Minor Thoughts from me to you

"Then some of the scribes and pharisees said to him, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." He said to them in reply, "An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the Sign of Jonah the prophet. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." (Matthew 12: 38-40)

It's been a good, long while since I published any anti-Christian screed on this site. I feel inspired to do so today because this morning - and I want you to know I am not making this up - Atheist Me led the daily devotional for my school's students. Their pastor couldn't get out of his driveway and needed a fill-in.

In case you're wondering, no: even for a man who refuses to step foot in a worship service these days and would on principle never tell a child that Jesus is alive, much less loves him or her, it was pretty easygoing. I simply asked one of the older kids to lead the rest in prayer and then chose as our subject a parable from the Gospel of Luke which I do find valuable - in this particular case, the tale of the good Samaritan.

And to digress from this post's point, I find that this story - and indeed many stories from the Tanakh set after the reign of Solomon - have special resonance for Koreans (my students are all Korean), since these tales are set at a time when Israel is divided in twain and the northern segment of the population is considered to have gone seriously astray. In fact I like to bring home the point by reintroducing them to the tale by retelling it with new principal actors. That is, I tell them about a Korean man who gets mugged and passed over by a pastor and a missionary before being saved by a North Korean communist. In the future I plan to do the same wherever I go, should I have the opportunity: have Tutsis saved by Hutus, Jews by Muslim Palestinians, etc. I think it's the only way to restore the desired effect of a passage that has long since lost any relevancy.

OK, then: screed time.

Matthew 12:38-40 is a pretty major smoking gun that a lot of the Gospel accounts of Jesus need to be taken with more than a grain or two of salt. Far more people - even almost everybody - should notice it, but since reading the Bible is for most an act of worship rather than an exercise in critical thinking, and one written in an alien style that easily disorients the modern reader, neither the demands of Jesus' enemies or Jesus' own reply seem as bizarre as they should. Their conversation really should go something like this:

PHARISEES: Teacher, give us a sign!

JESUS: Oh, for the last - Huh?

SCRIBES: Show us a miracle so that we'll believe you!

JESUS: Forget it! Thirteen verses ago I was healing people left and right and your type accused me of witchcraft!

PHARISEES: Well... Do one now and we'll believe you.

JESUS: No. In fact, the only miracle I'm going to show this wicked generation is the Sign of Jonah.

LAME PERSON: That's it?

JESUS: Yes. That's the only one. Sorry.

LAME PERSON: But you healed Matthathias down the street of his leprosy. And Rachel of her epilepsy. And... A ton of other people.

JESUS: OK, OK, I'll heal you too. Just pipe down.

Clearly we've got some editorial funny business going on here; the passage simply doesn't make sense in its context. But then whence came it? Since the Gospel of Mark doesn't include it and both the other Synoptic Gospels do (and choose for its inclusion different places in the narrative) a decent educated guess is that it's a quotation out of "Q", the mysterious, missing wellspring from which the first three Gospels all seem to draw.

A'right, then: it's a quotation of Jesus, probably pulled from a list of them, that both Matthew and Luke noted and felt should be included. Yet, what about the content of the quotation itself? First we should note that the quote itself varies according to the gospel in which it is read, meaning either Matthew, Luke, both, or subsequent editors chose to add their own touch what Jesus was saying in this passage. Luke's adds more quotes from Jesus after it (the original, stand-alone quote at most included "An evil and unfaithful generation seeks a sign, but no sign will be given it except the Sign of Jonah the prophet") clearly peg the sign of Jonah to be simply Jonah's preaching. Someone who had his hand in Matthew, however, appears to have decided that Jesus was foreshadowing here (which in the context of Gospel of Matthew is not unreasonable, less so otherwise). Rather than let the Lord's sly allusion slip by any less savvy readers, he's written in J.C. simply spelling it out.

Second, we note that for all the clarification Matthew's (first? second?) author has added, we're still left with the quandary of why the Pharisees and scribes are asking Jesus for miracles - perhaps the gospel writers simply should have placed this passage earlier in Jesus' ministry, before He started healing? - and why Jesus says He won't. What's the most logical explanation?

The author or editor of Matthew tries to solve the problem himself; unlike the less gilded lilly of Luke's gospel, in which Jesus clearly identifies the present generation as the wicked one of which He speaks, Matthew makes Jesus' targets more generic. In Matthew, Jesus is talking about any generation that wants proof of His authority. Very handily, this not only erases the contradiction but gives churches a verse with which to counterattack when people demand they prove they represent God with some good old-fashioned miracle-working. The preferable take for Christians, then - but also the less trustworthy, since Matthew is clearly messing with his inherited text elsewhere in even the same section.

I'll offer a different idea, using the principle of analogy and a particular comparison borrowed from the excellent book I'm reading by scholar Dr. Robert M. Price (The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man). Another would-be messiah named Sabbatai Zevi, who would unfortunately go on to really disappoint his followers by choosing to convert to Islam rather than be martyred, was said by the Jews to be working all sorts of wonders during his candidacy - despite he himself saying he wasn't up to do any. The nature of personality cults and mystic beliefs took its course regardless, with various people claiming they'd been the recipient of his healing touch or what have you. Just as today (the overwhelming desire of the Catholic population to see Mother Theresa canonized has resulted in multiple, often embarrassing claims, such as that the visible glare of light in a photo of her is actually a heavenly radiance), people found magic where they wanted to find it.

Maybe Jesus' followers were likewise far more responsible for His miracles, even in the face of His own knowledge and declarations that He would not perform them (He fails at one point in Mark to do any miracles, ostensibly because the people in that location have no faith). Their imagination and experiences accomplished what Jesus Himself refused to do. Their reports are what is chronicled in the Gospels.

I think the taste from this morning is out of my mouth now.

"I cannot live without books." - Thomas Jefferson

FICTION

The Pillars of the Earth, by Ken Follett - This is the book I'm reading right now, actually, and in physical form yet. I paid a visit to the former chair of the Shorter College Humanities Department recently and we naturally flung books to read at each other before parting. UPDATE: FINISHED.

Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief, by Rick Riordan - The movie looks like a great deal of fun, but in general I'm a firm believer of reading the book first. So I will. UPDATE: FINISHED.

Up in the Air, by Walter Kim - Another book purchased simply because the previews for the movie greatly intrigue me.

Native Son, by Richard Wright - Because I like my reading lists to have some diversity and realized I didn't have any great African-American novels on it. I love Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man and Ellison was connected with Wright, so I selected this to fill the gap.

War & Peace, by Leo Tolstoy - I'm probably being absurdly optimistic in purchasing this book and putting it on my reading list for this year; as anyone can tell you, it's huge, and God knows the block of time it'll require has plenty of other claims on it, the rest of this list included. Still, I've really wanted to read it ever since finishing The Death of Ivan Ilyich, and having it readily available is the first step, so just maybe...

Crime and Punishment, by Fyodor Dostoevsky - And buying Tolstoy made me think of Dostoevsky, whose The Brothers Karamazov I finally finished when I last visited Korea.

The Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden, by John Steinbeck - I've already read Grapes, but I did it back in high school, which really is more or less equivalent to having not read something at all (children are all Philistines; their souls have not yet developed). One of Steinbeck's other novels ranks as an absolute favorite of mine, The Winter of Our Discontent, and one of the particularly proud moments of my time in college was when I had the honor of introducing my Creative Writing professor to it, who afterward declared it one of her all-time favorites as well.

