I recently wrote several book suggestions for economics. I would like to write a few recommendations on religious/theological works as well. This list is by no means complete – even of the books that I would recommend. Also, as with all subjects, there are countless books published on the topic, and I have not read even one one-hundredth of one percent, so there are probably innumerable books out there that others could recommend to me. Therefore, these are simply recommendations – not an attempt to be an end-all discussion about which books one must read.
I would like to start off discussing my favorite theological authors and list several books by each with brief discussions of each. I really enjoy each of these writers a great deal, and the order they appear below is simply the order they came to my mind, not necessarily an order of favorites. In this post, I will start with one of my favorite authors.
Peter Leithart
I would recommend to anyone anywhere to read anything they can get their hands on by Dr. Leithart. He is simply one of the most brilliant minds on the planet. I have fallen far behind on reading his books, because he seems to write books faster than I can read them. I will list and discuss several here.
Before discussing, though, I would like to make a caveat. Most of the writers I am going to be discussing come from the Presbyterian/Reformed tradition. That may seem at first to pigeonhole my exposure to one small section of the total Christian Tradition. And certainly Leithart and many of the others are firmly planted in the Presbyterian/Reformed Tradition. However, certainly with Leithart (as well as Jordan, our next author) you really get the best of all worlds. These guys are extremely well read across the vast array of the Christian tradition. They constantly quote or reference scholars/authors/thinkers/pastors from all sorts of various Christian denominational affiliations. Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and others are referenced extensively – or if not, their influence can be seen in their writings. Therefore, you get a truly Catholic (in the good sense of the word) reflection on things theological along with the doctrinal boundaries of the broader Reformed world. This makes it far more interesting, readable, and informative than someone stuck only within the reformed world, while at the same time not losing the moorings that reformed doctrinal boundaries give you.
That said, allow me to discuss Leithart’s work.
The Kingdom and the Power
I think this was his first major book length publication. I have seen evidence on Amazon of earlier books or collaborations, but I believe these are minor compared to this. This is absolutely one of my favorite books. Very readable, very thought provoking. It is scholarly (filled with endnotes referencing a variety of sources) yet accessible, in my opinion, to the average, or even slightly below average reader. This is my favorite level of book to read. Most popular level stuff is just so much fluff, not really saying anything. On the other end of the spectrum is scholarly work that makes my eyes gloss over while I try to read it. This book (as with most of Leitharts work) is incredibly deep while still being readable.
The topic of this book is pretty much given in its subtitle Rediscovering the Centrality of the Church. Leithart discusses the Christians role in the current "cultural wars." Written in the early 1990s some of the issues and people mentioned may seem a tad dated now, fifteen years later, but this is not even distracting. Leithart’s argument is not that Christians should be politically active in some certain way, or not active, or anything of the like. (He discusses early some of his own activism and/or lack thereof in the anti-abortion movements) His point is that actually the most political thing the church can do is to be the church. The church is most politically active when her people are gathering on a regular basis and corporately worshipping the One True and Living God, praying, singing, confessing, loving one another, communing. This is where the Kingdom is manifest. This is how societies will change primarily. Any political or social activism by Christians individually or collectively needs to flow out of a culture of coroporate worship.
A House for My Name
Subtitled A Survey of the Old Testament. This book is exactly what that subtitle says – well almost. It is not really a full survey of the entirety of the Old Testament Writings (Torah, historical books, wisdom literature, Psalms, Prophets). Instead it is really a survey of Old Testament History – basically outlining the major themes from Genesis through the intertestamental period. Like any good OT discussion should do, he finishes with the wonder of the Gospel and how it fits into, and completes, the story. The Old and New Testaments are not two separate entities, but are indeed one story that the OT starts, and the NT completes.
This book does not simply reiterate the stories told in the OT, but discusses the typology of the OT. This very brief review can not begin to touch on what this means – you’ll just have to buy the book! However, this is one of those handfuls of books that I absolutely recommend to everyone. You can gain so much from learning that the OT is not simply a collection of stories designed to be example to us. What does the creation story mean? What was the Garden? What does the flood and Ark of Noah signify? How does the Ark relate back to creation? How does it relate to Eden? Why is the basket of Moses referred to as an Ark? Why are there multiple stories that repeat similar themes? Barren women conceiving? Women killing bad guys (usually with a head injury)? What are literary panel structures? What are chiastic structures? How does worship and covenant renewal fit into the OT? How does it flow into the NT? I could go on and on. Great, great book. Again, deep and scholarly, yet readable and accessible to even a simpleton like me!
Blessed are the Hungry
Subtitled Meditations on the Lord’s Supper. Another great book. Unfortunately, in most protestant churches the Lord’s Supper is just not a noticeable part of the culture. Oh maybe once per quarter, or if you are lucky, once per month (I went to one Baptist Church for about 3 ½ years and celebrated communion, I think, twice!) you get to chew on a bland cracker and have a sip of, ugh, grape juice. However, Leithart considers the Supper to be the "world in miniature; it has cosmic significance. Within it we find clues to the meaning of all creation and all history, to the nature of God and the nature of man, to the mystery of the world, which is Christ. It is not confined to the first day, for its power fills seven. Though the table stands at the center, its effects stretch out to the four corners of the earth."
That’s heavy stuff. Leithart then goes on to 28 Old and New Testament Passages concerning the importance of the communion meal. He relates areas you would have never thought of back to the Supper. Some are easy – think of the feeding the five thousand. Jesus took the food in his hand, gave thanks, and distributed it, thereby feeding thousands. He follows the same procedure in the Last Supper. Some of the OT passages may seem to be a stretch, until you start to realize how common such things are, and that really all of scripture is ultimately about Christ communing with His Church. All of a sudden, another key to understanding Scripture is opened up. This with the previous book will certainly bring you a long way to better scriptural wisdom.
This book closes with the only long essay in the whole thing (Most of them are less than 5-6 pages.) The long essay looks at the Lord’s Supper in Christian history, suggesting that most of the controversy has focused on the wrong thing. The question is not what happens or does not happen to the communion elements. The question is what happens to the communion participants. Good Stuff!
Against Christianity
Yes, the title may sound shocking. I think it was intentionally provocative on the author’s part. As should be obvious, Dr. Leithart is not against the faith, Our Lord, Scripture, Christian living, etc. However, he is against what many people seem to posit as the faith. That is, namely, that we can reduce all of scripture to some list of propositions and call this list of propositions "Christianity." Then of course, anyone who assents to these propositions is a "Christian". This is a major truncation, in fact a misrepresentation, of what the faith actually is. The faith is really a whole new way of being human. It is not something we assent to and maybe participate in on Sunday Morning, then leave at the altar. It is something to be lived. We are followers of Christ morning, noon, and night, seven days a week. Our whole life is not simply colored by our Christian beliefs (assents to propositions) but in fact our very nature and existence is dead and resurrected into newness. The depth of this relatively short book is simply mind boggling. The writing is among Leithart’s best, though at times least accessible. I did notice that when I re-read the book a second time, I got a whole lot more out of it. This is also among Dr. Leithart’s most controversial works. Particularly since a large portion of the Presbyterian/Reformed world actually does believe that "Christianity" is simply an "assent to certain propositions."
A Son to Me
This book is an exposition on the books of I and II Samuel. Many typological themes are picked up on and hammered home. Think of this as A House for My Name expanded to greater detail – honed in on a particular book of the Bible. It’s been a while since I read this, so it is hard to comment. However, as the title suggests, the theme of ‘sonship’ runs throughout the book(s) of Samuel. Samuel became a ‘son’ first to Hannah, of course, but also then to Eli. David became a ‘son’ to Samuel. Hmmm, the Father and the Son. Any Christian implications in this book of the Old Testament?
