Well, I had written a reminiscence of how my first half marathon went, but I made a mistake, and somehow deleted everything I had written! So I'm going to keep it simple: just three days ago, I successfully completed my first ever half marathon. That's 13.1 miles, folks! Even though the training seemed like it would never end, and the race itself was not easy, I did it. And I did it in less time that I thought I would. I was going to be delighted it I made it in three hours, but my finishing time, as you can see below, was 2:47:14! I'm not going to win any special awards, but I earned my finishing medal. I'm already signed up for the next Rock 'n' Roll half marathon in April 2022, and I'm thinking I will be able to shave 10-15 minutes off of my time. I don't suppose I'll ever become a star runner, by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it's been a worthwhile goal to achieve, and it's certainly helping my overall health and fitness.

[The following popped up in my Facebook Memories today. I originally wrote it on October 23, 2009, on what used to be called Facebook Notes (which has since been discontinued). I thought it was worth sharing here on my personal blog.]

With all the recent news about the Conservative Bible Project, and reports of people burning Bibles other than the King James Version, I got thinking about how we read the Bible. All Christians seem to agree that reading the Bible is a good and useful thing to do. But so many Christians read the Bible and come to completely different conclusions about life. Conservatives often complain about liberals "twisting Scripture" to support their agenda; liberals accuse conservatives of the very same thing. I have talked to many Christians who say something like, "Well, I don't know about liberal or conservative...I just base my life on what the Bible says." What does the Bible say, and why do so many people disagree about what it means?

 As I pondered this, something occurred to me. We should be suspicious any time we read the Bible, and find that it says exactly what we thought it would say. In other words, way too often, we go to the Bible with our position on a subject firmly in mind, and find Biblical proof to bolster than position. This is the old "proof-texting" that fundamentalists have honed to a fine skill. If the Bible makes us feel comfortable, then I think something is wrong. I'll point out a biblical example to illustrate. When Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan, I think his audience was already absolutely firm in their belief of what "neighbor" meant: "someone who lives where I live, and shares my values." Then Jesus told his parable, and used an example that his audience would have found shocking--a Samaritan as the hero of the story? Outrageous! 

 I think we all make this mistake; I know I do it all the time. I have in my head an idea that I'm starting to feel comfortable with, I go to the Bible, and there it is! God is in complete agreement with me! DANGER! I don't think there's a problem with turning to the Bible for comfort, but if we begin to feel comfortable, rather than comforted, something is wrong. The Bible should challenge us, the Bible should make us reexamine our previously held notions, the Bible should make us feel uncomfortable. In short, the Bible should convict us.

 The biggest problem I see with the conservative/liberal debates about the Bible is that both sides have already made up their minds, to a certain extent. They hold up the Bible as proof, they beat their opponents over the heads with it, they use it as a weapon. But they rarely listen to the Bible, they are rarely humbled by the Bible, they rarely submit to the God who speaks in the Bible. So, the next time you go to read the Bible, and you're feeling pretty comfy with what you read there, ask yourself, "Am I really listening to what God is saying to me here, or am I listening to myself?"

I recently acquired a copy of Webster's International Dictionary: Second Edition, printed in 1942. I've been reading about the differences between Webster's 2nd and Webster's 3rd, and I stumbled on this excellent article from the National Endowment for the Humanities website. I think it's really well written and absolutely fascinating. The author is David Skinner, and he really nails this one. Here's a little taste of the article...

I LOVE print dictionaries. Of course, I use online dictionaries all the time, and I have a couple dictionary apps on my phone (American Heritage and Merriam-Webster). But the experience of browsing through a print dictionary, turning the pages and discovering a new word in the middle of all that small type, is hard to replicate on a screen. But I was wondering this morning, are print dictionaries a thing of the past? After all, dictionaries are BIG books, they must cost a bundle to print. Meanwhile, the retail price of the average dictionary is quite low, considering the size of the book. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary only costs about twenty bucks, for a fairly large book of over 1600 pages!

