A look forward - What is trending? What can one make of it?

 After spending the past month reading copious news releases, articles, and opinions as well as hearing the insider scoop here at the UN, there are three things to watch for in the next year. Iran, North Korea, and global food instability.

In the next month – Iran.

I do not want to be a Debby-Downer, but things are seriously heated in the situation with Iran at the moment. The major factor – election year in the US. As the world enters the last few months before the election, we hold our collective breaths. No other country’s elections are watched with such reverence, as no other country holds as many exceptionalist positions as the US. (I guess we would also watch Chinese elections with similar anticipation, that is, if they had polarized political parties that participated in elections). Given the consistency and predictability of US elections other countries can also manipulate the process.

Specifically relevant is how Israel is using the election year to radicalize its language regarding Iran. There are murmurs, and more than murmurs, of an Israeli first strike against Iran. This has progressed to the point that there have been peace protests in Israel, stating that people are not for this option. Beyond even that, some people are physically leaving Israel because they fear an immanent war.

Iran on the other hand, continues its defiance of bending to western-led international pressure. Specifically, the nuclear program is the point of contention. What is little known is that Iran has a religious Fatwa against nuclear weapons, deeming them immoral and illegal to own or use. One might say this is only religious jargon, but in a state where religion and politics are deeply enmeshed, this holds political sway. Western politics and media, however, have disregarded this. If it were taken seriously one might believe the Iranian position that they are pursuing a nuclear program for electrical purposes only. The word coming out of Iran, through private conversations, is that the only time nuclear weapons would be built is if Iran was preemptively attacked. At that point, the political will to respond would outweigh even the religious opinion within the theocracy, and nuclear weapons would be developed as fast as possible. So that is EXACTLY what might occur with Israel’s increasingly hostile position, and the ramped up discussion of a preemptive military attack against Iran.

Israel can make such treats, and can back them up, because the response from the US is too predictable. In an election year it would be political suicide not to back up an Israeli attack. Israel does not have the military means (without using its nuclear weapons) to maintain its occupation of the Palestinian territories and make an all out offensive against Iran. Yet, they remain assured of their security because of a guaranteed support by the US. Both political parties in the US must bow to the will of the incredibly rich and politically savvy Zionist lobbies. This has been seen throughout Obama’s presidency as his pro-Palestinian-State opinions have slowly dissolved and been reduced by the constant barrage of these lobbies and their important voting blocks. If it was the first year of a four-year term someone might have the guts to oppose backing Israel, thinking it would be forgotten the next time an election came around, but with only months before the election to refuse to support Israel militarily would destroy one’s political party as well as insure Israel used its nuclear weapons, just like they threatened to do in the 1973 Yom Kippur war when the US dragged its heels in supporting Israel.

Next three months – North Korea.

Depending on what occurs with Iran, Israel, and the USA, North Korea may once again become the focus of hostile American relations. George Bush’s “axis of evil” continues to detrimentally shape US foreign relations. So with Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, tied up in some form or another, the US is forced to re-visit North Korea. Since April’s satellite launch, the relations have been strained so it will be an easy target to revisit.

Though there has been a positive sign on North Korea, Japanand North Korea have begun to talk again. Japan and US have good relations so this may slow further hostile relations. However, this is far from preventing war, but it is a positive sign.

Again, a major factor is that the US cannot afford, financially, to not be at war. The American economy is too enmeshed with the Military Industrial Complex that Dweight D. Eisenhower warned of when he left office. Budgets pass or fail in the US depending on whether the complex, that supports “jobs” in so many of the counties across the US, is upheld. 

By about February or March – Global instability over food prices.

The drought occurring in the US at the moment ought not to be ignored, as it will largely shape the world for the next year. In the developed world we spend, on average, somewhere around 15% of income on food, where as the developing world often spends 50-75% of income on food. Therefore, when the price of food increases it has a disproportional affect on the poor. For someone in North America, the unsustainable and carbon intense products such as Pineapple and Bananas might rise in price slightly. Or maybe more essentials like pasta and bread may see a jump in price, as the world feels the affects of a shortfall in cereals (grains) production. But that really only means one must wait an extra month, maybe two, to buy the latest technology gadget. However, this expected cereals shortfall will have wide ranging consequences across the globe.

