A G K Y R A

In Part 1, I said that at first glance, a lot of Richard Elliott Friedman’s source ascriptions in Genesis appear ad hoc. I am now noticing instances in which the text explicitly contradicts the Documentary Hypothesis, but where Friedman can safely ignore the discrepancies by recourse to The Magical Redactor. A redactor is an editor. The DH postulates that the Pentateuch is redacted (edited together) from different source documents, written by different people at different times (see Part 1 for more information). The reason I refer to the Redactor as The Magical Redactor is because this unknown and purely hypothetical person can always be invoked to clean up any loose ends. If the debits and credits don’t balance, The Magical Redactor can force a balance.

Where do we see The Magical Redactor? Let’s look first at Genesis 17:5, where God changes Abram’s name to Abraham:

And your name will not be called Abram anymore, but your name will be Abraham, because I’ve set you to be a father of a mass of nations. (Friedman’s translation)

Friedman ascribes this passage to the Priestly Source (P), but this presents a big problem for the DH. The account is not a doublet or triplet; that is, there is only the one account of the Abram/Abraham name change (which is in the P source), and yet all prior references to the man, in the J source as well, refer to him as Abram, and all subsequent references to him, in the J source as well, refer to him as Abraham. If Genesis is really a composite of independent sources, and if only one of them tells of Abram’s name change, why does the other one also recognize the name change, at exactly the same place, but without mentioning it?

Enter The Magical Redactor. Friedman’s explanation is this:

There is no mention of these changes of names in the other sources, but the Redactor has most probably made the change consistent for the rest of the narrative.

In other words, the author of J didn’t know about a name change and used only Abraham throughout, but P knew that Abraham had previously been known as Abram, recorded the name change, and distinguished between the time before the name change and the time after. Much later, the person who ultimately combined J and P (and the other sources) into the single document we have today, changed the J source so that it was consistent with P’s account of the name change. Where J originally read “Abraham” everywhere he was mentioned before 17:5, the Redactor changed the text to read “Abram,” hence what we read in Genesis 16:2 (J source), “And Sarai said to Abram, ‘Here, YHWH has held me back from giving birth …’”

Let me give you another example of The Magical Redactor’s handiwork. Read Genesis 15:7:

And He said to him, “I am YHWH, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees to give you this land, to possess it.” (Friedman)

According to Friedman, this is a J source text (note the name YHWH), but where it now says “Ur of the Chaldees,” it originally read “Haran.” The Redactor changed “Haran” to “Ur of the Chaldees” to make the unified text consistent, since P and J disagreed about where Abram came from. The P source had Abram coming out of Ur of the Chaldees (Genesis 11:31), but the J source had the trip to Canaan originate from Haran (12:1-4). In order to relieve the tension, the Redactor made Haran into a stopover on the journey from Ur to Canaan and added sentences such as “And they came to Haran, and they stayed there” to P’s account in 11:31 and made it clear that when they “went out” in 12:4, it was “from Haran.” The Redactor decisively had to take sides in the disagreement when he came to 15:7, because it was there that J most explicitly contradicted P. He chose P over J and changed “I am YHWH who brought you out of Haran” to “I am YHWH who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees.”

My criticism here is nothing to do with the idea of redaction on biblical books but with the methodological soundness of recourse to a hypothetical Redactor in cases like these where the prima facie contradiction is between the DH and the textual evidence. Is it historically possible that a real-life Redactor made exactly these changes that Friedman suggests? Yes it is. The problem is how we could ever know. Because the Redactor is unknown except for his work of tying up the loose ends, there is no possible evidence that can be brought against the hypothesis at this point. It DH without The Magical Redactor clashes with the textual evidence, but The Magical Redactor is a catch-all explanation that can salvage the DH against any possible contradiction with the evidence. The DH is underdetermined at this point.

If time allows, I might come back to this issue by addressing the question of why it is even necessary for the DH to postulate a discrepancy between J and P over the place of Abram’s origin. But for now, I’ll have to leave off here.

