ProfessorBainbridge.com has a link to a 40-page PDF report on “Human Rights Advocacy in the Mainline Protestant Churches (2000-2003)”. The report was released by “The Institute on Religion and Democracy”, an outfit I know nothing about (their URL: http://www.ird-renew.org). I have not read the whole 40 pages, but the “Executive Summary” on pp. 1-2 of the PDF has some interesting things to say.

This isn't your average “human rights” screed. The paper criticizes four mainline Protestant denominations for seemingly misplaced criticism of human rights efforts. The group finds that the US and Israel are the targets of over 2/3 (69%) of the human rights criticisms of these denominations, and that “Of the fifteen worst human rights offenders in the world, only five were criticized by the churches during the four year period studied.”

Interesting stuff. The most interesting thing (to me) in the executive summary, however, is something I can't summarize, but will rather quote at length:

In the 1970s and 1980s, the churches made the mistake of supporting oppressive Soviet-sponsored liberation movements around the world. They largely ignored human rights abuses in the Soviet Union and its satellite states, instead focusing on U.S. policy as the primary source of abuse. It appears that mainline denominations may be making the same mistake today with the Arab and Muslim worlds, ignoring many of the most serious abuses while apparently laying heavy blame upon the United States and Israel not only for their own lesser abuses, but also for the abuses of others.

It is evident from the tone and language used by mainline church leaders in their statements and legislation that, as a group, they believe that the United States is often a malignant influence in the world. This pervasive anti-Americanism is demonstrated time and again in their public policy advocacy, and one need not investigate far to find it.

Given the dramatic unwillingness of the mainline churches to criticize states around Israel for their human rights abuses—not only the connections to worldwide terrorism, but also the oppression and brutality toward their own people—it is not unreasonable to ask whether anti-Jewish animus may play some role in the churches’ skewed human rights advocacy.

Wow.  This report is interesting to me because the report doesn't pooh-pooh the concept of human rights. The report is instead critical of misguided efforts in the area of human rights (from what I can tell by the executive summary).

I'm not sure when I'll make it through the whole 40 pages; it might just end up being little more than a skim. If you know anything about The Institute on Religion and Democracy, their views, or reasons why not to trust what they put out, please drop a comment here.

Update: In the comments section, ricoblog reader Patrick points us to a listing of IRD officers, directors, and advisors. The name I recognized immediately was that of Dr. Thomas C. Oden, who authored the commentary on the Pastoral Epistles in the “Interpretation” series from Westminster/John Knox. Dr. Oden is also the General Editor of IVP's highly-acclaimed Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. 

Once again, an insightful link culled from Marginal Revolution. What's that, you don't aggregate the Marginal Revolution RSS feed? For shame.

The MR dudes link to an article at the “Foundation for Economic Education” entitled Moses and Outsourcing. The authors use the example of manna from heaven to support an argument that outsourcing isn't a bad thing, but a good thing. The logic is ok, I suppose, though the argument seems a bit forced. But hey, it's worth reading with writing like this:

The biblical account doesn’t use economics jargon. Nevertheless, manna was equivalent to what now would be called outsourced food. Hey, it was outsourcing to beat all outsourcing—God offered it for the taking. No one had to plant it. No one had to tend it. Just pick it up. Good deal? Not if you’re an outsourcing alarmist, United States circa 2004.

Can’t you just hear what these alarmists would have been advising Moses about manna? You know, things about manna causing the Israelites to lose food-production jobs. Not just any jobs, mind you, but “good” jobs. Horror of all horrors, manna meant trading good jobs for bad jobs, reducing Israelite living standards. The Israelites should shun manna to preserve good jobs and high living standards. Or so the alarmists would argue.

You can read Ex 16 and see for yourselves. I think the economic argument is somewhat strained — I mean, there was a bit of a monopoly going on in regards to food production in the desert. The source was God, and that was it. Surely the Foundation for Economic Education isn't arguing the merits of the benevolent dictatorship — which would be the closest modern economic/political model to Israel in the desert, right?

Yes, that's a little joke. :) Surely the guys at the Foundation have a sense of humor ...

Update: Wow, the editor of The Freeman comments on my humble post! Thanks for dropping by, Mr. Richman. And thanks for fightin' the good fight in the realm of economic education!

My only thought in adding the “benevolent dictator” remark was that God was stooping to take care of the Israelites in the desert, to ensure their needs were met. There were no other options. It was the only analogous contemporary situation I could think of in the three seconds I took to think about it while writing the post. Not the best comparison, of course. Comparisons are never adequate when one is comparing something contemporary to God.

Regarding any economic motives in God's action with the Israelites, I plead Deut 29.29.

I'm still pluggin' on the Pastorals, and will be for awhile. I'm through 1Ti 2.1-2. This means the next section I'm working through is 1Ti 2.3-7, which is one of my favorite sections of 1 Timothy:

³ This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, ⁴ who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

⁵ For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
⁶ who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.

