Enviro-Stewardship: And Behold, It Was Tov Me’od

Since October, I've been posting Dad's monthly "Environmental Stewardship" column, which he writes for local church newsletters. Here's John Berge's column for May: 

I recently read that “The Hebrew vocabulary includes no word equivalent to our term ‘Nature,’" by which we include all the plants, animals and microscopic creatures, usually excluding human beings.

I presume this lack of of a Hebrew word is also true of the term ‘Environment,’ which includes the physical elements that surround us – rocks, soil, air and water. ‘Ecology’ comes to us from the Greek, but even though the New Testament was written in Greek, I doubt its inclusion since the word was coined much later. This does does make it difficult at times to translate environmental and ecological messages from the Old Testament to the present. But the messages are there in abundance.

"Genesis 1" by Maximino Cerezo Barredo

For example, in the first creation story in Genesis, after each of the first stages (days) of the creation, God saw that it was “good.” After the creation of man and woman he saw that it was “very good” because now there were stewards to care for His creation, to have “dominion” over all. Dominion is best interpreted as not domination but stewardship.

In the New Testament, in an event which is not generally considered an ecological or environmental reference, Luke tells of the healing of ten lepers. (Luke 17:11-14) They were told to “go and show.” They were to walk in order to be cleansed. Likewise, to be good stewards of God’s creation, we must act, not just talk or muse about the problems that face us in protecting our environment for ourselves, our offspring and our God, but walk the talk.

The City of Racine is taking two such actions: There is a growing group, including the City Administrator, who are aiming Racine towards being a waste-free city, an excellent target to work toward – whether it can eventually be attained or not. Every department in the city is to search out goals and programs to reach this objective, not only within their department but within those portions of the city over which they have jurisdiction or influence.

The second action is to initiate a city commitment to the Paris Accord. This agreement aims to respond to the global climate change threat by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2º Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Several cities in Wisconsin, including Kenosha to our south and Milwaukee to our north, have committed to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025.

What specific goals, challenges and efforts the city will make has not been determined at this time, but it will take actions by all citizens as well as government to reach the goals of the Paris Accord, with or without leadership by the President and the Federal Government. As environmental stewards, appointed by God in Genesis, we all must act.

Note from Paul: Google Translate gives "טבע" (teva) as the Hebrew word for "nature." It may be a non-Talmudic word; if you want to delve into that further, there's a theological discussion here.

Q Toon: Moore-ality Play

Cartoonist and content provider Daryl Cagle coined the term "Yahtzee" for when two or more editorial cartoonists draw the same idea on the same topic. That's what happened with the cartoon I drew on Sunday night, because I've seen the same basic idea, more or less, in the meantime drawn by Steve Sack and Phil Hinds. (Sack, as ever, did the concept up best, if I do say so myself, since he's not the sort to say it himself.)

Anyway, it's too late to change my cartoon now, and besides, all the other great ideas about Alabama's Republican nominee for the U.S. Senate have already been taken.

When I was at the drawing board, my chief worry was that Judge Moore would drop out or be forced out of the race between then and now.

I needn't have worried. A poll found that 37% of Alabama Evangelicals, and 29% of the electorate in general, claimed they were "more likely" to vote for Moore after the allegations against him were made public. Dinesh D'Souza, or whomever he was plagiarizing, tweeted that he used to be lukewarm about Moore, but now "we must elect him." An Alabama politician compared Moore to St. Joseph, Step-Father of Our Lord, and an Alabama pastor slammed Washington Republicans as "sissies" for withdrawing their support of Moore.

On the other hand, current polls show that Moore's Democratic opponent, Doug Jones, has come from behind and may have as much as a 12-point lead. Jones, a former U.S. Attorney during the Clinton administration who prosecuted Klan members who bombed a black church in 1963, has been careful to distance himself from national Democrats. Republicans are desperately considering delaying next month's special election, or pushing a write-in campaign for incumbent Luther Strange, whom Moore beat in the September primary.

I don't know whether Alabama is one of those states that requires a run-off election if nobody gets over 50% of the vote, but it seems likely (that being one of the tactics southern states used to safeguard against Black candidates coming out ahead if the White vote were split); that would be a possibility if Republicans split between Moore and Strange. National Republicans would prefer a Strange-Jones runoff or maybe a Strange-Moore runoff, but could be stuck with a Moore-Jones runoff prolonging their present agony.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, an evil wizard at the byzantine rules of politics, has even floated the idea of having Strange resign from the Senate before the December election, in order to force a new election. If Moore should win next month's election outright, the Senate could vote to expel him, allowing Alabama's Republican Governor to appoint a replacement. That seems a long shot with little precedent, but so did refusing to consider President Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court.

These are interesting times. Strange days, indeed.

Q Toon: Dukes to Watch Out For

This summer, Duke University recommended to its incoming freshmen that they ought to read Fun Home, a graphic memoir by cartoonist Alison Bechdel, eponym of the Bechdel Test. The book is about Bechdel's coming out, and her dad's closeted homosexuality. Duke recommends some summer reading every year to promote discussion when the school year starts, which seems like a reasonable enough thing for a liberal arts institution to do.

Upon learning that the book contains women masturbating and engaging in oral sex, one student, Brian Grasso, posted on Facebook that he refused to read Bechdel's book. Somehow, it turned into such a big deal that the Washington Post printed his explanation for himself.