Technorati Tags: bible old+testament documentary+hypothesis documentary+theory pentateuch source+criticism hebrew+bible historical+criticism genesis abraham

In these fleeting last days before the fall semester starts, I have begun working through Richard Elliott Friedman’s book The Bible with Sources Revealed, which visually shows the results of the Documentary Hypothesis by color-coding all the text of the Pentateuch according to how Friedman attributes each passage to the underlying sources. To put it briefly, the DH says that the first five books of the Bible (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), or the Pentateuch, traditionally attributed to Moses, are actually composite works edited together from a variety of source documents. The source documents are identified by the letters J, E, D, and P, for Jahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly Source, respectively, according to a distinctive characteristic of each source.

According to Friedman, there are seven main lines of evidence in support of the DH:

• Linguistic: the hypothetical sources seem to come from different periods in the development of the Hebrew language: early, middle, and late.
• Terminology: the sources are distinguished by their choice of words. For example, 14 out of 15 occurrences of “plague” are said to be in the P source, whereas only the D source uses the phrase “with all your heart and with all your soul.”
• Consistent Content: This is broken down into several sub-categories. I will give one or two examples from each category.
  • Revelation of God’s Name: According to J, humans knew God as YHWH from very early (Genesis 4:26b), whereas P seems to claim that the name YHWH was first revealed to Moses (Exodus 6:2-3)
  • Sacred Objects: The Tabernacle is a special concern of P, but not of J or D. Only P and J mention cherubs, E and D never do.
  • Priestly Leadership: In P, only the sons of Aaron are priests, whereas in D, all the Levites are priests.
  • Numbers: P reports dates and numbers precisely; the other sources do not.
• Continuity of Texts (Narrative Flow): According to Friedman, when the sources are distinguished from each other, they each result in a highly continuous narrative in their own right. This is critical since each of the sources is supposed to have been an independently existing text before they were edited together.
• Connections with Other Parts of the Bible: D exhibits parallel wording with passages in Jeremiah; P parallels Ezekiel; J and E have connections with Hosea.
• Relationships Among the Sources to Each Other and to History: J is hypothesized to have originated during the time of the divided kingdom (ca. 10th-8th centuries BCE) in Judah, the southern kingdom. E was written approximately during the same time in Israel, the northern kingdom. That makes it noteworthy that in J, Abraham lives in Hebron, which was the capital of Judah. Further, the ark was located in Judah, not Israel, and correspondingly, we see the ark emphasized in J but not in E.
• Convergence: This, Friedman believes, is the strongest evidence for the DH: that several of these lines of evidence converge in particular passages. When you separate out the sources, you find distinctive terminology, different stages in the historical development of the Hebrew language, and continuous narratives all together.

The DH is certainly plausible. The tradition that ascribes the whole Pentateuch to Moses is a very old one, but it’s only a tradition, and even if it is the case that a substantial portion of the books were written by Moses himself (or a single other person), we can’t rule out the possibility that bits of other material were added later. There are apparent discrepancies in the text that would be explained if they come from different sources. If the evidence is as clear as he says it is, especially if by attributing different bits of text to different sources all kinds of other distinctive features come to light (convergence of evidence), the DH ought to be accepted by all.

As I say, I’m only beginning to work through this material, but I’m continually bothered by what look to be ad hoc ascriptions of a text to J or to P not because there’s anything in the text that would indicate such a source but because it’s necessary to the hypothesis. Let me give an example from the doublet telling of the separation of Abraham and Lot in Genesis 13. Doublets are double-tellings of an incident and are especially important in this kind of historical inquiry because they’re prime candidates for a text that was spliced together from two different original sources, both of which had versions of the one event. Here’s the text in question:

(5) And Lot, who was going with Abram, also had a flock and oxen and tents. (6) And the land did not suffice them to live together, because their property was great, and they were not able to live together. (7) And there was a quarrel between those who herded Abram’s livestock and those who herded Lot’s livestock. And the Canaanite and the Perizzite lived in the land then. (8) And Abram said to Lot, “Let there be no quarreling between me and you and between my herders and your herders, because we’re brothers. (9) Isn’t the whole land before you? Separate from me: if left then I’ll go right, and if right then I’ll go left.” (10) And Lot raised his eyes and saw all the plain of the Jordan, that all of it was well-watered (before YHWH’s destroying Sodom and Gomorrah) like YHWH’s garden, like the land of Egypt, as you come to Zoar. (11) And Lot chose all the plain of the Jordan for himself, and Lot traveled east. And they separated, each from his brother. (12) Abram lived in the land of Canaan, and Lot lived in the cities of the plain. And he tented as far as Sodom. (Genesis 13:5-12, Friedman’s translation)

According to Friedman, this is a doublet, comprised of the J and the P source of Abraham and Lot’s separation. All of it is J except for vv. 6 and 11b-12a:

And the land did not suffice them to live together, because their property was great, and they were not able to live together (verse 6). And they separated, each from his brother. Abram lived in the land of Canaan, and Lot lived in the cities of the plain (verses 11b-12a).

Is this actually a doublet? Do the two verses that he claims are from the P source actually retell the rest of the incident or are they just summary statements? It’s not easy to tell. Go back and read the whole passage again and see if it looks like two tellings of the same incident from different sources.

The P source, as Friedman has identified it, does show narrative unity. The immediately preceding text in P is found in Genesis 12:4b-5:

And Abram was seventy-five years old when he went out. And Abram took Sarai, his wife, and Lot, his brother’s son, and all their property that they had accumulated and the persons whom they had gotten, and they went out to go to the land of Canaan. And they came to the land of Canaan. (Friedman’s translation)

Which leads straight into the abbreviated account of Abraham and Lot’s separation we just saw:

And the land did not suffice them to live together, because their property was great, and they were not able to live together. And they separated, each from his brother. Abram lived in the land of Canaan, and Lot lived in the cities of the plain. (Genesis 13:6, 11b-12a, Friedman)

If the alleged P bits in Genesis 13 are really only summary statements from an original unity, then it should come as no surprise that there’s narrative continuity in P. If every account has both a summary and the details, and you separate out all the summaries and then join them together, of course you will have a continuous narrative. So in this case, narrative continuity is actually not evidence for the DH against the traditional view that Genesis 13 comes from a single author.

Even if we conclude that this is a doublet, why should we attribute verses 6 and 11b-12a to P and not some other source? The rest of the account would clearly have to be attributed to J, since it says that “Abram invoked the name YHWH there” (13:4b), but why suppose verses 6 and 11b-12a are P and not E or some other source? The only distinctively P trait is the word “property” in verse 6, but how much evidentiary value does that have? The conclusion that only P uses the word “property” can only be reached after the text units have been separated in their sources, so it seems that there is no reason to choose P over E, except the desire to preserve narrative continuity. Since P is believed to leave off with an account of Abraham’s journey to Canaan (in 12:4b-5, above), attributing the doublet in chapter 13 to P, rather than something else, preserves the continuity of P. That seems reasonable, but at the same time it also lacks evidentiary weight. There’s no reason to multiply entities by postulating a different source here, but nevertheless, attributing the doublet in chapter 13 to P is simply performed ex hypothesi: the hypothesis says that these independent texts should be continuous, so Friedman assigns the doublets in such a way as to ensure that they are. Or so it seems. I’ve noticed a lot of other source attributions that seem to be carried out ex hypothesi.

What’s more, separating out the text of Genesis 13 in this way creates new problems. The text of P is supposed to run thus:

(12:5) And Abram took Sarai, his wife, and Lot … all their property … and the persons whom they had gotten … And they came to the land of Canaan. (13:6) And the land did not suffice them to live together …

But to whom does “them” refer to in 13:6? From the context of chapter 13, only Abraham and Lot are in view: “And Lot, who was going with Abram, also had a flock and oxen and tents” (13:5, J source), but if we accept Friedman’s hypothetical reconstruction of P, the “them” seems to refer to all the people Abraham took with him to Canaan.

And another thing: Genesis 13:11b (supposedly P source) says, “And they separated, each from his brother,” clearly referring back to 13:8b, which reads, “‘Let there be no quarreling between me and you and between my herders and your herders, because we’re brothers.’” The problem is that 13:8b is ascribed to the J source! It looks to me like 13:6 and 11b-12a are summary statements from a single author, not units from a different source.