And so I stumbled on an article from the National Endowment for the Humanities website (neh.gov) that I found very enjoyable. It's entitled "If Printed Dictionaries Are History, What Will Children Sit on to Reach the Table?" written by Michael Adams. He doesn't really answer my question, but he does reflect on the history of print dictionaries, and he offers some insight on the transition from print to online form, and what that means for consumers. Here's a brief excerpt:​

So, what the heck, I thought I'd go ahead and give podcasting on Anchor.fm another try.
I think I made the wrong decision, trying to turn my podcast into a Shakespeare-only theme. I realized I still wanted to talk about other stuff that interests me: Sherlock Holmes, dictionaries, language, the Bible, and more. So I've rebranded, hopefully for the last time, and brought back The Corybantic Podcast! We'll see how it goes...

The late Frank Zappa was not afraid of tackling political hypocrisy in its many forms. I sometimes wonder what Zappa would think of current developments in American politics. And then I hear a long like "When the Lie's So Big," from Zappa's 1988 record, Broadway the Hard Way, and I suspect I know the answer. Not a whole lot has changed...

One of the less-told aspects of the run-up to the 2016 election is the extent to which Christian public figures lobbied each other in private correspondence to support or reject Donald Trump. The public saw the competing op-eds. My inbox filled with personal pleas. And if I had to identify the most common argument—one that was often different from the attempts to mobilize the public through fear of Hillary Clinton—it was an appeal to Evangelical Christian power.
“The Trump administration is going to hire thousands of people. We’ll fill his administration with conservative believers.” That sounds crass, but there was always an “and.” 
“And that means we’ll pass better regulations, confirm better judges, and halt the secular left in its tracks.” The pursuit of power would yield justice, but there could be no justice without power.
The Trump administration delivered the power. The top levels of the bureaucracy filled with Evangelicals, and the administration granted an almost unprecedented amount of access to Evangelical activists. During the 2020 campaign, it was routine to read ministry leaders sharing their “personal” insights into Trump based on time spent in the Oval Office. 
Images of Trump surrounded by large numbers of praying Christians sent a clear message to the Evangelical public: Look how many of us are in the room where it happens. The word got out—no president in modern times had been more welcoming to Christian ministries. No president has granted Christians greater access. 
There were some good things that happened. Not all the Christians in power were ineffectual enablers, justice did advance on a few key fronts, and we can be grateful in some cases for the courageous service of men and women who stepped into the breach in vital places and vital times to quite literally save the republic from even worse emergencies than the considerable crises we faced.
Yet five years later, as our nation picks up the pieces from one of the most divisive, cruel, and incompetent administrations in the modern history of the United States—one in which the pursuit of Christian power led to prominent Christian voices endorsing nation-cracking litigation and revolutionary efforts to overturn a lawful election—the Christian “deal” looks bad indeed. When push came to shove, all too often the pursuit of justice yielded to the pursuit of power.
The cultural shockwaves are still being felt. They’re rearranging not just America’s political alignments but our language itself. Is “Evangelical” more of a political marker than a religious identifier? Does it even carry true religious meaning any longer? What is a “conservative”? Where I live, the term “staunch conservative” is a synonym for “Trump supporter,” in spite of the fact that Trumpism is far more akin to populism than conservatism, as traditionally defined.
Then there’s this other word: “patriot.”
I’ve always considered myself a patriot. I’ve defended our nation’s Constitution in courtrooms across the land. I put on the uniform of my country and deployed overseas. Indeed, as C.S. Lewis explained in his book The Four Loves, a proper kind of patriotism can be deeply virtuous. A “love of home—the love of the place where we live” can lead to greater selflessness. As Lewis writes, “As the family offers the first step beyond self-love, so this offers us the first step beyond family selfishness.”
Then I saw Christian nationalists marching in a “Jericho March.” Later I saw them swarm over the Capitol on January 6. I heard Evangelicals spin out wild conspiracy theories about the election, and I heard how they described themselves. “Patriots.” Indeed, that word has become the short-hand cultural marker for Trumpist Christian nationalism.
“We’ve got a lot of patriots on this flight to D.C.”
“Solid patriots are working on the vote audit.” 
“Don’t worry about the county GOP, we’ve got patriots on the board.”
I want all those words back. “Evangelical” is a word with a rich theological and historical tradition. It has meant something good. The word “conservative” has long been connected to the defense of the classical liberal virtues of the American founding. And I can think of no better time to reclaim the word “patriot” than on our nation’s Independence Day.
No, it’s not just that I “want” those words back. We need them back. By appropriating those words, Christian nationalists and Trumpist populists enjoy the afterglow of their virtues. They deceive many Americans into believing they’re something they’re not. And so Americans follow movements they don’t fully understand, thinking those movements are better than they truly are.
So let’s focus on the true meaning of words and the distinctions that truly matter. Can a Christian be a patriot without becoming a Christian nationalist? Yes. Of course. But if Christian patriotism isn’t Christian nationalism, then how do Christian patriots love their nation well?
I’d suggest the answer is found all over the Bible—a book that speaks to all believers over all time in all nations. And if there is one consistent theme for our role as citizens, it’s summed up in two words: Seek justice.
I love Isaiah 1:17. “Learn to do good,” it says, “seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.” Most readers know one of my favorite verses, Micah 6:8: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?”
One of the reasons why I celebrate the founding of this nation is that the core principles of the founding documents (as opposed to the often unjust reality of the new nation) represent a concrete, long-term commitment to creating a just society. “All men are created equal” is a declaration that resonates with scripture. When the Bill of Rights protects free speech, religious freedom, due process, and defends citizens from cruel and unusual punishment, it upholds fundamental human rights. The Civil War Amendments’ commitment to equal protection under the law and the eradication of human bondage are indispensable to a just society. 
In his seminal 2020 essay on Justice in the Bible, pastor and theologian Tim Keller declared God a “God of justice” and identified four key characteristics of biblical justice: “Radical generosity, universal equality, life-changing advocacy for the poor, and asymmetrical responsibility.” I’d urge you to read the entire essay for a more complete explanation of each concept, but in short they mean the following:

1. Radical generosity (here Keller quotes Biblical scholar Craig Bloomberg) “suggests a sharp critique of 1) statism that disregards the precious treasure of personal rootage, and 2) the untrammeled individualism which secures individuals at the expense of community.” Rather, out of love of God and love of neighbor, “The righteous are willing to disadvantage themselves to advantage the community; the wicked are willing to disadvantage the community to advantage themselves.”

1. Universal equality “requires that every person be treated according to the same standards and with the same respect, regardless of class, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or of any other social category.”

1. Life-changing advocacy for the poor. Here’s Keller. “While we are to treat all equally, and not show partiality to any, we are to have special concern for the poor, the weak, and the powerless. Proverbs says “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves… Defend the rights (sadeqah) of the poor and needy.” Is this a contradiction? No. The Bible doesn’t say “Speak up for the rich and powerful.” It does not mean that the powerful are less important as persons before God. They certainly are equally as important. But they don’t need you to speak up for them. However, the poor do need you.”

1. Corporate and individual responsibility. Many conservative Christians grasp the necessity of individual responsibility and individual accountability, but Keller notes that corporate responsibility “is a greater reality than individualistic modern western people want to believe” and that both the New and Old Testaments are replete with examples of corporate responsibility—though it “cannot be applied indiscriminately.” 

I don’t pretend that Keller’s piece represents the last word on a Christian’s definition of justice, and his categories certainly do invite debate over the personal and policy responses that best create a more just nation. However, a Christian community that is fundamentally marked by a commitment to the virtues above is fundamentally different from a community marked by partisanship.
Moreover, lest anyone think that the quest for justice depends on the attainment of power, remember this: True justice often results in the loss of authority and the empowerment of your opponents.
Consider two topics I address frequently--corruption and abuse in the church and the defense of civil liberties for all. The pursuit of accountability and justice in the church often results in a concrete loss of power and reputation for Christian institutions. Indeed, that’s one reason why those who expose sin often face such brutal blowback. “Don’t you realize,” they’re told, “that you’re feeding into the world’s attacks on the church? Don’t you know all the good this ministry does?” 
Justice can require Christians to remove their own leaders from the “room where it happens” and to diminish the reach and authority of even the most powerful of their churches and pastors. 
Moreover, a basic commitment to legal equality means that a Christian committed to justice will defend the rights of all citizens, not just their allies. Thus, in a real way, a commitment to legal equality in free speech, or in the free exercise of religion, or in due process will often empower your political opponents—including people you might believe to be grievously wrong—to advocate for, defend, and live out their own fundamental values.
All of this is hard. All of it is complicated. Which is why it’s absolutely vital to “walk humbly” into any debate about how best to “act justly.” By contrast, the pursuit of power has a certain simplistic purity to it, especially when you are confident that others are wrong and your own community—for all its flaws—is mostly right. But as we witnessed in the agonizing weeks between November 3 and January 6, the pursuit of power can all too easily become its own cause, even when you’re convinced the ends justify the means. 
So here’s my Fourth of July proposal: Counter Christian nationalists with Christian patriots. And how does the Christian patriot love his or her nation well? Through a commitment to biblical justice that quite often means we empower others more than ourselves.

