Minor Thoughts from me to you

The Southeast has been experiencing drought conditions for over two years now. Many residents don't want to watch their lawns turn brown or their flowers die off. So, they're drilling their own wells.

While Atlanta's main water source, Lake Lanier, has sunk 15 feet below desired levels and ordinary families have let their lawns go brown, affluent residents are paying thousands of dollars to hydrogeologists and drilling companies to scout their estates for underground water to draw from whenever they please. The Fulton County Department of Health and Wellness in Atlanta has issued 305 well permits to homeowners and businesses since the beginning of this year -- 36% more than for 2006 and 2007 combined. Homeowners who have obtained permits include film director Tyler Perry and Atlanta Braves pitcher Tom Glavine, according to county records. In Raleigh, N.C., 95 permits have been issued this year, compared with 46 last year and 19 in 2006. And Orange County, N.C., which includes Chapel Hill, has had such an influx of applications that it raised the price of a permit 65% to $430 on July 1.

Sadly, many people are angry about this display of initiative and investment.

Jason Cooper, who lives in Asheville, N.C. and whose lawn is currently the color of straw, is frustrated by rich people pampering their grass. "The fact that people would circumvent water restrictions in order to keep their lawns green amazes me," Mr. Cooper says. "But I realize that around the world, the people with the most money tend to hoard scarce resources."

Hoarding scarce resources? Hardly. These people are increasing the amount of usable water in their neighborhoods. Rather than taking water away from their neighbors, they're producing new water.

The new wells in Atlanta and Raleigh aren't the shallow wells that are sometimes found in backyards, particularly in areas that aren't on sewer lines. Building one of the new deep wells is a messy and noisy process: Drilling companies bore holes usually 300 to 600 feet deep into fractured rock and then extract the water with an electric pump discreetly hidden in the shrubbery or concealed by a $400 faux rock. Sometimes residents buy plaques with gold lettering to politely and unabashedly tell folks they're using their own well water, not the city's supply. Total installation cost ranges from $5,000 to $25,000 -- a drop in the bucket for the type of owner who spends several hundred thousand dollars on landscaping.

Ironically, there is no opportunity for profits that would allow this water to be shared with the rest of the area. Water rates are regulated by local governments and don't rise and fall according to supply and demand. If water rates did rise according to supply and demand, the cost of water would be sky-high across the Southeast. That would give these residents an incentive to drill the wells and sell the water to their neighbors. Instead of using the water for their own lawns, they'd have an incentive to distribute the water to someone else.

Sadly most of the U.S. is covered by regressive, in-humane laws and no one is allowed to profit off of water supplies. What a shame.

Nathan Williams, from John MacArthur's Shepherds' Fellowship, reported on a recent visit to Mars Hill Bible Church.

It's a good example of how not to do church. I love creativity, I love seeing Christians that are creative. I think far too many Christians portray an uncreative God. But the solution isn't to ignore the cross and focus exclusively on creativity.

I mentioned in yesterday's post that when we entered the worship center we were greeted with quotes on the overhead projectors. One of the main quotes that continued to cycle through as we waited for the "gathering" to start was a quote by Dorothy Sayers. After getting back home and doing some research I realized that much of the teaching on creativity and the Trinity comes from a book by Sayers called The Mind of the Maker. The entire message was based on the idea that every bit of human creativity resembles the Trinity. The creative idea we have is like God the Father, the action that we perform because of that idea is like the Son, and the influence and power of that creative idea is like the Holy Spirit.

Once Jeanette taught this background it was easy to see the shape the message would take. Jeanette taught the philosophy and theology (I use that term loosely) behind creativity and then Don gave us practical insight into becoming more creative. For example, after Jeanette taught on the idea of creativity and that being analogous to God the Father, Don taught on the top ten places for creative ideas to come to us. After the section dealing with Jesus and the creative idea being put into action, Don taught on several habits of creative people.

The ultimate point of the message was for us to learn to be creative and then use that creativity for something useful. The Sayers quote which they kept using throughout the lesson was "…that we may redeem the Fall by a creative act." When one actually begins to break that down and think it through, it's a scary thing to be teaching people. The point of the message was that we can use our creativity to redeem the fall. In other words, our world is in a rough situation. All of the pain and hardship in society comes as a result of the fall. We must use our creativity to fix the problems created by mankind's fall into sin.

Sadly, throughout the message there was no mention of the gospel of Jesus Christ being what redeems men from the fall.

In the end, the tag-team talk consisted of little more than some vaguely inspiring teaching about using creativity to meet the physical and temporal needs of those in our community. Noticeably missing was the centrality of the gospel.

Bryan Caplan has some great advice to live by: Two Heuristics to Live By When You Don't Know What You're Doing:

When we see people making bad decisions - whether as consumers or voters - we often blame the "complexity" of the issues they face. If Ph.D. economists can't figure out the best mortgage to use, how can we expect the average borrower to do so? If health policy experts can't agree on how to fix the U.S. medical system, what is the typical voter to think?

