To Be Or Not To Be
Everybody thinks I should be a young earth creationist. I’m not. Why?
by Michael Spencer
(NOTE: Well, I guess I need to say that is is entirely my personal, scientifically ignorant, highly subjective view. This is not a pronouncement on creationism, but a personal declaration of why I am not a young earther. Sort of like why I am a U of L fan. It will never make sense to the UK side.)

IM readers have traveled with me in my many journeys as a Calvinist among the Southern Baptist Arminian evangelical revivalists. I hope I’ve made it clear that despite my substantial differences with my fellow Christians over the sovereignty of God in salvation and how that should shape the life of the church, I still enjoy wonderful Christian fellowship with my fellow Christians. While my doctrinaire Calvinism is shocking to some, it rarely appears as an issue in my normal interactions with my fellow Christians. I am yielded my right to be odd and eccentric, and I take advantage of it.

The real shock these days is that I am not a young earth creationist. Among my evangelical friends, there is a solid majority of CRI types. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind videos are more popular than HBO. If Ken Ham builds his creationist museum in Northern Kentucky, there will be a full-time bus route created to accommodate the field trips from our school. Hugh Ross is accursed among my brethren. Young earth creationism is the majority report, and even my children are on the other team from dad.

When my fellow faculty members hear me say I am not a young earth creationist, they literally shake their heads in astonished disbelief. They know I am not a liberal, and that I am conservative and orthodox in my Christianity. How can I, they muse, not take the Bible literally on matters like the age of the earth? How can I not see that young earth creationism is the God-honoring, Bible believing position? How did I ever get duped into believing- as they wrongly assume I do- the lies of the evolutionists?

Students who take me for Bible have generally already been through the creationist curriculum in other classes. Their reactions range from curious to incredulous. They are surprised that I, the minister, preacher and Bible teacher, do not approach Genesis in the same way their science teachers do. I explain that Christians have never required agreement on these issues, and that reasonable interpretation of Genesis allows a variety of positions on the hermeneutics of the early chapters of Genesis. I am always saddened that they see this disagreement as inappropriate, and I work hard to say that the Creationist position, while it is not my position, is completely acceptable as a way of interpreting the Bible. (I hope my co-workers reading this essay will know that I have never demeaned creationism in any way, though I am willing to critique it as a method of interpreting Genesis.)

The Roots of My Problem

I have been reading creationist materials since high school. I bought The Genesis Flood when I was a very young Christian. I was converted in a fundamentalist church that contained very few college educated members, but they were aware of the challenge posed by the teaching of evolution. Darwin’s theories were skewered and preached against, in traditional fundamentalist fashion, by preachers who had never read Darwin or sat through a college biology course.

Evolution held a particular fear in my family because my half-brother had rejected Christianity as a result of embracing evolution. My parents were uneducated, but they warned me about the dangers I would face if I went to a school that taught evolution. When I took my college science classes, the professors were aware that many of us came from such backgrounds, and at least my teachers, took great care in separating their teaching of science from any critique of religion. My college biology professor was very cautious not to stir up controversy. In retrospect, I wish he had been more straightforward.

My views on the relationship of scripture and science were more affected by my college Bible classes than my science classes. I learned that scripture must be rightly interpreted. It must be understood within its world, and interpreted rightly in mine. If I came away with any suspicions that the young earth creationists might be wrong, it came from my developing an appreciation for Biblical interpretation, not from the Biology lab. Secular science didn’t turn my head. I learned that the people waving the Bible around weren’t necessarily treating it with the respect it deserved.

In seminary I continued my study of Biblical interpretation. I had been warned that liberal professors would teach me evolution and deny the historicity of miracles in the Bible. There were some professors out there that fit the stereotype, but they weren’t in the Bible department of my school. My Bible instructors taught me to respect the Biblical text by not imposing my interpretations and favorite hobby horses on the scriptures. What became clearer to me over my seminary career was that many of my evangelical and fundamentalist brethren were not willing to let the scriptures be what they were or to let them speak their own language.

Among the most valuable lessons I learned at seminary was to ask questions about the literary genre of the Biblical text. Literary criticism is among the most recent and helpful approaches to the Bible, and I don’t claim to be an expert. But I did come to appreciate that identifying a text as history, poetry, song, drama, parable or epistle was essential in allowing that text to “play by its own rules.” This had tremendous influence on my approach to the issues of young earth creationism, and continues to be the primary reason that I cannot accept their reading of Genesis.

The Ham Hermeneutic

One of the most well known creationist communicators is Ken Ham, an Australian school teacher whose humor and communication skills have served the cause of creationism well. His ministry “Answers in Genesis” is heard around the world. I’ve heard a lot of Ham’s stuff on tape and videos. I’ve read several of his books. In fact, I show my students an overview of Genesis 1 by Ham to demonstrate how creationists approach the Biblical text. Without being disrespectful, I have to say that I am always left uneasy by Ham’s approach to the Bible.

Ham loves the Bible and believes it is utterly truthful. He is unswervingly committed to the Bible as the Word of God and as divinely inspired. He is, however, primarily a scientist and an educator. Not a Biblical scholar. I do not believe he knows the Biblical languages. He shows little interest in Genesis as a literary text. His teaching is on Genesis as a scientific text.

One of Ham’s favorite laugh lines is suggesting students wait until a professor makes some claim about evolution or “millions of years” (a favorite Ham line) and then ask the killer question. “Sir, were you there?” (Add Aussie accent.) After the professor says “No, but….” then the follow up is something like this: “Then why do you believe the words of men, who weren’t there and don’t know everything, instead of believing the Word of God, who was there and does know everything?”

I don’t want to disparage Ham’s question or his belief that the Bible reveals to us unique information we could not know otherwise. But Ham has completely run past the really important questions about how we read and understand Genesis 1. He is asserting that Genesis 1 is to be believed because God inspired it. I don’t know of any real contention about that subject among those of us who are not young earth creationists. But Ham assumes that anyone who doesn’t interpret Genesis exactly as he does is rejecting the Bible as truthful.

And how does Ham interpret Genesis? He believes it is a scientific description of creation; a detailed scientific description that answers specific scientific questions and rules out any theories that cannot be based upon statements in Genesis. I am perfectly at ease with Ham making this presupposition, but I disagree with it. I do not believe Genesis is written as scientific description, but as a theological (and prescientific) one.

Let Us Do Your Speaking For You

Young earth creationists have not only not won me over with their approach to the Biblical text, and they have impressed me less with their attitude towards those interpretations that differ with them. Young earth creationists win the award for factionalism, and some of their achievements have to be noted.

For example, any approach that rejects a less than 10,000 year old earth or the flood as the explanation for all visible topography and geology is not on the team. So advocates of intelligent design, who have written and spoken powerfully on the evidence for God in microbiology and astrophysics, are written off because they tend to accept the current scientific dating of the universe and the earth. Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe, significant voices in the intelligent design movement, are no better than Stephen Jay Gould or Carl Sagan to the young earthers. In fact, the entire Intelligent Design movement is ignored by the creationists. This is foolish. There is much common ground between these groups.

Some of the contentions of the young earthers seem, to a layman like me, somewhat far-fetched, like denying the existence of black holes or questioning the constancy of the speed of light, and the evidence cited for these positions is, to say the least, fringe or below the fringe. Yet young earthers feel that because these views must be accepted to keep the age of the earth less than 10,000 years,anyone who does not embrace these strange and unproven theories is rejecting the truthfulness of the Bible, even though such ideas are in no way related to any text in Genesis. I find their rejection of the speed of light and the measurability of the universe to be particularly troubling.

