The Joy of Backyard Maple Sugaring

A friend recently asked about the advisability of tapping Silver Maples for sap. While I've only been at this two seasons and do not claim to be an expert, here are my thoughts on that question and making maple syrup in general: 

Sugar maples have a ratio of 43:1 (sap boiled to make syrup) while Norway Maples (what I started with) are a wapping 60:1! I'm honestly not sure if the other ones I'm tapping are sugar maples or red or silver maples. There are good books on the process, though I mostly just read the chapter on maple sugaring in David K. Leff's The Last Undiscovered Place and enjoyed his writing so much I got his book on maple sugaring (Maple Sugaring: Keeping it Real in New England), though it's more about the history and culture than it is a practical how-to guide. There's also good stuff on youtube. 

Basically though, you tap when you start having days that are consistently getting above 40° in late winter with nights still dropping below 32°; this stimulates the trees to start sap production. I hate pointing people to Amazon for things, but that's where I found the spiles I use. Get some 5-gal buckets (they don't have to be "food grade" just clean out whatever ones you use--in fact I started using kitty-litter buckets since I can get them free from a friend), and some clear vinyl tubing from Lowes (or local hardware--unfortunately we don't have local hardware here!). Use the spile to size the tube. Get it long enough to get from where you drill an apx. 2" deep hole in the tree (at a slight upward angle as the bit goes in) about 4' off the ground, down to a hole you drill in the side of the bucket. Keep a lid on the bucket to keep debris out of the sap. 

(At right: the boys showing off our kitty-litter maple-sap buckets, and our Norway Maple, nicknamed "Hagrid") 

Once you've collected several gallons of sap you boil it off. This is best done outside as it makes surfaces, walls, etc. get a bit sticky if you boil off gallons of sap inside. The first year we balanced a chafing dish on a fire pit and that took FOREVER. 

(at left: our original evaporator setup: a chafing dish on a "smokeless" fire pot)

(below: the drum, ground to receive the chafing dishes)

The second year I built an evaporator: I bought a metal 55 gal drum on FB marketplace (I found one new for $20 but that's rare: you don't need a new one though, just one in good condition). I used a kit like this. Then I lined the base of the stove with bricks for insulation (you don't have to do that; they just recommend dumping a bag of playground sand so the fire isn't directly on the metal which will eventually burn through). Then I used my two donor chafing dishes as templates to grind two holes in the top of the barrel, so the fire is being applied directly to the bottom of the dishes. This is SO MUCH faster than the other system, and well worth the $100 investment; but for your first season to just try it out you could make do with whatever sort of fire pit you have, or even use a gas grill. If you can find a way to get two vats boiling it speeds it up since adding cold syrup to boiling syrup stops the evaporation until it heats up to boiling again. 

(left: the brick lining of the drum)

(the new two-chafing dish, barrel-stove evaporator)

You can also build a cement block evaporator like the one pictured here. The people who built it have a good how-to with videos. 

You keep boiling until the liquid is syrup. I honestly don't remember how we knew when we hit it the first year: I think I knew pretty accurately how much Norway Maple sap I'd collected so when I had reduced it by 60:1 I knew I was about done. The second year I thought I was done, then calculated that I had about 2x as much syrup as I thought I should have based on knowing about how much sap I'd gathered. At first I thought "oh well, I just like it a bit thin I guess"; then I realized it wasn't shelf-stable if you don't hit the right ratio. So I bought a hydrometer and did the test to make sure I was producing real syrup. (That website—tapmytrees.com—is also a good resource for info).

This sounds complicated, but really you can get started with just the spiles, tubing and stuff you have around the house; use a grill or fire pit to get started, then if you're having fun, start looking into building an evaporator, etc. But I feel like we're very well equipped to make all our family's maple syrup needs (and I hope to make enough for gifts or friends this year) and we're only about $150 in. 

As Leff notes, it's also a remarkable vehicle for connecting with people. There's a surprising amount of interest in the process and both years we've done it we've been able to host multiple groups to see the process and (depending on timing) taste the product. 

