RSS Feed
Rev. Huckabee vs. SBC?
In light of the responses to Friday’s post, I get the distinct impression that some of you are hankering for a little exegetical action.
A few commentators have argued that Mike Huckabee was absolutely correct when he claimed last Thursday that the Book of Ephesians teaches us that: “as wives submit themselves to their husbands the husbands also submit themselves [to their wives].”
But I am sticking to my guns. His "egalitarian" reading of that Scripture strikes me as extremely problematic. But more to the point, he is evasively backing away from the less-than egalitarian conclusions of the Report of the Baptist Faith and Message Study Committee to the Southern Baptist Convention—conclusions which he enthusiastically endorsed in a 1998 USA Today advertisement. First let's deal with the Scriptures. Then with the SBC report.
As opposed to Huckabee, I see no “mutual submission” clause in Ephesians 5:22-25 (Though he and others are, as we shall see, looking beyond those verses). As far as I can tell women, and women alone, are enjoined there to submit to men. In order to get our bearings let’s go to the fifth chapter of the Book of Ephesians in the New King James translation:
(22) Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. (23) For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. (24) Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything.
(25) Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her . . .
In this passage it seems clear that only wives must submit, not husbands (their job is to love). Now some have insisted that if I had only considered the preceding verses of the same chapter, I would have realized that men are commanded to submit to their wives as well. Those lines are rendered in the New King James as follows:
(20) giving thanks always for all things to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, (21) submitting to one another in the fear of God.[]
The argument, then, is that verse (21) urges mutual submission. If that’s the case then it must override or at least soften verses (22-25) where only women are urged to submit. Fair enough.
A few years ago I wrote a book urging nonbelievers to familiarize themselves with religious thought if only so that they could effectively counter arguments such as the one made above. Readers of The Secular Bible also know that I am loathe to categorically claim that “the Bible says this!” Rather, I prefer to show how difficult it is for any politician or demagogue to persuasively claim that his or her interpretation of the Scriptures is the right one.
Which brings me to Huckabee and his defenders. Most Baptists I know consult the New King James Version, the King James Version, the New International Version, the English Standard Version or the New American Standard Version. Why is that relevant? Because in all of those versions (except the occasional KJV rendering), line 21 is thematically separated from lines 22-25.
In other words, these translations wedge a section heading between verse 21 and 22-25. Why did the translators do that? My guess is that they inserted those section dividers because they did not believe that verse 21 had any close thematic connection to what followed. Indeed, line 21 does not appear to address the question of how spouses should relate to one another. That problematic, a new problematic, seems to begin in verse 22.
Of course, this is just one argument in what could easily transmorgify into an endless stream of exegetical back-and-forth. Both sides will adduce their Scriptures, their corroborating verses, their variant readings, their para-biblical texts. And in the end the same thing will happen that always happens when the Bible is brought into American political disputation: no one will agree about anything and the Good Book will illuminate nothing.
What is more important is that on Thursday Huckabee seemed to evade a reading that he himself had endorsed in 1998. Back then he ratified a Southern Baptist Convention position which stipulated: “A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”
The same statement goes on to read: “Redemption in Christ would call for husbands to forsake harsh or selfish leadership and to extend loving care to their wives (1 Pet. 3:7) and for wives to forsake resistance to the authority of their respective husbands and to practice willing, joyful submission to that leadership (1 Pet. 3:1-2).”
For whatever it’s worth I think the SBC better approximates the position of Ephesians than Huckabee does. In any case, “willing, joyful submission” to a husband’s leadership was a position he wholeheartedly supported in 1998. In 2008 a more liberal (or politically savvy) Huck has emerged, one who urges husbands to submit as well,
That’s enough Bible talk for now. Back to the broader relevance of Huckabee’s remarks tomorrow.
(For more information about religion and the candidates, visit Faith 2008 by the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs.)