I have noted on several occasions the open hostility towards Hugh Ross, the Canadian astronomer who has written a number of books on Genesis and Science for Navpress and has an apologetics ministry based on answering scientific questions. Ross interprets Genesis differently than the young earthers, and basically affirms the standard picture of big-bang and an old, expanding universe. Ross is somewhat unique in his interpretations, and takes the text very literally, but to the young earthers, he is out of the ball park, because he does not assume/conclude the earth/universe is young.

This is a method of Biblical interpretation where a few questions will quickly determine where one stands. How old is the earth? Was there death before Adam? Do you believe in a world wide flood? Were there dinosaurs on the ark? Any number of these questions draw lines in the sand for the young earthers. I am sorry to say that I cannot think of any division in Christianity- Calvinist/Arminan, Catholic/Protestant, Pentecostal/Cessationist, Seeker/Traditional- where one side is more completely unlikely to appreciate the other position than this one.

Two issues particularly have bothered me. One is the young earth contention that there cannot be such a thing as theistic evolution. For the young earth movement, the teams seems to be young earthers versus atheistic evolutionists. But this is too simplistic. There are many theistic evolutionists in the diverse traditions of Christianity. We may disagree deeply on the evidence for macroevolution, particularly as it applies to human beings, or on various claim about the nature of the Bible, but to say that there is no such possible Christian position as theistic evolution is criminally inaccurate. (For example, the controversial life and work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin should be noted as a significant advocate of such a position. I did extensive research on the life of Charles Darwin during seminary, and Darwin himself was not an atheist, but a Deistic evolutionist.) Theistic evolution may have its problems, but in the opinion of serious confessional theologians, it does not deny anything essential to the Christian faith.

The other issue is the rejection of the astronomical evidence for the “Big Bang.” Christians like Fred Hereen and Hugh Ross have taken the evidence of the “Big Bang” and produced powerful arguments for the existence of God. I personally find the evidence compelling and exciting, and very helpful to students in understanding why faith in a creator God is not irrational. Yet the young earthers, fully committed to rejecting any evidence that might challenge their age of the earth, routinely equate the “Big Bang” with atheism. When I refer to the “Big Bang” and what we know about it from the Hubble telescope, I can count on at least one student asking me how I can believe in the “Big Bang” since that is what atheists believe? (Even my own children had to be reeducated on this point.)

Good men, like R.C. Sproul and J. Gresham Machen, are outside of the young earther’s definition of orthodoxy on this issue. The Presbyterian Church in America has been painfully divided over this issue, an issue that no creed or confession in classical orthodox Christendom has ever taken sides on. Even if I were impressed with the Biblical or scientific claims of the young earth position, I would hesitate to identify with a movement this uncharitable towards other Christians.

Literally Missing the Point

The young earth creationists believe that Genesis 1 is “literally” a description of creation. I do not. It is this simple disagreement that is the cornerstone of my objection. I believe that Genesis 1 is a prescientific description of Creation intended to accent how Yahweh’s relationship with the world stands in stark contrast to the Gods of other cultures, most likely those of Babylon. Textual and linguistic evidence convinces me that this chapter was written to be used in a liturgical (worship) setting, with poetic rhythms and responses understood as part of the text. It tells who made the universe in a poetic and prescientific way. It is beautiful, inspired and true as God’s Word.

Does it match up with scientific evidence? Who cares? Here I differ with Hugh Ross and the CRI writers. I do not believe science, history or archaeology of any kind establishes the truthfulness of the scripture in any way. Scripture is true by virtue of God speaking it. If God spoke poetry, or parable, or fiction or a prescientific description of creation, it is true without any verification by any human measurement whatsoever. The freedom of God in inspiration is not restricted to texts that can be interpreted “literally” by historical or scientific judges of other ages and cultures beyond the time the scriptures were written.

In my view, both the scientific establishment’s claims to debunk Genesis and the creationists claims to have established Genesis by way of relating the text to science are worthless. Utterly and completely worthless and I will freely admit to being bored the more I hear about it. I react to this much the same I react to people who run in with the Bible and the newspaper showing me how 666 is really the bar code on my credit card. (A theory which, by the way, creationist and KJV-only advocate Kent Hovind gives considerable credibility to.)

Does the Bible need to be authorized by scientists or current events to be true? What view of inspiration is it that puts the Bible on trial before the current scientific and historical models? Has anyone noticed what this obsession with literality does to the Bible itself?

The compliment that is paid to the Bible by those who say it is “literally” and scientifically true comes at the expense of an authentic and accurate understanding of the text. A simple illustration will show what I mean.

ESV Revelation 6:12 When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, 13 and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale.

I do not believe the stars will fall to the earth. I don’t. I don’t believe stars are in the sky. I don’t believe the writer understood what stars are or how they operate or the distances involved. I think this is prescientific language, and it is meant to tell us truth in its own way. A simple illustration, but it clearly shows that literary purpose must come before “literal” interpretation.

Now if I insist on a literal interpretation of this verse as a way of saying it is true and inspired, I am not treating the text with reverence and respect. I may be well motivated, but I am damaging the text. My point gets across, but at the expense of the real meaning of the text as it was written and inspired.

In the same way, Genesis describes creation prescientifically, in the language and idioms of the time, with a theological purpose in mind. It speaks clearly and powerfully. Making this into a literal and “scientific” description as a condition of inspiration is wrong.

Am I treating Genesis as a special case? Are Ham and others correct that this is straightforward description and there is no reason for putting a literary “spin” on how I read the text? My objection is to saying what a “straightforward description” means in a text several thousand years old; a text from a specific culture with a particular purpose. I am not claiming any special insight into Genesis. I am simply saying that, in my opinion, Genesis was not written with reference to the questions or methods of modern science, and making its truthfulness depend on that is a misuse of the text.

Many other examples could be brought forth. (Ask what a literal interpretation of the vision of Jesus in Revelation 1 turns into?) The literary nature of a text can’t be overlooked or taken for granted. In my opinion, this is typical of the creationist approach to the Bible. It becomes a piece of evidence in a scientific discussion, and the text of scripture- particularly its literary distinctiveness- is largely ignored.

The FAQ

Let’s bring this essay to an end with some of the most frequently asked questions in this discussion.

1. Do you believe in evolution? I don’t know anyone who doesn’t acknowledge some of the truth is Darwin’s theory, particularly as it describes the kind of “evolution” anyone can see in the breeding of animals. But evolution today is a religion more than a scientific theory. It is a massive, confused, chaotic, feuding, braggart of a system that has major problems. How does it relate to the Bible? I really don’t know. The Bible says God created all things by his word and design, and created human beings in his image. The language it uses to describe that is not literal, scientific language meant to answer scientific questions. Evolution is a theory that scientists use to explain things. That’s all it is to me. Compared to the truth of scripture, it is worthless.

2. Is Creationism bad? No, creationism has done some very good things. I believe creationists have put together a strong critique of evolutionary theory and pointed out many fallacies in evolutionary claims. They have strongly asserted that the world can’t be understood without God. They have made a strong witness for the truthfulness of the Bible, though I think they misunderstand how the truth of the Bible operates. I do feel that on the subjects of Biblical interpretation and scientific matters related to astronomy, creationism has some problems.

3. How old is the earth? The age of the earth is not something I believe the Biblical writers understood or cared about. The genealogical data in Genesis is not there to date the earth but to demonstrate important parts of God’s message to human beings, such as the universality of death. Personally, I accept the commonly stated age of the earth from the current astrophysical models.

