Louisville heat-related deaths to grow ten-fold in future decades

From James Bruggers at the C-J...

As many as 19,000 Louisville residents will die of heat-related causes by the end of the century — topping 40 large American cities, according to a new environmental report.

It's good to see Louisville #1 in something, I guess.

The report by the Natural Resources Defense Council environmental group estimates that 39 Louisville residents die per year from problems caused by the heat. That number, it says, will increase to 257 per year by roughly 2050 and 376 per year by the end of the century.

Really...wow! That's quite an increase. Ten-fold growth by the end of the century!

Based on computer modeling, the study assumes government leaders do nothing to stop rising temperatures that many scientists blame on greenhouse gas emissions...
 

--> OK, they're assuming (rapidly) rising temperatures and that govt can/will do nothing to stop it. 

--> What else are they assuming? Obama-like economic policies that stagnate or sack the economy (vs. growing incomes and improved technology to deal with heat). No changes in response to heat by Louisville's population. The Earth will still be around, despite massive global warming.

science, reductionism, and order

From Stephen Barr in First Things...

Since the time of Newton, science has advanced by a strategy rightly called “reductionism.” This method, which explains things by analyzing them into smaller and simpler parts, has yielded a rich harvest of discoveries about the natural world. As a means of analysis, then, reductionism has certainly proven its value. But many wonder whether science is reductive in a more radical and disturbing way—by flattening, collapsing, and trivializing the world....

This tendency to downgrade and diminish reflects a metaphysical prejudice that equates explanatory reduction with a grim slide down the ladder of being. Powerful explanatory schemes reveal things to be simpler than they appear. What simpler means in science is much discussed among philosophers—it is not at all a simple question. But to many materialists it seems to mean lower, cruder, and more trivial. By this way of thinking, the further we push toward a more basic understanding of things, the more we are immersed in meaningless, brutish bits of matter....

At first glance, the history of the cosmos seems to bear this out. Early on, the universe was filled with nearly featureless gas and dust, which eventually condensed to form galaxies, stars, and planets. In stars and supernovas, the simplest elements, hydrogen and helium, fused to make heavier ones, gradually building up the whole periodic table. In some primordial soup, or slime, or ooze on the early earth, atoms agglomerated into larger and more intricate molecules until self-replicating ones appeared and life began. From one-celled organisms, ever more complicated living things evolved, until sensation and thought appeared. In cosmic evolution the arrow apparently moves from chaos to order, formlessness to form, triviality to complexity, and matter to mind.

And that is why, according to philosopher Daniel Dennett, religion has it exactly upside down. Believers think that God reached down to bring order and create, whereas in reality the world was built—or rather built itself—from the ground up. In Dennett’s metaphor, the world was constructed not by “skyhooks” reaching down from the heavens but by “cranes” supported by, and reaching up from, the solid ground.

The history to which the atheist points—of matter self-organizing and physical structures growing in complexity—is correct as far as it goes, but it is only part of the story. The lessons the atheist draws are naive. Yes, the world we experience is the result of processes that move upward. But Dennett and others overlook the hidden forces and principles that govern those processes. In short, they are not true reductionists because they don’t go all the way down to the most basic explanations of reality.

As we turn to the fundamental principles of physics, we discover that order does not really emerge from chaos, as we might naively assume; it always emerges from greater and more impressive order already present at a deeper level. It turns out that things are not more coarse or crude or unformed as one goes down into the foundations of the physical world but more subtle, sophisticated, and intricate the deeper one goes.

Barr moves to a "simple but instructive example of how order can appear to emerge spontaneously from mere chaos through the operation of natural forces": a large number of identical marbles rolling around randomly in a shoe box, but then the box is tilted vs. a typical teenager’s bedroom that is tilted by a huge jack

Ehrenreich on political and economic markets that harm the poor

From Barbara Ehrenreich in the C-J...

Individually, the poor are not all that tempting to thieves. Mug a banker and you might score a wallet containing a month’s rent. Mug a janitor and you’ll be lucky to get bus fare to flee the crime scene. But the poor in aggregate provide a juicy target for anyone depraved enough to make a business of stealing from them.

Great point. Markets will arise to engage in trade with groups of people. In relatively rare cases, consumers will be relatively vulnerable to significant fraud or coercion within markets. In debatable cases, consumers may be "irrational" and could potentially be protected from their own bad decisions.

The trick, however, is to rob them in ways that are systematic, impersonal and almost impossible to trace to individual perpetrators.
 

Again, this could happen in markets. It certainly happens in govt policy all the time-- as govt works to help special interest groups and imposes subtle costs on the general public, often disproportionately on the poor. 

Ehrenreich criticizes lenders in the high-risk / high rate-of-return niche of credit markets. The market seems quite competitive, but perhaps the consumers are morons. I'd like to extend a lot more dignity to poor people than Ehrenreich, but maybe she's right. 

She critiques employers who "enrich themselves...by taking money from their employees...requiring employees to work hours for which they’re not paid, failing to pay minimum wage and refusing to honor overtime pay differentials." This is an interesting critique, since it hits all workers-- and again, she's implicitly assuming few options for the working poor and/or their irrationality. Maybe the poor are hit harder by this, but why do they stand for it?

Ehrenreich points to local govts and the imposition of fines and fees on defendants-- for drivers license problems, polluting with cigarette butts, modest amounts of pot, putting your feet on a subway seat, etc. 

She wraps up with this: "Before we can 'do something' for the poor, there are some things we need to stop doing to them." I've written a book and a half on this-- as well as numerous articles and blog posts. I couldn't agree with her more. Unfortunately, she advocates many policies that hammer the poor. 

nepotism with felonies isn't as bad as a lame joke for which one apologizes

LEO follows in the footsteps of the C-J (LOL!) with twisted preferences on Rand Paul's bad attempt at a joke (for which he has apologized) vs. Barbara Shanklin firing her grandson. (LEO pointed out that this was his 3rd arrest since being hired and 31st in a decade.)

LEO rated the former as -8 (on a scale of -10 to 10), but the latter as only a -3.

The C-J'ers gave Grover Norquist's mere appearance in a movie a "down arrow", along with Paul's joke. And they gave Shanklin an up arrow.

If the C-J editorialists keep any of their crack pipes at work, maybe the police will find one and use asset forfeiture laws to take the paper away from its owners!

Only a partisan hack or a statist could imagine a world in this way.

how should the Church handle so-called "same-sex marriage" vs. divorce?

In response to this video (h/t: SJ)
http://m.crosswalk.com/video/why-marriage-defined-only-between-a-man-and-woman.html


A few thoughts:
-God defined it that way, as she notes, "in the beginning".
-God continues to define it that way, as an ideal.
-But in a fallen world, God allowed all sorts of things with respect to marriage-- most notably, "levirate marriage", where polygamy was often commanded.
-So-called "same-sex marriage" is more of a violation of Webster's Dictionary.


Two big "policy" questions:
-What should missionaries do when people come to Christ in a polygamous culture?
-Given Kassian's argument, why haven't believers and the Church said more about the institution and practice of divorce in the last few decades, which causes far, far more damage-- both in its frequency and its damage to children?


I Corinthians 5:9-13 indicates that sin in the church is worse than sin in the world. Matthew 18:6 indicates that two adults messing with children is worse than two adults messing with each other. Justice indicates that people forcefully messing with others is worse than people engaging in mutually agreeable but sinful activities. 

I heard a Sunday School lesson on Luke 15 (a few weeks ago at WRBC) that got me thinking about how we deal with sin differently when it relates to "the other". Part of the genius of Lk 15's trio is getting us to think about "sinners" as lost, valuable and personal. Generalizing about the (theologically conservative) Church's response to divorce, abortion, and homosexuality: Seeking to balance grace and truth, perhaps we handle D better than A better than H, since we're more likely to know someone who has D more than A more than H. 

Which is less consistent with the heart of Jesus: people making less-than-ideal commitments-- or breaking an ideal commitment, backed by an oath to God and promises to others which does harm to the institution of the commitment and often does great harm to children?

please pray for Jason Oller

Please pray for Jason Oller in Louisville, KY...

Pray that God would do what it takes to reach him.

Noah's drunken nakedness and the aftermath

Intro to an oft-overlooked story: brief, ugly, and not understood in its context

--> given the post-Flood law/covenant to Noah, see: Kass (197) on “the founding of civil society, based on rudimentary but explicit notions of law and justice, rooted in the idea that all human beings are created equally in God’s image. Humankind now faces a new prospect, founded on the hope for an enduring human future protected against natural cataclysm, thanks to God’s covenant—and the hope for a peaceful social order protected against the violence of other men, thanks to the Noahide code.”

-so, the story is both domestic and political/social: Will the new order succeed? Is this law and covenant sufficient?

