Meanderings, 9 December 2023

An Irish blessing for your day:

May peace and plenty be the first to lift the latch on your door, 

and may happiness be guided to your home by the candle of Christmas.

Photo by Mariana B. on Unsplash

Alleviating poverty:

It's an unprecedented – and massive – experiment: Since 2017 the U.S.-based charity GiveDirectly has been providing thousands of villagers in Kenya what's called a "universal basic income" – a cash grant of about $50, delivered every month, with the commitment to keep the payments coming for 12 years. It is a crucial test of what many consider one of the most cutting-edge ideas for alleviating global poverty. This week a team of independent researchers who have been studying the impact released their first results.

Their findings cover the first two years of the effort and compare the outcomes for about 5,000 people who got the monthly payments to nearly 12,000 others in a control group who got no money. But, just as significantly, the researchers also compared the recipients to people in two other categories: nearly 9,000 who received the monthly income for just two years, without the promise of another decade of payments afterward; and another roughly 9,000 people who got that same two years' worth of income but in a lump-sum payment….

Suri says the findings thus far already have potential implications for policy. For instance, at present, "a lot of cash transfers that the World Bank runs in poor countries tend to be of the monthly-for-two-years kind of style." And this new data adds substantial evidence to the view that, in fact, "the short-term [parceled out aid] is probably not such a smart policy. Because you could take the money and give it in a lump sum and get much bigger effects."

What remains to be seen, she says, is whether the relative benefits of the lump-sum payments endure. Are the businesses that people start durable? Do they generate enough income to actually lift people out of poverty?

"The lump sum and the long term [monthly payments] look similar at two years," Suri says. "But the question is, does the lump sum [impact] fade after year five? Year six? Does it just disappear? Or was this enough to keep [the impacts] going forever?"

Because if so, she adds, "Then we're good. I don't have to spend 12 years of money. I just have to spend two years' worth and just structure it correctly."

To find the answers, Suri says she's committed to continuing this study for as long as it takes.

"For the rest of my life," she says, laughing. "You know, most people want to write a will for their assets – like, who are they going to leave their money to? I'm like, 'Who am I going to leave the universal basic income project to?' It's maybe the most valuable thing I have as a researcher."

This review of Kevin DeYoung’s book by Andrew Bartlett is a serious take-down:

Kevin DeYoung (KD) wanted to write a book “that explained the Bible’s teaching about men and women in the church in a way that the interested layperson could understand and in a size that he or she could read in a few hours”. 

Assessed in light of his objective, the book merits more than one star, because KD writes lucidly, he packs a lot of content into a short book, and there are some important things that he gets right. For example, we should not use the Trinity as our model for the marriage relationship [Ch 4]. 

But what we mostly get is not really “the Bible’s teaching”. Instead, it is the Bible as viewed through patriarchal spectacles. (I’m using ‘patriarchal’ in the sense that men are in charge—not in the sense that men are oppressors, which KD rightly condemns.)  KD wears these spectacles enthusiastically, for he is committed to men’s leadership of women in home, church and society. The spectacles make it very hard for him to see what God’s word actually says, where it contradicts his views. 

The longest passage of teaching in the New Testament concerning men and women is in 1 Corinthians 7. But the spectacles are so blurry that KD does not consider this passage to be worth discussing in his book. That is remarkable. For KD rejects mutual submission in marriage, asserting that a husband is the decision-maker, with unilateral authority over his wife and sole responsibility for spiritual leadership [Chs 5, 8]. Yet 1 Corinthians 7 is the only passage which expressly teaches about the ‘authority’ of husband and wife and the only passage which expressly teaches how couples should take decisions on significant spiritual and physical matters such as joint prayer and sexual intercourse. 

Why might the spectacles prevent KD from seeing the significance of 1 Corinthians 7? Because if he perceived it, it would defeat his view. Paul teaches the mutual submission of husband and wife, whose authority is identical (see 1 Cor 7:4, exactly as we should expect from Genesis 2:24 ‘one flesh’). And Paul teaches that those significant marital decisions should be taken by mutual consent (see 1 Cor 7:5). …

Discussing spiritual gifts, KD concedes, with seeming reluctance, “Women can even have gifts of teaching and leadership”—and they may be “powerful gifts”. But just as he downgrades Deborah (who led Barak and all Israel) and Priscilla (who taught Apollos), KD does the same to gifted women today: he insists they must not lead or teach men [Ch 8]. He offers no explanation for Paul’s urging of both men and women to eagerly desire the greater gifts of being apostles, prophets and teachers (1 Corinthians 12:27-31). I suspect Paul would say that KD’s view dishonours gifted women and deprives men who would benefit from their ministry. When men refuse the ministry of women leaders and teachers, simply because they are women, it is like one part of the body saying to another part, “I don’t need you” (v21). 

Dear brother Kevin, for your own sake, for women’s sake, for men’s sake, for the Lord’s sake, please take off the spectacles and look again.

KSP interviews Tim Alberta:

Throughout the book, one recurring question you raise is whether leaders —be they pastors, politicians or social media personalities — who have gained so much (monetarily, politically or socially) are knowingly and opportunistically peddling fabrications, or whether they really believe these deceptions. In other words, are they misleading or misled? Or both? Of course, the answer to this varies from person to person. But stepping back and looking at the big picture that has been created by so much misinformation, what do you think has contributed most to this current state: manipulation or gullibility?

In scrutinizing people operating at levels of leadership — the so-called shepherds charged with leading congregations, ministries, etc. — the conclusion I have reached is that almost all of them know better.

These are not dupes; these are not true believers who have sincerely bought into the crazy, conspiratorial nonsense that has captured the imaginations of their followers. There are exceptions to this; in studying Eric Metaxas, for instance, there is evidence to suggest he has succumbed, at a deep psychological level, to dangerous misinformation.

