Why do I write what I do? If there is a common thread that runs through all of my books, it is my belief that the Gospels passed on, with careful accuracy, the teachings and the life story of Jesus of Nazareth. Because I believe the Gospels, I therefore believe that Jesus - Yeshua, the simple Galilean carpenter born during the reign of Augustus a little over two thousand years ago - truly was the Son of God, a divine being come into the world to bring hope and salvation to mankind. I believe in His teachings, and I believe the miracles he performed really happened as described. I believe the rest of the New Testament was written by His disciples as part of their commission to "bind and loose," to lay down the doctrines and practices, based on the teachings of Jesus Himself, that would be binding upon Christians until the day when He returns for His church.
Some of my atheist friends like to poke fun at my convictions, mocking my "blind faith" in a book that was written by men some two thousand years ago. How can I be sure that these documents are true, first of all? How can I be confident that the text we have today is even close to the original wording of these documents when they have been copied by hand again and again and again for centuries? Why don't I accept the other Gospels - the books attributed to Thomas, Judas, Peter, and others that didn't make it into the New Testament? I get asked a lot of questions all the time, and I respond to them regularly in the various social media forums that I belong to. But I thought that I might devote tonight's post to some very basic explanations.
Why do I believe the Gospels are true? Simple. First of all, they were written earlier than any other Christian writings except a few of Paul's letters. Every single Gospel was written within the First Century, according to all but a few radical scholars. At the latest, that puts them within seventy years of the events they chronicle. However, most scholars would say that the three Synoptic Gospels - Matthew, Mark, and Luke - were completed by around 70 AD. I think a very convincing case can be made that they were written a decade earlier, in the early 60's. So that puts them within thirty to forty years of the events they chronicle. Consider that the biographies of the Roman emperors of the First Century that modern historians rely on were actually written a hundred years or more after those men lived, and that the stories of Buddha's life were not written down for nearly three hundred years, that's a negligible period of time. Many of the participants in the events would have still been alive when the Gospels were written, and if you go by the traditional authorship (I have yet to see any convincing reason to reject those claims) assigned to the Gospels, two of them were written by eyewitnesses, one by a close associate of Simon Peter, and finally, one by a Greek doctor who clearly said that he got his information from those "who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and servants of the Word." Secondly, the historical details contained within the Gospels in every case match up to the historical setting in which the events occurred. Luke's Gospel in particular lists the names of numerous local authorities and officials, and in every case he uses the correct name and title for the correct person at the correct time and place. John lists details of the Temple rituals, the geography of Jerusalem, and Jewish customs that a later writer would have had no way of knowing. Accuracy in small details is a reliable companion to accuracy in major claims. Third, while there are minor variations in the events chronicled in the Gospels, on the central teachings of Jesus and the chronology of his life, they are in full agreement - a hallmark of a true account. The variations that do occur are a natural result of an event being recalled from more than one perspective, not "contradictions" as they are often touted to be.
How can we be confident of our current text? After all, the Gospels were hand copied by scribes for many centuries. Didn't they make mistakes? The short answer is, of course they did. However, the number of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament is so large (over seven thousand!), and the gap between the time the originals were written and the date of the earliest copies we have is so small, that it is a very simple matter for textual scholars to weed out the errors that have crept in. For example, Homer's Odyssey is the second place finisher for number of manuscripts, with around five hundred or so. But the earliest fragment of Homer dates to around 100 AD, nine centuries after he wrote, and the earliest complete copy is from around 800 AD. That's a gap of some sixteen hundred years! We have two complete copies of the New Testament that date to around 320-350 AD (three centuries or less after their writing), and fragments of individual books that go back to within a single generation of the originals! (The Rylands papyrus fragment of John 18 has been dated to about 120 AD; John was the last Gospel written, around 90 AD or so.)
It's also worth noting that none of these scribal errors really affect the meaning of the Gospel, or any of the cardinal doctrines of the church. Of the 200,000 or so documented errors in the various Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, some 80% are simple spelling errors, and another 15% or so are errors in the order of words - the most common of which is a scribe writing "Christ Jesus" when the original text said "Jesus Christ." What exactly do errors like that change about our understanding of the Gospel? NOTHING! Only in a handful of passages in the entire New Testament is there any doubt about the original wording, and none of them change a single major doctrine of Christianity.
Finally, why do I reject the "Gnostic Gospels" like Thomas, Judas, and others? All of them date much later than the four canonical gospels - while some have tried to argue that Thomas may date to the first century, textual analysis makes a date in the mid-to-late second century far more likely. The other Gnostic Gospels date even later. In other words, there is a very high probability, historically speaking, that the four Gospels of the New Testament could have been written by, or at least preserve the words of, the men whose names they bear. The window of time is small enough, and every single ancient source ascribes them to those authors and no others. However, all the other Gospels show up far too late to have been written by the men whose names they bear, which means they are based on a falsehood from the get-go. They also contain numerous historical errors, and present a very different view of Jesus from that of the earliest and most reliable sources. Not only that, the Apostolic Fathers of the second and third centuries after Christ were unanimous in condemning these works as "spurious" - in modern language, forgeries.
So, in the end, my faith is based on a reasonable, historical conclusion that the Gospels are ancient, accurate sources of information about the life of Jesus. That's not exactly "blind"!!!
Sunday, December 6, 2015
Tuesday, November 24, 2015
It's Almost Here!!!
Three years ago today, I finished the first draft of my first novel, THE TESTIMONIUM. I was a history teacher and pastor with aspirations of becoming a published author, but I had no idea if those dreams would come true or not. Honestly, all I knew at that moment was that I had written a book that I was proud of. It took me over a year to finally find a publisher that was willing to take a chance on a complete rookie - I mean, a real royalty publisher, not a vanity press that wanted to charge me money to print my book. I will forever be grateful to Jesse Greever and Chris Dixon, the wonderful team at Electio Publishing, who were willing to pick up a manuscript from a first time author. I signed my contract with them in February of 2014.
By the time THE TESTIMONIUM was published, I was putting the finishing touches on my second novel, THE REDEMPTION OF PONTIUS PILATE. Once the contract for my first book was signed and the release date granted, I sent them the next one. To my joy and wonder, they liked it too! It was released about nine months after THE TESTIMONIUM, in May of this year.