⁷ For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (1Ti 2.3-7, ESV)

As a fan of creeds and catechisms, and as a fan of the Pastorals, this kind of stuff gets me excited. It's a little daunting — there are some serious theological issues in the above excerpt — but fun nonetheless. Verses 5-6 are interesting because of the concept of Christ as the one standing between God and men; and also of Christ as a ransom. Some interpreters see vv 5-6 and see an excerpt of an early Christian statement of belief (creed? baptismal statement of belief?) and conclude that the Pastorals must be later in date, and therefore could not be authored by Paul. Others see this and attribute this statement to the Holy-Spirit-inspired genius of Paul and see it as confirmation of Pauline authorship. I think it's probably evidence that Paul knew a good argument when he heard it, and wasn't afraid to use good arguments if he knew them and if they would help his cause. He was a smart guy, that Paul.

And what does that part in verse 3 about all people being saved mean?

And in verse 3, the phrase “God our Savior” crops up again. What's that all about?

Not only that, but Paul says that for “this” (v. 7) he was appointed an apostle & preacher. So, what is “this”? I know what I think, but I'll be quiet about it for now. 

The digression in verse 7 is also interesting. Why did Paul have to reiterate that he was telling the truth? Had he lied earlier? Was his audience untrusting for some reason? Or is the “this” so weird as to be unbelievable, thus requiring Paul's extra assurance to his readers?

All in all, an interesting section. Note that we see something similar to vv. 4-5 in 1Ti 3.16; which is also most likely some sort of early Christian hymn or statement of belief cited by Paul. 

A few weeks back I blathered on about “Argumentum ad Hitlerum” and other logical fallacies. Imagine my surprise when this morning I read about a new online reference called “The Book of the Fallacy” from the good folks at the Adam Smith Institute.

Looks like fun. If you're into this stuff, you should peruse it. However, they don't have a listing for “Hitler, Argumentum ad” yet ...

Hi. My name is Rick. I'm a bibliophile.

Now, with that out of the way ...

About a year ago, a colleague was kind enough to show me a real cool book he owns. It was called Pauline Parallels, published in 1974 or so. It was probably 10” tall by 18” (yes, that's 18”!) wide, spiral bound. The authors, Fred O. Francis and J. Paul Sampley, have arranged the Pauline epistles in a parallel arrangement — much like editions of the synoptic Gospels arrange the Gospels in parallel. The publisher (of the second and third editions) is Fortress Press. I was intrigued. Immediately hooked. I knew that someday I'd have a copy of this wonderful book.

I did some research then and found out that the book has since been updated and republished. The second edition was printed in 1984 (hardcover) as part of Fortress Press' Foundations & Facets: New Testament series. What is called a third edition (though I think it is just a paperback edition; page number counts and dimensions are exactly the same) was released in 1996. At least, I think 1996 was the date.

I finally got around to purchasing a copy; it arrived earlier this week. You can buy the third edition paperback from Fortress, but note that I found the hardcover in excellent shape from a used bookseller via AbeBooks for $21, S&H included. The second and third editions are smaller than the first edition — they have the same basic dimensions as a volume of the Hermeneia commentary series.

This book is just cool. It splits the Paulines (alas, sans Pastoral Epistles ... sigh ... ) into 310 pericopes (or sections). Then it has the text of the NRSV for each pericope in parallel arrangement. For instance, here is pericope 183 (chosen by flipping to the middle of the book):

§183: 2Co 11.21b-29. Formal Element: Hardships List

Primary Parallels: Ro 8.31-39 (§34); 1Co 4.8-13 (§85)

Secondary Parallels: Ro 2.17-24 (§10); Ro 3.27-31 (§15); Ro 9.1-5 (§35); Ro 11.1-6 (§44); Php 3.2-11 (§247); Php 4.10-20 (§253); Col 1.24-2.3 (§260); 1Th 2.1-8 (§277); 1Th 3.1-5 (§281).

The bottom portion of each page lists cross references (Paulines, NT, OT) that are less directly related and also lists related passages from Acts or the Pastoral Epistles. The index is handy and lists both main entries and the bottom-of-the-page entries. There are even some short text-critical notes on occasion.

If you're looking to do any study in the Paulines, or just want to have a good reference on the Paulines handy, this could be it. The book makes it easy to see what Paul said on a given topic across his letters. It also allows one to see how Paul tailored his message differently to different churches in different situations.

All in all, very cool — a handy book to have around.

Also cool: If you do the math, you'll note that you could use Pauline Parallels as your devotional reading for the year. 310 sections means you can skip one day a week and get through the whole thing in a year with a few days to spare.