But if complexity is your only demon, I've got two simple rules of thumb to exorcise him. Here goes:

1. If you don't have clear and convincing evidence that doing something is better than doing nothing, do nothing.

2. If you know that doing nothing is bad, but don't have clear and convincing evidence that one action is better than another, do the simplest, standard thing.

I frequently apply these rules to my consumption decisions. Until I'm convinced that a product will make my life better, I just don't buy it. I might enjoy a big plasma T.V., but until a seller clearly explains how he's going to painlessly install it in my house, I'm not buying one. If I do decide in favor of a plasma T.V., but remain confused about which one to buy, I'll probably just get the biggest one that CostCo carries.

In the mortgage market, similarly, my heuristics say: (a) Rent until it's clear that buying will improve your life; and (b) Get a standard 30-year fixed-rate mortgage from an established lender. Don't buy a house you might not be able to afford by signing a contract you can't explain to your friends.

Michael Yon thinks that [The Surge worked -- and we won].

The war continues to abate in Iraq. Violence is still present, but, of course, Iraq was a relatively violent place long before Coalition forces moved in. I would go so far as to say that barring any major and unexpected developments (like an Israeli air strike on Iran and the retaliations that would follow), a fair-minded person could say with reasonable certainty that the war has ended. A new and better nation is growing legs. What's left is messy politics that likely will be punctuated by low-level violence and the occasional spectacular attack. Yet, the will of the Iraqi people has changed, and the Iraqi military has dramatically improved, so those spectacular attacks are diminishing along with the regular violence. Now it's time to rebuild the country, and create a pluralistic, stable and peaceful Iraq. That will be long, hard work. But by my estimation, the Iraq War is over. We won. Which means the Iraqi people won.

So, over the weekend the Green Party decided to nominate Cynthia McKinney for President. I don't think much of her (and her former constituents don't like her much either), but I won't dwell on that here.

Instead, I'll focus on her peculiar definition of freedom:

Resolutely anti-war and anti-imperialist, firmly committed to defending individual liberties and determined to hold the outgoing president and vice president accountable -- as a member of the House in 2006, McKinney introduced the first articles of impeachment against President Bush -- McKinney is an ardent advocate for national health care, expanded education spending and energy policies that emphasize mass transportation and conservation rather than rewarding oil-company profiteering.

In McKinney's land of the free, you aren't free to:

• choose how to pay for your healthcare
• choose where to send your children to school
• choose how to travel and where to live

You know what, I choose not to vote Green this year.

As you may have heard on the news, Wisconsin experienced some pretty severe flooding last month. Shortly after the rains subsided, I received Congresswoman Baldwin's monthly e-mail update. She included this quote:

Our entire state Congressional delegation sent a letter to President Bush last Friday asking him to respond quickly to any requests Governor Doyle makes for federal aid for flood relief.

In this type of crisis, the federal government takes guidance from local authorities as to where help is most needed. Our municipal, county, and state agencies are responding magnificently to this wide-spread disaster.

(Emphasis added by the editor).

It's gratifying to see that Congresswoman Baldwin recognizes that state and local governments have a role to play in disaster relief. Nearly three years ago, she blamed the slow response to Hurricane Katrina exclusively on the the President.

I have heard from dozens of you who are outraged, as I am, by the slow response of the federal government and there will be questions raised and answers demanded of those ostensibly in charge of our homeland security and federal emergency management, but first we must focus on the crisis at hand.

Somewhat surprisingly, I don't recall hearing Congresswoman Baldwin lament any of the many mistakes that Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco made.

In summary then: when a state's government is on top of diaster relief, she calls on the President to respond to their magnificent efforts. When a state's government is lost, confused, and unprepared, she berates the President for not overriding their efforts. According to Congresswoman Baldwin, although "the federal government takes guidance from local authorities", ultimately only the federal government bears any responsibility at all. Thus, the federal government becomes a convenient whipping boy and the states are encouraged to minimize preparedness.

Obama's not even President yet and he's already revealing plans to stack the deck in his own favor. Protein Wisdom reveals What's behind Obama's national service plan?:

His broader approach proposes to expand AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots and double the size of the Peace Corps, integrate service-learning programs into schools and universities, expand service initiatives that "engage disadvantaged young people and advance their education", expand the capacity of nonprofits to innovate and expand their programs and so on.

Indeed, in making his proposal, Obama alluded to his time as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side, and his stint heading the group Project Vote -- and it turns out there is a direct angle here. Obama directed Project Vote for ACORN -- an "antipoverty" group also frequently involved in scandal-ridden voter registration drives. Obama has a long, sybiotic relationship with the group. He was their lawyer, helped train ACORN activists, and fed them grants from his position at the Woods Fund; they endorsed Obama's candidacies and provided troops for his early campaigns. ACORN has a long history concerning both election fraud and misuse of federal funds, including AmeriCorps funds:

In 1994, the ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) received a grant from the newly created Americorps to assist low-income families at finding housing. In applying for the grant, the AHC claimed its activities were completely separate from ACORN.