But it's funny how writing gets under your skin. PILATE was a historical novel, set in the First Century, linked to THE TESTIMONIUM only by the letter Pilate wrote to Rome about the Crucifixion of Jesus, which my modern-day archeologists had discovered in the first book. But in my mind, I kept going back to that first set of characters I created - Josh and Isabella, Father Duncan and Luke Martens, with his young wife Alicia. What happened to them after their remarkable discovery on the Isle of Capri?
So even as THE TESTIMONIUM was about to be released, I was hard at work on its sequel, MATTHEW'S AUTOGRAPH. In it, my team returns for yet another adventure. This time the lovely Isle of Carpi is traded for the sands of the Negev Desert, and instead of a writing chamber, what they find is a tomb. Not just any tomb either, for the ossuary that blocks the entrance is inscribed with a name familiar to every Christian: "Matthew Levi, beloved scribe of his Lord." Now in one week, this sequel to THE TESTIMONIUM will be available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and ITunes, as well as a number of other online distributors. If you liked THE TESTIMONIUM, you will love MATTHEW'S AUTOGRAPH!
Now, for those who haven't read any of my stuff yet, I'm going to introduce the main characters here below and tell you a little bit of what they have been up to since they left the Isle of Capri. First of all, there is Father Duncan MacDonald. A trained archeologist as well as a Catholic priest, he is employed by the Vatican as an archeological consultant, especially on sites that have some Biblical relevance. He makes the initial discovery of St. Matthew's tomb in the Negev. Then we have Joshua Parker and his wife, Isabella Sforza-Parker and their son, Giuseppe, who prefers to be called "Joey." Josh is the son of a Baptist pastor and a professional Biblical archeologist. He and Isabella met on Capri, where she was the supervisor of the dig that uncovered Pilate's "Testimonium" a few years before. Romantic sparks flew between them immediately, and now they are married, living in America. and longing for a return to archeological field work after spending the last two years on a book tour. Then we have Dr. Luke Martens, Josh's friend and mentor and a renowned classical archeologist in his own right. He and his beautiful wife Alicia, an aspiring marine biologist, are also called in to help Father MacDonald excavate this remarkable discovery in Israel.
Full of danger, intrigue, romance, and potentially earth-shattering discoveries about the truth of the Gospel accounts, MATTHEW'S AUTOGRAPH is a fun, fast-paced Christian adventure story for readers of all ages! Here is the short blurb I wrote for the back of the book . . .
WHAT IF OUR GOSPELS. . . AREN’T GOSPEL?
It was supposed to be a simple bit of salvage archeology for Father Duncan MacDonald, the Vatican archeologist:
Check out an empty cave uncovered in the Negev Desert by an Israeli construction crew, to see if it had any archeological significance. But then a false wall in the back of the cave revealed a basalt ossuary, inscribed with the name of "Matthew Levi, Beloved Scribe of His Lord." Behind the ossuary - an ancient tomb with a human skeleton and a sealed jar.
Finding the undisturbed tomb of one of the Apostles of Jesus leads the Israeli government to call in Duncan’s companions, the famous “Capri team” who had discovered the Testimonium of Pontius Pilate three years before. When the three archeologists arrive in Tel Aviv, they discover an amazing document inside the tomb: the end of Matthew’s Gospel, written in the Apostle’s own hand!
Their excitement turns to perplexity when they translate the scroll and find the text varies drastically from every copy of the Book of Matthew in existence. Have the New Testament Gospels been altered with since they were written? Has this tomb really lain undisturbed for two thousand years? Is this ancient manuscript really . . .
MATTHEW'S AUTOGRAPH?
One week away, guys! Are you as excited as I am!!!!
By the time THE TESTIMONIUM was published, I was putting the finishing touches on my second novel, THE REDEMPTION OF PONTIUS PILATE. Once the contract for my first book was signed and the release date granted, I sent them the next one. To my joy and wonder, they liked it too! It was released about nine months after THE TESTIMONIUM, in May of this year.
But it's funny how writing gets under your skin. PILATE was a historical novel, set in the First Century, linked to THE TESTIMONIUM only by the letter Pilate wrote to Rome about the Crucifixion of Jesus, which my modern-day archeologists had discovered in the first book. But in my mind, I kept going back to that first set of characters I created - Josh and Isabella, Father Duncan and Luke Martens, with his young wife Alicia. What happened to them after their remarkable discovery on the Isle of Capri?
So even as THE TESTIMONIUM was about to be released, I was hard at work on its sequel, MATTHEW'S AUTOGRAPH. In it, my team returns for yet another adventure. This time the lovely Isle of Carpi is traded for the sands of the Negev Desert, and instead of a writing chamber, what they find is a tomb. Not just any tomb either, for the ossuary that blocks the entrance is inscribed with a name familiar to every Christian: "Matthew Levi, beloved scribe of his Lord." Now in one week, this sequel to THE TESTIMONIUM will be available on Amazon, Barnes and Noble, and ITunes, as well as a number of other online distributors. If you liked THE TESTIMONIUM, you will love MATTHEW'S AUTOGRAPH!
Now, for those who haven't read any of my stuff yet, I'm going to introduce the main characters here below and tell you a little bit of what they have been up to since they left the Isle of Capri. First of all, there is Father Duncan MacDonald. A trained archeologist as well as a Catholic priest, he is employed by the Vatican as an archeological consultant, especially on sites that have some Biblical relevance. He makes the initial discovery of St. Matthew's tomb in the Negev. Then we have Joshua Parker and his wife, Isabella Sforza-Parker and their son, Giuseppe, who prefers to be called "Joey." Josh is the son of a Baptist pastor and a professional Biblical archeologist. He and Isabella met on Capri, where she was the supervisor of the dig that uncovered Pilate's "Testimonium" a few years before. Romantic sparks flew between them immediately, and now they are married, living in America. and longing for a return to archeological field work after spending the last two years on a book tour. Then we have Dr. Luke Martens, Josh's friend and mentor and a renowned classical archeologist in his own right. He and his beautiful wife Alicia, an aspiring marine biologist, are also called in to help Father MacDonald excavate this remarkable discovery in Israel.
