In some sort of effort to make itself look shallow, The Atlantic has published a list of the 100 Most Influential Figures in American History. As an aside, nothing in the title rules out non-americans, so why isn't George III on the list?

Anyhow, their "american history" appears to begin in 1776 with one notable exception. The notable exception is also the only figure on the list who was a pastor, namely Jonathan Edwards. Martin Luther King Jr and Lyman Beecher are the only other figures on the list who are even remotely christian leaders (Beecher and Edwards are at 90 and 91 on the list). The two Billy's (Sunday and Graham), and all other pastors, theologians and evangelists apprently had less influence on America than Ralph Nader.

No composer or artist made the list unless you are willing to count Stephen Foster or Elvis Pressley for the first or Walt Disney for the second. No poets are named. Instead we have 24 presidents and other high government figures, 2 baseball players, and Mary Baker Eddy. Shouldn't the inclusion of Jonas Salk cancel Eddy out? Also included are 2 pairs of people (the Wrights and Lewis and Clark), which I'll just call cheating.

Somehow my friend Todd, despite all his coverage of happenings in Scandinavian churches missed this fine story.

I'll second this suggestion, though I'll have to make an exception for my wife since I watched it while she was at work.

At class last night I happened to be sitting between two people a fair number of years older than me. It turned out they had both sent kids to the same university which I will not name. The woman on my left said to the man on my right, "You know what I love about X University? They are SOOOOOOOO liberal there. I just love that." I can't say I've ever heard that sentiment expressed before. I decided not to enter that conversation, but I thought it was interesting that I had just finished reading Ronald Beiner's fine book, What's The Matter With Liberalism?

This looks like just my sort of job.

This is too good not to post: Stanley Fish on Tolerance

Readers of the wifely blog will be aware that we've all been pretty sick lately. I can't say I recommend it if you are considering illness as a way to spend your next week. If I had lots of mental energy I would talk about my reading over the past month or so, much of which has been outstanding. I hope I'll finish my contest reviews by year's end in any event.

Today's Turkish news is brought to you by the letter W. And I'm totally not making that up.

Probably the most important article of the year right here. What's the opposite of "just do it?"

As some of you may know (and I'm sure some do not), I have been enrolled for a while in the ESL Teaching Certificate program through Duke University. As part of the requirements for that program I have been doing practice teaching for the last few weeks at Durham Technical Community College (Durham Tech for you locals), working with a friend who is a paid teacher there. I have trouble thinking of many things which are more fun than classroom teaching.

Tonight in class we played the "alibi" game. Three students were the "criminals" and had to leave the room for a few minutes to get their stories straight. The basic outline of their story was already provided for them but they had to improvise the details. Then they came back into the class one at a time for interrogation. If the "policemen" (the rest of the class) could find 5 inconsistencies in their stories, then they would be found guilty. This was, by far, the most hilarious activity I've seen in a language classroom. It also fit well as a practice activity for making past tense verbs, which was what we had been woking on for a few weeks.

I'll break my totally unannounced and unanticipated hiatus for the time being. I've been trying to come up with a list of the best high school themed films. I don't necesarily wnnt to restrict it to a certain number, or to either strictly comedy OR dramatic films. However, I need to start writing it down cuz I can never keep them all in my head for long. Here's the list so far roughly organized from more dramatic to more comedic.

ELEPHANT: Gus Van Sant's take on the essential unexplainability of the violence of the Columbine massacre.

ORDINARY PEOPLE: One of the great films of all time which happens to focus on a high school student.

STAND AND DELIVER: The drama of advanced math. So few "high school movies" actually look at learning.

DONNIE DARKO: Dark fantasy of a possibly schizophenic student. A cult favorite but still one few have seen.

LEAN ON ME: Another one which takes school seriously, this one looking more at the principal.

SOME KIND OF WONDERFUL, THE BREAKFAST CLUB, SIXTEEN CANDLES, SAY ANYTHING, PRETTY IN PINK: They probably each deserve their own entry, but I'm lazy so I'll just call it the John Hughes set. My favorite is Breakfast Club, just because it all takes place at the school.

RUSHMORE: I hope no comment needed.

CLUELESS: My wife's favorite of the bunch.

NAPOLEON DYNAMITE: I think pretty much EVERY current hs student has already seen this one.

FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF: Possibly the best known teen comedy? It's also Hughes, but less dramatic/more funny than the others mentioned above.