But one year later, the Americorps Inspector General would testify that "AHC used Americorps grant funds to benefit ACORN either directly or indirectly." She found several instances of cost-shifting from ACORN's lobbying group to the housing entity, and also found several instances of the steering of recipients of housing counseling into ACORN memberships.

It is difficult to imagine Obama rigorously policing ACORN from using the national service program as a recruiting tool or to further its non-partisan-in-name-only voter registration drives. To the contrary, his national service plan looks like another avenue for Obama to realize his vision of creating an army of left-wing activists to push his agenda and register more likely Democrats.

Bill Quick sends an e-mail to Glenn Reynolds:

So I'm out on my bike today - it's gorgeous in SF - and I stop by the Bay for a breather and just to sit and watch the sailboats gliding under the Bay Bridge.

I open my backpack and drag out my 3 lb Lenovo with builtin EVDO, fire it up, and check my blog. Then yours - and see your post about The Mirrored Heavens. I click the link and check it out at Amazon. Sounds right up my alley. So I open my Sony eReader, connect it to my laptop, and buy the book for ten bucks, download it, and watch it join the 400 or so other books sitting in my reader.

It's next on the "pile," after I finish crunching my way through Peter Hamilton's endless, but fascinating trilogy.

Speaking as a SF writer, I can tell you that intellectually this shouldn't amaze me (and intellectually, I expect the process to be a lot more seamless in a couple of years), but as a 62 year old person who can remember when phones were black, tvs had tiny round screens, and the "network" was The Lone Ranger on CBS radio, there are times it seems downright miraculous.

Thanks for the recommendation.

Last month, in a meeting at work, I listened to a presentation about medical billing and denials. During the presentation, the presenter made an offhand remark at insurance companies denying claims "without ever seeing the patient or knowing what the needs are". The unstated assumption was that a government run health plan would do a better job of making sure that people got the healthcare they need. (At my job, that's usually the assumption, stated or otherwise.)

But is that really true? Well, not if you hold up Medicare as an example of well-run government healthcare. This week, Scott Gottlieb wrote an interesting op-ed for the Wall Street Journal: "What's at Stake in the Medicare Showdown".

First, there's a mistaken belief that Medicare is better staffed than private plans, and can therefore make better decisions about patients' clinical circumstances and the access to new therapies they should have. Yet at any time, Medicare has about 20 doctors and 40 total clinicians (including nurses) inside the coverage office, and fewer than a dozen in the office that sets the rates that doctors are reimbursed for the care they provide. Private insurers employ thousands of doctors, nurses and pharmacists, many experts in new technologies.

Aetna has more than 140 physicians and about 3,300 nurses, pharmacists and other clinicians across its health plans. Wellpoint has 4,000 clinicians across its different businesses, including 125 doctors and 3,180 nurses. That works out to one clinician for every 9,000 people covered. United Healthcare employs about 600 doctors and 12,000 clinicians across all of its health plans and various health-care businesses.

Private plans use clinically trained people to establish access to new technologies and services, but they also consult with doctors on a case-by-case basis, determining whether a product or service should be covered. Competition for beneficiaries means private plans need to provide better access for appeals, modern services and more personal considerations than what's offered by Medicare, a monopoly supplier.

Recent data from Price Waterhouse Coopers found that private plans spend roughly four times more than Medicare on "consumer services, provider support, and marketing," which includes money spent answering the telephone to adjudicate individual issues. Smaller health plans use one clinician for every 10,000 beneficiaries. Medicare would need 4,500 clinicians to keep pace.

One place where the clinician disparity is most obvious is the delivery of cancer benefits. Medicare doesn't have a single oncologist on staff, yet since the year 2000 the program issued, by my count, 165 restrictions and directives on the use of cancer drugs and diagnostic tools.

A second common refrain is that Medicare is more efficient than private plans, spending less money per beneficiary to administer health services. But a lot of the money that private plans spend is on clinical specialists charged not only with reviewing individual cases, but also with ensuring that doctors and beneficiaries comply with plan contracts. Far from a selling point, not having these functions is one of Medicare's shortcomings.

Medicare doesn't need to hire doctors to weigh individual medical cases because it uses formulaic rules made in Washington to set broad and inflexible restrictions on medical practice. Nor does the program need to hire clinical staff to monitor compliance. It passes costs for that on to the broader health-care system by backing up its rules with the threat of costly civil and even criminal sanctions. Providers and medical product developers spend hundreds of millions of dollars on systems, personnel and paperwork to ensure compliance with Medicare's sticky morass of regulations - tasks made more expensive by the fuzziness of the program's regulations and the arbitrary way they are enforced.

When you put it that way, I'd far rather have my expenses reviewed by private insurance than by Medicare. Instead of an example to follow, Medicare looks like a cautionary tale of what not to do.

