word “spirit” instead. In Hebrew there is no difference.</p>
<p>There are in fact lots of words like this and it is always a compromise in terms of which word to choose. The final Hebrew word in this passage is used 243 times in the bible and is translated as everything from “man of valour” to “army/host” to “strength” to “wealth.” Yet all imply basically the same concept to the original readers of the text.</p>
<p>When we say that there is meaning lost in translation this is what is meant. Words do not always align well across cultures and centuries. One of they ways to minimize this loss is to read more then one translation, realizing that none are more “correct” then another. Another is to learn something about how your favorite translation uses the language. Finally, if there is a particular passage that is intriguing you can use tools like those found at ‘<a href='http://blueletterbible.org'>blueletterbible.org</a>’ which shows how words got translated in different places. Perhaps the best thing to do is to simply be aware that there are issues in translating that do not lend themselves to simple answers, and to be open to the possibilities that the text presents.</p>Meta-Blogging #22012-08-15T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/08/metablogging2<p>I have updated the look of the blog. The major change is the inclusion of new lines next to the sidebar and a gradient with rounded corners on the home page. The date of posts is also now listed there.</p>
<p>There are some less obvious changes as well. The top image no longer hangs off the right edge. I’ve turned on some basic cache controls so the page should load faster. I’ve also shifted a few page elements to make them stand out better.</p>
<p>It is still clear that I am not a graphic design guru, but this is looking a little more modern. Comments and suggestions welcome.</p>Murphy Strikes the A/C2012-08-14T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/08/murphy-strikes-ac<p>As I am typing this it is 85° in our house. It could be worse. The compressor on the air conditioner failed last evening, on one of the hottest days of the year and with a fire in the delta sending huge plumes of smoke into the city.</p>
<p>In spite of the smoke, we opened the entire house and by morning had gotten the inside temperature down to 79°. Careful management and good insulation limited us to only a 6° rise. Pretty good considering that it was 107° out today! I spent most of today hiding at work.</p>
<p>The repair technician from One Hour Heating & Air will be here tomorrow afternoon, and there was a good breeze and some light clouds rolling up the delta on my way home so I am optimistic that we will cool off faster tonight.</p>
<p>As I sit here in the dark with all the blinds pulled and the fan going, I am reminded of my grandparents house in Atascadero where triple-digit temperatures are not uncommon. To this day it does not have air conditioning an relies on a combination of very good insulation and opening all the windows at night to cool the house before the day warms up. This cheaply build tract house is nowhere near as well insulated, but without grandma and grandpa’s home cooling technique, this place could have been uninhabitable by now.</p>
<p><em>Come on Delta Breeze!</em></p>Wiki: Americans Hate Cars2012-08-13T20:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/wiki/2012/08/americans-hate-cars<p>My first wiki essay, <a href='/wiki/americans-hate-cars.html'>Americans Hate Cars</a> is up. It spells out my opinion that most every american would love to get out of their car if only the alternatives that existed were not either non-existant or worse then being stuck in traffic.</p>
<p>Look for more wiki entries on <a href='/wiki/bicycle-commuting.html'>bicycle commuting</a>, <a href='/wiki/community-energy.html'>community energy</a>, and the <a href='/wiki/death-of-public-space.html'>death of public space</a> coming soon.</p>A Long Weekend2012-08-13T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/08/long-weekend<p>It’s Monday. For most people, it is the first day of the week. For me, it is my day to relax after the weekend. This weekend more than most I am enjoying a day to sit back and breath before the plunge into this week’s tasks. Don’t get me wrong, it was a very enjoyable time; just one that I need to recover from.</p>
<p>This marathon weekend actually began on Thursday. Betsey and I kicked off my day with a two-and-a-half hour meeting about Evangelism. All Saints set a goal last year of becoming more visible in the community. We want to update our branding from our original (c. 1948) image. We need a new website. We then want to get ourselves and our ministry in front of people who we believe would really like worshiping with us, if only they knew we existed. The obstacle that is currently sitting in the way is the need for a new logo and tagline. More deeply, we need to discern what we want to tell the world about our church.</p>
<p>After this meeting and a quick bite to eat, came the usual Thursday routine. I get the bulletin drafts back my proof-readers and make the corrections. I also get the weeks Hymn selections from Mr. Nelson and add them to the 10:00 am bulletin. It takes about 20 minutes for the printer to get the 8 o’clock version (26 copies) out and 45 minutes for the 10 o’clock (58-75 copies). Thursday works best if I can get the printer running and then work on other things. So sending the bulletin to press is a top priority. Next comes the “extra stuff.” A printed copy of the <em>Prayers of the People</em> for the Intercessor, and a copy of the Psalm with the psalm tone on top that the organist marks up and copies for the choir. Finally the announcements sheet gets updated and sent to the printer (75 copies) while I go and fold the bulletins that are now done printing.</p>
<p>This last Thursday was also our monthly finance meeting. I attend in my role as stewardship chair. Before the meeting, I get my numbers together so I can give my report. All Saints has had a balanced budget since 2010, but it is balanced only by holding a very tight reign on the expenses. The goal of the finance committee is to keep a close eye on the finances in order to allow the vestry to focus on the “big picture” ministry goals of the church. We got through the meeting alright, but the summer lull has taken a toll on our cash flow. Finance meetings are just less fun when the numbers are in the red.</p>
<p>Friday morning began with a dentist’s appointment in Auburn. This is the appointment I had to reschedule after my recent bike crash. I still don’t like dentists, but I have found one that is able to deal with my issues and doesn’t insist on needing to fix everything that is amiss with my mouth all at once.</p>
