So I was reading John Mark Reynolds’ live-blog of Sarah Palin’s new memoir, and I’m sure he’s right about the whole thing. The only conservative writers I can stand for more than 900 words once a week in a column are William F. Buckley and P.J. O’Rourke — and since one’s a dead Catholic and the other is a lush, feel free to let the next round of condemnations begin. But at least they cite sources and really do know what the heck they are talking about — either because one has made these mistakes himself, or because the other is looking down on us plebians from the Mount Olympus of his towering intellect and our little mortal follies are somewhat amusing to him.
Rather than try to assess that, listen to this:
This is related to the Sarah Palin thing, so bear with the drunken master. You all recognize the style of Karen Peck and the Gaither Homecoming choir even if you have never heard that song before. It’s Southern Gospel is all its Bransonesque splendor. It’s down-home music, and it’s Christmas music at that — in the same holly, jolly vein as Irving Berlin and Burl Ives (lyrically if not by genre), but just a little more Bibliocentric than Rudolph, Frosty and the gang.
Now: what do we make of that? You know: I’m a guy who’s is all about disambiguating the Gospel from all the other trash around it, and it gets me branded as a truly-reformed, cold, dead overzealous bigot all the time. And this is music that is called “Gospel”, right? So it’s time for the torches and the pitchforks, and it’s time to get down with the contention because the faith is at stake.
Right?
Yeah: hang on a second. I think that it would be completely right to reject this song as a theologically-robust hymn of the faith which will ultimately convict us of our disobedience before God, or bring us greater light on the joy of Christ — but is it worth anything at all? Should we just disavow it until the denizens of NashVegas and Branson, MO, can compose 117 theses recounting their intellectual errors and then, after composing a proper catechism and a systematic theology, produce a CD with the sufficient quotient of Greek lexicography and references to Paul, Moses, Spurgeon, Owen and Steve Camp?
I rolled my eyes writing that, so if you’re rolling your eyes we’re on the same page.
I think the place we have to start with stuff like this is the scope of the matter. You know: this is entertainment, and in the same way we don’t get all blue in the face when Dr. Doom hatches another plot to destroy Reed Richards and become the rightful monarch of Earth, and in the same way we don’t worry too much about how the Coyote survives all those Grand-Canyonesque pratfalls, and in the same way we enjoy Jack Bower and Jason Bourne, some people enjoy a rollicking ditty about down-home good feelings associated with the holiday seasons. That is, the Christmas holiday season.
Those people, let’s face it, prolly don’t read blogs like this — let alone Calvin’s Institutes, Owen’s The death of Death in the Death of Christ, or even Spurgeon’s Morning and Evening. They probably read those over-formatted e-mails with jingoistic propaganda and don’t know how to look them up on Snopes. They are entertained by 4-part harmony and broad references to simple faith and the joy which follows.
And they are real people. They are not a demographic; they are not a statistical quotient which we hope we don’t have to deal with because our other constituencies are large enough to overshadow them.
Real. People.
I know: for many of you, this is a staggering revelation. It never occurred to you that they were real people. Rather than berate you, I welcome you to the next plateau of your sanctification. Let’s move on.
Here’s where I’m going to get myself in trouble: I think these people are our spiritual friends. And while I don’t think I want them running things, as they say, I like what they bring to the family of faith and I know I can personally learn a lot from them.
The people who buy this music and make this music are the rank-and-file of the faith, and they’re never going to be like Stephen, let alone like Paul or John. They’re going to be like Dorcas, and Rhoda, and Zaccheus, and Mary and Martha.
So what’s that got to do with Sarah Palin?
Here’s what I think: I don’t want Sarah Palin running things, but I like what she brings to the political family. I like what she brings to the public stage even if it’s a little bit lower than the angels — a little less erudite than Buckley and a little less worldly than O’Rourke. I can politically embrace her as a Republican and a political friend or cousin without giving up the farm and saying that she needs to be the next president of the United States or else all is lost.
So we’ll read her book, and maybe she gets a talk show on FOX, and maybe she fills the void Oprah’s going to leave on daytime TV. She’ll be outstanding at it. We’ll all learn something from her about how our politics really ought to look on real people. And we don’t have to pretend that her views on politics are the equivalent of the 39 Articles. She is to politics what Gaither Homecoming is to the Christian faith: a lovely ornament in a homespun mode, but not hardly the high water mark of orthodoxy.
Let’s keep her, and ourselves, in perspective.
November 28th, 2009 | 1:28 am | #1
Frank,
I agree with all that. . . really. If she is not running for President, then I am sorry to have given her book so much attention. If she does, then I am not.