We got a letter the other day from a neighbor a couple blocks away, encouraging us to sign up for an app called Nextdoor. It's kind of like Facebook, but it's designed to connect people who live in the same neighborhood, while still allowing them to connect with other neighborhoods nearby. As it said in the letter, "We use the site to share local business recommendations, reunite with lost pets, sell outgrown bikes, organize virtual book clubs and so much more."
We thought, what the heck? Sounds interesting let's give it a try. And I have to admit, so far, I'm impressed. As I was exploring the app shortly after signing up, I noticed that one of the users nearby is a neighbor whom we've never met, but whose mail often is erroneously delivered to our address by the USPS. It was so cool to actually be able to put a face to a name we've seen pop up in our physical mailbox. As I look around, so far I have noticed there's surprisingly little junk that you would find on Facebook or one of the alternative social media sites. Oh, there are a few groups listed that are devoted to a particular side of the political spectrum, but nothing too odd. Most of the people I've encountered so far are just sharing thoughts about their neighborhood, introducing themselves, or chatting about common interests.
​I really think this could be a handy tool for connecting with real, live people who actually live nearby. We'll see how it all goes...

Insofar as it's possible within my cultural bubble, I try to be aware of what some of the other faith traditions in my community are celebrating. I have Muslim friends, I have Jewish friends, I have Eastern Orthodox Christian friends, etc. I don't offer holiday greetings to all of them for every single feast, festival, or fast, but sometimes, if I see that one of those things is going on, I try to spread the goodwill around in my own simple way. I have no idea if any Muslim friends actually read my blog, but just in case they do, I wish them Eid Mubarak! Have a blessed Eid-ul-Fitr!

I gave it a good try over the past few years. Well, actually, I don’t know if it really qualifies as a good try, but it was a try. I started on Podbean, with a podcast called “The Bible Bookshelf.” But that didn’t quite work out. Then, when coronavirus “lockdowns” began last year, and I found myself stuck at home much of the time, I reworked the podcast into the “Corybantic Podcast.” After a few weeks of that, I once again set aside my podcasting plans, until just recently, when I decided to give Anchor.fm a try. At first, it was great. Anchor offered tools and distribution settings that were far easier to use than Podbean had been. So I brought back the Corybantic Podcast, which I did for a few weeks.
Just a few weeks ago, I decided that my subjects were too widely varied to have a consistent podcast, so I decided to rebrand to concentrate on just one of my interests: Shakespeare. Thus was born the Willy Wigglestick podcast. But that only lasted a few episodes before I decided…it’s just not working.
I like the idea of sharing my thoughts in an audio format. But the execution is a lot less enjoyable. Writing a blog, I find I can organize my thoughts more easily. I can share links and articles that interest me, and that I want others to know about. Doing an effective podcast requires a much higher level of organization. I discovered that it was virtually impossible for me just to talk about something that interested me: I needed to write a script. I needed to edit in music. I needed ad breaks, to try to make just a little revenue. So far, after weeks of podcasting on Anchor, that ad revenue has amounted to…$.93. Yup, that’s right. 93 CENTS.
It’s just not worth it any more. I enjoy blogging, and I’m sure I will continue to blog on Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, the Bible…whatever catches my attention. But podcasting isn’t going to happen. I imagine I will leave my podcast at Anchor up for the time being. But I think it’s time to admit that consistent podcasting is outside of my skill set, as they say.
If you were one of the very small number of people who actually listened to any of my podcast episodes, I appreciate it very much. If not, well, you didn’t really miss much. It was mildly fun while it lasted, but unless I have a complete change of perspective, I don’t expect I will try it again. I may share this post on my main blog and on Anchor, as well. Thanks for reading, and I’ll continue to share my thoughts in written form, here and elsewhere!