4. Do you believe in a literal Adam and Eve? Yes, though I think the story we have in Genesis 1-3 is not primarily historical, but theological and is not there to be scientifically descriptive. But it is clear that the Bible’s story of our salvation begins with our first parents.

5. Do you believe in the flood? The flood story in Genesis 6-9 is about God’s judgment and grace, not about geology. I believe catastrophic events occurred in the past that are the background of this story, but I do not believe the story was written by modern scientific or historical standards.

6. Aren’t you just turning plain historical passages into symbols or allegories? Isn’t that damaging the text as you accuse creationists of doing? A good question, but not a careful one. I don’t believe Genesis is symbolic or allegorical. I believe it is prescientific. If I explain the birth of a baby to a three year old child, I speak differently than I would do a college senior. I am not lying, using symbols or allegories. I am using language appropriate for the setting. Genesis is written in language appropriate for the culture, the purpose and the setting. It wasn’t written to or by or for modern scientists.

Looking at the literary purpose of a passage does put some subjectivity on the interpreter. No doubt about it. That means even more care and caution in saying what a text is all about and how it should be read. I understand some people prefer the security of saying all texts are literal. I feel that blanket approach hurts the text and doesn’t help us understand it.

7. Why couldn’t the earth be 6,000 years old? What is the problem with 24 hour creation days? God is sovereign, right? Absolutely. My problem is simply that I don’t believe the Bible is commenting on the age of the earth, and I see no compelling reason to reject the age of the universe or the earth suggested by mainstream science, which, by the way, includes many Christians who look at the evidence and believe “the heavens are telling the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.” I also wonder why God’s sovereignty can’t be just as grandly expressed by inspiring a prescientific text as a scientifically correct one?

8. What if God created things to look older than they really are, like creating Adam with the appearance of age? An interesting point, and possible, of course. But it seems a long way around to simply support the assumptions of the creationists. There is no reason to adopt this view unless you believe a young universe must be maintained at all costs.

9. Do you believe that the teaching of evolution in the public schools is the reason for the decline of our culture into violence and barbarism? I believe the problems of our world go much deeper than the teaching of any philosophy. I think creationists have made some excellent points about the connection of evolution with other philosophical and moral developments. But atheistic philosophies are simply a fruit of the general human rebellion against God described in Genesis 1-12 and Romans 1-2. You can’t lay so much at the feet of evolution. Humans were just as bad before the theory came along.

10. Doesn’t it bother you that so many people you think highly of are creationists and you are not? Doesn’t it make you wonder if you’re off track? I have a lot of friends with whom I disagree over important issues in scripture. I like to search out what I believe, and I appreciate all those God has used to help me understand his word. I hope my friends always know this isn’t an issue that will divide us as friends, but I hope it will be an issue we can discuss with open minds.

A website that has been helpful to me is http://www.bibleandscience.com.

The Special Temptations of a House Divided
by Michael Spencer

The writers of the Constitution believed Congress was the branch of government closest to the people. With the terms of representatives being short, no political parties in existence and no thought of a permanent political class making this a career, high hopes were placed in congress. The Founders never conceived of the money, influence and affluence made possible by a few terms in government. They knew nothing about PACs, soft money or lobbyists. They pictured debate by patriotic citizen voices, representing the interests of the states, but always giving highest regard to the principals of the republic and the Constitution.

The upcoming 107th Congress presents the greatest challenge yet to this centerpiece of government. As a “house divided” nearly equally, and the branch of government most bitterly invested in the partisan rhetoric and political corruption of our era, congress is fast approaching a point of crisis. With the Presidency brought to unprecedented weakness by Bill Clinton, and the Judicial branch stained by the post-election controversies, the country cannot afford for congress to sink further into the quicksand of gridlock and self-interest. More than ever, the country needs “the People’s House” to rise to the Founders’ vision and intentions.

Republicans have a special interest in the success of this congress. Since 1994, they have controlled the House and now, in 2001, the White House and the Senate as well. The American people have a right to know if a “do nothing” 106th congress (whose only goal appeared to be making liberals happy and spending records amounts of money on bad programs) will be followed by a “do even less” 107th congress?

Legislative priorities seem clearer than ever in recent history. Both parties are talking about the same issues, though with predictable differences in approach. Americans will clearly not be satisfied with legislative failure on issues like Medicare, prescription drugs and Social security. If Congress fails to make meaningful progress on these issues, finger-pointing and dueling press conferences won’t repair the damage. President Bush is not going to be wielding much of a veto pen. If congress sends a bill to the President, he almost certainly will support it. What a great opportunity for Republicans to actual govern, and not just obfuscate, object and whine.

Now is the time for the parties to rise above fund-raising from their base for the next election and make it their focus to restore the dignity of the institution through which they serve. The House and Senate are not just places for the parties to meet and yell at each other or further personal agendas; they are the bodies given the voice of the people for the purpose of making America all it promises it’s citizens it will be.

The temptations for a divided congress are considerable, but America has heard and seen enough of excuses. If Republicans can’t fulfill the opportunity to lead, then America will be justified in taking away the opportunity. The next two years are critical for congress and all Americans.

Dirty Hands and A Pure Heart
George W. Bush and the Reality of Political Compromise
by Michael Spencer

Were it not for the war on terrorism, conservatives would be boiling mad at President Bush. As it is, the President’s popularity among conservatives is suffering through a period of disenchantment. As was predicted in this space more than a year ago, it is conservatives who will eventually give the president the most trouble. I’ll have to admit, he is earning it.

What are the main issues? First, the president took a moderate line on stem cell research. Next, the president angered his free trade supporters by placing a tariff on imported steel. Then the President angered the Israeli lobby by sponsoring a U.N. resolution on a Palestinian state and openly criticizing Israel’s military moves into refugee camps. The President seemed to do very little to come to the aid of Judicial nominee Charles Pickering, who was borked by Democrats with no good reason other than political meanness. Finally, the president will sign the dreaded campaign finance bill, and has annoyed me and a lot of other core conservatives in the process.

These are not minor matters, though none of them rises to the level of the war on terrorism. They are the sorts of things that the President knows are irritating his base. I am quite sure that the President’s response in all of these matters is purposeful. Conservatives need not fool themselves into thinking the President is so distracted by the war on terrorism that he simply doesn’t have the time or attention to care about these issues. GWB is a politician, and his staff is politically savvy in whatever advice they are giving him. One can easily see that Bush has differing points of view surrounding him, and it would be possible to say a certain mindset is prevailing. And you might be right, but what is that mindset?

First, I think Bush wants to be re-elected. Many conservatives are acting ridiculous about the political realities afoot in America right now. Bush won without a popular majority and by the most controversial recount in election history. He knows that the Democrats are investing in silence and moderate criticism now, with plans to run a no-holds-barred nasty campaign in 2002 and 2004. While I am doubtful that any Democrat can challenge Bush in the current environment, or that many viable candidates will even want to try, I do not think the Bushees are taking anything for granted. Some of these decisions are aimed at shoring up the Presidents support among McCain Republicans and conservative Democrats. He is hoping to reclaim the senate, widen the GOP’s lead in the house and demolish his opposition in 2004. Right or wrong, he doesn’t believe he can do this things running a blood red conservative agenda. Hence the compromises.