From Silence to Song
Subtitled The Davidic Liturgical Revolution. This book picks up on the fact that early in the history of the nation of Israel (Leviticus in particular) there was no music involved in worship. With the kingship of David, this changed. (I’m sure you all noticed that when studying the OT , didn’t you??? Me neither!!!) David instituted Levitical Choirs, and instrumentalists. ‘Song’ is really glorified speech and prayer. This represents a major step forward in redemptive history. Dr. Leithart draws out many important implications of this for Christian life, worship, and finally for eschatology. Pretty short book, yet fairly deep reading.
Others
I have read at one time or another all of the books above, but Dr. Leithart has written many more which I will briefly mention here. Yes, they are all on my reading list!
The Brazos Commentary on I and II Kings
( I am not sure if this is the exact title) The publishing company Brazos is working on a series of Biblical commentaries by various heavyweight theologians. Dr. Leithart seems to have great interest in Old Testament Studies, particularly the periods covered by Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. He has done extensive studies in these areas. I have heard great reviews about this book. I would think it would stand alongside A Son to Me, (Samuel) and From Silence to Song (which is largely from Chronicles) along with the relevant sections of A House for My Name to give the unseasoned a great overall view of this period of Biblical history.
Other books that I have not yet read, but certainly intend to at some point include The Promise of His Appearing. This is a commentary on the NT book of II Peter. Solomon Among the Postmoderns; The Baptized Body; Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy, and Hope in Western Literature. In addition to this, he has written other literary works including Brightest Heaven of Invention: A Christian Guide to Six Shakespear Plays. Miniature in Morals: The Christian Novels of Jane Austin. Writer of Fancy; The Playful Piety of Jane Austin. Heroes of the City of Man: A Christian Guide to Select Ancient Literature. And finally Ascent to Love: A Guide to Dante’s Divine Comedy. As you can see, the man has a widespread knowledge of theology, history, and literature.
One other work worth mentioning is The Priesthood of the Plebs which was actually Leithart's doctoral thesis at Cambridge University in England concerning baptism. All of these works are available all over the web, although some are getting hard to find and sometimes expensive. And really, there are other books and untold articles and essays by Dr. Leithart. Several essay collection books (The Federal Vision, The Case for Covenant Communion and several others) have essays by Dr. Leithart. Hopefully I have wet your appetite and you may start checking some of these out.
I have actually had the great privilege of meeting Dr. Leithart on several occasions, even attending a small gathering for dinner a couple of times. For someone obviously in the upper echelon (did I even spell that correctly?) of intellectualism, he is as down to earth and pleasant to be around as one could imagine – even autographing several of my books. Great Guy. Great Books. I have heard him teach and preach – several times on the Samuel and Kings sections that he was working through while working on his books – What a treat! In fact, he will be here in town at our church in July '08. Check out our web page to the right if you want to find out about it.
If I had to recommend only one Leithart book (that would be very difficult) I think it would be A House for My Name. I think every Christian needs to read this book. It will help so much in your biblical studies and understand. And isn't understanding God's Word one of our highest callings as Christians?
Whenever I get around to posting again, I will write about James B. Jordan who has actually been something of a mentor for Dr. Leithart. Again great stuff!
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Reading List
This post is a continuation of the previous post below. There, I talked about the lack of knowledge of the general population in the area of economics. I ended by stating that I would continue with a brief reading list. Before perusing this list, you may want to read the previous post to get an idea of where I am coming from.
I do have a few of caveats concerning this list: 1) This list is not to suggest that any and every thing said by each of these is absolutely without error – this is not a wholesale endorsement of any or every of these writers and their work 2) some of these writers are Christian of one stripe or the other, and some are not. Ultimately, I do believe that real truth is only to be found in God, its author. Therefore, real truth on earth can only be ascertained by those who faithfully believe in Him. However, this does not mean that unbelievers are not capable of getting glimpses of this truth or teaching it to others. An absolute atheist may be able to calculate the distance between the earth and sun, but have no comprehension of the maker of the earth and sun. 3) I have not myself read all of these. In fact, there are a great many that I have not. However, I am familiar enough with most of the authors to comment. I will try to comment on these issues where appropriate.
Henry Hazlitt
The first place that I send every person I can to get an overall, simple, easy to read explanation is to a book entitled Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. (I have absolutely no idea what his religious views, if any, were) This is a relatively short work made up of numerous, relatively short and easy to understand essays on a variety of topics including some of those listed above (minimum wage laws, etc.) His "one lesson" is essentially what I have written about in the previous post, but in his words it is stated thusly: "From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists of looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
He then goes on to do just that, tracing the consequences of various policies and ideas for all groups. I can not recommend this work highly enough. If you never read another work on economics in your life, please read this one.
Clarence Carson
Another writer who is not known to the major portion of the general populace, but who is worth seeking out is Dr. Clarence B. Carson. Dr. Carson was from small town rural Alabama, received an education from Auburn University and Vanderbilt University, taught at both high school and college level, and wrote numerous books and countless articles. His main area of study was history. However, in this he developed an interest and aptitude in economics. Dr. Carson’s most important contribution to this field was, in my opinion, his book The War on the Poor. This book was written in the late 1960s during the peak of President Johnson’s "Great Society" program. Carson demonstrated, both theoretically and with empirical evidence, that all these programs aimed supposedly at helping the poorer people actually causes them harm. (Again, this is Hazlitt’s ‘one lesson’ of economics.) Thus, the so called "war on poverty" of LBJ was actually a "war on the poor." This work is mostly unknown and overlooked. I think it should be essential reading in our classrooms today. Dr. Carson also wrote a book entitled Basic Economics. This is more an overall view of economic thought with the various economic theories explained. I do believe Dr. Carson was a man of faith, though I am uncertain his denominational affiliation.
Gary North
Dr. Gary North is a controversial figure for numerous reasons. I will very briefly mention them here, but without any personal bias. Dr. North is a very conservative Christian with ties to certain minority wings within the reformed Christian right. This alone, of course, makes him at the very least a little suspect to those anywhere to the left of Jerry Falwell. However, the biggest problem within the circles he has run in seems to be in-fighting. All points theological and otherwise are firmly marked out and anyone within those circles who steps outside the lines then becomes outcast, or makes the others outside their own lines out to be the outcast. North has probably been on both sides of the "I’m the real reformed Christian" arguments.
As an example, North had strong ties with Dr. R. J. Rushdoony - probably the most important man in the circles in which he runs. He even became Dr. Rushdoony’s son in law. However, North and Rushdoony eventually had a falling out from which they apparently still had not mended at the time of Rushdoony’s death a few years back.
Dr. North is also noted for his sensationalism which is sometimes a bit over the top. He was one of the louder voices forecasting the Y2K disaster. He even personally staked his own professional reputation on his being right about the pending doom stating essentially that if he was wrong about it then no one should ever listen to anything he had to say again. Many of his followers spent tons of money preparing for the disaster. Of course he turned out to be wrong. Of course he keeps on opining on a variety of topics and of course a large contingent of his followers were unswayed by his inaccuracy.
Although I have never met nor spoken to the man, I know several who have had direct contact with him. My understanding is that there can be a lack of Christian love, humility and charity in his personality.
All the above is simply expanding on my caveats that I started with. I know Dr. North is a Christian and I do not question the sincerity or orthodoxy of his faith for one minute. However, I would be very uncomfortable totally aligning myself with his name.