This isn’t really a big deal, though. It certainly isn’t fatal for the DH. Even if we say that all of Genesis 13 comes from a single source, there is still narrative continuity in the hypothetical P source, which next appears in Genesis 16:3: “And Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar, the Egyptian, her maid, at the end of ten years of Abram’s living in the land of Canaan …” My point is only that a lot of the attribution decisions seem to be calculated to support the hypothesis. In other words, they’re deductive when what we really need is something inductive, something in the text itself that doesn’t just work with the hypothesis but actually has explanatory value. Words and phrases of a general nature like “property” won’t do it, and I’m not seeing a lot of other kinds of evidence converging here either.

My impression at this stage of my study is that the DH is strong in a few passages (and perhaps even true there!) and most of the rest is ad hoc and calculated to support the hypothesis. I’ll keep working on it as I have time. I want to give it a fair shake.

Technorati Tags: bible old+testament documentary+hypothesis pentateuch source+criticism historical+criticism genesis

Berlinghiero’s Madonna and Child, early 13th c., from the collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

Perhaps scholars of the historical Jesus have been straining too long to find his ipsissima verba, when they should be looking for his ipsissima lineamenta!

Does atheistic naturalism countenance cannibalism? I’m not talking about killing people to use as food, but if someone dies anyway, why not have a meal? It’s a serious question for atheists; I’m not trying to be gross.

Update: I posted this in haste earlier this afternoon and didn’t consider that many people who come across it won’t have followed earlier discussions about atheism and normativity, among other things. Even if they have, it’s not obvious what I’m getting at. So let me take this opportunity to clarify my meaning. Most atheists I know hold that physical stuff is all there is. If that’s the case, then a human being is not fundamentally different than an apple. The human and the apple are just different configurations of physical stuff. It seems that if you eat the one, you might as well eat the other. I just put it out there as something to think about, but as Autumn Harvest makes it clear in a comment, that’s not really any big deal for atheists.

Technorati Tags: atheism agnosticism apologetics cannibalism cannibals vegan vegetarian

The part of Manhattan I live in is characterized by congregation. The people in my neighborhood are mostly white. They tend to be young, single, and educated, although there are plenty of married couples and small families as well. Opera singers, cellists, and other professional musicians have congregated here and are way over-represented compared to the general population. The neighborhood is clean and usually quiet.

Three blocks east it’s a different matter. That neighborhood is almost entirely Dominican and Puerto Rican, and as soon as you cross the street that everyone knows to mark the line between where the whites and the Dominicans live, the scene completely changes. It becomes filthy and loud. The filth is mainly due to litter. Many Dominicans, it seems, have no compunctions against throwing their trash on the street. I see it every day. That’s not the sole cause of the litter. The Dominican neighborhood is more crowded than the white neighborhood, and it gets more foot traffic since it surrounds the area’s main commercial streets, all of which means that the trash cans fill up quickly on the weekends, and the garbage that overflows onto the streets gets kicked or blown around. The main cause, though, seems to be people throwing trash on the ground. The neighborhood is loud because Dominicans love music (particularly bachata), and everyone seems to appreciate it if someone opens up a window and blasts bachata music onto the street below. The Dominicans also love to hang out together on the sidewalk. On a hot day, for example, the older men set up card tables on the sidewalk and pass the day from morning until late at night playing dominoes and listening to music.

My wife and I chose to live in the neighborhood we do in part because it’s clean and quiet. Apartments in the Dominican neighborhood cost a little less, but I’m very sensitive to noise. The Dominicans don’t mind trash blowing around, and they love to hear music all the time. At least that’s what I gather.