Second, I think the President is positioning himself strategically for future battles. Letting Pickering go down was a way to let the Democrats have their sacrificial lamb. He shouldn’t approach future borkings so passively, and the Democrats know they cannot send back every nominee so cavalierly without losing credibility. Criticizing the regime in Israel is leverage with the Palestinians, and conservatives need to understand that making Israel’s policies a criticism free zone is foolish. Israel and the Palestinians have been left alone by the world to shoot it out or work it out. The President’s support for Israel, recognition of the legitimacy of a Palestinian claim to a homeland and criticism of both sides is staying in a game that is increasingly spinning out of control. (Conservatives who say that Israel must deal with the Palestinian situation like we are dealing with terrorism are bizarrely simplistic. Imagine if Mexico were Iraq.)

Third, I think the President is more of a compromiser by nature than conservatives are comfortable with, and if they intend to support him, they need to understand what it means when a man running for President says “I will work with Democrats and Republicans.” It means getting your pure conservative ideals dirty with the art of political compromise. Bush wanted an education bill, a tax bill and a stimulus bill. He has them all, though none match the conservative dream of what such programs should be. He wants a trade bill, a patient’s bill of rights, a social security solution and conservatives on the Supreme court. In case you haven’t noticed, Republicans do not control congress and the votes to sustain vetoes are not there. That spells either gridlock, blame game or compromise. GWB is a compromiser to get some version of what he wants. Like it or not, that is the reality. If you don’t like it, send him a conservative congress.

Finally, I think the President knows that the support of the Democrats for the war on terrorism will not come free. The types of expenditures that he is asking for are usually enormously controversial, and there isn’t enough 9/11 good will in America to get through massive expenditures for homeland security and military expansion, without Democratic support. Again, conservatives need to do the numbers. Accomplishment will mean compromise, intransigence will mean nothing to present to the voters this year or in 2004. Our president is a better man than that. There are unusual political times and Bush cannot act as if the opposition is not viable and powerful. The nation needs him to hold the political base for the war together. Remember what some other Presidents have been through with congressional supervision of a war effort. Thankfully, Bush has managed to avoid that sort of politically inspired micr-management by congress.

Perhaps the bitterest pill to swallow is the campaign finance reform bill. I loathe this nasty piece of constitutional surgery, and pray that Senator McConnell is successful in killing it in the courts. But there are reasons for the President’s reluctant support of this bill, even though he probably knows the American people are not hot for such legislation. (Though I have to say we conservatives have done a terrible job of explaining to the public what is the problem with limiting political speech. Again, Rush has been a voice in the wilderness.)

Here’s the deal. First, no one wants to go back to an election and have the Democrats paste them with accusations of being against campaign finance reform. Like it or not, it sounds like you are for corruption. This bill passed because congresspersons are scared of it. The liberal media, particularly the newspapers who are the big winners in this bill, have intimidated the GOP. Second, it’s spelled ENRON. The President and every other politician in Washington and half the country is hip deep in this mess and there will be more ENRONs in the future. Signing this bill is perceived as insurance from the accusations that will be flying now and in the future. Third, this puts McCain on the team for the President, and I can only hope he delivers, because if he stabs the President in the back on this one, it will be a Judas Iscariot level performance, and whatever patriotic good will we have for McCain needs to be flushed if he proves to be Brutus.

Now believe what you want, this is what is going on. One final thought: politics isn’t pretty, and only fools and children think it so. Conservatives engage in fantasies that once their man is in he can do whatever he wants by executive order or a phone call to the Rush Limbaugh show. Maybe we have just quit teaching Civics and people don’t understand that the Presidency of George W. Bush isn’t the Presidency of FDR’s third term. Your man is going to have to fellowship with publicans and sinners, and buy a few drinks that he doesn’t indulge in himself. He is going be in the mud with the pigs and come home to a hot shower. I want to know if we are going to be there for him in this first term, or are we going to become a bunch of griping dead wood? Send the man your suggestions, write your angry columns, weep in your beer, but stick with him please.

He may have dirty hands, but he has a pure heart.

I’m Not A Conservative Christian
Dare I say it? I don’t need Rush, Sean or O’Reilly to tell me what’s important.
by Michael Spencer

When you write for public consumption, there is always that fear that someone is going to read your recent stuff, head back into the archives and announce that you have done the unpardonable- CHANGED YOUR MIND!! This fear stifles many good writers and thinkers, but since I am neither, I will press on. It is entirely possible that some overly scrupulous mind, bent on convicting me of inconsistency (Yes, there are people who live for that possibility) will detect change in this essay. I will deny your charge, and in honor of such scribal temperaments, I will devote an entire paragraph to defending myself.
When the debate requires it, I still happily call myself a conservative. I still believe that Biblical Christianity is opinionated. I still believe that liberalism is about the use of tyranny to make people behave better, which is a very bad thing. I still consider being called “The Rush Limbaugh of Christianity” a high compliment. I still hold that the political philosophy of conservatism is certainly the lesser or all evils at the ballot box, and occasionally can actually be an outright good that allows human beings, such as we are, a measure of civil society, prosperity and liberty.

Now to the matter at hand, which will eventually lead to a declaration that I am more than a little concerned about the label “conservative Christian,” and can see some very good reasons for avoiding it.

All this starts with an ongoing discussion on the Boar’s Head Tavern (our noted community blog) about whether evangelical Christians are basically optimistic or pessimistic about history. It is my contention that considerable evidence indicates a prevailing pessimism among evangelicals in regard to the advancement of the Gospel in the future. Such evidence would include opposition to reasonable peace plans in the Middle East, the apocalyptic fervor of evangelical authors for describing the impending slide towards the end of the world, the multi-billion dollar consumption of these pessimistic tomes and their accompanying trinkets, a declining interest in cultural renewal through education, the arts, social reform or the public square, a defeatist attitude towards frontier missions, a prevailing, numbing consumerism and a continuing abandonment of genuine church life for individualism and entertainment.

It is my conclusion that evangelicals have become pessimists, and are planning on spending the time between now and that fantasy called the rapture further ghettoizing themselves, head-wagging and hand-wringing over every hop, skip and jump of cultural decline, and taking a decreasing interest in anything beyond the weekly calendar at their local mega-church. They are far more worried about the twenty pounds they want to lose than starving children of suffering Christians in Sudan, and don’t want to hear about it. They are continually shocked at the advancement of the homosexual agenda and other signs of cultural decline, but take comfort in knowing that things must get worse before the end arrives, so let’s go to Starbucks. Evangelicals are living just this side of the Left Behind universe and find it all very exciting.

Now I am well aware of the many wonderful exceptions to this sort of thing, and I salute evangelical optimists who are turning around communities, doing servant ministry, going to unreached peoples and creating art and literature that is meant to speak hope and truth for generations now and to come. Yet this is not the main program, and I think I know why many do not see it. It is quite possible to live within evangelicalism and only see mega-churches, vast children’s programs, and Promise Keepers filling stadiums, and thus conclude that I am dead wrong (as usual). But I am going to persist in my declaration of a deep-seated pessimism. Evangelical pessimism isn’t evangelical failure, abandonment or extinction. It is the conclusion that everything in history is getting worse, the influence of the Gospel is getting smaller and there is no particular reason to commit ourselves and our resources to hard things that don’t really matter if the rapture is coming any day now.

What does all this have to do with conservatism? Let me make an observation here. It will be blunt, and some of you may find it pious and preachy. If you wish, you may blame this one on my recent weekend with John Piper.