That said, Dr. North has done a tremendous amount of work in the area of Biblical economics (which seems to be his area of special expertise.) If we ignore him because of the above stated reasons we may be missing out on some thoughtful insight. Some of Dr. North’s books include his being publisher of a series of books called Biblical Blueprints. In addition to being the publisher, he was the author of several of the volumes. Pertinent titles in this series include Inherit the Earth: Biblical Principals in Economics; Honest Money:Biblical Principals of Money and Banking; In the Shadow of Plenty; Biblical Principals of Welfare and Poverty (Written by George Grant). In addition to this series, Dr. North has written An Introduction to Christian Economics and Coined Freedom: Gold in the Age of the Bureaucrats. Finally, Dr. North’s lifelong project has been to produce an economic commentary on every book of the Bible. This is a very ambitious project and will likely not be completed. However, he has produced several such commentaries. Dr. North also writes numerous newsletters and has various websites he either runs or contributes to.
I have read several of his works and find them to be solid in the area of economics and would recommend them. This is not a wholesale endorsement of everything he has ever said, nor even of the theories of economics laid out in these books. However as part of forming an overall understanding of economics from a Christian perspective, Dr. North is very valuable.
I would absolutely recommend Honest Money as being almost as indispensable as Hazlitt’s work.
David Chilton
David Chilton was a theological writer who produced one of the greatest comentaries on the book of Revelation ever written. He was also for a time closely associated with Dr. North. (I think they ended in a theological squabble.) While he was working with Dr. North, Chilton produced a book entitled Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators. This book was a biting, somewhat sarcastic response to a book published previously by Ronald Sider entitled Rich Christians in and Age of Hunger. Sider’s thesis was that it is a disgrace that there are Christians (mostly American) who are rich while the world is full of poverty. His solution, of course, was government programs. He attempted to use scripture to justify this position stating that God is always on the side of the poor and against the rich. Chilton demolishes this thesis biblically.
Because of his sometimes caustic wit, this book is often looked down upon as negative. However, if one can read through the biting humor, one can learn quite a bit about biblical economics here. Chilton’s book is not anti-poor, nor anti-charity. It is anti-forced governmental solutions to these problems. If you are somewhat sympathetic to his views, this will be one of the most entertaining books on economics you will ever read. If you are not sympathetic to his views, I would not recommend reading this until you have had a full cardiac exam.
Ludwig von Mises
Mises was, as far as I know, not a Christian. I am not even sure I understand exactly where he is coming from. Mises did not necessarily see some form of moral correctness or superiority of the free market, honest money system. He simply saw very clearly that the outcomes of this system were always superior to the outcomes of any form of planned or managed economy. On the one hand, therefore, he wrote from an empirical standpoint. We can study the theories behind the various economic systems and come to definite conclusions. We can then study these systems in practice and see these outcomes.
On the other hand, Mises was, correctly I believe, doubtful of the ability of the economist’s ability to empirically study a specific effect of a specific economic activity. That is because unlike with the physical sciences, economic factors can not be isolated in a laboratory type setting. We can not, for instance, hold all things constant while varying minimum wage, then measure the effects of the minimum wage. This is impossible. The economy is dynamic, not static. The whole economy is constantly changing. How can we therefore, amidst all this change, measure the effects of minimum wage? However, minimum wage can be shown very definitely in theory to have a negative impact. We can look at the overall economic policy of a nation and determine if it is sound or not theoretically. We can then look and see if our predicted effects are generally coming about in the economy.
The system of economics that Mises is associated with is called the Austrian School of Economics. This line of thought is not necessarily religious. However, the economic theories on paper are quite similar to what some see as the biblical system of economics (sound money, limited government intervention, etc) Because of this, Mises and his crowd were known to at least cross paths with Rushdoony, North, and their crowd.
Mises wrote tremendous volumes. I mentioned several of them previously. Human Action, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality; Socialism; The Theory of Money and Credit are among his most widely read works. Much can be learned about Mises and the Austrian School from the Ludwig von Mises Institute located in Auburn, Alabama. They also have a website. It may be worth researching.
Murray Rothbard
Rothbard was a student of Mises. He was not a Christian, though apparently he had a great deal of respect for the Christian tradition of the West. Of interest are his book America’s Great Depression and his magnum opus Man, Economy, and State. He wrote many others as well as countless articles and essays.
His America’s Great Depression absolutely demolishes the myth that the depression was caused by the free market and that the nation was rescued by government intervention. The actual truth is that the depression was caused by government intervention, made longer and deeper by further government intervention, then masked by yet further government intervention which continues to this day.
Other writers who may be of varying interests include Dr. George Grant, Thomas Sowell, Llewellyn Rockwell and others. Do some internet searches. Also, the standard historical read for economics students would be Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776).
Generally speaking then, I would recommend the following:
Start with Hazlitt to get a simple, easy to read, easy to understand introduction into general economic thought. Next read Carson’s Basic Economics to get a broader, overall view of the study of economics, followed by his The War on the Poor. From there, if you are still interested, read some of North, et al Biblical Blueprints series, at least the ones that are economic in nature. Particularly Honest Money is a must. From there, go where you may, including possibly some of the others listed above, or others I have not listed.
I do have a few of caveats concerning this list: 1) This list is not to suggest that any and every thing said by each of these is absolutely without error – this is not a wholesale endorsement of any or every of these writers and their work 2) some of these writers are Christian of one stripe or the other, and some are not. Ultimately, I do believe that real truth is only to be found in God, its author. Therefore, real truth on earth can only be ascertained by those who faithfully believe in Him. However, this does not mean that unbelievers are not capable of getting glimpses of this truth or teaching it to others. An absolute atheist may be able to calculate the distance between the earth and sun, but have no comprehension of the maker of the earth and sun. 3) I have not myself read all of these. In fact, there are a great many that I have not. However, I am familiar enough with most of the authors to comment. I will try to comment on these issues where appropriate.
Henry Hazlitt
The first place that I send every person I can to get an overall, simple, easy to read explanation is to a book entitled Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. (I have absolutely no idea what his religious views, if any, were) This is a relatively short work made up of numerous, relatively short and easy to understand essays on a variety of topics including some of those listed above (minimum wage laws, etc.) His "one lesson" is essentially what I have written about in the previous post, but in his words it is stated thusly: "From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists of looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.
He then goes on to do just that, tracing the consequences of various policies and ideas for all groups. I can not recommend this work highly enough. If you never read another work on economics in your life, please read this one.
Clarence Carson
Another writer who is not known to the major portion of the general populace, but who is worth seeking out is Dr. Clarence B. Carson. Dr. Carson was from small town rural Alabama, received an education from Auburn University and Vanderbilt University, taught at both high school and college level, and wrote numerous books and countless articles. His main area of study was history. However, in this he developed an interest and aptitude in economics. Dr. Carson’s most important contribution to this field was, in my opinion, his book The War on the Poor. This book was written in the late 1960s during the peak of President Johnson’s "Great Society" program. Carson demonstrated, both theoretically and with empirical evidence, that all these programs aimed supposedly at helping the poorer people actually causes them harm. (Again, this is Hazlitt’s ‘one lesson’ of economics.) Thus, the so called "war on poverty" of LBJ was actually a "war on the poor." This work is mostly unknown and overlooked. I think it should be essential reading in our classrooms today. Dr. Carson also wrote a book entitled Basic Economics. This is more an overall view of economic thought with the various economic theories explained. I do believe Dr. Carson was a man of faith, though I am uncertain his denominational affiliation.