When I used to live in southern California, my church rented its facility to a Korean Presbyterian church that would meet after us in the late morning. When I first learned that, I remember wondering why we didn’t all meet together. Why should the whites and the Koreans segregate themselves? We are one in Christ, and we should reflect that by worshiping together as a single congregation. That got me thinking about how little groups would form within our congregation itself, not by race (we were mostly all white) but by age. After the Sunday service, three or four men in their 40s would talk to each other, coffee cups in hand, and several of the seniors would chat over crumb cake. The younger women would be over here, and the young men over there. We’re all brothers and sisters in Christ, so shouldn’t we mix it up a bit and all talk to each other? It’s not that we wouldn’t smile and greet each other, or exchange a few pleasant words, but just that I thought there should be a deeper level of interaction among Christians of different ages and backgrounds.

I matured some in my thinking since then and came to realize that we just are one in Christ, whether we’re engaging in small talk with each other after church or not. There are Christians in China that I will never meet in this life, but will visit and eat with when the earth is renewed. Unfortunately, I have never had a chance to talk to or worship with a Christian who was alive in the 18th century. But I expect to.

The whites and the Koreans who meet in the same building within one hour of each other are part of one universal church and share a common hope regardless of whether they worship as a single congregation. What’s more, I realized that the discomfort I felt, as a young man in his early 20s, when trying to break into a conversation among men in their late 50s was probably also felt by them. Why the discomfort? I didn’t know what to talk to them about, and they didn’t know what to talk to me about. The Koreans, too, preferred the company of other Koreans. They were more comfortable being around them because they had so much in common, and so the time they spent together was more relaxed and enjoyable for them. Isn’t that just what it is like at a party? At a good party, people are open to each other and mingle freely. But at some parties, people feel uncomfortable or unprepared to socialize, and they form little cliques of established friends. It’s nothing against the other people, just the natural affinity they already have for each other.

I write all this to point out what should be obvious: people freely and naturally associate with other people with whom they share things in common. Those commonalities are especially important to people who are in a foreign environment. That’s why, here in New York, my wife gets invitations to Virginia Tech football parties (she’s an alum), and why Belgians have their own expatriate club that meets every month, even if they don’t all live in a particular Belgian neighborhood.

The kind of congregating that happens naturally because people share something in common is good. This is inclusive congregation, and it’s at the heart of community and society. Exclusive congregation (or segregation) is bad if it harms others, as it does in places where members of one groups have animus for members of another group. In those cases, animus and segregation are symptoms of a spiritual disease.

If it be argued that we need more actual inclusive congregating (more actual diversity among our associates) rather than mere potential inclusiveness (willingness to accept and love all comers), I won’t argue the point except to say that it should be based on spiritual realities rather than a desire to rebalance one’s ethnic portfolio of friends. What I mean is what I said a moment ago, that commonalities are especially important to people who are in a foreign environment. If we Christians more and more think of ourselves as pilgrims on the way, we will more powerfully latch onto the ultimate common ground we share with other Christians as Christians, regardless of their or our ethnicity.

Technorati Tags: segregation race racism ethnicity evangelism christianity

What follows contains excerpts of the transcript of the Iowa Democratic Debate, moderated by George Stephanopoulos. Toward the end of the debate, the candidates were asked a question about the power of prayer. This was the framing question:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me move on now. We’ve got a question — we’ve got an e-mail question from Seth Ford of South Jordan, Utah.

And he said, “My question is to understand each candidates’ view of a personal God. Do they believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?”

What I want to say first is that we Christians should get away from phrases like “power of prayer,” because it makes prayer out to be like some kind of magical spell that works of its own accord. It pictures a situation in which there are three components: the person praying, the prayer itself, and the object of prayer, such as Hurricane Katrina. The most important component is left out, namely God. A Christian prays to God, and God then acts according to his will. The power does not reside in the prayer or the person praying but in God (James 5:16b notwithstanding).

The Responses

Hillary Clinton seems to understand that when she begins her response, but it could be that she is distinguishing the power of prayer and the power of God. An unintended ambiguity.

CLINTON: Well, I don’t pretend to understand the wisdom and the power of God. I do believe in prayer. And I have relied on prayer consistently throughout my life. You know, I like to say that, if I had not been a praying person before I got to the White House, after having been there for just a few days I would’ve become one. So I am very dependent on my faith, and prayer is a big part of that.