Full of danger, intrigue, romance, and potentially earth-shattering discoveries about the truth of the Gospel accounts, MATTHEW'S AUTOGRAPH is a fun, fast-paced Christian adventure story for readers of all ages! Here is the short blurb I wrote for the back of the book . . .
WHAT IF OUR GOSPELS. . . AREN’T GOSPEL?
It was supposed to be a simple bit of salvage archeology for Father Duncan MacDonald, the Vatican archeologist:
Check out an empty cave uncovered in the Negev Desert by an Israeli construction crew, to see if it had any archeological significance. But then a false wall in the back of the cave revealed a basalt ossuary, inscribed with the name of "Matthew Levi, Beloved Scribe of His Lord." Behind the ossuary - an ancient tomb with a human skeleton and a sealed jar.
Finding the undisturbed tomb of one of the Apostles of Jesus leads the Israeli government to call in Duncan’s companions, the famous “Capri team” who had discovered the Testimonium of Pontius Pilate three years before. When the three archeologists arrive in Tel Aviv, they discover an amazing document inside the tomb: the end of Matthew’s Gospel, written in the Apostle’s own hand!
Their excitement turns to perplexity when they translate the scroll and find the text varies drastically from every copy of the Book of Matthew in existence. Have the New Testament Gospels been altered with since they were written? Has this tomb really lain undisturbed for two thousand years? Is this ancient manuscript really . . .
MATTHEW'S AUTOGRAPH?
One week away, guys! Are you as excited as I am!!!!
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Reflections on the Paris Attacks
Today my social media posts are lit up with friends and family urging us to "Stand with Paris" and "Pray for Paris." Both of these are noble sentiments and I fully endorse them. The terrorist attacks last night were barbaric, evil, and heinous in every possible definition of those terms. I pray for healing and peace for the victims, and for swift and terrible justice to those who would plan and perpetrate such an act. For the record, I will also state this - the French people are not a warlike bunch. They love peace and friendship and prefer to avoid conflict when possible. But they are also a proud people, and the humiliations of the twentieth century have left them with a certain determination to never be walked on again. I think their response to these ISIS attacks will be far more ferocious and effective than the efforts of the feckless, naïve incompetent who currently occupies the White House.
But what happened in Paris is symptomatic of something much larger. I wrote about it on my Facebook page in these terms:
The morning after . . . done being shocked, at least.
There is a war on, my friends. It is not just a war on America, or a war on Christianity. It is a war on two thousand years of Western Civilization, on all freedom of expression, freedom of religion, on any rights whatsoever for women, on every single individual's right to decide for himself what he will believe, think, and say. We can close our eyes to it, we can ignore it, we can deny it, but it will still eventually find its way to our doors.
This war is being waged in the name of Islam, and it represents a dark and bloody stain that has been present in that faith since Muhammad first fled from Mecca in 632 AD. From its inception, Islam has been a war of compulsion. Unlike Jesus, who never once picked up a sword, Muhammad led armies and put to death those who opposed his vision and commanded his followers to do the same. The bloody-handed monsters who slaughtered the innocents in Paris were following his commands and his example.
Not all Muslims are terrorists. Every Muslim I have known in person was a decent and peaceful individual, and the vast majority of Muslims on earth have made the decision to ignore the Quran's call for jihad. But for those who take the Quran literally, the command to "make war on the infidel" is absolute and unending. It's time for the Western world to acknowledge this threat for what it is and quit saying that it is "a perversion of Islam." Jihad is not the only thing Islam is about, but it is a huge part of the history and creed of that faith. Denying it will not change that.
There is a war on, my friends. It is not just a war on America, or a war on Christianity. It is a war on two thousand years of Western Civilization, on all freedom of expression, freedom of religion, on any rights whatsoever for women, on every single individual's right to decide for himself what he will believe, think, and say. We can close our eyes to it, we can ignore it, we can deny it, but it will still eventually find its way to our doors.
This war is being waged in the name of Islam, and it represents a dark and bloody stain that has been present in that faith since Muhammad first fled from Mecca in 632 AD. From its inception, Islam has been a war of compulsion. Unlike Jesus, who never once picked up a sword, Muhammad led armies and put to death those who opposed his vision and commanded his followers to do the same. The bloody-handed monsters who slaughtered the innocents in Paris were following his commands and his example.
Not all Muslims are terrorists. Every Muslim I have known in person was a decent and peaceful individual, and the vast majority of Muslims on earth have made the decision to ignore the Quran's call for jihad. But for those who take the Quran literally, the command to "make war on the infidel" is absolute and unending. It's time for the Western world to acknowledge this threat for what it is and quit saying that it is "a perversion of Islam." Jihad is not the only thing Islam is about, but it is a huge part of the history and creed of that faith. Denying it will not change that.
I am sometimes accused of being prejudiced against Muslims. That is not accurate. First of all, my problem is not with individual Muslims. Most of them I have known are decent and peaceful people, as I stated above. I do have a problem with Islam, it's true. But is it prejudice?
I would say no. What I perceive, at least, is "post-judice." What do I mean by that? It's a simple concept, really.
There are two ways to judge a religion. One is by the behavior of its followers, the other is by the teaching of its scriptures. Now, it is certainly true that, judging by the former, Christianity has been a violent faith for far too much of its history. The Inquisition, the Reformation Wars, the conquest of the Americas, and yes, even the Crusades (although it is worth pointing out that the Crusades were a response to Islam's initial two hundred and fifty years of jihad that wiped out entire cultures and subdued the entire Middle East at the point of the sword) were horrific to the extreme. But did these things happen because Christians obeyed the teachings of Christ - or because they completely forgot or ignored them?
That is where the second criteria comes in. Did Jesus of Nazareth or his Apostles, in all of the teachings contained in the New Testament, ever once order Christians to wage war on other faiths, to harm other people, or to commit violence of any sort?
The answer is no. And therein lies the difference between the two faiths: A Christian who kills in the name of his faith is absolutely violating both the teachings and the example of Jesus and His Apostles, and the clearly written teachings of the New Testament. A Muslim who kills in the name of his faith is doing so in obedience to both the teachings and example of Muhammad. I don't write this because I hate Muslims; I write it because it is historically accurate. As long as the Western world chooses to ignore this aspect of Islam, this twilight struggle for the survival of Western Civilization will continue to be lost.