John Mark
November 28th, 2009 | 7:08 am | #2
Can you change the name of this blog from “Evangel” (which this post clearly is not about), to “Evangelical” which is perhaps a more accurate description of the subject matter.
November 28th, 2009 | 7:38 am | #3
I agree, Frank. I hope she doesn’t run in 2012. She would be a far better president than Barack Obama, but that isn’t saying much. And some of the Republican alternatives she would have to defeat in 2012 would be more likely to win the general election.
I think she’s a female equivalent of Dan Quayle in some ways. Both have been damaged (fairly and unfairly) in a way that would make a future recovery highly unlikely. A lot of conservatives despise the manner in which Palin was treated by the media, the Democrats, and some Republicans. There seems to be a desire to support her in response to that mistreatment. That’s not the only reason why people are supporting her, but it seems to be a major factor. In some ways, choosing her as the presidential candidate in 2012 would make about as much sense as going with Dan Quayle in the 2000 campaign. If the Republicans have a strong candidate available in 2012 who didn’t run in any capacity in 2008, as they probably will, I think they should go with a candidate who will give them more of a break with the past (and will be better than Palin in other ways). She may be an appropriate candidate for some lower office, though.
November 28th, 2009 | 8:35 am | #4
Dale –
So unless we’re writing posts about John 3:16 or 1 Cor 15:1-4, we’re not writing about the ‘evangel’?
Ask you pastor if that makes any sense, and come back here and report to us what he said.
November 28th, 2009 | 9:43 am | #5
Perhaps we sometimes evaluate a book, movie, or other artistic endeavor based on what we think the book ought to have been, not what it is. Back in the Ice Age, when I was a movie critic, I was guilty of that regularly.
Personally, I would have loved to read an erudite, pithy, esoteric book by Ms Palin – but that’s not what she gave us. Her book appears to be aimed at the hoi polloi, the people who exist in such numbers that they can elect a regular person to be president.
Take President Obama, for example. What do you suppose the average level of education was among those people that voted for him? That is not an insult aimed at Obama or his supporters: it is to make the point that he knew how to get elected, i.e., by appealing to the masses. Every elected official knows that – or needs to – and does that.
I’m not saying I would vote for Palin, only that she and her handlers may be more shrewd than we know. She may have taken a page from Obama’s book of election strategies.
So she wrote – or someone wrote – a book that many of us (self included) would regard as pedestrian and banal. But one man’s baloney is another man’s steak. Recent election history bears that out.
November 28th, 2009 | 2:10 pm | #6
I like this Frank. It makes me look at Sarah Palin from another perspective. I think her greatest contribution was the fact that she was like every apple pie American out there. She represented the average hockey mom, the gun toting sportswomen, the hard crusty wife of a marine fisherman, the soft voice of a Christian perspective, and a tender, loving mom, who juggles family with the hard realities of a crass workaday world. In essence she was the Everywomen of the Everyman adage. Something men have only had the complete rights and title to for years.
She captured the hearts of the down-home folk, but let down the folks at home, who need a leader to at least understand geography. I would have nightmares if she became President of the United States, knowing the red button is just a fingers touch away, and if we were attacked by Iran, she may send missiles all the way to Australia. YIKES! But I am sure, beyond all reasonable doubt, she could tell you where the blue gills and trout run-a-plenty in the icy blue, northern lakes, and where the bears sit in the woods. Sorry, if you thought I was going for something a little more graphic, here.
She has great gut instincts, and has a strong ability to get things done by the sheer force of determination, but she also needs to be a little savvier in the noodle department. I have to say, all in all, I really, really like her, but would I vote for her for any political office or buy her book? NO! Just as I would not read anything written by Ashton Kutchner (sp).
Btw, I loved Firing Line with Buckley, and subscribed to National Review for my Fathers reading pleasure, he, too, was a fan.
November 28th, 2009 | 2:16 pm | #7
Whoops! Should be everywomAn, not women.
November 28th, 2009 | 2:25 pm | #8
Mike,
I would agree, but it is a bad book for the hoi polloi. Read Reagan’s Where is the Rest of Me? to see a book aimed at film goers and regular folks which is also meaty and interesting.
John Mark
November 29th, 2009 | 11:03 pm | #9
Oh… “they” … “them”. How open minded of you all to see a place for all those rubes out there. Law of averages being what they are, I guess the great unwashed have their place because that’s how you all above-average folk get to keep your place.. mathematically speaking. Yikes. Oh, FT. Get back to the comics page and real life. Save yourself while you can.