9:18-19

-19b's “scattered” descendants: alludes to flood and foreshadows events to follow (Ch 10's genealogy, Ch. 11's Babel)

--> Kass (201): looking forward “to a time in which the whole earth will be overspread not with water, but with people”

-18-19a's reintroduction to Shem, Japheth and esp. Ham as Noah’s three sons

            -as an aside, 2^nd mention of Ham as Canaan’s father (more later)

            -Ham’s name means hot/warm—from a verb meaning “to inflame oneself”

-Shem’s name means “name”—a word used often prior to this; a key to the Babel story; and eventually how he will earn his “name” through his lineage to Abraham

--> Noah's sons and male ark companions—or in particular, our first [prototypical] (parent) father and son(s) story

-in context, the timing is not surprising: post-Law/Covenant, the ability of Noah (or not) to pass this on to his sons—the next generation, tradition

-from Noah’s personal piety to passing along law’s righteousness, covenant’s implied holiness, and most broadly, looking up to God

-Kass (197): “depends decisively on paternal authority and filial piety”

-vs. neither (a mess—individually, and if widescale, socially)

-vs. one or the other (exceptions)

-or hopefully both—see also: mom (!), but the importance of fathers AND the need for fathers to be exhorted (vs. sin of Adam’s silence, seeking esteem outside the home, etc.; Eph 6:4, Col 3:21)

-Kass (199): “because [the father] is capable of inspiring awe as well as security, shame as well as orderliness, distance as well as nearness, emulation as well as confidence, fear as well as hope, [he] is able to do the fatherly work of preparing boys for moral manhood, including, eventually, their own fatherhood.”

-can certainly be abused; difficult to balance encouragement and discipline

--> two clues that something might be unusual here

-8:16’s command vs. 8:18’s different order (followed 6:18’s command on how to enter—the old world’s model!)

-Kass (202): “Noah, a new man rescued from the Heroic Age, nevertheless apparently still holds to a heroic model of family structure: it is only the men who count.” (!)

-see also: little mention of women (Noah’s wife’s name?) until their vital role with the patriarchs

-here, not listed in order; not Biblically unusual to have two siblings reversed, but here…

-Shem as middle son (given 5:32, 7:11, 11:10)—model son, and thus, always mentioned first; virtue trumps birth order

-Ham youngest (9:24)—central character, mentioned in the middle here

9:20-21

-20's vineyard (Ps 104:15, Pr 31:6-7, Dt 14:26, etc. for drink OK)

-follows Cain into agriculture

-moves into wine: here, portrayed as man’s invention vs. divine gift (as in pagan myths)—and thus, a mixed bag

-21's drunk and naked (19:30-35’s Lot with daughters; Pr 23:35)

-a one-time slip or a recurring problem?

-former as not knowing wine’s potence or a mistake / too far

-latter as “PFSD” (post-Flood stress disorder)?! Pre-Flood, flood, seeing desolate landscape littered with animal and human corpses; overwhelmed with his responsibilities

-perhaps related to more idle time for all of them!

-either way, robs him of (some of) his dignity and authority

-Noah's account parallels Adam's account (cont'd)

-20's vineyard vs. God's garden in 2:8

-21’s sin from the fruit of the vine/tree

-21's nakedness of degradation vs. 2:25 for Adam's innocence and 3:_’s recognition of guilt

-Adam sought cover for his shame; Noah not even conscious of his

-in both cases, a pivotal event/revelation

9:22-23’s sons’ responses

-22's Ham sees—and then, tells brothers

-again identified as "father of Canaan" (9:18), foreshadowing…

-first may have been accidental^[1] (although what was he doing in his dad’s tent?); second as purposeful

-both as a breach of family/cultural ethic (see: 24's “done to him")

-vs. Cain: am I my father’s keeper?

-Kass (208): “What sort of human being is Ham? What sort of person delights in rebelling against…law and authority?...Most often, he is the would-be tyrant, a man who seeks self-sufficiency.”^[2]

-see also: his grandson Nimrod in 10:8-12

      -a form of patricide (a la Mt 5)

--> had enough faith/respect to get on the ark, but not enough to respect his father here (had Noah gone downhill?)

            --> big picture: Ham implicitly rejects the new law/covenant

--> w app. to how we handle others who have shamed themselves

-see: pop culture and talking about or even delighting in others falling

-public vs. private, mostly hurting self vs. others (drunk in house vs. driving or with grandchildren around)

-23's Japheth and Shem

-surely shocked to hear of the event—or at least, Ham’s account of it

-again, one-time or repetitive? in the past, had probably seen their father as courageous and authoritative (righteous; building/on the ark)

      --> what to do?

-where’s Noah’s wife?

-go and see; disbelieve; ignore/wait or proactive benevolence...

