Ed Morrissey's Captain's Quarters reports that Mike Huckabee has challenged Fred Thompson to a Lincoln-Douglas style debate. This week Thompson made clear his disdain for the superficial format currently in use, and Huckabee moved quickly to become the first candidate to challenge Fred to put his money where his mouth is. Good move on the part of the Huckabee campaign. The former governor of Arkansas is funny, a good debater, and he does well on TV; nevertheless, he has not penetrated the consciousness of GOP voters. For Huckabee, a debate with Thompson would be a ticket to the big leagues.
On the other hand, Thompson has nothing to gain from facing Huckabee, who may be the most charming and quickest of all the Republican candidates, even as he is virtually unknown.
What could happen in a head-to-head encounter between Thompson and Huckabee? Thompson could very possibly lose, which would likely kill the long-awaited campaign in its cradle. At the very least, a first-tier player gives an opening to a nobody, who, if given a chance, might turn out to be the somebody who wins the whole ballgame.
Fred is a nice guy. Mike is a worthy fellow. But Fred is playing for keeps, and he is not stupid. I will be shocked if this debate comes off. The advantages are too sparse--and the downsides are potentially devastating.
Fred needs to be debating Rudy head-to-head Lincoln-Douglas style--not Huckabee. A more substantive debate (or series of debates) is probably in the offing with several combinations of candidates--but a Thompson-Huckabee face-off, if it comes, will not be before Thompson squares off against Giuliani or Romney.
On the other hand, Thompson has nothing to gain from facing Huckabee, who may be the most charming and quickest of all the Republican candidates, even as he is virtually unknown.
What could happen in a head-to-head encounter between Thompson and Huckabee? Thompson could very possibly lose, which would likely kill the long-awaited campaign in its cradle. At the very least, a first-tier player gives an opening to a nobody, who, if given a chance, might turn out to be the somebody who wins the whole ballgame.
Fred is a nice guy. Mike is a worthy fellow. But Fred is playing for keeps, and he is not stupid. I will be shocked if this debate comes off. The advantages are too sparse--and the downsides are potentially devastating.
Fred needs to be debating Rudy head-to-head Lincoln-Douglas style--not Huckabee. A more substantive debate (or series of debates) is probably in the offing with several combinations of candidates--but a Thompson-Huckabee face-off, if it comes, will not be before Thompson squares off against Giuliani or Romney.
The Sidney Morning Herald has this video of Australian troops in a firefight in Afghanistan. We need to remind ourselves that we are not alone in this fight. And, we need to remember that over the last 100 years Australia has been our most dependable ally.
08/09: The Real Sin of Larry Craig
Tying up some lose ends. Last Saturday, I drafted a sub-heading for this post:
"It is finished. The Ordeal of Larry Craig is Over."
But this week contradictory signals continued to emanate from the senator's camp. At week's end, however, the long, strange journey of Senator Larry Craig seems to be nearing its terminus.
Who is responsible for the tragic demise of this career public official?
1. Larry Craig. From any angle, the Senator from Idaho committed egregious errors in judgment and/or conduct.
2. Republicans. At the heart of this matter is the deportment of Craig, but give the panicking Republican Party a big assist. So frightened by polls and the upcoming elections, GOP politicians abandoned loyalty and compassion in the rush to throw an embarrassing friend overboard post haste.
3. The Axis of Liberalism. The shameless inconsistency of Democrats and the so-called progressives was even more revolting than Republican cowardice. The shock troops of "tolerance" declared open season on Craig. Formerly fastidious mavens of open-mindedness tossed aside all previous protestations that the sex lives of public officials should be off-limits to scrutiny and inquiry from the unsophisticated mob.
Craig was not just fair game for these erstwhile sophisticates, they ravaged the wounded senator with a sense of righteous entitlement and a palpable giddiness.
Why was it suddenly appropriate to delve into the private sexual affairs of public figures?
"It is finished. The Ordeal of Larry Craig is Over."