How many conservative Christians are listening to multiple hours of Rush Limbaugh every week? I wonder how many include a couple of hours of Fox News Channel’s conservatives, Hannity and O’Reilly, on that menu. I wonder how many regularly listen to Marlin Maddux’s “Point of View” program, or Pat Robertson’s “700 Club.” How many surf Newsmax.com, Conservative News Network or WorldNet Daily.com, the tabloids of conservative web journalism? If we were to take the total hours devoted to these–and many, many other–conservative information and opinion outlets, how would it compare to the amount of time spent under the teaching of scripture? How would it compare to time spent in acquiring a Biblical vision of God? Does the total amount of time spent by that same random evangelical in “the renewing of the mind” with the Word of God come even close to the amount of time spent seeing the world through the eyes of conservative pundits and journalists?

I note this not out of paranoid fantasy, but out of watching my friends immerse themselves in this new world of conservative media. Whether it is the Christian variety or the secular flavor, it doesn’t matter. Millions who seldom open a Bible are spending hours under the “preaching” of the conservative political movement in America.

I’ll step to the front of the line and say that I have spent hours a day with these folks when I could, and in the same week spent minutes in personal devotion times. And it showed up in what I thought was important in that week. It showed up in what stirred my mind and emotions. It showed up on the thermostat of optimism that controls my energies in ministry. It showed up in my classroom demeanor, preaching, evangelism and worship. And the result was not a good one.

Those were the weeks I looked at my students and saw troubled youth listening to rap instead of young people God brought from the ends of the earth to sit under my ministry. Those were the weeks I was disgusted at what was on television instead of being thrilled at what was in Psalms. Those were the weeks I thought about the war in Iraq and not missionaries in the 10/40 window. Those were the weeks that I was mad over whatever hacked off Bill or Rush or Sean and not all that excited about the Holy Spirit showed me in the greatest news broadcast of all time. I was upset at how the government was spending my money, and not troubled at all at how I was using God’s money in my checkbook.

Does the agenda of “conservative Christianity” come from scripture or from Dobson and Falwell? I know those are good men who seek to hear the voice of God in scripture, but does anyone ever feel that agendas other than the Kingdom of God have crept in? I do not doubt that Biblical Christians have strong opinions on Biblical, political and cultural matters, but I do wonder if these issues–as emotional as they many be–really weigh into the Biblical view of history as heavily as we seem to make them.

Let me give an example. Here in Kentucky, “wet/dry” elections frequently occur in cities where alcohol cannot be sold. Southern Baptists–if you haven’t heard–tend to side on the “dry” side, at least officially. This does not account for the considerable amount of alcohol consumed by those same Baptists, but that is another column. What fascinates me was the sheer emotional and physical energy that these elections brought out in the churches I served. No event–not a revival, not a building program, not a UK basketball championship–could approach the intensity of these elections. Election night would have all the drama of a vote on whether to send our children into a war zone. These are “conservative Christians” convinced they are dealing with an issue of serious importance in the Kingdom.

Now, how did such a political issue come to this kind of significance in these churches? Clearly, the Bible is not interested in “wet/dry” elections. The explanation is complex, but we can see that cultural conservatism has more energy and influence than a Biblical view of the Kingdom. In this instance, the church has compromised itself to a totally alien agenda, and “baptized” that agenda with all the urgency that should go to the work of the Kingdom.

Does this produce pessimism? Well, look deeper. Why is the church convinced that political action and not the expansion of Gospel’s influence through conversion, missions and evangelism is the way to go? Why are the tactics of political persuasion employed rather than leaving these matters to the leadership of the Spirit and the conscience of the Christian? Why is alcohol sales perceived as such a terrible threat? Why is a moralistic agenda more animating than a spiritual one? Why is scripture not heard from, or worse, mangled into saying what a party wants it to say? I leave the answer to my readers, but I conclude that there is underneath this agenda fear and pessimism, not confidence and optimism.

So now that I have come this far out on the limb, let’s go a little further. Are we as Christians ready to state, without embarrassment, that many conservative media voices are either not Christians–and do not pretend to be–or do not represent anything close to the Christian worldview? “What would Jesus do?” and “What did Hannity say today?” are not always one and the same thing. Are we OK with saying Anne Coulter is sharp, but her manner cannot be our manner, for it is seriously lacking what we know matters in the witness we bear to others?

Many conservatives are not Christians, and they aren’t required to be. Take, for example, Jonah Goldberg, the excellent conservative columnist for National Review Online. Goldberg is Jewish, highly secular and freely admits he knows little about evangelical Christianity. I cannot take Goldberg as representing the Biblical worldview, even though he often does so accidentally, because he has absolutely no Biblical priorities. He does not love the Lord Jesus or worship Him as King. He does not look at the Kingdom of God as the Kingdom that matters most of all. These are important differences, and they color everything I read from the pen of this excellent writer.

I know I am heading for sacred ground, but Rush Limbaugh is not close to being spiritually on target. I know his Methodist roots, but I have listened to Rush enough to make an intelligent judgment that his religion–at least as it is presented on radio and in his books–approaches a benign deism more than anything else. (The one exception to this is a rather reluctant affirmation of Christ as Savior I read many years ago in the old Wittenberg Door.) Without posing as an expert on Limbaugh’s personal spiritual commitments, I can say with some expertise that what he presents on the radio is not identical with a commitment to the priorities of the Bible. What excites, bothers and enthuses Rush is an agenda of conservatism that can be at wide variance with matters the Bible feels have revolutionary importance. Rush is King in his world, but he can’t be in mine.

Listening to Rush without thinking it through, some conclude that Christians are Republicans and non-believers are Democrats. Now the fact that there is some statistical evidence that is somewhat true does nothing to take away my point. Christians aren’t a subset of some political group. Politics is the art of compromise, it makes strange bedfellows, and our participation in it is always with a greater hope and a greater loyalty: to the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom.

I know Sean Hannity is a good Roman Catholic, but I must say the same thing about him. None of us who believe the Bible can give the loyalty and importance to these kinds of issues that Hannity models. The business of heaven must excite our hearts and stir our minds more than the latest Zogby poll on the President’s popularity or the most recent Supreme Court decision. I agree that freedom and righteousness in America demand my attention to political issues, but how naive is it to assume that true freedom and true righteousness come at the hands of political operatives or the victory of a conservative movement?

For the record, Bill O’Reilly thinks we are fanatics. His support of abortion and contempt for evangelicals and serious Christians is off-putting to anyone who loves the Word of God. To hear O’Reilly call a pro-life activist a “fanatic” is offensive. I know he is hard-hitting, entertaining and often on target, but I am not part of what he is selling. I am part of something far more important. If Mr. O’Reilly would read the Bible, he would find out about the ultimate “no spin zone”–the judgment of a Holy God.

Am I picking on conservative pundits? Certainly, but I am hoping to make a point. Let me try to do it in short form without sounding preachy.

Christians should never be surprised at the shocking condition of our world, our nation or our fellow man. Romans 1 describes it very, very well. No gay agenda, no public display of sin, no media venture into the dark side of unrighteousness ought to surprise us. We may weep as Jesus wept, or turn over tables as he did, but it should never be out of shock or political anger. This is a world that is daily demonstrating the wrath of God on the unrighteousness of men who have kicked out their Creator and exchanged His glory for garbage. For two thousand years, the Bible has described this world. The evidence we see and read day by day doesn’t make it more shocking or true.

It is very easy to lose our perspective in such a world, because that perspective must come to us through the faithful unfolding of the scriptures, which is a very rare gift in the unfaithful church of this culture. We must be renewed “day by day” in a focused vision of God and in an appreciation of His Kingdom’s optimism, mission and triumph. This takes discipline and passionate devotion in the Christian life, and it is a rare thing. There is a temptation to buy into other agendas that seem more possible from a human point of view; agendas that we can bring about through our anger, emotions and efforts. These agendas often have much to commend them, but these are, at their best, only marginally related to the Great Kingdom priorities of the Bible.

