Why Are You Offended?

It is not a secret that I do not like Donald Trump as a person and I do not think that he is fit to be the President of the United States. That was true when he ran in 2016, when he ran in 2020 and when he sort-of ran in 2024 (I say sort-of since he declined to participate in the GOP debates and the Republican party did not require him to do so). And, since 2016, I have used my Facebook account to point out the concerns that I have with Mr. Trump, including his actions in office.

But suddenly, in the past month, I have had three individuals–all trusted brothers in Christ–approach me to express concern over my posts about Mr. Trump. I appreciate that they were willing to approach me; far too often we believers—especially, I dare say, Christian men—shy away from difficult, iron-sharpening-iron conversations. All three me approached me in the right way, following biblical principles, and all three, I believe, had an appropriate motive. To my knowledge, none of them knew anything about the other talking with me.

I will be the first to admit that if three Christian friends approach you about the same thing, it would be wise to listen. And I did listen. I don’t think I became defensive. I said that I would think and pray about what they had to say, and I have done that. But I should add that within the same time period I received, unsolicited, feedback from two or three people thanking me for taking a stand. I then solicited feedback from three other friends–people I have known for a long time, whose opinions I respect and whom I believe would tell me if they thought I was in the wrong–whether they thought I was out of line or risking offense with my posts. I have reached three conclusions as a result of those conversations and my prayerful reflection on them and I feel it is appropriate to share them here.

First, I care about politics and I like to argue. Debate would sound more polite, but argue may be more accurate. I have followed presidential politics since 1988. My undergraduate degree is in political science. I thought, for a long time, that I would be serving in an elected office or working for an elected official. God showed me that, thus far anyway, that has not been His plan for my life. But I am still interested in politics, I still like to argue and I definitely still have opinions. So maybe I have posted about Mr. Trump more than I should. I will continue to prayerfully evaluate that.

Second, the concern that was expressed, and all of the feedback and pushback that I have received about my posts and comments about Mr. Trump have come from other believers. And I cannot help but wonder why. None of the men who approached me suggested that I have posted anything that was factually wrong or biblically inaccurate. So why are the posts potentially offensive?

Strangely, some people who have taken issues with my posts have pointed out that God appoints leaders to accomplish his purposes on earth. There are two things to consider in regard to that. First, if you believe that, then you have to believe that God also appointed Joe Biden for office and that He had a purpose for having Biden in office for four years. You have to believe that about every office holder in the country. You don’t get to claim God is in charge only when things are going your way; God is in charge all of the time. The vast majority of the people who are now questioning my posts about Mr. Trump are the same people who repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen, said of Biden that he’s “Not my President!” and proudly wore shirts and flew flags proclaiming “Let’s Go Brandon!” But God put Trump in office for “such a time as this,” they say! Okay. Did he also put Biden in office for such a time as that? And Obama? And Bush? And Warren Harding? You can’t have it both ways.

Second, that argument is, I assume, based on Romans 13. That passage deals with being subject to rulers—including the often-overlooked instruction to pay taxes to whom taxes are due. But it begins with this verse: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” The verse says that governing authorities are instituted by God. But who is the governing authority in the United States? It is “we the people.” God, in His sovereignty, has given the citizens of the United States of America the ability to choose our own leaders. That does not mean that God chooses who our leaders will be. He allows them to be in office, because nothing happens that He does not allow, but there is a significant difference between what God allows and what God ordains. Check out 1 Samuel 8. The people of Israel wanted a king. God warned them of the results, but He also let them have what they wanted. The fact that Donald Trump is the President of the United States means that God has allowed Him to be; it does not mean that God ordained Him to be or put Him in that place.

Also interestingly, those questioning my posts repeatedly disregard Mr. Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, and suggest that he did nothing wrong. It was all a peaceful protest or it was all manipulated or it was all faked. It was none of those things. I, and many, many others, watched it live. The testimonies of many who were there tell us what happened. People died. People were seriously injured. It was an incredibly sad day for America. Yet, they keep trying to claim that the J6 Committee destroyed evidence, which is a sure sign that they faked it all. Except that when I ask, as I have done repeatedly, for any evidence at all that the evidence was destroyed I get…crickets. That’s because there is no truth to that claim. (You can find far more evidence than you probably have time to read on GovInfo.gov—all there for you to look at it whenever you would like).

But what about the assassination attempts? Is God responsible for the fact that Donald Trump is still alive? Of course He is. He is responsible for the fact that I am still alive, and you are still alive and every person who is currently alive is still alive. That’s what it means for Him to be the almighty, sovereign God of the universe. It is not proof positive that God ordained Trump to be the president right now.

As I said, I have been following presidential politics since 1988. Since I have been old enough to vote, my preferred candidate in the primary election has only won the White House once, and that was in 2004 when George W. Bush was reelected. But I have prayed for every one of those presidents. I have prayed for wisdom and discernment and protection. And, when I felt it necessary, I have criticized the actions of every one of those presidents. Therein lies the rub…

The fact that I criticize some of what Donald Trump does, or how he does it, does not mean that I disagree with him on everything. When it comes to substance, I agree with him on more than I disagree with him. But he is not a nice man. He is not a good role model for young people. He does not have habits or leadership skills that anyone would tolerate in almost any other setting. He is arrogant. He is vindictive. He is petty. And he seems to have either forgotten, or not to care, that he is not a dictator and he cannot rule with the squiggle of his Sharpie. I think birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants should be reconsidered. I think the Department of Education should be eliminated. But he can’t do that on his own. He has to go about it the right way. This is a republic. We have rules and laws that must be followed. When he does admirable things the right way, I will probably comment on that. But when he does admirable things the wrong way, or things which are not admirable, I will definitely comment on that. Not because I am better than he is or because I enjoy it, but because I cannot sit idly by while so many people who profess to be followers of Christ blindly embrace his every move and follow in lock step his plan to Make America Great Again. I want America to be great, but that’s not what the Lord has called His children to pursue.

So, if you’re a follower of Christ, and my posts offend you, why is that? I am asking sincerely. I would honestly like to know. Are you really concerned about my relationship with the Lord—or are you bothered by the fact that I am not as gung ho about Donald Trump as you are? If it’s the latter, so what? I probably don’t cheer for the same sports team(s) you do either, or watch the same TV shows or prefer the same music. What difference does that make? But if it’s the former, that’s a real cause for concern—unless you’re equating the two. And I’m not being dramatic. I am aware of a church that has informed its congregants that if they do not support Donald Trump, they need to leave the church. That’s heresy. That’s idolatry. That’s elevating Donald Trump to a position of being more important than fidelity to the Word of God. And that cannot be ignored. The Bereans were commended for testing what Paul taught. We are exhorted to do that in our churches. We need to do it in the political sphere, too. Just because Trump says it or posts it on Truth doesn’t mean it’s true. Do some research. Don’t live in an echo chamber. Read, watch and listen widely—even, sometimes, to people you’re sure you disagree with. Be mature enough to admit that Trump makes mistakes and has flaws.

And please, keep in mind that when I post about Trump, I don’t mean it as a personal attack on you.

The third conclusion I have reached is that populism is so dangerous. It is not coincidental that Mr. Trump has a portrait of Andrew Jackson hanging in the Oval Office. It was during Jackson’s presidency that the worst domestic riot at the White House ever occurred—celebrating his election to the White House—and it was during Trump’s first term that the worst domestic riot at the Capitol ever occurred, trying to prevent his loss to Joe Biden from being certified by Congress. At least Jackson had lawfully invited “the public” to the President’s House, but the resulting fiasco resulted in such a mess that it took a week to clean it up. I have never seen—and in my study of history I am not aware of—a U.S. president who has gained such a cult-like following as Donald Trump. Sure, for decades now people have used pins, bumper stickers, t-shirts and signs to demonstrate their support for a political candidate and to encourage others to vote for that candidate. But those things generally disappear after an election other than in museums and in the hands of collectors. Not with Trump, though. People continued to wear MAGA hats and fly Trump flags for the duration of the Biden presidency. Entire MAGA stores sprung up. And Trump has capitalized on the blind loyalty of his followers, making money selling everything from Trump-branded shoes to Bibles to silver coins to cryptocurrency—and that’s not an exhaustive list.

Andrew Jackson would not, historically, be considered a populist, since most historians date the emergence of populism to the end of the 19th century. But the explanation of populism provided by Brittanica fits Mr. Trump to a t.

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics. Populist politics, following this definition, revolve around charismatic leaders who appeal to and claim to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate their own power. In this personalized form of politics, political parties lose their importance, and elections serve to confirm the leader’s authority rather than reflect the different allegiances of the people. Some forms of authoritarian populism have been characterized by extreme nationalism, racism, conspiracy mongering, and scapegoating of marginalized groups, each of which served to consolidate the leader’s power, to distract public attention from the leader’s failures, or to conceal from the people the nature of the leader’s rule or the real causes of economic or social problems.

Donald Trump’s supporters are no longer about the Republican party—they are about Donald Trump. He claims he has a mandate from the people to enact the sweeping changes he is instigating though his electoral victory was actually quite thin. While he did win a clear electoral vote, he won a bit less than half of the popular vote, making him the first minority president since…oh, Donald Trump, in 2016. When he was elected in 2016, Trump received a smaller percentage of the popular vote than any president since George Bush in 2000. But Trump is all about nationalism, scapegoating and conspiracy mongering. Watch out of you get out of step with him, even if you used to be his buddy. Just ask Nikki Haley, Mark Milley, Christopher Wray and a host of others. He seems to think he’s still starring on The Apprentice, firing people left and right, including the Archivist of the United States.

Since taking office three weeks ago, Trump has issued 59 executive orders. That’s more than any president has averaged per year since Jimmy Carter was in office. Executive Orders were designed to be rare. The first ten U.S. presidents didn’t issue as many combined as Trump has issued already. Not until Andrew Johnson did any single president issue more than Trump has in the past three weeks—and he was definitely serving during uniquely challenging circumstances. Not even Abraham Lincoln, who was widely criticized for expanding the power of the executive branch, possibly illegally, issued as many executive orders in his four-plus years in office as Trump has in the past three weeks—and Lincoln was literally trying to save the Union. No single president averaged as many executive orders per year as Trump has issued in three weeks until Theodore Roosevelt—who was president, interestingly, at the height of populism. Executive orders became a popular means of presidential influence through his cousin Franklin’s three-plus terms in office (he averaged 307 per year) but since then have declined sharply. In fact, Trump has already exceeded in number his own per-year average from his first term.

People have become so angry about the state of affairs in Washington, D.C.—and, in many cases, rightly so—that they don’t care what Trump does to “drain the swamp.” But doing the right thing the wrong way is still wrong. This is the United States of America, not some banana republic. Do you remember the Pledge of Allegiance? It says, “…and to the republic, for which it stands….” The power here resides with the people, not with the president, regardless of who he is.

We’re about to see if the courts will slow Trump’s abuse of power—or if he will even care if they try. If they don’t, or he doesn’t, we the people better care. We better take action—legal action, through our elected representatives—to bring him to heel. Throughout history, no story beginning with someone claiming that they are accumulating power for the good of the country has ended well, and it won’t this time, either.

Image credit: John Scott Comedy.

Whiner in Chief

On December 29, 2025, former president Jimmy Carter passed away. In keeping with both precedent and U.S. statute, President Biden ordered that flags fly at half-staff for thirty days. That thirty day period overlaps with the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, something Trump simply could not abide. On January 3 he posted on his Truth Social platform:

The Democrats are all ‘giddy’ about our magnificent American Flag potentially being at ‘half mast’ during my Inauguration. They think it’s so great, and are so happy about it because, in actuality, they don’t love our Country, they only think about themselves.

Ignoring the fact that flags only fly at half-mast on a ship, this pathetic rant proves only to demonstrate that Donald Trump is the Whiner in Chief. He thinks of no one but himself and casts anyone and anything that gets in his way as un-American.

President Biden had no control over then Jimmy Carter died. And I cannot imagine even Donald Trump would have the audacity to suggest that Carter timed his own death to somehow cast a shadow over Trump’s inauguration. President Biden did not arbitrarily pick thirty days. As I said, that’s actually stated in U.S. Statute.

The United States Code, 2011 Edition, Title 4, Chapter 1—The Flag states the following:

The flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff on all buildings, grounds, and naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions for the period indicated upon the death of any of the following-designated officials or former officials of the United States:

(a) The President or a former President: for thirty days from the day of death.

This was signed by President Dwight Eisenhower when little Donald Trump was just eight years old. Surely no animosity toward Trump, or any presidential inauguration, was intended. And I dare anyone to suggest that Dwight Eisenhower didn’t love America.

Yesterday, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson announced, “On January 20th, the flags at the Capitol will fly at full-staff to celebrate our country coming together behind the inauguration of our 47th President, Donald Trump. The flags will be lowered back to half-staff the following day to continue honoring President Jimmy Carter.” Here’s the rub: Johnson has no authority to do that. But rather than display some semblance of a backbone, Johnson—who owes his continuation in the Speaker’s chair to support from Trump—kowtowed to Trump’s bullying and bluster.

Not only Johnson, though; as of today, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds—all Republicans—have announced that flags will fly at full staff in their states on the day of the inauguration, too. Like Johnson, they lack the authority to override the order of President Biden that flags will fly at half-staff for thirty days.

Stupidly, those governors are citing sections of the same federal statute in support of their position. Their arguments, however, demonstrate either a severe lack in reading comprehension skills or the presence of deluded legal counsel in their administrations. Maybe both. One section they have touted says this:

It is the universal custom to display the flag only from sunrise to sunset on buildings and on stationary flagstaffs in the open. However, when a patriotic effect is desired, the flag may be displayed 24 hours a day if properly illuminated during the hours of darkness.

I’ve been a teacher for a long time. If I gave those two sentences to a student and asked them to explain them to me only to be told that it means that flags must fly at full-staff during presidential inaugurations I would promptly give the student an F. That section of the statute provides only for a longer-than-usual display of the flag; it says nothing whatsoever about the flag being at full- or half-staff.

The other section they’ve used says this:

The flag should be displayed on all days, especially on New Year’s Day, January 1; Inauguration Day, January 20; Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, third Monday in January; Lincoln’s Birthday, February 12; Washington’s Birthday, third Monday in February; Easter Sunday (variable); Mother’s Day, second Sunday in May; Armed Forces Day, third Saturday in May; Memorial Day (half-staff until noon), the last Monday in May; Flag Day, June 14; Father’s Day, third Sunday in June; Independence Day, July 4; National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day, July 27; Labor Day, first Monday in September; Constitution Day, September 17; Columbus Day, second Monday in October; Navy Day, October 27; Veterans Day, November 11; Thanksgiving Day, fourth Thursday in November; Christmas Day, December 25; and such other days as may be proclaimed by the President of the United States; the birthdays of States (date of admission); and on State holidays.

You noticed, I am sure, that Inauguration Day is included. Fine. Of course flags should be displayed on Inauguration Day. But no where in that section is there any suggestion that flags must be displayed at full-staff on any of those days. And no one suggested that flags should be flown at full-staff on January 1 of this year, which was within the thirty days. Were the inauguration not falling on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday this year, I am sure no one would have suggested it for that day, either.

This is not about a desire to honor America. It is purely about Donald Trump’s narcissism and the desire of weak politicians—almost always Republican—to get, or stay, on Trump’s good side so that they do not face the recriminations that would otherwise come their way.

Congratulations, America. Next Monday we are returning to office the Whiner in Chief.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

My Year in Books – 2024

Another year has arrived, meaning it is time for another review of my year in books. I read fifty of them in 2024. So, here we go.

