An invitation to bold love

An Invitation to Bold Love
A book every lover of grace needs to read
by Denise Day Spencer

I’ve asked the best writer in the house–my wife–to pen a review and recommendation of a book that clarifies some of the most common misunderstandings about grace. Does grace mean embracing and accepting everything? Abuse? Cruelty? How does gracious forgiveness also come to us as transforming love? Hopefully, you’ll read the review and want to read this excellent book. (The iMonk)

• • •

“I have to forgive no matter what…don’t I?”

“We’re supposed forgive and forget…aren’t we?”

“We need to forgive others unconditionally…don’t we?”

“No!” thunder Dr. Dan B. Allender and Dr. Tremper Longman III. In Bold Love (NavPress 1992) Allender and Longman deal with the topic of forgiveness from a uniquely Christian perspective. Anyone who has ever needed to forgive can benefit from reading this book, whether the offense was horrible abuse or an unkind word.

Warning: be careful. It’s not what you think.

They begin by discussing the characteristics of love, and by exploring the question, “Why don’t we love better?” The authors point to our commitment to finding life apart from dependence on God as the main factor that makes it difficult to love and forgive others. They illustrate how sin affects all of our relationships, and how Christ is our “Divine Warrior” who helps us battle sin. It’s interesting, helpful, and best of all, absolutely true. But Allender and Longman are just getting started.
The surprises begin when they turn the average Christian’s concept of forgiveness upside-down. I don’t want to give away too many spoilers here. (I want you to read this book!) I will, however, share enough to give you just a taste of the feast these authors are dishing up.

Forgiveness of others is a process worked in us by the Holy Spirit, not a once-and-for-all occurrence. Forgiving another does not mean forgetting the offense. When we forgive someone it should not be unconditional or one-sided: “Forgiveness is an invitation to reconciliation, not the blind, cheap granting of it.” The authors go so far as to say that without true repentance on the part of the offender, we should not grant forgiveness. So what is repentance? “Deep, heart-changing acknowledgment of sin and a radical redirection of life.” Glossing over sin and acting as if it never happened is not forgiveness, and is actually a refusal to love the one who has hurt you.

Do you like the sound of this? Have you been too easy on those who have offended you? No, true forgiveness isn’t cheap for your enemy. But it can also cost you more than you have ever imagined.
T
he heart and soul of Bold Love is the path Allender and Longman blaze for the one who has been hurt. They challenge the reader in ways almost unimaginable. They demand the seemingly impossible. They sound alarmingly like…well…Jesus.

For “bold love” is “courageously setting aside our personal agenda to move humbly into the world of others with their well-being in view, willing to risk further pain in our souls, in order to be an aroma of life to some and an aroma of death to others.”
Wait just a minute. Why would I want to move into the world of someone who has hurt me? Allender and Longman throw down the gauntlet and dare the reader to pick it up. Why should you? Because you are on His side, and this is war. Let’s hear another definition: “Bold love is the tenacious, irrepressible energy to do good in order to surprise and conquer evil.” (You do want good to win over evil, don’t you?)

The authors challenge the reader to exercise forgiving love, “the inconceivable, unexplainable pursuit of the offender by the offended for the sake of restored relationship with God, self and others.” Do you long for true redemption—not cheap forgiveness or simply pretending nothing ever happened, but earnestly desiring that your enemy repent and be the person God intended him to be? And (here’s where it really gets tricky) if that ever did happen, could you grant him the restoration of relationship? Would you?

At this point Longman and Allender put forth a deliciously provocative look at the notion of revenge. Once again, it’s not what you expect. I don’t even want to give this one away. It’s too good; you’ll just have to read it for yourself.
In keeping with the theme of warfare, the authors explore at length the concept of surprising your enemy by doing good. The last section of the book examines how we are to love three different types of enemies: truly evil people, fools, and simpletons. Their stated premise is that “different kinds of ‘good gifts’ are required to impact different kinds of people with truth and life.”

Throughout the book, Allender makes liberal use of examples from his own family and from many of his counseling situations. He shows the reader what bold love can look like—and just how difficult it can be. He is, if anything, brutally honest. He never says this will be easy.
But then, neither is, “Take up your cross and follow Me.” And when it’s all said and done, that’s exactly what bold love is all about.

Denise Spencer: An invitation to bold love

An Invitation to Bold Love
A book every lover of grace needs to read
by Denise Day Spencer

I’ve asked the best writer in the house–my wife–to pen a review and recommendation of a book that clarifies some of the most common misunderstandings about grace. Does grace mean embracing and accepting everything? Abuse? Cruelty? How does gracious forgiveness also come to us as transforming love? Hopefully, you’ll read the review and want to read this excellent book. (The iMonk)

• • •

“I have to forgive no matter what…don’t I?”

“We’re supposed forgive and forget…aren’t we?”

“We need to forgive others unconditionally…don’t we?”

“No!” thunder Dr. Dan B. Allender and Dr. Tremper Longman III. In Bold Love (NavPress 1992) Allender and Longman deal with the topic of forgiveness from a uniquely Christian perspective. Anyone who has ever needed to forgive can benefit from reading this book, whether the offense was horrible abuse or an unkind word.

Warning: be careful. It’s not what you think.

They begin by discussing the characteristics of love, and by exploring the question, “Why don’t we love better?” The authors point to our commitment to finding life apart from dependence on God as the main factor that makes it difficult to love and forgive others. They illustrate how sin affects all of our relationships, and how Christ is our “Divine Warrior” who helps us battle sin. It’s interesting, helpful, and best of all, absolutely true. But Allender and Longman are just getting started.
The surprises begin when they turn the average Christian’s concept of forgiveness upside-down. I don’t want to give away too many spoilers here. (I want you to read this book!) I will, however, share enough to give you just a taste of the feast these authors are dishing up.

Forgiveness of others is a process worked in us by the Holy Spirit, not a once-and-for-all occurrence. Forgiving another does not mean forgetting the offense. When we forgive someone it should not be unconditional or one-sided: “Forgiveness is an invitation to reconciliation, not the blind, cheap granting of it.” The authors go so far as to say that without true repentance on the part of the offender, we should not grant forgiveness. So what is repentance? “Deep, heart-changing acknowledgment of sin and a radical redirection of life.” Glossing over sin and acting as if it never happened is not forgiveness, and is actually a refusal to love the one who has hurt you.

Do you like the sound of this? Have you been too easy on those who have offended you? No, true forgiveness isn’t cheap for your enemy. But it can also cost you more than you have ever imagined.
T
he heart and soul of Bold Love is the path Allender and Longman blaze for the one who has been hurt. They challenge the reader in ways almost unimaginable. They demand the seemingly impossible. They sound alarmingly like…well…Jesus.

For “bold love” is “courageously setting aside our personal agenda to move humbly into the world of others with their well-being in view, willing to risk further pain in our souls, in order to be an aroma of life to some and an aroma of death to others.”
Wait just a minute. Why would I want to move into the world of someone who has hurt me? Allender and Longman throw down the gauntlet and dare the reader to pick it up. Why should you? Because you are on His side, and this is war. Let’s hear another definition: “Bold love is the tenacious, irrepressible energy to do good in order to surprise and conquer evil.” (You do want good to win over evil, don’t you?)

The authors challenge the reader to exercise forgiving love, “the inconceivable, unexplainable pursuit of the offender by the offended for the sake of restored relationship with God, self and others.” Do you long for true redemption—not cheap forgiveness or simply pretending nothing ever happened, but earnestly desiring that your enemy repent and be the person God intended him to be? And (here’s where it really gets tricky) if that ever did happen, could you grant him the restoration of relationship? Would you?

At this point Longman and Allender put forth a deliciously provocative look at the notion of revenge. Once again, it’s not what you expect. I don’t even want to give this one away. It’s too good; you’ll just have to read it for yourself.
In keeping with the theme of warfare, the authors explore at length the concept of surprising your enemy by doing good. The last section of the book examines how we are to love three different types of enemies: truly evil people, fools, and simpletons. Their stated premise is that “different kinds of ‘good gifts’ are required to impact different kinds of people with truth and life.”

Throughout the book, Allender makes liberal use of examples from his own family and from many of his counseling situations. He shows the reader what bold love can look like—and just how difficult it can be. He is, if anything, brutally honest. He never says this will be easy.
But then, neither is, “Take up your cross and follow Me.” And when it’s all said and done, that’s exactly what bold love is all about.

A marriage made in hell

A Marriage Made in Hell
How Christian Pessimism and Radical Islam Are Blowing Up the World
by Michael Spencer

The Bible is an optimistic book. This seems almost ridiculously obvious. No matter what your position on eschatology, the end of the story is upbeat. On that I think we can all agree. The vision of God that fills the closing chapters of Holy Scripture will always improve a bad day.

In the meantime, Christians are divided over the course of history. Should we work to make things better or cheer while things get worse? Pre-tribulational Dispensationalists are rejoicing pessimists. The more bad news, the happier they are, for the hour of their salvation is drawing near. When the evening news says that the planet is going to hell in a handbasket, they turn to Jack Van Impe or John Hagee and rejoice in the abundant bad news. The purist variety of this pessimism even allows the devil to ruin things after Christ reigns for a thousand years. Now that’s pessimistic.

Post-millennial folk, no matter what the rest of their eschatology, are a tiny band of optimists, convinced by the visions of the Old Testament prophets and the Great Commission that the knowledge of the Lord will convert whole nations, bring peace and solve our penchant for war even as it ushers in the coming of Christ. As a result of this optimism, post-mils are usually involved in some aspect of the cultural mandate: frontier missions, building schools or working for political renewal. R.C. Sproul, Jr. recently said that if reformed people wanted to work for the enlargement of the Kingdom, they should get married and have lots of children. I am sure that there are plenty of people with Left Behind on the night stand who are debating whether one should have children at all, given that the world is about to end any minute. (Implications for credit cards duly noted.)

Christian pessimism is the prevailing mood of the day in world affairs. And, hey- who can blame somebody for being a pessimist right now? Peggy Noonan reported that a major world diplomat looked at her after she asked his views on the prospects of peace in the middle east and said one word: “Unsolvable.” Though the pessimists have seemed less consistent in their approach to American culture, they have been consistent on the middle east situation. It’s bad, getting worse, and they like it that way. Two hours of listening to Christian talk radio confirmed that in my mind earlier this week.

This particular program was allowing Christians to call in and give their opinions on whether Yassar Arafat was a diplomat or a terrorist. (Score: Diplomat- zero. Terrorist- 5,321.) After giving their views on this pressing matter, the majority of callers gave their two cents on the overall middle east situation. Consistently, each caller proved to be a pretribulational dispensationalist schooled in John Hagee and Left Behind, and their opinion could generally be summarized as follows:

Modern Israel is the chosen people of God, and God gave them all the middle east from Egypt to Iraq to Syria. They have a right to this land no matter who else is there or how long they’ve been there. We must approve everything the government of Israel does, or we are going against God. (That was frequently referred to as being “Biblically aligned” with Israel, which means we get blessed in the deal, no matter what else might be going on.) The consensus solution is something drastic, like wipe out the Palestinians. (One woman referred to this as a “Holy War” that we must win. Holy Osama Bin Ladin, Batman! It’s a Christian Jihad!) This is all part of the arrival of the anti-Christ, a European do-gooder who will wow the world with his ability to solve the unsolvable crisis. Anything the Palestinians do- from suicide/homicide attacks to pleas for American intervention- is terrorism. Anything Israel does is God’s will. Best of all, if this keeps up, we will all soon be raptured and the Jews will turn to Christ, so let’s keep our hands off and pray for the worst.