When candidates respected their audience's intelligence...

 I do not believe that everything's going to — in a hand-basket. I think anthropology doesn't change much in the aggregate—moderns are quite as self-interested as ancients; contemporary American political unrest is not on the scale of the 1860s or even the 1960s! But I do think political dialog has fallen off a cliff. I haven't bothered watching a presidential debate since Obama and Romney squared off in 2012 and even two of the most intelligent people to contend for the office in recent history utterly failed to say anting noteworthy or even helpful (I've kept up with the content of presidential debates since; I just haven't wasted time trying to be entertained by it as it hasn't been worth the effort).

This quote from Eric Jaffe's The King's Best Highway suggests it was not always so: examining Lincoln's speech to an East Coast audience in February of 1860 in which he took up Douglas's claim that the Founding Fathers had not intended the federal government to sound in on the issue of slavery Lincoln actually dug through legislative precedent for his audience, citing the voting records of the signers of the Constitution and interpreting whether those records supported the idea that they believed the federal government had a right to speak to state decisions on the issue of slavery.
"All in all Lincoln had found evidence that twenty-three men who signed the Constitution had taken a political action endorsing the federal government's right to control the spread of slavery. Twenty-one of these, a clear majority of the thirty-nine, had voted to actively stop such a spread. Of the sixteen signers for whom Lincoln could not find direct voting behavior—including 'Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris'—all but one were known to oppose slavery. It was reasonable to conclude, then, that of the thirty-nine men who signed the Constitution—men who 'understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now'—at least thirty-six would certainly, or very likely, agree that the government can and should interfere with slavery's expansion."
What's more, "two editors tasked with preparing footnotes for a published version of the speech needed three weeks and the help of several historians... just to verify the facts."
Lincoln didn't just offer counter factual statements to Douglas; he offered legislative evidence! And this as part of a complex argument in which he agreed with Douglas's declaration that "Our fathers understood this question [of whether the federal government had the right to speak to the issue of slavery] just as well, and even better, than we do now" but then deconstructed Douglas's argument based on the evidence Lincoln offered. He seemed to have a lot more respect for his audience's intelligence than anyone who's offered presidential debate during my adult lifetime...

Complete loops and chicken poop

 

I love interlocked systems. Complete—if complex—loops. When the effluents provide the materials necessary to produce the influents. Chickens, I'm finding, are great at that. You can buy feed for them, and they produce eggs, and poop. So you can buy chips to put down in their coop, and then rake up the poop/chips frequently. And your food scraps can go in the trash—and everything is a broken loop. Or you can save your food scraps (and your neighbors' food scraps) and feed them to the chickens; and they'll produce eggs and poop; and you can mulch your leaves (and your neighbors' leaves) and put it down in their pen. And keep adding it until you've got a nice deep litter of living organisms, essentially turning the floor of the pen into a compost pile. Now the poop isn't a problem to be dealt with; but a useful product they give you. 

They tie back into other aspects of the property: we've got enough trees that we need to take one down about once a year to keep them from threatening neighbors property or the house. So I could pay someone to haul off the wood for me. Or I could burn the wood, not need a gym membership as I get a work out cutting wood; then not pay to heat the house. Interestingly, the ashes produced in this process are a great source of carbon, and can be collected when they cool and put in the chicken coop (they are most abundant in the winter when the leaves are no longer available as bedding), and they keep the composting process trucking along. I'm experimenting this year with swiping the neighbors' bagged leaves (with their permission) and storing them in the back woods where I used to haul off my leaves. The bags seem to be keeping up through several significant rains now: they seem to shed most of the water and, since they aren't fully water or air tight, they seem to allow the leaves to dry out from any dampness that's gotten in when the rain stops. Once I've dealt with all my leaves by mulching them and adding them to the coop I'll drag out out a few of the neighbors' leaf bags anytime the coop starts smelling like it needs a bit more carbon (i.e. starts smelling like ammonia) and mulch them up and add them in. 

Back to the feed comment: I have not cut out the need to buy feed. But saving my food scraps, and giving them food scraps from friends and neighbors, and giving them limited free ranging time, and throwing all the weeds, grass clippings (thanks neighbors!), and whatever other organic matter I can find into the coop does significantly cut down on the amount of feed I have to buy. I'm hoping to grow more things specifically as chicken feed next season and that will further cut down on the still-slightly-open-loop on the feed side.  

Revelation resources

I was lamenting that I've become pretty infrequent in my posting; but also reflected that a 'sub-category' of this blog has become what I might call "pastoral advice" as it's advice on how to interact with various portions of Scripture—situational correspondence that I realized might have more general usefulness. So I've decided to just embrace that! Here's some thoughts on resources for the book of Revelation:

Revelation is one of the trickiest books to approach because of how many ways Christians have interpreted it, and because of the way Dispensationalism has cast a long shadow over modern interpretation among evangelicals. 

Here's a paper I wrote in seminary where I exegete Rev 20:1-6 because most of the differences of interpretation come down to what you do with the millennium described there. 

You may or may not be familiar with the idea that there are 3 basic "camps" of interpretation. These camps are basically answering the question, "does Jesus come back..." before the millennium in Revelation 20 ("Pre-mil"); without reference to a specific millennium ("A-mil"); or after the millennium ("Post-mil"). 

But what is probably the stronger division is between Dispensational interpreters on the one side and the historic pre-mil, a-mil and post-mil interpreters on the other, because the Dispensational camp started straying into some places that did violence to how you interpret the rest of Scripture,* demands we see the modern secular state of Israel as having eternal significance, and requires us to see God saving people by different means: the Jews by the law in the old dispensation (and for many still the Jews by the law today); Christians by grace in the new dispensation. 

Modern exegetes who have sought to remain faithful to the Scripture while remaining within the Dispensational tradition have developed "neo-Dispensationalism" which is basically the historic pre-mil position. 

Pastors and Elders in the PCA can subscribe to any of the three historic views, but because of the departure from good exegesis required by Dispensationalism that view is 'out of bounds.' Of course, PCA members may believe whatever their consciences lead them to, but we urge everyone to conform their belief to the Scriptures. 

Unfortunately I don't have a great 'Bible study-type' recommendation as the controversies that have grown up around Revelation are so big it tends to take pretty heavy-hitting academic treatment to deal with all the things floating out there in the ether... G.K Beal has written the definitive and masterful commentary which I find most helpful (and used when I preached a sermon series on Revelation back in IL) but it's also over a thousand pages and goes into detail only a person writing a book on Revelation would need to get into. He has also written a much more accessible commentary I'd recommend. There's a good, short book that presents the 4 views called The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views by George Ladd. I have also used and appreciated a few other commentaries I'll note: J. Ramsey Michaels, Revelation (it's hard to plott Michaels on the spectrum of millennial views); Simon J Kistemaker, Exposition of the Book of Revelation (a-mil); and Robert Murray M'Cheyne, The Seven Churches of Asia (just deals with the first chapters addressed to the churches).

*This is an odd development because most people who are in the Dispensational camp are firmly committed to understanding the Bible as the reliable and trustworthy Word of God. The difficulty is that simplistic engagement with the doctrine of Scripture led people to think everything must be taken "literally." This was because revisionist exegetes in the late 1800s (in the English-speaking world) began questioning whether miracles and many essential aspects of the doctrine of Christ—including the resurrection—needed to be taken literally, despite the Biblical texts very clearly presenting these things as literal events. The concern to stand for literal interpretation, when applied simplistically, led people to interpret figurative texts as necessarily literal. It was no longer up to the biblical author whether the text was figurative or literal: everything had to be taken literally. But with vision narratives that is hugely problematic, and leads to some significant inconsistencies. For example, when Joseph or Daniel give interpretation of rulers' dreams, should we accuse them of revisionism for saying what the meaning behind fat cows and thin cows means? Trying to force a literal read onto figurative material also causes modern interpreters into some strange linguistic gymnastics, like the common interpretation among contemporary Dispensationalists that the grasshoppers in John's vision are really what contemporary military attack helicopters would look like to a first century person! So now we have John describing 20th/21st century military gear, but not being intelligent enough to know it's large flying machines, not grasshoppers. And that would imply that the literal word 'grasshopper' in the sacred text of Holy Scripture is, in fact, a mistake!

"Developments" in Campus Security

 I got to spend some time several months ago on the campus of my now-alma mater, Concordia Seminary in St. Louis. I must say I did not feel very welcome. This is not a slight to Concordia in any specific way; I think it's how I'd feel on most academic campuses in the US (it is how I've experienced getting around when I visit my undergrad alma mater, Covenant College for a number of years now). Even though I'm a student of this organization, and was issued a visitor key card when I arrived, every door I encountered was locked, and I have yet to find one that my key card worked on. I don't think that experience is entirely due to my visitor status. Students I have interacted with seem unsure when and where their cards will work, and it seems from comments made by the graduation ceremony marshals that dealing with unreliably locked doors is just a continuous part of campus life.

This has gotten me thinking about the problem of campus security that we're trying to solve, and whether or not our new measures are solving that problem, or making it worse. So I'd like to explore a few scenarios, set on the same campus; one in, say, 2012, and one in 2022. All the locked doors on a contemporary campus are, I believe, supposed to make students safer from predatory intruders. So lets picture a scenario in about 2012, when most of the external doors on a campus are unlocked for most of the time—maybe they switch from unlocked to locked 11pm-7am and only the front door to each dorm can be opened by your dorm key during that window (like Covenant College did in the '90s). Most of the dorm rooms from sometime in the '80s on default to locked, and a lot of students use little blocks of wood to keep them from closing/locking because they find the convenience of not being constantly locked out worth the risk their door being unlocked poses. I think we're afraid that an intruder is going to get into a dorm and assault a student with the scenario we find between the 1980s and early 2010s. So let's play that out: the intruder gets through an exterior door during "unlocked hours" and poses as a normal student in common areas until after lights out, then either takes advantage of someone leaving their dorm room door propped open, or surprises a student getting up to use the bathroom. It seems that this scenario gets shut down pretty quickly by the student calling for help, or by someone recognizing that the intruder isn't in fact a student while they're trying to single out a victim. 

Now let's move the scenario up to the present day: all doors—dorm room, exterior, etc.—are fitted with card locks and without the card you can't access anything on campus—can't enter the library, the cafeteria, the administrative offices, the dorm buildings, etc. Let's assume that everything is working properly as it's designed with no hiccups (I'm being very generous here, because it appears that hiccups are the norm, not the exception): a student's key card will always give them access to their dormitory and their individual dorm room, will give them access to library, administrative offices and cafeteria during business hours, etc. So now, an intruder arrives on campus looking for a victim. Let's also assume they don't find any doors that students, faculty or staff have braced open because they find that constantly being locked out is annoying. Now a student moving across campus who gets targeted by this intruder will most likely find every door they run to to get away—library, offices, gym, other dorms—just as locked to them as to the intruder. Unless they happen to be near their own dorm, their campus has become a trap for them. I think we can see that in these two scenarios, being generous, at best the odds are fifty-fifty whether the student in 2022 is any safer than the student in 2012. 

But I think there's a bigger problem, and a greater safety threat posed in the 2022 scenario than the situation in 2012. The very technology we have decided is going to be the final solution is breaking down the community bonds that used to offer a certain level of security. Every locked door severs a small community bond that used to surround the student with relationships (not deep, meaningful, soul-mate relationships—just people you recognize on sight, generally trust as another member of your community, and would expect to respond if you called out to them). What is breaking down is in part the phenomenon Jane Jacobs called "eyes on the street"—the reality that where there are people who see things there is greater safety. We're trying to substitute technology for relationship when we were both designed and evolved to depend on relationship. 

Reconciling Matthew's and Luke's accounts of the suicide of Judas Iscariot

The suicide of Judas Iscariot is described twice in the New Testament and the two accounts seem to be offering two different ways Judas died: one by hanging and one by falling. So the question is are the two accounts reconcilable? If so it's not an affront to the idea that God inspired both of them. If not it's a problem for both being inspired. 