Gary North
Dr. Gary North is a controversial figure for numerous reasons. I will very briefly mention them here, but without any personal bias. Dr. North is a very conservative Christian with ties to certain minority wings within the reformed Christian right. This alone, of course, makes him at the very least a little suspect to those anywhere to the left of Jerry Falwell. However, the biggest problem within the circles he has run in seems to be in-fighting. All points theological and otherwise are firmly marked out and anyone within those circles who steps outside the lines then becomes outcast, or makes the others outside their own lines out to be the outcast. North has probably been on both sides of the "I’m the real reformed Christian" arguments.
As an example, North had strong ties with Dr. R. J. Rushdoony - probably the most important man in the circles in which he runs. He even became Dr. Rushdoony’s son in law. However, North and Rushdoony eventually had a falling out from which they apparently still had not mended at the time of Rushdoony’s death a few years back.
Dr. North is also noted for his sensationalism which is sometimes a bit over the top. He was one of the louder voices forecasting the Y2K disaster. He even personally staked his own professional reputation on his being right about the pending doom stating essentially that if he was wrong about it then no one should ever listen to anything he had to say again. Many of his followers spent tons of money preparing for the disaster. Of course he turned out to be wrong. Of course he keeps on opining on a variety of topics and of course a large contingent of his followers were unswayed by his inaccuracy.
Although I have never met nor spoken to the man, I know several who have had direct contact with him. My understanding is that there can be a lack of Christian love, humility and charity in his personality.
All the above is simply expanding on my caveats that I started with. I know Dr. North is a Christian and I do not question the sincerity or orthodoxy of his faith for one minute. However, I would be very uncomfortable totally aligning myself with his name.
That said, Dr. North has done a tremendous amount of work in the area of Biblical economics (which seems to be his area of special expertise.) If we ignore him because of the above stated reasons we may be missing out on some thoughtful insight. Some of Dr. North’s books include his being publisher of a series of books called Biblical Blueprints. In addition to being the publisher, he was the author of several of the volumes. Pertinent titles in this series include Inherit the Earth: Biblical Principals in Economics; Honest Money:Biblical Principals of Money and Banking; In the Shadow of Plenty; Biblical Principals of Welfare and Poverty (Written by George Grant). In addition to this series, Dr. North has written An Introduction to Christian Economics and Coined Freedom: Gold in the Age of the Bureaucrats. Finally, Dr. North’s lifelong project has been to produce an economic commentary on every book of the Bible. This is a very ambitious project and will likely not be completed. However, he has produced several such commentaries. Dr. North also writes numerous newsletters and has various websites he either runs or contributes to.
I have read several of his works and find them to be solid in the area of economics and would recommend them. This is not a wholesale endorsement of everything he has ever said, nor even of the theories of economics laid out in these books. However as part of forming an overall understanding of economics from a Christian perspective, Dr. North is very valuable.
I would absolutely recommend Honest Money as being almost as indispensable as Hazlitt’s work.
David Chilton
David Chilton was a theological writer who produced one of the greatest comentaries on the book of Revelation ever written. He was also for a time closely associated with Dr. North. (I think they ended in a theological squabble.) While he was working with Dr. North, Chilton produced a book entitled Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators. This book was a biting, somewhat sarcastic response to a book published previously by Ronald Sider entitled Rich Christians in and Age of Hunger. Sider’s thesis was that it is a disgrace that there are Christians (mostly American) who are rich while the world is full of poverty. His solution, of course, was government programs. He attempted to use scripture to justify this position stating that God is always on the side of the poor and against the rich. Chilton demolishes this thesis biblically.
Because of his sometimes caustic wit, this book is often looked down upon as negative. However, if one can read through the biting humor, one can learn quite a bit about biblical economics here. Chilton’s book is not anti-poor, nor anti-charity. It is anti-forced governmental solutions to these problems. If you are somewhat sympathetic to his views, this will be one of the most entertaining books on economics you will ever read. If you are not sympathetic to his views, I would not recommend reading this until you have had a full cardiac exam.
Ludwig von Mises
Mises was, as far as I know, not a Christian. I am not even sure I understand exactly where he is coming from. Mises did not necessarily see some form of moral correctness or superiority of the free market, honest money system. He simply saw very clearly that the outcomes of this system were always superior to the outcomes of any form of planned or managed economy. On the one hand, therefore, he wrote from an empirical standpoint. We can study the theories behind the various economic systems and come to definite conclusions. We can then study these systems in practice and see these outcomes.
On the other hand, Mises was, correctly I believe, doubtful of the ability of the economist’s ability to empirically study a specific effect of a specific economic activity. That is because unlike with the physical sciences, economic factors can not be isolated in a laboratory type setting. We can not, for instance, hold all things constant while varying minimum wage, then measure the effects of the minimum wage. This is impossible. The economy is dynamic, not static. The whole economy is constantly changing. How can we therefore, amidst all this change, measure the effects of minimum wage? However, minimum wage can be shown very definitely in theory to have a negative impact. We can look at the overall economic policy of a nation and determine if it is sound or not theoretically. We can then look and see if our predicted effects are generally coming about in the economy.
The system of economics that Mises is associated with is called the Austrian School of Economics. This line of thought is not necessarily religious. However, the economic theories on paper are quite similar to what some see as the biblical system of economics (sound money, limited government intervention, etc) Because of this, Mises and his crowd were known to at least cross paths with Rushdoony, North, and their crowd.
Mises wrote tremendous volumes. I mentioned several of them previously. Human Action, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality; Socialism; The Theory of Money and Credit are among his most widely read works. Much can be learned about Mises and the Austrian School from the Ludwig von Mises Institute located in Auburn, Alabama. They also have a website. It may be worth researching.
Murray Rothbard
Rothbard was a student of Mises. He was not a Christian, though apparently he had a great deal of respect for the Christian tradition of the West. Of interest are his book America’s Great Depression and his magnum opus Man, Economy, and State. He wrote many others as well as countless articles and essays.
His America’s Great Depression absolutely demolishes the myth that the depression was caused by the free market and that the nation was rescued by government intervention. The actual truth is that the depression was caused by government intervention, made longer and deeper by further government intervention, then masked by yet further government intervention which continues to this day.
Other writers who may be of varying interests include Dr. George Grant, Thomas Sowell, Llewellyn Rockwell and others. Do some internet searches. Also, the standard historical read for economics students would be Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations (1776).
Generally speaking then, I would recommend the following:
Start with Hazlitt to get a simple, easy to read, easy to understand introduction into general economic thought. Next read Carson’s Basic Economics to get a broader, overall view of the study of economics, followed by his The War on the Poor. From there, if you are still interested, read some of North, et al Biblical Blueprints series, at least the ones that are economic in nature. Particularly Honest Money is a must. From there, go where you may, including possibly some of the others listed above, or others I have not listed.
The Dismal State of Economic Knowledge
I guess about half of what I have posted on here is about how I do not have time to post!!! Unfortunately, I don’t. I have attempted start regular posts on a variety of topics (music, etc.) but have been unable to do anything regular at all. So, I’ll just give up any pretense at regular posting, and just come and go as I can!
The one thing that the nation needs is a religious revival. Every area of life is corrupted by sin, and can only be redeemed by true religion. It has happened before, both on this continent and abroad. It can happen again. If it does, we can expect to see every area of life show signs of redemption. If it doesn’t….well….I’m afraid to speculate.
Religion, faith, God, etc. encompass every single area of life. One area of life that definitely needs redeeming right now is education. Specifically, I am thinking of the level of knowledge and understanding by the general public of economic issues.