And when the West falls, the world to follow will be a Dark Age like none we have seen before.
Friday, November 6, 2015
An AMAZING Opportunity!
Since I started this blog a year ago, I've talked here about my wonderful job - teaching in a private Christian school where I get to watch my students grow up year after year, my career as a writer (third book is coming out at the end of this month!), my crazy life as a husband, pastor, father, and artifact collector (when the rest of my crazy life gives me the chance to go and play!). I've also shared a good bit of my political thinking (you guys may be getting tired of that by now, but politics fascinates me and always has, so I can't promise there won't be more to follow!) and my love of bad movies.
But there are three passions that really define me as a person, besides my love for my God, my wife and daughters. First of these is my love of history. I am a devoted student of the past, reading books and doing research all the time to learn more about the world that was before us, especially the civilizations that gave rise to ours - the mighty heritage of the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian world. I simply can't consume enough history to slake my thirst for more.
Second, my love of archeology. The quest to find that elusive bit of the past and hold it in your hand; to know that someone in a previous generation of humanity made and shaped this little object long ago, and held it in their hand even as you are holding it now. Artifacts, whether Roman coins, jade carvings from China, flint arrowheads, or bronze figurines - they are a physical way of connecting with the past that mere study and book knowledge cannot match.
Last of all, my deed and abiding fascination with Biblical events. I believe that the stories chronicled in the Gospels are literally true and factually accurate. The "historical Jesus" IS the Jesus of the New Testament, for only the New Testament was written by men who knew Him and walked with Him. So many archeological details discovered in the last hundred years have confirmed even the small details of the New Testament narrative that books can (and have) been written and the subject is still far from exhausted.
I have always dreamed of visiting the Holy Land and walking where Jesus walked. To see with my own eyes the streets of Jerusalem, the waters of the Sea of Galilee, the Garden of Gethsemane. To stand atop Masada, where the Jews made their last stand against the Romans; or to see the fortress where John the Baptist spent his last lonely days in prison; or to view the caves at Qumran where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. What a journey that would be!
But it was just a pipe dream. My wife and I have twin daughters in college and we pretty much live paycheck to paycheck. There is no way that I could afford to go and visit the Holy Land, no matter how much I wanted to.
But last month I got the invitation from a fellow Greenville pastor. With a small group of local history buffs and under the auspices of the Austin Graduate School of Theology's Biblical Archeology Class, on March 20 I will be flying in to Tel Aviv on a ten day archeological tour of Israel's many Biblical sites! I still feel like it is all just a dream, but it's not. The passport application is on my dining table behind me, to be filled out this weekend. I have a copy of my itinerary already; we'll be seeing everything from the Dead Sea to the Negev Desert to the Sea of Galilee in those ten days. I couldn't be more excited!
Paying for it is going to be a challenge. All told, it's going to cost me around $3500 to make the trip. I'm excited and nervous at the same time - that's a healthy chunk of dough from our household budget. But one encouraging note is that many of my students and their families, as well as old church friends, have told me they want to help me raise the money to go. So I did create a GoFundMe page where anyone who wants to can chip in a bit. I know, I know, this isn't a life or death thing and there are many more worthy causes out there. But, if you would like to help me achieve this lifelong dream, here's a link you can follow to do so. In the meantime, keep me in your prayers, and watch this space and my FB page next spring for LOTS AND LOTS of pictures! God bless you all - I'M GOING TO ISRAEL!!!!!!!!!
https://www.gofundme.com/r76waxa8
But there are three passions that really define me as a person, besides my love for my God, my wife and daughters. First of these is my love of history. I am a devoted student of the past, reading books and doing research all the time to learn more about the world that was before us, especially the civilizations that gave rise to ours - the mighty heritage of the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian world. I simply can't consume enough history to slake my thirst for more.
Second, my love of archeology. The quest to find that elusive bit of the past and hold it in your hand; to know that someone in a previous generation of humanity made and shaped this little object long ago, and held it in their hand even as you are holding it now. Artifacts, whether Roman coins, jade carvings from China, flint arrowheads, or bronze figurines - they are a physical way of connecting with the past that mere study and book knowledge cannot match.
Last of all, my deed and abiding fascination with Biblical events. I believe that the stories chronicled in the Gospels are literally true and factually accurate. The "historical Jesus" IS the Jesus of the New Testament, for only the New Testament was written by men who knew Him and walked with Him. So many archeological details discovered in the last hundred years have confirmed even the small details of the New Testament narrative that books can (and have) been written and the subject is still far from exhausted.
I have always dreamed of visiting the Holy Land and walking where Jesus walked. To see with my own eyes the streets of Jerusalem, the waters of the Sea of Galilee, the Garden of Gethsemane. To stand atop Masada, where the Jews made their last stand against the Romans; or to see the fortress where John the Baptist spent his last lonely days in prison; or to view the caves at Qumran where the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. What a journey that would be!
But it was just a pipe dream. My wife and I have twin daughters in college and we pretty much live paycheck to paycheck. There is no way that I could afford to go and visit the Holy Land, no matter how much I wanted to.
But last month I got the invitation from a fellow Greenville pastor. With a small group of local history buffs and under the auspices of the Austin Graduate School of Theology's Biblical Archeology Class, on March 20 I will be flying in to Tel Aviv on a ten day archeological tour of Israel's many Biblical sites! I still feel like it is all just a dream, but it's not. The passport application is on my dining table behind me, to be filled out this weekend. I have a copy of my itinerary already; we'll be seeing everything from the Dead Sea to the Negev Desert to the Sea of Galilee in those ten days. I couldn't be more excited!
Paying for it is going to be a challenge. All told, it's going to cost me around $3500 to make the trip. I'm excited and nervous at the same time - that's a healthy chunk of dough from our household budget. But one encouraging note is that many of my students and their families, as well as old church friends, have told me they want to help me raise the money to go. So I did create a GoFundMe page where anyone who wants to can chip in a bit. I know, I know, this isn't a life or death thing and there are many more worthy causes out there. But, if you would like to help me achieve this lifelong dream, here's a link you can follow to do so. In the meantime, keep me in your prayers, and watch this space and my FB page next spring for LOTS AND LOTS of pictures! God bless you all - I'M GOING TO ISRAEL!!!!!!!!!
https://www.gofundme.com/r76waxa8
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Debate Watching With My High Schoolers Again!