No one mentioned that there are thousands of Christian Arabs and Christian Palestinians. No one mentioned that Israel is an unbelieving nation where evangelism is illegal (yeah- just like some of those Muslim countries.) No one mentioned that Israel has developed an attitude towards the Palestinians as a race that justifies and excuses the worst kinds of discrimination. No one mentioned that there is good reason to believe scripture does not teach anything as stupid as a blanket approval of the actions of the government of Israel. No one mentioned peace, reconciliation and justice must apply to all sides. No one mentioned the fact that many Israelis and Palestinians live together in peace, and loathe what the younger generation of Palestinians are doing. No one mentioned the complex root causes of Palestinian violence in the despair of the refugee camps or the absurd political policies of Arafat that are guaranteed to choke off moderate alternatives. No one mentioned that America will soon face its own plague of suicide bombers if we cannot find a reasonable, justice-pursuing alternative to nuking the whole Arab world, one country at a time. And no one mentioned evangelizing the Palestinians, or Muslims in general.

Christian pessimism and Muslim extremism are a marriage made in hell. I have no reason to believe the evangelicals in the Bush administration buy this line of cheering while the world slides into the pit, but I think evangelical leaders would do well to say loudly and clearly, that there is no undercurrent of grinning apocalypticism in our dealings with the middle east. If anything in our faith should be animating us right now, it is that Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, would be putting himself in harm’s way to bring together those who are choosing vengeance over reconciliation. The knee jerk Zionism of conservatives and the knee jerk backing of Arafat by liberals needs to give way to a policy that recognizes the evil of terrorism and the evil of human pride, prejudice and stubbornness. And as Christians, our concern should be the evangelizing of all the peoples of the earth, including those who hate one another.

It took a generation for Arafat to produce suicide bombers who hated people as a virtue. It may take as long to produce Christians who believe the Gospel enough to love their friends and their enemies and their friend’s enemies. What we can’t have is a Christianity that embraces the worst case as the best case, and excuses violence as the necessary fulfillment of prophecy. Scripture says that we must not lose heart and grow weary in doing good. I would urge every Christian to reject a view of the world that says giving up on peace and advocating war is what Jesus would do.

I want to be a black man

I Want To Be A Black Man
An Essay on Culture Envy
by Michael Spencer

MY SHIRT, MY HAT, MY BOOKS
A TRIP TO THE ZOO
MY COUCH, REMOTE, A LARGE COKE YEA
I’D GET ON MY KNEES, my GOD,
IF I COULD

I WOULD GIVE ANYTHING: TO BE YOU…

MY JOB, MY CAR, MY CASH
MY HOUSE ON THE HILL
MY PIANO I’D BURN TO ASHES (YEA)
I’D GET ON MY KNEES, my god
IF I COULD

I WOULD GIVE ANYTHING TO BE YOU…

MY VOICE, MY WORM, MY WIFE
A FIRST BORN OR TWO
I’D GIVE THE KNIFE, MY MIKE IF JUST,
CUT ME AT THE KNEES
MY GOD (MY JORDAN)

I WOULD GIVE ANYTHING: I WOULD GIVE TO…
BE YOU…

Lyrics to “Michael Jordan” by Five for Fighting

• • •

To start with, if you are going to write me and say I am a racist for discussing race and culture, then I am going to write you and tell you that you are an idiot. So if we both know where we are going and no one is going to change his or her mind, then why waste the time and ink, right? I am not a racist, but I do believe we have to discuss race and culture in America, or at least we have to have more than one point of view on the subject. And on this subject, I have a long-delayed, overdue and deeply felt point of view.

I am not a racist, and I am not one of those conservatives who only knows African-Americans by way of television and sports. No, I have credentials. I grew up poor upper lower class in Owensboro, Kentucky. I lived on the white end of a black block for most of my childhood and teenage years. My schools were always integrated, with about 20 percent African-American students. They were my friends. I slept in their homes and spent time with their families, as they did mine. My high school was the city school, with virtually all the black students in our community. African-American culture was everywhere.

I am a minister and I have preached in and worked with many black churches. I am an educator as well, and for the last ten years I have worked at a school with approximately 20 percent African and African-American students from all over America and the world. I like them and they like me. I talk to them the way I will talk in this essay all the time, and no one has been more than mildly irritated. (And that was because I gave her a Larry Elder book.)

My greatest qualification? In my junior high yearbook, two black girls wrote that I had soul. I rest my case.

And speaking of soul, I know my own. I have many flaws. Racism is not one of them. If either of my two children were to date or marry an African-American, I can honestly say my only anxiety would be the reaction of certain isolated pockets of the extended family. I wouldn’t hesitate to bless the relationship or perform the marriage (as long as all other important factors were acceptable.) I don’t expect my liberal friends to accept my profession of racial neutrality, particularly if you examined my bookshelf, but that doesn’t matter to me. My Christian faith teaches me that God sees us as human beings, made in his image, endowed with moral and spiritual ability and fallen into sin through our inherited and personal rebellion against God. That is what we are, color, culture or any other factor not withstanding.

So, do I want to be a black man? No, I just want you to read my essay. I wouldn’t particularly care if I were a black man. Despite all the descriptions of the awful existence African-American men have in this country, I think my life would be similar, though probably not identical, to what it is now. If I’d been born into a single parent home, I would still be who I am, maybe even a bit better. I would have attended and graduated from the same schools. My high school employers all hired blacks, so that would not have changed. I would have attended the same college, because I went on a Social Security ride. I would have attended different churches, but I would still be in the ministry. I could have attended the same seminary, but I would have wound up working in different churches. I would still be a youth specialist. Honestly, I probably wouldn’t be at my current job, but I could work here in a different job or work elsewhere and make a lot more money than I make now. My wife would have still married me. Would I have experienced racism? Sure, but I experience discrimination now, and expect to experience more as I grow older. Would I be in prison? No. Shot dead? No more so than now, I think. Would I listen to rap? I don’t know. I hope not.

I don’ t want to be a black man, but I do want to understand why so many other people apparently do. For instance, why are there so many people walking around talking in acquired black dialects? I hear this all the time from my students and it drives me crazy. If I came into class today and started talking like Snoop Dog, my kids would crack up, but apparently it’s not that funny if you are a young white in the right social group. I want to know why 80% of rap music is purchased by young white males? Don’t tell me if 80% of country music was bought by young black men you wouldn’t be writing an article. I want to know why the black athlete is practically a messiah figure in America? I want to know why African-American idiots (like Sharpton, Jackson and Farrakhan) aren’t treated by the media like white idiots making the same speeches and doing the same stunts? Why is John Rocker a racist and Mike Tyson merely a little tightly wound?

I want to know why black videos can be stereotypical beyond belief or talk shows like Ricki Lake can parade black sexual behavior like a minstrel show and it’s not ever called stereotypical or racist? I want to know why bad music, poetry and film by African-Americans can’t be called bad by the mainstream culture? I want to know why blacks saying the N word is acceptable? I want to know why slavery is trumpeted as the biggest problem in the black community, while there is virtual silence on the issue of illegitimacy? I want to know why African-American grievances are universally considered more important than the grievances of Asians, Hispanics or Christians? I want to know why comics on BET can say “Smoke Weed!” but if Jay Leno said it he’d be finished.

I want to know why blacks who succeed in school are considered white wannabes by so many blacks? I want to know why blacks telling blacks not to marry whites isn’t racism, but whites telling whites not to marry blacks is? I want to know why a Miss Black America pageant isn’t racist, but a Miss White America pageant would be? I want to know why a black player choking a white coach is no big deal, but a white coach calling a Mexican a Mexican is a firing offense? I want to know why we can’t have Christmas but we must have Kwanzaa? I want to know why schools that change their name from Washington to King don’t read about King saying Washington and the other salve-owning Founders were great men? I want to know why academics and artists can routinely say that white European Christian culture is the cancer of the planet and African Culture was a pristine Eden of sweetness, knowledge and light, till we ruined it, especially since that is a crock?

I want to know what is the incredible, mystical, ever-expanding fascination with blackness in our country? I want to know why Blacks are proud of everything in their culture, including things no one should be proud of, but whites are increasingly ashamed of everything about European and early American Christian culture that we should be proud of? Why is white Christianity a threat to freedom when it becomes politically active, but a politically active black church is one of the great forces for good in history?

I could go on and on….well, I have gone on and on, but the interaction between African-American culture and white American culture has increasingly become a matter of greater gravity producing greater results. And in the popular and political culture, the greater gravity appears to be with Black culture, a culture that, in my opinion, is on a dangerous downward spiral.

One cannot help but notice, in the interaction between African-American culture and other sub-cultures- Asian, Hispanic, Jewish- that there is a fierce instinct on the part of blacks to assert the superiority of their grievances and mistreatment. It is fascinating to me that Asian Americans, who certainly have not been universally well received in our country, have no grievance industry, no Jesse Jackson, but instead, an eager desire to express patriotism. One must be around young blacks during a display of loyalty to the flag to appreciate the difference. I have frequently seen young African-Americans refuse to salute the flag, saying “That’s not my flag.” Of course, such a refusal is almost impossible to picture among these other minorities, illegally immigrated middle-eastern men being the exception, of course.

So, having rolled out the problem as I see it, do I have any solutions? Yes, three bits of analysis and an obvious suggestion.

1. The liberal transformation of the federal government into a magnificent grievance machine has empowered those with the largest grievances more than other segments of society. There is no argument about the facts here. African-Americans have the largest grievance in society, right? They were brought here forcibly, ripped violently out of their homeland and the development of African culture forever interrupted. America was built by slave labor, right? The development of the American system has been dominated by the idea of empowering those who are wronged, equaling the playing field, protecting the oppressed. So it should not be a surprise, after a few decades of this approach, that the most oppressed group in our society should have accumulated an inordinate amount of power.

Should this approach to governing continue into the future, we should expect blacks, the elderly, illegal immigrants, homosexuals, the unemployed and single mothers to accrue the most power and influence. And hey! Following the “squeaky wheel gets the grease” philosophy of government, that is exactly what has happened, and I fully expect it to get worse.

Here is a scenario for you. This mindset has led to the actual overturning of elections already. So, let’s say we get eight years of a liberal President and enough of a cooperative congress to throw a solid liberal majority on the Supreme Court. Given a couple of decades of this wacky direction, why not proclaim that it is time for a Black President by judicial fiat, just to rectify all those historical grievances? Oh, don’t look at me that way! It’s totally within the realm of possibility. If some liberal judge can turn a city over to a different mayor based on estimated racial recounts, don’t think an “affirmative action” presidency is far behind. Now there is a West Wing episode for you.

Of course we don’t have to go this far. We simply need to see that if government decides it is not here so much to work in the interests of the American people, as to be the advocate for aggrieved groups, then we are headed for chaos and violence in America. A politics that is responsive to money and whining is not a government as much as a curse upon its people.

What has this to do with culture envy? Move on…

2. The dominant direction of popular and political culture is to express the nature of victimization, oppression and grievance. Therefore, popular culture is particularly responsive to those aspects of black culture that express these sentiments. So what are we seeing in the mainstream of popular culture? These days, the grievance culture is going full strength. In fact, so much so, that if you don’t have a grievance, if you aren’t angry at being mistreated, if you don’t have a list of scapegoats, then you feel very left out. Or worse, you feel responsible for all the mistreatment of these groups by your culture. So men are supposed to feel guilty about the mistreatment of women, even if they’ve never mistreated anyone. Heterosexuals are supposed to feel guilty about violence towards homosexuals, even if they’ve never told a gay joke.

This trend has certainly infected music. When I was growing up, rock bands were cocky, over confident and bragging about sex. Now, bands like Everclear and Staind are whining about their dysfunctional families and their psychiatric problems. If rock groups are angry, they are likely to just be whining really loudly about something. I may be mistaken, but I think they want us to know how miserable they are. It’s the grievance virus in full assault.

The pinnacle of this sort of thing is the mother of all guilts: white guilt. Shelby Steele, in his brilliant book The Content of Our Character, says that learning how to create and manipulate white guilt has become fundamental to African-American experience. I have experienced this many times and I am utterly convinced that it is almost totally unconscious. When I ask African-American students to examine some of their beloved emotional assertions, it is fascinating to watch the conflict between rhetoric and reality set in.

For example, I was recently challenged by a young black woman on the assertion that any American can succeed in our system. This roused the usual objections that blacks are held down by a white conspiracy. Here was a young woman sitting in a private school classroom alongside many white students of every income level. She could graduate from our school and, like other of our students, attend Vanderbilt, Depaul or any number of state or private or state colleges. She is articulate and motivated in her studies and receives lots of encouragement and recognition. As far as I know, she has never been held down by a white conspiracy and likely never will. Where did she such a reaction?

“Well Spencer, you idiot, she is speaking on behalf of the experience of her people. You can’t deny that black people were held down in this country. Are you stupid?”

Well, my critical friend, I would suggest that she has a number of experiences to pick from. The historical experience of African-Americans. Her personal experience. The experience of Americans without the hyphen. Why does she, an unshackled and free woman living out the rare life of an American teenager, feel that it is the past oppression of her people that is the dominant fact of her life? Might I suggest that if she were to choose one of the other expressions of identity, the popular culture (including the family and other social groups) would not reward her with affirmation and empowerment.

I mean, look at the price Clarence Thomas has paid for a choosing to abandon the dominant cultural image of a black man as a lifelong victim. Ask any young black conservative who goes against the tide within his community how much empowerment and affirmation he is feeling these days. You decide why we prefer to celebrate rappers, athletes and entertainers instead of valedictorians and executives?

Here is a parallel. I live in Eastern Kentucky where the cultural stereotype of whites is the ignorant hillbilly. Now, I can tell you that there is a lot of poverty, ignorance and degrading behavior among some elements of the population around here. Now suppose there was an Eastern Kentucky MTV. And every video featured the worst stereotypical kinds of Eastern Kentucky people. Barefoot, pregnant, toothless, living in squalor, acting like morons. I would predict that it wouldn’t take long for our community, economic and political leaders to issue an outcry at those who would perpetuate such hurtful and inaccurate stereotypes.

So have you watched an hour of MTV lately? If African-Americans are OK with this, then who am I to point out that its the most offensive racial stereotyping imaginable. But I can see part of the picture: white culture can’t get enough of this stuff. And if I were black, that would bother me more than it seems to bother the African-Americans I know. I mean, we have traded Cheech and Chong for two rappers in “How High?” This is progress? No, it’s the celebration of victimization.

3. White envy of black culture is often approving of what is most harmful to black culture, not what would be best. Imagine we were to ask America’s white young people what they admired most about Asians? Can you anticipate an answer that includes manners, hard work, family commitment and academic success? Of course. Now imagine we were to ask that same group of American young people what they admired about African-American culture? Can you anticipate the answer? That is a harder question, not because there aren’t things to admire- religious vitality, resilience, eloquence, creativity- but because we know that those young white males buying all the rap music and those sports fans filling the seats aren’t admiring those qualities at all. They are buying into a cultural image that often contains the worst aspects of black culture.

The idea that blacks are superior athletes may not be completely absurd, but it has been destructive to a black culture that needs its young people to set their sights on goals other than the NBA. The contribution of African-Americans to the arts is substantial, but the myth that blacks are to be taken seriously only as entertainers is destructive. I can personally attest that my black students, as a group, are ridiculously indulgent of the idea that their career choices should be between athletics and entertainment.

I will avoid the hornet’s nest of exploring white envy of black sexuality, but as a community disproportionately affected by illegitimacy, STD’s and poverty, the African-American community doesn’t need any encouragement in what is already a terrible situation. African-American leaders can air their grievances against white oppressors and bigots all they want, but this destructive pattern of behavior is a culture destroying itself. So why, when Ricki Lake brings on black guest after black guest to parade their immoral and destructive sexual behavior for the entertainment of America, does no one see the irony and the outrage? I was always told don’t believe it when a old black waiter is overly nice to you. I could say the same thing to my black friends about a white talk show host who has you on to talk about your affairs and illegitimate children.

To measure what is happening, look at the phenomenon of the Cosby show. With the success of Cosby, a classic entertainer who crossed every kind of cultural divide, one would expect a string of successful programs portraying blacks as successful and educated professionals. Instead, the Cosby legacy is an isolated event, while cable networks continue the legacy of stereotypical comedians like Martin Lawrence and the major television networks are the subjects of justified complaints of simply ignoring blacks altogether. Even BET has decided to devote the overwhelming majority of its programming to these stereotypes.

4. The African-American Community must alter its own cultural direction away from the temptations of empowerment through victimization and the approval of whites through the commercial appeal of stereotypes to the acceptance of individual achievement and success in America. So here we are: the black community needs to come to grips with the future they are purchasing by propelling themselves solely through the power of victimization and stereotype.

Destroying a Clarence Thomas betrays a kind of self-hatred with a terrible cost to the African-American community in the minds of the larger culture, and especially in the minds of their own young people. Embracing, with commercial zeal and intellectual dishonesty, the image of blacks in “How High?” is further self-destruction. Listening to BET comedians endorse and encourage drug use, I can not help put think there are elements of black culture with apparently no understanding of what is happening. By inflicting these wounds on themselves, blacks ultimately reinforce the worst racist attitudes of many Americans, and more importantly, put themselves well beyond the rescue abilities of even the most liberal government.

Reparations most be mentioned here. The notion of financial reparations to the descendents of slaves would be gasoline on the fire of empowerment through victimization. By making the current African-American population the financial beneficiaries of black slavery, the currents of the victimization culture would be super-charged. In short, everything, from racial violence and resentment to more calls for grievance based empowerment- would be expanded exponentially. Such a path cannot be taken by a reasonable society, and black leaders must call the dogs off or they will doom their community to a future of dependence, political extortion and unending hostility. (Look at the changing cultural mood as WTC families are being enriched as a result of their loss.)

I cannot close this essay and not think of Condi Rice, the President’s National Security Advisor and General Colin Powell, our Secretary of State. These individuals embody everything that is great about America, and everything great about America’s immigrant heritage and civil rights struggle. They are polished, brilliant, kind, tough-minded, independent and, of course, opposed by the majority of African-American leaders. The credentials of both as bona fide “blacks” has been not-so-quietly questioned. Why?

The answer is simple. Powell and Rice, like Thomas, represent a direction for the African-American community that seeks empowerment through participation in the American dream, not empowerment through complaints of exclusion. These two patriots represent a rejection of the stereotypes that have gained approval in the media and the culture. They are standard bearers for a definition of black culture that sees their place in America, not as a curse or a crime, but as a great and mysterious accident of divine providence in history, a providence that brought Africans to this country where they might participate in the greatest civilization ever to take root on this planet, and to not only suffer its worst errors, but be shaped by its highest values, and to ultimately contribute to its brightest future.

When I look at Colin Powell, I truly would like my son to be a black man like him. I would like my daughter to be a black woman like Condi Rice. But more importantly, I would like all children, black and white and brown, to become the embodiment of the human and American virtues I see in those human beings.

The Pope needs a business meeting

The Pope Needs A Business Meeting
It was cheaper than the carnival, five times more fun, and every mega-pastor needs one.
by Michael Spencer

• • •

Someone sent me this Rick Warren quote, and it’s buggin’ me.

When I write about Rick Warren, I’m usually not taking issue with the content of the guy’s books or the value of his accomplishments. I’m a voice in the wilderness ranting about cookie-cutter-consumeristic idolatry in evangelicalism, so I’ve had my fun with Mr. Warren’s apparent elevation by the powers that be to the level of Pope Rick I. But I’ve not had much comment about what he’s actually said.

But this one bothers me.

“Rick’s Rules of Growth…. Third, never criticize what God is blessing, even though it may be a style of ministry that makes you feel uncomfortable.” [PDC, page 62, bold and italics mine.]

I’ve thought about it for most of a day, and I’ve decided what the new Pope of evangelicalism needs is one of the great traditions of the Southern Baptist church of yore: the business meeting.

I grew up in one of those Southern Baptist churches that practiced the extreme sport of “business meetings.” Now there are a number of ways to play this game, but we played the rodeo version. It was dangerous, and we liked it that way. No nodding acquiescence to endless committee reports for us. This was blood on the floor time.

A business meeting at our church was an opportunity to gripe, moan, whine, insinuate, criticize, carp, ridicule, assassinate, threaten, lie, cry, faint, pontificate, filibuster and commit acts of violence, all with the best interests of God’s kingdom and Christ’s church at heart. People who silently endured abuse from their employers and torment from their spouses came to business meetings to get it all out on the table. The lions may have eaten the Christians in the first century, but the Christians were doing the entertainment via dismemberment in these meetings.

In some churches, the pastor was the “moderator” of this circus, but we would have none of that. In our business meetings, the pastor was reduced to one of the little people, and a layman- usually a deranged deacon (before the invention of psychiatric medications)- would run the show. His goal was simple: whip the congregation into a frenzy that would frighten the pastor into mumbling, terrorized submission to the members of various ruling clans. If the pastor needed to be tied to a chair, that could be arranged.

The moderator wasn’t the only special person at these outings. The business meeting crowd was a unique gathering of humanity in and of itself. This kind of fun wasn’t for everyone.

There were those folks who never missed a church meeting, even if their child was expiring in an ER somewhere. Next to them were the big givers, who were going to make sure that every penny of God’s money ended up exactly where they wanted it to go. You had your detail fanatics; the kind of people who knew how much a pencil cost by the gram, how much it cost to heat the ladies bathroom in the choir room, and last year’s per capita usage of toilet tissue by the sheet and by age group. Of course, there were folks who just showed up to gawk and see what happened next. The same people who hang around automobile accidents and freak shows.

What we needed were lawyers, therapist, referees and people who could give sedatives to the unruly, but those folks never seemed to show up.