-confront Ham (nothing recorded)

-didn’t look—and covered Noah

-an act of grace (vs. mercy's just don't look—and wait ‘til he wakes up)

-Kass (209): “We readers are touched by this display of loyalty and filial piety…the perfect way they found delicately to correct the problem without participating in it…but they cannot erase the memory of their deed or of what made it necessary for them to perform it.” (and probably made things weird with Dad, from here forward)

-as God covers our shame/nakedness

-again underlines advantage of ears vs. eyes: once you see, it’s burned in your memory; if you hear, you may dismiss it as hearsay

-an interesting reference, again, to (appropriate) “knowledge”

--> big picture: both embrace authority and law/covenant

--> sobering: Cain/Abel’s first sibling story—rivalry; here, first parental story—Dad stumbles, struggles to pass on law/covenant and some conflict

-Kass (198): “fundamental and troublesome aspects of the natural relationship between father and sons…not how things ought to be but rather how they are, absent some additional, corrective teaching [or other intervention]”

9:24-29’s Noah’s response

-28-29’s Noah’s death/age

--> Kass (210) quips: “Noah does not take his shame lying down.”—before observing “for the first time in the biblical narrative, we hear Noah speak…Noah’s anger is surely expected, as rage is the usual response to being shamed.”

-anger seems to stir Noah to rare words (and perhaps action—at least, in dealing with his sons)

--> how did Noah know who did what? some combo of 24’s asked around and reasonable inferences given what he knew of his sons’ character

-25's “curse” for (Ham's son) Canaan and his descendants (fulfilled w/ Gen 14:4; Josh 9:27's Gibeonites, Judg 1, I Kings 9:20-21, etc.)

-“curse” communicates severity of the offense (Gal 1:8-9)

-curses and blessings as analogous to prayer (see: Psalms): supernatural petition—or at the least, what one hopes/wishes for another

-Kass (212): “exercising what he takes to be the magical potency of imprecatory speech, he summons the powers that be to exact vengeance upon Ham by punishing his son (and descendants)”

--> did Noah over-react (kicking the dog and continuing his sin)? why curse Canaan vs. Ham?

-presumably, in context, the last straw

-fitting:

-breach in father's family --> curse on son's family

-Ham sought to be free from parental authority and will be held responsible by his own son

      -as Ham had responded to Noah, so Canaan would respond to Ham

-25, 27’s slavery appropriate—might/right follows naturally without law/authority (what ch. 9’s law/covenant was trying to prevent and what Ham is militating against)

-probably more painful for Ham: for most fathers, worse that a child bears a cost

--> but is it fair/just?

-things don’t turn out too well for Canaan’s descendants

-curses/blessings somehow effective at times within the divine economy, but not in a deterministic sense (see: 26, 27’s “may”)

-Canaan not punished for father's sins (Ez 18:2-4, incl. grapes/wine reference!); instead...

-God’s pre-destination and foreknowledge: a nation He knew would be wicked (vs. their future being actively cursed)

-Ham's nature would be transmitted to his descendants—the practicality of the sins of the fathers

-life as communal/relational vs. individual

-do we count the blessings of family/generations as unfair?

-whatever the justice, it’s almost inevitable that there will be some curse/blessing from one generation to the next (what kind of son would Ham likely raise?)

--> practically, Noah as prophesying more than causing or wishing

--> some of Ham's sons settled Africa, BUT unfortunately this verse has been used incorrectly to argue for the enslavement of blacks

1.) would contradict NT teaching

2.) Canaan didn't settle in Africa

3.) Canaanites were Caucasian

-see also: Moses’ Cushite wife (and God’s defense of their marriage—Num 12:1,9-12) and interracial marriage

9:26-27

-26's indirect blessing for Shem (through God); 27's direct blessing for Japheth

-Shem as father of Shemites/Semites—Jews

-Noah seems to attribute greater righteousness to Shem

-Japheth as father of non-Arab/European Gentiles

-lived on friendly terms with each other

-“tents”: Gentiles share in and sheltered by Jewish people / God’s blessing

-in inheritance terms, Shem receives priesthood/birthright, Japheth receives double blessing (27's "extend territory")^[3]

--> Kass argues that Noah’s three sons represent tyrannical man, noble/decent man, and pious man

--> interesting that first post-Flood speech (Noah’s last recorded deed) is meant to divide

-this is Noah’s division not God’s (although God might concur)

-God had divided Noah & Co. from the unrighteous (pre-Flood) and his next division will be with Abraham

--> why this story?

-as the Bible depicts (most) others “heroes of the faith”—with warts (w/ app.)

-sets up choice of Semites as the people with whom God would choose to work with more explicitly

-after the flood, evil reappears in a "godly man"—not a good sign!

      -continuing to point toward the OC—and eventually, the NC

--> what happened to Noah?

-starts off so strong (6:9’s character accolades), an amazing task, but a rough finish

      -3 big actions—builds ark (good), offers sacrifice (mixed), gets drunk (ugly)

--> bad ending or something larger? “the silence of Noah” (as Adam)…

-nothing recorded except (8:22,24 and) post-drunk curse/blessing

-Rabbi Jonathan Sacks (45-47) points back to the flood narrative and is pretty rough on Noah

-what does Noah say to God when it’s time to build the ark and save his family? silent obedience—but maybe obedience is not enough…

-what did Noah say to those around him? unknown, except Heb 11:7’s “by his faith he condemned the world” (how much of that was spoken?)

-the biggie: no intervention with God on behalf of those to be destroyed

--> “God seeks from us something other and greater than obedience, namely responsibility...the hero of faith was not Noah but Abraham”—fought a war for his nephew and prayed for the people of the plain, even challenging God: “What might an Abraham have said when confronted with the possibility of a flood?...Abraham might have saved the world. Noah saved only himself and his family. Abraham might have failed, but Noah—at least on the evidence of the text—did not even try…Noah’s end—drunk, disheveled, an embarrassment to his children—eloquently tells us that if you save yourself while doing nothing to save the world, you do not even save yourself…”

-Soloveitchik draws an analogy here between Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler (p. 13-14)

--> Sacks notes that Noah walked “with God” (6:9) while Abraham walked “before God” (17:1)^[4]

---

^[1] Later, the phrase “uncover the nakedness of” became a euphemism for “have sexual relations with”, but there is no sense of that context here. Kass (212-213) wonders whether its repeated use in Lev 18—with child sacrifice in the middle of a long list of sexual prohibitions—is a reference to Noah/Ham here. It’s also interesting that the Canaanites would struggle with sexual perversions.

^[2] Kass also wrestles with the philosopher as antinomian. Here, Ham’s deed would be a function of curiosity, willing to look at/into anything. Ultimately, given that he also “tells”, Kass seems this as more tyrannical.

^[3] 10:21’s Japheth as prob. older brother of Shem (but NIV text note). Judah/Joseph parallel would argue for Shem as oldest, but favoring oldest would be atypical in God’s economy.

^[4] Sacks also points to the pace of the narrative: very quick until the waters recede; would expect Noah to emerge, but little action for 14 verses (ch. 8’s birds sent out); and then, he does not come out until commanded by God (good news earlier; other side of the coin here). Sacks concludes “It takes courage to rebuild a shattered world…When it comes to rebuilding the ruins of catastrophe, you do not wait for permission. You take the risk and walk ahead. Faith is more than obedience. It is the courage to create.”

my notes for The Story, chapter 10-- I Samuel 1-15

The first thing I ever studied in the Bible-- since my fellow studier's daughter's name was Hannah!

Glad I studied it then-- and since-- since it's overlooked, to focus on David. Aside from the poignant beginning with Hannah, you have the famous passage with Samuel as a youngster, one of the funniest passages in Scripture (I Sam 5-- not in The Story), the huge passage on govt (I Sam 8-- oh, if Christians and others heeded these warnings today!). Also overlooked, Saul gets off to a strong start, before fading and engaging in three huge sins in the Christian life: legalism, compromise, and poor timing.

I Samuel 1-15

Intro: period of the judges; Samuel: the last judge, providing segue from judges to kings; served as a prophet (3:20), priest (9:12-13, 13:8-13) and a judge (7:15-17)

1:1-8 (skim)

-introduced to Elkanah, Peninnah/Hannah w/ & w/o child

-Hebrew’s posterity continued by having a son; else—curse from God (Dt 7:12-14)

à despite that, he did all he could to encourage and love Hannah, giving choice share to her at Feasts as a token of his love

-despite her barrenness, as Christ loves the church (Eph 5:25)

-giving greatest support to the weak and afflicted

-6-7 for Peninnah's rivalry with Hannah, esp. at sacrifices

-when Elkanah showed Hannah the most love

-when she should have left well-enough alone; interfering with her worship

-should have helped bear Hannah's burdens instead of adding to them

-8's Elkanah and Hannah revisited: "isn't my love worth ten sons?"

-"typical male response" here

-her wise (or least confrontational?) response: no answer...

1:9-20’s Hannah Dealing w/ her Problem (skim)

-troubled, burdened, mournful

-9's "they ate" vs. 7's "she couldn't": sorrow too large, kept her from feasting; eating of Holy Things

-HOWEVER...did not fight Peninnah or nag Elkanah

-in grief and trouble, prayed-- went before God; commits hypothetical son to God

-11’s prayer for a single child (vs. Rebekah’s demandingness), but wanted a boy (for a legacy and a gift to God in service)

-Eli messes up initially, but recovers/repents and his encouragement to Hannah pays off

-in terms of food: cheered her up enough

-she goes to God in prayer, casting her burdens upon God

1:21-2:2’s early years and worship—“Hannah's Song" (skim)

-see: “Mary's Song" (Lk 1:46-55)

-God's strength, holiness, knowledge, discernment, sovereignty

-1’s Giver vs. gift to heap praise: "My heart rejoices in the Lord"

-might expect "child", but instead, God who answered her prayers

Elkanah's family

-generally faithful to God and his commands in the face of overall decline of religion among the people and specific problems with Eli's sons

-still constant attendance to feasts and yearly sacrifice

-not tied to other people or leaders in the church-- focus on God/Christ

-but wives had struggled—w/ reason to be happy (for P, children vs. for H, more love)

-P couldn’t bear the blessings of fruitfulness; H, the affliction of barrenness

-Elkanah's problem: 2 wives

-may have married Peninnah to get kids, which actually indirectly turned out to be the cause of his later troubles (see: Abraham/Sarah/Hagar)

-Hannah's care for her child—2:19’s clothes

-how tough it would be to send one's child to Eli, someone who had failed as a father

-easier w/ God's answer to her earlier prayer

-in both points, see also: Abraham's near-sacrifice

3:1-5 (read)

-1’s “rare”—why? God not speaking or them not listening (in context, given their unrepentant sin; Jas 1:5-8)

-2's blindness x2

-took Eli 3x to recognize God's hand

à a devoted boy called in a dramatic way to a difficult task

-w/ app. to sometimes the call comes at a very young age

3:16-18's message delivered (read)

-Eli's careful but insistent inquiry, dealing with it

-wanting to know what God said although he knew it was likely to be something bad about his life

-accepted God's verdict gracefully from Samuel; no complaints (as opposed to Cain and Aaron in Lev 10:3)

-Eli used despite inadequacies

-Samuel: every whit/detail --> no punches pulled (see also: evangelism, ministry)

4:1-3’s ark (read)

-contained the 10 commandments, as a symbol of God's support/presence

-supposed to be kept in the Most Holy Place-- a sacred part of the Tabernacle that only the High Priest could enter once a year (see: Heb 9:6-7, Lk 23:45)

-here, desecrated; wrongheadedness ratified by Eli's sons (4:4)

-confused about God's actual support/presence (as a function of obedience)

-ex) Raiders of the Lost Ark

-role of rituals; externals/internals (II Tim 3:5)

-making the Ark into an idol

-the Ark's inherent power vs. Israelites trying to coerce God to do their will by bringing the Ark along --> "bringing" God to them vs. going to God

-Lincoln's response to "God on our side?" --> "Us on God's side?"

-see also: worshipping God as we want him to be vs. how he actually is

-I Samuel occurs soon after Samson defeated the Philistines

-again confusing one man's godly act w/ general support for contemporary Israel, as Samson's example inspires them

8:1-5 (read)

-fast-forwarding about 20 years, things had gone well under Samuel, but his kids were a mess

-Samuel’s lasting legacy, but perversely/ironically, through his children’s lack of character (and what follows); a Biblical theme, but why did Samuel struggle?

-didn’t have positive role model (following Eli’s passivity); battling a corrupt culture/church; not enough time for his sons (Samuel as prophet, priest and judge—last time for that combo!)

-see also: Eli and his sons --> why wasn't Samuel punished like Eli?

-not as corrupt/bad

-Samuel not as responsible for how they turned out

-parent/child correlated, but not perfectly (see: children of alcoholics—both abstainers and abusers who cite parents)

-4-5’s (stated) reasons for wanting a king: Samuel growing old and his sons were corrupt; to be like the other nations (see also: 19-20’s wanting "a king to fight our battles"?!)

A. Striving to be average; peer pressure

-GCM's "Their glory and their power had consisted in their unlikeness to the nations in this very fact."