I work with a lot of bright people. I wish they would question their assumptions more often and not just fall back on the tired rhetoric of "profit-seeking companies are bad" and "government programs really do help people".

Apparently, Justices no longer have to fact check their Supreme Court opinions or dissents. Justice Stevens' dissent had two rather major errors:

Comment on to previous post points out at p.2 of the Stevens dissent he refers to NFA and US v. Miller: "Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that..."

Same mistake the 9th Circus made years ago and had to issue a new opinion, since Miller was never convicted -- commentators noted this was pretty suggestive the court hadn't bothered to read Miller before citing it. First thing you look for in reading a case is what happened below, and what the Court do to that. Very first thing.

I'd add that at 41 he refers to:

"In 1901 the President revitalized the militia by creating the 'National Guard of the several States,' Perpich 496 U.S. at 341 and nn. 9-10."

Reading that part of Perpich v. Dodd: It says in 1901 President Roosevelt called for reforming the militia. He didn't create the National Guard (where would he have had the authority?)

How much should I trust the rest of his dissent?

As I've mentioned in the past, I enjoy reading a few economics blogs. Lately, oil prices have been a hot topic -- why are they high?, are they too high?, are they too low?, are speculators driving up the price, etc. It's been a fascinating discussion.

Yesterday, Arnold Kling suggested that it's more likely that oil prices were too low last year than that oil prices are too high this year. In other words, we're not in an "oil bubble" created by evil speculators.

Early in 2007, the price of oil was $60 a barrel. Recently, it has been above $130 a barrel. Which of the following does Paul Krugman believe:

(a) market fundamentals justified $60 a barrel then, and they justify $130 a barrel now; or

(b) market fundamentals justified a much higher price in 2007?

I believe that (b) is more likely to be true, meaning that we had what Tyler Cowen calls an "anti-bubble" in oil.

(Via EconLog.)

I don't know if he's right or not, but I suspect he could be. I don't think demand has gone up that much between this year and last year. Maybe people are just now realizing how fundamentally the Indian and Chinese demand for energy is going to change the world?

The Heller decision was a big win for the 2nd Amendment: it established that citizens do have a right to own guns. Unfortunately, that decision only applies to the federal government. What about the states? It will take a new court case -- and a new decision -- to establish whether or not the 2nd Amendment applies to state and local governments.

Well, that didn't take long. It looks like that new court case is on it's way: SCOTUSblog » New case tests Second Amendment's reach:

In a newly filed lawsuit in federal court in Chicago, two gun rights organizations and four individuals asked that the Second Amendment be extended to block strict gun laws at the state and local level. "The Second Amendment right," the complaint contended, "is incorporated as against the states and their political subdivisions pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

The case, McDonald, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al. (District docket 08-3645), was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago to challenge a city ordinance that bars registration of handguns with only a few exceptions, and that limits registration of other guns. The case was assigned to Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur. The complaint can be read here.

With the spring weather that we had this year, eating local doesn't look like such a great idea:

The floods that damaged farms in southern Wisconsin will likely result in fewer fruits and vegetables at farmers' markets this summer and help boost already high prices for organic eggs and meat at grocery stores in the fall.

A cool spring meant many farmers were about two weeks behind in planting. The storms struck just as their first plants emerged from the ground.

"Twelve inches of water falling on, say, this field of beets that were just starting to peak through the soil, it just washed them away," de Wilde said. "They couldn't withstand that kind of deluge."

Organic corn fed to livestock that provide organic eggs, chicken, beef and pork was barely 4 inches high, half of what it should have been, said Eric Newman, vice president of sales for La Farge-based Organic Valley, the nation's largest cooperative of organic farmers.

Thankfully, today's progressive consumer can secure an organic diet no matter what the local market is like:

California supplies over half of the nation's organic fruits and vegetables and should be able to make up for losses in Wisconsin and other flooded states, Newman said.

It's a good thing we have a robust, distributed economy. Even though local farms are having a tough time, we won't have to worry about anyone starving or eating an unbalanced diet.

This morning, General Motors announced that it would be closing four plants -- including the Janesville, Wisconsin plant. Everyone was talking about the news today. Most of the talk centered around who to blame. The most popular candidates were President Bush; the evil, greedy managers of GM; and even President Reagan (!).

Governor Doyle's opinion:

"Bad corporate decision kept these lines turning out gas guzzlers as fuel prices went from 2 dollars to 3 dollars and now to 4 dollars per gallon.

"Now we stand here, carrying the burden of those bad corporate decisions -- failed leadership that culminated in a calculation that left out the very heart of this company, the workers who built"

Senator Obama's opinion:

"Unlike John McCain, I'm not in this race to extend the failed Bush economic policies; I'm in this race to end them," Obama said. "I've proposed investing $150 billion over ten years in green energy and creating up to five million new green jobs. We'll finally provide domestic automakers with the funding they need to retool their factories and make fuel-efficient and alternative fuel cars. And we'll invest in efforts to make sure that the cars of the future are made where they always have been -- in the United States. Because the fight for American manufacturing is the fight for America's future -- and I believe that's a fight this country will win."