<p>Then it was off to the church to pick up tables and chairs for the dinner we hosted on Sunday. Once they were safely delivered a trip to the grocery store was in order. Usually Beth and I go grocery shopping together. That way we can decide what we want to eat together, and we make fewer impulse buys. But, it didn’t work out this time. I served lasagna for our dinner this year, in large part because I could make it ahead of time. Once I was home from the store I spent the rest of the day putting together two homemade lasagnas. Not hard, but rather time consuming.</p>
<p>On Saturday, I played in a slow-pitch softball tournament with a team made up of people associated (often rather loosely) with my wife’s company. The league had been running since May and this was the final tournament. Based on our past performance we didn’t expect to make it very far in this double elimination tournament. But somehow we won our first game and that meant we got to play a total of three. In between games we held a barbecue potluck with some amazing ribs and brisket. It was a hot day and by the end of the third game when we were eliminated, no one was overly disappointed to be finished. I went home, showered, and after a few hours on the couch watching the Olympics, got back to work preparing for our dinner.</p>
<p>Saturday was also more complicated because one of the Jeeps tires let go and so we are down to just one car. Thank you to Jim Colgan who got Beth to church and back on Saturday.</p>
<p>Sunday started as usual with Church. My job at All Saints can make the church feel very much like a small business, and Sunday worship is always a good way to remind myself that we are a community brought together to worship God, not just another business or social-service organization.</p>
<p>This Sunday we also hosted our spring event dinner. Our churches major fund-raiser for the year is a large dinner, that comes with silent and live auctions and a raffle. One very popular item at the silent auction are various luncheons and dinner parties. We host one of these each year and Sunday was the date we had set. Everyone seemed to have a wonderful time.</p>
<p>One of my favorite parts of hosting this dinner is that I can use it as an excuse to serve (and eat) all the things I like to find at a dinner party: Fancy chess and 7-layer dip for horderves, good wine, homemade lasagna with extra cheese, and angel food cake with strawberries and blueberries for dessert. The real trick is getting the house cleaned and the food ready without going completely insane. This year particularly was a little stressful as four of the best hostesses in the church were on the guest list. Fortunately, everything went well and by the time May rolls around again we will likely have forgotten how much work this was and agree to host another one.</p>
<p>I’ll close with a last amusing story. Even though I helped set the table for years, when it comes right down to it I don’t do it often enough to remember all the little details. For example, the blade of the knife should face the plate, water glasses are placed above the knife while bread plates go on the left. Beth inherited her Grandmother 1956 edition of the Betty Crocker cookbook which has in the front section several pages devoted to hosting a dinner party, including – thankfully – a detailed illustration of place settings. I find it quite amusing though to read through the rest of the advice given to the housewife hosting guests. The gender stereotypes give me a particular chuckle as we break almost all of them. Food tastes have changed as well as non of my guests were scandalized by the lack of a Jell-o mold. Time and culture have changed in the last 56 years, fortunately the joy of having good friends over for dinner has not.</p>Issues of Translation: Jehovah2012-08-10T07:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/Issues of Translation/2012/08/jehovah<hr /><div class='forward'>
<p>"Issues of Translation" was originally a series of articles I wrote
for <a href='http://allsaintssacramento.org/page33a.html'>The Crown</a>, the
newsletter for All Saints, Sacramento published between May 2010 and March 2011.
It was spured originally by an article about the King James bible which lead
several members of the congregation to ask why there are so many different
translations, and what makes one better then another. Rather then try to answer
that question directly, I undertook to write a few articles showing why it is
not obvious how to translate scripture.</p>
<p>Rather then allow these articles to languish on my hard drive, I have decided to
repost them here. I plan to put one out each Friday.
In the articles I occasionally refer to traditions common to
The Episcopal Church or our parish. You should know then that for most scripture
readings we use the New Revised Standard Version of the bible. Some of our
liturgical sources (i.e. Rite I) still use language from the Authorized
Version (now known as the King James Version or KJV). Choral Evensong services
also have reading from the KJV. "Our hymnal" referers to The Hymnal 1982 of The
Episcopal Church, and "our prayer book" refers to the 1979 Book of Common
Prayer.</p>
</div><hr />
<p>One of our favorite hymns begins “Guide me oh thou great Jehovah.” We have all heard the word <em>Jehovah</em> used for God, but have you every wondered where it came from? This history of the “Name of God” has a long and illustrative history which shows just how difficult translating the bible can be.</p>
<p>To begin to understand the mystery of this word we must start back in the time of the Israelites captivity in Egypt and before. It is quite clear that the religious practices of the descendants of Abraham have always been devoted to God alone, though there is a surprising amount of biblical text that appears quite Henotheistic – admitting the existence of more then one god, but confining worship to a single deity. Regardless, in a world that was polytheistic all gods had names and particularly in Egypt, a physical description as well. It is at this point that God acquires a proper name.</p>
<p>Before I tell you what that name is (or not) it is necessary to move on in history a bit. By the 7<sup>th</sup> century BC Israel had an established state religion that was expressly monotheistic. God’s name became a liability. Why, they asked, should God need a name? There is only one God and there can be no doubt as to which god we might mean. The use of The Name became very rare and was to be used only on very special occasions, eventually being spoken only once a year by the High Priest in the temple on Yom Kippor. With the destruction of the temple in 66 AD there was now no place and no one allowed to speak the name of God.</p>
<p class='pullquote'>The word “Jehovah” is an English trans­litera­tion of a German mis­transla­tion resulting from the use of <em>Qere</em> vowels on a <em>Ketiv</em> word which isn’t spoken because the name of God was too holy to use.</p>