I had really intended to post on a non-political topic last week, but life has been extremely busy as I juggle my various responsibilities as husband, teacher, father, pastor, and writer. By the time I got through Sunday, I realized that it was past time for a new blog post, but almost time for the next GOP debate! Since I had already told my students we'd be doing another watch party, I figured I'd just wait and post my reactions here for this week's post.
First of all, my hearty thanks to the nine students who came out tonight to share this time with me. High school kids are incredibly busy these days, and the fact that they were willing to come and spend this time with their government teacher outside of normal school hours makes me very happy and proud of them. Every day, my students fill me with hope for the next generation.
Secondly, shame on CNBC for NOT providing free streaming video of the debate like EVERY OTHER network has done! It just wasn't nearly as interesting not being able to see the candidates interact, although I did try to overcome the situation a little bit by setting up a slideshow with pictures of all the candidates and flipping to whoever was speaking at the moment. (That got a little difficult during the more rapid-fire exchanges!) Double shame on CNBC for the blatant bias of the moderators. Every other question was some sort of "Gotcha" moment, and some of the follow up questions were so obviously loaded that the audience actually booed the moderators. (Good on you, audience!)
Briefly, I want to mention the "undercard" debate. I only caught the last half of it because I was busy setting things up for the kids, but I will say that Lindsey Graham did dominate the part of it that I heard. I was a bit torn during the whole thing though - on the one hand, I firmly believe that any of these men would be a better President than the current occupant of the White House. On the other hand, not one of them currently has 2 per cent support in any poll. Seriously, guys, you gave it a good try, now drop out already! (That being said, Lindsey Graham NEEDS to be Secretary of State. His foreign policy knowledge is truly impressive!)
Now, for the night - Most of the candidates got in at least one or two good licks, and none of them imploded on the stage tonight. The moderators did (to give them credit for the one thing they did well) try to give roughly equal time to the candidates. I think the spread between the one with the most talking time and the least was maybe two or three minutes, so that's pretty egalitarian. So here are my winners and losers:
TOP THREE:
MARCO RUBIO - What a night my man from Florida had! I've always liked him, and he really shone this evening. He handled the questions well, and when the moderators tried to spring a "gotcha" moment on him about his absenteeism from the Senate, he turned it around on them and delivered a huge applause line. I was very impressed with his performance.
TED CRUZ - I have never been a fan of this guy - his "do it my way or I will shut down the government" style leaves me pretty cold. That being said, I will give him the courtesy of saying that he is one of the most consistent candidates on the stage, and he gave a bang-up performance tonight. He is in this for the long haul.
CHRIS CHRISTIE - I can't help but like this guy. He's funny, quick to jump on opportunities, and genuinely compassionate for those who are hurting. He is not my first choice as President, but I bet he jumps up a few places in the polls next week.
MIDDLE OF THE PACK:
DONALD TRUMP - I've made no secret of my dislike of Trump, but that being said, he didn't have a bad debate, or a particularly good one. He was mellow, made some good points here and there, and generally refrained from the abrasive mannerisms that are the hallmark of his style. But, on the other hand, he had very little new to offer, and honestly, I still hear "I-I-Me-Me!" every time he opens his mouth.
CARLY FIORINA - The feisty lady from California had the most talking time of anybody on the stage, and she was solid, as she always is, but she didn't shine tonight like she did in the first two debates she took part in. She'll probably stay in 5th place or so.
BEN CARSON - It is virtually impossible not to like this calm, unflappable man. He is genuinely nice, undeniably brilliant, and has a sincere charm that has served him very well. But, while he gave a couple of very good answers, he just came across as sounding almost sleepy. I don't think he'll get a huge bump out of the evening.
MIKE HUCKABEE - I voted for him in 2008, even though he had actually dropped out of the race by the time it got to Texas. I've lost some respect for him this time around because of some of the extreme positions he has embraced, but at the same time, he had a pretty good night and may stick around a while longer.
BOTTOM OF THE BARREL:
JOHN KASICH - The Ohio Governor is a very solid candidate, but he's spinning his wheels at this point. His brand has not caught fire, and despite his impressive resume, I think he's not long for the race at this point.
RAND PAUL - Go away already! No one is buying your brand of isolationist, libertarian Republicanism. You may have been the darling of the Tea Party at one point, but now you are just an annoying gadfly using up airtime that could go to a worthier candidate.
JEB BUSH - It saddens me to write this. I love the Bush family; I have enormous respect for Bush 41 and genuine affection for "W". But while there may be another President Bush someday, it's not going to be Jeb. He needed to hit a home run tonight, and he got a double AT BEST. His campaign is entering the "circling the drain" phrase; the only question is how long its death throes will drag on.
So that's how I felt about the evening. Tomorrow I'll ask my students to give me their essays on who won; I look forward to reading them.
NEXT WEEK: Non-political, I promise!!!
First of all, my hearty thanks to the nine students who came out tonight to share this time with me. High school kids are incredibly busy these days, and the fact that they were willing to come and spend this time with their government teacher outside of normal school hours makes me very happy and proud of them. Every day, my students fill me with hope for the next generation.
Secondly, shame on CNBC for NOT providing free streaming video of the debate like EVERY OTHER network has done! It just wasn't nearly as interesting not being able to see the candidates interact, although I did try to overcome the situation a little bit by setting up a slideshow with pictures of all the candidates and flipping to whoever was speaking at the moment. (That got a little difficult during the more rapid-fire exchanges!) Double shame on CNBC for the blatant bias of the moderators. Every other question was some sort of "Gotcha" moment, and some of the follow up questions were so obviously loaded that the audience actually booed the moderators. (Good on you, audience!)
Briefly, I want to mention the "undercard" debate. I only caught the last half of it because I was busy setting things up for the kids, but I will say that Lindsey Graham did dominate the part of it that I heard. I was a bit torn during the whole thing though - on the one hand, I firmly believe that any of these men would be a better President than the current occupant of the White House. On the other hand, not one of them currently has 2 per cent support in any poll. Seriously, guys, you gave it a good try, now drop out already! (That being said, Lindsey Graham NEEDS to be Secretary of State. His foreign policy knowledge is truly impressive!)