The first book I read was 24: Life Stories and Lessons from the Say Hey Kid by Willie Mays and John Shea. It was an enjoyable read, providing an interesting look at what baseball was life when Mays played but also his life outside of baseball. It was a Christmas gift from my son and proved timely since Mays passed away in June. Another Christmas present was Joe Posnanski’s The Baseball 100. Anyone who reads the book will take issue with some of the players Posnanski included, or the order in which he placed them, but it is an excellent book providing fascinating details about one hundred incredible ballplayers as well as personal anecdotes from Posnanski, who is a fine writer.

Katie Ledecky’s Just Add Water tells her life story, so much of which is centered around swimming. It is an enjoyable read and it is encouraging to see just how much fun she has swimming. Even as perhaps the best female swimmer in the world, with innumerable records to her name, she truly enjoys swimming. Misty Copeland’s The Wind at My Back is sort of an autobiography and a biography of Raven Wilkinson, who became a mentor to Copeland.

Woody Holton’s Liberty Is Sweet is a good book. He overreaches with his subtitle, though; “The Hidden History of the American Revolution” clearly implies that Holton uncovered some fascinating details that had somehow gone unnoticed—but he didn’t. While the book is voluminous—some 560 pages of text and another two hundred of notes and sources—I don’t think he revealed anything I had never heard or read before. He may be the first person to put it all in one book, and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a one-volume exhaustive history of the Revolutionary War, but honestly, his short overview of the ten years following the war that he included at the end of the book was perhaps the most insightful.

Allen Guelzo’s Robert E. Lee: A Life is a notable addition to the already numerous books on Lee. Guelzo is probably most recognized as an expert on Gettysburg, but he writes a well-researched and balanced account of Lee’s life. Erik Larson took his gifted approach to writing history to the story of the battle of Fort Sumter in The Demon of Unrest. Anyone wanting to understand everything that was involved in that conflict would do well to read this book. Andrew Delbanco’s The War Before the War capably traces the fight of enslaved Africans seeking freedom from the time of the American Revolution to the Civil War. But Samuel W. Mitchum Jr.’s It Wasn’t About Slavery is a pitiful attempt at showing that the South was motivated by things other than slavery when eleven states seceded from the Union, but his arguments fail, badly. Anyone with the desire to do so can discredit what he thinks are his strongest arguments within a matter of minutes if they are willing to search online for the full text of the documents he likes to cite. And anyone doing so will find that it actually was about slavery. The Crooked Path to Abolition by James Oakes, on the other hand, capably shows that while Lincoln’s position on slavery changed over time in terms of his strategies, his position as an opponent of slavery itself was much more consistent than he is often given credit for.

Solomon Northup’s Twelve Years a Slave is his autobiographical account of being tricked in New York, kidnapped in Washington, D.C., and sold into slavery for twelve years. The story gained significant attention a number of years ago when a movie of the same title was made.

Rachel Devlin’s A Girl Stands at the Door: The Generation of Young Women Who Desegregated America’s Schools, recounts the incredible bravery and fortitude of the girls who integrated American schools in the 1950s. While boys were involved in desegregation efforts as well, it fell disproportionately to girls, as Devlin explains. She interviewed many of the women who fought that fight and this is a book I would recommend to anyone wanting to learn more about that part of America’s history. Anne Gardiner Perkins wrote Yale Needs Women, and that was an eye-opener for me. I had no idea that Yale had not admitted female students until 1969. The book recounts the challenges they faced, the reluctance of so many to allow them to attend the school and the determination with which so many pressed on.

T. Martin Bennett’s Wounded Tiger is a sizable but fascinating book that intertwines the stories of Jacob DeShazer, Mitsuo Fuchida and a missionary family. Highly recommend.