In a way, economics is like religion. That is because, like religion, it is universal. That is, economics covers every area of life as well. Every thing you do or do not do, every decision you make, all things in all areas of your life are really ‘economic.’ And since they are done under the One True and Living God who created and governs all things, they are all ‘religious.’ It might seem that if religion is all encompassing, and economics is all encompassing, then either 1) religion and economics are the same thing or 2) religion and economics are competing things. However, this is not necessarily so. To perhaps misuse the amended rules in Orwell’s Animal Farm that stated that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than others, we can argue that while religion and economics are both universal, religion is more universal than economics. Economics is ‘universal’ in that every thing you do is economic or has economic ramifications. However, it does not get to the heart of the meaning and purpose in life – not to mention life’s origins and conclusions. Religion is more broadly universal. But, in relation to our day to day life, what we see, do, act upon, etc. economics can and should be considered universal.
The idea that economics, properly viewed, is in this sense universal, was apparently the view of Ludwig von Mises, one of the leading economists of the twentieth century. While he wrote voluminously on the topic, with such book titles as The Theory of Money and Credit, Socialism, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, etc., his most famous work is his overall thesis on economics entitled Human Action. What is economics? Broadly speaking, the study of economics can be defined as the study of human action. Broadly speaking, then, using the term "the economy" is simply a way of speaking about the totality of all human activity. When we say that America’s economy is strong, what we are saying is that by and large, the people’s use of their time and talents is being utilized in a way that is generally beneficial to all. (there are always exceptions, of course) When we say that America’s economy is weak or struggling, we are really saying that people’s use of their time and talents is not being efficiently harnessed for the good of all. This may be for any number of reasons. However, I do believe that if our citizens had a better overall understanding of economics, then by necessity our economy would tend to be strong, rather than struggling.
I know when you think of the word ‘economics’ the first word that pops into your head is ‘money.’ Even Mises of Human Action fame, also wrote, as we said, The Theory of Money and Credit. But, ask yourself, what is money? The answer is that money is really only a medium of exchange. Money facilitates ‘human action.’ It is nothing more, and nothing less. Money is one of the means utilized by humans to allow themselves the most productive use of their time and talents, by dividing their time and talents into usable portions (e.g. dollars) to be traded to others for useful portions of their time and talents.
While every single thing we do is economic, the level of understanding of economics in twenty-first century America is disgraceful. I can not think of a topic that more people know less about than economics, while at the same time people think they know a lot about it. Yet, (other than religion) it is the most widely relevant subject there is.
It is at least partly because of this abysmal understanding of economics that our nation’s ‘economy’ is going in the tank. People do not understand the basic principle of what money is, where it comes from, and how it operates. They do not understand that as far as humans can control such outcomes (which is only so far), as a general rule those who have the most money are the ones who have the most talent and energy, or have used their level of talent and energy in the most useful and productive ways.
They also do not understand (and this is vitally important) that activity by the government, aimed at supposedly improving the ‘economy’, have never and can never actually work. Two caveats are due here. First, the economic interests and security of a people is aided by government when government sticks to what it is suppose to do. Therefore, the preceding comment is not to be taken as a call to anarchy. Property and liberty are at great jeopardy when there is no government. In fact, protecting life, liberty, and property (or even more broadly, the pursuit of happiness) is in fact the very purpose of government. When government does this, and only this, a nation can prosper. It is when government oversteps its boundary lines and tries to do all sorts of things above and beyond this, even including ‘spurring the economy,’ that real actual harm is done to the economic interests of the nation.
The second caveat is that often times what government does ‘for’ the economy does have an immediately obvious and observable positive impact. However, this is usually discriminatory (it ‘benefits’ one group of people at the expense of others), and is always temporary. The end result is always that more harm is done to the whole of society than could ever be justified by the temporary gain by a few. In the long run too, it is usually the early ‘beneficiaries’ who ultimately are harmed the most. And of course, this is usually the poorer among us.
To consider some examples of the above think of government action such as welfare payments, minimum wage laws, rent controls, price controls, public works projects, work week regulations, tariffs to protect industry, pro union legislation, windfall profits tax, and on and on. These are all economic intrusions by the government, are all aimed either at helping the lower classes or conversely ‘soaking’ the rich. They all can have immediate, obvious benefits to some group (I make $5 an hour and the government magically makes $7 an hour the legal ‘minimum’ wage – I get a $2 an hour, or $4160 per year raise – great, right???). However, all of these intrusions in the end are impossible to accomplish, hurt the overall economic system of the nation, and in the end, hurt the very people they intended to help. (Consider the worker who got laid off because he was only worth $5 an hour to his company and not $7)
What inevitably happens though, and this is why I believe our economy is possibly on the brink of disaster, is that our leaders pass such laws as these and more; they may or may not have a temporary, limited positive impact; then the longer term, wider impact is negative – economic indicators grow worse. The response of our leaders is always the same. It is not to repeal the damaging laws. Instead it is to pass yet more of the same. This does two things. First, it may (or may not) ‘spur’ the economy, or some portion thereof temporarily. Secondly, though, it makes the situation even more precarious. Economic indicators eventually take a down turn again, and the government responds with more of the same.
The long term impact of this is that of visibly perceived wealth and greatness of a nation, propped up on a horribly shoddy foundation. To use religiously charged language, it is a house built upon the sand. You know what happens to such houses? Eventually they fall, and "great is that fall."
In essence our economy is stacked up on phony money generated by phony government action. To put it in individual terms that are easy to understand, consider that you or I could live an apparently wonderful prosperous life if we had several credit cards with no or very high limits. We could spend and spend. We could also finance fancy cars and large homes, high class vacations, etc. To all the world we look rich. But one day, citi and Capital One will come calling, as will the auto financiers and the mortgage company. If we live like that there are only three possible outcomes: 1) we fall and fall hard 2) we repent of our economic sin, tighten our belt, sell off what we can and pay down our debts and begin living responsibly if it is not too late or 3) we get lucky and die before the fall, leaving it to our children and grandchildren to pick up the pieces.
Our politicians and their in-house economists are banking on number three. One of the leading economists of the last century even admitted it. When asked about the long term effects of his economic plans, John Maynard Keynes stated, "In the long run, we are all dead." That is the type of people who are planning and running our economy.
In summary, I believe our nation needs first and foremost a religious revival. Secondly, and on the heels of this revival, we need a revival of knowledge and understanding – especially in the universal area of human action known as economics. Until this happens, we will continue to get more of the same and this skyscraper built on sand will eventually fall.
To perhaps prime the pump a bit, the following post will contain a few suggested readings.
The one thing that the nation needs is a religious revival. Every area of life is corrupted by sin, and can only be redeemed by true religion. It has happened before, both on this continent and abroad. It can happen again. If it does, we can expect to see every area of life show signs of redemption. If it doesn’t….well….I’m afraid to speculate.
Religion, faith, God, etc. encompass every single area of life. One area of life that definitely needs redeeming right now is education. Specifically, I am thinking of the level of knowledge and understanding by the general public of economic issues.
In a way, economics is like religion. That is because, like religion, it is universal. That is, economics covers every area of life as well. Every thing you do or do not do, every decision you make, all things in all areas of your life are really ‘economic.’ And since they are done under the One True and Living God who created and governs all things, they are all ‘religious.’ It might seem that if religion is all encompassing, and economics is all encompassing, then either 1) religion and economics are the same thing or 2) religion and economics are competing things. However, this is not necessarily so. To perhaps misuse the amended rules in Orwell’s Animal Farm that stated that while all animals are equal, some are more equal than others, we can argue that while religion and economics are both universal, religion is more universal than economics. Economics is ‘universal’ in that every thing you do is economic or has economic ramifications. However, it does not get to the heart of the meaning and purpose in life – not to mention life’s origins and conclusions. Religion is more broadly universal. But, in relation to our day to day life, what we see, do, act upon, etc. economics can and should be considered universal.
The idea that economics, properly viewed, is in this sense universal, was apparently the view of Ludwig von Mises, one of the leading economists of the twentieth century. While he wrote voluminously on the topic, with such book titles as The Theory of Money and Credit, Socialism, The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality, etc., his most famous work is his overall thesis on economics entitled Human Action. What is economics? Broadly speaking, the study of economics can be defined as the study of human action. Broadly speaking, then, using the term "the economy" is simply a way of speaking about the totality of all human activity. When we say that America’s economy is strong, what we are saying is that by and large, the people’s use of their time and talents is being utilized in a way that is generally beneficial to all. (there are always exceptions, of course) When we say that America’s economy is weak or struggling, we are really saying that people’s use of their time and talents is not being efficiently harnessed for the good of all. This may be for any number of reasons. However, I do believe that if our citizens had a better overall understanding of economics, then by necessity our economy would tend to be strong, rather than struggling.
I know when you think of the word ‘economics’ the first word that pops into your head is ‘money.’ Even Mises of Human Action fame, also wrote, as we said, The Theory of Money and Credit. But, ask yourself, what is money? The answer is that money is really only a medium of exchange. Money facilitates ‘human action.’ It is nothing more, and nothing less. Money is one of the means utilized by humans to allow themselves the most productive use of their time and talents, by dividing their time and talents into usable portions (e.g. dollars) to be traded to others for useful portions of their time and talents.
While every single thing we do is economic, the level of understanding of economics in twenty-first century America is disgraceful. I can not think of a topic that more people know less about than economics, while at the same time people think they know a lot about it. Yet, (other than religion) it is the most widely relevant subject there is.
It is at least partly because of this abysmal understanding of economics that our nation’s ‘economy’ is going in the tank. People do not understand the basic principle of what money is, where it comes from, and how it operates. They do not understand that as far as humans can control such outcomes (which is only so far), as a general rule those who have the most money are the ones who have the most talent and energy, or have used their level of talent and energy in the most useful and productive ways.
They also do not understand (and this is vitally important) that activity by the government, aimed at supposedly improving the ‘economy’, have never and can never actually work. Two caveats are due here. First, the economic interests and security of a people is aided by government when government sticks to what it is suppose to do. Therefore, the preceding comment is not to be taken as a call to anarchy. Property and liberty are at great jeopardy when there is no government. In fact, protecting life, liberty, and property (or even more broadly, the pursuit of happiness) is in fact the very purpose of government. When government does this, and only this, a nation can prosper. It is when government oversteps its boundary lines and tries to do all sorts of things above and beyond this, even including ‘spurring the economy,’ that real actual harm is done to the economic interests of the nation.
The second caveat is that often times what government does ‘for’ the economy does have an immediately obvious and observable positive impact. However, this is usually discriminatory (it ‘benefits’ one group of people at the expense of others), and is always temporary. The end result is always that more harm is done to the whole of society than could ever be justified by the temporary gain by a few. In the long run too, it is usually the early ‘beneficiaries’ who ultimately are harmed the most. And of course, this is usually the poorer among us.
To consider some examples of the above think of government action such as welfare payments, minimum wage laws, rent controls, price controls, public works projects, work week regulations, tariffs to protect industry, pro union legislation, windfall profits tax, and on and on. These are all economic intrusions by the government, are all aimed either at helping the lower classes or conversely ‘soaking’ the rich. They all can have immediate, obvious benefits to some group (I make $5 an hour and the government magically makes $7 an hour the legal ‘minimum’ wage – I get a $2 an hour, or $4160 per year raise – great, right???). However, all of these intrusions in the end are impossible to accomplish, hurt the overall economic system of the nation, and in the end, hurt the very people they intended to help. (Consider the worker who got laid off because he was only worth $5 an hour to his company and not $7)
What inevitably happens though, and this is why I believe our economy is possibly on the brink of disaster, is that our leaders pass such laws as these and more; they may or may not have a temporary, limited positive impact; then the longer term, wider impact is negative – economic indicators grow worse. The response of our leaders is always the same. It is not to repeal the damaging laws. Instead it is to pass yet more of the same. This does two things. First, it may (or may not) ‘spur’ the economy, or some portion thereof temporarily. Secondly, though, it makes the situation even more precarious. Economic indicators eventually take a down turn again, and the government responds with more of the same.
The long term impact of this is that of visibly perceived wealth and greatness of a nation, propped up on a horribly shoddy foundation. To use religiously charged language, it is a house built upon the sand. You know what happens to such houses? Eventually they fall, and "great is that fall."
In essence our economy is stacked up on phony money generated by phony government action. To put it in individual terms that are easy to understand, consider that you or I could live an apparently wonderful prosperous life if we had several credit cards with no or very high limits. We could spend and spend. We could also finance fancy cars and large homes, high class vacations, etc. To all the world we look rich. But one day, citi and Capital One will come calling, as will the auto financiers and the mortgage company. If we live like that there are only three possible outcomes: 1) we fall and fall hard 2) we repent of our economic sin, tighten our belt, sell off what we can and pay down our debts and begin living responsibly if it is not too late or 3) we get lucky and die before the fall, leaving it to our children and grandchildren to pick up the pieces.
Our politicians and their in-house economists are banking on number three. One of the leading economists of the last century even admitted it. When asked about the long term effects of his economic plans, John Maynard Keynes stated, "In the long run, we are all dead." That is the type of people who are planning and running our economy.
In summary, I believe our nation needs first and foremost a religious revival. Secondly, and on the heels of this revival, we need a revival of knowledge and understanding – especially in the universal area of human action known as economics. Until this happens, we will continue to get more of the same and this skyscraper built on sand will eventually fall.
To perhaps prime the pump a bit, the following post will contain a few suggested readings.
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Constitutionalism
A study of the early years of our republic reveals something interesting to us today. In those days, perhaps the biggest political debate, or certainly one of the biggest, was the debate between 'strict construction' and 'broad construction' of the constitution. That is, all those on all sides were dedicated to upholding the constitution, but varied on exactly how to apply it.
Here's an example. Broad constructionists desired to have a national bank. Strict constructionists did not. The strict constructionists insisted that the constitution was absolutely silent about the issue of a national bank. The central (federal) government can only do those things enumerated in the constitution. To create a national bank would be to step outside the bounds of what is allowed constitutionally. The broad constructionists would argue that the constitution gave the central government power to coin money, set the value thereof, tax, borrow, etc. A national bank would be a natural facilitator for carrying out these constituional activities.
Bottom line: BOTH sides (and these were heated debates between very strongly opposing factions) but BOTH sides looked for constitutional provision in order to carry out a policy.
A couple of other examples of constitutionalism is in order. Thomas Jefferson, a strict constructionist, was personally in favor of the government providing education. That is, his personal opinion would be in line with the prevailing notion of today. Central government spending in provision of education. BUT, Jefferson also saw that there was absolutely no constitutional provision for this. He did not push it because of that reason. He stated that before he could pursue such a cause, a constitutional amendment would have to be passed to allow for it. That is why we have provisions for constitutional amendments. It is also why the provisions are not easy to satisfy. We don't want to amend the constitution on a whim!
Another example is the famous court case of Marbury v Madison. Without going into the details of the case, which are somewhat complex, basically the Chief Justice emphatically believed the cause of the plaintiff was just. However, he also believed that the nature of the case was such that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. "Hey Mr. Marbury. I sympathize with you, but I have no authority to do anything about it."