The Angel's Game, by Carlos Ruis Zafon - Zafon's other novel, The Shadow of the Wind, is one of the most enjoyable books I read in '09. My wife's already read this one and told me it's darker, which disappointed her and somewhat disappoints me - Shadow was one of those books where you bounced in your bed at the ending, which is a rarity for me - but so it goes; no doubt it will still be, as Stephen King called Shadow, one gorgeous read.

The Baroque Trilogy (Quicksilver, The Confusion, The System of the World) and Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson - Apparently a force with which to be reckoned in science fiction, which accounts for why I haven't heard of him. I've received a lot of recommendations from friends who are into the genre, though, and Snow Crash made TIME's "100 Greatest Novels of the 20th Century", so I feel pretty confident these'll be enjoyable.

The Golden Compass, by Philip Pullman - I've always been curious about the His Dark Materials trilogy, a fantasy series that's often referred to as the anti-Chronicles of Narnia. I'm not willing to blindly plump for all three, but I'm pretty sure the first installment is a self-contained story, like The Lion, The Witch, & The Wardrobe.

The Magicians, by Lev Grossman - What if a bunch of today's adults found out Hogwarts and Narnia were real? Sounds fun.

Supreme Courtship, by Christopher Buckley - On the strength of his Thank You For Smoking.

A Farewell to Arms and The Son Also Rises, by Ernest Hemingway - I'd never actually read Hemingway until I picked up_ For Whom The Bell Tolls_ at the airport on my way to my honeymoon destination. I am now of course very much looking forward to reading the rest of his body of work. UPDATE: Accidentally found and FINISHED The Old Man and the Sea.

This Side of Paradise, by F. Scott Fitzgerald - Obviously I'm taking the opportunity to fill in a few shameful gaps in my reading experience.

Riding Lessons, by Sara Gruen - Because her Water For Elephants is utterly charming.

The Twilight Saga, by Stephenie Meyer - I consider it sort of a duty to read anything that gets as popular as these books. Plus my wife's read them all and wants to be able to discuss them with me. Hey, who knows? I didn't want to read the Harry Potter books, either.

Her Fearful Symmetry, by Audrey Niffenegger - On the strength of her first book, The Time Traveler's Wife, which reminded its readers of how great science fiction can be when it's not just left for geeks to write.

The House of Mirth, by Edith Wharton - Since all of her novels are in the public domain now, Amazon asks only ninety-nine cents in return for all thirty-one of them. I actually FINISHED this particular book back in January (we're over a month into '10, after all). Verdict: enjoyable, but The Age of Innocence is far more rewarding to the modern reader.

Between, Georgia, by Joshilyn Jakson - My mother's recommendation. I honestly have no idea.

Being Written, by William Conescu - One of several impulse buys. A minor character in a book realizes his nature and struggles with the author to achieve greater prominence.

Persona Non Grata, by Ruth Downie - My trial installment for a light-hearted series in which an ancient Roman doctor and his slave girl solve mysteries.

Tipperary, by Frank Delaney - In preparation for my Kindle spree I walked about a Barnes & Noble, just letting covers leap out at me. My wife tells me this one did. I naturally no longer remember.

The Plot Against America, by Philip Roth - A tale set in an alternative history in which the Fascists gained political power in America prior to World War II. Why not?

NONFICTION

The Art of Biblical Narrative, by Robert Alter - Assigned by my Old Testament professor at college, this is one of the books that spearheaded the (re-?)introduction of literary analysis of the Bible to universities in the last century. Obviously I've read it (got a "B" - Dr. Wallace wasn't easy), but I'd like to read it again at a more leisurely pace. And maybe take notes this time.

Foreskin's Lament, by Shalom Auslander - A memoir from an author who has written only one other book to my knowledge, an anthology of short stories collectively entitled Beware of God, which was so side-splittingly hilarious and poignant I'll probably be buying anything with his name on it for the foreseeable future.

The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel..., by Israel Finkelstein - A survey of what modern archaeology has to say about the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah and their Biblical records.

Nothing to Envy, by Barbara Demick - Six North Korean refugees describe life beyond the DMZ, and how they escaped it. Being in such close proximity to what may be the most evil regime on this planet almost demands an interest in it, so I've always known that when I returned to Seoul I'd be bringing along more reading material about the DPRK. UPDATE: FINISHED.

The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man, by Dr. Robert "The Bible Geek" Price - A biblical scholar's assessment of the four gospels' authenticity. UPDATE: FINISHED.

On Writing, by Stephen King - The best book on writing fiction I've ever read, written by the writer's writer. I owned a physical copy but gave it away.

Brotherhood of Warriors, by Douglas Century - A look into Israel's special forces. Already read this one too, but I need it on hand for research.

BOOKS I WOULD HAVE BOUGHT IF THEY WERE AVAILABLE ON THE KINDLE

Books by William Faulkner - Really? Nothing of his is available in an online edition? What's up with that?

Ender's Game, by Orson Scott Card - Sorry, Joe. I tried.

ABOVE: Father Tim Jones of the Church of England. Used to be when you invited the pastor over for dinner, you didn't have to count the silverware afterward.

The BBC informs us (in a story I am for some reason unable to link to - so go look it up) that a priest in Britain has told his flock "God's love for the poor and despised outweighs the property rights of the rich" - so if times are truly desperate, steal what you need from your local Wal-Mart.

Or any other big corporation, just so long as "they do not steal from small family businesses, but from large national businesses — knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices."

Maurice Clemmons

It is of course entirely possible that, as FOXNews.com quotes the Pierce County sheriff's department, "Maurice Clemmons [who is said to have killed four policemen] was shot to death after a 'very alert patrol officer' investigating reports of a stolen car recognized him."

But I think it should be noted that it is certainly also possible, considering it's a fairly open secret that the Thin Blue Line easily transforms into a Thin Blue Garrot when its own go down, that Mr. Clemmons was simply executed. Not that I'm necessarily wringing my hands about that, mind you, but why do we simply take the word of notoriously biased investigation boards?

Incidentally, FOX's story includes a great quote that I think illustrates one of our society's many faulty paradigms. When asked what motive Clemmons had, the spokesperson replied: "There is no answer, other than that he was angry about being incarcerated... There's never going to be an answer that makes any sense."

Right. 'Cause everyone knows, when someone locks you up in a cage for a major part of your limited time here on Earth, ya just gotta laugh it off.

So New Moon, sequel adaptation of the Twilight book series, has reportedly broken the record for opening day receipts last set by Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight.

And having ambitions of a professional writing career, I'm forced to pause and make sense of that - because whenever a movie or book that is to me obviously, horrifically (har?) bad succeeds so well with the public at large, I can't help but wonder if that little dream of mine is doomed. Maybe, the thought comes, the reading and movie-going public are firmly at odds with me as to what exactly qualifies as good entertainment. In which case, they're certainly not going to be buying anything you put out, now are they?

Suddenly my longtime-favorite newspaper The Economist, as if sensing its #1 fan in distress, comes to the rescue. In the middle of a new and highly-insightful article entitled "A World of Hits", which analyzes why we're seeing bigger blockbusters than ever in times when entertainment is becoming ever more specialized, the author takes time out to ask why it is that Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is currently rated at 4/5 Stars on Netflix.

Perhaps the best explanation of why this might be so was offered in 1963. In “Formal Theories of Mass Behaviour”, William McPhee noted that a disproportionate share of the audience for a hit was made up of people who consumed few products of that type. (Many other studies have since reached the same conclusion.) A lot of the people who read a bestselling novel, for example, do not read much other fiction. By contrast, the audience for an obscure novel is largely composed of people who read a lot. That means the least popular books are judged by people who have the highest standards, while the most popular are judged by people who literally do not know any better. An American who read just one book this year was disproportionately likely to have read “The Lost Symbol”, by Dan Brown. He almost certainly liked it.

