http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:02:10 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/23/140210.php George P. WoodLast summer, Morgan Spurlock's Supersize Me was the talk of the town. It even garnered an Academy Award nomination for best documentary. In it, Spurlock reported what happened to him when he ate nothing but McDonald's food for one month, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. He ate everything on the menu at least once, and he supersized the order if asked. Not surprisingly, his weight increased and his health declined precipitously--an obvious lesson in the evils of fast food, right?Not exactly.According to Soso Whaley, interviewed at National Review Online: "I heard about Super Size Me on Good Morning America about mid-March of 2004 and was amazed that people were actually being bamboozled by director Morgan Spurlock of The Con Production Company. Even without seeing the film I could tell from the clips and the description by Spurlock that this was nothing more than junk science masquerading as legitimate scientific discovery. I had been looking into the issue of junk science through the site www.junkscience.com and felt that Super Size Me should not be allowed to exist without a proper counterpoint to it's blatant propagandizing and shoddy scientific methodology. Other than that, I wanted to lose ten pounds."And lose she did--three times! "Yes, I lost weight and have managed to maintain that loss. The first time I did the diet in April 2004, I lost 10 pounds (going from 175 to 165) and lowered my cholesterol from 237 to 197, a drop of 40 points. I did the diet again in June 2004 and lost another 8 pounds (going from 165 to 157), there was no change in my cholesterol during that time as it remained at around 197. After the holidays in 2004 I had managed to maintain my weight around 155 but could feel that I was getting out of control in my eating habits and was looking to lose a bit more weight for the Spring of 2005. The real motivating factor that took me back to the Golden Arches for another round in February 2005 was the Oscar nomination for Super Size Me. I was not surprised but certainly disappointed that the Academy nominated Spurlock's film for an Oscar for Best Documentary. To protest this nomination of such a blatant piece of propaganda as a legitimate documentary I once again ate for 30 days at McDonald's and experienced another 10-pound weight loss."Whaley has now produced a documentary on her McDonalds experience: Mickey D's and Me. The point of the documentary? "Simply to encourage people to take more responsibility for their own lives and to appreciate the concept of freedom of choice that we have in the U.S. I also hope to inspire people to get out and move around more. Forget about 'exercising,' just get out there and celebrate your life by staying busy and productive. 'Eat to live, don't live to eat.'"For the complete interview with Soso Whaley, go here. Then go to McDonalds.Here are links to her McDonalds receipts:Receipts for April 1, 2004Receipts for April 2-11, 2004Receipts for April 13-26, 2004Receipts for April 27-30, 2004There are some days missing in these links. You have to click on the "View PDF" link at the right to see the receipts, as well as her hand-written calculations of calories. Video31488@blogcritics.org Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:02:10 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/10/162041.php George P. WoodIn her Washington Times' column , Diana West details the excruciating lengths to which Gitmo guards go not to offend their prisoners' delicate religious sensibilities. In order to touch a detainee's Koran, for example, the guards don clean white gloves, pick up the Koran with both hands, and carry it in a clean towel owned by the detainee. Why?"At first glance, this scene may seem to exemplify a bizarre excess of good manners, an absurdly obsequious respect for a largely foreign faith. Since when does the United States specifically direct its soldiers to show two-handed 'reverence' in the handling of any religious book? But it seems to me that there's more behind this charade. The 'clean gloves' and 'detainee' towels are the tip off. The fact is, under Islamic law, non-Muslims are deemed unfit to touch the Koran. That much is generally known. What is not usually considered is the reason: According to the Islamic law, we are unclean."The term is 'najis.' On the multilingual Web site of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, the leading Iraqi Shi'ite cleric, there is a catalogue of Islamic laws (www.sistani.org). This includes a list of 'najis things.' There are 10, beginning with an assortment of excretions and body fluids -- obvious stuff that really shouldn't need special mention. On the 'najis' list with urine, feces, etc., are the pig, the dog and the 'kafir.' That means the Christian, the Jew, the unbeliever in Islam -- and chances are, the Gitmo guard. "In effect, then, with its official policy of clean gloves and detainee towels, the military is promoting, enabling and