[I]n the Bible, Jesus forbids his followers from exposing themselves to anything pornographic. “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart,” he says in Matthew 5:28-29. “If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away.” This theme is reiterated by Paul who warns, “flee from sexual immorality.” ... 

I will avoid any titillating content and encourage like-minded students to do the same. And I believe professors should warn me about such material...

Certainly, Grasso and any others worried about looking lustily at lesbians have every right not to read books they don't want to, and at no point was reading Fun Home required. On the other hand, as has been pointed out by everyone from Jerry Seinfeld to Chris Rock to a growing list of university professors, we seem to be raising a generation of extremely delicate hothouse flowers.

And Grasso should have warned his readers that he was going to use the word "titillate."

Taketh Me Out to the Ball Game

And while we're there, where's Waldo? The guy at televised sports events who holds up a poster citing a Bible verse for the camera is a phenomenon more of football than baseball (the seats where the camera is going to aim during a field goal or point-after are cheaper than the seats behind the batter). But this peculiar Bible verse comes up in the Common Lectionary during baseball season.

The History Channel's Bible: Grief for Saul

I watched a couple hours worth of the History Channel's "The Bible" last night. I was particularly interested to see whether or not they would whitewash the reason King Saul ran afoul of Yahweh's favor.

Chances are, your Sunday School Bible stories glossed over that salient detail. As you may recall, the Israelites prevail upon the prophet Samuel against his better judgment to give them a king, as all the nations around them had. It is not Samuel, however, but God who chooses Saul as king:

[Saul and his servant] went up to the city; and as they entered the city, there was Sh’mu’el [Samuel] coming out toward them to go up to the high place. The day before Sha’ul [Saul] arrived, Adonai [The Lord] had given Sh’mu’el a revelation: “Tomorrow at about this time I will send you a man from the territory of Binyamin [Benjamin]. You are to anoint him prince over my people Isra’el. He will save my people from the power of the P’lishtim [Philistines], because I have seen my people’s situation, and their cry of distress has come to me.”  When Sh’mu’el saw Sha’ul, Adonai said to him, “Here is the man I told you about, the one who is going to govern my people.” (1 Samuel 9:14-17, Complete Jewish Bible)

(I like the CJB for Old Testament references, just to avoid the influence of medieval Christian translators.)

So, God had at first been so impressed with Sha’ul/Saul, and you probably remember that Saul did something or other that displeased God so much that God sent Samuel out to find someone outside of Saul's family to anoint as the next king. Samuel finds Jesse and determines to check out each of Jesse's boys, finding each of them unsatisfactory until someone goes and fetches David in from herding the family's sheep. Samuel anoints David Heir Apparent, and David goes on to slay Goliath and ten thousand more Philistines.

But what did Saul do that was so wrong? Well, there was the matter of going ahead and attacking the Philistines -- and more importantly, making the prerequisite burnt offering himself instead of waiting over a week for Samuel to show up to do it.

Sh’mu’el said to Sha’ul, “You did a foolish thing. You didn’t observe the mitzvah of Adonai, which he gave you. If you had, Adonai would have set up your kingship over Isra’el forever. But as it is, your kingship will not be established. Adonai has sought for himself a man after his own heart, and Adonai has appointed him to be prince over his people, because you did not observe what Adonai ordered you to do.” (1 Samuel 13:13-14 CJB). 

That episode was rendered on TV pretty much the way it was in the Bible, with Saul acting out of hubris and concern that his troops are fed up with sitting around doing nothing. When he wants to repent, Samuel is gone.

But the last straw, Saul's damning offense, comes after Saul and his son Jonathan have driven the Philistines away. Samuel returns and tells Saul that God wants him to commit genocide against another of the Israelites' neighbors, the Amalekites.

[Samuel said,] "Here is what Adonai-Tzva’ot says: ‘I remember what ‘Amalek did to Isra’el, how they fought against Isra’el when they were coming up from Egypt. Now go and attack ‘Amalek, and completely destroy everything they have. Don’t spare them, but kill men and women, children and babies, cows and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Samuel 15:2-3, CJB)

The reason God was supposed to be so angry at the Amalekites was that way, way back centuries earlier when the Israelites were wandering the desert with Moses and Joshua, Amalekites attacked them from the rear. The Israelites had no shortage of hostile neighbors (see 1 Samuel 14:47), but their -- I mean, of course, God's -- grudge against the Amalekites runs hysterically deep. Three of the 613 mitzvot (commandments) from the Old Testament are to remember what the Amalekites did to Jews, not to forget what the Amalekites did to Jews, and to destroy the Amalekites utterly (Deuteronomy 25:17–18, Exodus 17:14 and 1 Samuel 15:3.)

Saul, however, took the king of the Amalekites captive instead of killing him, and his troops didn't kill every one of the sheep and cattle outright. Samuel pronounced God's final judgment against Saul, and cut the chained king of the Amalekites into pieces.

The History Channel version sanitizes this chapter as much as it can without rewriting the basic plot. Yes, Samuel tells Saul to kill every last one of the Amalekites, but what we see is a small encampment of maybe five or six tents, and there is not one woman, child, or baby to be seen. Slaughter ensues, but it barely qualifies as genocide.

Oh, and Samuel merely slits King Agag's throat rather than going into a Tarantino-esque orgy of gratuitous gore.