It won't put any more money in my wallet when my own books are just sitting on the shelf, but at least I'll have the consolation of knowing that it'll be through no fault of mine.

I've been using the handy word "paradigm" fairly often regularly, I thought because it's a concise description of what I've found so interesting: the processes through which we've come to think, which often enough as part of their function exclude important information.

Until I was reading through a list of theological terms (one of the first sites to come up on Google when you search for theological terminology) and found this:

paradigm (Greek) Meaning a pattern, example or model. An overworked and overused word that is part of the vocabulary of individuals attempting to boost their sense of importance in the eyes of other persons. The word is used as "new paradigm" and "paradigm shift". It is used extensively by New Age writers and speakers and by the new breed of hyper-Charismatics and Dominion Theology believers to indicate that they believe a new mode of operation and thinking is in order.

I think I could rewrite the entry with a little less liberal wordiness ("paradigm (Greek) - A word used by bastards"), but still: ow. Cut to the quick.

While I don't like it when anyone gets hurt, on the other hand I find it difficult to work up sympathy for a bunch of people who are dead now because they promised an organization that in return for a minimum of $350 a week (as an enlisted) or $664 per week (as an officer), they'd help kill anybody they were asked to.

My lovely wife's birthday, my store's grand reopening after many millions of dollars' worth of construction work, and (ya wouldn't have caught me doing this in my Christian days - and in fact I'm still not enthused) a Halloween costume party all clamor for my time this week. So, stress for me. And a link for you.

FreeKeene.com - One of the largest concentrations of Free State Project movers - libertarians who have all moved to New Hampshire to campaign for civil liberties - exists in the town of Keene, New Hampshire, making it a nexus of libertarian news. My favorite radio program, Free Talk Live, is actually based there. FreeKeene is where you go for the latest news on all the real work being done by the hardcore activists, from the constant civil disobedience initiatives to the bills being introduced by libertarian legislators in the State House. If you believe in liberty more than security or society, you owe it to yourself to make with the clickie. Current hot topics are the arrest of six marijuana-smoking activists at the annual Pumpkin Day Celebration and a medical marijuana bill.

I'd also like to note that as a comic book fan, it just tickles me pink that it's not uncommon at Free State protests to see someone wearing these:

I'm about two years behind the times to be only seeing this now, but that's still pretty good for me, since it's not like I keep up with horror movies at all.

The above image is a teaser for the 2007 slasher film The Tripper, the plot of which is summarized on Wikipedia as follows:

"Free-loving hippies... escape to a modern-day Woodstock for a weekend of debauchery, only to be stalked by a radical-minded psychopath dressed and talking like Ronald Reagan."

You can't help but love the tag line ("Heeeeeeeere's Ronnie!"), a clear reference to The Shining. I can't think up a better one and I've been thinking them up ever since I read it ("This summer: BLOOD TRICKLES DOWN", "You Can't Just Say No", "Mourning in America", "There'll be no recovery from this", etc. Sigh. See?).

"Writing is 2% creativity, 98% not being distracted by the internet." - Anonymous

Words of wisdom which I am intent on following today, so no posts. Yet I feel a responsibility to those of you who depend on your Minor Thoughts commentary as you depend on bread and water, and therefore herein offer in substitute the limited number of blogs I personally visit daily or weekly.

Knowing even as I do that this will probably result in you never stopping by our website again.

Twenty-Sided Tales - Shamus Young is a Christian libertarian with a gift for humor who primarily blogs about video games - and even if you don't play them, what he has to say is worth reading. Young obtained internet fame with his now-completed "DM of the Rings" series, a free web comic that dares to imagine how Tolkien's famous Lord of the Rings saga might have played out if it was a Dungeons & Dragons game. Start your perusal of his site there, but be warned: once you start, it's hard to stop.

Slacktivist's Right Behind - The theologically-educated and very funny Slacktivist (Fred) has done a solid for the world by dedicating his analytical prowess to taking apart LaHaye and Jenkins's Left Behind book series. Highly-recommended if you've read them - you'll be amazed at how much you didn't catch that Fred does.

Paul O'Brien's If Destroyed, Still True - A blog dedicated to reviewing comic books (primarily ones starring the X-Men and related characters), wrestling matches, and the top ten British songs on any given week. As with all of the sites I list here, Paul O'Brien has a great sense of humor - but he's also the only online reviewer I bother to read because he's the only one I've ever encountered with an eye for the science of writing. Great examples (don't even worry if you haven't read the stories in question, just click): his reviews of Uncanny X-Men #439, #440, #433, and Wolverine #55.

Enjoy.

One kernel of common wisdom often repeated among American Christians today is that God is not a Republican or a Democrat.

The great majority don't actually believe it, of course; most of them are firmly convinced that those bastards on the opposite side of the political spectrum (by which I mean about a quarter-inch over - both Dems and 'Pubs have a fairly myopic view of what positions are available, too) are the ignorant, hateful pawns of Satan himself. And the few who do mean it when they say it are usually making the claim that Jesus simply eschewed politics altogether, not that Jesus' politics simply don't match either party platform.

They're all wrong. Of course Jesus had politics, first of all - everyone has politics, however little exercised, because they're inseparable from having a world view - and of course they don't match up along today's political party lines. In fact if Jesus were to run for president of the United States in '12, likely every voter to read or hear His platform would be absolutely horrified.

Which is why I present it for their pleasure below - 'cause that's a good enough reason for me.

Abortion: I always try to give people the benefit of the doubt when they claim the Bible is either silent about or in favor of abortion: I assume that they are joking. If Jesus held the predominant view of other rabbis in his time, He believed Genesis 4:10 informs us that people are alive before they are even conceived. Because God claims in that verse to hear Abel's "bloods" (plural, though most translations don't show it) and the Jews thought/still think it very strange that God did not use the singular "blood", they decided the additional blood belonged to all of the descendants Cain might have had if he'd lived. Similar ideas still stand in many sects of Judaism today.

Government Control of the Economy: In His guise as the Father in the Tanakh, Jesus set up a socialist safety net that releases many citizens from their debts and forbids landowners from reaping their entire harvests. At certain times passersby are also allowed to freely eat what they can pick from other people's property.

Sales and Work on Sunday: Absolutely forbidden, except for doctors, nurses, et al. on call.

Gay Marriage: One problem that often results from the claim that the Bible is God's Word is that it encourages people to read it as if it's a legal document and they are lawyers. Never mind the Good Book's historical context or even any clear implications one might make from its stories about how the ancient Hebrews saw the world; a contested ban must not only be very specifically written down in the Bible (with God as the speaker or that's an easy out) but also include a note to the effect of "and this holds true for every possible permutation of said offense", else it doesn't hold water. For any secular student of the Bible, the idea that any ancient form of Judaism or Christianity right back to Jesus and Moses ever looked kindly on homosexual activity is just totally bizarre. Not so for the desperate churchgoer.

The Death Penalty: Jesus approvingly quotes the Torah's well-known position on the topic in several gospels (Matt. 15:3-4 and Mark 7:8-11 - and don't let the story of Jesus sparing the adulteress fool you, by the way. It's not authentic). But try to be honest with yourself - do you really need citations to know that? That this question is ever debated is an excellent example of how Christians like to rip the Bible free of its historical context. Being against the death penalty was more or less unheard of in Jesus' time - and if Jesus had been against it, that would've been major news, certainly all the Jews needed to write Him off as a blasphemous kook.