I've been working through the first chapter of First Timothy. Here are some thoughts on the phrase “Stewardship from God” in 1Ti 1.4. The bold text represents the text of the ESV. If you have any criticism/feedback for me, please send it along via email (address on sidebar to right) or drop me a note in the comment section below.

What should the Ephesian believers be focusing on instead of the speculations caused by their focus on endless myths and genealogies? Fairly simply, writes Paul, the stewardship from God that is by faith.

The concept of stewardship from God is an interesting one. The Greek phrase is οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ (oikonomian Theou), the interesting word being οἰκονομία (oikonomia). One lexicon (BDAG) notes that one of the senses of οἰκονομία (oikonomia) is “training in the way of salvation”. It then recommends this exact phrase be translated “divine training”. The NET Bible translates this phrase as “God’s redemptive plan”. These meanings are plausible but somewhat removed from the general meaning of οἰκονομία (oikonomia), which is the work or output of an οἰκονόμος (oikonomos). How is this seeming disparity reconciled?

An οἰκονόμος (oikonomos) is a household manager, one who allocates the resources of the household according to the owner’s wishes and ensures that all is done that needs to be done to ensure the smooth running of the household. The οἰκονομία (oikonomia) is that work or plan. The sense of stewardship (the οἰκονόμος (oikonomos), after all, is a steward of the owner of the household) is based on this. The phrase οἰκονομίαν θεοῦ (oikonomian Theou), then, refers to the stewardship of God’s own house. It refers to the plan by which the house runs; the “economy” of God’s house, so to speak. This is where the ideas of “training in the way of salvation”, “divine training” and “God’s redemptive plan” come from.

The word οἰκονομία (oikonomia) is used in the parable of the dishonest steward as recorded in Luke 16:

And he called him and said to him, ‘What is this that I hear about you? Turn in the account of your management, for you can no longer be manager.’ And the manager said to himself, ‘What shall I do, since my master is taking the management away from me? I am not strong enough to dig, and I am ashamed to beg. I have decided what to do, so that when I am removed from management, people may receive me into their houses.’ (Lu 16.2-4, emphasis mine)

In these three verses, the word οἰκονομία (oikonomia) occurs three times. In each instance above, οἰκονομία (oikonomia) refers to the task of the manager. The manager's task is to ensure the proper management of his master's resources, to be a good steward of that with which he has been entrusted.

Further understanding of οἰκονομία (oikonomia) comes from examining its usage in the Letter to Diognetus. Speaking of Christians, the author of this letter writes “ … nor have they been entrusted with the stewardship of mere human mysteries.” (EpDiog 7.1) While the object of stewardship in this example is different than in 1Ti 1.4, the general syntax of the phrase is the same – with οἰκονομία (oikonomia) in the accusative and the surrounding nouns in the genitive case. Note Meecham’s discussion of the word:

The word οἰκονομία extends its meaning from ‘management of a household’ to management or provision in general (cf. EpDiog 7.1). It came to be used of the various operations of the divine will, particularly of God’s ‘dispensation’ effected in Christ for the salvation of men.

This stewardship from God is further qualified as being that which is by faith. God’s plan operates on the basis of faith. In other words, faith is the currency that is used in the economy of God.

Ok, there you go. It's a little rough around the edges. Go easy on me ...

Awhile back, I was reading C.H. Dodd's The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (found an edition at a used bookstore in town, so I picked it up) and was ruing the fact that I didn't have an English translation of the Corpus Hermiticum handy so I could get familiar with it. Dodd frequently cites and incorporates material from this early gnostic source; though Dodd cites the Greek. It's all a bit over my head, but it is interesting to attempt to work through nonetheless.

Anyway, I just happened across an English translation of The Corpus Hermeticum at the Gnostic Society Library. Of course Dodd was working with the Greek (an edition he wasn't too fond of, but used nonetheless). So now, if I ever really want to, I can read Poimandres and see what's got Dodd all aflutter.

Finally, an economist who can put things in terms most folks understand. The blog Agoraphilia (kudos to Marginal Revolution for the pointer) uses real-life examples to explain economic analysis. You've gotta look for the gems — hey, it's a blog — but there are some insightful posts there. A few are mentioned below:

The post on Relationship Cycles is a good example. Economics is, when you break it down, the study of the allocation of resources. Economics, practiced properly, offers insight to the efficient allocation of resources. So it makes sense that one might gain some insight in social practices (note I said “insight” and nothing about rules or consistency across cultures/people) by applying economic analysis.

Another post on the Optimal Haircut was good, though it doesn't really apply to me. When it comes to hair, I value utility more than appearance, so I simply get out the clippers and chop 'er nice and short. No comb or brush necessary.

I have the same philosophy when it comes to lawn maintenence: Whatever grows, keep it short.

(That reminds me ... it's been raining, I need to mow the lawn ... )