Now, for the night - Most of the candidates got in at least one or two good licks, and none of them imploded on the stage tonight. The moderators did (to give them credit for the one thing they did well) try to give roughly equal time to the candidates. I think the spread between the one with the most talking time and the least was maybe two or three minutes, so that's pretty egalitarian. So here are my winners and losers:
TOP THREE:
MARCO RUBIO - What a night my man from Florida had! I've always liked him, and he really shone this evening. He handled the questions well, and when the moderators tried to spring a "gotcha" moment on him about his absenteeism from the Senate, he turned it around on them and delivered a huge applause line. I was very impressed with his performance.
TED CRUZ - I have never been a fan of this guy - his "do it my way or I will shut down the government" style leaves me pretty cold. That being said, I will give him the courtesy of saying that he is one of the most consistent candidates on the stage, and he gave a bang-up performance tonight. He is in this for the long haul.
CHRIS CHRISTIE - I can't help but like this guy. He's funny, quick to jump on opportunities, and genuinely compassionate for those who are hurting. He is not my first choice as President, but I bet he jumps up a few places in the polls next week.
MIDDLE OF THE PACK:
DONALD TRUMP - I've made no secret of my dislike of Trump, but that being said, he didn't have a bad debate, or a particularly good one. He was mellow, made some good points here and there, and generally refrained from the abrasive mannerisms that are the hallmark of his style. But, on the other hand, he had very little new to offer, and honestly, I still hear "I-I-Me-Me!" every time he opens his mouth.
CARLY FIORINA - The feisty lady from California had the most talking time of anybody on the stage, and she was solid, as she always is, but she didn't shine tonight like she did in the first two debates she took part in. She'll probably stay in 5th place or so.
BEN CARSON - It is virtually impossible not to like this calm, unflappable man. He is genuinely nice, undeniably brilliant, and has a sincere charm that has served him very well. But, while he gave a couple of very good answers, he just came across as sounding almost sleepy. I don't think he'll get a huge bump out of the evening.
MIKE HUCKABEE - I voted for him in 2008, even though he had actually dropped out of the race by the time it got to Texas. I've lost some respect for him this time around because of some of the extreme positions he has embraced, but at the same time, he had a pretty good night and may stick around a while longer.
BOTTOM OF THE BARREL:
JOHN KASICH - The Ohio Governor is a very solid candidate, but he's spinning his wheels at this point. His brand has not caught fire, and despite his impressive resume, I think he's not long for the race at this point.
RAND PAUL - Go away already! No one is buying your brand of isolationist, libertarian Republicanism. You may have been the darling of the Tea Party at one point, but now you are just an annoying gadfly using up airtime that could go to a worthier candidate.
JEB BUSH - It saddens me to write this. I love the Bush family; I have enormous respect for Bush 41 and genuine affection for "W". But while there may be another President Bush someday, it's not going to be Jeb. He needed to hit a home run tonight, and he got a double AT BEST. His campaign is entering the "circling the drain" phrase; the only question is how long its death throes will drag on.
So that's how I felt about the evening. Tomorrow I'll ask my students to give me their essays on who won; I look forward to reading them.
NEXT WEEK: Non-political, I promise!!!
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
A CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON A LIBERAL DEBATE . . .
Well, I'm proud of myself. I sat through an entire Democratic debate. It wasn't easy - I disagree so profoundly with so much of what the Democrats say that I have a hard time not throwing stuff at the screen. But, I am a government teacher, and it's important for me to hear both sides. Here are my takeaways:
First, the "Forbidden Words."
NATIONAL DEBT. Not one candidate, not one questioner, not one journalist ever mentioned the fact that Barack Obama has accumulated more debt than all previous Presidents combined. Every single one of them is proposing more government programs, more spending, more regulatory power, and higher taxes. Are we ready to owe $30 trillion five years from now? That's where they would take us in a heartbeat if it meant they could control the Presidency and the Congress.
Second, the "name your enemies" question at the end.
With the exception of Jim Webb (who incidentally had the worst performance of the night), every one of them named their fellow Americans. Whether it be the Republicans, the corporations, the banks, every one of them named groups of Americans as the enemy whose hostility made them the most proud. The Democratic party is a party of never-ending class and race warfare.
Third: Biggest cop-out of the night - the answers to the question "Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?" Shameless pandering from every one of them. If all lives DON'T matter, then how CAN black lives matter?
NOW - Winners and losers.
Hillary Clinton - she had a strong, solid performance, she never lost her cool, and gave fairly strong answers to most of the questions. I'd just as soon chew my arm off as to vote for her, but she didn't have a terrible night (and let's be honest, she couldn't afford one right now!). I'd call her the winner.
Bernie Sanders - Holy cow, I REALLY do not like this man. Every word out of his mouth breathes hatred for the rich. He wants to make every American successful by destroying every American who succeeds! He is closer to communism than socialism IMO, and his policies would double our debt even faster than Obama managed to do it!
Jim Webb - This guy put up a horrible performance. He spent most of his limited air time complaining about his lack of air time rather than making his points. I thought this might be his breakaway night, but he really did not debate well.
Martin O'Malley - This may be the rising star in the polls next week. He was clear, lucid, and reasonable, gave solid answers, didn't whine about his time constraints, and is rather likable.
And, finally -
Lincoln Chafee. Can you say "self-righteous"? How many times did he refer to his lack of scandal and high ethical standards? That's the kind of thing that other people should say about you if it were true. I seriously doubt he'll gain much ground after tonight.
Last of all . . . the BIG LIE, repeated in one form or another by every single Democrat on the stage: "There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." How did Saddam Hussein gas 20,000 Kurds then? By farting on them???? But don't believe me - here is the proof, from that famous conservative rag the New York Times. Thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq. Admittedly, the program was dormant. But that which has been deactivated can be reactivated, and the leftist mantra "Bush lied, soldiers died" is as false today as it was when first uttered - and THIS proves it!
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
First, the "Forbidden Words."
NATIONAL DEBT. Not one candidate, not one questioner, not one journalist ever mentioned the fact that Barack Obama has accumulated more debt than all previous Presidents combined. Every single one of them is proposing more government programs, more spending, more regulatory power, and higher taxes. Are we ready to owe $30 trillion five years from now? That's where they would take us in a heartbeat if it meant they could control the Presidency and the Congress.