accepting the Islamic concept of najis -- the unclean infidel -- a barbarous notion that has helped fuel the blood lust of jihad and the non-Muslim subjugation of dhimmitude. Our soldiers are many things: self-sacrificing, bold, loyal and true. They are not unclean. "Is this political correctness run amok? Not exactly. It's something else again, a new threat from within that needs vigilant redress. PC is about victimology, the elevation of perceived victim groups to the canonical pantheon. The Gitmo rules are more blatantly about surrender, a voluntary, self-extinguishment, a spreading condition of denial of what is right and worth standing for. Not what you expect from the United States Southern Command."One wonders if Amnesty International took note of this excessive religious sensitivity and obsequiousness when its president referred to Gitmo as a "gulag." Politics30846@blogcritics.org Fri, 10 Jun 2005 16:20:41 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/06/112321.php George P. WoodWhy hasn't the Downing Street Memo garnered more attention in the mainstream media? It claims that intelligence regarding WMDs in Iraq was being "fixed around" the Bush Administration's desire to go to war in Iraq. Doesn't the memo prove that Bush lied to take us to war?Not really.James S. Robbins of the American Foreign Policy Council shows why (see here). Here are the crucial paragraphs:"Dearlove's comments include the intriguing passage noted above, 'Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.' To the president's critics, the meaning is clear -- the WMD intelligence was being faked to support the rationale for intervention."This passage needs some clarification. Maybe Rycroft or Dearlove could elaborate; by 'fixed around' did they mean that intelligence was being falsified or that intelligence and information were being gathered to support the policy? There is nothing wrong with the latter -- it is the purpose of the intelligence community to provide the information decision-makers need, and the marshal their resources accordingly."But if Dearlove meant the former, he should be called upon to substantiate his charge. It can be weighed against the exhaustive investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on prewar intelligence assessments in Iraq. The committee examined this very question, whether the White House had pressured the intelligence community to reach predetermined conclusions supporting the case for war. The investigation found no evidence that 'administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities' or that 'the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.' One would think that the Senate investigation would have somewhat more weight than the secondhand impressions of a foreign intelligence officer, but if Mr. Dearlove is able to elaborate, one hopes he will."So, the reason that the Downing Street Memo has not garnered more mainstream media attention is that (1) its substance is old news and (2) its allegation, if that is what "fixed around" really is, has already been thoroughly investigated and refuted. Politics30615@blogcritics.org Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:23:21 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/27/181901.php George P. WoodHeadline of a New York Times story yesterday: "No Intentional Abuse of Koran at Guantanamo, General Says."Headline of Los Angeles Times story today: "Improper Handling of Koran Confirmed."Interestingly, both these stories refer to remarks made Thursday by Army Brigadier Gen. Jay W. Hood, military commander at Gitmo.Several questions:1. Is there a story here or not?2. Should Americans acquiesce to Muslim spiritual and cultural taboos regarding handling of the Koran by unbelievers?3. Isn't it hypocritical for Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees to expect tolerance of their spiritual and cultural taboos when they are so notoriously violent toward the spiritual and cultural taboos of other religions? (Does anyone remember the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhist statues in Bamiyan?)4. And isn't it even more critical for Wahabbists to demand the proper treatment of the Koran when the Wahabbist kingdom of Saudi Arabia routinely desecrates the Korans of pilgrims? "The Saudi state religion is the primitive and austere Wahhabi version of Islam, which defines many traditional Islamic practices as idolatrous. Notably, the state bans the importation of Korans published elsewhere. When foreign pilgrims arrive at the Saudi border by the millions for the annual journey to Mecca, what happens to the non-Saudi Korans they are carrying? The border guards confiscate them, to be shredded, pulped, or burned. Beautiful bindings and fine paper are viewed as a particular provocation--all are destroyed. (This on top of the spiritual vandalism the Saudis perpetrate, by inserting anti-Jewish and anti-Christian squibs into the Korans they publish in foreign languages, as Stephen Schwartz documented in our issue of September 27, 2004.)" This quote is from The Weekly Standard (05/30/05).5. Of all the