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
January 13, 2008; 8:51 PM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Women's Place |
Next: Huckabee Playing Both Religion Cards
Posted by: zxevil160 | March 12, 2008 10:40 PM
Report Offensive Comment
E5pf2X U cool ))
Posted by: zxevil160 | March 12, 2008 10:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"And in the end the same thing will happen that always happens when the Bible is brought into American political disputation: no one will agree about anything and the Good Book will illuminate nothing."
I think this is an accurate statement. I enjoyed reading "Thumpin' It" as it suggested a hypothetical theocracy, with a mandated-state-run religion with certain beliefs--It would never work, because not even the best-intentioned theists could agree on even the fundamentals of such a government-run faith.
It may be true that if the Bible can say anything, (as is demonstrated within a section of about 5 verses,) it can also say nothing.
Posted by: Jeff P | January 16, 2008 6:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with you take. I am a born-again Christian and a SBC pastor, with all the implied baggage that entails. Nonetheless, Huckabee IS trying to engage the religious vote by using quasi-evangelical and language smooth rejoinders to pointed questions, all the while trying to finesse the non-religious vote. In other words, he is watering down Christ's exclusive soteriological message for an inclusive electoral one. That makes me shudder, not the least because Christians will hold their noses to get "our man" in, all the while ignoring the text and the meaning Huckabee brings to it. Indeed, when asked if Mitt Romney is a Christian, Gov. Huckabee avoided the slam dunk, black-and-white answer of "one way, one Jesus" in favor a pastel compromise intending to prime Christians while avoiding the clear teaching of Christ about salvation.
Posted by: wes jamison | January 15, 2008 7:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spidey: there are no such things as "DNAs." It's not an item that can be pluralized. If you don't know what you are talking about, don't try - you're just annoying.
Posted by: JoeT | January 15, 2008 12:12 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"hope you make the right decision, shoveling coal for eternity in Hell is not play and guess what as one singer puts it, there is no back door to Hell once you are there, you are there for good."
Hilarious!
Posted by: Richard | January 14, 2008 10:54 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hello, Better off - the essayist is not a believer. He is of Jewish ancestry, but is not religious.
Regarding non-believers - we're not trying to prove a point to ourselves - we're talking to believers. Maybe we'll never get through to people like you, but I was once a believer and when I took a close look at the Bible, my beliefs fell away.
Posted by: E Favorite | January 14, 2008 10:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Yep, God can travel at the speed of light. He created light so I’m pretty sure he can go faster then the speed of light.
Wait until the day comes and he hits you (unbeliever) during his travels. I guarantee when it happens you will know the exact meaning of the term “vexation.” You can only run so long until God decides to catch up to you.
I hope you make the right decision, shoveling coal for eternity in Hell is not play and guess what as one singer puts it, there is no back door to Hell once you are there, you are there for good.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 14, 2008 10:04 PM
Report Offensive Comment
What is a Jewish believer doing commenting interpretation and understanding of New Testament anyway? It has already been established that he doesn’t believe in it. Does he hope to persuade those who believe? Of course unless he has been converted to Christ, nah, I don’t think so….
The Jewish faith only believes in the Old Testament and ignores the New Testament saying that Jesus was only a teacher and not the some of God.
However, it is hilarious to see non-believers argue over scripture that they don't even believe in. I mean what is your point to prove something you think is false to yourself again and again and again. I mean come on believers will not accept your arguments that God and the Bible is false, SO ENJOY LISTENING TO YOUR OWN VOICE OF ARGUMENT!!! DID I JUST HEAR ANOTHER PLANE CRASH, YEP!
Posted by: Better off | January 14, 2008 9:51 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Again, I am amused and puzzled by the effort of educated and mature folks, in their attempting to make some life-governing code or actual facts out of a bunch of papers, which finally were selected to be part of the bible. These papers were written by men (women had no access to education and no say about anything). That being the case, who do you think would be the masters and the "deciders". It is about as logical as taking for granted that the Jews were chosen as God's favorite people, when the proof of this is in papers which were, in fact, written by Jews. The men-writers were so inflated with their own importance that they even were certain that God surely must be a "He". It seems more logical that, had God wanted to get the word out, without any question, it would have been given to a group of people and not only to someone who claimed to have had a visit with God while he was alone.