Christopher Dodd’s response sounds genuinely Christian. The question is about prayer, but he correctly understands the issue to be God’s intentions. Notice also that he speaks of God in terms of God’s relationship to him (”lord”).

DODD: I agree with what Hillary has just said here. I would not want to try and second-guess the lord’s intentions here and to assume that part of his great plan includes some of these actions we see, for a variety of different reasons, here.

And the power of prayer I think is important to all of us. I hope it is, recognizing that we don’t do anything without His approval.

John Edwards, sadly, is fundamentally confused, but in many ways his is the most personally felt and revealing answer of all. Notice how he transitions un-self-consciously from prayer to God, which is good, but then in his second paragraph makes “our control” (through prayer) the central issue. The second paragraph is telling. It sounds to me like he has a very tentative faith and has mostly turned to God in times of crisis: before his son died and before his wife got her cancer diagnosis. In those cases he didn’t get what he asked for, so he doesn’t believe that prayer in itself can change the course of events. He’s right. I hope he will come to know Jesus Christ as his savior so that he can have a hope that conquers all the grief and loss he has personally experienced. His final paragraph is pure politics: he prays for wisdom and guidance (shows humility) to Christ (but that’s just in his case–he’s not dogmatic). There’s no note of thanksgiving, prayer as worship, confession of sin, or regular petition.

EDWARDS: I have prayed most of my life; pray daily now. He’s enormously important to me. But the answer to the question is: No, I don’t — I prayed before my 16-year-old son died; I prayed before Elizabeth was diagnosed with cancer. I think there are some things that are beyond our control.

And I think it is enormously important to look to God — and, in my case, Christ — for guidance and for wisdom. But I don’t think you can prevent bad things from happening through prayer.

Mike Gravel (Pronounced “gra-VEL.” My mother-in-law quipped that the name reminds her of Hyacinth Bucket, pronounced “bouquet.”) Who needs prayer if we all just love each other? That’s Mike Gravel’s take on it. He just wants some good ol’ fashioned lovin’. He loves the American people and he wants them to love him back. But then he goes on to insinuate that people who pray want to kill people. I don’t get the sense that Gravel loves me. With that kind of ham-fisted answer, it’s not surprising that he’s a non-contender in this campaign.

GRAVEL: What I believe in is love. And love implements courage. And courage permits us all to apply the virtues that are important in life. And so you can pray — I was always persuaded or struck by the fact that many people who pray are the ones who want to go to war, who want to kill fellow human beings. That disturbs me.

I think what we need is more love between one human being and another human being.

And then we’ll find the courage to dispel many of the problems we have in governance. The answer to governance is not up here on the dais. The answer is with the American people and the people of Iowa. That’s where the answer is.

And I have a proposal, and it’s the only one that talks of change. The change is to empower the American people with a national initiative.

And my colleagues, with all due respect, don’t even understand the principle of the people having the power.

Governor Bill Richardson’s answer emphasizes that he’s not going to impose his religious beliefs on anyone. That’s all well and good, but what does that really have to do with anything? I’m not concerned that any presidential candidate would try or be able to impose his or her religion on us.

RICHARDSON: I pray. I’m a Roman Catholic. My sense of social justice, I believe, comes from being a Roman Catholic. But, in my judgment, prayer is personal. And how I pray and how any American prays, for what reason, is their own decision. And it should be respected.

And so, in my view, I think it’s important that we have faith, that we have values, but if I’m president, I’m not going to wear my religion on my sleeve and impose it on anybody.

Joe Biden had a well-prepared inspirational answer, but it’s shallow and avoids the question’s stated intent of eliciting the candidate’s view about a personal God. He talks about crosses (but not the cross), which connotes some kind of Christian-like belief, but that’s as far as he goes. Even that is attributed to his mother! For his part, he continues to do what his mother taught him (note the canned appeal to old-fashioned, traditional values). But in fact, there’s no concept of a strong God behind his idea of prayer, and so prayer can give us courage but is actually powerless to effect anything.

BIDEN: George, my mom has an expression. She says that, “God sends no cross you’re unable to bear.”