But this week contradictory signals continued to emanate from the senator's camp. At week's end, however, the long, strange journey of Senator Larry Craig seems to be nearing its terminus.
Who is responsible for the tragic demise of this career public official?
1. Larry Craig. From any angle, the Senator from Idaho committed egregious errors in judgment and/or conduct.
2. Republicans. At the heart of this matter is the deportment of Craig, but give the panicking Republican Party a big assist. So frightened by polls and the upcoming elections, GOP politicians abandoned loyalty and compassion in the rush to throw an embarrassing friend overboard post haste.
3. The Axis of Liberalism. The shameless inconsistency of Democrats and the so-called progressives was even more revolting than Republican cowardice. The shock troops of "tolerance" declared open season on Craig. Formerly fastidious mavens of open-mindedness tossed aside all previous protestations that the sex lives of public officials should be off-limits to scrutiny and inquiry from the unsophisticated mob.
Craig was not just fair game for these erstwhile sophisticates, they ravaged the wounded senator with a sense of righteous entitlement and a palpable giddiness.
Why was it suddenly appropriate to delve into the private sexual affairs of public figures?
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Rolling Stone once called him "the most influential evangelical you've never heard of." The Miami Herald has this story on his legacy. Despite a somewhat negative tone, it is worth a read.
A leader of the schism that created the conservative Presbyterian Church in America in 1973, Kennedy co-founded the Moral Majority, the Coalition on Revival and the Alliance Defense Fund, which files lawsuits in church-state issues.
. . .
Kennedy once declared it his followers' ''job'' to ``reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise Godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.''
A leader of the schism that created the conservative Presbyterian Church in America in 1973, Kennedy co-founded the Moral Majority, the Coalition on Revival and the Alliance Defense Fund, which files lawsuits in church-state issues.
. . .
Kennedy once declared it his followers' ''job'' to ``reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise Godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.''
My American Government class has an assignment for next week. Perhaps you would like to do it as well.
• Internet Project 1. Visit the official websites of the Democrat and Republican parties, plus one other party of your choice. Answer these questions: 1. the frontpage of the site creates what impression, takes what tone? 2. what issues are most important to the party? 3. what are the party positions on major issues? 4. what solutions to national problems does the party propose?
Democrat
Republican
More below for those of you who can't/won't visit the sites.
• Internet Project 1. Visit the official websites of the Democrat and Republican parties, plus one other party of your choice. Answer these questions: 1. the frontpage of the site creates what impression, takes what tone? 2. what issues are most important to the party? 3. what are the party positions on major issues? 4. what solutions to national problems does the party propose?
Democrat
Republican
More below for those of you who can't/won't visit the sites.
Decades ago, Baptists sent their children to public schools without giving thought to alternatives. Roman Catholics, Missouri-Synod Lutherans, and Christian Reformed folks, established parochial schools, some Episcopalians sent their children to private schools--sometimes with a Saint's name--, but Baptists and others supported public schools.
But things changed. In the nineteenth century American public schools supported a generic Protestantism. This situation continued, perhaps in a milder form, through the early 1960s. When I was in first grade in my public school we began each day with prayer and a Bible verse over the intercom. Then two things happened. First, overt religious expression by the school itself was banned by the Supreme Court. Second, as American culture became more secular and more diverse, an increasing number of teachers, administrators, and parents, pushed an agenda that challenged traditional Christianity. As a result, conservative Christians began feeling more and more uncomfortable sending their children to public schools. Combine this discomfort with increasing perceptions that public schools are not doing a good job educating students, and evidence that student culture is becoming ever more sexualized and prone to violence, it is not surprising that more parents have become willing to spend the money for parochial education.
This story (link from The Layman) covers the phenomenon of Southern Baptists establishing parochial schools. This practice began during desegregation in the South with the establishment of "private academies," but now is accelerating fueled by religious concerns.
More below.
But things changed. In the nineteenth century American public schools supported a generic Protestantism. This situation continued, perhaps in a milder form, through the early 1960s. When I was in first grade in my public school we began each day with prayer and a Bible verse over the intercom. Then two things happened. First, overt religious expression by the school itself was banned by the Supreme Court. Second, as American culture became more secular and more diverse, an increasing number of teachers, administrators, and parents, pushed an agenda that challenged traditional Christianity. As a result, conservative Christians began feeling more and more uncomfortable sending their children to public schools. Combine this discomfort with increasing perceptions that public schools are not doing a good job educating students, and evidence that student culture is becoming ever more sexualized and prone to violence, it is not surprising that more parents have become willing to spend the money for parochial education.
This story (link from The Layman) covers the phenomenon of Southern Baptists establishing parochial schools. This practice began during desegregation in the South with the establishment of "private academies," but now is accelerating fueled by religious concerns.
More below.
Category: Politics
Posted by: A Waco Farmer
Fred is in, and I see a glimmer of hope.
I have said many times, for a number of reasons, the Democrats own this election: 2008 is theirs to lose. While I stand by that assertion, I am less gloomy today than usual.
Why do I see a slim band of sunlight far off on the dark horizon?
Like the vast majority of Americans, I did not watch the Republican debate in New Hampshire on Wednesday night. However, I did watch Jay Leno.
Fred is in, and he looked good.
Joining the chorus of sour handicappers, I had worried earlier that Fred might have missed his window. But seeing and hearing him over the last few days does much to alleviate my anxiety.
Fred Thompson may not be the perfect conservative--but he does a great job of playing one on TV (much better than the other actors vying for the role).
Is he Ronald Reagan? No. But he is closer than I thought he might be. He is tall and tough and solid. When Jay Leno questioned his Iraq policy on hostile territory (a soundstage in Los Angeles, California), Fred dug in and stood tall and told the truth. No sugar coat. No stuttering. No excuses. Bravo.
Of course, the pundits are not convinced. Reliable fount of conventional wisdom, ABC analyst, George Stephanopoulos, speaking for the pack, opined on Good Morning America Thursday that Fred had three big problems getting in so late:
1. He leaves himself no room for error; he cannot make a mistake (perhaps George was thinking of something like enlisting criminals as important campaign financiers).
2. He has no money.
3. He arrives in a disappointingly second place.
Huh?
All that is completely wrong.
--It is not really very late. No one is following this race yet. While the Democratic canvass has a distinct character already, the GOP contest is still completely formless. To be sure, he is going to make some mistakes--but he will have ample opportunity to overcome them.
--He is millions of dollars ahead of the game with his Leno appearance alone. This guy is funny, media savvy and the camera loves him. Mitt Romney has a lot of money, but he needs every penny of it to market himself. Fred is a softer, easier sell. Last night I found myself laughing and nodding my head a lot. That brand of natural appeal is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
--Finally, second place is just fine for now. In fact, it may be a blessing. Emerging a few lengths behind the frontrunner in a horse race and charging hard for the wire is a much better narrative than arriving as the presumptive nominee.
But there are some remaining worries:
Health. Today Hugh Hewitt raised the nagging cancer question (here). Ironically, I was discussing Thompson with an unabashed booster a few days ago when the Fred fan worried that his candidate looked sickly. This is a serious question. Paul Tsongas?
Resilience. How will Fred respond to the barrage of pointed scrutiny and animosity awaiting him. Can Fred keep his cool under the intense pressure of an unfriendly mainstream media? We'll see.
Background. What is in Fred's past? With certainty, the opposition will manufacture a series of phony and/or exaggerated scandals and rumors of wrongdoing. If he is clean as a whistle, he will take a tremendous beating. If he is dirty at all, the mainstream media and Democratic war machine will crucify him.
Having said that, we may have a player here. For the first time in a long time, I've got that delicious feeling that we might have a chance.
I have said many times, for a number of reasons, the Democrats own this election: 2008 is theirs to lose. While I stand by that assertion, I am less gloomy today than usual.
Why do I see a slim band of sunlight far off on the dark horizon?
Like the vast majority of Americans, I did not watch the Republican debate in New Hampshire on Wednesday night. However, I did watch Jay Leno.
Fred is in, and he looked good.
Joining the chorus of sour handicappers, I had worried earlier that Fred might have missed his window. But seeing and hearing him over the last few days does much to alleviate my anxiety.
Fred Thompson may not be the perfect conservative--but he does a great job of playing one on TV (much better than the other actors vying for the role).
Is he Ronald Reagan? No. But he is closer than I thought he might be. He is tall and tough and solid. When Jay Leno questioned his Iraq policy on hostile territory (a soundstage in Los Angeles, California), Fred dug in and stood tall and told the truth. No sugar coat. No stuttering. No excuses. Bravo.
Of course, the pundits are not convinced. Reliable fount of conventional wisdom, ABC analyst, George Stephanopoulos, speaking for the pack, opined on Good Morning America Thursday that Fred had three big problems getting in so late:
1. He leaves himself no room for error; he cannot make a mistake (perhaps George was thinking of something like enlisting criminals as important campaign financiers).
2. He has no money.
3. He arrives in a disappointingly second place.
Huh?
All that is completely wrong.
--It is not really very late. No one is following this race yet. While the Democratic canvass has a distinct character already, the GOP contest is still completely formless. To be sure, he is going to make some mistakes--but he will have ample opportunity to overcome them.
--He is millions of dollars ahead of the game with his Leno appearance alone. This guy is funny, media savvy and the camera loves him. Mitt Romney has a lot of money, but he needs every penny of it to market himself. Fred is a softer, easier sell. Last night I found myself laughing and nodding my head a lot. That brand of natural appeal is worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
--Finally, second place is just fine for now. In fact, it may be a blessing. Emerging a few lengths behind the frontrunner in a horse race and charging hard for the wire is a much better narrative than arriving as the presumptive nominee.
But there are some remaining worries:
Health. Today Hugh Hewitt raised the nagging cancer question (here). Ironically, I was discussing Thompson with an unabashed booster a few days ago when the Fred fan worried that his candidate looked sickly. This is a serious question. Paul Tsongas?
Resilience. How will Fred respond to the barrage of pointed scrutiny and animosity awaiting him. Can Fred keep his cool under the intense pressure of an unfriendly mainstream media? We'll see.
Background. What is in Fred's past? With certainty, the opposition will manufacture a series of phony and/or exaggerated scandals and rumors of wrongdoing. If he is clean as a whistle, he will take a tremendous beating. If he is dirty at all, the mainstream media and Democratic war machine will crucify him.
Having said that, we may have a player here. For the first time in a long time, I've got that delicious feeling that we might have a chance.
06/09: Dr. D. James Kennedy Dead
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Powerful and influential pastor, writer, and leader D. James Kennedy is dead at 76. He had been in ill health since late December. Kennedy was an important leader in evangelicalism, a strong and active voice and activist on the Christian Right, and a force in the resurgence of Calvinism in the U.S.
The Sun-Sentinal has a good article on his death here. Link from Layman Online.
Kennedy was almost the only popular radio and TV preacher I would listen to. I did not always agree with him, but he was worth paying attention to.
RIP
The Sun-Sentinal has a good article on his death here. Link from Layman Online.
Kennedy was almost the only popular radio and TV preacher I would listen to. I did not always agree with him, but he was worth paying attention to.
RIP
06/09: Referring to God, continued.
My previous post, musing about referring to God, prompted this response from Loy Mershimer that I think deserves posting. (Any friend of Barth is a friend of mine.)
Great questions.
I believe the discussion distills to this issue: to what degree does one trust divine Revelation over one's personal revelations [and declared self-need in defining the Other]?
Barth framed this issue in the nature of God [unknowable except by self-revelation] and the nature of that divine Revelation as salvific. I've yet to hear a good answer to his objection to renaming God...
Here is Barth’s argument in a nutshell: To arrogate to oneself the ability to subjectively rename the Trinity is to assume that one apprehends the objective essence of the revelation itself, the ‘infinite and spiritual essence’ of the One being named -- a categorical impossibility.
Barth thus reveals the human renaming of divinity [re-imagining, etc.] a failure of human arrogance: mere postmodern idolatry.
All we know of God is what God graciously self-reveals. And that revelation is the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit: relational, integral ontology.
Regarding the pronouns of God and the images of God, James Torrance notes that there are zero feminine metaphors for God in Scripture; there are three similes which are feminine.
Of course, the linguistic value of such distinction is simple: metaphor is used to show something of essence, simile something of function.
Perhaps the whole discussion would be more simple if people understood that God is Spirit -- not male or female -- and that reasoning back onto Him from flawed earthly fathers is faulty 'theology from below,' with self as the arbiter of right [subjective epistemology].
It is deeply regretful that hurtful masculine models have apparently wounded a generation of sensitive sons and daughters from receiving God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit...
George MacDonald, in his sermon "Abba! Father" describes the whole of human misery in the inability of human children to call God Father:
The refusal to look up to God as our Father is the one central wrong in the whole human affair. The inability to do so is our one central misery. Whatever serves to clear any difficulty from the way of the recognition of the Father will more or less undermine every difficulty in life.
He goes on to say that the very key of healing for those wounded by earthly fathers is in the recovery of God as their real Father: Provocative, practical considerations of this whole discussion!
Great thoughts! Thank you...
Loy
p.s. Torrance has a little book entitled Worship, Community & the Triune God of Grace -- it might be worth a read!
Loy's website is here.
Great questions.
I believe the discussion distills to this issue: to what degree does one trust divine Revelation over one's personal revelations [and declared self-need in defining the Other]?
Barth framed this issue in the nature of God [unknowable except by self-revelation] and the nature of that divine Revelation as salvific. I've yet to hear a good answer to his objection to renaming God...
Here is Barth’s argument in a nutshell: To arrogate to oneself the ability to subjectively rename the Trinity is to assume that one apprehends the objective essence of the revelation itself, the ‘infinite and spiritual essence’ of the One being named -- a categorical impossibility.
Barth thus reveals the human renaming of divinity [re-imagining, etc.] a failure of human arrogance: mere postmodern idolatry.
All we know of God is what God graciously self-reveals. And that revelation is the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit: relational, integral ontology.
Regarding the pronouns of God and the images of God, James Torrance notes that there are zero feminine metaphors for God in Scripture; there are three similes which are feminine.
Of course, the linguistic value of such distinction is simple: metaphor is used to show something of essence, simile something of function.
Perhaps the whole discussion would be more simple if people understood that God is Spirit -- not male or female -- and that reasoning back onto Him from flawed earthly fathers is faulty 'theology from below,' with self as the arbiter of right [subjective epistemology].
It is deeply regretful that hurtful masculine models have apparently wounded a generation of sensitive sons and daughters from receiving God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit...
George MacDonald, in his sermon "Abba! Father" describes the whole of human misery in the inability of human children to call God Father:
The refusal to look up to God as our Father is the one central wrong in the whole human affair. The inability to do so is our one central misery. Whatever serves to clear any difficulty from the way of the recognition of the Father will more or less undermine every difficulty in life.
He goes on to say that the very key of healing for those wounded by earthly fathers is in the recovery of God as their real Father: Provocative, practical considerations of this whole discussion!
Great thoughts! Thank you...
Loy
p.s. Torrance has a little book entitled Worship, Community & the Triune God of Grace -- it might be worth a read!
Loy's website is here.
I was trying to reclaim my garden this afternoon from the grass that benefitted from our rains and the trip to Georgia. Our stony southwest Oklahoma soil is remarkably fecund if enough rain falls. Of course, I've added from my compost pile, and purchased manure, to build up the soil. As I was grubbing with my mattock (too rocky for a regular hoe still, maybe someday I'll get all the rocks out) I got to thinking about goddesses and the problem of referring to God.
Interesting, and perhaps not surprising, that so many cultures have an earth goddess, not an earth god. The rain from the sky, compared to semen in many belief-systems, falls upon the waiting earth, like a fertile womb, and new life comes forth. Fertile rolling hills, with some imagination, can remind one of the female form. The earth goddess and the sky god, uniting to bring life.
I am, as regular readers know, a Christian. And a preacher. So I refer to God a lot. Sometimes I use sexless terms: God saves because of God's love; God's actions glorify Godself. Theologically, this terminology is not wrong, because traditionally Christian theology has taught that God is without gender. But, sexless terminology works by not using pronouns; that makes for awkward speech, and sounds too impersonal.
When I use pronouns for God, I use the masculine. God himself, The Lord called and he said. I do so because Scripture usually does so. Perhaps you may say that I am using the inclusive "him" to mean both male and female. OK. But then, why is "she" not as acceptable as "he?" Why not an inclusive "she?" While there is a little bit of feminine imagery for God, overwhelmingly the imagery in the Bible is masculine: Lord (not Lady), King (not Queen), Shepherd (not Shepherdess). And, Jesus, now alive and living in heaven thence to return, is a man. Was the choice of a male incarnation accidental? Could God have taken human form as a woman, so that we worship Ruth the Christ? Speculation on this gets us nowhere. God chose to be incarnate as a man, with a Y chromosome, penis, and testicles. For now, at least, I'll use masculine imagery predominately, and masculine pronouns for God.
This afternoon in the garden I was contemplating another reason. Sky gods tend to be associated with power and action, and perhaps are more easily understood as transcending time and place. Earth goddesses are receivers, active in giving life indeed, but tied into the natural cycles of months and years, returning again and again, more easily understood as immanent, that is, within time and place. If we adopt feminine language for the Christian God, will our conception of God be altered, more tied up in Creation? I don't know.
Interesting, and perhaps not surprising, that so many cultures have an earth goddess, not an earth god. The rain from the sky, compared to semen in many belief-systems, falls upon the waiting earth, like a fertile womb, and new life comes forth. Fertile rolling hills, with some imagination, can remind one of the female form. The earth goddess and the sky god, uniting to bring life.
I am, as regular readers know, a Christian. And a preacher. So I refer to God a lot. Sometimes I use sexless terms: God saves because of God's love; God's actions glorify Godself. Theologically, this terminology is not wrong, because traditionally Christian theology has taught that God is without gender. But, sexless terminology works by not using pronouns; that makes for awkward speech, and sounds too impersonal.
When I use pronouns for God, I use the masculine. God himself, The Lord called and he said. I do so because Scripture usually does so. Perhaps you may say that I am using the inclusive "him" to mean both male and female. OK. But then, why is "she" not as acceptable as "he?" Why not an inclusive "she?" While there is a little bit of feminine imagery for God, overwhelmingly the imagery in the Bible is masculine: Lord (not Lady), King (not Queen), Shepherd (not Shepherdess). And, Jesus, now alive and living in heaven thence to return, is a man. Was the choice of a male incarnation accidental? Could God have taken human form as a woman, so that we worship Ruth the Christ? Speculation on this gets us nowhere. God chose to be incarnate as a man, with a Y chromosome, penis, and testicles. For now, at least, I'll use masculine imagery predominately, and masculine pronouns for God.
This afternoon in the garden I was contemplating another reason. Sky gods tend to be associated with power and action, and perhaps are more easily understood as transcending time and place. Earth goddesses are receivers, active in giving life indeed, but tied into the natural cycles of months and years, returning again and again, more easily understood as immanent, that is, within time and place. If we adopt feminine language for the Christian God, will our conception of God be altered, more tied up in Creation? I don't know.
