Wait, what? Larry Gowan is now the lead singer of Styx??

My 9 albums #my9albums my9albums.com/s/7b6aB0HgYZ

I didn't get married until I was 45. Not particularly by my choice—I was never one of those guys who thought he needed to do X before marriage—but that was the way God planned it, even though I would never counsel anyone to follow my path in that regard. I often tell my wife that since marriage, these have been the best years of my life, and I mean it. I had already hit middle age, and according to many accounts, my best years were already behind me. But to the contrary, these years are a precious gift.

Tempted to start a T-shirt company with sayings that are nothing but quotations from Proverbs.

Eating on my own tonight so I can get an early bedtime. Spied some rice to heat up. Wasn't really anything to put it on it, so I experimented: butter, peanut butter, coriander, garlic powder, turmeric, and a dash of paprika and onion powder. The verdict: I'd eat it again.

When Jeroboam introduces the worship of the calves to the northern kingdom, is he introducing the worship of gods other than Yahweh? Or is he doing something that, in his own mind, at least, is considerably more limited? First, I think there is no question that Jeroboam is imitating Aaron action with the golden calf in Exodus 32. So whatever we make of Aaron's intention with the form of worship is what we ought to attribute to Jeroboam. The fact that Jeroboam commissions two calves, while Aaron only made one is a function of location rather than intention; i.e. multiple places of worship, not multiple deities. The difficulties arise with the recurring plurals in the respective texts. Not the word "gods" itself, as some translations have it; the underlying word is Elohim, which can correctly be rendered either "God" or "gods." Sailhamer and other commentators, however, fairly adequately show a framework that fits within a (disobedient) Yahwism. The people request "idols" to be made, which refer to images and not intrinsically to other deities; hence, the plurals refer to the images, rather than to new deities. A number of factors indicate that in neither Exodus nor 1 Kings is the intention to replace Yahweh with other deities. To begin with, the the initial request by the people is that they want Elohim to "go before us." Where? To the land which was promised specifically by Yahweh. Significantly, nowhere are new (or old) deities named within Exodus 32. The only deity is Yahweh. Even Yahweh, in informing Moses of what is happening at the foot of the mountain, does not say they have departed to serve other gods, but have departed from the way that he had commanded (Exodus 32:8). Even more importantly, once the calf is made, Aaron announces, not a rite dedicated to a different deity, but specifically, a feast to Yahweh (Exodus 32:5). In his mind, he and Israel are not forsaking Yahweh himself, which is why no new (or old) gods are named in Exodus 32. Similar things can be said regarding 1 Kings 12. The issue which Jeroboam is grappling with is not that Yahweh is not the proper deity to worship, but that the present form of worship mandates a location that is unacceptable politically. So Jeroboam commissions a new Aaronic sin. The observations (which are implicit criticisms) of 1 Kings 12:31 are that Jeroboam (1) "made temples on high places" and (2) "appointed priests from among all the people, who were not from the Levites." These are not the sort of criticisms that would be made were he instituting worship of other deities. Such criticisms would in fact be completely moot. Who cares who the priests are or where worship occurs if you're worshiping the wrong god? Once again, no deities are named with the advent of Jeroboam's worship. It is a "sin," and despite how grievous the sin is, from Jeroboam's standpoint, it is not a replacement of Yahweh himself. Finally, it must be underscored that the advent of actual worship of other deities indicates a very significant turning point in the histories of Kings and Chronicles. The worship of Baal by Ahab and those who follow is seen as something dramatically new; and while Jeroboam's sin is portrayed as extremely bad, the narratives underscore that what is happening with Ahab is something new. His evil is "more than all who were before him." The sins of Jeroboam were too light for him; he married the daughter of the Sidonian king and adopted Baal as his god (1 Kings 16: 30, 31). In short, it is only here that gods other than Yahweh are named as the objects of worship; it is only here that the northern kingdom is explicitly exchanging Yahweh for other deities. It seems to me that this is also the only way we can understand how Jehu can destroy the worship of Baal at the command of Yahweh, and yet not depart from the sin of Jeroboam. He is zealous for Yahweh (2 Kings 10:16), but he is not zealous for what Yahweh has dictated regarding his own worship. Immediately after the lengthy description of how he wipes out Ahab's line and the worship of Baal, we are immediately told: "But Jehu did not turn aside from the sins of Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, which he made Israel to sin—that is, the golden calves that were in Bethel and in Dan" (2 Kings 10:18). In short, the sins of Jeroboam and those of Ahab are different in kind. In short, the sin of Aaron and of Jeroboam is a violation of the second commandment (and a very strong version of that violation), while that of Ahab is a violation of the first commandment.

I really, really want to title something "An Embarrassment of Wretches." Like maybe a chapter refuting worm theology. On the other hand, it would also make a great band name.

Today would have been my mother's 100th birthday. Ten years in heaven.

It seems like everyone is writing fast and furiously about AI, and I get it, although (candidly) I'm getting a bit exhausted by some people's fixation with it. I will attempt not to get caught up in that fixation myself. I will say, though, that one thing that rarely gets brought up is that AI is itself an extraordinary human creation. There's all this talk about AI being sterile and inhuman, and so on. While I do get that, at the same time, I think it is a bit misleading. Because pretty much everything that AI has incorporated is fundamentally human: human creativity, human reflection, human data collection, and so on. That's why I think it's a mistake to argue against AI usage on the basis of a supposed erasure of wonder. AI does not undercut wonder; it underscores it: all these crazy things that AI is able to do are actually a result of the ingenious powers which God the Creator has given to human beings. When we look at the capabilities (which, to be sure, need to be harnessed and used with a great deal of discretion), instead of positing sterility and coldness, perhaps the first thing we should be doing is standing in awe of God, that we should be created with such gifts that we in turn could make something such as this. So yes, while the advent of artificial intelligence does give me a pause in a great many respects—virtually every major technological advance has always carried grave dangers as well as unprecedented positive contributions—it also strikes me with awe and wonder. Not because I think of the technology as a person, but because I recognize that it is indeed persons behind it, and we are, after all, fearfully and wonderfully made.