The time to pray is to pray whether or not you’re told, as John was and I was, that my wife and daughter are dead, to have the courage to be able to bear the cross.

The time to pray is to pray not only before, but pray that you have the courage, pray that God can give you the strength to deal with what everyone is faced with in their life, serious crosses, serious crosses to bear.

The answer to the gentleman’s question is, no, all the prayer in the world will not stop a hurricane. But prayer will give you the courage to be able to respond to the devastation that’s caused in your life and with others to deal with the devastation.

Barack Obama’s answer is a complete dodge. He picks up on the prayer-as-pep-talk motif of Biden and then launches into a vaguely inspirational message that it’s all up to us, kind of like Gravel’s love mandate. God is nowhere to be seen.

OBAMA: I believe in the power of prayer. And part of what I believe in is that, through prayer, not only can we strengthen ourselves in adversity, but that we can also find the empathy and the compassion and the will to deal with the problems that we do control. Most of the issues that we’re debating here today are ones that we have the power to change.

We don’t have the power to prevent illness in all cases, but we do have the power to make sure that every child gets a regular checkup and isn’t going to the emergency room for treatable illnesses like asthma.

We may not have the power to prevent a hurricane, but we do have the power to make sure that the levees are properly reinforced and we’ve got a sound emergency plan.

And so, part of what I pray for is the strength and the wisdom to be able to act on those things that I can control. And that’s what I think has been lacking sometimes in our government.

We’ve got to express those values through our government, not just through our religious institutions.

Finally, we come to Dennis Kucinich. His prepared response makes a direct appeal to Christians (Bible quotes) and traditional-values voters (”remember where I came from”) while trying to assuage the fears of civil libertarians (separation of church and state). He boldly quotes the New Testament directly (Matthew), alludes to it once (”faith and works” from James), and quotes the Old Testament (Isaiah) indirectly. The ideas in these passages, he believes, cohere with his own “spiritual insight” and “philosophy.” He takes a lot of political risks with this statement, but it’s so clearly calculated that I wonder if it’s just politics.

KUCINICH: I come from a spiritual insight which says that we have to have faith but also have good works. So when we think of the scriptures, Isaiah making justice the measuring line; Matthew 25, “whatever you do for the least of our brethren”; where the biblical injunction, “make peace with your brother” — all of these things relate to my philosophy.

Now, the founders meant to have separation of church and state, but they never meant America to be separate from spiritual values. As president, I’ll bring strong spiritual values into the White House, and I’ll bring values that value peace, social and economic justice, values that remember where I came from.

Thank you.

Conclusion

We need people in government with strong character, which includes honesty and courage of conviction. I don’t equate character primarily with a regular practice of prayer. A better indicator of character, I believe, is a candidate’s candor and willingness to answer personal questions in a personal way without using it as just another opportunity to inflate our hopes and sell us a vivid dream. On that basis, I think Dodd’s answer is the best by far. It is direct, understated, and unapologetic. He doesn’t use his response time as an opportunity for more selling. Richardson and Clinton are too wishy-washy. Kucinich is hard to gauge because his response is so crafted.

Obama and Biden are just feeding you lines. They don’t want to answer the question. They want to sing you a song and lull you into a pleasant dreamy state without having to commit themselves to anything. This is where careful attention pays off, because what they say and how they say it don’t cohere. Obama, for example, is very direct and forthright in tone and in manner of speaking. He gives the appearance of candor, but he actually says nothing. (See also my post about his religious background and views). It’s just a form of prestidigitation. He’s eloquent, but he has no problem dodging the people’s direct questions if he thinks it will work to his personal advantage. John Edwards belongs in this category too.

While I appreciate Mike Gravel’s candor about the dis-value of prayer, his harsh language and clumsy love talk reveal that he doesn’t have the sense or good judgment to be in politics, probably not at any level.

Technorati Tags: politics democrats debate iowa democratic+party clinton hillary+clinton hillary chris+dodd dodd christohper+dodd dennis+kucinich kucinich mike+gravel john+edwards edwards barack+obama obama joe+biden biden bill+richardson richardson president prayer