As I read through the various articles, I noticed a few hints about why American automakers might need funding to produce fuel-efficient cars.

High Labor Costs:

In the past, costs generally were too high for Detroit automakers to turn a profit on small U.S.-built cars. But [Chief Executive Rick] Wagoner said GM has lowered costs enough with new labor contracts and other measures to turn a profit.

"The direct answer is we need to," Wagoner told reporters. "We believe we can build a car there profitably."

Generous Benefits:

Fisher said some of the hardest hit residents will be those employed by suppliers and other businesses dependent on GM, noting that GM often has been called "generous motors" for its pay and benefits.

That corporate generosity -- often granted at the barrel of a UAW gun -- destroyed GM's ability to make a profit on small cars. Because of high labor costs, GM only earned a decent profit on the more expensive trucks and SUVs. With gas costing $4 gallon GM can no longer afford to keep producing gas hogs -- or keep employing a pricey workforce.

Finally, it's interesting to note that Senator Kohl believes only the government is capable of retraining GM's employees.

"With the announcement that General Motors plans to close this plant, thousands of skilled and dedicated workers face a stark future of employment and financial uncertainty," Kohl said. "Secretary Chao seems to understand the severity of the situation and assured me that the Labor Department would take immediate steps to retrain workers at the plant. Only then can these employees learn new skills necessary to finding new jobs."

Silly me. This plant has been on life support for quite a while. I thought that the employees might have taken that as a warning sign to improve their own skills and start learning a new trade.

And, yes, I do feel for these workers. I can sympathize with the fear that comes from losing a steady income and facing an uncertain future. In some measure, the future is always uncertain. I prefer to always plan for that uncertainty, as best as I possibly can. I never want to just assume that if I ignore the uncertainty -- or appeal to Washington -- that it will just go away.

I'd really like to buy a single-column Bible in the near future. Of all of my Bible wants, I think this is the biggest. Of course, I also want a black letter Bible, that's printed in a paragraph-by-paragraph format rather than a verse-by-verse format. Here's a quick rundown of the major candidates:

ESV Study Bible (Crossway)

• 9-point type, single-column layout for the Bible text; 7.25-point type, double-column layout for the notes
• Size: 6.5" x 9.25"
• 2,752 pages

It looks like a good candidate and I'll probably buy a copy just for all of the "study Bible" features. But the pages themselves look really busy and distracting. That's mostly due to those same "study Bible" features.

ESV Literary Study Bible (Crossway, Amazon)

• 8.5-point type
• Size: 6" x 9"
• 1,952 pages

The ESV LSB is smaller than the ESV Study Bible, with a slightly smaller font size. The text is printed in a paragraph-by-paragraph format rather than a verse-by-verse format. The font size is slightly smaller than I'd prefer, but I don't think it would be too small (sample pages).

I'm afraid that I'll get annoyed at the embedded literary study notes. I have no doubt that they'll be very useful and educational. Unfortunately, they break up the text and make the Bible larger than it otherwise would be. That will distract me from using this Bible as a pure reading Bible.

ESV Personal Size Reference Bible (Crossway, Amazon)

• 7.4-point type
• Size: 5" x 7.25"
• 1,308 pages

I think this Bible is exactly what I want -- except for the tiny font size. (Sample pages.)

TNIV Reference Bible (Zondervan)

• 9-point type
• Size: 6.9" x 9.8"
• 1408 pages

I generally prefer the ESV over the TNIV. This Bible would have to really impress me, for me to purchase a TNIV instead of an ESV. This Bible comes close, but I think the verse numbers and footnote letters are distracting. (Sample pages.)

Conclusion

Right now, I think I'd like to purchase the Literary Study Bible as a "bedside" Bible and an ESV Personal Reference Bible as an "out and about" Bible.

Soli Deo Gloria means "God's Glory Alone". When Martin Luther, John Calvin, and the rest of the Reformers tried to reform the Catholic church, they summarized their teachings under five main statements: Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone), Soli Deo Gloria (God's Glory Alone), Solus Christus (Christ Alone), Sola Gratia (Grace Alone), and Sola Fide (Faith Alone). At some point I'll probably talk about all five of these ideas. Right now, I just want to touch on Soli Deo Gloria.

Soli Deo Gloria is the idea that everything on earth happens for a reason. What reason is that? Everything happens to make people recognize the greatness of God. This is one of the main themes running throughout the Bible. God eventually works everything out in a way that will bring Him glory. This has a lot of implications. Some of them are nice to think about and some of them are a little bit scary scary to think about.

I'm not going to talk about that tonight. Tonight, I'm going to share a Bible passage that illustrate this principle. This is a poem, written by a man named Asaph. His nation, Israel, has been conquered and decimated by foreign enemies. But notice the focus of his poetry: he is ultimately concerned for God's repuation and God's glory. He wants his nation restored. But he doesn't want his nation restored because of his national pride. He wants his nation restored so that other nations will know that God is real and is powerful.