Liz Cheney’s Oath and Honor is her accounting of the events of January 6 and her stand against Donald Trump, especially following his role in those events. She defends her service on the January 6 Select Committee. No one who despises Cheney will be swayed by the book—especially those who agree with Donald Trump and his recent claims that she should be put in prison—but as one of very few Republicans who was willing to stand up to Trump publicly, her side of the story deserves to be read. And Michael Wolff’s Landslide will also be dismissed by the MAGA crew, but the story he paints of the end of the first Trump administration shows why so many are concerned about what the Trump Presidency 2.0 is going to look like. Going back to his breakout period following Watergate, one wonders where Bob Woodward gets all of his information—and whether or not it is all accurate. If it is, Peril, which he co-wrote with Robert Costa, is, if anything, even scarier than Landslide. Tulsi Gabbard’s For Love of Country was shallower than I expected. I was disappointed at how dismissive of Gabbard the Democrats were in 2016. I do not think she is a Russian agent or even a Russian defender but I am not sure I want her as the head of national intelligence, either.

Elijah Cummings, with James Dale, wrote We’re Better Than This. Cummings represented the congressional district that includes Baltimore for twenty-four years. There is probably more that I would disagree with him on politically than agree but his commitment to finding ways to get along with people and be respectful even when he disagreed is something sorely missing in politics today.

Andrew Whitehead’s American Idolatry examines the dangers of Christian nationalism and shows how anyone who is not careful can easily go from nationalism to other dangerous -isms, like racism. Paul Miller’s The Religion of American Greatness: What’s Wrong with Christian Nationalism was the better book, I thought, but both are thought-provoking. The beginning of Russell Moore’s Losing Our Religion probably comes closer than anything else I have read to describing how I have felt over the past few years as so many people I thought highly of and often agreed with have become lockstep adherents of Donald Trump, even to the point of ignoring when and how he clearly acts inconsistently with what the Bible teaches.

Timothy Keller’s Jesus the King, which was previously published in hardcover as King’s Cross, explains the life of Christ, based on the account provided by Mark, with unique insights and reminders. R.C. Sproul’s A Taste of Heaven is a short book that puts proper worship into perspective. Even shorter, Bob Kauflin’s True Worshipers gives keen perspective on what it means to worship God. Steven Lawson’s The Daring Mission of William Tyndale is a short biography of the man who was cruelly executed for translating the Bible into English.

Karen Swallow Pryor’s The Evangelical Imagination looks at the term “evangelical” and at how one’s understanding of it has been shaped by art and popular culture. The subtitle, “How Stories, Images, and Metaphors Created a Culture in Crisis,” gives you an idea of the argument that she makes. Rosaria Butterfield’s Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age is a good book, but there were a few times when I thought she went too far in her position. Nancy Pearcey’s The Toxic War on Masculinity does a capable job of outlining the concern she has about the culture’s attitude toward masculinity but I thought it was longer than it needed to be. Richard Alan Fuhr, Jr. and Andreas Kӧstenberger wrote Inductive Bible Study, which is essentially a guide on how to do that. Alisa Childers and Tim Barnett, in The Deconstruction of Christianity, do an excellent job of defining deconstruction, explaining what it is and explaining how to come alongside those who are “deconstructing.” And Christopher Ash, in Zeal Without Burnout, provides a short book with important insight into the very real issue of burnout.

Christopher Knowlton’s Bubble in the Sun is fascinating look at the original development of Florida real estate—the people involved, the money involved and the fabulous crashes involved. Tecumseh and the Prophet, by Peter Cozzens, is a well-written book about a part of American history that I did not know much about before beyond the battle of Tippecanoe. And The Curse of Beauty by James Bone was an intriguing read about someone I had never heard of—Audrey Munson—but whose face and even figure I have probably seen. Bone calls her America’s first supermodel, and she posed for an incredible number of statues during the Gilded Age but then spent the last 64 years of her life in an asylum.