Posted by: Ralph | January 14, 2008 9:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Fred Evil
"Well what is God? Scientifically, he is just a theory, a...."
No, god is not a theory. He is a hypothesis, at best.
There's no evidence, no proof. There is belief. Not more.
Posted by: Richard | January 14, 2008 8:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Spider:
"Hey evolutionists, listen so you would learn. In science, only those which are declared as "Law" like "The Law of Gravity" of Newton are considered non-debatable."
Oh yes, the law of gravity could be debatable, if there are new facts, evidence, series of evidence. That is the beauty of science , it is open. Actually gravity might be a case of electrodynamics as well.
But what you are doing is denying realities, you are denying a look at DNA and finding 90+ % commonality between humans and primates (after all , what is so bad about being related to primates: they are not genocidal, they don't screw up this planet, no greed, and on and on; we should be proud to be related).
What you are suffering from is a neurotic superiority complex.
Be more modest. You are not the center of the world, you are a step in a process and you are absolutely not the crown.
Posted by: Richard | January 14, 2008 8:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
crewsin:
"As an Army second lieutenant I was outranked by almost everybody (ha). I in no way considered myself inferior to Captains, Majors,etc. I did however have to follow orders from these folks. Scripture teaches the same rank/order system with another General Officer in charge. Feminists, liberals, and other nonconformists will just have to learn to live with the system and as Walter Conkite use to say "that's the way it is"."
Well, thanks god life is not like the army. It may be necessary in the army to follow orders (but not blindly, as the 3rd Reich was teaching us), the human society is n o t a military organisation.
Somehow your recollection of what you are must have gotten confused, serioulsy disturbed.
Heaven, do these folks really live on this planet?
Posted by: Richard | January 14, 2008 8:20 PM
Report Offensive Comment
God can travel at the speed of light? Wow... that's news to me!
Let me see... God can travel at light speed.
James T. Kirk can travel at light speed.
Therefore, James T. Kirk is God!
(At least in his own mind.)
Posted by: Athena | January 14, 2008 8:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Pam, if you don't believe that "man came from monkeys" then you are not an evolutionist. You should read Darwin's 'The Descent of Man'."
I have. Have you? I doubt it, since that's not what it says.
And it is the *theory* of gravitation - not law. Newton called them laws, but in light of the modern conception of scientific inquiry, it's considered incorrect to state any concept so adamantly. "Theory" is now the highest level of a body of knowledge. See here: http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law
This is from the Answers in Genesis creationist Web site, in a list of arguments that creationists shouldn't use (you should check that out, Spidey, it's got some of your faves):
"'Evolution is just a theory.'
What people usually mean when they say this is 'Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically.' Therefore people should say that! The problem with using the word 'theory' in this case is that scientists use it to mean a well-substantiated explanation of data. This includes well-known theories such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Newton’s Theory of Gravity, as well as lesser-known ones such as the Debye–Hückel Theory of electrolyte solutions. It would be better to say that particles-to-people evolution is an unsubstantiated hypothesis or conjecture."
So, you see, even your own creation apologists don't buy into this one.
Looks like you're the one in flames on the ground.
Next question.
Posted by: Pam | January 14, 2008 7:52 PM
Report Offensive Comment
MD: of course Spidey won't be quoting the Pope, because the Catholic Church accepted evolution a long time ago (being politically savvy enough to accept that the flock already had). So I assume Spidey thinks the Pope is a moron, and all Catholics as well?
Spidey: my comments on chimps have nothing to do with evolutionists. Geneticists have mapped the chimp and human genomes. They just counted the ones in common, that's all.
Posted by: JoeT | January 14, 2008 7:41 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Hey Spidey,
Evolutionists don't debate? They sure did in a court room in Dover, Pennsylvania, and the evolutionists made the intelligent design people look as ridiculous as they actually are.
Evolution does not say that people came from monkeys. You simply don't know what you're talking about (again).
It isn't true that in science only "laws" are considered nondebatable. Even the law of gravity is debatable. Einstein (ever hear of him?) revised Newton's notion of gravity, didn't he?