B. Focusing on Externals (again, as with the Ark in 4:3)

-king as a symbol of power, fulfilling role as head of state (pomp)        

-"thinking that a new govt would bring about a change in the nation"

-bottom line: disobedience of the people

C. Concern for "Security"

-forgetting what the Lord has done for them 8’s "as they have done from the day I brought them up from Egypt"

-threatened by Philistines to the west and by Ammonites to the east (12:12); looking for security in a human king; rejecting God's leadership

D. an early version of faith in government vs. God

-the use of govt to reach economic and social goals; see also: our pursuit of security, solutions and sustenance thru govt

-implicit and explicit; implicit: looking to govt to solve problems vs. explicit: current examples and past quotes from Ch. 16 (next page)

--> today, political and spiritual revival-- away from human govt and "self"

Around the turn of the century, worship of the State by Christian leaders was at an appalling level. Olasky quotes the Canon of Canterbury, William Fremantle, concerning government: "(it) calls forth a worship more complete than any other..." and only government "can embrace all the wants of its members and afford them the universal instruction and elevation which they need." As Olasky continues, he notes that "the worship of power had rarely been stated so explicitly by a church leader" before quoting Fremantle a final time: "when we think of the Nation as becoming, as it must do more and more, the object of mental regard, of admiration, of love, even of worship (for in it God preeminently dwells), we shall recognize to the fullest extent its religious character and functions."

Mrs. G. Harris Robertson, one of the leading proponents of welfare in the early 20th century, exhibited tremendous faith in government: "the state is a parent, and, as a wise and gentle and kind and loving parent, should beam down on each child alike." And describing the supposed merits of socialism, she claimed that "every step we make toward establishing these lines (socialism) means an advance toward the Kingdom of Peace."

Pope Paul VI said of government: it "always intervenes with careful justice and with devotion to the common good for which it holds final responsibility." His policy recommendations followed his faith: "it pertains to the public authorities to choose, even to lay down, the ends to be achieved, and the means of attaining them, and it is for them to stimulate all the forces engaged in this common activity."

2.) also reveals the people's agenda

A. Emphatically Stated/Demanding (Style)

-despite God's warning through Samuel about what a king (govt) would/will do (8:10-19)

-people not persuaded by reason; see: "when you want something bad enough"

-the coercive nature of government/powers of the state (taxes, conscription, abuse of power)

--> vs. earthly kings who often send their own people into battle in foreign countries for their own interests, our heavenly king sent his son to a foreign land to die for his people

B. A case of "bad timing"; Israel's own agenda (Substance)

-too early; God planned to have His own chosen king in His timing (Dt 17:14-20, esp. 14-15)

-David, after Samuel died; thus, Israelites force God's timing by 10-12 years (for birth of David, probably 25-30 years until he could rule)

-desire not wrong, but reasons, timing, etc. were wrong...

-king not inherently evil, as long as in the context of covenant w/ God; as long as under God thru Samuel-- no problem

-no dependence on God; people who don't trust that God will provide for their well-being as promised, as before

-noteworthy that no one rises to be a candidate for king

-that was left to God (just timing was disturbed)

-most government begins with someone's ambition to rule; here Israel's ambition is to be ruled

8:19-22’s God gives them what they want (Rom 1:24-28)....why? (read)

-1.) God could still bring glory out of a foolish request

-2.) to prevent rebellion

-3.) beaten with their own rod; to see the differences between His government and the government of a king (II Chron 12:8)

-got to see whether it's the "right way"...

-analogy to kids (do you let them fall or not??)

-GCM's "He would give them a king in order that in the long processes of experience, they might learn the folly of their choice. In this is revealed a constant method of the Divine government. When men fail to rise to the height of the purpose of God, and clamor for something lower, He gives them what they ask and then watches over them and guards them as they work out their low choice to its ultimate conclusion and thus are eventually brought back to his purpose with a full understanding of its perfection."

Chapters 9-10 (skim)

à Saul trying to get out of it-- an excuse (Ex 3:10-12, 4:10-12; Judg 6:14-16)

-God doesn't take our excuses; but wants complete dependence on Him...says simply, "I will be with you"

-doesn't see our inadequacies; will use His grace

-humble person more likely to be dependent, and as a result, He'll get the glory; will have to be supernatural

-or false humility (9:1 vs. 9:21's claim); feeling inferior unnecessarily

-externals emphasized again

-Saul's height (23)

-judgment/excitement (23's ran, 24's "long live the king") based on externals only

-in the face of his apparent cowardice

-rubbing it in on Samuel; their true King is eternal

à what will God do with Saul?

-Chs. 10-12: Saul’s dependence on God

-Chs. 13-15: Saul's independence from God

-Chs. 16-19: Saul rejected by God; David appears, Saul continues to fall apart

10:27’s handled dissenters well (again in 11:12-13); "holding his peace" (skim)

-he realized they were rejecting God, not him (as with Samuel in Ch. 8)

-GCM's "A sense of God corrects all the things of a human life. Where it is acute, there is no room for the passion of revenge. There is not even a care to fight for one's own rights." (Rom 12:19)

11:4-7 for Saul's character (read)

-still modest and humble (and overly afraid?)