criticisms that can be made about American handling of detainees at Gitmo, does alleged Koran desecration at Gitmo really rise to the level of legitimate outrage? Assuming it even happend? Politics30246@blogcritics.org Fri, 27 May 2005 18:19:01 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/26/142703.php George P. WoodWatching last night's "American Idol," my wife and I found ourselves rooting for different contestants. She favored the southern rock stylings of Bo Bice. I preferred the mainstream country singing of Carrie Underwood. Evidently, America agreed with me.But the live audience at the Kodak Theater quite obviously agreed with my wife. Bo--who is an excellent showman--clearly had the hearts of the people in the theater. Applause for him was louder and more sustained than it was for Carrie, even after Carrie won!My wife wondered whether this wasn't a perfect illustration of the blue-state/red-state divide in America. After all, the audience was packed with Los Angelenos and media types, who are disproportionately blue-state voters. Country music is, however, a largely red-state phenomenon.Now, perhaps I'm reading too much into American Idol, which is, after all, the cultural equivalent of cotton candy: sugary and insubstantial. Still, I thought the difference between the audience's choice of Bo and America's choice of Carrie was noteworthy.Or am I reading way too much into this? Video30188@blogcritics.org Thu, 26 May 2005 14:27:03 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/24/030516.php George P. WoodIs the New Testament an historically reliable source of information about Jesus and the early church?According to a number of contemporary scholars, the answer to that question is no. For example, Robert Funk and the members of the Jesus Seminar argue that Jesus did not say or perform a majority of the words and actions attributed to him in the Gospels. Elaine Pagels and Bart Ehrman argue that multiple versions of Christianity competed for the allegiance of the faithful in the early centuries of the church. The books of the New Testament -- and the history and theology they communicate -- are simply the documents of that competition's winners, who went on to forcibly suppress alternative Christianities. Even popular media debunk the New Testament. Last year, just in time for Christmas, both Time and Newsweek ran cover stories that expressed skepticism about the veracity of details of Jesus' birth.But these voices represent only one side an ongoing debate. Paul Barnett's Is the New Testament Reliable? is a representative of the other, affirmative side. Barnett is a churchman and a scholar -- the former Anglican bishop of North Sydney, Australia, and currently a teaching fellow at Regent College in Vancouver, Canada, and a visiting fellow in ancient history at Macquarie University in Australia. He is the author of Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity and Jesus and the Logic of History, among other books. The first volume of his trilogy, The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years will be published in April by Eerdmans. Four Questions In Is the New Testament Reliable? Barnett argues that "Jesus and the first Christians are genuine figures of history and that they are faithfully and truthfully written about in the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles." To bolster this conclusion, Barnett asks and answers a number of questions.First, "Did Jesus in fact live?" Barnett cites several early Roman and Jewish writers and texts that confirm both his existence of the spread of Jesus-worship from Judea to Rome by the mid-First-Century A.D.Second, "Can we know the time frame in which the New Testament was written?" The latest date that the New Testament books could have been written is approximately A.D. 95, when patristic writers began to cite them in their own works. The earliest date they could have been written was A.D. 33, which is the date Barnett offers for the crucifixion of Jesus. (He notes that most scholars date Christ's death to A.D. 30.) Based on internal evidence, Paul began to write his letters around A.D. 50, and the last of his letters was written in the early 60s. Most scholars date the Gospels and Acts in the 60s to 80s. What this means is that the books of the New Testament were written within a generation of two of Jesus' death. By contrast, "our major sources [for the life of Tiberius, 42 B.C.-A.D.37] are considerably later--Tacitus about A.D. 110, Suetonius about A.D. 120 and Dio Cassius about A.D. 220." If we can be reasonably sure of the historical reliability of our late sources in reconstructing the life of Tiberius, we can be reasonably sure of the reliability of our much earlier sources for a life of Jesus.Third, "Can we be confident about transmission of the manuscripts from those times to the present?" Once again, yes. "There are more than five hundred manuscripts or manuscript fragments [of New Testament books] in Greek that have survived from the early centuries," Barnett writes. By contrast, "there are only nine complete manuscripts [of Jewish Wars by the first-century author Josephus], the oldest of which is a fifth-century Latin translation. There are only two manuscripts of the Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, neither of which "is earlier than the Middle Ages." If we can be reasonably confident of the accuracy of Josephus's and Tacitus's texts, we can be reasonably confident of the New Testament's textual accuracy.Fourth, "can we know that what we read of Jesus is a true account?" Obviously, this is the most important question. Barnett answers it by revealing the multiple, independent sources that underlie the Gospels. We tend to think that there are four primary historical sources for the life of Jesus: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that is not actually the case. A cursory reading of Matthew, Mark, and Luke reveals that they are similar to one another in both the arrangement and wording of their material. The majority of New Testament scholars have concluded that Mark is our oldest Gospel and further that Matthew and Luke used him as one of their sources. Noting that Matthew and Luke have material in common that is not shared with Mark, scholars have also concluded that those two Gospels employed a source, which they refer to as Q (from the German word Quelle, or "source.") But Matthew and Luke also present material unique to them. Scholars refer to this unique material as M and L, respectively. Finally, because the Gospel of John is so unlike Matthew, Mark, and Luke, many scholars believe that he represents another source of historical information about the life of Jesus. So, instead of the four Gospels, we have at least five historical sources: Mark, Q, M, L, and John. We might add to this the independent traditions of information about Jesus culled from the New Testament epistles. Although there are differences between these sources -- including some conflicts that are hard to resolve -- the basic picture of Jesus they present is largely consistent and, I might add, theologically traditional.Miracles The greatest challenge to the historical reliability of these sources is the presence of miracles within them, miracles such as Christ's virginal conception, his healing of the sick, and his own resurrection from the dead. Barnett points out multiple sources attest to the reality of all three. The birth of Christ is described in the two very different accounts of M and L, which nonetheless agree at significant points. Similarly, all the New Testament sources of our information about Jesus (Mark, Q, M, L, John) present him as a miracle worker, and several extrabiblical historical sources (Josephus, the rabbis) confirm this impression. Whatever else may be said about the historical Jesus, first-century writers believed that Jesus had the power to perform miracles.The greatest miracle, of course, is Jesus' own resurrection from the dead. Christian apologists sometimes defend the reality of miracles on philosophical grounds. (Consider Miracles by C.S. Lewis, for example.) Barnett argues for the reality of Jesus' resurrection on historical grounds, however.We know from Paul's letters that the resurrection of Jesus played a significant role in the faith of the early Christians. To quote PaulFor what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. &#82121 Cor. 15.3-8 [TNIV]To Paul, the resurrection of Jesus was a fact confirmed by eyewitnesses. And it had spiritual importance: "And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith" (1 Cor. 15.14 [TNIV]).How should we account for this faith in Christ's resurrection? Barnett considers and rejects "alternative explanations" for the belief, such as 1) "the resurrection was a hoax," 2) "another man was crucified," 3) "Jesus did not actually die on the cross," 4) "the body was removed from the tomb," 5) "the women returned to the wrong tomb," 6) "the resurrection stories are legends," and 7) "the resurrection stories originated in the Osiris myth." The historical sources underlying the Gospels provide no credence to any of these explanations. And some of them are absurd. If Jesus' body was removed from the tomb by the disciples, for example, then they died for a belief they knew to be false. If it was taken by the authorities -- whether Jewish or Roman -- then simply producing the body would have ended Christianity at its beginning. If the women returned to the wrong tomb and thought Jesus had risen from the dead, a quick visit to the right tomb would have dispelled their illusion. Belief in Jesus' resurrection appears too early for it to be a legend, for legends take long periods of time to develop.What emerges from Barnett's discussion of the resurrection is that the best historical explanation of belief in Jesus' resurrection is Jesus' resurrection itself. This explanation accounts for the early disciples' belief in what neither Jews or Greeks thought possible or desirable. Jews taught the resurrection of all the dead at the end of time, not the resurrection of one man to eternal life while those around him still died. And Greeks desired the immortality