<p>Repeated conquests and exiles also had an impact on their language. By the third century BC a significant number of believers spoke Greek or Aramaic. Worship was still in Hebrew, but with an ever declining number of people able to understand it, two projects were begun in order to keep the scripture accessible. The First was the translation from Hebrew into Greek, known as the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint'>Septuagint</a>. The other was the creation of edited copies of the original Hebrew scriptures with the express purpose of making them easier to read aloud, and it is the latter that plays into the creation of the Word ‘Jehovah’.</p>
<p>To understand why, it is now time to dig into a bit of the mechanics of the Hebrew language. Like most ancient languages Hebrew started out as an aid to memory and used only consents. Even modern Hebrew is written with only 26 characters all of which are consents. If you know the language this is not any more of a problem then it is for an English speaker to decide whether the word “bow” should rhyme with “cow” or “row.” But for a people who no longer use the language outside of worship, the lack of vowels presented a real problem<sup><a href='#endnote1'>[1]</a></sup>. The sacred text could not be altered, but rabbinical scholars developed a system of markings that were placed above and below the characters to aid in reading the text aloud.</p>
<p>So now what about the Name of God? It was never read aloud and when it occurred in scripture it was instead pronounced <em>adonai</em>, a word that means lord. When these texts were then translated into Greek the name was instead replaced with the word “lord.” It is interesting to note that the name of God is not the only word to which such alterations were made. Even with copious effort to prevent mistakes, there are other places where the ancient text contains misspellings or inverted words. The translators believed that these had been placed there by the original authors and therefore did not change them, but instead wrote notes in the margin explaining what was to be read. The text as it was read aloud is called the <em>Qere</em> and the text as actually written called the <em>Ketiv</em>. The vowels for the <em>Qere</em> were placed on the consonants of the <em>Ketiv</em>.</p>
<p>Jump forward with me to the reformation and to the German scholars who were working on retranslating these “pointed” texts. They discovered the name of God with the vowels of lord. In English we might transliterate the consonants as YHWH, but in German English Y’s are instead J’s and W’s are V’s. Thus in German the Name of God became JHVH. Filling in the vowels for <em>adonai</em> renders the word JaHoVaH, which became the accepted pronunciation of the Name in English: “Jehovah.” Interestingly enough, we never find this word in the translation of scripture we use. Instead it is always rendered as <span class='smallcaps'>Lord</span> (with small Caps) a nod to the ancient tradition of not attempting to speak the name of God. This occasionally leads to some very awkward phrases like the translation of <a href='http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exd&c=6&t=RSV#3'>Exodus 6:3</a>.</p>
<p>So the word “Jehovah” is an English transliteration of a German mistranslation resulting from the use of <em>Qere</em> vowels on a <em>Ketiv</em> word which isn’t spoken because the name of God was too holy to use. So what is the actual proper name of God? There is no way to know for sure. Some of the earliest Greek texts actually tried to transliterate the Name, but Greek and Hebrew vowels are not well matched. Many modern scholars have taken to using the term “Yehweh,” based on these texts. Others, including myself, prefer to leave the name unarticulated in recognition that though there are a great many ways to speak of God, the one Lord who created all that is does not need a proper name. God is God there is no other.</p>
<hr /><div class='endnotes'>
<p id='endnote1'>1. An interesting note is that most languages at some point developed (or stole) vowels and late biblical Hebrew was on its way using two of its characters as vowel sounds to distinguish commonly confused words.</p></div>Meta-Blogging #12012-08-07T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/08/metabloging1<p>In the days of <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_radio'>HAM radio</a>, the most common topic of conversation over the air was of course HAM radio. I don’t want this blog to be all about blogging, but part of the fun – part of the reason that this is a homebrew blog on my own server and not another spot on blogger – is getting to play with the technology that makes this all run. In that spirit, this is the first of a planned series about what makes this blog tick. Warning: technical stuff coming up.</p>
<p>Yesterday I got two features working that I really missed from my old platform. Automatic deployment and delayed posting. <a href='http://github.com/mojombo/jekyll/#readme'>Jekyll</a> was designed by the amazing folks at <a href='http://github.com'>GitHub</a> to run and deploy with <a href='http://git-scm.com/about'>Git</a>. I have set up git so that every time I push to the server the blog will go live on the site without having to touch the server. This is my first try at Git’s commit hooks, and they turn out to be easier then I though. Just drop a shell script into the <code>hooks</code> folder with the appropriate name and off you go. I also set up <code>cron</code> so that delayed posts will be built and pushed to the live site at around midnight PDT.</p>
<p>The tricky part is writing a good shell script. Both <code>git</code> and <code>cron</code> use the same script to do the same thing: check out the latest version into a working directory, build the site, and copy the result to the live folder. At the moment, the script is rather fragile, but it works. It is easy to write scripts you watch as they run. If something goes wrong, you are right there to fix it. This program on the other hand will run when I am not there to check the results. If something goes wrong my blog would go down and I might not even know it. It feels a bit like landing a rover on mars, only with less publicity and lacking 2.5 billion dollar price tag.</p>
<p>Still on the <code>todo list</code>: comments, Atom/RSS feeds, statistical analysis of log data, and some custom extensions to Markdown.</p>A Night at the Ball Game2012-08-04T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/08/ball-game<p>This past Wednesday Beth and I went to watch the San Francisco Giants play the New York Mets. As a Dodgers fan, I’m happy to say that the Mets won 2-1. Beth got the tickets for arranging a lunch-‘n-learn at her office. Normally a Dodgers fan would not be going to a Giants game, but what honest baseball fan turns down free tickets?</p>
<p>Thanks to our friends Doug and Sara Chatfield (who are <em>definitely</em> Giants fans) we knew better then to try to park anywhere near the stadium. Instead we took BART in from El Cerrito. It is a mile or so walk from the Embarcadero station to the stadium, but San Francisco is a beautiful city to walk through and we had lots of company, most in orange and black so we knew we were going the right way.</p>
<p>AT&T park is located right next to the bay and, famously, ball hit hard enough to right field will end up in the in the bay. As of this writing there have been 61 “splash hits.” While our seats were on the lower level of left field just beyond the 3rd base bag, we got to the stadium early enough to walk around and look at some of the sights. The view from the right field wall is very nice and I can see why so many people from the city buy standing room only tickets for that area. I however was glad to have a seat, and by the end of the game also glad to be out of the wind. Compared to Dodger Stadium with its open center field and deep seating, the closed in vertical nature of AT&T park feels very close. The stadium at McCovey cove is still one of the newer stadiums in Baseball, but has a lot of the charm of the old downtown stadiums of Baseball’s hey day. In any case, anything is better then the frigid and blustery edifice of Candlestick Park.</p>
<h2 id='tribute_to_jerry_garcia'>Tribute to Jerry Garcia</h2>
<img alt='Stealie with Giants logo' height='120' src='/images/giantsstealie.jpg' width='120' />
<p>Just by chance we arrived on Jerry Garcia tribute night. Jerry Garcia was the lead guitar, singer and songwriter for the Grateful Dead. Though he died in 1995, he is still very much beloved by his home town, and his August first birthday is still a cause for celebration among “Deadheads.” The pregame show was done by a Grateful Dead Tribute band, and many of the fans - along with the mascot - were in tie-dyed shirts.</p>
<img alt='Jackie Greene and Bob Weir, were joined by Giants third base coach Tim Flannery in the singing of the national' height='50%' src='/images/greatfuldead-national-anthem.jpg' width='50%' />
<p>Two of the original band members, Jackie Greene and Bob Weir, were joined by Giants third base coach Tim Flannery in the singing of the national anthem. Given the cast, I must admit that I was concerned about how the anthem would be butchered. I was very pleasantly surprised listen to what I think was one of the best performances of the National Anthem I have heard in any ball park ever. They sang <em>a capella</em> in unison through the first line, then spiting into a superbly done three part harmony. They stuck to the original melody and did not try to overly embellish as so many pop music stars (and those who thing they are) do today. They did not linger on notes, nor did they rush through. It was beautiful, and I wish more performers would follow their lead.</p>
<h2 id='play_ball'>Play Ball!</h2>
<p>The game itself was a good one, assuming that “good” does not depend on the Giants coming out with a win. Matt Cain who was the starting pitcher for the giants had pitched a perfect game earlier in the year, but looked rather shaky on the night we saw him. The games stared off with a home run by the Mets’ Ruben Tejada. So much for a second perfect game.</p>
<p>There were some great defensive plays, however, including an amazing catch by Gregor Blanco in left center that looks so much more amazing when seen in person. In the 8<sup>th</sup> inning with the bases loaded a ground ball to the first baseman was thrown home for one out, then back to first for an attempt a the double play, but the ball hit the batter. For a moment it looked like the Mets were finally going to get someone home after having left the bases full twice, but the home plate umpire ruled that the batter had run outside the base path and interfered with the throw. So instead two runs scoring, the Mets found themselves with two outs and only men at first and second. They would end the game with 13 runners stranded. (<a href='http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/mlb/gameday/index.jsp?gid=2012_08_01_nynmlb_sfnmlb_1&mode=recap&c_id=sf'>Full game summary</a> from the Giants web site)</p>
<p>By the seventh inning stretch, the fog had rolled in and in was a chilly 58, but the wind where we were sitting was not too bad and we had brought lots of layers. The game finished about 10:15 and we walked back to a crowded BART Station and road back to El Cerrito. We would have been home late but not too late had it not been for construction on I-80 the blocked traffic for several miles while every one merged from four lanes down to one. We made it home at 1:15 exhausted, but we had fun non the less.</p>Starting Again2012-08-03T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/2012/08/starting-again<p>It has been some time sense I blogged regularly. Part of that has been not having a platform that I liked. Another part was lack of energy. Well I’ve overcome both and now I’m going to try bloging again with a slightly different format then the last time.</p>
<p>One change is that I am using a static site generator called <a href='https://github.com/mojombo/jekyll/'>Jekyll</a> that will make it much easier to keep the site up and availible. It is still much more flexible then something like wordpress, and I intend to take advantage of Jekyll’s ability to work with formats other then blogs posts to create a some bit of a combination of a blog and a personal Wiki. This idea is borrow from Martin Fowler who publishes what he calles his <a href='http://martinfowler.com/intro.html'>bliki</a>.</p>
<p>That said, this site is still a chance to play around and I intend to amke changes and upgrades fairly often. I want to add comments. I also want to be able to write a post and have it published in the future. I find I get in a Blogging mood and will write three or four posts in a day, and then want to spread out the publication so everything doesn’t drop all at once. I have a number of my Sermons here but you have to go to the <a href='http://allsaintssacramento.org/page118.html'>All Saints website</a> to find them, so I need to index them. The layout is ok, but feels a little plain still. Fortunatly, Jekyll makes it easy to play around.</p>
<p>Hopefully this will be the start of a period of more consistand blogging. Thanks for reading.</p>Sermon: The Underdogs2012-06-24T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/Sermons/2012/06/proper7<hr /><p class='forward'>
This is the text of a sermon I gave at <a href='http://allsaintssacramento.org'>All Saints Episcopal Church, Sacramento</a>
on June 24, 2012. It is based on the readings from the Revised Common Lectionary
for <a href='http://www.lectionarypage.net/YearB_RCL/Pentecost/BProp7_RCL.html'>Proper 7, year B</a>.