-tending his flocks even as appointed king

-leaves God's work to Samuel until appropriate time when Saul fires up in dependence

-11:6's empowerment by the Holy Spirit; requires his/our cooperation

-in 11:7, "...to anyone who does not follow Saul and Samuel"

-zeal for Israel's honor (Eph 4:26a's "in your anger, do not sin...")

-kinder and gentler gov't, but still very firm

-threatened their oxen in 11:6, not them-- as other regimes had done

--> Saul steps out in obedience and people respond to "fear of God"

11:8-11’s Saul handled warfare well (skim)

-9's faith, confidence, courage, boldness, bravery, resolution in this matter

-11's strategy

--> in sum, attended to the business of war as well as the best soldier w/o training

-the spirit of God can make experts out of those w/ no experience

-"whom God calls to service, he will make fit for it."

-God's call; dependence is more likely in those areas where we're weak or not trained

Chapter 12’s Final Sermon

à coming into Ch. 10: foreshadowing and Ch. 12's ominous ending; but Chs. 10-12 features Saul's dependence on God, now...

-Jonathan's dependence upon God bookended by two examples of Saul's self-dependence and turning away from God

-Saul's big 3 sins (pre-David): ch. 13’s violating God's timing, ch. 14’s legalism (not in The Story); Ch 15's libertine/compromise with God's holy standards

13:8-12's impatience

-Saul fails to follow instructions to wait for Samuel at Gilgal so he could do the burnt offering on this occasion

-offers sacrifice and decided to engage the Philistines without Samuel/God (and apparently didn't try to send a messenger)

-rituals vs. faith

--> under pressure from the enemy, took things into his own hands and disobeyed God

--> a good thing done the wrong way: by the wrong person in the wrong timing

-"just as he finished..." --> uh-oh...

-tries to justify himself (in the face of a direct question)

-11's three excuses/rationalizations vs. prophet's "you disobeyed" (period)

-"no fun" being a prophet (most of the time)

-12's "I saw...I thought...I felt compelled" (!)

15:1-3’s told to destroy Amalek completely

-why Amalek??...

-here, specifically because of Ex 17:1-8 (Dt 25:17-19), but they were continuously giving Israel trouble (Num 14:45; Jud 3:13, 6:3-4,33)

-from Thomas' book, "a picture of the flesh, seeking to stop the journey of God's redeemed/delivered people through the wilderness to Canaan"

-...and why completely?

-no compromise; God's war as just

-given chances to repent (see: Rahab & Gibeonites in Joshua; devil worship and child sacrifice; not your next-door neighbor…)

15:7-9 for Saul's Big Mistake-- How NOT to deal with Amalek

-disobeying God's command by sparing Agag (others escaped as well) and the best livestock -Amalekites (and Agagites) appear after this: Esther, etc.

-Saul didn't get all of them now or later (because of pursuit of own agenda &/or troubles that followed events of Ch. 15)

-keeping the best of what God has condemned (ironically, to give to God)

-there was nothing good in Amalek; there was to be no compromise

-Saul found good in what God had condemned; took the best of what God hated

-Saul's "superior judgment" in this matter

-see also: the best of our human nature (the flesh)

-what makes genuine good? how can we contribute to God's glory?

-only with Christ (through us) --> dependence

-sin as failing to do right thing at right time with right person using right methods in right strength

15:13-23 for Saul's "defense": excuses cont'd

-13’s Saul's "religious" greeting and boast of obedience implies defensiveness

-deceiving self or trying to with Samuel (remember God had given him the victory)

-14’s Samuel easily convicts

-15’s Saul tries to justify...rationalization; shifting blame

-16’s Samuel's prophecy, cutting through the bull

-20-21's rationalization: good intentions, lies (about motivations), was careless with or twisted God's word, blames soldiers

--> throughout, Saul quick to take credit and deflect blame/responsibility

-Samuel on Saul's disobedience in his mission as 22-23's rebellion and arrogance

-the comparison: divination and rebellion = determining own future; arrogance and idolatry = pride, self/other over God

-"to obey is better than sacrifice"

-moral precepts over ceremonial observances

The Consequences

1.) for Saul

-God deserts Saul (15:23, 26-28); Samuel deserts Saul (15:35's no more effort)

-kingdom taken from him (15:23,27-28), given to one who is "better" (David)

-in the book of Esther: Haman (an Agagite) and the Jews (Est 3:1)

-his own death by an Amalekite-- at the end of a tortured life (given 3 sins)

-I Sam 28:15-19, II Sam 1:5-10, Buechner's last 2 P's on Saul

2.) for us, in general

-there can be no compromise with the flesh (sin)

-Thomas' "Spare it if you will, but it will never spare you."