“Conservatism” as a cultural movement has much that Christians can affirm, but we must admit the dangers of identifying ourselves with this movement as “Conservative Christians.” This particularly brings weakness, I believe, to the very discussion of cultural issues that often occurs in our culture. Our views on homosexuality, abortion and the family are not political. They are Biblical, and all Christians who submit to Christ ought to affirm the Bible and what it says. If the Bible does not make itself clear, or make an issue a priority, then we ought not to make that issue a priority of our efforts and energy.

Scripture is very clear that Christians can live for Christ, honor Christ, pursue the great work of taking the Gospel to the nations and discipling those who believe, in whatever country and political situation they might find themselves. The election of a liberal is not the end of anything God is doing by His Spirit. A Supreme Court decision does not affect the King of the Universe or the Kingdom that will come.

Should I even call myself a “conservative Christian?” I will do so much less than before. I’ll do some repenting of letting the media and the pundits set my “thermostat” for me. I’ll look into the greatest news account of all, and see what God is doing to bring the Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven, and how I am included in what I do today.

I believe there is a great current of optimism in scripture that the pundits on either side cannot and will not see, because it is a stream that starts in the Garden of Eden, runs to the cross and continues in God’s work in the world today. It is a stream traced in the pages of the despised Bible. It is stream of light and truth that illuminates Christ Jesus the Redeemer and King. The Holy Spirit has poured this Good News into my life in advance of its realization in history, and so I do not need the politicians, pundits and journalists to do my thinking for me. I’ll fight the good fight to believe the promises, and work to see the Kingdom come a little more each day in this fallen world of ours.

To Clone or Not to Clone
by Michael Spencer

The first point I want to make is someone tell this Italian doctor to please not clone himself, because he looks like a casting mistake in a Peter Sellers movie. Or a Dr. Evil wannabe. Or a guy who always wanted to be the villain in a Bond Movie. Oh, just call MST3K and I’ll move on.

After all the clone jokes the last twenty years, and the sweet pictures of Dolly the sheep and her friends, it seems a shame to actually have to think seriously about this subject. But it gives a great excuse for using all those cool “clone” headlines journalists have been saving up. “Send in the Clones.” “Cloning Around.” “Revenge of the Clones.” (Psssst. George Lucas??? Really? You’re kidding?)

Ok. Seriously. I am not a fan of the anti-scientific bent of Christian fundamentalism, of which I am still a reluctant and honorary member. The Scopes trial still bothers me. Heck, the Galileo thing really bothers me. People who think the internet is the anti-Christ bother me. Young earthers don’t bother me until they start saying the age of the universe in light years is just an illusion arranged by God to make it all look old. Then that bothers me.

Of course, science bothers me a lot worse than religion. Oh, I know Carl Sagan and others wrote lots of scary stuff about how religion and superstition were going to take us back to the dark ages and deprive our children of great scientific and technological achievements, but I think they were smoking way too much (experimental) weed with that point of view. You want the dark ages? Let scientists have their way. Once they get rolling, these guys make the inquisition look like a company picnic. And humility, a nice quality to have when you are playing God, seems sadly lacking.

Here’s my case in a sentence: Scientific knowledge is way out ahead of our knowledge of what is moral, good and best. Way out. Waaaaaay out. Out of sight out. We can do all kinds of things that we do not have the morality, wisdom or decency to handle right now. So you know what? I don’t trust scientists to take over the direction of the human species. They are smart, but they are not good or wise, and cloning needs wisdom, not knowldege. A simple case in point.

Science cannot tell us what is a human being. The anthropologists don’t know. The biologists don’t know. The experts in language and thinking don’t know. Are we animals? Are we just accidental arrangements of molecules? Are we different from bugs and dogs? Are we primates? Alien creations? Psychologists, who are the high priests of science, cannot define what the “mind” is. That’s right. They can’t decide if the mind is matter or energy or both or neither. They can’t decide if the mind and the brain are the same thing. They will fix yours, of course, if you let them. Ha!

Science has medicated a generation of seventh graders because they don’t like sitting in school for hours. Science has convinced thousands of young people that milk causes mental illness. Science has experimented with black people and Jewish people and women and children like lab animals, and apologized later, of course. Science has told us the universe is steady, expanding, both, neither. Science has said O.J. was innocent and the Menendez boys were defending themselves. Science has lied about the environment, pollution and population population. Science has concluded everything causes cancer if shot into mice in massive does. Science has concluded Bill Clinton’s behavior is because two strong women argued over him. Science has said there is a gay gene. Science has found life on Mars in rocks on earth and then said whoops. Unshakable, unchallengeable, scientific conclusions are overturned everyday.

Science is, to be blunt, much less of a princess and much more of a, (ahemmm) prostitute than you might think. Science is for rent. Science is political, ideological and highly biased. Science is out to make a profit and enrich scientists. Science is about universities getting money and reputation. Science is, like the rest of us, fallen, broken and imperfect. Does it bother you that President Bush might not be the smartest cookie in the jar? Well, what would be happening if we had a smart guy like Al Gore letting scientists run this cloning thing? Two hundred Al Gores!!

So, please, don’t let these guys start cloning. Not yet. Not just to see if 200 Italian women can do it like some sort of Olympic event. (“The Gold medal in cloning goes to…Italy!!!)

I know all the great stuff science has done. Yes, I know that science is self-correcting. I know that science works for the best interests of everyone in the long-term, even if it has trouble in the short term. I do not doubt that there will be a time and a place when some kind of cloning may be appropriate and even good. But for now, No. Not now.

We have not reached the Golden Age where our knowledge and our goodness are one and the same. No, we have the knowledge to put little musical tones on cel phones, but we aren’t moral enough to abstain from using them in public. We have the knowledge to make cheap and easy to use computers so we can all play minesweeper at our jobs all day. We have the knowledge to create the internet so every nursery can have porn on demand. We have the knowledge to go to Mars, but we aren’t wise enough to get all the Democrats on the space ship.

Look. All these cloning related issues come down to this: we need to go very, very, very slowly. Science hates to wait for us to catch up, but now is the time to do exactly that. We need to work slowly at this technology so that everyone understands the value, the rewards, the risks and the opportunities. We shouldn’t be knee jerk prohibitionists on research that could cure major human problems. But we cannot afford to cross the line into areas of technology where human greed and arrogance can cause such havoc. (“Honey, let’s go get one of them clones.)

Sci-fi writers have been telling us for years that the advent of a new kind of human being would create enormous social and personal problems for our human culture. They were right, but we are reluctant to abstain from doing what we can do if we simply want to. This is the time to say “We can, but we won’t. At least, not now.”

And if that saves the world from Dr. Evil and his army of Italian clones, it will be a good thing.

Liberals and Conservatives: Beware the Class of 2001
by Michael Spencer

I have been to the mountaintop, and I have seen the future. It’s called the class of 2001, and my liberal friends, it looks grim for you. But before conservatives pour a drink and get ready for a rout, you might want to pay attention. Things are not entirely as wonderful as they may first appear. Today’s young people are not easily described, motivated or convinced. They present a huge challenge to every political party.

For the past several weeks, I have been facilitating research, presentations and discussions on topics of personal interest to my fifty-eight high school students. The topics have ranged from the ideological and religious, to the social and political. In addition, I’ve survived by first year as Student Government sponsor, which allowed me to see just how young people put politics to work on campus. As I’ve listened to hours of discussion and conversation by students from all over America and the world, I’ve drawn some conclusions that both sides of the political game may find interesting and daunting.