Please see my <a href='/sermon-disclaimer.html'>standard sermon disclaimer</a>.
</p><hr />
<p>Let me take you to the movies for a moment. This morning’s feature is “The Bad News Bears” or maybe “Angles in the Outfield” or “Down Pariscope” or “Braveheart” or “Seabiscuit” maybe it is “To Kill a Mocking Bird” or “Gandi” “Lord of the Rings” or “Karati Kid” Ok, so I’m not sure which movie it is, But here we are in Act I.</p>
<p>Our main character is up against some type of opponent (is it the other team, a corrupt government, a disembodied eye? I can never tell) well whoever it is our guy has lost — badly, I mean it is clear that our side is completely inept.</p>
<p>But thats ok, because now we’re in Act II And rather then being defeated totally our heroes have been given a second chance Its a long shot, But something has given them hope we are off on a quest, — or is that an Ice Rink? — to find something that will help us win.</p>
<p>Alright now we’re starting act III and it looks like we might have what it takes to win, But they’ve got a ringer, a fleet of destroyers, the whole English army, a racest jury and <em>a cave troll</em>. Just as we start the last push an victory seems within our reach Our best player goes down, that noble betrays us, and the other kid dislocated our knee. Now in desperation we put everything we’ve got on the line and watch in wonder as in super-slow-motion as That scrawny kid closes his eyes, swings the bat and hits the magic ring into the flaming volcano where the torpedoes explode in a perfect kick to the head to win the Triple Crown!</p>
<p>All it took was a little <strong>Faith</strong>.</p>
<br />
<p>That was a great movie. People have been cheering for the underdog for a long time. At least sense 1000 BC when we get the story of David and Goliath David was in our movie somewhere, so were Paul and Moses and Isaiah Christ was in there too, and I’m not just talking about Mel Gibson’s version. We instinctively recognize the themes of an underdog script. But now we’ve left the theater, and back in the real world life doesn’t always follow the script.</p>
<p>Recently, I was riding my bike down the levy out here by Sutterville Road. I picked up a piece of glass in my back tire and ended up with a flat tire. That’s ok, because I carry a spare tube and the tools to change a flat with me. So I bull off into a shady spont by the trail and start changing the tube.</p>
<p>Next to me on the trail was a gentleman, obviously homeless, collecting recyclables out of the trash can. He looked at me and asked if I was a Christian.</p>
<p>Now, I have on a shirt with a great big green cross on it. I look down at my shirt for a moment, and decide that I probably ought to admit that, yes, I am indeed a Christian.</p>
<p>“I used to be a Chirstian,” he replied. “But, God never did anything for me. I’ve asked God to give me just one good day and I never get one. Not even one”</p>
<p>He proceded to tell me about his life. How he had spent a couple years in jail for driving a firends car, which it turned out had been stolen. About his son committing suiside at the age of 11. About how hard it was to sleep next to the river, and how much effor it took to collect 200 cans so he could by lunch at McDonalds.</p>
<p>We talked for a time, while I continued to get my bake back in good order and he continued to sort through out bottles and cans from the garbage. Both of us trying to understand what it meant to have faith in the face of continuing adversity.</p>
<p>I have spent this last week trying to understand what it means to have faith In a world where faith and 200 recycled bottles will get you a meal at McDonalds I wrestled with how to talk to you about the power of faith in a way that would make sense to my unlikely companion.</p>
<p>I have reached the conclusion that there are to tragic errors that we promulgate to people. The first is believing that faith in God means God will just fix all the problems. If you just believe in Jesus hard enough you win the boat, the car, the good job, and the big house. If you don’t have these things its because you didn’t really believe or you did something that “made God unhappy.” This is a poisonous idea that drives a lot of people who most need the a community of faith away from the truth</p>
<p>The other idea is the duel of the first: That somehow we by our own actions have gotten everything we deserve. We’re no longer the underdogs. Instead, we’ve become the antagonist who deserves to win because we’re bigger, faster, stronger, smarter What we have is a gift from God, and we forget that at our peril</p>
<p class='pullquote'>Faith is not about what you've got or what you lack.