BETTER OFF DEAD: The teen comedy time forgot?

So what did I leave out. I know there are a few I haven't seen (Heathers for one), and some I think are borderline "great" movies like Election. What would you add?

Seriously, where do you sign up to become a headline writer?

How come I always get tagged for these book things?

1. One book that changed your life:
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death

2. One book that you’ve read more than once:
Stanley Hauerwas, A Community of Character

3. One book you’d want on a desert island:
I don't know, but something large enough to give me some shade.

4. One book that made you laugh:
Mark Helprin, Memoir From Antproof Case (the best way to read this book is to read the dedication AFTER you finish the rest of it)

5. One book that made you cry:
Mark Helprin, Soldier of the Great War (there are some ubelievable moments in this one) or, Louis De Bernieres, Corelli's Mandolin

6. One book that you wish had been written:
How to speak Russian fluently in just one week

7. One book that you wish had never been written:
The Scofield Reference Bible

8. One book you’re currently reading:
Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics
(also, Sigrid Unset, Kristin Lavransdatter; Jim Steinmeyer, The Glorious Deception; and N T Wright, Reflecting the Glory)

9. One book you’ve been meaning to read:
For me meaning to read and planning to read are the same thing since I'm pretty systematic in my reading (in contrast to the rest of my life). One I'm looking forward to is TR's Through the Brazilian Wilderness.

If you can read this and have read enough to fill it out yourself, consider yourself "tagged" and leave a comment so I know to look for your responses.

In what we call chapter 14 of Romans, St Paul said, "now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions." The question of who Paul meant by the "weak in faith" is an interesting one. Loren Rossen cites scholar Mark Nanos saying the the weak in faith are non-christian Jews. Go read his arguments on this point.

Make a point of purchasing the current issue of National Review. The issue features a compelling piece by George Gilder on how information theory shows darwinian evolution to be logically impossible.

edit: or be cheap and read the whole thing here

I was able to read most of Walter Bruggemann's An Introduction to the Old Testament over vacation. While I often diagreed with his perspective and emphasis, I found a number of useful points scattered throughout. One in particular was his reading of Ezekiel 18. In this chapter, you might remember, God speaks about a just man who has an evil son. The evil son also has a son. This grandson, according to the passage, will not be judged for his father's sins, but rather on whether he chooses to be evil (like his father) or just (like his grandfather). This passage is taken by many christian theologians as the great passage on individual responsibility.

This interpretation, however, has bothered me lately since it seems much more individualist than I think would be possible for an ancient Israelite. Brueggemann, while not particularly noting my objection, nonetheless provides a way forward which actually makes considerable sense of the text. He says that the traditional reading "is erroneous because it seeks to turn the text into a universal moral principle, when in fact the text must be understood in context, locally and pastorally."

Looking at the sepcifics of the sins mentioned by Ezekiel (idolatry, sexual sin and econimic sin), Brueggemann suggests it is "likely that three generations are not a theoretical case, but refer in turn to (a) Josiah the good king (2 Kings 23:25), (b) Jehoiakim the bad king (2 Kings 23:36-37), and (c) Jehoiachin the third king (2 Kings 24:8-12)." Since Jehoichin is the king who oversaw the exile and the only king mentiones by Ezekiel (1:2), this would indicate that what is being spoken of here is the fate of the entire generation of Israel, located in representative fashion in the person of the king. (quotes are from page 206 of the 2003 paperback edition)

Not that it really makes any difference, given how little I've been writing lately, but I'll be out of town and not blogging for the next week.

I was in a class all afternoon for the last 2 weeks, so that's my excuse for that period as well. Be good out there.

Note to all fathers of young children: memorizing your children's clothing (or eye color) may save your life, or a least your dignity.

Mini-blog (in place of an apaology for the longish hiatus):

nearly every week at church on Sunday I learn one or two very interesting things I had never noticed previously in the scriptures. What I learned last week is that the ambition of the men of Babel in Genesis 11 corresponds exactly with what God promises Abram in Genesis 12. The men of Babel wanted to "make a name for themselves" and establish a great city. God told Abram that he would make him great and into a great nation, which I think would be pretty closely related to the idea of "city" in the ancient world.

Obviously the key difference is that the men of Babel tried to create such an honor for themselves while Abraham would receive it by waiting on God, being patient and obedient. Patient as in waiting over 400 years after his own death!

It was interesting to me at least.