of their souls, not the resurrection of their bodies. Christian belief in Jesus' resurrection was unique to them, attested by multiple sources, and confirmed by the change in the lives of members of the early church.So What! Does Barnett's case for the basic historical reliability of the New Testament make any difference in our spiritual lives? Yes, for if the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles are reliable sources of information about Jesus and the early church, then we ought to confess and practice the faith of the early church. If the New Testament picture of Jesus as the divine Son of God, crucified for our sins, and raised that we might have eternal life is correct, then we must seek eternal salvation in him. History, you see, impels us to act -- or rather, to believe. If Jesus lived, died, and rose again, he is the Lord, and we must follow him. If not, then whatever respect we may have for Jesus as a teacher of morality, we need not pay any more attention to him than we pay to Socrates, St. Francis, or Dr. Phil.In this little review, I have tried to communicate the gist of Paul Barnett's argument for the historical reliability of the New Testament, as well as its relevance. But read the book for yourself. And draw your own conclusions. Books30049@blogcritics.org Tue, 24 May 2005 03:05:16 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/20/163603.php George P. WoodIf you want to purchase a translation of the Bible but don't know which one to pick, read David Dewey's A User's Guide to Bible Translations first. Dewey asks and answers two questions: "Why so many [translations]? Which is best?" Let's take a look at how he answers each question.First, why are there so many translations?Dewey's answer to this question revolves around the nature of translation. Dewey distinguishes between form-driven translations and meaning-driven translations. (He also discusses paraphrases, which are meaning-driven, although not technically translations.) Form-driven translations focus on the writer and seek to reproduce his or her words, images, and even sentence structure in their nearest English equivalent. They are also known as word-for-word translations. Meaning-driven translations, by contrast, focus on the reader and seek to reproduce the meaning of the writer's words in contemporary English. They are also known as meaning-for-meaning or thought-for-thought translations. To understand the difference between these translation philosophies, consider how two recent translations translate Galatians 5.19. In the form-driven English Standard Version it reads, "Now the works of the flesh are evident." In the message-driven Today's New International Version it reads, "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious." In English, works and acts are functionally equivalent in meaning, as are evident and obvious. However, the ESV reproduces the Greek conjunction de ("now") while the TNIV does not. And the ESV provides a literal translation of the Greek noun sarkos ("of the flesh"), while the TNIV translates its probable meaning: "of the sinful nature." Neither translation follows the Greek word order, which is roughly: "Evident now are the works of the flesh," to rephrase the ESV. The basic difference here is between fidelity to the writer's word usage and intelligibility to the reader, with the ESV tending to the former and the TNIV to the latter.The use of gender-inclusive or gender-accurate language also plays a role in the proliferation of Bible translations. For example, contrast the ESV translation of 1 Corinthians 1.10 with that of the TNIV: "I appeal to you, brothers..." vs. "I appeal to you, brothers and sisters...." Adelphoi is the Greek word for brothers, which is literally translated by the ESV. However, Paul wrote 1 Corinthians to both men and women, so brother is meant inclusively. The TNIV makes this inclusiveness explicit by adding "and sisters" to its translation. Interestingly, some form-driven translations, such as the New Revised Standard Version, use gender-inclusive language; while some meaning-driven translations, such as the New International Version, do not. (The TNIV is a substantial revision of the NIV.)So, why are there so many translations? Basically, because of differences in translation philosophy. Since meaning-driven translations seek to make the biblical text intelligible to the modern reader, it is not surprising that the vast majority of recent translations are meaning-driven. The meaning of English words constantly changes over time, after all.Second, which translation is best? Dewey quickly surveys scores of English translations from Wycliffe, Tyndale, and the King James Version to modern translations such as the RSV, NIV, NRSV, TNIV, and ESV. He explains the motivation underlying each translation, as well as its relative strengths and weaknesses. Following his survey, Dewey answers the second question with these words: "It boils down to two questions: Best for whom? And best for what? One prepared for adults may not be suitable for children. One that is appreciated by a university-educated person is not usually right for someone whose education finished at sixteen. Similarly, the translation that is suited to personal study may not be the best for reading aloud or for liturgical use. And the one that is good for devotional reading may not be ideal for group study." For the serious Bible student, Dewey recommends reading a Bible from within both the camps of both translation philosophies. And that is my recommendation as well. Currently, I am using the ESV and the TNIV.I highly recommend A User's Guide to Bible Translations, for people who want to purchase a new Bible as well as for pastors who need to explain to their parishioners the differences between and relative merits of various translations. Books29841@blogcritics.org Fri, 20 May 2005 16:36:03 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/20/133633.php George P. WoodSince the rise of modern biblical criticism, New Testament scholars have distinguished between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Roughly speaking, the Jesus of history is a man whose message centered on either ethics or eschatology. By contrast, the Christ of faith is God incarnate, come to earth to offer atonement for human sins through his death and resurrection, and to establish a religious institution--the church--that would proclaim this "gospel" until the end of time. Although the Christ of faith contains the Jesus of history within himself, the Jesus of history stands in sharp contradiction to the Christ of faith. We might say that the Christ of faith is both/and, while the Jesus of history is either/or. The Christ of faith is both God and man, both savior and teacher. The Jesus of history, on the other hand, is either God or man, either savior or teacher. Or rather, since modern biblical criticism is skeptical of supernaturalism, we might say that the Jesus of history is only man and teacher.A central problem of New Testament criticism is thus to explain how the Jesus of history became the Christ of faith. Because the New Testament paints a both/and portrait of Jesus Christ, modern biblical scholars attempt to scrape off the New Testament church's layers of Christ paint to find the original pencil drawing of Jesus that lies underneath them. Or, to use a different image, modern biblical scholars attempt to excavate beneath the living city of Christ's church to find its ancient, simple Jesus foundations. The assumption that guides this quest of the historical Jesus is a sharp division between Jesus and the church and that carries his memory.What if this assumption is wrong, however? What if there is a fundamental continuity between history and faith, between Jesus and the Christian church? What if the New Testament portrait of Jesus Christ is both historical and faith-filled? In The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years, Paul Barnett argues that "the birth of Christianity and the birth of christology are inseparable, both as to time and essence. Christianity is christology. Certainly N[ew] T[estament] churches grew out of christological preaching and were characterized by christological worship. In time the texts of the NT would arise from christological conviction. Attempts to explain the rise of Christianity by sociological or psychological grounds are doomed to failure. Christ, or should we say christological conviction, was the engine that drove early Christianity."Formerly the Anglican bishop of North Sydney, Australia, Paul Barnett is a teaching fellow at Regent College in Vancouver, BC, and at Moore Theological College in Sydney. He has written several books on the history of Jesus and Christianity, including Jesus and the Logic of History, Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity, and Is the New Testament Reliable? (which I have also reviewed). The Birth of Christianity is the first published volume in After Jesus, a trilogy on the history of early Christianity.How does Barnett argue for his conclusion that "Christ, or should we say christological conviction, was the engine that drove" early Christianity? He establishes three critical "boundaries" regarding the beliefs of earliest Christianity: chronology, activity, and geography. Chronologically, Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents, with 1 Thessalonians being securely dated to A.D. 50, that is, approximately twenty years after the death (and resurrection) of Jesus. By this time, Paul himself had been a Christian for approximately 15 years. His letters evidence a "high" Christology. He describes Jesus as "Lord," "Christ," and "Son of God." He interprets Jesus' crucifixion as a saving event. And he argues for the historicity and theological necessity of Christ's resurrection from the dead. And yet, as Barnett points out, all these Christological elements in Paul's letters are traditional elements, that is, they predate Paul. This means that Paul did not invent the high Christology of early Christianity. He inherited it.In terms of activity, the earliest Christians were missionaries. That is to say, they spoke the "good news" about