Religious Tolerance: Jesus doesn't say much about these values, but since He is "one substance" with the Father - and since the Jews of His time still wanted to bring back the Tanakh's example of Hebrew government - we can always dig for His answers in the Old Testament. And what we find there is that in so far as religious expression goes, you really should stay in your own country if you're anything but a worshipper of the LORD - God repeatedly demands the desecration and destruction of other religions' temples and holy sites, along with the deaths of anyone who leads the public away from His worship. No separation of church and state here, that's for sure.

Form of Government: God supports a monarchy for most of the Tanakh's length and for all of Israel's existence as an actual nation (prior to that it was an alliance of tribes). Sometimes the king is answerable to a greater, spiritual guide (for instance, in the case of Saul and Samuel). For a comparison, one might look to the make-up of the Iranian government today (sans the voting pretense), with a dictator nominally in control of the country but nonetheless answerable to the ayatollah.

Yessir - and it's high-time we returned to the values on which I'm told this country was founded.

So this week I've been ragging a lot on the new Conservative Bible Project going on over at Conservapedia. Just 'cause it's, uh, y'know... stupid.

Yet confirmation bias, lack of perspective, and baseless theology certainly aren't phenomenas found solely on the Right end of the political spectrum. And to remind us all of that, today I present to you the website Jesus Is A Liberal, the creators of which want you to know:

"We believe it is high time someone stand up for the Liberal, Progressive, Tolerant and Independent thinking majority's position that any plain reading of His words, any genuine interpretation of His intent, outline a Liberal, Progressive, Tolerant, Loving [sic] and holistic world view... Our Mission is to promote the Integral Koan (TM), holistic meme, and the original belief and understanding that Jesus IS a Liberal, and to their very core His teachings outline a Liberal, Progressive, Tolerant, Loving, open minded, holistic, and sustainable vision for our World.

I tried to look up what a koan is, as well as how one might be trademarked, but according to a Buddhist priest "a koan can't be answered or understood by the intellect." Which explains the website perfectly, really.

Unlike the Conservative Bible Project, this website is now inactive - and curiously so, since it had obtained a modicum of success selling bumper stickers and t-shirts. Its Articles section advertises new updates coming your way in June of '07.

Still, as a monument to paradigm-shackled thought processes it remains exemplary, so have fun checking it out.

Because one way to regularly update a blog is to shoot fish in a barrel, today we continue our look at the development of a Republican Study Bible (because may we just be honest? While the project is officially entitled the "Conservative Bible Project", "conservative" is a term that's changed its meaning several times just in the last century. "Republican" is much more accurate), now underway at Conservapedia.

From the Project's website, we learn:

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians. For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

Now as someone with a B.A. in English and an interest in politics, I've always found the propaganda potential in word choice very real and interesting. Still, I'm unconvinced words like "laborer" and "worker" are so much Leftist vocab as they are common words that Leftists have simply run into the ground.

But hey, who knows? Maybe better alternatives do exist - so out of curiosity I jumped onto Thesaurus.com to find a few synonyms they might prefer, then decided to try inserting them in a sample verse.

I chose 1 Timothy 5:18 (ESV): "The laborer deserves his wages." Clearly runs afoul of the CBP's standards, so let's see what we can do with it, shall we?

"The worker deserves his wages." Hmm. No, that's definitely no better, is it?

"The blue collar deserves his wages." Oof, no. Even worse. The United Auto Workers could put it on a poster.

"The drudge deserves his wages." Apolitical, but seems a little insulting. Looking down the list I also see "peon" and "grunt", neither of which I feel any better about.

"The farmhand deserves his wages." Too narrow.

"The stiff deserves his wages." Too on the nose.

"The wage-earner deserves his wages." Redundant?

"The migrant worker deserves his wages." Uncomfortably pro-immigration.

"The grunt deserves his wages." I told you they were further down the list.

"The manual worker deserves his wages." If we could only get rid of that darned 'w' word. Replace it with "technician", maybe - but I suppose that would be what the Conservative Bible Project calls "liberal wordiness".

"The jobholder deserves his wages." OK, this is technically perfect, but doesn't it sound like it came out of the company manual instead of God's Word? Ditto for "staff member" and the like. I just want something with a bit more soul.

Shoot. Well, I've been through most of the modern synonyms the online thesaurus has to offer, and I haven't found any I think would really communicate the proper capitalist spirit in a striking fashion. I guess for me the words "laborer" and "worker" are justified. Maybe the good folk at the Conservative Bible Project are a little more inventive than me, though.

Come to think of it, to believe what they do I guess they'd have to be.

Oddly enough, I learned about the following endeavor from the latest Steve Grant column - who mainly writes about trends in comic books.

So: On the online Conservapedia you can now find a webpage dedicated to the new Conservative Bible Project, which seeks to remedy the fact that no current edition of the Bible exists on which a Republican president may swear and mean it.

The Project lists ten guidelines according to which it intends to re-interpret God's Holy Word, which must simply be reproduced in their entirety:

Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity

Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level[3]. [Note: I never really understood why something being written simply makes it dumber.]

Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census. [Actually, I quite like this suggestion. Will they make it clear that the ancient Hebrews rolled dice to determine the will of God?]

Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil. [Sickos.]

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning. [I didn't make this one up. Go check the page. It's really there. I hope this project works out; I can't wait to see what they do with the God-given, quite socialist rules of ancient Israel in regard to private debt, alms, etc. Not to mention the early church having everything in common...]

Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story. [As an example, they cite Luke 23:34 - which was indeed apparently inserted later into the gospel. But blamin' this on liberalism is just laughable.]

Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels. [But will the translators be able to recognize it when they see it?]

Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God." [The ridiculousness of this particular charge should be self-evident. Writing styles break down across ideological lines, with taut writing being conservative. Amazing.]

Their webpage also includes suggestions as to how they might approach the job of interpreting on a practical level ("identify pro-liberal terms used in existing Bible translations, such as 'government', and suggest more accurate substitutes").

At present it looks like the Project has either translated or is in the process of translating all of the New Testament, but has expectedly barely gotten anywhere with the Tanakh.

The deep irony here is that the men and women involved in this project are part of a tradition which they will deny exists to their very graves: even the earliest manuscripts are chock-full of verses which bear obvious signs of having been ever-so-slightly tampered with in order to buttress a particular ideology.

Hitler and Holocaust comparisons are considered fairly gauche these days on account of their overuse.

Nevertheless, bear with me.

Imagine you’re a German in the 1930’s or early ‘40’s – nobody of particular consequence, but a lawful and ethnic citizen of das Deutschland. Turning on the radio one morning, you hear a typically bellicose and historically divergent Fuhrer publicly announce that any living man, woman, or child who is not a member of the Nationalist Socialist Party by the time Germany wins the war will be receiving a special gift from the government: a one-way ticket to the ovens of Auschwitz and Birkenau.

Needless to say, you’re alarmed. Not for yourself, of course; you’ve been a member in good standing of the Third Reich’s sole political party since childhood, when you would go camping in the summers with all your friends in the Hitler Youth Corps. But you have friends, coworkers, and even family whom you love very much and of whom you think very highly, yet who have foolishly never decided that accepting Hitler as their leader is in their best interests.