This situation has been seen before. In 2008 the first major jump in food prices occurred. The world really did not know how to respond. Food aid was sent around the world, and it received mediocre media attention, but was ultimately overshadowed by the sub-prime mortgage fiasco and the beginning of the economic downturn.

In 2008, maybe most notably, Kenya devolved in violence. There were many factors to the violence, tribal conflict, economic disparity, the spreading of hate messages via radio, and the rising price of food. Whether food was the log that burned, the spark that lit it, or the gas that enraged the fire, is up for debate, whatever the case it contributed to social instability.

What was learned from the Kenyan example? First, that it is hard to prosecute perpetrators who initiate violence along social and economic lines, especially when they are part to the political elite of the country. Although the International Criminal Court is attempting to do so, this remains difficult. Especially when those being charged and questioned are running for president and parliament and the elections will take place in March, almost simultaneous to the trial start date. Regarding food security, the world witness how it can be a major factor in maintaining social order. 2008 brought to the forefront conversation of sustainability, food security, financial speculation on food markets that exacerbates already increasing prices, as well as national food sovereignty programs. It marked a small shift in popular international development thinking, one that began to question a globalized food market.

2010 was also a bad year for food. After seeing a marked drop in prices in 2009, 2010 arrived with a vengeance. Though it did not catch the world by surprise, in the same way 2008 did, it reiterated the importance of tackling speculation on food markets and the implementation of food security programs and alternative agriculture.

As 2010 ended, food prices were rising. It was winter in the north, and as local food supplies began to dwindle the true cost of imported food began to create unrest. Some of this unrest was expressed in the Arab Spring. Though it is pleasant to believe all the protests were about spreading freedom and democracy that is a little a little too idealistic. Much of the dissent expressed in the region was about tangible conditions of life, of which the price of food certainly factored. So Egypt – a cereals exporter in Biblical times, now a cereals importer – was a central example of the unrest caused/initiated/propagated/influenced (choose the word you like) by an increase in the global food price.

When to expect to see some of the ramifications of the drought in the American mid-west? Around February or March. As the local food supplies dry up, and the world begins to seriously play the buy-and-sell game watch for civil unrest, changing political power plays, and tumultuous times as we enter 2013 (provided the world does not end in 2012).

For a further look at how geopolitics might be shifting have a read: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201281123554276263.html

If his hypothesis is true, there may be less US military aggression in upcoming years, and the battle for supremacy will be waged on other terms.

No Room at the Inn?

I found myself retelling my experience of visiting Bethlehem in May yesterday. The primary point of interest -the argument by our intructor that the translastion "there was no room at the inn" is ridiculous. In the Middle East hospitality is an extremely high cultural value and that much more so within a family. Given Joseph is travelling to his ancestoral home it is inconcievable that they would not have family in Bethlehem and equally inconcievable that family would not have hosted them. However, given the census it is very possible that there was a lot of family in town and that this may have made accomadations cramped. A typical Judean house at the time was a four room house: the family's sleeping quarters, the kitchen, the storage/work/animal room and the front room - where guests were entertained. Therefore, our instructor argued that it is far better to understand the meaning as there was no space in the guest room (of the family house) and so Mary and Joseph stayed/gave birth in the storage/animal room (which was empty since the flocks were in the fields). This room would have contained a stone manger (as pictured below) for when the animal were there and being stone was not the type of item that moved much. So you can now spend the rest of Christmas break redesigning your nativity set...

Judges Revisited

For those of you disappointed by our #occupy interlude you will be happy to know we will return to regularly scheduled posting this week. There are a number of thoughts in my head that I would like to post such as my penchant for the thrill of deadline chasing, to reading church history through the lens of old testament narrative...

However, as I am deadline crashing as we speak, I will provide an insight from my school readings of such brilliance it is incomprehensible to me I have not heard it earlier. The insight is that the narrative in Judges 19 - 21 provide an apology for David and against Saul directed toward the Northern tribes. Note that the Levite is from the North (Ephraim) and that his concubine runs away to Bethlehem (David's home town). When the Levite comes to Bethlehem he is treated with lavish hospitality. On his journey home he doesn't stop in Jebus (Jerusalem)...too bad the Benjamites didn't do a good job occupying the land... it sure would be nice if someone would conquer it... maybe someone nice from Bethlehem will conquer it so nice Levites can stay there and receive hospitality...(DAVID!). So the Levite goes on to Gibeah (Saul's home town), where no one takes him in except a man from Ephraim. We then have the Sodom and Gomorrah episode etc. Rather than Saul providing any sort of redemption to this story, as I suggested in my post, this story rather foreshadows and prepares for the kingship story very directly. As readers, when we hear that Saul is from Gibeah, we should receive the hint that this is not awesome...

Wandering in the Wilderness...2

Photographic recreations of famous paintings - more here

If anyone was uncertain what the actual orthodox view on Genesis 1 was here is Orthodox Archbishop of Canada Lazar Puhalo to clear things up (Thanks Dan):

Tim Minchin on Palestine (Thanks Matty):

And on Christmas (but be sure to check out his song "Predjudice" as well):

There is a project to build an ark http://arkencounter.com/ in Kentucky they are trying to raise 24 million. I would be more excited if it was a statement about global warming... (Thanks Nate)

CYOA - To Deny or Explain?

Daughter of Jephthah

Judges 11
 ^29-31 God's Spirit came upon Jephthah. He went across Gilead and Manasseh, went through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there approached the Ammonites. Jephthah made a vow before God: "If you give me a clear victory over the Ammonites, then I'll give to God whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in one piece from among the Ammonites—I'll offer it up in a sacrificial burnt offering."

 ^32-33 Then Jephthah was off to fight the Ammonites. And God gave them to him. He beat them soundly, all the way from Aroer to the area around Minnith as far as Abel Keramim—twenty cities! A massacre! Ammonites brought to their knees by the People of Israel.

 ^34-35 Jephthah came home to Mizpah. His daughter ran from the house to welcome him home—dancing to tambourines! She was his only child. He had no son or daughter except her. When he realized who it was, he ripped his clothes, saying, "Ah, dearest daughter—I'm dirt. I'm despicable. My heart is torn to shreds. I made a vow to God and I can't take it back!"

This passage sucks because either you deny child sacrifice, which is good but are perceived to be hand waving or you don't and you have to deal with the ramifications of child sacrifice, which are horrific.

One angle I have heard is that this is a lesson against legalism and that Jephthah should have asked to be released from his vow... for which to some degree there are specifications for in Leviticus 27.

I would be happier with that explanation if we didn't have the story of Abraham being called to sacrifice Isaac as a burnt offering, although clearly no issue of a vow in that case.

So people may ask what was he expecting to come out of a house? The implication appears to be an animal, which is plausible given that animals often lived in the house with the family as they contributed to the heat as well as were too valuable to keep outside without being tended. However, I think it is a fair statement that this is a bad vow to begin with... But it seems initially to be a vow full of faith and trust in God... or is it a vow bent on manipulating God? hmmm... Why does Jephthah need to make a vow? After his long diplomatic speech about God's victory over Balak and Israel's respect of Ammon in the preceding verses, the vow seems to actually betray a lack of faith rather than great faith.

There is something distinctly and spectacularly pagan about this whole story. Our bastard hero is exiled but then returns and and saves the day winning a great battle and the cost of his victory is his only virgin daughter. I would be reasonably happy to say that this is a pagan story attempted to be revised to fit Yahwehism...

But again I would be happier with that explanation if their wasn't this odd theme of child/self sacrifice that runs from Abraham and Isaac and is culminated in Jesus, another "bastard" child and if Jephthah wasn't celebrated as a hero of faith in Hebrew's 11.