I guess next you'll be attacking the theory of relativity, claiming that it is an insidious theory trying to undermine the absolutes taught in the Bible and replace them with secular, atheistic relativism.
Give us all a break, Spidey. Trying to discuss these matters with you is like trying to discuss them with a fish. It doesn't have a clue either.
Posted by: MD | January 14, 2008 7:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I love all the theists who insist that Evolution is merely a 'theory,' yet happily ignore that GOD'S EXISTENCE IS JUST A THEORY TOO.
Well what is God? Scientifically, he is just a theory, and a VERY poor one at that! There has YET to be a single scientific test or observation that lends ANY credence to any sort of God construct.
Evolution has scads and scads of tests, observations and corrections over the years.
God is untestable, therefore as a theory he is a bust. Care to PROVE me wrong? Quotes from the Bible don't count, quotes from the Pope don't either. I expect empirical data, culled from precise testing methodology, complete with a control group. GO!
Until you can prove he is at least a valid theory, I'll expect to hear no more from you.
Posted by: Fred Evil | January 14, 2008 7:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark said, "You're an idiot. There's no debating it. It's a fact".
Hey evolutionists, listen so you would learn. In science, only those which are declared as "Law" like "The Law of Gravity" of Newton are considered non-debatable.
Pam, if you don't believe that "man came from monkeys" then you are not an evolutionist. You should read Darwin's "The Descent of Man".
Poor guys. The spirit is willing but no wings to fly. Here, catch it... bombs away. Boom... 2 evolutionists down.
Posted by: spiderman2 | January 14, 2008 6:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I find it ludicrous that people would bother to debate Mike Huckabee's interpretations here. He's a politician trying to persuade a nation that a man who believes the earth was created about 6,000 years ago in six days (oh, never mind those 65 million year old dinosaur bones in natural history museums the world over; or carbon dating; or the DNA technology that's getting convicted felons out of jail by proving they didn't do it, or that identifies paternity in child support cases!) is fit to lead the most technologically advanced nation on the planet in the 21st century. Huckabee knows that he has to soft-pedal some of this stuff or he'll lose the votes of, say, moderate Republicans who don't want an embarrassing replay of the Moron-In-Chief Years. I know some of those - if Huckabee is the nominee, they're going to vote for Obama if they get the chance. Huckabee's remarks on the situation in Pakistan a few weeks ago were infantile and stupid and showed no grasp of foreign affairs whatsoever. What does it matter if he also subscribe to St. Paul's dictum about submissive wives?! Get real folks - this little bit of Ephesians has no bearing on modern society whatosever, and the fact that we have a potential nominee for president in the year 2008 who has to explain whether or not he subscribes to it tells you just how big a problem the U.S. has!
Posted by: Elizabeth Renant | January 14, 2008 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I find it ludicrous that people would bother to debate Mike Huckabee's interpretations here. He's a politician trying to persuade a nation that a man who believes the earth was created about 6,000 years ago in six days (oh, never mind those 65 million year old dinosaur bones in natural history museums the world over; or carbon dating; or the DNA technology that's getting convicted felons out of jail by proving they didn't do it, or that identifies paternity in child support cases!) is fit to lead the most technologically advanced nation on the planet in the 21st century. Huckabee knows that he has to soft-pedal some of this stuff or he'll lose the votes of, say, moderate Republicans who don't want an embarrassing replay of the Moron-In-Chief Years. I know some of those - if Huckabee is the nominee, they're going to vote for Obama if they get the chance. Huckabee's remarks on the situation in Pakistan a few weeks ago were infantile and stupid and showed no grasp of foreign affairs whatsoever. What does it matter if he also subscribe to St. Paul's dictum about submissive wives?! Get real folks - this little bit of Ephesians has no bearing on modern society whatosever, and the fact that we have a potential nominee for president in the year 2008 who has to explain whether or not he subscribes to it tells you just how big a problem the U.S. has!
Posted by: Elizabeth Renant | January 14, 2008 6:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques: I have to agree with the commentator who wrote in and wondered if you have nothing better to write about. That said, God is both a God of order and hierarchy as ample demonstated in scripture. As an Army second lieutenant I was outranked by almost everybody (ha). I in no way considered myself inferior to Captains, Majors,etc. I did however have to follow orders from these folks. Scripture teaches the same rank/order system with another General Officer in charge. Feminists, liberals, and other nonconformists will just have to learn to live with the system and as Walter Conkite use to say "that's the way it is".
Posted by: crewsin | January 14, 2008 6:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
OK, Spidey, bring it on. Tell me your objections to evolutionary theory - one at a time - and I'll answer them. Keep it reasonable, and don't make wild statements like that evolution says that people's grandfathers were monkeys (it doesn't).
Posted by: Pam | January 14, 2008 6:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
RNH opined:
"You always know you are debating well if people won't do the debate, or they call you stupid(nice technique, there marky), they won't show up, or if they insult you, or if they call you names."
Not necessarily true. Certainly not true in your case or Spidey's.
Perhaps, it's better put, "You always THINK you are debating well..." when people refuse to engage you. Ever stop to think that people will only engage your sophistries up to a certain point before they write you off as being a waste of time and energy? It happens, you know.
On the battlefield, a medic is often called upon to save those still capable of being saved while letting go of those who are beyond hope. Sometimes the best medicine won't help certain people, and you need to give up on them and move on to someone more promising.
The same thing happens in debate when one sees the wounded "arguments" being regurgitated again and again. At such times, the homey bedside manner takes a back seat to last-ditch efforts to connect with the few synapses still firing, and those efforts often include some pretty basic appeals to the conscious (on the battlefield, cries to "stay with me;" or - on the debating field - something more excoriating, like, "you're an idiot.").
At least that's the "theory"...
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 14, 2008 4:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"You always know you are debating well if people won't do the debate, or they call you stupid(nice technique, there marky), they won't show up, or if they insult you, or if they call you names."
This is the very *hallmark* of creationists such as Spiderman2 and Canyon Shearer.
Here's the thing, RNH, all of us who argue against religion in general, and YEC in particular, have read/learned/heard your side of the argument. We've grown up in religious families, gone to Sunday school and church, read the Bible, read the nonsense on creationist Web sites, even read some of the ID books. We've also read real science books, written by peer-reviewed, credentialed scientists. Can you say the same? Can any creationist?
IME, you all bury your heads in the sand and refuse to read anything that might be "heretical" - the "work of the devil."
This is how such religions keep the flock fat, dumb, and happy. Many home school, so their children are never exposed to a real idea. It is as good a definition of brainwashing as I can think of. The white supremecists do it, too.
When Canyon Shearer, on another thread, posted a list of things that he thought were "evolutionist" claims and said "correct me where I'm wrong", I did. They were *all* completely wrong, and I gave the correct versions of each. Canyon then replied that he wouldn't read what I'd written because I hadn't jumped through some other silly hoop he'd set up earlier. This is typical.
Personally, I think he read them, and had no comeback, so he dodged, but that's just a guess. :)
So...if you don't want us to call you on your ignorance, then get yourselves educated. I could recommend dozens of books, Web sites and other publications, but the best place to start is probably at the beginning - On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin. You all like to rail against it, but I'll bet there's not a single one of you who's read it.
When you're educated, come back, and we'll talk.
Posted by: Pam | January 14, 2008 4:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You may have already seen this, but it's about Obama's debt to his pastor and his use of liberation theology. I thought you might be interested.
Posted by: Niki | January 14, 2008 4:19 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Regarding the 'whom should submit' argument:
I think it's quite clear that the biggest thing most mainstream religions have going for them is that someone must always submit to somone else, thus continuing to promote the notion that some people are worth more than others.
This insidious idea underpins most aspects of human society, and we have seen the results time and again: persecution, pogroms and genocide.
The answer to all of this misery? Free your mind. The notion of a supreme being and ultimate truth is nothing but a fantasy, cooked up a long time ago as a method of societal control.
Posted by: Enemy of the State | January 14, 2008 4:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
RNH: or to translate the more scholarly comments of the previous posters into simpler language, a theory is an explanation of observable facts. Some theories are more accecpted than others, but they never graduate to facts. Evolution will always be a theory, but so will gravity. Or relativity, but don't tell the Japanese that E=Mc2 is just a theory. It's the "just" part that distinguishes the colloquial "just a theory" phrase that you are misconstruing as applying to scientific theories from the scientific use of the term.
Posted by: JoeT | January 14, 2008 4:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
RNH writes:
"Evolution = theory, not fact."
Dear Reasonable -
Your abject stupidity is showing.
The word "theory" when used in a scientific context refers to a BODY OF FACT. There is not a whiff of conjecture about it. To whit:
Theory -
"the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another; the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art ; a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena ."
Source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory
I studied music theory in college. Are you going to tell me that the rules of harmony and rhythm in Western music are, "only a theory, not a fact?"
You certainly do your arguments a disservice when you make such ignorant statements. And, "Evolution = theory, not fact," is possibly THE most ignorant statement you religionists regularly make.
You are willing ignorant to the point of not even bothering to learn the contextual meanings of words before using them in discussion. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Can you not understand that?
Let me guess, RNH. To you, the word "can" has only one meaning, just like the word theory. When you say, "I can write idiotic things all day long," you're really saying, "I tin storage container write idiotic things all day."
What's sad is that I've taken you through this whole "theory" business before, but you keep coming back to your ignorant and embarrassing bromides over and over and over again. Why?
Simply pathetic, RNH. Pathetic.
Posted by: Mr Mark | January 14, 2008 3:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Reasonable not hateful:
More accurately stated,
Evolution = theory with warehouses full of observational data, a huge number of experiments consistent with it, and many decades of peer reviewed papers published on it, not fact.
Perhaps you need to word "theory" explained to you?
Posted by: Dr.R.P. | January 14, 2008 3:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr Mark- looking in the mirror again to critique Spidey?
You always know you are debating well if people won't do the debate, or they call you stupid(nice technique, there marky), they won't show up, or if they insult you, or if they call you names.
Evolution = theory, not fact.
Posted by: Reasonable not hateful | January 14, 2008 3:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Concluding chapters"
"tax Breaks"
"Daughter of Nixon's Southern Strategist"
Stephen Fox,
What you write would be much more understandable and effective if you would not practice random capitalization.
Posted by: Pam | January 14, 2008 2:43 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Jacques:
What you say is interesting but in someways, like Fineman in Newsweek this week on Huckabee, misses the larger point.
I have been groping at my blog and the Baptist discussion board baptistlife.com--I encourage you to visit the Huckabee/Prescott post there--to make a more significant point.
The crux of the HBee and SBC matter is somewhere in the shadows of Garry Wills Concluding chapters on the Rove Era in his Head and Heart. I think your colleague Randall Balmer would agree with me on this point, as he hints at it in Thy Kingdom Come.
It is not so much about HBee and text of KJV as it is about Richard Land and Karl Rove's strategies vs the sophomoric ideals of HBee's populism
In the SBC Inerrancy of Scripture was just a tool, a convenient wedge issue for the larger designs of Exxon Oil and tax Breaks as implemented by Paul Pressler.
Land courts Pressler and his strategy, at least winks at it; while Huckabee has contested it to some degree.
Within the SBC there are the Memphis Declaration Reformers that include among others the Daughter of Nixon's Southern Strategist, Ginny Brant.
Brant is Harry Dent's daughter.
Exploring her thoughts vis a vis the assertions of Garry Wills should be the focus for you and Fineman.
Posted by: Stephen Fox | January 14, 2008 1:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Wow. This is the equivalent of how do you define the word "is." And about as important. "Christian" bloggers will spend hours on this ancient middle-eastern religious fiction instead of on advanced western civilization liberal thought.
Posted by: Scott L | January 14, 2008 11:29 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
E5pf2X U cool ))