Usually you greet every directive of the Fuhrer with implicit and joyful trust, but this time doubt wells in your heart. You understand why your Jewish neighbors had to go – they were, after all, constantly trying to sabotage the creation of the German utopia – but why all these other people?

You ask your friend Johann, who works for the Party and is schooled in the impeccable reasoning that underwrites all its actions; he’s always been able to clear up for you any idelogical concept you don’t quite grasp, so long as you aren’t actually challenging the government’s authority.

And it’s “Quite simple, really,” Johann tells you, an understanding smile on his face. “I grant you that it’s sad, but surely you’d agree that a socialist utopia can never occur if selfish capitalists and other undesirable elements are allowed to keep operating within it. They’d ruin everything. They must be weeded out.”

“Can’t we just force them to obey?” you ask hopefully.

Johann clucks his tongue. “And make them all slaves? The Fuhrer respects the free will of each citizen. He believes in personal freedom.”

“Then exile,” you desperately suggest. “The Fuhrer could banish them from Germany, yet he could also show mercy by allowing them to return once they realize the error of their ways!”

“An infinite amount of time to choose,” Johann patiently explains, “would render their judgment inconsequential. What does it matter what path one selects, if he may later instantly step onto the path he forewent? And furthermore, of what worth is an oath of loyalty, when victory has already been won? No, my friend, a line in the sand must be drawn, and the end of the war is the right place to do so. ”

He pats you on the shoulder. “Listen to me. I know how difficult this is for you. It is the same for me. I do not want any Germans to burn up in the ovens. That’s why I work so hard every day for the Interior Ministry of Propaganda – because I love my countrymen and want to convince as many of them as possible to accept Hitler as their own personal fuhrer. Now, if I may speak candidly and if you will be discreet, I will confess something to you: if I was the one in charge of the government, I would not have the strength of will to sign an order to eliminate so many. But I’m not the one in charge, nor should I be. Nor should you be, my friend, I think you will agree. So let us both just have faith in Adolf Hitler, that what he does is and always has been good and wise. He will not lead us astray.”

You nod, slowly but firmly. All of his points make sense, but it’s the last things Johann said which actually soothe the ache that had been developing in your heart: that you and he aren’t the ones responsible for doing this. It’s not in your hands. You’re both just two good people trying to save as many Germans as possible before the Fuhrer does what he must. And as for the Fuhrer’s role in all of this? Even if you don’t completely understand that, you should just have faith it’s all for the best.

Besides, it’s not like people who turns down membership aren’t choosing the ovens for themselves. If they are sentenced to death, it’ll be their own fault.

“Heil Hitler,” Johann ritually declares, bringing an end to your meeting.

“Heil Hitler,” you reply, and stand.

*

I’ve encountered another mainstream argument for the justness of Hell that I haven’t paraphrased in the above allegory. It’s a claim made by many of the largest websites on Christian apologetics: that people ultimately go to Hell because they literally prefer eternal torment to complete surrender to God.

It’s the only reason that still makes sense to me. But that’s because it’s the right decision - the one any brave enough person should make if confronted with a despot threatening genocide. To support a murderous regime is a monstrous evil in and of itself, even if yours is not the murdering hand. The German people of the 1930’s and ‘40’s certainly bore a collective guilt for following a man we now refer to as a gold standard of evil. Christians who believe in Hell and serve its creator bear the same.

On some level, I think most Christians now understand that, too, which is why in these more enlightened times popular interpretations of Hell have begun to soften, with references to fire, brimstone, and outer darkness being declared metaphorical or judiciously ignored. They speak instead of “eternal separation from God,” a softer fate parallel to my scenario’s suggestion of Hitler exiling non-Nazis.

That’s nonsense, but at least it’s an attempt, however underhanded, to rid themselves of the evil doctrine. The Christians I don’t understand are those who do not consider it incumbent upon themselves to address it at all. They piously punt, assuring all inquirers that while they don’t know God’s reason, it’s sure to be a good one – on its face a breathtakingly irresponsible decision.

Or they utilize excuses like those in my scenario, telling in that their obvious purpose is selfish. People who do feel better after Johann’s defense do so because their concerns have nothing to do with mercy; everything he says only addresses and absolves them and their god of culpability. And that is good enough for them.

The truly loving person would not be so satisfied. Indeed, you would think that the natural response of a Spirit-filled Christian, theoretically brimming with love for his or her fellow man, would be to either immediately commit to a lifetime of missions work or plunge headlong into abyssal depression, perhaps followed by alcoholism and drug abuse. Biblical precedents exist for both routes.

I would prefer a third option, however, that also has an example in God’s Supposed Word: that of Moses, the humblest man then alive, who nevertheless had the courage to say to his LORD on Mt. Sinai, “Please forgive their sin—but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written."

It’s probably a good idea to write my next review on somone about whom I have generally positive feelings, if a few criticisms – and God bless him, economist Thomas Sowell certainly counts.

A perfectly publishable 500-750 word opinion piece isn’t difficult to write. I can write one in ninety minutes. But to write a good one, one needs either a specialized perspective or a unique voice with which to communicate one that’s unremarkable. Ann Coulter is a good example of someone with the latter (yes, she’s a lawyer by training, but that almost never figures into her commentary anymore).

Mr. Sowell possesses the former due to his background as a working economist; the almost constant theme of his column is what people think and say versus what the reality of a situation is, form versus substance. Yet the thought process he earned from that same background enjoyably imbues him with a style, too; I’d be willing to bet money that no other conservative commentator uses the question mark to punctuate his sentences as much as Mr. Sowell does. His string of them from “Listening to a Liar” (Sept. 8 of this year) is just one of numerous examples:

"If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years-- more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election?

If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election?

If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death?

If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe?

And that’s why Mr. Sowell is one of few Townhall.com columnists I still recommend: Everyone is offering answers, but far more often than most Sowell will point out for you factors you might not have noticed and demonstrate the line of inquiry he used to unearth them, thus actually educating you.

About those “few criticisms” I mentioned at the beginning, though: personally I chalk it up to the bad influence of other successful columnists, but occasionally Sowell does mimic their unattractive habit of using disparaging terms for Leftists – “limousine liberals”, “feminazis”, and the like. For many columnists this habit doesn’t make any difference, since only a dyed-in-the-wool Republican would ever be caught dead reading their vitriol anyway (Ann Coulter, again), but Sowell’s logic is so universally applicable and appealing that it’s a real shame when he provides statists with a big notice that he is their enemy and hence should be dismissed.

And speaking of statism, Sowell’s occupation as an economist and his accompanying love of free markets sometimes seems to take a backseat to his Republican identity. Despite his understanding of how unrestricted trade across borders benefits all and competition improves any industry, he accuses those darn illegal immigrants of taking our jobs (“‘Vigilantes’ on the border?”, May 3rd, 2005). There are cultural and safety arguments against illegal immigration, but labor competition?

But if I were to ask Mr. Sowell why he wrote it – and he had time to answer - I am sure I would receive an intelligent and interesting reply, whether I agree with it or not. That confidence, finally, is why Mr. Sowell is the Republican you should read.

Yesterday I found trying to write the archetypal 500-word op-ed so much fun that this morning I've decided to write a couple more on (what I will charitably call) the art form. And because Rabbi Jesus advised us to go where the sinners are - an idea revealing of His divine understanding of marketing - I've thrown it up on a blog on Townhall.com itself to feature it. I've named it "Townhall Reviewed".

This morning I pounded out the following column (took about 30 min.). While I won't claim its source to be divine, I frankly feel God probably agrees with it.

I'll probably do a few more, so c'mon back later if you find it pleasing.

A Varied Diet Is Good For You: Stop Reading So Many Conservative Pundits

If you’re reading this, odds are you’re not a very informed person.

Forgive me, but it has to be said by somebody.

And I say it, if it makes any difference, as a young man who grew up listening to Rush Limbaugh, at least until his father discovered any number of other talk radio hosts who quickly followed in El Rushbo’s historic wake, and who by my sophomore year in high school did not end a day without absorbing every new column published by Townhall.com’s elite assemblage of conservative pundits.

Over a decade later I still read and listen to them, too - they’re just not all I read and listen to.

Today I also listen to podcasts from Dan Carlin, a moderate. And also broadcasts from Air America, which isn’t. Books I’ve recently read: Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickeled and Dimed and Hillary Clinton’s autobiography.

All of this is good.

For all the intuitive understanding today’s conservatives possess of the marketplace and specifically the wonderfully-termed marketplace of ideas, they tend not to bother shopping around in it. Six or seven years ago I certainly never did. What information I needed to know from the books, articles, and videos of my political opponents I learned from quoted excerpts within my own, which handily came with ready rebuttals to any points I might find troubling.

That I had encased myself within a bubble of groupthink, one no less Orwellian than that which envelopes our universities, did not occur to me until late in college, when in my zeal to become the most effective culture warrior I could be I decided to start reading the works of my enemies; I wanted to be a Christian apologist and writer, so I started by putting away Norman L. Geisler, Lee Strobel, and other “defenders of the faith” and instead reading alternative commentaries on the Tanakh by moder-day Jewish scribes like Gunther W. Plaut and Dennis Prager, after which I graduated to the atheist treatments of Dr. Robert M. Price and the full-bore counter-apologists we all know so well: Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, et al.

I liken the effect of this expanded reading list to having eaten only American hamburgers for most of my life and then discovering ethnic food exists. The variety and richness of thought I encountered, even though I disagreed with a lot of it, was intoxicating – and yes, I started coming across arguments against Biblical inerrancy and various Christian values that C.S. Lewis, Norman L. Geisler, and the rest never mentioned to me. For the first time in my life I was truly being challenged, and only the opinions I truly deserved to have survived this refiner’s fire.

Naturally, I soon enough applied the same approach to my politics, and now – well, now I’m in a place I’d never thought I’d be. Which is scary, but also very exciting.

There’s little practical difference between living in a one-party state where you are constantly brainwashed and living in a two-party state where you are constantly conditioning yourself. Don’t waste the blessing you’ve been given of living in one of the few countries on Earth where you really can explore every point of view. It’s too rare a gift and it’s dishonest.

Take a break today from Townhall.com. Hell, take a week off. It’s not like you don’t know what all of these people think about everything anyway. Instead, jump over to a Libertarian website (they half-agree with you! Good place to start!), or even a Democrat one if you’re brave enough. Then when you return to the discussions here, at least you’ll have a unique voice, as opposed to being just another Republican repeating the exact same points from the exact same sources that everyone else is repeating.

Become informed.

My father is a fan of Rush Limbaugh.

Also Sean Hannity, now that he's come on the scene.

And Hugh Hewitt, actually, and also Michael Medved. Come to think of it, Dennis Prager too, and...

Well.

You understand. Perhaps your heart is even going out to me. You are thinking of what my childhood must have been like.

Actually it wasn't bad at all - I'm certainly not about to form a support group - but it's true that by the tender age of 15 I had taken upon myself a daily reading list that included practically every major Republican name with a national opinion column - and I found them all conveniently collected for my daily perusal at Townhall.com, still so far as I know the preeminent clearinghouse on the internet for conservative messages (not that I am looking). Daily columns, cartoons, podcasts, pictures of Ann Coulter back when she was attractive, FOX stuff... It's all there.

Here's the thing: when I eventually went cold turkey on the extremely addictive website, it wasn't because I'd jumped over to the Libertarian position. I didn't do that until years later. No, I quit reading Townhall.com's columnists out of boredom.

I tried to explain this to my dad a couple months back, said: "Listen, maybe it's just that I have a Bachelor's in the English language, for which you paid by the way and I am grateful, or maybe it's that the similarities between all of those articles become more apparent to you when you read as many of them as I did on a daily basis. But they're all the same, Dad. There's little difference in style, still less in formula, and either one of us could very likely guess the opinion of any one of them on any given issue at any time. Really, it's hack work, stuff they pretty obviously churn out when they're not busy doing the real jobs that made their names. If they're not ghost-written they should be, because I could write them easy."

"I don't think you could do what they do," replied my father. No doubt he simply thought his son's ego was once again getting ahead of his actual abilities, which admittedly has been known to occur.

But y'know what? I can write them easy. And just as a writing exercise today before I get started on what I high-falutin'ly refer to as my "serious work", I churned out the following column in about an hour and a half. I plan to "forward" it to my father this week with a pseudonymous byline (at the moment I'm thinking "Christofer Fuller", being my first and last name in their respective German pronunciations, but that may be too obvious).

If you've read conservative columnists of the sort that fill Townhall.com then you know whether or not I successfully capture the right formula. I think it needs slight polishing but it otherwise feels authentic.

How Democrats Can Fix Our Health System

By Christofer Fuller

There’s a fairly easy way to tell whether someone’s offer to help you is truly altruistic or has ulterior motivations: just reject the offer and see if the wannabe do-gooder accepts your answer. For instance, if you’re a woman carrying groceries to your home and a man resolutely demands that he bring them inside for you, it’s time to shout for help.

The Democrats’ recent refusal to listen to the millions of Americans who have made it abundantly clear they want nothing to do with government-mandated health care clearly fails this test. President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi aren’t just determined to present every American with the choice of purchasing health insurance; all of them want to fine you if you make the wrong decision, to the tune o’ $950 if you’re just you and up to $3,800 if you’ve got the the wife and kids. I ask you: what could be the rationale behind making this threat? If the Democratic Party can successfully lead all the horses of America to water, why force the ones that aren’t thirsty to drink?

And for that matter, why insist on American tax dollars funding this expensive program – especially with the national debt as high as it already is – when the Democratic Party itself already has the power to fix our whole system?

All the Democratic Party has to do is enter the health insurance market.

I'm serious. Look: According to our would-be rescuers, the problem is that greedy health insurers are jipping us, right? And also not accepting those of us with preexisting conditions, the jackals! Well then, let the Democratic Party establish its own non-profit insurer – let’s call it the Democratic Health Co., or D.H.C. - devoted to taking on anybody and everybody wanting coverage at rock-bottom rates.

This should be easy. After all, the Party already has a list of 72 million customers (their registered voters) who want the product, right? Most companies would shed blood for a database like that. One e-mail to everybody on the list and D.H.C. could rival BlueCross BlueShield right out of the starting gate.

As for getting the money to start this ball rolling? Are you kidding? This is the same organization that raised nearly a billion dollars for the last election. For a noble undertaking such as this they could probably raise more.

It would be great to see the D.H.C. really show all of our current money-grubbing insurance providers what it really means to care for others – and best of all, its entry into the market would force those sons of guns to compete by making the same offers! So everybody would end up with affordable health insurance, without having a plan pushed on them they don’t want! Wouldn’t that be great?

If the Democrats only cared enough about me to make a no-strings offer like that, shoot – I’d put ‘em into every local, state, and federal office for which I have a vote.

But they don’t, do they? If I say no, they threaten me.

HELP!

UPDATE: Oh, why not? I just submitted it to a couple of different conservative opinion editors. Total shot in the dark, I know (and if one of them wanted it, I'd have to take down this post in a hurry), but why waste ninety whole minutes of work?

UPDATE 2: My wife agreed that "Fuller" was too obvious, so I chose "Paulson" as my nom de guerre (my father's name is Paul). As the saying goes, "Let's see if he can taste the difference!"

UPDATE 3: Nope, he couldn't.

Introduction

Just why is Minor Thoughts your #1 source for the latest news and discussion concerning embattled Christian archaeologist Dr. Ron Charles, and his book The Search ? Is it our incisive reporting on the subject? Our delicate handling of the larger issues raised in indicting a fellow believer for his suspicious claims? Or perhaps just our marked determination, ironically so similar to that of a Christian archaeologist, to not stop digging until the truth is uncovered?

Probably not, as we haven't even mentioned the dude on our blog for years now. But we wish you'd tell us, because our original, off-handed mention that the guy's book is suspicious is still receiving replies. And recently a Mr. Richard Peck, who's co-authored an article on the subject of the man for Personal Freedom Outreach's journal, has offered me his research for the purpose of debunking Ron's claims. Other respondents include Dr. Ron Charles himself.

Who, I might add, I am personally starting to feel a little sorry for. This politico-religious blog calling him names now actually comes up first when you search him out on Google. For the longest time his own RonCharles.com _came in second, and now I can't find it at all. Meaning _we're actually the only real publicity this man has: a side-mention slamming his book as not worth finishing a couple years ago. We should start a charity to hire him an SEO writer.

Perhaps this visible position we hold at least explains why some, like commenter Flor Hull, angrily accuse us of acting as "Satan's helpers" for being so "stupid and naive [as] to spend all your time just [trying] to prove one man wrong." They assume that Webmaster Joe and I actually became the thorn in Ron Charles's side we apparently are through some sort of effort.

Allow me to dissuade all interested parties of that illusion. Joe and I have barely even spoken about Ron Charles. And so little patience for nonsense do I possess these days that I've lacked the constitution to even read more than a couple pages of Ron Charles's life's work at a time, so I certainly haven't let him unduly distract me. A few years ago I simply opened The Search, on the recommendation of a friend from whom I thankfully borrowed it instead of wasting my own money, read several of its ridiculous statements - all written in an amateurish style that assured me the author does not possess a professor's education, regardless of the bio in the back - and then I put it back down. Out of a sense of civic duty I typed out a quick form letter of protest to the people at Final Frontiers dumb enough to hire such a person.

That's been the extent of my personal investment in the issue. Frankly, the Church and the religious world in general possesses no shortage of crackpots pedaling obviously ridiculous theories to the gullible - I just finished reading Tim LaHaye's (Left Behind) guide to the Book of Revelation, incidentally - and Ron's a pretty small fish, all things considered.

Yet the case was recently made to me that whereas I have often said that the only credible role of the blog-o-sphere is to provide commentary not currently available in the mainstream media, and whereas no resource currently exists on the internet for people at risk of being fooled by Ron Charles's absurd "findings", writing an actual article on the question of Ron Charles's book and creditability would provide an authentic service. After all, "small fish" are exactly what blogs are best at catching.

So I caved in, and I wrote this.

I thank Mr. Richard Peck and Personal Freedom Outreach, who graciously allowed me to use research from their own article on the matter ("The Search for the Real Dr. Ron Charles") from the July-September '08 issue of PFO's Quarterly Journal. If you want more information, go buy a copy.

Who is Dr. Ron Charles?

Ronal D. Charles is a man who has written a book about his personal search ("a culmination of more than 30 years of historical research") for information on Jesus Christ - aptly titled The Search. You can buy it on Amazon. Apparently some people do. As of this writing all of the reviewers have given it perfect scores, too, though at least some of these people are known to be personal friends of Mr. Charles.

When I received his book from a friend, I first opened it to its back page. Since I'd never heard of Ron Charles, I wanted to know who he was. Here was the information I found:

"Dr. Ron Charles is well qualified [sic] to write a book about the search for historical Jesus... [He has] a B.A. in Theology... an M.A. in Ancient History, an M.A. in Historical Theology, a Ph.D. in Ancient History, a Ph.D. in International Relations, and a Th.D. in Historical Theology... He serves on the Board of Directors for Pacific International University... as a member of the Board of Governors of Cambridge's Biographical and Historical Division, and has recently been a recipient of Cambridge's One Thousand Great Americas[sic] award. Dr. Charles has Mitten [sic - surely he means "mitted". What a multi-talented man!] six other books."

Note that I've just quoted only a little of The Search so far and have already had to note two mistakes. There are three paragraphs total within the "About the Author" section and they contain several more mistakes, run-on sentences and the like. For me, this is what immediately flagged Ron Charles's book as not to be trusted. Any man capable of earning doctorates in multiple subjects shouldn't write on a high school student's level. In fact, he almost certainly would be capable of getting his work published by a university press or other book publisher, instead of having to self-publish (not that I have anything against self-publishing - some great books have been self-published - but you should note when one is).

I didn't follow up on Ron Charles's biography then. I just flipped to the front of the book and began reading. But recently I've come back and taken a second look at this section, bothered to check a few of the credits listed. I'd never heard of Pacific International University but simply assumed it was a credible institution.

Not so. Pacific International University is apparently what's sometimes called a "diploma mill", according to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. No institution respectable enough to meet the standards of the Department of Education or the Council for Higher Education considers P.I.C.'s degrees to be worth anything. In some states it would even be fraudulent to suggest so. Which makes one wonder how many of Ron Charles's degrees are from its printer or that of a similar (let's call it what it is) business.

Let me quench one's curiosity. Richard Peck's article for PFO's Quarterly Journal details at least three such degrees, all obtained via "home-correspondence courses" from Florida International University: a B.A. in Theology, a master's in Biblical History, and a doctorate in Biblical History. And all obtained within a three-year span! No easy feat, unless of course it was.

Richard Peck also notes many other degrees Ron Charles has allegedly claimed to hold, but which on review he doesn't: theological degrees from actual respected academies like Berean University, U. of Southwestern Louisiana, Kilgore College, and - get this - Cambridge University. No less than honorary PhDs from that last one too, though it's news across the pond.

If this is true, who is "Dr." Ron Charles? I certainly couldn't tell you, but apparently not someone "well qualified" to write a book about Jesus.

A Look Into Ron Charles's The Search

The shortcomings of its author aside, let's consider Ron Charles's magnum opus on its own merits. Now, I've admitted to having not read the entirety of The Search - just the first few chapters on several occasions and a few random selections from the tome's innards. Factor that as you will into your estimation of my opinion on it, but life is short and we are all stewards of the time we are given on Earth. I don't think reading all of The Search is good use of it. Nor do I really think it's necessary when what I have read of it is so dubious.

Ron Charles has written in our comment threads that "within the body and text of [The Search] I have identified each and every manuscript that I used. I name the museum, the university, or institution where the document can be found (in case someone wants to also research the documentation), the author, the date that it was written and exactly where it is located in the institution. I researched for over 30 years; traveling to over 50 countries in that research and it took me 3 years to write it."

(An aside: Whoa. Three years. That's as long as it takes to get three degrees!)

Poppycock. "Identified each and every manuscript that I used"? On pages 226-235 he claims to have discovered ancient scrolls in the possession of a mullah in Turkey, documents illuminating much about the wedding feast in Cana described within the Gospel of John, including who's wedding it actually was (Jesus' sister). After reading these scrolls with understandably breathless excitement - this is the kind of find deserving cover treatment by every Biblical archaeology magazine in print, the kind of find which makes a scholar's legacy - what does Ron do? Plead with the mullah to entrust the document to a museum? Photograph it? Return later with a renowned professor to authenticate it, followed by a team to excavate the area in which the scroll was found? Trade the mullah his scrolls for a briefcase of laundered cash? Surely something! After all, this is the sort of revelation that would bring a grinding halt to any previous investigation and consume all further attention.

Well, sorry to disappoint you. He leaves and The Search doesn't bother mentioning them again, even though these scrolls (if they really exist) are worth a few dozen dessertations in and of themselves. And where can a reader go and investigate these scrolls for himself? He or she can go to Amad's house in Hatay, Turkey, that's where. Or maybe it's "Amada's" house. I'm not sure because neither is Ron Charles. He can't seem to remember the name of the man with whom he shared this transformative experience. For half the story he spells it one way and half the time he spells it the other (for which I again do have sympathy, since I honestly make the same mistake on a regular basis. When I'm writing fiction).

Anyhow, the name's not important. If you want to find the man, you can identify him because he's the mullah of a mosque that, er... used to be named the Church of St. Barnabas. Ask around town 'til someone's eyes light up.

Another weakness of this story is worth mentioning for what it says about either the character of Ron Charles or the extent of his education: Ron's unquestioning acceptance of these long-lost sheepskin scrolls at face value. Even if the documents truly are real and are old, instead of fakes sold by a native to unsuspecting tourists, Ron's education should tell him that spurious additions to the story of Jesus' life were (and are) a dime-a-dozen. We have tons of ancient reports like these scrolls in the possession of universities, pretending to be evidence of new details about the life of the Christ. In fact, some of these fake additions have made it into the Bible itself (Did you know that the story of Jesus sparing the prostitute from stoning is nowhere to be found in our best and oldest manuscripts?).

But Ron Charles is a very trusting man. He leaves Amad's/Amada's house a true believer. "In one short afternoon," he writes on page 235, "I had learned that the wedding at Cana was probably Jesus' sister's wedding, Mary was the sponsor of the wedding, there were two different types of wine served, Mary's wine-order had been "short-changed," [sic] Jesus was responsible for giving a benediction at the wedding" and much, much more.

I am not so trusting a man. You, Dear Reader, should not be one either.

There are plenty of similar examples within The Search, if you care to read the other 600 pages. Experts you don't know authoritatively produce information of which respectable Bible professors I know have never heard. Untitled documents are found in libraries. Really, it's all not unlike The Da Vinci Code, only purporting to be real and without a set of antagonists nipping at Ron Charles's heels (though he's got 'em now). As with any fantasy, you read until you feel your suspension of disbelief break.

The Questions

Mine are obvious, so let's answer everyone else's.

In his comment on our original mention of him, Ron Charles asked me a question: "How does your opinion about the book translate into a personal evaluation of my character?"

It's really quite simple. A person can deduce a lot about the person who made a product from the product itself. When I read a book in which patently absurd claims are made without any back-up, I swiftly come to the conclusion that the man who produced it is not trustworthy.

He also protests: "What kind of con am I running? When I am in the USA I make people aware of the conditions of the persecuted Christians in the Muslim Middle East. Check with Final Frontiers, they are missing no money, I have not beat them out of anything. In fact, all funds that I make from my book and speaking goes to feed the persecuted Christians in the Middle East. Is that a con?"

If you're selling nonsense, yes it is, regardless of why you do it - and frankly, considering how untrustworthy his book is, I'm not willing to take Ron Charles' charity at face value either.

A gentleman named John Rose also made this pertinent inquiry: "Let me be clear with one thing at the very onset. 'IT TAKES ONE TO KNOW ONE.' The people who are slandering Mr. Ron Charles should be aware of this. What are their own credentials to discredit Ron?"

The initial reply that comes to my mind is that I am actually "well qualified" to discredit Ron, having myself received a four-year degree at an accredited institution - but really, it's even more basic than that. I'm simply a person with a capacity for some level of critical analysis. If you're one too, you probably didn't need to read this article; you quickly noticed the problems with Ron Charles and his book, then moved on.

Many people don't have that ability, however. They're the ones on whom people like Ron Charles - or to throw out another example, Jason Gastrich - prey, and the Church is full of them, since most believers have almost by definition eschewed their critical faculties in favor of simply believing what they are told (consider their general willingness to believe the Gospel of Matthew correctly cites his Old Testament sources, when all any Christian has to do to see the writer is pulling a serious Michael Moore on them is flip to those parts of the Bible) Thus do hucksters flourish there, spinning tales of having discovered surviving dinosaurs in the Congo, the Ark in the Turkish mountains, the ovens of Nebuchadnezzar in the ruins of Babylon, or anything else. They know that most of their audience will believe without question, desperate as they are to have their world view corroborated by external evidence.

I know of what I speak. I can still remember the seminars to which my parents brought me when I was a junior Baptist in Norfolk. Boy, did I eat it up.

Which brings me back to one of our commenters' questions: when most Christians are so incurious about the truth, are we just what Flor Hull said? Are we stupid and naive for trying to prove one man wrong? After all, it's clear that Ron Charles and his kind are all symptoms of what's wrong with the body of Christ rather than what ails it.

Updates and Links

• Jamaica Gleaner News has an interview with Ron Charles up on its website in which our dear evangelist is said to have discovered Noah's Ark - and as far back as 1991, no less. Strange that nobody's updated its Wikipedia entry yet.

• Enjoyably, another webpage has Ron Charles debunking someone else's same claim.

• A commenter has offered us the current webpage of Ron Charles. Here's the link. It's quite the brazen man who can declare his intent to "provide the highest quality of educational truth" to Third World peoples while on the same page lying that his books have hit the New York Times Bestseller List. Interestingly, he claims to be the author of not just The Search but also "many books on history, theology and archaeology, some [sic] have been on N.Y. Times best seller list." More drivel, or is anyone else aware of other books published by Ron Charles?

• The Midland Reporter-Telegram's website MyWestTexas.com has a full article about Ron Charles in advance of his September 15th guest spot on God's Learning Channel (which was just last night, as of this writing). The story pimps Charles's Cubit Foundation and also has a slightly less absolute declaration by Charles about his relationship with Noah's Ark: “What we can say is there was an object up [on Mt. Ararat] made out of wood that fits the same dimensions as the Bible... It very well could be.”

• Ron Charles is a "featured scholar" on Truths That Transform: A Reliable Source, a DVD that "provides myth-busting evidence which validates God's Word". Coral Ridge Ministries sells 'em here. One can only assume the product's subtitle refers to the Bible and not the documentary itself.

Notes

Charles, Ron. The Search. Bloomington, Ind.: 1st Books Library (AuthorHouse), 2007.

Richard Peck and G. Richard Fisher. "The Search for the Real Dr. Ron Charles." The Quarterly Journal. 28. 3 (2008): 5-8.

So I've been learning Krav Maga (the Israeli art of Arab-pummeling) for several months now, with a break for my nuptials - and this week I accidentally knocked the stuffing out of my instructor.

In retrospect this feels like both a victory and a tragedy: a victory, because it's proof all my lessons over the last few months haven't been some sort of scam. It's kinda hard to tell when you're just hitting pads.

A tragedy, obviously, because you just know he's going to call me up a lot more often for demonstrations, or continuously pair you with Trogg, the he-mountain to my left.