Second, the "name your enemies" question at the end.
With the exception of Jim Webb (who incidentally had the worst performance of the night), every one of them named their fellow Americans. Whether it be the Republicans, the corporations, the banks, every one of them named groups of Americans as the enemy whose hostility made them the most proud. The Democratic party is a party of never-ending class and race warfare.
Third: Biggest cop-out of the night - the answers to the question "Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?" Shameless pandering from every one of them. If all lives DON'T matter, then how CAN black lives matter?
NOW - Winners and losers.
Hillary Clinton - she had a strong, solid performance, she never lost her cool, and gave fairly strong answers to most of the questions. I'd just as soon chew my arm off as to vote for her, but she didn't have a terrible night (and let's be honest, she couldn't afford one right now!). I'd call her the winner.
Bernie Sanders - Holy cow, I REALLY do not like this man. Every word out of his mouth breathes hatred for the rich. He wants to make every American successful by destroying every American who succeeds! He is closer to communism than socialism IMO, and his policies would double our debt even faster than Obama managed to do it!
Jim Webb - This guy put up a horrible performance. He spent most of his limited air time complaining about his lack of air time rather than making his points. I thought this might be his breakaway night, but he really did not debate well.
Martin O'Malley - This may be the rising star in the polls next week. He was clear, lucid, and reasonable, gave solid answers, didn't whine about his time constraints, and is rather likable.
And, finally -
Lincoln Chafee. Can you say "self-righteous"? How many times did he refer to his lack of scandal and high ethical standards? That's the kind of thing that other people should say about you if it were true. I seriously doubt he'll gain much ground after tonight.
Last of all . . . the BIG LIE, repeated in one form or another by every single Democrat on the stage: "There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." How did Saddam Hussein gas 20,000 Kurds then? By farting on them???? But don't believe me - here is the proof, from that famous conservative rag the New York Times. Thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq. Admittedly, the program was dormant. But that which has been deactivated can be reactivated, and the leftist mantra "Bush lied, soldiers died" is as false today as it was when first uttered - and THIS proves it!
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
Saturday, October 3, 2015
MAKING SENSE OF ANOTHER MASS SHOOTING
Once more, an armed gunman comes onto a gun-free campus with multiple loaded weapons. Once more, innocents are brutally killed and maimed. Once more, the cowardly monster (whose name I refuse to write) kills himself when the sirens begin to sound. Once more, the police arrive in time to identify the dead and help paramedics treat the wounded. And once more, before the bodies are cold, our President goes on the air and demands tougher gun laws.
Then the Facebook wars begin.
I am a historian by training and an observer of humanity by choice. I'm an avid consumer of cinema of nearly all genres. I've been a pastor since I was 24 years old (I'm now 51.) I've taught school at the same campus for 20 years now; I also teach night classes at our local community college. I'm a navy vet and a published novelist. In short, all things considered, I have a variety of real world experience and would probably be considered "smarter than the average bear." But this phenomenon has me stumped.
Americans have ALWAYS been a heavily armed society. The founders wrote the Second Amendment into our Bill of Rights for a reason, and it certainly had nothing to do with hunting. They wanted our country to be an armed society, both to fend off possible foreign incursions, but also to protect liberty from the tyrannical overreach of government - something that they knew a thing or two about. So Americans have always owned guns. And America has always had a reputation for violence - a reputation that newspapers and the entertainment industry have always exaggerated in order to sell newspapers/books/movies. Every single movie about the Old West features a gunfight, if not multiple gunfights. But actual study shows that the Western frontier was considerably less violent than the cities back East were in the late 19th century. Even today, listening to the news, you would think we were in the middle of a horrific spike in violence, when in fact violent crime in America, according to official FBI crime statistics, is at a 40 year low. That's right - the 1970's were much more violent that the second decade of the twenty-first century. The number of gun deaths per 100,000 population is about 3 - in 1993 it was about 6. So we've cut gun homicides in half just in the last 20 years.
Something else to chew on: there were no restrictions whatsoever on the ownership of firearms in the 19th century. Yet to my knowledge - and I do know a thing or two about history - there was not a single mass shooting of school children during that time (black schools were the target of violence in the South during and after Reconstruction, but that violence was primarily directed at the teachers of black students and the school buildings themselves, which were often vandalized or torched). For the first half of the Twentieth Century, there were very few restrictions on gun ownership - and again, to the best of my knowledge, there was not a single case of a person coming onto a school campus and randomly shooting students.
Even in the 1980's, when I was in High School, there were guns everywhere. During hunting season, many of the pickup trucks in the High School parking lot had rifles or shotguns in the gunracks attached to the back window. We never worried about someone grabbing one of them and using us for target practice. We knew the story of Charles Whitaker, the 1964 University of Texas tower sniper (I knew it better than most because my parents and siblings were there that awful day), but we also regarded that as a crazy fluke that, God willing, would never happen again.
Then came Columbine, that horrible day when two evil Goth students came onto their campus and murdered 13 people, then killed themselves. And since then, with depressing regularity, these psychotic monsters have invaded our campuses, military bases, theaters, and churches, slaughtering innocents and then usually ending their own lives. And this week, the latest outrage. This fellow had a deep-seated hatred for organized religion and primarily targeted Christians. The Virginia Tech guy had it in for women. The Fort Hood shooter was out to kill American soldiers. The Columbine pair were out to avenge their lack of popularity on the "beautiful kids."
It's easy to blame the gun. Frankly, that's a cheap out. We've always had guns, but we haven't always had school shootings. No one has yet explained to me how more gun laws will prevent episodes like this from happening. I guess some folks want to ban handguns altogether, but there are two huge problems with that: 1. Addictive drugs are banned, but addicts get their hands on them anyway. How will a ban on handguns be any different? 2. It goes completely against the clear language of the Constitution. Our Founders were a pretty bright bunch, and setting aside their wishes is risky business.
On the other hand, it's much easier to envision how one student with a conceal and carry permit and a steady hand could have stopped this tragedy in its tracks. That being said, he could also hit an innocent bystander, get shot by the police by mistake, or simply miss his shot and get killed by return fire. Personally, I would argue that this theoretical gun owner has a better chance of stopping the next mass murder in progress than some legislative solution coming out of Washington. But who knows?