 

So, to look at the two stories: The hanging account is in Matthew 27:5: "And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself." The falling account is Acts 1:18: "Now this man acquired a field with the reward of his wickedness, and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out." 

 

On the surface it appears that one is hanging, one is falling to die on impact. But neither account is particularly detailed. The hanging account doesn't say, for example, he went into a room, got up on a stool, tied himself to a rafter and kicked the stool over. That would make an account that said he went up on a cliff and jumped off clearly incompatible. But the falling account isn't that detailed either. It doesn't even say specifically that he died in the field he purchased (though you could argue it's implied). 

 

I think there's a variety of ways that the accounts can be reconciled: Judas tying his rope to something that broke, causing him to fall a long way; jumping from too high a point when hanging himself so he gets decapitated and falls and "bursts;" hanging himself ("falling headlong") and then being left so long his body swells and bursts from decomposition (which seems shameful: no one cares about him enough to find him so the body just hangs in its owner's new field until it rots). 

 

So I think if we're careful not to import too much assumption into our reading of either account we can see that there are numerous scenarios that could be accurately described with both statements without either one suffering.

Then we get into, "yeah, but are those as likely as the idea that there are just two conflicting stories?" Well, taken by themselves, I wouldn't jump to a complex scenario from either story. But then we do have two stories--even without a doctrine of inspiration we should ask, "is it necessary to assume one of the accounts is mistaken, or would we assume we're getting more details from two accounts?" If I'm just considering two historical documents, of course I could just say one must be mistaken, but that's not really good historical work if it's not necessary from the accounts that they are mutually exclusive. If I have reports of a battle from two Roman commanders that seem to have conflicts, but on analysis could be reconciled, I would just assume that I'm getting a fuller picture of naturally complex historical realities by having more accounts to work from. 

This is violating the common maxim that the simplest answer is likely the most accurate. But that maxim doesn't really apply to the discipline of history where the more accurate maxim is that "History is Messy" (i.e. complex). Usually the most accurate understanding of any historical circumstance is a highly nuanced and complex picture made up of multitudes of factors. Unless there's some demonstrable reason to believe that one or the other source is untrustworthy, or has an "angle" that would benefit from their version excluding another, we're probably best accepting the more complex picture reconciled from multiple sources. I don't really see any advantage to Matthew or Luke (the author of Acts) to favor falling versus hanging. One means of death versus another doesn't add anything to either author's larger story--the primary point for both seems to be that Judas committed suicide, not that the specific means of his death proved something or enhanced some other point.

This gets to a question of source reliability. This is illustrated in The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe by Professor Digory Kirke's question to Peter and Susan (the older two siblings) about the reliability of their younger siblings when the youngest discovers a portal to the fantastic realm of Narnia: Lucy, the younger girl, has a story of finding another world through a portal and Edmund (the younger boy) says it's a made up game. Peter and Susan are troubled because obviously it's a lie--there can't be portals to fantastic worlds. But the professor asks, "is it usual that the girl is less honest than the boy?" They reply that Edmund is a known liar and that Lucy is very honest. So the Professor asks why they are sticking by their (what we might call a "negative evidence"-based, or argument from silence) presupposition that there can't be a portal, rather than their (positive evidence-based) presupposition that Lucy is honest. 

 If we generally find Matthew and Luke to be honest reporters, and they have an apparent conflict that, on analysis, can be reconciled, it actually makes more sense to assume the reconciled picture is the more full picture of the actual historical event and dismiss our assumptions about rafters and cliffs.

Woah! What happened to 2020?!

The last time I posted was September of 2019? What happened? Well, in addition to all the things that happened to all of us in 2020 (pandemic, racial injustice and tension, political conflict, etc.), I pastored our church plant through its launch (which included changing worship locations seven times in its first 7 months of existence!), continued rehabbing our house and apartments, and wrote a little less than half of my dissertation. So it was a busy year. But I'll hope for a little more activity here in 2021!