In special circumstances, you were allowed to bring in extra congregation members, but it had to be a major occasion. Voting on the budget always filled up a few pews IF the staff was getting a raise. Youth ministry related votes- like permission to paint the youth room as a gigantic pizza- brought out youth, parents and grandparents. And if you were fortunate enough to be around for a contentious vote on firing the pastor, building a building or- best of all- tearing down the old sanctuary, you could expect to see everyone from new born babies to the town madam with ladies and customers in tow.

My business meeting favorites were the fiery orators and extemporary instigators. These were the people who loved to stand and make speeches that sounded like we were about to vote on the dissolution of the Union. People who would never preach, teach Sunday School or witness to their coworkers would stand and argue with the devil over how much we were paying the kid who cut the grass. They knew how to inflame a crowd to violence with nothing more than last month’s budget.

This was where the pastor never knew what was coming. Could the pastor explain why we’ve sung the same invitation hymn on the four fifth Sundays of this year? Could the pastor explain why his children aren’t signed up for the 24 hour prayer-a-thon? Could the pastor explain why we consistently get out later than the Methodists, and have to wait to be seated at the local buffet? Would the pastor mind if we rescinded all his medical benefits to pay for a new transmission in the church van?

And who can explain the delights of the standard menu items of a business meeting? You just have to be there.

  • The Rain Man clone who has the Sunday School statistical report honed down to an exactness far surpassing any NASA number crunchers.
  • The Women’s mission committee chairperson who entertains us for twenty minutes with descriptions of the Bangla Deshi themed finger food at last month’s meeting.
  • The Finance Committee chairman who seems convinced we will have to close the doors and sell the place if we don’t inherit a uranium mine.
  • The Deacon Chairman who shares with us that since all this year’s nominees have declined to serve, the deacons have not only voted to install themselves for life, but are going to dig up some of the better deacons from past centuries from the church cemetery.
  • The Youth Committee chairperson who assures us that the $25,000 the youth want for a trip to Tahiti will all be used for evangelism.
  • The Music Committee chairman who talks us through the budget requests for this year’s Christmas pageant, explaining that just going ahead and buying five camels and ten Palestinian peasants is a lot better than renting them every year.
  • The Evangelism Committee chairperson who can’t understand why weekly door to door confrontational evangelism in a crime ridden trailer park isn’t pulling in the big numbers…..or even the pastor.

Now here’s the part where I’ve been thinking about Pope Rick’s comment: New business.

New business was where you got to ask questions about whatever you wanted. The pastor had to listen. You could ask about his hot new ideas. You could ask why we threw out the hymnals. You could ask what the skateboarding ministry was actually doing. You could suggest that $500,000 for a neon message board bigger than the one at Times Square was a waste of money.

You could suggest that doing the Purpose Driven Life campaign might be something less than the next Great Awakening. And you weren’t taken away and lobotomized.

You could criticize what was going on, and it was OK. You weren’t unsupportive or unspiritual. Even if “God was blessing,” you could ask if it was Biblical, or true to the church’s purpose. You could question the pastor right there to his face, instead of dealing with one of his underlings or enforcers. And if the pastor said something stupid like “Don’t criticize what God is blessing….,” you could laugh at him right there in front of everyone.

Heck, you could even ask if he planned to ever buy decent shoes and a shirt. 🙂

New business was our church’s way of keeping the people and the leadership on common ground. It didn’t keep leaders from leading, but it didn’t put members in the position of a bobblehead doll either.

I’m totally in favor of church government by elders, but don’t get rid of some version of the business meeting. Leaders don’t slip edicts out from under a closed door. They have to listen and respond to all the nonsense. And when they are the ones serving up the nonsense, they get to listen to it. No special meetings. No monologues, no video presentations, no lectures by highly compensated outside consultants that subtly let us know our actual questions have been “dealt with in the research phase and are answered in the printed materials.”

New business lets the congregation be the people of God, and treats leaders as if they mean to emulate Jesus in leading by serving. So what if you don’t know what’s coming next? At least if it’s a three legged chicken, you’ll get to ask why we need one. And if you want hymns in worship again, you can just stand up and say so.

Pope Rick is hailed as the Southern Baptist icon of the new millennium. From his pontifical chair, he assures us that God told him, God led him, God blessed him, so buy the book, the CD, the tape, the video and get the live feed. Don’t wait for your turn to talk. It’s not coming. Not from Pope Rick. Not from his underlings. Not from his denominational promoters. Not from the people making millions off Purpose-Driven products. You’re supposed to sit quietly and nod on cue. It’s so wonderful. Feel the love. Take the pill. Be assimilated. Accept the chip in your…..wait a minute. This is getting out of hand!

I say if he can’t stomach an old fashioned Southern Baptist business meeting, he’s a wimp. Face the people, including the thoughtful, reasonable critics with tough questions, and let them say whatever they want. If they want to criticize “what God is blessing,” maybe God is telling you you’re wrong.

Here’s to the day when the Purpose Driven churches end the spin and hype, quit hiding behind all this CEO bullying, and have a business meeting that lasts all night, where plenty of obnoxious people criticize the dubious suggestion that “what God is blessing,” i.e. what the pastor wants, is beyond criticism.

If you run a bus, I’ll be there with a lunch.

A Conversation in God’s Kitchen: How I’ve learned to understand the Bible

A Conversation in God’s Kitchen
How I’ve learned to understand the Bible
by Michael Spencer

And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself…They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the Scriptures?”…Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures…Luke 24:27, 32, 44-45

• • •

Like millions of other Southern Baptists, I can’t remember when I first laid eyes on the Bible. My name was written in the front of Dad’s large print King James Version, and in Mom’s family Bible. I have a time-worn little Gideon New Testament that I must have received in the first or second grade. Somewhere in the family keepsakes is the Bible I remember taking with me to church as a boy, a zippered little KJV with lots of color pictures to look at during the sermon.

At our church, the pastor preached messages from the Bible, with lots of verses, and the Sunday School teachers used it every week in our lessons. We were expected to bring our Bibles to church, to learn Sword drills, to be able to read the King James Version, and to memorize scripture verses. Before we understood anything about the truths of Christianity, we were indoctrinated with the foundation that “The B-I-B-L-E, that’s the book for me. I take my stand on the Word of God, yes, the B-I-B-L-E.”

I remember my first questions about the Bible forming as a youth, sitting in the balcony during church, flipping through the pages and reading whatever I found. What was this strange book with the odd print and self-pronouncing names? I knew from the time I was small that my college-educated half-brother didn’t believe it. We were frequently reminded that lots of people who said they believed it, didn’t really believe it, or else they would be at our church and not theirs. Did that mean people could read the Bible and disagree about what it said?

I was interested in archeology as a boy, and I often wondered why the Bible was different from other ancient writings? It wasn’t long before I realized that some very smart people didn’t think the Bible was the Word of God, but was, instead, just a lot of made-up stories by well intentioned, but gullible people. For a while, I suspected they were right, but by the time of my conversion at age 15, I was ready to believe the Bible unconditionally like the rest of the Christians I knew. I put away my doubts and became a boy preacher.

I was fortunate to have a Christian public school teacher, Mrs. Whitmer, who taught two units of “Bible Literature” in our public high school. We used big, black New American Standard hardbacks (I still want one!) and, for the first time, I heard an intelligent Christian deal with the Bible in a more subtle and indirect way than the shouting fundamentalism of my church. I liked it. I wanted more.

I’m still that young man seeing the first cracks of light from my fundamentalist indoctrination in the Bible. Today, I wrestle with the Bible daily as a Christian, a teacher and a preacher. What does it mean? More than ever, I want to know what the Bible is? How can I trust it as a unique word from God? How does God speak to me in the Bible? In the confusion and contradictions of contemporary Christianity, how can I have any confidence that I know the truth of God by knowing the scriptures? How can I acknowledge the human and historical aspects of the Bible, and still believe it is God’s word for me to preach, live by and die in?

Maybe you have asked these questions as well. I hope so, because I’ve come to some conclusions. For the first time in many years, I have some confidence in my personal approach to the Bible. I don’t claim any uniqueness to what I believe, or that what I am going to write is brilliant or solves every problem. I do believe it is very helpful, and over the years that I have shared this material, there have been many people from every perspective who have found it helpful in their own journey.

Here are the questions I want to deal with. First, what is the Bible? How can I think about the Bible in a way that makes some sense to me, and can be described to other people meaningfully?

Second, what do we mean when we say the Bible is inspired? There are many words used by Christians to describe inspiration, but this competition to use the strongest word doesn’t seem to help many of us. In fact, if you know the Bible well, most of these words create problems and necessitate uncomfortable compromises. I want to suggest a way to look at inspiration that works for me, particularly in putting all the different parts of the Bible together and seeing what inspiration really focuses on.

Third, I want to suggest how we might interpret the Bible in a way that clearly communicates its message. It is here that I may say some things some evangelicals find somewhat distressing, but I don’t think my suggestions will be any more radical than Jesus’ own words about Biblical interpretation (see above); words that are largely ignored by most Christians using the Bible.

Finally, I will suggest some applications that demonstrate the way this view of the Bible works. This will only be the beginning of a journey that can go on for many more pages than I plan to write. But it will be helpful in showing how my method might help.

I am obviously in debt to a number of people for the ideas I am going to share. At least as I am aware of them, I would credit three sources. One is Eugene Petersen, whose Biblical books have always seemed to me to be far beyond the ordinary in their ability to bypass the usual tensions and present the Word of God speaking on its own terms. Second are the various church fathers, who use many of the approaches I generally advocate as being close to the Bible’s own method. Third, Dr. Paul Duke, my seminary pastor who modeled for me a wonderful approach to the Bible totally free of the tedious apologetics and polemics of my roots. I know he learned from many others, but he was the blessing to me. Finally, I am deeply indebted to Fr. Robert Capon’s work, particularly in The Fingerprints of God, and many other places, for teaching me the power of images in understanding theology, and especially Biblical theology.

First, What is the Bible?

When I was a senior in high school, I made it into an Advanced English Class taught by Mrs. Vista Morris. Mrs. Morris taught us to research, to write and to speak. Oddly, we never left her room, because all of our research and work was done in a little room adjacent to her classroom, full of several sets of books called “The Great Books of the Western World.” Britannica publishes this set, and I own the books today.

At the time, I had no idea who these 73 authors were or why they were significant. I recognized a few names- Shakespeare, Aristotle- but most were alien to me. They were, of course, what Harold Bloom calls, “The Western Canon” of intellectual life. These Great Books- which by the way included the Bible- were a “Scripture” of sorts for a true Western education.

There were three books in the set that were different. Two were monstrous index volumes, where the Great books were broken up into explorations of over a hundred topics vital to the Western intellectual tradition. These books allowed you to delve into the Great Books by themes, and to hear what all the authors had to say on God, government, angels, war or close to a hundred other topics. I treasure these two volumes today, and count minor water damage done to one of them while caring for a plant to be among the great criminal acts ever committed.

The other volume was the slim first volume in the set, a collection of short essays on the purpose and use of the Great Books. It was called “The Great Conversation.” The authors suggested we approach these books not as a single narrative, or as an education by installment, but as a great, roaring, unruly conversation across the ages. Greek dramatists debating with English scientists. Russian novelists sparring with German psychologists. Gibbon debating Homer. Augustine versus Tolstoy. It was a conversation that never occurred, but was allowed to occur by bringing all these writings together, and then studying them to hear what each writer had to say.

This idea, of a great conversation taking place over time and culture, and then selected and presented for my benefit, has become my dominant idea of what is the Bible. It has proven increasingly helpful in a number of ways.

The great conversation model has allowed me to jettison any defense of the Bible as single book whose human origins and methodologies present significant difficulties that must be explained. For instance, I view the Bible as a selection of purely human literary creations. I may lay aside my faith, as many critics do, and study the Biblical material purely in their historical and cultural settings. This eliminates the need to force the Bible to be divine in origin, and gives me the freedom to hear each Biblical writer saying what he/she had to say in the way he/she chose to say it.

Or I may read the Bible with my eyes, mind and heart alive to the faith that is at the center of the Biblical conversation. The humanity of the conversation is not an obstacle, but an invitation to understand the Bible even as we understand ourselves and our histories, experiences and cultures.

The rich diversity of the Bible is frequently lost in our fear that seeing a book as exactly what it appears to be will ruin the inspiration and divine authority of the book. Is God so small that the humanity of a text matters to His use of it? Further, the particular “voice” or style the text uses to talk about God may come to us in ways that are strange and uncomfortable to modern ideas of reality and truth. But if we are listening to a conversation and not predetermining what it must be, these factors are almost meaningless.

In the Great Books, the conversation took place in those common categories that were universal, even if greek dramatists and nineteenth century historians actually looked at the world in very different ways. The Great Conversation method says that the editor hears this conversation in his selection of the texts, and the reader experiences it for himself as he reads and listens.

Genesis isn’t twentieth century science. Leviticus is primitive, brutal and middle eastern. The Old Testament histories are not scholarly documentaries, but religious and tribal understandings of God and events. Proverbs comes from a mongrel wisdom tradition throughout the middle east. Song of Solomon is erotic poetry, and not much else. The prophets spoke to their own times, and not to our own. The scholars who help me understand these books as they are, are not enemies of truth, but friends. Call it criticism, paint it as hostile, but I want to know what the texts in front of me are saying!

The Old Testament and New Testament Canon are the selection of those parts of our spiritual literary heritage that make up the Great Conversation about the Judeo-Christian God. The Bible itself is a human book, created and complied by human choices. There may be other writings that contribute to the conversation, but those who know and experience the God of Jesus Christ hear the conversation most plainly in these writings. Canon is that human choice of what to listen to. Inspiration- the next section- is the validation and expounding of that choice.

The conversational model allows for a number of helpful ways of approaching scripture. For instance, it allows a variety of viewpoints on a single subject, such as the problem of evil. Job argues with Proverbs. It encourages us to hear all sides of the conversation as contributing something, and doesn’t say only one voice can be heard as right. Leviticus has something important to say that Psalms may not say. This approach sees the development of understanding as a natural part of the conversation, and isn’t disturbed when a subject appears to evolve and change over time. This model allows some parts of the conversation to be wrong, so that others can be right, and the Bible isn’t diminished as a result.

Most importantly, this model says the Bible presents a conversation that continues until God himself speaks a final Word. In other words, I do not expect this conversation to go on endlessly. It has a point. A conclusion. And in that belief, the great Biblical conversation differs from the Great Books conversation. There is not an endless spiral of philosophical and experiential speculation. There is, as Hebrews 1 says, a final Word: Jesus.

Hebrews 1:1-3 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

Second, How can I say the Bible is Inspired?

Let’s pause and take stock. I’ve said the Bible is a thoroughly human book in which human beings, involved in an experience they identify as God, select a “canon” of literature that contains a conversation about this experience of God. It is important, however, that I put forward some idea of inspiration, since orthodox Christianity requires some way to understand how God speaks in the Bible.

The original Great Books essays stated that the conversation occurs without any set dogma or point of view. The student of the Great Books is free to listen to the conversation and come to any number of conclusions about God, government, reality or human nature.

The Biblical conversation is different. While the reader is free to draw conclusions, the conversation itself is compelling in its conclusions. Because this conversation continues to a point of hearing a unique Word from God, there are limits to what we may legitimately say is being said. The proper understanding of language, culture, history and text is part of this limitation. The Biblical conversation allows great freedom, but there is also agreement that when this conversation is heard honestly, it has a common stream and focus at its center. A stream and focus that reveals a particular God, his ways, his character, his message and ultimately, his Son.

Of course, we should have modest expectations of agreement on this kind of unity in the Bible, and any community of believers that claims to hear a detailed scheme of belief in the Bible is probably listening to some parts of the conversation differently than other communities. Still, even with the diversity of conclusions we will find in listening, the Christian communities that lay hold of this conversation as “their own,” have considerable broad agreement in what the conversation communicates. On the focus of that conversation, there is no contention.

At this point I want to separate myself from any kind of Christianity that sees the Bible as teaching a highly sectarian view of Christianity at the exclusion of other views. I am not shocked that Catholics and Lutherans find the words “This is my body” to mean something different than Baptists do. I am distraught that any of these parties would fail to see that we are all listening to the same texts, and disagreement isn’t because some of us are all that much smarter or better listeners. It’s because we listen to different parts of the conversation, in different ways, and we are allowed to do so.

I love confessionalism. But I despise confessionalism that doesn’t understand and respect what other confessional communities are doing in listening to the conversation. This is why, for instance, I am not personally torn up by the infant baptism debate. Listening to the Biblical conversation, there appear to be two completely plausible conclusions on the subject. I have convictions on which is right, but I have no conviction that the other fellow is so wrong that I can treat him as if he isn’t approaching the same text as I am, with the same amount of worthy respect and reverence.

Scripture is inspired if God has, on some level and in some way, directed its production so that it says what he wants it to say. Human beings may conclude that the Bible is inspired if it demonstrates, in its content and its results, a unity of message that cannot be explained by merely human factors. Despite its humanity, despite its diversity, the Bible speaks to us a message that claims to be from God, and is coherent and clear in its claims. Such a view of the Bible grows as the Bible itself becomes aware of the conversation, and aware of the presence of God in the experience of the writers and their communities. But we should never claim that inspiration is a provable proposition. It is an assertion of faith, and that faith comes because of the presence of Jesus as the final Word of the inspired Conversation.

What I will write next is so important, that I cannot assert loudly enough the importance of understanding what I am claiming. The primary reason I believe the Bible is inspired is its presentation of Jesus. Only the activity of God in bringing a final Word into history and into the conversation can cause this conversation to have divine implications totally beyond the human realm of origin and explanation.

Jesus is all the proof I need. Either he came from God, or we somehow cooked him up on our own. Is that a hard choice?

Jesus is not the product of human speculation. The Cross and the Gospel of the Cross are outrageous. Offensive. Unthinkable. Absurd. Yet the Bible tells us that the comprehensive point of the entire activity of God in history is revealing a crucified and risen Jesus as the Lord of the Universe and the source of salvation to all who believe in him. Imagine if someone read the Great Books and said the key to all truth and reality is a crucified criminal who lived two millennia ago. Such a conclusion would be demented. Foolishness of the highest order.

Yet this is exactly what the Bible says. It offers us Jesus as the meaning of all of history, the meaning of our lives, and importantly for this essay, the final Word, the conclusive Word in the Biblical conversation.

Listen to Jesus in Luke 24, quoted above. He tells the disciples that the scriptures are inspired….because they speak of Him. Without Jesus, the scriptures make no sense. They will have no message other than the question of how this God can possibly have a relationship with people who are unfit to know him and unwilling to embrace him? Without Jesus, God is a mystery. Contradictory. Without Jesus, the Bible is not inspired. It is an unfinished symphony. A tragedy without resolution. A romance whose lovers are never united.

The book of Revelation proclaims that Jesus is the one who is worthy to open the scroll of all human history and give it meaning: Himself. It is no accident that Revelation is a library of Biblical references and historical, mythic symbolism. It is a sampling of the Biblical conversation. Jesus is the crowning Word of ALL conversations. Biblical, spiritual, economic, political, governmental. Scripture is INSPIRED BY the PRESENCE OF CHRIST throughout the conversation.

It’s evident that this approach to inspiration is not particularly interested in terms like inerrancy. I believe the search for a way to compliment the Bible enough to make every word true is one of the most colossal wastes of time ever engaged in by Christian minds. Further, the logical torture that produces approaches to scripture like young earth creationism makes me profoundly sad, because it misses the point, and misleads anyone who hears it into believing that a book whose final Word is “I am the Truth,” is really about whether there ever was a water canopy over the earth or dinosaurs on the ark.

The Bible is about Jesus. The inspiration of the Bible is the presence of Jesus in the conversation. The authority of scripture is the authority of Jesus. The “inerrancy” of scripture is that, rightly understood, it takes us to Jesus. The Law came through Moses, but grace and TRUTH came through Jesus Christ. The TRUTH of the Bible was not there without Jesus. Any discussion of inspiration that is not- eventually- about the relationship of Jesus to that part of the conversation, is useless. The distance of any part of the conversation from Jesus is the distance of that part of the Bible from what Christians mean by “inspiration.”

The very definition of straining at gnats and swallowing camels is debating the inspiration of Judges without seeing how Judges relates to Christ. When Christians feel the field of battle for inspiration is some battle in the Old Testament, they are demonstrating they are lost in the field where the treasure is buried. They are going down roads that lead nowhere if they are discussing questions ultimately unrelated to Christ and Gospel.

Christ is not a character in the Bible. He is not chapter 23-25 in a 30 chapter novel. He is the story. He is the novel. He is the only character we need to know. The entire book is about introducing him to us in pictures and language we can understand.

I want to be clear that I am not invalidating the content of scripture, particularly the Old Testament. It is the Old Testament Jesus says is about himself. Read it, he tells the Jews. It is about him. It is the Old Testament where he apparently appears on every page. But if we start seeing content in that Old Testament removed and separated from Christ, we are looking at texts apart from anything that will save us. They may inform or motivate, but they will not save. And this conversation is about the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world.

My entire Christian experience, I’ve been reading attempts to defend the inspiration of the Bible logically, and apologetically. Christians fear the question “How do you know the Bible is inspired by God?” more than almost any question. I do not fear that question anymore, because I have a simple answer.

“I don’t know what you mean by inspired. If you mean, how do I know it’s right and true in everything it says, then I don’t believe in that kind of inspiration. But if you mean how do I know that the Bible is God’s true communication to me, it’s simple. The Bible shows me Jesus. The reason I believe the Bible is inspired is that it shows me who Jesus is and what Jesus means. That’s the answer to all the questions that matter to me.”

Third, How do I Interpret the Bible?

Ever think of the Bible as….a grocery store? I worked at grocery stores for a long time. People come into the store with their grocery lists, and they know what they are looking for. They need some bananas, ice cream, a case of root beer, a head of lettuce. They run up and down the aisles finding what they want, find everything on the list, check out and go home.

That’s how evangelicals increasingly approach the Bible. They have a list of what they need. Parenting principles. Verses for healing. Advice for marriage. Rules for children. Stories to inspire. Challenges to give. Information on Heaven. Predictions of the future. We run into the “Bible” looking for these things, and when we find them, we leave.

This “grocery store” view of the Bible is built on the idea that the Bible is an inspired “library” of true information. A “magic book” as some have called it, where passages contain unquestionable information and authoritative rules. This approach to the Bible is flattering to the human ability to catalog information, and it is used in many churches to build confidence that the use of scripture puts a person on a foundation of absolute certainty.

In this approach, interpretation is important, and good interpretation is common. But the problem is fundamental. Scripture is not a grocery store. It’s not a place to run in and find principles for parenting or prophecies about the future, even though the conversation contains discussions about these things.

No, the Bible is a cooking show. And if we are going to interpret any part of scripture correctly, we need to get out of the store- the encyclopedia of true things in a magic book- and get to the kitchen.

And, amazingly, here we are! If you look on the counter, you will see all the ingredients for a cake. This cake is really going to be magnificent, and we have all the ingredients to mix together and create this wonderful creation. Eggs. Flour. Salt. Sugar. Butter. Vanilla. And many other bowls of ingredients.

All these ingredients, of course, are the contents of the Bible. The eggs are Genesis 1-3. The flour is Leviticus. The salt is Proverbs. The sugar is Psalms. And so on. These are good ingredients. Crucial ingredients. Now…we need to ask an important question: What are we baking?

The cake the Bible is baking is Jesus Christ, the mediator of our salvation, and the Gospel that comes in him.

There are people who like eggs. There are, I suppose people who like to eat flour. There are other things you can make with these ingredients besides the cake. But if you follow the conversation/recipe, this cake will turn out to be Jesus, the Lamb of God, the bread of Life, the salvation of the world. The cake scripture is baking is Jesus. If you recognize that cake for what it is, and eat it believing, you will be saved.

Using this analogy, we must interpret the Bible backwards. Reading it forward is fine and necessary. Interpreting forward is legal, but far from adequate. We must get to the Gospels. We must get to John 1 and Revelation 4 and 5 and Romans 1:1-4. We must get to Jesus, and then we can read Genesis 1 rightly. We can read it without Jesus, and do a lot of good or make a huge mess. But we will be missing the point of every part of scripture if we don’t interpret with Jesus in mind.

  • II Corinthians 3:4 But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. 15 Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. 16 But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.
  • Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
  • Galatians 3:22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. 24 So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.
    One of the first times I brought out my thoughts on this approach to the Bible was at a seminar for local pastors, where I was asked to teach Genesis 1-11. I am sure most of the men in the room were ready for the usual approach to Genesis, with lots of hat-tipping to the creation-evolution controversy and explanations for how these events could “really happen.”

Instead, I said that Jesus was the one for whom and by whom all things were made. I said Jesus was in the beginning with God. I said we are made in God’s image, in a way similar to the way Jesus is the image of the invisible God, and that this is why Jesus is made like us so he can save us. I said Christ came to destroy the works of the devil. I said Jesus loves us when we are cast out of paradise, and he left paradise for us. I said Abel was a picture of Jesus, and his offering a portrait of faith. I said the ark was Christ, and the flood the wrath of God Jesus endured for our sake. And so on, for four hours.

At the end, one man said I was trying to be “provocative.” Let’s hope so, because the grocery store approach to Genesis is boring me and turns preachers of the Gospel into lecturers in creation science.

Why can’t we preach Christ Jesus from Genesis? Why do we talk about the length of days and the location of Eden and whether women should submit, when the whole story exists to send us to Jesus to be clothed in his righteousness? Do we really think God wanted us to have a book of inspired science and trivia? I need a savior, not a set of facts. As Robert Capon says, if the world could be saved by good advice, it would have been saved ten minutes after Moses came back from Mt. Sinai.

When I read Leviticus, I interpret it through Jesus. He is the sacrifice. He is the thief who is punished. He is the adulterer who is stoned to death. Jesus is the priest, the altar, the sacrifice and the temple. The good news is we don’t live in Leviticus any more. We live in a New Covenant where the threats of Sinai have been fulfilled at the Cross, and a new covenant in His blood is now available to anyone, of any nation, who believes in Jesus as Lord.

The first Christians didn’t use the grocery store method. They but it all together and said “Christ!” They found every part of scripture was, in fact, an ingredient in allowing us to see and understand the bread of life.

It is important to remember that Jesus’ existence isn’t determined by the Bible. He doesn’t need it to be God. We need it to know God. We need the language, the pictures, the law, the examples….the whole recipe that gives us Jesus and the Gospel. We need the whole Bible so we can start to understand Christ, his person and work, his Gospel and what faith means. All the complexities of the great conversation are for our understanding of Jesus and the Gospel. When we interpret, we need to avoid literalism and find Christ, who is the truest of all truths. Literalism that lessens the saturation of the scriptures by Christ is as bad as liberal criticism that denies Christ.

So Biblical interpretation is part understanding the conversation, and part of understanding the final Word spoken and speaking. When we can hear the final Word in the words and images of the text of scripture, then we are getting it.

Finally, Let’s Try Some Application

Three examples will serve my purposes. First, the horrendous violence in the Book of Judges. Second, the issue of homosexuality. Last, I’ll consider how my approach affects a serious dividing issue such as apostasy.

Supporters of the traditional view of Biblical inerrancy find themselves in a quandary with an issue like the terrible violence in the Old Testament book of Judges. The quandary comes when the text must bear the burden of God-spokenness. How do we understand the inspiration of a book that reports- even advocates- violence that is clearly at odds with Jesus’ words in the Sermon on the Mount.

I believe the Biblical conversation contains some horrible reports of things done in the name of Yahweh that are so far short of what we know about God in Jesus, that we are under no pressure at all to “harmonize” passages or find ways to explain the violence. People who think they know God frequently do violent things and give God credit. This is one of the hazards of not knowing God in the flesh as Jesus, but instead worshiping a God who is, in the end, an expression of our own tribalness and self-interest.

Some interpreters point to the bloody portions of Revelation to say that we should have no problem seeing Jesus as a God of bloody vengeance. This certainly comports with the need some people have to let the presentation of God in the Old Testament dominate the discussion. I believe that Christ will return and it will be an awful day of judgment for those in rebellion against their creator. Scripture uses some majestic images and some violent images to picture that day, as human battlefields are as apocalyptic as we can picture in this world. But these images exist alongside the Gospel picture of God’s offer of the Gospel, his patience, kindness and forbearance. It is God’s way to go beyond what human beings can think or imagine to extend grace to us rebels.

There is a threat of judgment in anyone’s rejection of the King’s Son. (Mark 12:1-12) Especially when that Son has died in the place of those rebels, and offered them forgiveness and adoption into the royal family.

Judges shows us what human beings become when everyone does what is right in their own eyes; it shows our descent into idolatry and tribal religion. Judges shows us that without God’s true king, the Lord Jesus Christ, our world descends into violence and chaos, much as it was before the flood. It was in a violent world that God became one of us, yet he was not violent. While not embracing outright pacifism, and approving the necessary force to protect the innocent, Jesus rejected the violence of the Kingdoms of this world as a way of bringing his Kingdom. His eschatological vengeance is the counterpoint to his continual offer of kindness and clemency to his enemies in the Gospel.

What we see in Judges isn’t to be harmonized with Christ, so that Christ becomes a warrior-judge defeating the “pagans.” It is this kind of sinful violence that will be judged by Christ, when his Kingdom beats all swords into plowshares, and brings God’s peace to the universe.

On the issue of homosexuality, we are in “grocery store” territory in a big way. The usual approach is to run into a few texts and run back out with the requisite verses to prove that homosexuality is wrong. How would my approach differ?

Primarily, my approach would say that when sin is compared to the law of God, we see it differently than when it stands next to the grace of God in Christ. Let’s use the thief on the cross as an example. The thief was guilty of breaking the law, and was being punished as a result. Compared to the law, the soul that sinned was dying. On the other hand, coming to Christ who is dying for sinners, this man is a believer welcomed into the gates of paradise. His sin is forgiven by Jesus, and not even mentioned. This is the same lesson of the woman caught in adultery in John 8. Compared to the law, sin is a large matter. Compared to Christ, it is overwhelmed in grace.

Evangelical outrage about homosexuality is about magnifying parts of the Bible in which sin is compared to the law, or to God’s purpose in creation, or the good health of society. Yet, compared to Jesus Christ, homosexuality is simply another matter for which Christ died and rose again. We have no premise to be outraged by it. Christ knows all about it, and bore it in his body on the tree.

I Corinthians 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Romans 5:8 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I should say that I am not disagreeing with anything the Bible says about homosexuality, as much as I am saying that like any other sin, we need to place it next to Christ and see the truth of the Gospel. Here is a sin for which Christ died. Does this mean the unrepentant homosexual can be justified? I think God saves sinners who repent imperfectly, but I do not think God saves sinners who knowingly reject Christ and the Gospel. I will leave it to God to sort out the individuals in that situation, but I could not offer any sinner assurance of salvation if their faith did not hear Jesus say “Go and sin no more.”

Evangelicals have made so many sins political and social matters that they have forgotten the church’s treasure is Christ, not social change. “Where sin abounded, grace ought to abound all the more” is a good instruction for the Christian.

Finally, how does my approach to the Bible affect a controversial denominational issue like the possibility of losing salvation? I chose this issue because I have probably spent more time debating this than any other single Biblical concern. I need to apply my view of scripture to this topic!

Unlike homosexuality, where the conversation never creates any ambiguity about the nature of the matter, apostasy is a subject where the Biblical conversation ranges far and wide. One seminary professor told us that 26 of 27 New Testament books mention the possibility of apostasy. Growing up as a Baptist, I spent hours in the grocery store shopping for verses to refute the possibility that salvation could be lost and assuring myself that “once saved, always saved.”

Today, I can see that Christians who love and honor Christ above all may differ on this subject, even though I am personally convinced that the Biblical conversation offers complete assurance to the believer of perseverance and security. But I also realize that the reality of faith is that faith fails. We have multiple examples of failing faith in scripture. But are these examples threats and warnings, or examples of the faithful power of Christ to save to the uttermost those who come to him? It seems to me that the majority of scripture’s examples magnify Christ as Savior and keeper. He is the great shepherd who goes after the lost sheep.

To the extent that I can, I must always interpret the Bible in a way that Christ is most magnified, exalted and glorified in salvation. While the threat of failing faith is real, and the reality of shallow, temporary faith is not to be overlooked, the greatness of Christ to present us faultless without spot or blemish MUST be the last word. The final Word is His greatness, not our weakness.

So while I give my friends my respectful acceptance as Bible students and Christ- honoring disciples, I must make my decision on interpretation from the standpoint of scripture’s testimony that he shall see the travail of his soul, the fruit of his sufferings, in the redemption of many from the uttermost reaches of sin. I must struggle to interpret the Bible so that Christ is exalted, magnified and held up to draw all persons to himself.

In these examples of application, I am hoping to show that we now, as new Covenant Christians, read the Bible with Christ and the Gospel of Christ as our focus of interpretation. I am not discounting the conversation or anything said along the way, but as I reread it throughout life, I am mindful of where it was all going, and I allow Jesus to be the Last Word of God to me in as many ways as I can.

Conclusion

I will conclude this essay with two quotes from John Calvin, who would not agree with all I have written, but who very much understood what my heart yearns for in reading and preaching the Bible.