But both these standard talking point positions miss a larger point: What is making these evil young people (only the Fort Hood shooter was over 40) think that the best solution to their problem is to pick up a gun, kill a dozen innocent people, then shoot themselves or commit "suicide by cop"? Some point to psychotropic medications. It is true that many of these shooters were on meds, but were they psychotic because they were on meds, or were they on meds because they were psychotic? That's the problem - no one can distinguish between correlation and causation. It's easy to blame guns, because guns were used in all these cases. But guns don't fire themselves! Others point out the pathetic state of America's mental health care system - it's virtually impossible to have an individual involuntarily committed until AFTER they kill someone under current law. By then it's too late.
There simply are no easy solutions. If there were, we would have found them by now.
Some Americans simply have a sickness of the soul. That's the bottom line. There are wretched, evil people out there. Some of them need medical and psychiatric help, with which they can possibly lead normal lives. Some are so purely evil - or so deeply sick - that they simply need to be locked up for the safety of everyone else. But above all, what we need is a return to the values this country was based on, that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights - especially the right to life. We have devalued life across the board in this country, in our politics, in our entertainment, and in our laws. If all of us cherished life more, there would be fewer tragedies like the events in Oregon. At least, that is this writer's opinion.
Then the Facebook wars begin.
I am a historian by training and an observer of humanity by choice. I'm an avid consumer of cinema of nearly all genres. I've been a pastor since I was 24 years old (I'm now 51.) I've taught school at the same campus for 20 years now; I also teach night classes at our local community college. I'm a navy vet and a published novelist. In short, all things considered, I have a variety of real world experience and would probably be considered "smarter than the average bear." But this phenomenon has me stumped.
Americans have ALWAYS been a heavily armed society. The founders wrote the Second Amendment into our Bill of Rights for a reason, and it certainly had nothing to do with hunting. They wanted our country to be an armed society, both to fend off possible foreign incursions, but also to protect liberty from the tyrannical overreach of government - something that they knew a thing or two about. So Americans have always owned guns. And America has always had a reputation for violence - a reputation that newspapers and the entertainment industry have always exaggerated in order to sell newspapers/books/movies. Every single movie about the Old West features a gunfight, if not multiple gunfights. But actual study shows that the Western frontier was considerably less violent than the cities back East were in the late 19th century. Even today, listening to the news, you would think we were in the middle of a horrific spike in violence, when in fact violent crime in America, according to official FBI crime statistics, is at a 40 year low. That's right - the 1970's were much more violent that the second decade of the twenty-first century. The number of gun deaths per 100,000 population is about 3 - in 1993 it was about 6. So we've cut gun homicides in half just in the last 20 years.
Something else to chew on: there were no restrictions whatsoever on the ownership of firearms in the 19th century. Yet to my knowledge - and I do know a thing or two about history - there was not a single mass shooting of school children during that time (black schools were the target of violence in the South during and after Reconstruction, but that violence was primarily directed at the teachers of black students and the school buildings themselves, which were often vandalized or torched). For the first half of the Twentieth Century, there were very few restrictions on gun ownership - and again, to the best of my knowledge, there was not a single case of a person coming onto a school campus and randomly shooting students.
Even in the 1980's, when I was in High School, there were guns everywhere. During hunting season, many of the pickup trucks in the High School parking lot had rifles or shotguns in the gunracks attached to the back window. We never worried about someone grabbing one of them and using us for target practice. We knew the story of Charles Whitaker, the 1964 University of Texas tower sniper (I knew it better than most because my parents and siblings were there that awful day), but we also regarded that as a crazy fluke that, God willing, would never happen again.
Then came Columbine, that horrible day when two evil Goth students came onto their campus and murdered 13 people, then killed themselves. And since then, with depressing regularity, these psychotic monsters have invaded our campuses, military bases, theaters, and churches, slaughtering innocents and then usually ending their own lives. And this week, the latest outrage. This fellow had a deep-seated hatred for organized religion and primarily targeted Christians. The Virginia Tech guy had it in for women. The Fort Hood shooter was out to kill American soldiers. The Columbine pair were out to avenge their lack of popularity on the "beautiful kids."
It's easy to blame the gun. Frankly, that's a cheap out. We've always had guns, but we haven't always had school shootings. No one has yet explained to me how more gun laws will prevent episodes like this from happening. I guess some folks want to ban handguns altogether, but there are two huge problems with that: 1. Addictive drugs are banned, but addicts get their hands on them anyway. How will a ban on handguns be any different? 2. It goes completely against the clear language of the Constitution. Our Founders were a pretty bright bunch, and setting aside their wishes is risky business.
On the other hand, it's much easier to envision how one student with a conceal and carry permit and a steady hand could have stopped this tragedy in its tracks. That being said, he could also hit an innocent bystander, get shot by the police by mistake, or simply miss his shot and get killed by return fire. Personally, I would argue that this theoretical gun owner has a better chance of stopping the next mass murder in progress than some legislative solution coming out of Washington. But who knows?
But both these standard talking point positions miss a larger point: What is making these evil young people (only the Fort Hood shooter was over 40) think that the best solution to their problem is to pick up a gun, kill a dozen innocent people, then shoot themselves or commit "suicide by cop"? Some point to psychotropic medications. It is true that many of these shooters were on meds, but were they psychotic because they were on meds, or were they on meds because they were psychotic? That's the problem - no one can distinguish between correlation and causation. It's easy to blame guns, because guns were used in all these cases. But guns don't fire themselves! Others point out the pathetic state of America's mental health care system - it's virtually impossible to have an individual involuntarily committed until AFTER they kill someone under current law. By then it's too late.
There simply are no easy solutions. If there were, we would have found them by now.
Some Americans simply have a sickness of the soul. That's the bottom line. There are wretched, evil people out there. Some of them need medical and psychiatric help, with which they can possibly lead normal lives. Some are so purely evil - or so deeply sick - that they simply need to be locked up for the safety of everyone else. But above all, what we need is a return to the values this country was based on, that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights - especially the right to life. We have devalued life across the board in this country, in our politics, in our entertainment, and in our laws. If all of us cherished life more, there would be fewer tragedies like the events in Oregon. At least, that is this writer's opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)