[esvbible reference="Psalm 79" header="on" format="block"]Psalm 79[/esvbible]

The Bible is old and complex. How can I possibly expect to understand it? Every time a pastor gets up, he seems to teach something from the Bible that I've never even seen before. Why should I even bother trying to read it myself?

The truth is, I can learn to read the Bible for myself. It takes practice -- but I have my whole life to get it right. I don't have to develop into a theologian overnight. My church recently taught a session on how to read the Bible. I wasn't able to attend, but a friend did. I'll share a portion of her notes.

1. Begin with the context: historical - the writer - the audience - the culture - other events
2. Read headings before/after this chapter. What is going on? Whose life is being chronicled?
3. Is this a minor or major incident?
4. What else do we know about the people involved?
5. List questions that occur to you as you read this passage. Try to forget past messages you have heard or books and studies you have read about this. Read with fresh eyes and think about someone telling you this story. What would you ask them before you go on? What do you need further clarification on?
6. What?
7. Why?
8. When?
9. How?
10. Where?
11. Who?
12. Look for repeated words, details, unfamiliar terms.
13. What are differences/similarities between the original audience and us.
14. What principle(s) cross cultural divide? What is applicable to us in our culture?

I'm not a Bible expert. Answering the Who, When, What, Why questions can be tough. It can even be tough to know who the writer and audience are or what the culture was. Even with those principles, how can I really know what's going on?

I start with the realization that the Bible was written for me, but it wasn't written to me. I first heard this idea when Dr. John Walton spoke at Blackhawk. His sermon -- Why Didn't God Call the Light, Light helped me to see that the Bible doesn't necessarily speak in the way that I expect it to speak. I can't simply pick it up and read it the same way that I would read a novel or a science textbook. I have to read it the way that the original audience read it.

Fortunately, Dr. Walton helped me to do just that. He didn't personally help me, but one of his books did. Old Testament Today is an Old Testament overview that helped me understand the Old Testament in a way that I never had before. It has a very unique style:

Old Testament Today is unique among Old Testament surveys. It not only provides an orientation to the world of the Old Testament but also builds a bridge between the original audience and modern readers, demonstrating why the ancient message is important for faith and life today.

Old Testament Today goes beyond basic content to help students understand what the Scriptures mean and how to apply them personally. [T]his text takes the reader section by section through the Old Testament using a progressive, three-step format:

1. Original Meaning presents the details of the content, focusing on the story line, historical background, and literary information that address the original setting and audience.
2. Bridging Contexts focuses on theological perspectives and on issues of the authors purpose and the universal message of the text, building a bridge between the original audience and todays audience.
3. Contemporary Significance develops an understanding of the relevance of the Old Testament writings to todays Christian, showing how they can be applied in personal faith and practice.

It covers the major sections of the Old Testament: the Fundamentals of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, Historical Literature, Prophets, Wisdom Literature, Psalms, and a wrap-up. It really helped me to understand where each book fits and how the different parts of the Old Testament mesh together. (Google Books will give you a bit of a sneak peak at the book.)

After reading Old Testament Today and seeing how the three-step process worked, I wanted to get more than just an overview of the entire Old Testament. I wanted to understand each book, using that same method. The NIV Life Application Commentary series fills that need perfectly. Each commentary focuses on one book of the Bible and uses the same three step method (Original Meaning, Bridging Contexts, and Contemporary Significance) to explain what's happening in the text.

If you're like me -- you want to both read and understand the Bible, I'd highly recommend buying a few of these books.

As I've started actually reading my Bible more, I've become pickier about which Bible I read. Since this is my blog, I'm going to spend some time talking about what goes into my decision. Be warned: this is slightly long winded.

Translation

I prefer the English Standard Version. The ESV website describes the translation this way:

The ESV is an "essentially literal" translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on "word-for-word" correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original.

Every translation is at many points a trade-off between literal precision and readability, between "formal equivalence" in expression and "functional equivalence" in communication, and the ESV is no exception. Within this framework we have sought to be "as literal as possible" while maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence.

Therefore, to the extent that plain English permits and the meaning in each case allows, we have sought to use the same English word for important recurring words in the original; and, as far as grammar and syntax allow, we have rendered Old Testament passages cited in the New in ways that show their correspondence. Thus in each of these areas, as well as throughout the Bible as a whole, we have sought to capture the echoes and overtones of meaning that are so abundantly present in the original texts.

That's very important to me. I've read other translations that chose to emphasize readability and understandability instead of literalness. They weren't bad translations -- I liked them. But when it came to "difficult" passages (such as the issue of women in leadership), I felt like the translation was hiding the author's original meaning. After a while, that started to bother me. I feel that the ESV strikes a decent balance between being understandable in the 21st century and staying true to the original text.