Faith is about what you do with what you have.</p>
<p>The lesson of these stories is that faith is not about what you’ve got or what you lack. Faith is about what you do with what you have.</p>
<p>Faith is not about waiting for God to give you enough to do what you need to do. Faith is about doing enough with what God gives you.</p>
<br />
<p>If you are someone who has a lot, and after my conversation last week, I hope you’ll forgive me if I say that most of us fall into that category at least from the perspective of people living on the river collecting recyclablest to buy food. If you have a lot, then faith is about making sure that you are doing enough of what God wants you to do with it. As your Stewardship Chair, I can’t help but mention giving to the church. But I could just as easily ask if you are supporting our secular community; Or I could talk about charity and outreach to the poor; I could mention obligations to family to or to colleges at work.</p>
<p>We are a community that believes in God as reviled in Christ. We are told that we are each given gifts by God to serve Christ in each other.<br />If this is what we believe, if this is the God in whom we have faith, then we need to be asking ourselves and each other how we embody that faith in our actions.</p>
<p>Ok, but lets be honest with each other. I spend a lot more of my time feeling like Daniel then Mr. Miyagy It’s easy to talk about faith when you feel like you have everything you need. It is a lot harder when your looking at the whole English army and all you’ve got are a couple of guys in skirts.</p>
<p>Interestingly, while it is so much harder to have faith when we don’t feel we have what we need The message of faith — what it means to be faithful — is still the same: It is not about waiting for God to give you enough; It is about doing enough with what your given. And believing that because it is God’s gift to you that it will be enough.</p>
<p>I say this to you knowing that if it were me in the place of the man I met on the levy that I too would doubt it truth. I don’t know if I could believe if I had been through all that he had.</p>
<p>I think it is one of the most important thing faithful people do when we gather together. We come together to remember that God gave us enough and to encourage each other to do enough with what we have.</p>
<p>The reason we tell underdog stories, the reason they resonate with us, the reason they sell so many tickets at the box office is because they fill us with hope.</p>
<p>They resonate with the Christlike Spirit that burns in each of us. That Spirit that stands up and cheers to see someone finely find a way to make their gift work.</p>
<p>So I leave you with this thought: In your underdog movie script, what is it that you are going to find in yourself was there all along and how are you going to use that gift to make the audience of Saints both in heaven and on earth stand up and cheer?</p>
<hr /><div class='context'>
<h3>Behind the Scenes</h3>
<p>When I began composing this sermon, I tried very hard to just pick a single movie
or book for the opening, but I kept worrying that the work I had chosen was too
obscure, or that the themes would not all be clear enough. In the end I wrote a brief
outline of what I would need to say about each part of what everwork I settled on and
moved on to write the rest of the sermon.</p>
<p>When I got to the finished with the rest of the sermon, I went to google to look for
the perfect movie and came up with a long, long, **long** list of possibilities. It
finally struck me that I could actually make my point better by not sticking to any one
story, and instead connect them all. I must admit I had a lot of fun late Saturday evening
blending all the beats from my list of top movies into the opening of this sermon.</p>
</div>We Do Believe2012-02-12T00:00:00+00:00http://jfmjourney.com/Sermons/2012/02/evolution-sunday<hr /><p class='forward'>
This is the text of a sermon I gave at <a href='http://allsaintssacramento.org'>All Saints Episcopal Church, Sacramento</a>
on February 12, 2012 as part of Evolution Weekend.
Please see my <a href='/sermon-disclaimer.html'>standard sermon disclaimer</a>.
<br /><br />An <a href='/media/evolution_sunday.2012.mp3'>Audio Version</a> is also availible.
</p><hr />
<p>For those of you who missed the <a href='http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/11/4255443/sacramento-area-churches-participate.html'>article in the Bee</a><sup><a href='#endnote2'>[1]</a></sup> we will be observing Evolution Weekend today. Evolution Weekend is a project started by biologist Michael Zimmerman who felt that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith. - Michael Zimmerman<sup><a href='#endnote2'>[2]</a></sup></p>
</blockquote>
<p>We set aside one Sunday each year to talk about Faith and Science, and so I hope you will understand if I stray a little farther from today’s lections than I might otherwise.</p>
<br />
<p>Let’s begin by asking the question: How did we end up here? Why is it that we now feel we need to devote some point in our year to the idea that religion and science are compatible? When did the question even arise and why?</p>
<p>In the history of human endeavors, science - at least science as we now think of it -is a much more recent phenomenon than religion. Oh certainly, some of the activities we now associate with science: the cataloging of direct observation, the advancement of fine and technical art through repeated experimentation; these have existed as long as humans have been curious about the world around them. They have existed throughout history as a sort of descriptive form of science.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the ideas of analysis, deduction, prediction and reasoning out what the world ought to work like form core principles, these are all relatively new endeavors. Natural History became Biology; Alchemy became Chemistry; Astrology became Astronomy.</p>
<p>There are lots of ways you can date when this started to happen, but I as a Physicist point to a gentleman named René Descartes. Descartes was a Frenchman who lived in Holland most of his career. In 1637 he published a work call La Géométrie – On Geometry in which he connected the previously distinct disciplines of algebra and geometry; math and physics. This work spurred a whole host of innovations. A generation latter people like Isaac Newton would take his ideas and build calculus on them and from there build up what we know today as the “Laws<sup><a href='#endnote3'>[3]</a></sup>” of classical physics.</p>