39-40 It became a custom in Israel that for four days every year the young women of Israel went out to mourn for the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite.

These final verses of the story seem to indicate that it is some sort of explanation for a social tradition.

Some commentators note that the passage ends focused on virginity not death and there is the suggestion that the daughter was not killed but devoted to a life of service as virgin, similar to nuns. This is argued  further based on the fact that the context of the situation does not fit a literal, levitical burnt offering. While clearly, a life of service, similar to Samuel, is preferable to filicide it seems possible to me that the concern with virginity rather than death is actually one and the same given that the Old Testament view is that one lives on through their children. Therefore, being Jephthah's only virgin daughter, her virginity represents the destruction of the entire family.

Sorry everybody I see all of the problems and I don't like it or any of the solutions, I welcome further thoughts...

You reached a dead end and were trapped inside the Pharoah's tomb.

Turn to page 47 if you don't like this ending...

CYOA - Avoidance - John 20:1-10

John 20 (The Message)
Resurrection!

1-2 Early in the morning on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene came to the tomb and saw that the stone was moved away from the entrance. She ran at once to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, breathlessly panting, "They took the Master from the tomb. We don't know where they've put him."

3-10Peter and the other disciple left immediately for the tomb. They ran, neck and neck. The other disciple got to the tomb first, outrunning Peter. Stooping to look in, he saw the pieces of linen cloth lying there, but he didn't go in. Simon Peter arrived after him, entered the tomb, observed the linen cloths lying there, and the kerchief used to cover his head not lying with the linen cloths but separate, neatly folded by itself. Then the other disciple, the one who had gotten there first, went into the tomb, took one look at the evidence, and believed. No one yet knew from the Scripture that he had to rise from the dead. The disciples then went back home.

Last week we all wrote our articles without reading each others'. This week I have read both other articles before writing this. I feel pressure to present a different adventure for you to choose as that is in part the point of this exercise. When I read scripture, I try and ask good or at least useful questions, so I will list my questions:

What is the first day of the week?
Who is the unnamed disciple?
What were the first century rules for moving bodies?
Why does the unnamed disciple not enter immediately but only Simon Peter does?
What did Simon Peter think?
What Scripture is being referred to?
Where is "home"?

Now allow me to leave these questions to you and avoid them entirely. What I want to write about is theology. What happens theologically in the resurrection of Jesus? Obviously this is a huge and defining moment in the Christian faith - perhaps the moment. One thing that occurs is that death is defeated. Where as previously people had been raised from the dead but died later and we have a couple examples of people who didn't die (Enoch and Elijah), Jesus is the only case where death both occurs and is then fully defeated. This is the only story in which death has a say but not the last say; the grave is not the final word; the story doesn't end in the tomb. This is then my understanding of the Christian hope: that the grave is not the end, that God has the last word, and the God's word creates life.

I would now like to draw a connection I was made aware of on our recent trip to Israel. 

Gates of Hell - Caesera Phillipi

Matthew 16:18
I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it 


In this passage Jesus makes this famous declaration. The word for hell is the Greek 'hades' and is the place of the dead, Sheol, or the grave. Therefore, our instructor suggested, a better understanding is to understand Jesus to be declaring victory over death rather than demonic hordes. What is it that the gates of hell do? Well they keep people in of course! Nobody comes back from the dead! Nobody escapes hades! There is no way back after crossing the river Styx! Jesus' church will not be stopped by death but triumph over and beyond it.


It is also interesting to note that the Gates of hell was also a physical place as depicted above and the location of pagan worship including, more specifically, the emperor cult. Therefore, one could also understand this to be a reference to the Roman empire, and the emperor in particular, not prevailing against Jesus building his church (which is certainly true in retrospect). 


In either case, Jesus' resurrection is  the down payment of power, the deposit of new life, the game changer, the final twist, the surprise ending. God's word brings new life, Jesus defeats Empire, Jesus defeats death, defeat is swallowed up in victory...