Black Letter

Whichever translation I use, I want a black-letter edition of the Bible. Many popular editions of the Bible choose to print Jesus's words in red. I don't like that practice, for two reasons.

Printing the words of Jesus in red implies that they are more important than the other words in the Bible. It sets them apart from the rest of the text and draws extra attention to them. The publisher, in effect, chose to highlight those words for you. But I don't think that's what God intended. Paul and Peter explicitly say that all of the Bible comes from God.

[esvbible reference="2 Timothy 3:16" format="inline"]2 Timothy 3:16[/esvbible]

[esvbible reference="2 Peter 1:21" format="inline"]2 Peter 1:21[/esvbible]

Secondly, printing the words of Jesus in red assumes that the Gospel quotations are direct quotations. I don't believe that they are. First century writers weren't concerned with getting direct quotations or properly attributing every source. They didn't make material up, they just weren't as rigorous as we are about documenting it and relaying it precisely. We can also see that the quotations aren't exact. Compare Matthew 9:4-6 with Mark 2:8-11.

[esvbible reference="Matthew 9:4-6" format="inline"]Matthew 9:4-6[/esvbible]

[esvbible reference="Mark 2:8-11" format="inline"]Mark 2:8-11[/esvbible]

The differences are subtle but real. While the gist is the same, the exact words differ. Both texts were inspired by God, but related by men. I want a Bible that prints the Jesus's words the same as everybody else's words.

Not Distracting

I want a Bible that doesn't distract me from the meaning of the text. Chapter headings, subheadings, and chapter / verse divisions are all modern innovations. People throughout history created multiple different ways of breaking up and organizing the text. Our modern chapter and verse divisions first appeared in the Geneva Bible in 1599.

Chapter and verse divisions are necessary, to quickly locate a given passage. But they can break a text in the middle of a narrative, leaving the reader with a false impression about where a thought begins or ends. Headings and subheadings can be even more intrusive and distracting.

One example: the parable of the prodigal son. Many people are familiar with the parable, from [esvbible reference="Luke 15:11-32" header="on" format="link"]Luke 15:11-32[/esvbible]. Most Bible editions have a helpful subheader that indicates "The Parable of the Prodigal Son". But that subheader hides the fact that the parable was told as the third in a series.

In [esvbible reference="Luke 15" header="on" format="link"]Luke 15[/esvbible], the Pharisees complain about Jesus choosing to hang out with non-religious people. Jesus responds to them by telling three parables, each with a different point. Jesus intended each parable to be a partial response. We misread the text if we try to take the parables one at a time and read them separately.

I think we also risk misreading the text if the publisher formats the text in a verse-by-verse style instead of a paragraph-by-paragraph style. In a verse-by-verse style each verse starts on a new line. This unnecessarily -- and arbitrarily -- breaks up the text. It destroys the flow of the narrative and makes the text harder to read. Conversely, a paragraph-by-paragraph style combines multiple verses into one block of text. It is much more natural to read and helps to keep the text as a series of coherent thoughts.

Headers, subheaders, and intrusive verse divisions can encourage misreading. I prefer a Bible edition that formats the text into paragraphs and has few headers dividing up the text.

Readability

I want a Bible that's easy to read: not too heavy, not too thick, and easy on the eyes. I have two primary criteria for readability: single column pages with at least a 9pt font. I take this preference from J. Mark Bertrand. In this review of The Message: Remixed Bible, he explains his fondness for single-column layouts.

The fact that The Message Remix is laid out in single columns deserves a point all its own. This is what readers are accustomed to, and it makes more visual sense than the traditional double column layout. I don't know why so many publishers are committed to double columns. The practice creates all sorts of problems. For example, the ESV's narrow columns force unintentional line breaks on passages set in verse. The problem is solved in the standalone edition of the Psalms, which is set in a single column. But for some reason, the single column format that works so well in the ESV standalone editions of the Psalms and the Gospel of John is not available in a complete edition of the Bible. Designers take note: single-column formatting makes a world of difference in terms of the reader's experience.

If a Bible is going to have a single column layout, the lines need to be kept relatively short. Studies have shown that most people prefer reading text that has 60-75 characters per line. (About 12 words per line.) Using a larger font is the best to keep the lines short and the text easy to read.

As someone who loves to read, I prefer single column text. As someone who loves to read for long stretches of time, I prefer text that's large enough to read without requiring me to squint or strain to see the text.

Binding

Finally, I want a strong binding that will last for a while. My goal is to find a Bible that I'll use daily for the next 10-20 years. The binding should last as long as the Bible does. Ideally, I'd like pages that are sewn together, not glued together. Again, J. Mark Bertrand explains why:

This means that the pages are folded over into little booklets called signatures and then the signatures are stitched together. The individual page -- say page 993 -- is actually one of four pages that are printed together on a single sheet, then folded. What's the advantage of this? For one thing, the pages don't fall out with heavy use the way adhesive bindings do. For another, a sewn binding has the potential to be more flexible in the hand.