<p>Now the interesting thing is that in 1644 – seven years latter – he also published another widely read work this time in philosophy called Principia Philosophiae which is perhaps his more famous work. Descartes, like most of the thinkers of his day was both a scientist and a philosopher. In this work he starts out<sup><a href='#endnote4'>[4]</a></sup> by questioning whether he can believe anything. Can anything be known to be true? He doubts everything, and the first thing he decides he cannot doubt is his own self – the famous line <em>Cogito ergo sum</em>; “I think, therefore I am.” He goes on from there to describe all the thing he sees, he hears, he touches and wonders if they can be real. He concludes that since God exists and since God is gracious and loving, that God would not let him be so deceived that the entire world of his perceptions should be fake. He concludes that by his faith in God he can trust that all the science he is doing is also valid and useful as well.</p>
<p>It is the power of rationalism - the power of the mind that is in vogue at this time. It is a real switch in theology. During medieval time, the world was a bad, cruel and disordered place where floods ruined crops, famine killed children and disease killed off one in every three people in Europe. Theologically the world was this chaotic, incomprehensible place and order and reason were the realm of the Holy and the Heavens. Starting with the Renaissance – with René Descartes and his contemporaries – philosophers begin to talk about an ordered world. God had created a world that runs mechanically and predictably, and it is in fact rational to believe in God. Theologians would now prove that God exists by showing just how ordered the world is and explaining that only an Intelligent Creator could have produced a world with such order. In fact, it would be irrational not to believe in God. This is known as “The Argument by Design” and it remained quite popular and is still heard today.</p>
<p>Now rationalist theology is kind of boring. And Christian Theologians were kind of looking at this, but they were really preoccupied with something called the Reformation. You’ll remember that we all started out – at least in the European sense – as part of the Roman Catholic Church and at this point in time, people like Martin Luther and John Calvin are looking at a corrupt Roman church and saying, no it is not the Church which is the foundation of our faith, it is the Bible – it is the inerrant scripture – it is the Word of God not some guy sitting in the southern part of Italy<sup><a href='#endnote5'>[5]</a></sup> that is the core of our faith and the foundation of Divine knowledge. And so we begin at this point to think about the Bible as much more central to faith. This is also the point in time when the printing press is really getting rolling.</p>
<p>Now jump forward a little bit to the gentleman whose name gets attached to the subject for today. Darwin published his work The Origin of Species in 1859. Like other scientific works, it was well reasoned, it was rational, but the problem was it contradicted the plain reading of the creation story at the beginning of Genesis. More than that, it threw into question whether humans really had a unique place in God’s creation. But, what really got every one upset was that it subverted this really wonderful proof that everyone had in which anything ordered had to have an intelligent designer. Darwin claimed that evolution by natural selection was a process that created an orderly variety of interrelated species without the need of some overarching intelligence. So in other words, the proof of God that everyone had been hanging their hat on for the last 200 years … well let’s say the rational humanists got a hold of this and just started shaking it!</p>
<p>Again Christian theologians aren’t so worried about this right at the time. They are preoccupied with what is going on over in Germany. You see German theologians along with others have been exploring the Holy Land and the near east, and they have come up will all these ancient texts from Mesopotamia, and Assyria and Babylon, and they are starting to analyze them, and they begin to analyze them to the Bible in the same way. It is referred to as “Higher Criticism,” asking questions like who wrote these things and why? So, skip Darwin and a few questions about one chapter of Genesis; here were people questioning whether Moses actually wrote that book or any other book in the Bible. Or worse whether he actually led an Exodus out of Egypt; or saying that Isaiah is actually three different people; or that Paul didn’t write Romans; or that David wrote only a handful of the 150 psalms. It was a really devastating criticism of the Bible that had become so important as the new foundation of faith.</p>
<p>And so in 1915 here in the U.S. a group of Christian ministers got together and published a “pamphlet,” actually a 12 volume work called The Fundamentals. It laid out just exactly what you had to believe to be a Christian – in excruciating detail. If you want to know more, we are having a forum on the history of Christianity in America, which just happens to be covering this period in history, but for now let’s just say that it asserted the literal truth of scripture with all the traditional authorship and interpretation arguing against both higher criticism and modern science.</p>
<p>Science none-the-less continued to advance. In 1929 Edwin Hubble looked through his telescope held up a diffraction grating and discovered the further away a star was from us, the faster it was moving away from us. This led him to conclude that the universe was expanding, and it wasn’t long before other astronomers ran the movie backwards and concluded that at one point everything must have started out in one place. Thus we get big bang cosmology – modern cosmology, which I must admit is still a younger science than is evolution. In 1953 Watson & Crick discovered structure of DNA; set of what is still just the beginning of the genetic revolution in motion; and gave us the mechanism for evolution. One that allowed for a far more detailed analysis of ancestry and the process by which species came to be.</p>
<p>So we come to today and we have people asking, “Is it possible to be a faithful Christian without denying the obvious truth of modern science?”</p>
<p>Clearly it must be, we’re all here.</p>
<p>And yet when we make that statement, fundamentalists like the Ken Ham, founder of the Creation Museum, who was quoted in yesterday’s Sacramento Bee article say to us, “If you are a Christian and you believe in evolution, then you are undermining biblical authority.”</p>
<p>We know that biblical authority does not flow from a literalist, elementary school reading of Scripture but from a community of believers faithfully interpreting the living Word of God with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is after all unrealistic to think that God, even had he been inclined to do so, could have explained – for example – cosmology to Moses. Imagine if the Book of Genesis began:</p>
