My sermon is coming along nicely, though I'm having a hermeneutical difficulty. The biblical text is Genesis 12:1-9, where YHWH calls Abram to go into the land "that I will show you." The difficulty comes after Abram enters Shechem (present-day Nablus) and YHWH says, "This is the land that I will give to your descendents." So Abram builds an altar there. But then, Abram travels about 20 miles south and builds another altar. Then Abram continues, by stages, all the way down to the Negeb. My difficulty is this: YHWH never says anything about Abram's descendents getting these other lands. Only Shechem. It is Abram who continues the journey, "by stages" (NRSV), down to the Negeb.
The text does make clear that "at this time there were already Canaanites living in the land." Thus Abram's blessing does not come without an acknowledgment of other communities/persons. Thus with that blessing comes a responsibilty. Brueggemann calls this a "horizontal inclusiveness and vertical exclusiveness" that works against a "sociological exclusiveness and a religious accommodation."
But returning to my hermeneutical difficulty...is Abram--as he is later in Genesis--being mischievous and claiming more than God granted? Or did YHWH include everything down to the Negeb in that initial promise? (How far can one see from the oaks at Shechem?)
This difficulty is not crucial to my sermon, though it is certainly pertinent to current events. If, that is, one chooses to view Israel as a religious community rather than a secular nation-state. If the Zionists were to remain biblical, there would not be a problem. After all, God asks for "justice, mercy, & to walk humbly with thy God"...not displacing innocent people, which is the true cause of terrorism. If only the Likud & Labor parties read their Torah as much as they've read their twentieth-century political propaganda!
Please do not read this as anti-Jewish. If anything it is pro-Jewish and against the Zionist manipulation of good Jewish religious texts.
It's a good thing my email address is not connected to this...I could get some pretty angry hate-mail. If, that is, anyone is reading this. As far as I know, only three friends and my parents know about it! And the folks at blogspot.com.

I'm afraid that I didn't get to read any more of Fukuyama's book today. Nor have I solved the fundamentals of my earlier statement regarding the priority of "value" before "fact". But I'll offer another musing, one that is more sentimental and elementary than is usual for me.
As I sat in a sub shop today, eating my lunch and lamenting the fact that I forgot to bring a book, I noticed something out the window. A Canadian goose was leading her 6-7 chicks along the shoulder of the road. They didn't appear to have a purpose, such as gathering food. They simply walked up to the shopping center where I was eating my lunch...and then turned around and went back to where they came from. It was like a simple afternoon stroll.
I guess I could anthropomorphize or romanticize this event somehow. But that's not like me. I'll simply say that it was a sight that was fun to watch. Perhaps that "fun" came from some anthropomorphic tendency within me, but that's fine. I enjoyed it, and now I only hope that they made it home safely. By the way, noone who drove by that stretch of road ever noticed the birds beside them. I'm sure there's a sermon illustration in that somewhere!
I'm preaching next week, so I might not write as much in this weblog as I'd like. Or I might use the weblog as a means to write the sermon. Tune in and see...!
One last item...this morning I remembered an important aspect of Murdoch's, MacIntyre's, and Hauerwas' stance on value preceding fact: the concept of moral vision. Hauerwas' 1974 book, "Vision and Virtue," is great...especially chapter 2 (in which he simply paraphrases Murdoch's book, "The Sovereignty of Good.") Basically, their approach to moral vision concerns how to ensure that one's values are, in fact, good. "Vision" refers to how you see the world in its facticity: the "is." But that "is" is defined by the "ought," and the ought may be right or wrong (assuming a Platonic Good). If one's values are in accordance with the Good, then one's vision will correspond to the Truth. If those values do not accord with the Good, but are based upon individual fancies or "emotivism" (the philosophy that goods are, ultimately, only a matter of personal preference), then one's vision will be skewed and subjectively limited. How does one ensure--or at least try to ensure--that one's moral vision is correct? Murdoch answers this problem with art and religion. Both art and worship are an "other" to the subject. When you encounter a sculpture, or when you pray, you open yourself up to the authority of an "other" that you do not define. Rather, you let the "other" define you in that encounter. In like manner, opening oneself up to alternative visions allows for a more comprehensive vision that is closer to Reality. Of course, there is also bad art...the kind that is geared toward the subject's definition rather than being an "other". For example: advertising, pornography, kitsch art, and much popular music. When art simply appeals to one's subjective tastes, rather than challenging the individual to think outside of his/her own constructs, it will not help in correcting one's moral vision. It will only make the individual more insistent (and stubborn) that their version of the truth is THE Truth.
This was, in effect, Plato's argument against the theatre...that it only served to entertain the masses and failed to lead them toward a Good. Freud, of course, asserted that ALL art is pornography...that it is simply expresses--and reinforces--the fantasies of the individual.
Christian theology--properly done--opens itself up to the Other. Dialectic and paradox are in its very nature, as it brings together seemingly contradictory elements. We are simultaneously justified and sinners. God had a mother. God died. By refusing to sell itself out to logical consistency, the Christian faith--methodically, at least--is closer to the truth than logical reasoning. If, that is, you accept that the priority of the "ought" before the "is"...value preceding fact.
Fukuyama, I believe, prioritizes fact. But then again, I'm only halfway through the book.