But in the vast majority of cases — whether it’s Ralph Reed or Robert Jeffress or even Greg Locke — I have walked away from long, searching interviews convinced they’ve made a decision, a business decision, to indulge a lot of foolishness.

Why? Because in their view the ends justify the means: Trafficking in deception and hatred is a small price to pay for a seat at the table, for a culture war victory, for a reclamation of our nation’s Christian heritage. The problem is, Scripture describes those ends as unimportant — while telling us, repeatedly, that the means are crucially important. In other words: How we play the game matters more than whether we win or lose. That’s a message that rank-and-file evangelicals need to hear, but many of the people they look to for influence have real incentive to tell them otherwise.

Perry Glanzer examines mainline Protestant colleges/universities to show their accommodations to secular universities inhibits their Christian mission:

I find a similar form of accommodation to secular norms common among progressive mainline Protestant colleges and universities.¹ In other words, as a whole they basically borrow the norms of secular universities and rarely rely upon a Christian identity to differentiate any of their institutional policies. 

Now, I am not implying that conservative Protestants, Roman Catholics, or Eastern Orthodox institutions do not engage in forms of institutional cultural accommodation that try to please different audiences (they do, see here, here, and here). Yet, the type of secular accommodation occurring among mainline Protestant institutions that I am identifying has had unique implications for their higher education institutions in North America that are not comparable to Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or other Protestant institutions. It leads them to cease identifying as Christian. For example, one can count on one hand the number of historical U.S. Catholic institutions that have ceased operationalizing their Christian identity in the United States. In contrast, at least 108 of the first 160 American mainline Protestant institutions started before the U.S. Civil War have completely secularized according to my empirical examination of their administrative operationalization of Christian identity.² In addition, every mainline Protestant institution in Canada has now secularized.

Furthermore, of the 127 existing mainline Protestant institutions in the U.S. that still operationalize some institutional policy elements based on their Christian identity, almost three-fourths (71 percent) operationalize their Christian identity in only minimal ways (usually by mentioning their Christian identity in their mission or “About Us” web page and privileging Christian worship in some manner). There are only five mainline Protestant institutions, unaffiliated with the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), that operationalize their Christian identity in the university’s rhetoric, membership, curriculum, and co-curricular activities in the same way that the lowest-scoring CCCU institutions do. Overall, the empirical reality is that most mainline Protestant universities and colleges have lost any significant operationalization of their Christian identity they once had.

In addition, they also lack the will and conviction to create new institutions that might do so. The lack of vitality among these denominations is evidenced by the fact that they only started fifteen colleges or universities between 1923 and 1973. They have not started any new colleges or universities in close to half a century.

Redwoods, climate warming, and survival:

When lightning ignited fires around California’s Big Basin Redwoods State Park north of Santa Cruz in August 2020, the blaze spread quickly. Redwoods naturally resist burning, but this time flames shot through the canopies of 100-meter-tall trees, incinerating the needles. “It was shocking,” says Drew Peltier, a tree ecophysiologist at Northern Arizona University. “It really seemed like most of the trees were going to die.”

Yet many of them lived. In a paper published yesterday in Nature Plants, Peltier and his colleagues help explain why: The charred survivors, despite being defoliated, mobilized long-held energy reserves—sugars that had been made from sunlight decades earlier—and poured them into buds that had been lying dormant under the bark for centuries.

“This is one of those papers that challenges our previous knowledge on tree growth,” says Adrian Rocha, an ecosystem ecologist at the University of Notre Dame. “It is amazing to learn that carbon taken up decades ago can be used to sustain its growth into the future.” The findings suggest redwoods have the tools to cope with catastrophic fires driven by climate change, Rocha says. Still, it’s unclear whether the trees could withstand the regular infernos that might occur under a warmer climate regime.

Mild fires strike coastal redwood forests about every decade. The giant trees resist burning thanks to the bark, up to about 30 centimeters thick at the base, which contains tannic acids that retard flames. Their branches and needles are normally beyond the reach of flames that consume vegetation on the ground. But the fire in 2020 was so intense that even the uppermost branches of many trees burned and their ability to photosynthesize went up in smoke along with their pine needles.

Trees photosynthesize to create sugars and other carbohydrates, which provide the energy they need to grow and repair tissue. Trees do store some of this energy, which they can call on during a drought or after a fire. Still, scientists weren’t sure these reserves would prove enough for the burned trees of Big Basin.

Visiting the forest a few months after the fire, Peltier and his colleagues found fresh growth emerging from blackened trunks. They knew that shorter lived trees can store sugars for several years. Because redwoods can live for more than 2000 years, the researchers wondered whether the trees were drawing on much older energy reserves to grow the sprouts.

And, well, why not?!

MANCHESTER, N.H. — Richard Rist is a business owner from Maryland, frustrated with how divided the nation has become. His solution: run for president. Because... why not?

On Thursday, Rist was part of what's called the Lesser-Known Candidate Forum, held by Saint Anselm College in Manchester every four years, a tradition that dates back to 1972 in the first-in-the-nation primary state.

It only costs $1,000 to get your name on the presidential primary ballot in New Hampshire, a far lower barrier to entry than in other states. So, there's no shortage of lesser-known candidates.

Rist is one of 45 people who will be on that ballot next month. Does he see a clear path to victory? "No. No I'd be lying if I said that. Do I hold out the possibility that I could grab some traction? Yeah, I do," he told NPR.

Dressed conservatively in a navy sport coat and a floral tie, Rist made his way to the stage, where he found himself sandwiched between a man wearing a big black rubber boot on his head, and a candidate named Paperboy Love Prince whose outfit evoked a wish-granting genie.