November 29th, 2009 | 11:19 pm | #10
Kate –
If anyone who falls into the description of the people I am talking about and admiring here (which, of course, your comment misses) ever meets me (and they do), they think of me as a “them”, but in a nice way. I’m from NY; they are from someplace else. I have an advanced degree; they worked while I was in grad school. I started real life late; they started early, and are reaping the benefits of it now (for example, those of them which are my age are now grandparents, and I have kids in grade school).
Given that my parents were first-generation college grads, I hold those who did not take this path is high esteem — I know many of them myself. As I said in this essay, “I think these people are our spiritual friends. And while I don’t think I want them running things, as they say, I like what they bring to the family of faith and I know I can personally learn a lot from them.”
I like them; I am often not like them — to my disgrace. Please don’t take that as looking down on people who, frankly, make the world work. Bloggers like me do not make the world work: the guy who owns his own business and works in the field with his guys doing hard things even when the weather isn’t great makes the world work.
There’s a parable in there about the office of the President, but I’m too tired to work it out for you. Have a nice evening.
November 30th, 2009 | 12:54 am | #11
Well Mr. Turk if Kate missed it and I missed it maybe somebody better “clue” us in a little more. I am only posting here because I am going to let “First Things” go dark in my life now. After reading all the posts on Professor Reynolds piece I just don’t fit in. Doesn’t seem to matter if you are a professor from Biola or some secular college or university it all sounds the same to me. They smart – me not so much! Kate and I read the condescension (had to look up that big word;o) of the ever so smart folks and well it’s hard to not have so much in our “noodles” as the other folks. Makes me/us feel bad. May have to give up reading christian blogs all together. You know my track record. Oh ya, I really didn’t like your last sentence Mr. Turk, sounds pretty snarky to me. Are you so tired from blogging? I am matching tone here not being uncharitable just saying… You have a nice evening too.
November 30th, 2009 | 1:03 am | #12
Karen,
I am sorry about that. I really am.
My goal is to love Jesus and follow Him the best I can . . . sorry to see you go.
John Mark
November 30th, 2009 | 10:11 am | #13
JMR –
I’m not sure that apologizing for someone else’s thin skin is the categorically-Christian thing to do. I think it turns out to be enabling of bad internet behavior when one caves in to trumped-up offense.
_________________________________
Karen –
I was posting at 11:19 PM, so forgive me for being tired. At 11:19 PM. Anything else I would say would be misinterpreted as piling on.
November 30th, 2009 | 11:32 am | #14
John Mark Reynolds: “Here’s what I think: I don’t want Sarah Palin running things, but I like what she brings to the political family.”
Well, if I had a choice between Obama running the country or Palin running the country as President, I’d rather have Sarah Palin.
No doubt about it.
November 30th, 2009 | 8:07 pm | #15
“Well, if I had a choice between Obama running the country or Palin running the country as President, I’d rather have Sarah Palin.
No doubt about it.”
But no reason about it either…
It’s what is so amazing about “fans” of any stripe. There’s little space for thought or consideration (much less, thoughtful consideration) because “fans” are too busy parking their ideological cars at the Palindome.
Obama has disappointed on certain issues, but this country was in terrible shape when he took office and it will take a lot to get it back on the right track. How anyone could honestly posit that Sarah Palin would be managing things better defies rational thought.
She quit from the pressure of dealing with ALASKA?!?!?! She’s up to the task of wrangling the U.S. Congress, military incursions in two countries, escalations of tensions in Iran, North Korea and Gaza and the biggest financial meltdown since the Great Depression?
Please.
There’s a WHOLE lotta mustard seeds in Palinworld.
November 30th, 2009 | 9:18 pm | #16
We have Obama, a man who apologizes about Abu Ghraib in the land of the Citadel of Cairo, where the likes of Qutb drew his last breath. Who really doesn’t understand ‘that armies and navies’ really do influence history,that
‘democracy sometimes regretably ‘must be imposed by force’, Otherwise as the line goes we would be speaking German or Japanese know. The irony is of course, that her public policy is not really informed by religion, unlike
say Huckabee
December 2nd, 2009 | 2:18 am | #17
Oh! How un-Christian of him to apologize on behalf of Americans for the torture that Americans inflicted. And, yeah, as a Harvard graduate and a constitutional lawyer, he’s too dumb to understand that “armies and navies really do influence history. But sarah palin gets it, doesn’t she? (sarcasm)
Perhaps our president understands the cost of war all too well, and does not take lightly a decision to send kids to die.
December 2nd, 2009 | 8:25 am | #18
Thread is closed. No sense fomenting the sort of discussion becoming evident here.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact