Q Discovered, and It Isn't What We Thought

We thank gentle reader Matt for drawing our attention to something not to be missed.

A singular moment in biblical studies has been reached. Q has been discovered.

And it's not what we thought it was. SWNID, of course, thought that Q, the hypothetical source shared by Matthew and Luke in addition to Mark, was a figment of the scholarly imagination. But now it's for real.

But it isn't an ancient papyrus document. It's a cell phone with a full keyboard. Motorola offers it to the public. They say:

"Prepare to be illuminated ... by a very enlightening device."

Already a Heretic on Foreknowledge, Boyd Takes a Beating on Apolitical Christianity

We thank gentle reader Dynitta for drawing our SWNIDish attention to an article detailing the recent departure of about 1000 people (or 20% of attendance) from the Woodland Hills Church of Maplewood, Minnesota, where Greg Boyd preaches.

Boyd is famous for his adherence to "openness theology," the notion that God preserves human freedom by limiting his knowledge of the future. That position has made him the object of scorn for many in the Reformed tradition (and the object of praise for many in the anti-Calvinist Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement).

But now he has taken a step too far. He has questioned the justification for the alliance between evangelical churches and the Republican Party, yea, even the expression of American nationalism as part of the worship of evangelical churches.

SWNID applauds Boyd's position. Loudly, conservatively and patriotically.

If this surprises gentle readers who have observed our enthusiastic support for things Republican and American, note well what we say here. Our faith defines the values that we support politically, but not the means. We are not politically conservative merely because we are theologically conservative. We are generally politically conservative because we think political conservatism, as usually defined these days, has better historical and social-scientific support as a political philosophy that brings decent order to human societies. So our theologically conservative values are supported best by political conservatism, we believe.

But we don't think that a person has to be a Christian to figure out that political conservatism is the best available political alternative. Divine enlightenment is not necessary to perceive the general patterns of human history and social behavior. It's garden-variety, secular wisdom. As Boyd himself is quoted in the article:

I don’t think there’s a particular angle we have on society that others lack. All good, decent people want good and order and justice. Just don’t slap the label "Christian" on it.

Further we also adhere to a Christian tradition that insists on liberty in matters of Christian opinion and has always put political issues in that category. Further, we insist that the church embrace people of all nationalities, and so find the expression of American nationalism to be problematic in Christian worship, except as a prayer of thanksgiving or supplication for much-needed divine blessing that is not the exclusive right of America.

So Christians, like us, should be involved in politics. And their faith should inform their involvement. But they shouldn't confuse their political convictions with their faith.

So we're right there with Greg Boyd.

The Music That Makes SWNID Dance

SWNID was born, as we like to say, without a groove thing. But the music video linked here by the helpful folks at Powerline, the Right Brothers performing their one and only hit, the partisan celebration "Bush Was Right," sends us into a frenzy of head-banging, theo-conservative dancing every time we replay it, which has been often.

We give the band special recognition for its use of a playground taunt as a guitar hook.

Gentle readers will no doubt be glad that they can view the video but not our reaction to it.

The SWNID Poll: In a Hypothetical Election ...

Our previous post prompts us to ask our gentle readers the same question posed to us this morning by Daughter of SWNID while driving to worship services:

In a hypothetical presidential election in which the only candidates were (a) William Jefferson Clinton; (b) Hillary Rodham Clinton, for whom would you vote?

Please post your choice and any rationale for it in the comments. While we do not discourage creativity in forming alternatives (going to Canada, fomenting revolution, ritual suicide, etc.), we are interested in your choices as confined to these two Arkansan alternatives.

Or are they New Yorkers now?

Why Giuliani, You Ask?

For those who wonder the origins of our SWNIDish enthusiasm for the presidential candidacy of Rudy Giuliani, we note again that it is largely the product of our conviction that of the three most likely winners of the 2008 election, he is far the preferable.

Our preference is illustrated by the NY Times's recent revelation that the other two engaged each other in a vodka-drinking contest while on a senatorial junket to Estonia two years ago.

We prefer our presidents neither stirred nor shaken, thank you very much.

Update: And for good measure, columnist Salena Zito in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review poses the most relevant political question: "Rudy: Hero of Our Age?" and notes that (a) Gallup has Rudy as the number one choice of 75% of Republican voters; (b) significant conservative Republican leaders see Giuliani as readily electable (e.g., Barry Winn, "If the primary were held today, Rudy would be out in front just on leadership. ... The house is on fire and we are sorely lacking firemen -- Giuliani would fill that role").

Trade Talks Breakdown Means the Poor Stay Poor

Over at National Journal economics writer Clive Crook (motto: "I am not a crook!") offers a timely exposition of exactly why the breakdown of the latest round of world trade talks is terrible news for the world's poor. In sum, this is Economics 101 again: tariffs and subsidies prevent everyone on both sides of a nation's borders from working at maximum efficiency. That's bad news for all, but especially those who are not well off.

More specifically, the problem is this. Developed nations like the United States and the European Union have large agricultural industries. They subsidize them with government payments while protecting them with tariffs on imports. That means that (a) domestic farms work at less than full efficiency, as they lack the incentives to be more efficient or simply to close down because efficiency is impossible; (b) foreign producers with the ability to produce more cheaply can't sell in the subsidized, tariff-protected markets and so lack the incentive to produce efficiently.

The foreign producers are mostly in developing countries of the South (Africa, Latin America, South and Southeast Asia) where climate, soil and labor supply can produce food more efficiently than in the North. Those countries' economic development would be greatly enhanced by free access to the huge markets of the industrialized countries. Access to markets would spur the development of more efficient means of production in those countries, giving their own people a rising standard of living both through cheaper domestic production and through the income gained by selling abroad.

Imagine that farmers in the Philippines, Kenya and Uruguay had free access to markets in the United States, Japan and the European Union. They would get hard currency for crops that they previously could grow but not sell. With that currency, they could upgrade the efficiency of their farms with better machines, fertilizers, and chemicals (also more environmentally friendly, BTW). With upgraded efficiency, more income flows to these farmers, freeing them from the need to send their children into the fields and giving them the means to build schools and hire teachers, or to build hospitals and hire doctors. Likewise, increased efficiency lowers the cost of food for domestic customers, improving local nutrition. Soon a generation arises that is literate, nourished and healthy. If this sounds to you like what happened on the American frontier thanks to far-reaching policies like the Homestead Act, then you get the idea.

But this stunningly positive scenario isn't happening because no one wants to be the first to cut subsidies and tariffs, even though the greater efficiency and lower prices would benefit the country that did the cutting as well as the countries with which that country would trade. Everyone fears (a) the short-term dislocations to their own economies that free trade brings; (b) the use of the issue by the opposition party (whichever party is in opposition in whatever country) in the next election.

We got close to making a move on this a few years ago when Richard Lugar and some other senators and congressmen from Midwestern states proposed a schedule to eliminate agricultural subsidies. The proposal died. So did the hopes of a billion of the world's poor.

N.B. that free trade doesn't equal the Return of Jesus Christ. We're not prophesying a free-market utopia. But we'd like to see informed self-interest and human decency come together with a bit of political courage to make a move on this issue, even if it's a unilateral move by a single country. Say, the United States?

Write your congressman and senator.

The Latest on Homosexuality and Christianity

Readers of this blog are no doubt aware that faculty and staff at Christian colleges, seminaries, universities, institutes, and the like are sinners in the same proportion as the general Christian population. As a long-time habitue of institutions of Christian higher education, SWNID knows of no such institution that has not been touched by sexual scandal.

So it is in one sense completely unremarkable that Professor John Rumple's resignation from Johnson Bible College was followed by his public announcement that he is an active homosexual, having lived secretly with his same-sex lover while teaching at JBC.

What is more remarkable, perhaps, is that Rumple has launched a web-based campaign to challenge the understanding of Christian ethics that forbids same-sex sexual expression. We call this remarkable because we know of no adulterer, fornicator, pedophile or pornography-consumer who has taken similar steps to challenge Christian sexual ethics. In the larger respect, Mormonism might be seen as a polyamorous challenge, but most analysts would see all that as belonging on the fringes, including most contemporary Mormons. But of course, Rumple is hardly the first to launch such a quest (more on that below). So maybe this isn't remarkable either.

There is so much that can be said on this subject, we hesitate even to raise it at all. So, in our limited time that we are stealing from more pressing tasks, we make only these observations.

One: Like most who advocate the moral acceptability of homosexual practice, Rumple's argument largely hinges on the notion that the expression of individual identity or personhood demands acting on one's sexual impulses, especially same-sex attraction. SWNID objects to this move. Why do we consider "homosexual" to be a category of personal identity but not, say, "greedy person"? We expect that the truth of the gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit will compel and enable us to restrain our greed. But the argument is that the same should not apply to homosexual impulses, which belong to something of the essence of a person. To oversimplify, some would probably say, "I experience greed, but I am gay." We challenge the validity of that distinction.

In fact, we'll get confessional with this challenge. SWNID has frequent, strong impulses to be bitter and rude. We will even say that bitterness and rudeness are of the very essence of our being, something that we've always experienced and can't seem to shake. We don't just have bitterness and rudeness, we are bitter and rude. We wouldn't be who we are without bitterness and rudeness. But the cross of Christ compels us to struggle against that aspect of ourselves, to "deny" ourselves, as the Lord's phrase can be translated, to "buffet" our "body," as the apostle's phrase can be translated, in favor of something closer to the nature of the God in whose image we were created and are being recreated. That this struggle is in small part on display for all the world in this blog is an irony that we note in passing.

So how is that of a different category than being sexually attracted to members of the same sex?
Two: We are puzzled that more than 30 years after the rise of the gay rights movement, Rumple or anyone else would believe that he had something to add to the discussion of pro-gay biblical interpretation by starting a web site. We've been alive and alert for the entirety of this "debate" (more on that below), and pro-gay exegetes and theologians have been rephrasing and recapitulating the same tendentious arguments since the 1970s. Perhaps Rumple believes that as a refugee from it, he has a special voice on the subject for the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. But the truth is, opinion-shapers in the SCRM listen to folks outside the SCRM too. So quite apart from the merits of his cause, we find Rumple's efforts to be superfluous.

Three: We insist that the call for an opening of dialogue on this issue among the Christian churches and churches of Christ reflects a completely inadequate assessment of the "dialogue" or "debate" in the mainline Protestant denominations that have been so engaged for years. There is no discussion in those contexts that suggest one can make a pro-homosexual theological case without first assuming that human experience as interpreted in the present has a preeminent role in critiquing biblical theology rather than the other way around. So the debate is really between those who would adhere to biblical teaching despite the Zeitgeist and those who would use the Zeitgeist to critique biblical teaching. The lines are drawn on theological method, not specific theological argumentation based on a shared method. So there's no meaningful dialogue or debate on the homosexual issue, just a lot of politicking between factions of denominations that have in reality been split for generations on what it means to believe the gospel. For those who want an example, see the most recent Christianity Today for its coverage of what's happening among Episcopalians.

Four: Drawing from Rumple's statements and those of a former student who in a letter accompanying a gift copy of her self-published, coming-out-of-the-closet memoir mistakenly thanked SWNID for caring more for how students think that what they think (we care for both equally, as careful thought about thought should suggest), we object to an assumption in the thinking of both, an assumption shared by many who are not gay and who pursue ministry. The assumption is this: that a "calling" to ministry is somehow a self-identified entitlement. In the case of Rumple and the former student, this thinking is reflected in the notion that one should be free to be in a position of professional Christian leadership and act without restraint on same-sex attraction.

Rumple reflects this mentality with statements like this (all quoted from his open letter to JBC):

• I have no doubt that God called me to the ministry of the Word (which the church confirmed by my ordination).
• No venue exists within our church tradition where I could engage in meaningful dialogue on homosexuality and not forfeit my vocation; I therefore felt unable to speak openly with the church (or with my colleagues) and still follow my calling.
• In fact, I have lived "in the closet" all my life in the church simply to survive and minister to it.

We will not comment on the rationalizations in these statements. We will note, however, that we have heard this same notion of entitlement from (a) a minister who committed multiple acts of adultery with multiple partners and justified his actions by appealing to the fruit of his ministry (big congregations) and his right to have some personal pleasure; (b) a student of ministry who insist that his talents, commitment and calling justified cheating on exams and plagiarizing book reviews; (c) a pastor who insisted that his calling and long tenure entitled him to pry into others' personal lives, even those outside his flock, exempt from the charge of gossip; (d) a student of ministry who insisted that his calling justified his ignoring his financial obligations.

We don't here assert that the moral standards of Christian leadership should be high. They should be, but we are making another point. We assert first that all leaders are sinners. But what we assert emphatically is that the nature of Christian leadership--no, ordinary Christian discipleship--is that it is a cross-shaped, towel-and-basin-carrying, forced march through the desert. It's a frustrating, humiliating, irritating slog that carries no emoluments except the title "unworthy servant." Finding some kind of church-enforced disconnect between one's "calling" and one's self means, again, giving up oneself, if one is serious about that self-proclaimed calling. And if you can't find the joy in that, read Philippians 2:5-11 until you can.

Fifth: When Rumple accuses JBC of approaching the homosexual issue with bad exegesis uninformed by scholarship, he's either uninformed or disingenuous. Yes, a number of exegetical and systematic theologians have offered pro-gay positions. But they represent theological scholarship as a whole about as much as Robert Funk's Jesus Seminar did. JBC knows this, and they've drawn conclusions different from Rumple's. Rumple is being unfairly accusatory when he implies otherwise.

For those who would like to start digesting the kind of scholarship that Rumple is not acknowledging, we recommend fellow Neutestamentler Robert Gagnon, professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, who has done yeoman's work in exegesis, theology and debate on the subject of homosexuality. And best of all, in addition to excellent books and articles he's provided a terrific web site chock full of stuff. We give him props for fine work that frees the rest of us for other work.

Sixth: Rumple finds his treatment at JBC to have been abusive and hateful. But this begs the real question in the same passive-aggressive manner of the substance addict who tells his enabler that if she loved him, she would give him the money he needed for drugs or booze. What if homosexual practice really is destructive to the persons involved (in ways that we both understand--or did once--and don't yet understand)? What if JBC is right that homosexual practice is not according to God's purpose for human sexuality? Is it love to let the person attracted to members of the same sex act on those impulses with moral endorsement if so to act is destructive?

We know a lot of folks at JBC. They're all sinners. But it's a crime to label an exceptionally gentle, humble, self-giving bunch of people as hateful and abusive.

On Israel Vs. Hezbollah: SWNID Defers to Taranto

Gentle readers waiting for our SWNIDish response to the terrible conflict in southern Lebanon between Israel and Hezbollah can now have limited satisfaction.

First, we affirm the necessity of Israel taking decisive action to defend its civilian population from Hezbollah's rockets and to respond to the unprovoked abduction of its soldiers. War is always at least heck, but sometimes it's a lesser heck than letting a whole nation of people be overrun by bad guys.

Second, we grieve the considerable collateral damage that warfare creates, especially when one side uses civilians and UN "peacekeepers" as crude shields for propaganda advantage. In the best of wars, the innocent suffer, and it's not best when one side deliberately holes up in crowded urban neighborhoods so that they can represent the other side's actions as targeting of civilians. We wish that there was as much grief for Hezbollah's deliberate targeting of civilians with their dumb rockets, for which they celebrate almost hourly, as there is for Israel's collateral damage (admittedly a term that minimizes the real human effect) to civilians with their smart weapons, for which they apologize (admittedly words only) almost daily. Of course, the double standard that assumes the Islamist side are savages who can't be held to moral account and so all blame belongs to Israel and America is so embedded into the discourse on this issue, one can hardly expect otherwise.

Third, we note that this series of events has exposed again the utter fecklessness of the UN and the current Democrat Party leadership on such matters. On this we defer to the ever-clever James Taranto (see his first two entries), who rightly skewers the Ds' fake umbrage at Iraqi President al-Maliki's tepid objection to Israeli actions and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's patently false accusation that Israeli forces were deliberately targeting UN observers.

Update: Not suprisingly, no one has expressed all this better than psychiatrist and pundit Charles Krauthammer. A quotation:

The perversity of today's international outcry lies in the fact that there is indeed a disproportion in this war, a radical moral asymmetry between Hezbollah and Israel: Hezbollah is deliberately trying to create civilian casualties on both sides while Israel is deliberately trying to minimize civilian casualties, also on both sides.

In perhaps the most blatant terror campaign from the air since the London blitz, Hezbollah is raining rockets on Israeli cities and villages. These rockets are packed with ball bearings that can penetrate automobiles and shred human flesh. They are meant to kill and maim. And they do.

But it is a dual campaign. Israeli innocents must die in order for Israel to be terrorized. But Lebanese innocents must also die in order for Israel to be demonized, which is why Hezbollah hides its fighters, its rockets, its launchers, its entire infrastructure among civilians. Creating human shields is a war crime. It is also a Hezbollah specialty.

Sculptor Renders Hillary for the Ages

We copy this item from Kathryn Jean Lopez at National Review Online's indispensable blog, "The Corner." For some mysterious reason, probably an action of the Massive Left-Wing Conspiracy, we can't get the relevant image to upload, so follow the link to see what's discussed. The press release quoted below hardly needs elaboration, though happy to do the superfluous, we will offer brief elaboration.

Senator Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Bust To Be Unveiled at the Museum of Sex

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE- New York, NY- July, 26 2006—- A presidential bust of Hillary Clinton is set to be unveiled at the Museum of Sex on August 9, 2006 at 10 am. Accentuating her sexual power and bolstered by the presidential seal, The Presidential Bust of Hillary Rodham Clinton: The First Woman President of the United States of America will be officially open for public viewing on August 9 for a limited six week run.

Artist Daniel Edwards describes this new sculpture as capturing Clinton “with her head held high, a youthful spirit and a face matured by wisdom. Presented in a low cut gown, her cleavage is on display prominently portraying sexual power which some people still consider too threatening.”...

...Edwards’ inspiration for the piece was derived from actress Sharon Stone’s controversial quote earlier in the year about challenges that would most likely be encountered should the Junior Senator from New York run on the ’08 ticket. “I think Hillary Clinton is fantastic,” Stone said. “But I think it is too soon for her to run. This may sound odd but a woman should be past her sexuality when she runs. Hillary still has sexual power and I don’t think people will accept that. It’s too threatening.”

“Displaying a sculpture to encourage discourse about the sexual power debate surrounding the possibility of a Hillary Clinton presidency is very much in line with our mission as a museum,” noted Daniel Gluck, Executive Director. “We are wholly dedicated to the exploration of the history, evolution and cultural significance of human sexuality. Historically, leaders are often expected to possess an exceptional amount of virility or fertility with displays of that sexual power often tied to their success. The artist’s portrayal of Hillary Clinton as a president who also happens to be a sexual being conveys the message that a woman need not squelch her sexuality in order to succeed as leader of the free world.”

Political opponents of Senator Clinton should thank the forward-thinking Edwards and Gluck for providing a priceless resource for her defeat in 2008. Not since the Greek myth of the Amazons has a more frightening image of female power been rendered. We applaud Edwards for taking inspiration from social and artistic sage Sharon Stone and Gluck for faithfully following the crucial mission of his distinguished museum.

Entertainment Worlds Collide: Kiefer to Appear on The Simpsons

What happens when the star of SWNID's favorite drama appears as a guest voice on SWNID's favorite comedy? We'll find out whether the whole is more or less than the sum of the parts when Kiefer Sutherland (motto: "Intimidating when sober") voices a belligerent army colonel when Homer is mistakenly drafted into the army in an upcoming episode of The Simpsons (motto: "Not as funny as we used to be, but still funnier than anything else").

We hope for more but bet on less.

Put Your Shirt Back On: A Good Case for Government Action

Britain's Daily Mail reports that local governments in the UK are considering ordinances to forbid men going shirtless in public.

We affirm this thoughtful and timely effort to spare the public the sight of bare, sweaty, often hairy skin stretched over a male chest and gut--whether flabby, flaccid or fit--and to spare the skin's owner the shame of public ridicule and potentially deadly UV radiation exposure. Despite our broad distaste for government intervention in daily human affairs, we find this an entirely sensible and appropriate measure.

The fact is that (a) no man's bare chest is really attractive to anyone but the man himself; (b) no one is really more comfortable bare-chested, as light, comfortable, ventilated fabrics are cheap and common in shirts these days. So with the exception of the beach or pool (and we applaud the commercial distribution of stretchy, quick-drying shirts for men to wear in the water), there is no appropriate place for a man to be seen without his shirt.

We were recently introduced to the curious cable-television program What Not to Wear. We believe that an episode should be dedicated to this very topic, pardoning the double negative: "What Not to Wear: No Shirt."

Colson on "Religious Left" Conference: Nothing Done by People Who Tolerate Anything but Conviction

Chuck Colson's BreakPoint offers a superb analysis of the just-concluded Spiritual Activism Conference in DC, the much balleyhooed move by the left to capture a religious tone and so recapture some political power. We tip the SWNID cap to Mrs. SWNID for pointing us to it.

Here are a couple of Colson & Company's bon mots:

Ironically for a group that prides itself on tolerance, it seems the only thing the conference could agree on was its opposition to the “religious right.” But frustrating as it was for them, the group had to concede that the “religious right” is a lot better at getting things done. Beliefnet suggests this was because “religious conservatives are willing to argue there is one correct view on policy issues.” . . .

Tony Campolo . . . tried to explain at this conference the necessity of following Scripture. But one participant retorted, “I thought this was a spiritual progressives’ conference. I don’t want to play the game of ‘the Bible says this or that,’ or that we get validation from something other than ourselves.”

There you have it. Validation from ourselves simply means you make up your own god. We Christians may interpret the Bible differently; we may apply it to life differently; we may have arguments over exegesis. But the Bible has to be the ultimate authority. Otherwise we end up worshiping the goddess of tolerance and believing that tolerance takes precedence over truth.

Expect to hear something SWNIDishly related to this crucial point in an upcoming post.

Former CCU President Buys Thoroughbred Track

Gentle readers will be interested to learn that Ron Geary, Cincinnati Christian University President in the late 1980s, is completing purchase of a small horse-racing venue, Ellis Park, in the Commonwealth of Kentucky (motto: "With bourbon, tobacco and racehorses, we cover all the vices").

SWNID firmly opposes all forms of gambling, which we see as the financial exploitation of the inability to do math by appealing to greed. We will not even enter a contest if it involves the wager of a first-class stamp (sorry, Publishers' Clearing House, but that means you). We do not consider the operation of a gambling emporium to be a suitable business venture for a person committed to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

But unlike Mr. Geary, we are neither a businessman (that's obvious) nor a citizen of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, where the culture of horseracing has a storied history. Further, we stipulate that parimutuel betting, like that on a horse track, at least offers the prospect of a winning margin over time to those whose expertise in the contest is well above average. In this respect it is different from casino gambling or state lotteries, which assure that over time everyone loses but the house.

Nevertheless, the offer of the horse track is still financial gain without labor or thrift, an unholy fantasy. And a small percentage of the human population, comprising a significant number of people, are especially susceptible to the allure of gambling, becoming "addicted" to the thrill of the wager to the point of economic and social ruin.

So we wish Mr. Geary good luck in his venture and pray for God's protection for any who would patronize his establishment. That seems appropriate to us.

Samuelson Does Econ 101 on Oil Prices

For those who still wonder why gas costs 75 cents per quart (doesn't that sound better than $3 per gallon?) yet people keep buying it, media economist Robert Samuelson provides an apt explanation.

More to the point Samuelson analyzes the possibility that oil prices are inflated beyond their economic value, that we have an oil "bubble." Answer: maybe, but probably not a big one, and in any case, conservation and the development new resources are more sensible than hoping for prices to come down.

NRO: Technology, Economics, Mild Government Incentives Improve Environment

We thank National Review Online's editors for a trenchant piece on our ever improving environment. That's right: it's improving. The last three years show the lowest rate of ozone and particulate pollution in the United States since the air was first monitored in the 1960s. More cars are on the road than ever before, but emissions from cars are falling at a rate of 8% per year. The EPA predicts that in 20 years, auto emissions will be 80% lower than they are today.

The reasons for this are clear: improvements in technology make for cleaner operations. What government can do to encourage this trend is to enhance the inherent economic incentives to invest capital in cleaner technology.

What the environmental movement could do is cooperate with such moves. But it's committed to the idea that industry and business are always the problem and stringent regulations are always the solution.

We say to members of the environmentalist movement, Take a deep breath.

Barnes on Bush Versus Reagan: History or Mythology

We thank tireless gentle reader JB in CA for pointing us to a timely article by political sage Fred Barnes noting the revision of Reagan's legacy currently afoot.

What Barnes details is that the Reagan of history is very different from the Reagan to whom Dubya is unfavorably compared by Democrats (motto: "Speak no ill of the dead, nothing but ill of Bush"). E.g., the Reagan of actual history was a military hardliner; the Reagan of Democrat mythology was a multinational moderate.

Some "conservative" Republicans (motto: "No matter how conservative you are, I am more conservative") have done the same thing, of course. E.g. the Reagan of actual history agreed to massive federal spending increases; the Reagan of "conservative" mythology cut federal spending massively.

Politicians, it seems, will always hearken to a golden era of the past when all was right with the republic and the world. But they always do so to emphasize how awful things are right now with the other guy in the power and how much better things would be with themselves in power.* This is why actual history is so important: it's the antidote to political science ("history without facts"). In actual history, things have always been awful, making the present look not so terrible.

_____________
E.g., John Kerry in Detroit the other day, commenting on Israel's incursions into Lebanon to stop Hezbollah: "If I was President, this wouldn't have happened."

Boo Cheesy Biblical Theatrical Production! Hooray Bible!

Inspired by (a) a week's vacation that gave us cable TV access to view Red Stripe Beer commercials on ESPN; (b) our return trip from the Outer Banks to Cincinnati via the Smokey Mountains, we begin what may become a recurring feature: a shameless imitation of the delightful Red Stripe commercials in which we boo something utterly tasteless done in the name of Christianity so that we can by contrast cheer the antidote to such hooey, namely, the sacred canon of Christian Scripture.

Our reference point for tastelessness is drawn from that Great Mecca of the Garish,* that giant neon-and-plastic scar on the southern stretch of the Appalachian Mountains, Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge. Having stopped for a much needed sandwich near the northern end of the Pigeon Forge strip, we learned from Son of SWNID's discovery of a brochure about Pigeon Forge's amazing Miracle Theater. The musical stage production The Miracle includes depiction of creation (nudity avoided with anachronistic leaf-colored clothing), a battle between angels of good and evil (complete with plastic armor and big, fluffy wings), and lots of Jesus episodes.

Now, we are all for biblical drama. And we aren't in a position to condemn anyone for insincerity. But we note that the folks who produce this have a number of shows on the Pigeon Forge Strip. One might conclude that the objective is as much to appeal commercially to the religious sensibilities of the Bible-Belt patrons of Pigeon Forge as to propagate the Christian message.

But where the propagation of the gospel is concerned, motives are secondary, after all. And we are all for the strategic use of drama to convey the Christian message. We simply doubt that a commercial production can have the same impact as a production done by nonprofessional Christians in a church setting, where church members are around to provide context, interpretation, and encouragement to the people whom they have themselves invited to the production, or where the production is but a part of a many-faceted program of communication. Further, we somehow doubt that anyone who wasn't already pretty interested in things Christian would attend The Miracle while vacationing in Pigeon Forge.

But here's what really bugs us. The gospel story is better in its unadorned form in the book than it is even in a tasteful stage production, and this isn't a tasteful stage production. We insist that the unadorned biblical text creates way, way better pictures in our heads than what Fee/Hedrick Family Entertainment can produce nine times a week near Dollywood.

So we say, Boo Cheesy Biblical Theatrical Production! Hooray Bible!

And remember to read responsibly.

_____________
*We also nominate Orlando, Florida and Las Vegas, Nevada for this designation.

New SWNID Hotel Recommendation

The SWNIDs having returned from a delightful week of summer vacation, we are happy to add to our growing list of hotel recommendations. This one is not for cheap, clean accommodations in an urban area but cheap, clean accommodations in a seasonal beach resort area.

What does the typical beachgoing family want most from the place where they stay while visiting the beach? Is a large, attractively furnished room the most important factor? Are the number of services offered by the facility important? How about the overall sense of style? None of that matters as much as one thing: easy access to a good beach.

And for that, the Cavalier Motel in Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina, in the heart of the Outer Banks, offers the maximum beach access for a minimum price.

The Cavalier is a throwback: a fifties-vintage motor court built right on the beach, its beachfront building severing the line of dunes now protected by various sensible codes and regulations. The rooms are simple and small. They bespeak the time of their construction, sporting knotty pine paneling on the walls and black and white tile in the tiny bathrooms. But they've got sufficient modernity as well: cable TV, a 12-cubic-foot refrigerator, and a microwave oven. And in the center of the motor court is a new swimming pool of decent size, a children's play area, and a seniors play area (shuffleboard court).