Jesus Christ to others. That message consisted not only of Jesus' teachings, but also of reports about his actions--including his death and resurrection. Peter's speeches in the Book of Acts show remarkable similarities to the Gospels' presentation of Jesus' life, teachings, death, and resurrection--especially to the Gospel of Mark. There is, in other words, continuity between the spoken message of the apostles and the written records of the evangelists. The Gospels do not represent revolutions in thinking about who Jesus was and what he did. Rather, they are evolutions from the sermons of the apostles and early Christian missionaries. Luke says as much in the preface to his Gospel: Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught &#8212Luke 1.1-4 Finally, in terms of geography, Barnett argues that between A.D. 30 and 50, assemblies of Jewish Christians were firmly established throughout Palestine and Syria-Cilicia. Paul had not yet begun to establish churches of Gentile believers in predominantly Gentile population centers. This means that the high Christology of early Christianity developed in a Jewish, not a pagan milieu--contrary to the so-called history of religions school of thought.In sum, the high Christology of the New Testament is--at its foundations--early, apostolic, and recognizably Jewish. Paul's letters, as well as the other writings of the New Testament, both reflect and develop this Christology. They do not, however, invent it. Since very little--if any--time and space separate the preaching of the early church from the ministry of Jesus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that very little--in principle--separates the Jesus of history from the Christ of faith. Books29830@blogcritics.org Fri, 20 May 2005 13:36:33 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/20/132327.php George P. Wood If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then American liberals are among its best pavers. That, in a nutshell, is the argument of Do-Gooders by conservative journalist Mona Charen. In six briskly written, heavily footnoted chapters, Charen demonstrates that liberal policies on crime, race, welfare, family, homelessness, and education--though well-intentioned--resulted in more crime, racial animosity, poverty, family disintegration, and homelessness, as well as a seriously flawed education system.The untended consequences of liberal social policy result from a failure of moral imagination. According to Charen, liberal thinking "looks at the world from the perspective of a person with troubles--whether self-imposed or not is irrelevant--and attempts to compensate him without regard for the way this special consideration will affect the majority and without recognizing that special favors are not always good even for their intended beneficiaries." In my opinion, Charen's sentence states the matter exactly right.True liberalism--the idea that personal freedom is a high, if not the highest, political virtue--respects a person's right to do as he pleases. But it also refuses to insure the free person of the negative consequences of his bad choices. True liberalism works because it assumes that people will rationally consider the possible outcomes of their actions and choose what is in their best interest. A truly liberal society is thus a moderately conservative one precisely because most people will not make choices that carry large personal risks.The liberalism Charen criticizes, then, is not true liberalism, which is also known as classical liberalism or libertarianism. Rather, it is the deformed liberalism of the Great Society, which maximized individual choice and minimized personal risk. Not surprisingly, people began to make bad choices because they knew that the government had stretched a "safety net" beneath them to catch them when they fell. And fall they did. A direct line of cause and effect stretches from Lyndon Johnson to Jimmy Carter, from the Great Society to malaise, from the zenith of post-war American liberalism to its nadir.The weakness of Charen's book is one-sided criticism. Its subtitle is "How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (and the Rest of Us)." But is liberalism totally hurtful? Yes, Great Society liberalism was an abject failure. It produced ungovernable cities, like the New York City of the late 1960s and early 1970s. And yet, Charen concedes, liberals achieved at least one truly great moral victory--the Civil Rights Movement. Charen does not explain how the very same liberals could attain such heights and stoop to such depths. Consequently, her book opens itself to the criticism that she is not telling the whole truth.The answer to that critique is simple: The Civil Rights Movement was liberalism's great moral victory precisely because it was a truly liberal movement. Did not Martin Luther King Jr. dream that one day all Americans would be judged by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin? This is a truly liberal sentiment, and the kind of liberalism America deserves. Books29828@blogcritics.org Fri, 20 May 2005 13:23:27 EDT