The young people walking across the graduation stage this year defy easy categories. They are very reluctant to label themselves anything, being post-modern enough to resist anything that confidently puts them in a group. I have to wonder where the “young” Democrats and Republicans on college campuses are coming from? I couldn’t get interest going in such a club if I gave away tickets to Disney. In fact, the cynicism about organized politics is so high that I have to wonder what politics will look like in ten years. If the attitudes of these students is accurate, the decline in voting participation seems to have just begun and we may be heading for the 35% range in national elections.`

What about the issues that define the political parties? Here liberals clearly have lost the game. Traditional liberal thinking and big government solutions are not popular with this crowd. The conservative message has strong influence and appeal among those who hold to some traditionally Democratic views on other issues. Name the liberal solution, and it’s held in low regard: higher taxes, more spending, more programs, government intervention, regulations and Federal accountability. Generally, these are losing causes today.

Yet, conservative solutions have not taken deep root among young people either. While students believe taxes are too high, and if you explain it, will quickly see how regulations stifle productivity, they are reluctant to cut the taxes of the wealthy, and even more reluctant to remove regulatory laws they believe contribute to public safety and the protection of the environment. The idea of compassion through an activist government is close to unquestioned orthodoxy in America and conservatives have not penetrated very far with the idea that privatization is better than government intervention. When my kids were participating in a “Future Problem Solvers” program, the ideas for solving any problem quickly ran to the same, stale government solutions that conservatives know make things worse every time they are tried: higher taxes, more laws, pressure to compel people to change behavior rather than ways to make incentives and personal rewards the engines of progress.

Environmentalism is a good example of how this generation is hard to define politically- and harder to enlist in the conservative cause. The class of 2001 knows what you are supposed to say about the environment. They were brought up with Earth Day, Captain Planet and the Discovery Channel. They will probably applaud the ads of the Sierra Club and consider themselves pro-environment. But are these young people willing to eliminate jobs, pay higher gas prices, drive smaller cars, forgo bike trails, give up their all terrain vehicles, and value the spotted owl over the communities that depend on logging? No way. The class of 2001 can sound like Democrats, but they are much more in President Bush’s column when it comes down to the environment or the American lifestyle.

The War on Drugs is an issue that separates the class of ’01 from conservatives. They’ve had years of D.A.R.E. and more anti-drug education than any generation in history, but they don’t like the war on drugs. Half of them use marijuana, and they won’t support a police state to enforce drug laws. They won’t pay for prisons full of drug users, and would prefer short-term mandatory treatment to lengthy and excessive punitive incarceration. While they are strongly for getting tough with dealers, they are also for decriminalization, medical use and no penalties for growing your own. The class of ’01 looks pretty Libertarian on this issue, and they will increasingly show less patience for politicians who want to focus on drugs as a major issue.

They are tolerant of homosexuality, even as they are more personally opposed to homosexuality than Hollywood would ever admit. They are for the death penalty, and all the current focus on wrongful imprisonments won’t change their mind. They are highly suspicious of welfare, though they want the government to subsidize education at every level. They want a strong military and they want a missile defense. They might seem to be more open to National Health Insurance, but ask those who want to be doctors what they think about Canadian Doctor’s salaries or the quality of socialist medical care. They do not want America to be pushed around by China or anyone else, but they are largely isolationist in their opinions on foreign policy. They want religion protected in public life, but don’t want any religious minority telling them what to do. They understand the culture is too violent and sexual but they want no censorship of what they can see or hear. They are pro-life, but don’t want abortion made impossible, or even very difficult. They like Jesse Ventura more than Bush or Gore.

What can we make of these young people? They are more libertarian and conservative than liberal, and I can’t see anything that will change that. In fact, age should make them more conservative. If Libertarians could find an appealing National leader and a place on the political stage, many would move to that position. They are cynical of politicians and savvy on media. They are well aware that they are no longer guaranteed a standard of living above their parents. They want the “stuff” that goes along with success in America, and they expect their government to care more about their economic security and personal freedoms than any platform, ideology or agenda. They want a safe world, but if it’s not safe, they want the problem taken care of swiftly and with overwhelming force.

Many of them will vote independent and gravitate towards candidates who are mavericks. John McCain has a future with this crowd, as does (seriously) Governor Ventura. They are unlikely to run for school board or write letters to the editor, but they are very likely to take note of who wants to let them keep most of their own paycheck. In my opinion, the liberal bent towards use of the government for good will never subvert this generation’s basic mistrust of politicians and political rhetoric. And they don’t want to pay for the Democrat’s paradise. They’ve lived through Clinton and they associate politicians with lying more than any other generation in our history.

They are not idealistic or particularly aware of what America is all about. They slept through much of what America is all about. Still, even though they’ve grown up hearing liberals trash America as racist and oppressive, they still have a vision of the goodness of America. When they do care enough to listen, they are solidly supportive of a moderately conservative agenda that is moderately Libertarian on social issues. While they are in no one’s pocket, they forebode dire times of liberalism and opportunity to conservatives.

The Freedom to Limit Freedom
by Michael Spencer

Readers of this journal are no doubt aware of the editor’s claim to be a moderate libertarian. The encroachment and enlargement of the federal government and judiciary is a frequent subject of sincere warnings from this pen. For that reason, I feel I must make a reasonable defense of my support of the President’s call for military tribunals in the face of criticism from the left, right and center.

Freedom, according to many of these critics, consists of constitutional guarantees to due process. They feel it consists of principles, laws and legal protections. The President’s call to try terrorists outside of these guarantees and protections seems to be an encroachment of the Federal government, particularly the Presidency, into sacred territory. To whom are such tribunals accountable? How are they limited and controlled? How do we know they will not be used in the future for the unjust persecution of “enemies of the state” who are, in fact, simply political enemies of the current administration?

Citing Lincoln and Roosevelt does not impress these critics. The Civil War and World War II presented uniformed opposition and a formally declared state of war. The executive was accountable to the other branches of government. The current situation presents non-uniformed opposition and it is highly likely that persons residing in the United States under the protections of our government may be prosecuted under such tribunals. Those who vehemently oppose the military actions of an “undeclared” war on terrorism are rightly nervous about how their opposition might be cast in a highly charged atmosphere.

The rule of law, and not the rule of men, is a fundamental principle of our society. The thought of nameless generals in unknown locations presiding over secret trials and even executions is not a thought to warm the heart of any person who loves liberty. We have put terrorists on trial before and given them all the advantages and protections of our legal system. While no one liked seeing those responsible for the 1992 bombing of the WTC sneering in the courtroom, it showed the greatness and superiority of our system to put even that kind of scum on trial before a jury of the very people they sought to kill. Do we really want to step away from that back towards a practice that more resembles some third-world dictatorship?

All of these arguments appeal to me greatly. They are noble, clear and well-founded. My reason for supporting the president in what appears to be a deliberate step away from the primacy of liberty is not inconsequential. It is the larger picture, a picture that includes not only the principles of liberty, but the results of liberty. I am for a potential limitation of liberty, and a potential expansion of the power of government for the purpose of the health, practice and increase of liberty itself. It is not liberty as a principle, but liberty as a reality in the lives of Americans, that moves me to support the President. I believe we must potentially limit certain freedoms in order to more effectively guarantee all freedoms, even the survival of freedom itself.

I could reason this out slowly, but I will be blunt. If terrorists explode nuclear weapons in America’s cities, the discussion of freedom and civil liberties will hardly matter. If our free society produces the result of allowing our enemies to attack us on a massive and apocalyptic scale, then our principled defense of freedom will be a mute point for the next generation to discuss. I would like for my children to be able to enjoy all the freedoms that make America special in the world. At this point, it appears to me that military tribunals are the best way to guarantee that our children have the same chance at experiencing and perpetuating those freedoms that you and I have enjoyed.

Neither Lincoln nor Roosevelt nor any other President has faced a domestic threat such as President Bush faces. The fact that the enemy is a loosely constructed network of saboteurs is no reason to take them any less seriously than uniformed forces. The fact that there is, at present, no entity against which we can declare war is no excuse either. This enemy is virtually invisible, but deadly in an unprecedented fashion. The possibility of using small nuclear weapons, hijacked aircraft, sabotaged nuclear plants, biological and chemical weapons makes military tribunals almost mandatory. Such enemies cannot be given freedom on principle. The threat is simply too great. The threat is great enough that all the risks mentioned by the critics can be agreed to, and tribunals still chosen as necessary.

The President has said he will not allow the enemies of freedom to use freedom against us. I think that is fabulously clear thinking. The success of these terrorists will not be simply acquiring property or making an ideological point. Their success will be the destruction of entire populations and the end of our civilization. How can the critics of tribunals sleep at night with these people given lawyers and allowed the opportunity to present their case? If no one is left to read about your noble dedication to the principles of freedom, what is the point?

There is a time to limit freedom for freedom’s sake. Anyone who has lived through an emergency knows that freedom is worth protecting by limitation. Surviving to the day that freedom can once again be debated as a principle may depend on our willingness to compromise some of those precious principles.

Roosevelt closed the banks to save the nation from economic ruin. President Bush may have to close a few courtrooms and allow a few firing squads to save the nation from an evil that has no respect for the rules or results of war.

Liberty, Liberalism and Law On the Streets of Cincinnati
by Michael Spencer

I don’t want a police state anywhere in America, not even in Cincinnati. Someone might reasonably argue that a community which elected Jerry Springer as mayor needs to be watched closely, but I am not moved by this extreme example. Groups of riot-geared policeman roaming the streets are never a sight that makes my conservative heart skip with joy. I understand those reasonable people in Cinci who are upset at the shooting of an unarmed nineteen year-old black man who was resisting arrest by flight, but I am also disturbed at seeing police take over an entire neighborhood to restore order. Watch me all day and you won’t find me cheering. I prefer my police eating donuts and patrolling public school restrooms.

Law enforcement is a necessity in any society. At the school where I work, we have lots of rules, and most of them are needed. (The one against dancing is a glaring exception.) The efficient enforcement of those rules, however, is another story. Appropriate words- on a good day- to describe how the rules are enforced would be “imperfect,” “inconsistent,” “clumsy” and “highly subjective.” Yet, I believe the rules must be enforced, otherwise we will quickly descend into a level of barbarism that could attract a live television crew from the Discovery Channel. And I believe the laws of the City of Cincinnati must be enforced, even though it will be an imperfect and sometimes painful necessity.

So the Libertarian in me is not excited about what is happening in Cincinnati, but the largest reason the police are roaming the streets in riot gear has nothing to do with the threat of a police state. It has a lot to do with the always-predictably inane ass-umptions of the liberals who largely run our cities and the liberal media who tell us all about them. The fastest way I know of to install a policeman in every school, home and restroom is to simply let the liberals continue duping the country about reality. In short, liberals in America are showing a confusing tendency to trash the police and idealize the criminals. Bad choice. But then, liberalism always knows the short route to tyranny. They just advertise it as the road to Utopia.

For starters, it is not an out-of-control, racist police force that we are seeing. It is what any police force in a major American city faces every day. And in every major American city that I hear about in my daily news rounds, there are incidents where liberals are accusing the police of racial profiling, brutality and cold-blooded murder as they valiantly, but imperfectly, go about their work. Not because incidents of possible police violence are happening on a large scale, but because law enforcement is a tough, risky and violent business.

Every law-enforcement officer in America gets up in the morning knowing that he/she may not come home that evening. They know that the chance of being injured or killed in the performance of routine duties is increasing, as more and more “ordinary” criminals carry guns. So, every so often, a law enforcement officer shoots someone who shouldn’t have been shot. I’m sorry. It happens and it always will, unless the liberals take away the weapons. (NOTE: Since I wrote this article, a Cinci police officer was shot by a rioter. Fortunately, he survived because of a bullet proof vest.)

I prefer the unfortunate fact of the occasional shooting of an unarmed fugitive to any kind of significant hampering of law enforcement from doing their job. It’s rotten and risky work. Despite all those college classes on public relations, it still can get down to shoot the other guy first to save your own butt. I have a co-worker who was a policeman in a major city. One evening he pulled over a routine traffic violation. The guy gets out of the car and rushes towards the police cruiser with his hand reaching into the back of his pants. My friend had about two seconds to react. What would you do? Well, fortunately, he stopped just in time and it turned out the idiot was taking out his wallet. But it could have been another Cincinnati. (Can you hear the liberals screaming in the distance? Cold Blooded cop kills unarmed man coming to say hello.)

I don’t want unregulated, unmonitored police. They are fallible and corruptible human beings like the rest of us, so someone needs to keep an eye out. But let these people do their job, and quit acting like law enforcement in Cincinnati should be carried out like discipline in a liberal public school. Stop, or you’re going to get your name on the board. Drop that knife or it’s a time out.

Then we have the media. As a mob of teenage boys wandered through the streets of the Queen City breaking windows, looting and pulling strangers from their vehicles, the media described them as “protestors.” Protestors? Quick, get me a dictionary and look up the difference between protestor and “rioter,” “looter,” and “punk brat dropout hoodlum scumbag.”

There were some protestors in Cincinnati and I am sure they behaved correctly, but they were apparently too civilized to get the attention of the media, who treated us to repeated views of what looked like a mob of juvenile delinquents reveling in breaking windows, burning things and hurting people. Television ratings, newspaper sales and web page hits probably have nothing to do with this kind of reporting. The fact is, there were rioters in the streets giving ample evidence of why our police officers are facing a dangerous and violent situation in cities like Cincinnati. I think the Cinci police are to be commended for handling a night of looting and provocation with a minimum of force and plenty of patience. Since no one is going to discipline these hoodlums, and liberals are going to treat them like the dignified followers of Martin Luther King, Jr., it must be tempting for the police to make up for what society has overlooked.

My liberal friends are happy for those police union votes, but it seems they are also the first ones in line to join hands for a photo op with the guy hoisting the “Down with the Pigs!” sign. Listen up: Not every gripe of the victim classes is worthy of liberal support. The fact is the police, imperfect as they are, supply the first and best line of defense in minority communities ravaged by criminals. Just in case you missed that day of school, if you support someone, you don’t support their enemies or smear them in general when limited, specific criticisms will do. Police make mistakes, and it is wrong to hit the pavement portraying all law enforcement as racist and out of control. Liberals need to show a little bit of mature differentiation. You can do it guys; I know you can.

Liberals have not yet discovered a way to be credible to the hyper-victimized mindset of their political base and still be reasonable in their support of law enforcement. It is possible, and extremely necessary. We are rapidly moving toward more acceptance of a police state as a remedy to various social ills, and people who value freedom must resist this reasonably and rationally. Somewhere between streets full of rioting thugs and streets full of riot police, there must be an acceptable balance that doesn’t play politics with the public good.