But here's the deal: no one in the place is more than 100 feet from the beach. And in the peak season, you pay as little as $88 a night for a room.

Mrs. SWNID overheard one patron talking to some others on the beach. The upshot of his conversation was this: having vacationed on the Outer Banks for eighteen years, and having stayed at condos, upscale rentals, and nicer hotels, they prefer the Cavalier.

With narrower experience, so do the SWNIDs. The staff was friendly and efficient, the other patrons, largely from Virginia and North Carolina, friendly and quiet, and the location better than anything else available. We enjoyed a week of beachfront bliss.

While on the beach, are you hungry? At the Cavalier, you can walk back to your room in about 90 seconds and make a sandwich from the stock in your own fridge. While on the beach, did you finish your book? At the Cavalier, you can walk back to your room in about 90 seconds and get another book. While on the beach, do you need to retreat from the sun's burning rays? At the Cavalier, you can walk back to your room in about 90 seconds and get a cover-up.

Some day, the owners will get tired of maintaining the place and will sell to the developers who are doubtless making offers all the time (the place is surrounded by upscale properties). Or a big hurricane or nor'easter will howl through and wash away all the red brick and knotty pine. So book this one while you can.

From the SWNID Files: Actual Student Bloopers

The SWNID domestic unit soon will be leaving Our Fair City for a one-week holiday at an Undisclosed Destination, so new posts will be infrequent to nonexistent for awhile. To pacify our demanding but gentle readers, we offer this from the SWNID Files: our own compendium of amazing statements from student papers. Most are from papers submitted to our SWNIDish self; some were shared with us by academic colleagues.

"Paul surely heard the whaling Jewish teachers screaming about the Day of the Lord."

A title from a student paper on Isaiah 14:12-15 (which begins, "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning"): "I've Fallen and I Can't Get Up"

"Hosea was a gentile and loving man."

"Also in the Court of the Priest was a laver of bras which was supported by twelve colossal lions."

"Christ has undertaken men's responsibility. He has relieved them of their accountability. He has borne their quilt."

"Because the main source of communication in the first century that expanded some distance was by letter, it is not out of the realm of probability that Paul's letters were actually his and that the circulation of those letters between churches probably took some time. The time involved in copulation of these letters have led many to believe that others have written under Paul's name."

"For the most part the big events in both the OT & NT go in a specific order."

"Jude is recognizing a problem within the church and he is trying to nip it in the butt."

"Included in sharing the gospel [Paul] shoots a clear theme that proclaims a more pointed massage to the Romans . . . ."

"The key verb in John is 'believe' and requires both knowledge and violation."

"[Christ] first laid out John's character by asking the crowd why they went to see him in the dessert."

"[Jesus] began by asking the people what it was they expected to see when they went into the dessert."

In Nahum 2:4, "I think he was describing what it looked like when the charities came in and they were ready for war."

"About AD 268 Farmilian , bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia, quoted that Peter excreted heretics and warned against them."

"The first section of [Matthew] chapter thirteen, the parable of the sewer, is a foretelling of what will happen to the people who hear the word preached."

Among the miracles of Jesus in the Gospel of John is "the razing of Lazarus."

"Annas held the potion of high priest in the Sanhedrin."

"The Bible, that is the answer. It is God's reviled, inspired word for the human race."

"The reason for this [trials] is because as Christians we are seen as a threat to satin and his plans."

"There is no crown without a Calgary, no glory with a Gethsemane."

"Since my area of giftedness is in the area of exhalation and teaching, my natural instinct seems to lean toward preaching ideas for communicating this."

Breaking News: Emergency Vehicles at Christ's Church Mason

Driving from a local restaurant to pick up our daughter and her friends at King's Island this evening, SWNID and Mrs. SWNID were detoured by a disturbing sight: Western Row Road was blocked for a fire hose stretched to the building of Christ's Church Mason, where several fire trucks and rescue vehicles were visible around the parking lot.

We've searched local news sources for information but have none. We invite our crack network of gentle readers to post any information they have as comments.

We pray that damage is slight and injuries are none.