Can you even imagine that today. Presidents saying "I believe in doing thus and so, but I recognize it is outside of the bounds of the constitution. Therefore, unless and until an amendment is passed, I will not pursue this issue." Justices saying "I believe in this cause, but it is outside of my jurisdiction." This simply does not happen today.
With the upcoming anniversary of Roe v Wade it is interesting to note that had this view been adhered to then, the judges would have been forced to say "I believe in a woman's right to abortion, but I do not believe the constitution gives this court the authority to dictate its allowance to the states." Instead they just arbitrarily ruled in the way they did. They, and all the politicians that follow them have since that time insisted that they are not personally really all for abortions, but that there was some sort of 'constitutional' right to one.
What a change we have undergone!!! Today we have politicians who all pay lip service to the constitution, but totally ignore its most basic interpretations. Virtually all of our politicians are not constructionists at all. They claim some sort of dedication to some fuzzy concept of what the American Constitution is, but totally and completely ignore its provisions and limitations. Those on the supposedly 'right' side of the political spectrum ignore the constitution for supposedly 'conservative' causes. Those on the supposedly 'left' side of the spectrum, ignore the constitution for supposedly 'liberal' causes. In the end, they really overlap almost totally. That is why we can have a 'conservative' Republican President work with a 'liberal' Democratic Congress and come up with, for example, all these simply wonderful (cough, choke, gag) programs for education. (Both sides would do well to contemplate Jefferson's take on it!)
Of all the candidates of either major party, only Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. All the others, I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will totally and completely ignore the actual words of the constitution. Dr. Paul has very little chance of winning the nomination, but he is making waves, which is hopefully a good sign for the future. People know something has gone wrong with our government. They just don't know exactly what it is. Now they perhaps have a slightly better understanding. Hopefully you do too!!
Here's an example. Broad constructionists desired to have a national bank. Strict constructionists did not. The strict constructionists insisted that the constitution was absolutely silent about the issue of a national bank. The central (federal) government can only do those things enumerated in the constitution. To create a national bank would be to step outside the bounds of what is allowed constitutionally. The broad constructionists would argue that the constitution gave the central government power to coin money, set the value thereof, tax, borrow, etc. A national bank would be a natural facilitator for carrying out these constituional activities.
Bottom line: BOTH sides (and these were heated debates between very strongly opposing factions) but BOTH sides looked for constitutional provision in order to carry out a policy.
A couple of other examples of constitutionalism is in order. Thomas Jefferson, a strict constructionist, was personally in favor of the government providing education. That is, his personal opinion would be in line with the prevailing notion of today. Central government spending in provision of education. BUT, Jefferson also saw that there was absolutely no constitutional provision for this. He did not push it because of that reason. He stated that before he could pursue such a cause, a constitutional amendment would have to be passed to allow for it. That is why we have provisions for constitutional amendments. It is also why the provisions are not easy to satisfy. We don't want to amend the constitution on a whim!
Another example is the famous court case of Marbury v Madison. Without going into the details of the case, which are somewhat complex, basically the Chief Justice emphatically believed the cause of the plaintiff was just. However, he also believed that the nature of the case was such that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. "Hey Mr. Marbury. I sympathize with you, but I have no authority to do anything about it."
Can you even imagine that today. Presidents saying "I believe in doing thus and so, but I recognize it is outside of the bounds of the constitution. Therefore, unless and until an amendment is passed, I will not pursue this issue." Justices saying "I believe in this cause, but it is outside of my jurisdiction." This simply does not happen today.
With the upcoming anniversary of Roe v Wade it is interesting to note that had this view been adhered to then, the judges would have been forced to say "I believe in a woman's right to abortion, but I do not believe the constitution gives this court the authority to dictate its allowance to the states." Instead they just arbitrarily ruled in the way they did. They, and all the politicians that follow them have since that time insisted that they are not personally really all for abortions, but that there was some sort of 'constitutional' right to one.
What a change we have undergone!!! Today we have politicians who all pay lip service to the constitution, but totally ignore its most basic interpretations. Virtually all of our politicians are not constructionists at all. They claim some sort of dedication to some fuzzy concept of what the American Constitution is, but totally and completely ignore its provisions and limitations. Those on the supposedly 'right' side of the political spectrum ignore the constitution for supposedly 'conservative' causes. Those on the supposedly 'left' side of the spectrum, ignore the constitution for supposedly 'liberal' causes. In the end, they really overlap almost totally. That is why we can have a 'conservative' Republican President work with a 'liberal' Democratic Congress and come up with, for example, all these simply wonderful (cough, choke, gag) programs for education. (Both sides would do well to contemplate Jefferson's take on it!)
Of all the candidates of either major party, only Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. All the others, I mean EVERY SINGLE ONE of them will totally and completely ignore the actual words of the constitution. Dr. Paul has very little chance of winning the nomination, but he is making waves, which is hopefully a good sign for the future. People know something has gone wrong with our government. They just don't know exactly what it is. Now they perhaps have a slightly better understanding. Hopefully you do too!!
In praise of Ebay
You gotta love Ebay! I'm learning to. Been selling off miscellaneous junk around the house. I am currently selling much of my mother's treasures for her (at a commision of course!) In a couple of months, I have sold about $2K worth. I haven't even scratched the surface of mother's collection. I can't wait to see what happens.
I hear about 75 million people visit ebay's site daily. 75 MILLION!!!! What a market! Sure, I could place a classified ad in the paper - spend a lot of money and have maybe a handful of people see it.
Or, for about a nickel, I can place an 'ad' in my own store and be exposed to millions all over the world. What a great concept.
I am sure it is only a matter of time before our wonderful government intervenes and ruins it for us all like it always does. But, in the meantime, if you need glassware, antiques, or anything, stop by my store!!!!
I hear about 75 million people visit ebay's site daily. 75 MILLION!!!! What a market! Sure, I could place a classified ad in the paper - spend a lot of money and have maybe a handful of people see it.
Or, for about a nickel, I can place an 'ad' in my own store and be exposed to millions all over the world. What a great concept.
I am sure it is only a matter of time before our wonderful government intervenes and ruins it for us all like it always does. But, in the meantime, if you need glassware, antiques, or anything, stop by my store!!!!
Monday, November 26, 2007
Brief Iron Bowl Summary
Well, I predicted it earlier in the year when it did not appear very likely. However, I must say, it still was not exactly what I thought. I actually thought UA would continue to be pretty good, and AU would improve greatly as the year progressed. However, what seemed to happen is that both teams were up and down all year and by the end of the year, AU was basically average, and UA was on a downward spiral. After the game I refered to it as the "Clash of the Mediocre", although mediocre might be a stretch for the Bama team that finished with four straight losses including La Monroe.....LA MONROE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have one word to describe this game....BORING. It was very boring. No really great plays. No memorable performances by either team or any individual player. Not much scoring but I do not believe this was because there were two great defensive performances but more because neither team has much offense.
Trying to look at it from an unbiased fan perspective, the Iron Bowl definitely hit a peak during the years 1981-1986. These games were all classic and were split 3-3. Both teams were good during several of these years.
1981 - Bear wins number 315 breaking the then record for most wins. AU had new coach Pat Dye who had them playing much tougher than in years past, but with limited talent and depth. AU played hard and actually led in the fourth Quarter. Bryant put in troubled running back Lenny Patrick who made some of the most incredible runs I'v ever seen to bring Bama the victory. 28-17.
1982 - Dye has AU competitive finally, Freshman running back Bo Jackson is starting to make waves, and Bama with Bear in his last year, is staring to show signs of weakening. A last minute drive that included a pass interference penalty against Jeremiah Castille, a screen to Bo that was stopped at the goal line, and the famous "Bo over the Top" winning TD. AU 23-22.