To be honest, I'm not yet sure what the Bible cover should be made out of. I'm not up on the differences between genuine leather, calfskin and TruTone materials. Rest assured, I'll have an opinion soon and I'll let you know what it is when I discover it.

Summary

Here's the short version of my "perfect" Bible checklist.

• ESV
• Black letter
• Paragraph layout, not verse layout
• 9+ pt font
• Single Column
• No subheadings
• Sewn, not glued, binding

Yes, that's very picky. As I write this, I'm incredibly grateful that I live in a society wealthy enough to enable me to be that picky about my copy of the Bible. I'm thankful that not only do I have access to a complete copy of the Bible -- something that many Christians worldwide still don't have -- but that I can be discriminating about what that copy looks like. As I read each day, I thank God for the text I have and the freedom I have to worship Him.

In America, are we ruled by men or by laws? Theoretically, we're ruled by laws -- everyone is under the law and no one escapes justice. In practice, that's not true. And the very people who are charged with enforcing the law are often the first to ignore the law.

Take the traffic laws for instance:

Some patrol officers let drivers with protected plates off with a warning because the plates signal that the drivers are "one of their own" or related to someone who is. The Register used public records laws to obtain OCTA computer logs for the 91 Express Lanes and found 14,535 unpaid trips by motorists with confidential plates in the past five years. A Register analysis showed that was 3,722 separate vehicles, some running the toll road hundreds of times.

Among the top violators on OCTA's list were Dwight and Michell Storay (he's a parole agent with the Department of Corrections), with 622 violations and Lenai and Arnold Carraway (she's an Orange County social worker), with 239 violations.

Some police officers confess that when they pull over someone with a confidential license plate they're more likely to let them off with a warning. In most cases, one said, if an officer realizes a motorist has a confidential plate, the car won't be pulled over at all.

"It's an unwritten rule that we would extend professional courtesy," said Ron Smith, a retired Los Angeles Police Department officer who worked patrol for 23 years. "Nine out of 10 times I would."

Many police departments that run red light camera programs systematically dismiss citations issued to confidential plates.

"It's a courtesy, law enforcement to law enforcement," San Francisco Police Sgt. Tom Lee said. "We let it go."

It's not a "courtesy". It's breaking the law. These police officers should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. I'm as angry about this practice as I was the last time I wrote about it. It is wrong -- absolutely wrong -- for justice to be perverted this way. Being related to a police officer -- being a police officer -- does not make you special. It does not exempt you from following the rules. The police should know better.

Let me be blunt: any officer that would do this does not deserve to wear the badge.

On a whim, I started reading Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton. I downloaded it several months ago (because the copyright has expired, it's freely available), but just saved it as something to read later. Today, as it turns out. I've already been entertained and enlightened by the first 11 pages.

Take this excerpt for instance. Chesterton clearly shows the folly of teachers and parents who want children to have a "high self-esteem", no matter what.

Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true. Once I remember walking with a prosperous publisher, who made a remark which I had often heard before; it is, indeed, almost a motto of the modern world. Yet I had heard it once too often, and I saw suddenly that there was nothing in it. The publisher said of somebody, "That man will get on; he believes in himself." And I remember that as I lifted my head to listen, my eye caught an omnibus on which was written "Hanwell." I said to him, "Shall I tell you where the men are who believe most in themselves? For I can tell you. I know of men who believe in themselves more colossally than Napoleon or Caesar. I know where flames the fixed star of certainty and success. I can guide you to the thrones of the Super-men. The men who really believe in themselves are all in lunatic asylums." He said mildly that there were a good many men after all who believed in themselves and who were not in lunatic asylums. "Yes, there are," I retorted, "and you of all men ought to know them. That drunken poet from whom you would not take a dreary tragedy, he believed in himself. That elderly minister with an epic from whom you were hiding in a back room, he believed in himself. If you consulted your business experience instead of your ugly individualistic philosophy, you would know that believing in himself is one of the commonest signs of a rotter. Actors who can't act believe in themselves; and debtors who won't pay. It would be much truer to say that a man will certainly fail, because he believes in himself. Complete self-confidence is not merely a sin; complete self-confidence is a weakness. Believing utterly in one's self is a hysterical and superstitious belief like believing in Joanna Southcote: the man who has it has 'Hanwell' written on his face as plain as it is written on that omnibus." And to all this my friend the publisher made this very deep and effective reply, "Well, if a man is not to believe in himself, in what is he to believe?" After a long pause I replied, "I will go home and write a book in answer to that question." This is the book that I have written in answer to it.

Don't feel bad if that quote doesn't drive you to read the whole book. Chesterton himself had no interest in reading the book!

If any one is entertained by learning how the flowers of the field or the phrases in an omnibus, the accidents of politics or the pains of youth came together in a certain order to produce a certain conviction of Christian orthodoxy, he may possibly read this book. But there is in everything a reasonable division of labour. I have written the book, and nothing on earth would induce me to read it.