So then, from this we must gather that to profit much in the holy Scripture we must always resort to our Lord Jesus Christ and cast our eyes upon him, without turning away from him at any time. You will see a number of people who labor very hard indeed at reading the holy Scriptures — they do nothing else but turn over the leaves of it, and yet after ten years they have as much knowledge of it as if they had never read a single line. And why? Because they do not have any particular aim in view, they only wander about. And even in worldly learning you will see a great number who take pains enough, and yet all to no purpose, because they kept neither order nor proportion, nor do anything else but gather material from this quarter and from that, by means of which they are always confused and can never bring anything worthwhile. And although they have gathered together a number of sentences of all sorts, yet nothing of value results from them. Even so it is with them that labor in reading the holy Scriptures and do not know which is the point they ought to rest on, namely, the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

•John Calvin, Sermon on Ephesians 2:19-22 (1559).

We are taught by this passage, that if we wish to obtain the knowledge of Christ, we must seek it from the Scriptures; for they who imagine whatever they choose concerning Christ will ultimately have nothing of him but a shadowy phantom. First, then, we ought to believe that Christ cannot be properly known in any other way than from the Scriptures; and if it be so, it follows that we ought to read the Scriptures with the express design of finding Christ in them. Whoever shall turn aside from this object, though he may weary himself throughout his whole of life in learning, will never attain the knowledge of the truth.

• John Calvin, Commentary on John (1563).

• • •

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me…
(John 5:39)

A View from the Bench

A View from the Bench
By Steve McFarland

“Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of all rules and sadistic pleasure in witnessing violence: in other words it is war minus the shooting.”

• George Orwell

• • •

Perhaps Orwell was a little harsh in his assessment of sports but not far from the truth in light of recent events. The latest episode of sports violence has concluded with the sentencing of a dad who killed a dad over a hockey game involving their sons. The incidences of parents violently attacking parents over youth sports continue to pile on to the point that the heap can hardly be ignored. Where once America could cover over the sludge with character building idealism, the ever rising ugliness of youth sports can not only not be ignored, it seems to have gotten into the drinking water. The problem is officially out of control.

The mystery of this problem is not in how to fix it rather it is understanding why it exists in the first place. Why are Americans so caught up in their children’s sports success? What has caused this meanness and anger to exist? The questions are mounting without many answers.

The American sports revolution really took hold in the 1960’s when professional sports salaries and popularity began to increase. Some would argue that the change was directly linked to Curt Flood’s court victory in the early 70’s that paved the way for free agency. The “individualism” that spilled out of that ruling has been extended through the years to the point that the player is the focus of the media and fans rather than the team. Where once a team would scout out players, the new wave is for players to shop for a team.

It is not unusual to hear of high school players marketing themselves to schools for a better deal or better exposure or more playing time or the ability to play as a six foot six guard or whatever is in their best interest. I have been involved with youth sports long enough with my children to see first hand the way that mentality has changed the face of American sports. And it is an ugly face with an intention to get the best for sons or daughters, regardless of team success or school loyalty. I have known parents to pull their child off a T-ball team because they were not getting enough playing time.

There is a fine yet distinguishable line between safeguarding a child’s best interest and raising a child to be an adult. As parents become more aggressive in protecting their child from so-called sports injustices, they take away opportunities for character building and learning. It is an indictment on American values to hear parents ranting about sports injustices being perpetrated on their children and, quite frankly, embarrassing. Hypocrisy drips from the words of adults who blast away about their child’s lack of playing time while praising schools for character education activities. The greatest character builder America has going for it is a child’s time on the bench.

As team sports has given way to individual accomplishment, the bizarre notion that all children are equal on the court as well as the classroom took our culture by the throat. On only rare occasions have I encountered parents willing to accept their child’s lack of playing time as having anything to do with lack of ability. More often it is the fault of a poor coach or the belief that so and so is the son of so and so and yadda-yadda-yadda.

These conspiracy theorists hold to the belief that somewhere long ago, all the so-called influential people of the world got together and decided who would play and who would not. Oliver Stone would be proud of the underhanded, behind closed door politics that these parents would have us believe relegated their child to a brief stint in right field during late innings when the score was well out of reach. It would certainly have nothing to do with the fact that Junior has dropped the last sixty-two fly balls and couldn’t make contact with a tennis racket. One of the great pleasures of parenting is coming to the realization that a child may not be very good and you can relax and love them regardless.

Until proper perspective can be recaptured in this country regarding youth sports, the problem is only going to grow worse. There may soon come a day when police will be needed at all little league games and parents asked to stay home when their child plays. It probably won’t matter though. Little Johnny will probably drop the ball anyway.

A few laughs with the Boar’s Head staff

Steve McFarland is our correspondent in the public schools, where he actually earns a modest living at taxpayer’s expense.
Eric Rigney works in Higher Education. Now that’s funny. And also a drain on the taxpayer. He writes on culture.
Bart Campbell is an angry Scot who writes whatever he xxxx well pleases, but earns a living by the sweat of his brow.
Michael Spencer is the editor of IM and recently hit his head on a tree.
Today’s format here at the Boar’s Head is to toss back a few, then send some questions around for everyone to offer up their insights.

• • •

Someone please explain the sad demise of MacDonald’s

Bart: Well obviously because they have duped the American people by using Beef Tallow in the cooking of their French fries. This is just another example of corporate America trying to subjugate the little guy. Seriously, there would appear to be three possible reasons for this decline:

The American people have really come to understand exactly how horrible Mickey Dee’s is for the body. I doubt that this has ANYTHING to do with it as the percentage of overweight Americans continues to rise. The other possibility is that their products are becoming too diverse and passé. As they attempt to broaden the scope of their market offering, they neglect the products that carried them around the world. Mickey Dee’s is always in the process of test marketing some new product in various areas of the world. Maybe it is time to turn their focus back to that which brought them so much success. I really don’t thing the ¼ Pounder is ever going to hit in India. Further, I believe that they view themselves as holding the status of one of the inalienable wrights mentioned in the constitution. In their eyes, they are Mc Donald’s, say no more.

Eric: COCKINESS AND Eric: A FALSE SENSE OF INVULNERABILITY. I HEARD YESTERDAY THAT SUBWAY NOW HAS THE MOST FAST-FOOD LOCATIONS, SURPASSING THE GOLDEN ARCHES. AND IF YOU NOTICE, SUBWAY IS MARKETING THEIR STUFF LIKE THERE’S NO TOMORROW. IT DOESN’T MAKE me GO THERE, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE WORKING IN A BROADER SENSE. MCDONALD’S IS OLD NEWS IN THE CONSUMERS’ MINDS. HOW MANY WAYS CAN YOU MARKET A BIG MAC? (Michael: Why are you writing in caps Eric? Is something wrong?)

Steve: My only guess is that they lost my business last week when the drive-through extended ten car lengths and the restaurant lines were out the door. Service is so bad it can’t be considered fast food. They should go back to cooking their burgers two days in advanced and placing them under heat lamps.

Michael: When you put the word “Mc” in front of everything, people become afraid. I mean “McSex” sounds bad. They just have to face it- in the public mind, they are as low as you can go, so they have to take it and make it work. Negative ads on Burger King. “They spit on the fries. I swear. Look…” Special guests beating the crap out of the MacDonald’s characters. Taking credit for the death of certain competitors. They are nasty, so they gotta go with nasty. Feature the grease. Ridicule salads. Say our people are ugly. Show those dirty fingernails. C’mon Mickey Dees- get DOWN on the GROUND!

If Hillary Clinton Runs for President in 2004, what is the campaign slogan?

Bart: I promise to never have sex in the Whitehouse (not that anything would change since the last time I was there.).

Eric: I AM A HUMORLESS, BITTER, HATEFUL MENOPAUSAL WOMAN ON THE VERGE OF A NERVOUS BREAKDOWN — WHO BETTER TO FIGHT TERRORISM? (Michael: Eric, what is with the all caps? Do you need to go to the restroom?)

Steve: “It takes a village of Clinton’s to run this country”. Her platform will be to emphasize how America is such a land of opportunity in that a mid-level female lawyer with blinding ambition, thick ankles, and a womanizing husband can make it to the White House. (And we thought Lincoln was an overachiever).

Michael: Bart took mine. But I do think if you dropped that lady down some holes in Afghanistan Osama and gang would come running out like rats on fire. And has anyone added Buddy the dog to the list of Clinton friends who have moved to the great beyond? ANd for the record, I think those ankles are hot.

Being conspiratorially minded for a moment, what really happened with that “choking on a pretzel” incident?

Bart: I am not suspicious. However, if I were one to seek out the conspiracy theory in everything, I would imagine that “W” grabbed a bag of pretzels out of the cabinet and hastily began to eat. Not noticing the post-it stuck to the back of the bag stating, “ Steph, make sure and give this bag of pretzels to Vincent Foster…I heard he was just dying to try them. Bill”

Eric: I THOUGHT ABOUT BEING SUSPICIOUS, BUT I FIGURED, WHO WOULD MAKE UP that STORY?? ISN’T THIS THE GOVERNMENT THAT CAN MAKE UP WHOPPERS TO COVER UFO SIGHTINGS AND POLITICAL SCANDALS AND MURDERS? AND A PRETZEL STORY IS ALL THEY COULD COME UP WITH? NO, I THINK IT WAS REAL. IN FACT, I ALMOST THINK THEY should have COME UP WITH A LIE — A STORY THAT WASN’T QUITE AS LAME. (Michael: You know Eric, these caps convey a lot of hostility. Is everything all right at home?)

Steve: The bizarre thing about this is I think it actually happened as he said. The problem with Bush is either he is honest to a fault or needs a better spin machine. Clinton would have said he passed out after giving mouth to mouth to a dying cancer patient in Harlem who lacked proper health care.

Michael: Bush is da man, y’know, but… he is also the kind of person who would accidentally kill himself with a toothbrush. I like the idea of his dogs sitting there. He says they were heroic. What is heroic about dogs sitting there watching you die? They’re waiting to see if you’re dead- then they are going to eat you. But isn’t it great to have a president so dull he is laying around the White House watching ball games and eating Pretzels? I love it. We can only guess what Clinton would be doing with a few extra moments alone.

After Black History Month, what next?

Bart: I think we need to do a month for each predominant culture within our society.

We could have Anglo-Saxon history month. This month could focus on the way that the peaceful pagan tribal societies of early Europe were destroyed by the increasing scope of the evil Christians and how the evil of Christianity has propagated itself throughout the world by decimating and enslaving other indigenous cultures

Next we should have Asian history month. This month could focus on the vast and ancient insight that exists in the many wonderful and peaceful religious traditions of the area.

We’ll have Hispanic history month as soon as all American children are fluent in Spanish. This would enable them to really get it, I mean think of it, Hispanic history month done completely in Spanish…I just get all tingly when I consider it.

Finally, there should be a Middle Eastern history month. The focus of this line of study would be an open and frank discussion of the way the Jewish people have taken advantage of the people groups of the area throughout history.

Eric: MIDGET SWISS ALEUTIAN HAIRLIP PARAPLEGIC LACTOSE INTOLERANT MENTALLY CHALLENGED LAPSED NUNS IN DRAG. (Michael- Is anyone tired of BEING YELLED AT???? BEING SHOUTED AT IN ALL CAPS?????)

Steve: It is time to celebrate midgets in the world. Midget history month will bring awareness to the plight of the vertically challenged. We should study their history from Zacchaeus to the munchkin years all the way to “Mini-Me.”

Michael: Fat people history month. I mean, look at the overlooked contribution of fat people. They stimulate the economy by eating. And I would like to say that the terms “hairlip” and “midget” are shockingly offensive and not at all appropriate in a classy establishment like the Boar’s Head. And coming from two guys whose salaries are paid by the taxpayers of this country…well, I am just offended and I think both of you need to prepare for a battery of lawsuits. Now, back to fat people….

What Praise and Worship Chorus makes you want to scream?

Bart: I think the chorus “Shout to the Lord” would qualify as a definite nausea producing stimuli. I mean really, do you have to shout to God for him to really get how thankful, grateful, worshipful, and genuine that your praise is? Please! I think if I can pray silently and genuinely (by the way, don’t attempt to do this during the praise and worship session of the service, as you won’t be able to hear yourself think. Odds are, the worship leader will be in the midst of telling you what to be thankful for, so a loud AMEN! Will be sufficient) to myself, God will hear me.

Eric: “OH JESUS I’M SORRY, I DIDN’T WANT TO HURT YOU…” AAAAACH! NOW I HAVE TO LISTEN TO ACID ROCK OR SOMETHING TO GET THAT TRIPE OUT OF MY HEAD! (Michael: GO AWAY ERIC- FAR AWAY SO WE WON’T THINK YOU ARE SHOUTING ANYMORE.)

Steve: All of them that are repeated more than twice.

Michael: Is there a chorus called “As the Dog Pants for Water?” I don’t like that one. Actually, I find myself more irritated the more the word “I” is used. Some of these songs aren’t praising God, they are praising me because I am praising God. Counted 21 “I’s in one the other day. “Let Us Ride” makes me want to run away. “Hop on the Bus” is a major mental health challenge. We sing one called “There is no God.” That sounds odd, doesn’t it?

The Sleeping Bear Awakens

Our liberal fellow-citizens have awakened from their slumbers. And like any hibernating bear just rising from a four month nap, these liberals are hungry for some political breakfast. This is not a time to pat them on the nose. Better look for a big stick, because they are in an ornery mood.

I’ve bumped into the bears various places this past week. The President of NOW whining at the National Press Club about the need for Federal funds to promote more women firepersons and policepersons in NYC. The editor of The Nationwaxing downright wacky on PBS, saying we need to turn the whole Afghan conflict over to the U.N. (!!!) and spend 50 billion to close the gap between rich and poor. (To whom should we send those checks?) Daschle doing his best impersonation of the fellow who must tell the children there will be no money for new shoes this year because daddy and all his buddies done went and drank it all at the Tax Cut Tavern. Oh My ;-(

But it all pales next to the gushing glee and sounds of celebration coming from the liberal newsrooms of the networks as they sink their teeth into the Enron disaster. Here is what they have been praying for over at CBS, as they burn copies of Bernie Goldberg’s book at night: a real Republican scandal. And such a perfect one. Widows losing their pensions while executives write themselves multi-million dollar golden parachutes. (Hey lady- you put all your pension in company stock? YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!) A bankrupt energy company full of Bush administration contributors. Lots of phone calls to the White House. Lots of denials from the President and the Cabinet. Oh, it is REVIVAL time at ABC!! (Should we tell them about the Enron contributions to the Clinton Administration? Not yet….)

Watching the ABC news promo on the the Enron story, I have to admit to being a bit shocked as they inserted a scandal-ready black and white photo of a stunned President Bush into the middle of the commercial, looking as Nixonesque as possible, as if to say the President was caught with his ranch truck helping the Enron guys haul out money to the garage. Hoping, hoping, hoping. One fellow at CBS Marketwatch, full of the spirit, said that this was Bush’s Whitewater ,only it would be much worse. I am sure Mr. Gore’s phone was ringing off the wall. Whadaya think, Al?

Awakening from their nap, pictures of soldiers in Afghanistan suddenly look different to liberals. They see a war Americans are already tired of, a war accumulating casualties, a war that has few (if any) allies and a war that will spread to other countries. And what is this war to our liberal friends? It is the President’s excuse to ram his agenda down our collective throats, his reason to spend the surplus, give tax cuts to the rich, screw the poor and expand federal power to Orwellian dimensions. The scent of Vietnam is in the air. Now, if they can only get the rest of us to see what they see.

The Gore half of our country has tilted dangerously the President’s way the last four months, and Democrats are seeing a bad moon arising in 2002. Even Napoleon Daschle was not willing to say “No Tax Cut,” while GWB was willing to say there would only be tax increases over his dead body. The President has a great deal of national good will from his job performance since 9-11, and that is influencing public perception of all his policies, not because the country has become conservative, but because people trust the guy. They have seen something in him they didn’t see from Clinton or Gore, and they like it. Do the Democrats think the country will throw out Bush over Enron and anti-war fever? Beautiful dreamer….

So the roused liberal bear will tear up some things, turn over some tables and sound very scary. There are more Enron investigations right now than actual members of congress. The smell of shredded documents is in the air. Look for the long hidden Democratic partisan dummies to line up on the talk shows and begin yapping about Republicans as power-mad, pro-business, big-oil guzzling, money soaked, fat cat, fanatics who can only be stopped by the good hearted, little man loving, pure as the driven snow Democrats. Uh-huh. Tape that so we can watch it over and over.

I have to say liberals needed this shot in the arm. They have taken some serious punches the last few months and it has been painful (and fun) to watch. It is somewhat comforting to know that they can still growl and make things interesting. But someone will need to tell them- they are losing. Losing ground, losing support and losing any semblance of a moral platform to criticize President Bush. They are acting as if GWB is President Clinton. That’s some bad acid, people. The differences are many, but I can summarize it this way: Clinton was a liar, a spinner and a con-artist out to get chicks and be a media star. President Bush tells the truth, means what he says, has a vision for the country and won’t lie to the country and ask us to save his butt. Unfortunately for the liberals, the average Joe has this figured out.

So welcome back liberals. I hope you are up for the fight. I expect it will be a good one, but I think we will see a bear skin rug in the White House very soon.

A Father’s Day Remembrance

A Father’s Day Remembrance
My Two Dads
By Bart Campbell

I can’t get a handle on all of the things I would like to write about my dad. You see it is exceptionally difficult to build any type of framework around him, as I have two fathers.

There is the father of my childhood, a gruff, forceful, opinionated, arrogant, angry, loving, gentle, and strong man; and there is the father I have now. He is as loving and gentle and thoughtful as any human on this planet. He offers no malice to any man and offers conversation to any person with an ear to hear. I love both of these men deeply.

The father of my child hood was the type of man that you could look up to. He was the type of man that you knew, beyond the shadow of a doubt, would quickly give his life for your protection; while at the same time, instilling within you an absolute fear of retribution for sins gone untold. He was a rock. I can remember one instance when my father was so angry (this was a traditional Scottish rage) that he punched a hole in the wall separating the hallway from the bathroom. His fist went through both walls and into the shower area itself. My little brother must have been getting an early shot of testosterone (you know the kind that causes all logical thought to cease synaptic firing), because he took it upon himself to tell my father how “Stupid” what he had just done was. I could see my fathers blood boiling. He looked like he was being transformed into one of the characters from the movie Scanners. His response was classic. Without raising a hand to my brother, he turned toward the broken wall and promptly began to demolish any existing construction that continued to possess any structural integrity. He, then, turned to my little brother (who had regained control of his mouth and was now trying not to urinate on himself) and said ever so quietly, “I guess I will now have to fix the whole wall.” He went to his room and shut the door.

Now don’t get me wrong here, there was not a constant state of tumult at home, just Hiroshima like flashes. My dad almost never missed any sporting event. He was always there. Some of my fondest memories can be gleaned from excerpts of ALL of my football games. I can see my father standing on the sidelines yelling advice, while demonstrating the proper movements. He looked like Pops Racer following the realization that Spridle and Chim Chim had once again stowed away in the Mach 5. But, you know what? That memory is like gold for me. I can remember my dad crying at the end of the Black Stallion. I remember how safe I felt in his massive embraces. I knew, that though the world might falter, my dad would be the one source of safety that I could turn to in any worldly storm. On the night of January 15th, 1990, my world was forever changed. That rock was gone and the man that is now may father was born.

My father had a cerebral aneurysm and several small strokes as a result of the bleed. To that end, there was 10 hours of surgery done to place a titanium clip on the source of the bleed. There was one last commentary concerning my old dad’s personality, when the doctor that performed the surgery came out to give us his prognosis, he said that it took him 6 of the 10 hours of the surgery to cut through my father’s scull. He said, “that man has the hardest scull of any person that I have ever performed surgery on.” To which we responded, “ We could have told you that.”

Part of that surgery meant actually cutting through the right frontal lobe of his brain. The long range result of this were vast changes in personality and the loss of the ability to read, walk, talk, perform logical tasks, or maintain any type of short term memory.

I had become the adult and he had become the child. I made the decision to quit both my job and school. Two days later, I broke up with the girl that I had intended marry. I had convinced his company to train me and allow me to take over his territory. He sold jewelry. So I traveled the southeast with $100K in jewelry and a loaded .380 semi automatic. I did this for 3 months. During that that time, my dad was in rehab.

When I returned from my tour of duty (that’s a joke, I did what I needed to do), it was time to begin to help dad re-assimilate and attempt to regain his former glory. I had no idea how difficult the road that we were on was going to be. I spent my days hanging out with my dad, attempting to provide as much normality as was possible, while trying to engage him mentally. I remember thinking about how helpless he was. I had to accompany him to the bathroom in our house just to make sure he remembered where it was. The peak of the realization that I was now the “adult” occurred when I took my dad to the movies, we went to see Joe Verses The Volcano. During the movie, he had consumed and finished some popcorn and some candy; I watched him while he sat there and ate. He was the shell of the man he had once been. Throughout this whole process, my dad ended up losing a great deal of weight. So, many of his clothes no longer fit properly. As I observed him, I noticed that his baseball cap was only being supported by the tops of his ears and the bridge of his glasses; he looked like a progeria patient. At one point he needed to use the rest room. As always, I accompanied him to the lavatory in order to ensure his safe return to the appropriate theater. Upon our return, he sat down and asked, “Didn’t I have some candy and stuff?” I went home and sat in my room and wept. The decisive and forceful man that was my father was gone.

My father is now the sweetest man you would ever want to know. He is patient, kind, thoughtful, and genuinely concerned with who you are and what is going on in your life. He embodies everything that is good within a human being. The rest of the family could use a good temper tantrum or a strongly decisive opinion every now and again, but it is just not in him. I love my dad. I miss him every day and I look forward to getting back to Somerset to see him and my mom.

An interesting thing was birthed out of this whole process, I became a man. I came to understand what real responsibility was all about. God used the destruction of the man that was once my father to create a new life within me. I’m still growing (just ask my wife, my mom, kids, friends, etc…), but I use this process as the foundation for that which I must learn and to become the man God would have me to be.