1983 - Dye's best year. Bo's best game ever. Some 230 yards including a TD run of 70+ yds. Later, a Bama back whose name escapes me had a long TD run giving the Tide a lead. On the first AU play from scrimmage after this, Bo runs around left end for 70+ yards again. By the end of the game the weather was horrendous with rain falling sideways in Legion Field and Tornado WARNINGS in the immediate area. AU 23-20.
1984 Ray Perkins first year and Bama is 4-6 coming in. AU (7-3) started the year with two tough losses to Miami and Texas, then a loss to Florida later in the year. AU was favored by everyone. UA played their game of the year, holding AU all game. A late drive by AU ended on a controversial play. With the greatest running back in the nation at the time in the backfield, AU tossed it to the other halfback, Brnet Fullwood. Supposedly, Bo, who was suppose to block, went the wrong way, leaving the Fullwood unprotected. He was tackled for a loss. Apparently, there was confusion on the sideline, and Bo was late getting into the huddle. When he came in, the QB gave him the wrong play - sending him in the opposite direction than the play went. AU had another late drive and kicked a last second field goal which was wide wide wide. Bama won 17-15. (Incidently, the FG kicker then left AU, went to Florida, and beat AU on a field goal the next year. Irony of Ironies!)
1985 Back and forth game. Long TD run by Bama's Gene Jelks. Late AU rally puts them up 23-22 with less than a minute left. Bama QB and later coach Mike Shula led Bama down the field quickly, hitting Bell on a crossing pattern to set up a long field goal. The fifty-two yarder by Van Tiffin would have been good from the next county. All time grat moment for UA. 25-23.
1986 Bama led 17-7 late. AU began making a comeback. At 17-14 with time running out, AU QB Jeff Burger hit Trey Gainous on a fourth down play to keep a drive alive. Brent Fullwood, now the number one back, had one of the most tremendous performances I have ever seen. Once he was carried off the field after a great run, only to come back in and make another great run later in the drive. As AU neared the goal line, once again confusion reigned on the sideline. Coach Dye was trying to call a timeout, because he did not have the proper personell on the field for the play called. The timeout did not get called, and AU ran a reverse with Lawyer Tillman - a player who had never run that play in the game before. After making a great cut around the five yard line, Tillman scored. This time, UA could not pull out a last minute drive. AU 21-17.
Six games. Total Score Bama 129 AU 122 (if I did my math right!) Great performances. Bo.. Van Tiffin. Great times.
How long has it been? Well, Jeremiah Castilles younger son is a senior on this years UA team. Van Tiffin's son (or daughter?) Leigh hit a long field goal late in the game this year.
But the game???
Early on it looked like AU had Bama on the ropes. They scored a TD the first time they had the ball and a FG the next and led 10-0 in the first quarter. As the camera scanned the Bama bench, they looked.....something......disheartened I think is the best word I can come up with. I felt like at this point if AU could just score again, it would be all over and the rout would be on. However, AU did not go for the knockout punch and the rest of the game was a snoozefest.
But, in the end, AU won 17-10 and have now won 6 straight and 7 out of the last 9. Not bad. Next year Cox will be gone, and hopefully either Field, Caudle, Burns, or some other unknown can more than fill the rather smallish void he will leave. Only time will tell.
War Eagle!
I have one word to describe this game....BORING. It was very boring. No really great plays. No memorable performances by either team or any individual player. Not much scoring but I do not believe this was because there were two great defensive performances but more because neither team has much offense.
Trying to look at it from an unbiased fan perspective, the Iron Bowl definitely hit a peak during the years 1981-1986. These games were all classic and were split 3-3. Both teams were good during several of these years.
1981 - Bear wins number 315 breaking the then record for most wins. AU had new coach Pat Dye who had them playing much tougher than in years past, but with limited talent and depth. AU played hard and actually led in the fourth Quarter. Bryant put in troubled running back Lenny Patrick who made some of the most incredible runs I'v ever seen to bring Bama the victory. 28-17.
1982 - Dye has AU competitive finally, Freshman running back Bo Jackson is starting to make waves, and Bama with Bear in his last year, is staring to show signs of weakening. A last minute drive that included a pass interference penalty against Jeremiah Castille, a screen to Bo that was stopped at the goal line, and the famous "Bo over the Top" winning TD. AU 23-22.
1983 - Dye's best year. Bo's best game ever. Some 230 yards including a TD run of 70+ yds. Later, a Bama back whose name escapes me had a long TD run giving the Tide a lead. On the first AU play from scrimmage after this, Bo runs around left end for 70+ yards again. By the end of the game the weather was horrendous with rain falling sideways in Legion Field and Tornado WARNINGS in the immediate area. AU 23-20.
1984 Ray Perkins first year and Bama is 4-6 coming in. AU (7-3) started the year with two tough losses to Miami and Texas, then a loss to Florida later in the year. AU was favored by everyone. UA played their game of the year, holding AU all game. A late drive by AU ended on a controversial play. With the greatest running back in the nation at the time in the backfield, AU tossed it to the other halfback, Brnet Fullwood. Supposedly, Bo, who was suppose to block, went the wrong way, leaving the Fullwood unprotected. He was tackled for a loss. Apparently, there was confusion on the sideline, and Bo was late getting into the huddle. When he came in, the QB gave him the wrong play - sending him in the opposite direction than the play went. AU had another late drive and kicked a last second field goal which was wide wide wide. Bama won 17-15. (Incidently, the FG kicker then left AU, went to Florida, and beat AU on a field goal the next year. Irony of Ironies!)
1985 Back and forth game. Long TD run by Bama's Gene Jelks. Late AU rally puts them up 23-22 with less than a minute left. Bama QB and later coach Mike Shula led Bama down the field quickly, hitting Bell on a crossing pattern to set up a long field goal. The fifty-two yarder by Van Tiffin would have been good from the next county. All time grat moment for UA. 25-23.
1986 Bama led 17-7 late. AU began making a comeback. At 17-14 with time running out, AU QB Jeff Burger hit Trey Gainous on a fourth down play to keep a drive alive. Brent Fullwood, now the number one back, had one of the most tremendous performances I have ever seen. Once he was carried off the field after a great run, only to come back in and make another great run later in the drive. As AU neared the goal line, once again confusion reigned on the sideline. Coach Dye was trying to call a timeout, because he did not have the proper personell on the field for the play called. The timeout did not get called, and AU ran a reverse with Lawyer Tillman - a player who had never run that play in the game before. After making a great cut around the five yard line, Tillman scored. This time, UA could not pull out a last minute drive. AU 21-17.
Six games. Total Score Bama 129 AU 122 (if I did my math right!) Great performances. Bo.. Van Tiffin. Great times.
How long has it been? Well, Jeremiah Castilles younger son is a senior on this years UA team. Van Tiffin's son (or daughter?) Leigh hit a long field goal late in the game this year.
But the game???
Early on it looked like AU had Bama on the ropes. They scored a TD the first time they had the ball and a FG the next and led 10-0 in the first quarter. As the camera scanned the Bama bench, they looked.....something......disheartened I think is the best word I can come up with. I felt like at this point if AU could just score again, it would be all over and the rout would be on. However, AU did not go for the knockout punch and the rest of the game was a snoozefest.
But, in the end, AU won 17-10 and have now won 6 straight and 7 out of the last 9. Not bad. Next year Cox will be gone, and hopefully either Field, Caudle, Burns, or some other unknown can more than fill the rather smallish void he will leave. Only time will tell.
War Eagle!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