<p>Construct the Stress-Energy Tensor (<strong>T</strong>) of order 4 for the system of an infinite point mass located at the origin by implicit solution of the Continuity equality: Zero equals the covariant derivative with respect to <em>nu</em> for <strong>T</strong> <em>mu nu</em> plus <strong>T</strong> <em>sigma nu</em> applied to the Christoffel transformer for <em>mu</em> over <em>sigma nu</em> plus <strong>T</strong> <em>mu sigma</em> applied to the Christoffel transformer for <em>nu</em> over <em>sigma nu</em> at a time t = 0.<sup><a href='#endnote6'>[6]</a></sup></p>
<p>I think we are all happier with “Let there be Light”</p>
<p>As far back as 205 AD the Christian Theologian Origen found that there were, “certain passages of scripture which have no [literal] sense at all.” <sup><a href='#endnote7'>[7]</a></sup></p>
<p>“But,” say our critics, “if some of the Bible is untrue how can we trust any of it?”</p>
<p>Origen’s answer and the answer for 1800 years and more of Christian tradition is that scripture which is spiritually inspired has spiritual truth. As Origen put it, scripture has a “soul” and that goes beyond the plain meaning of the words to get at deeper truths.</p>
<p>A lot of you recently told me about going to see <em>The King’s Speech</em>. I hope that you are at least familiar with basic plot of the movie about King George VI overcoming a studdering problem. Now, this is a true story, based on actual events, but I ask you, Would you site it in a research paper about the history of the Monarchy during WWII? Might there be some parts that the screen writer had to condense to make it fit into the the running time of a feature film? Or parts that had to be elaborated or made up because even with unprecedented access to the royal family, there is simply no way of knowing what went on in some of these private meetings. I am sure that there are historians out there who watched The King’s Speech and went, “eh, this is completely untrue. We have documented evidence that Winston Churchill was never at such-and-such an event” – or what have you.</p>
<p>So, since some of the movie is clearly fabricated, and other parts are proven to be historically inaccurate it just ruins the whole movie right? I mean there is no point in looking for the message of triumph over adversity or the value of dedication over destiny. Clearly this movie has no more value than Snakes on a Plane.</p>
<p>(Pause here for laughter and to turn the page)</p>
<p>I’m sensing some disagreement here.</p>
<p>In fact, I would argue that the opposite is true. Without all the dry details that a historian’s paper would need to contain, we are more readily able to grasp the meaning of the historical events. At a personal and emotional level, we can more clearly find the truth at the “soul” of this film.</p>
<p>It is the same with the Bible. The Bible has a soul – has a message, and that message need not be obscured by needing to be literally true. Rivers don’t clap their hand, hearts don’t have eyes and yet the psalmist clearly communicates a message far deeper than a lesson on fluid dynamics or human biology.</p>
<br />
<p>So often it is thrown in our faces what is not true, what is inadequate or inaccurate; what we don’t believe.</p>
<p>It is not about what we don’t believe, but what we <em>do</em> believe.</p>
<p>We do believe – In Scripture inspired by God and overflowing with the Good News of God’s Love, not limited by the failings of ancient knowledge nor by the dusty ghosts of primordial history, but alive with hope and justice, with righteousness and grace. It is the foundation of our hope in Salvation.</p>
<p>We do believe – In a universe created by God to grow and evolve and in humanity who in the image of God: creates, explores, reasons and who grows in wisdom and understanding as well as in faith and holiness</p>
<p>We do believe – In a triune God at once both mysterious and intimate who is found in both beauty and reason who speaks both through the prophets and through our hearts who opens our eyes to see the truth with in the words of scripture who is present wherever two or three are gathered and who guides both those who study and who pray.</p>
<p>We do believe – and our faith is strong strong enough not to fear questions or suppress doubt strong enough to not just allow but to encourage science and discovery strong enough even to welcome our brothers and sisters whose faith still trembles in the shadows of unquestionable and unquestioned dogma.</p>
<p>We do believe – and we need not hide our belief for fear that it is ungodly or unreasonable We instead proclaim with humble certainty the glory of God which pervades every jot and tittle; every star and atom we live in the knowledge and love of God our heavenly Father free to bare witness to the Truth.</p>
<p>Amen.</p>
<hr /><div class='endnotes'>
<p id='endnote1'>1. “Sacramento-area churches participate in Evolution Weekend” <em>The Sacramento Bee</em>, Feb 11, 2012. http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/11/4255443/sacramento-area-churches-participate.html</p>
<p id='endnote2'>2. “Background” The Clergy Letter Project, accessed Feb. 10, 2012. http://www.theclergyletterproject.org/Backgd_info.htm .</p>
<p id='endnote3'>3. There has been much made in popular culture of the difference between a “law” and a “theory.” In spite what you may have been taught in school, the difference is merely linguistic and represents the hubris of early scientists who believed that they were discovering God’s infallible rules for the universe. Anything called a “law” in classical physics has been proven <em>wrong</em> by either the theory General Relativity or the theory of Quantum Mechanics.</p>
<p id='endnote4'>4. This is actually the beginning of the section “Mediations on First Philosophy” I cut a lot of detail in order to stay as close to the point as possible.</p>
<p id='endnote5'>5. The concept of “Italy” as a modern nation-state is of course not historically accurate, but the point is more easily made with to a modern audience’s knowledge of world geography to elide over this fact.</p>
<p id='endnote6'>6. This is the beginning of the derivation of an expanding universe using Einstein’s notation for general relativity typed out as it might need to be spoken. In reality, this is the first relatively simple equation of a much longer proof. In the end it was more than enough to stop at the colon to get the point across.</p>
<p id='endnote7'>7. “Origen: The Threefold Sense of Scripture” <em>Readings in Christian Theology</em>. P. Hodgson and R. King. p33. His actual word was “bodily” and comes form an extended metaphor where scripture, like people, has body, soul and spirit. This was cut for length, and in order to make the relevant quote work without explaining the metaphor I changed this word.</p>
</div>