The Outer Banks of North Carolina is perhaps my favorite place on the planet and I read a few books about that area this year. David Stick’s Graveyard of the Atlantic is an overview of the hundreds of ships that sunk off of the Outer Banks of North Carolina, as well as stories of incredible rescues of the passengers and crew on board some of those ships. John Railey’s A Murder in Manteo is not as well-written as his The Lost Colony Murder on the Outer Banks, but it is an interesting read and is different from the earlier book in that someone was convicted of the murder—though Railey thinks it was the wrong man. His Andy Griffith’s Manteo was the better of his two books I read this year and it was fun to get a look into the relaxed Griffith in his adopted hometown, but I am not sure Railey successfully made his case that Manteo was the real Mayberry. Scott Dawson’s The Lost Colony and Hatteras Island contributes to the discussion about what happened to the Roanoke colonists and lends some credence to his suggestion that they never really left the Outer Banks.

Mark Pryor’s The Dark Edge of Night is the second book in his Henri Lefort series. It has what readers of Pryor have come to expect but he weaves in some Nazi experiments being done on children that have their foundation in reality. Alex Cross Must Die, by James Patterson, is exactly like every other Alex Cross book in tempo and excitement and Crosshairs, the latest Michael Bennett book co-written by Patterson and James O. Born is, too. John Grisham’s Camino Ghosts is the third book in his Camino Island series and, for my money, probably the best of the three. Jeffrey Archer’s An Eye for an Eye is the penultimate book in his William Warwick series and, as he always does, he has Warwick, his family and the police department constantly battling Miles Faulkner. Daniel Silva’s A Death in Cornwall is the latest Gabriel Allon book. It was an enjoyable read, but one really does have to suspend reason when considering everything that Allon is able to get away with as the retired head of Mossad. I think David Baldacci’s A Calamity of Souls may be my favorite fiction book by a bestselling author that I read this year. In many ways I found it reminiscent of Grisham’s A Time to Kill, but it was certainly no copycat story. Colson Whitehead’s Crook Manifesto continues the saga of Ray Carney’s life in 1970s Harlem that began in Harlem Shuffle. Whitehead is an excellent writer, period. Sarah Crouch’s Middletide is her debut novel but will not, I am sure, be her last. Set in the Pacific Northwest, it creatively intertwines a couple of storylines and ends with an unexpected twist.

I’m halfway through my next book—another baseball book that I received for Christmas. Perhaps you’ll find a title in the overview above that you would like to read. Whether it’s something here or something else, happy reading.

Photo: Getty Images

A Tale of Two Fathers

Joe and Hunter Biden.

I know that I am by no means in the minority when it comes to people disgusted by Joe Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter. In fact, an AP-NORC poll found that only 22% of Americans approve of the pardon (though another 26% either didn’t approve or disapprove or didn’t know). Even among Democrats, only 38% approve. Partially the disapproval comes from the idea of a president using the power of his office for the benefit of his son and partially it comes as a response to Biden’s repeated statement that he would not pardon his son.

If you’re one of the few people not aware of what’s going on, Hunter Biden was convicted on both tax and gun charges. Biden said that the charges were a “miscarriage of justice” and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that Biden ultimately decided to issue the pardon “because of how politically infected these cases were” and “what his political opponents were trying to do.”

The “politically infected” argument might have carried a little more weight if Hunter Biden had not already pleaded guilty to the charges and if Biden’s pardon were not so expansive. As to the guilty plea, Biden said that if the negotiated plea deal had held, “it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.” But because the plea “unraveled in the courtroom” and a number of Republicans “taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process,” Biden felt justified in issuing the pardon. Even if you want to accept that argument, though, Biden went further, issuing Hunter “A Full and Unconditional Pardon for those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.” In other words, Hunter was pardoned not just for the two crimes to which he plead guilty, but for any and all crimes he may have committed during an eleven-year period leading up to the issuance of the pardon. No matter what Hunter did, or may have done, during that period—at least half of which he was addicted to drugs and/or alcohol—he will get off scot-free.

As reprehensible as this from a political standpoint, and as dangerous as the precedent is that it sets, Biden’s choice is understandable from a purely parental perspective. Every parent knows the tug that is felt when their child is in trouble and the wish that there was something that could be done to save them the pain of their choices. If anything, Joe Biden’s tug when it comes to Hunter would be even stronger, exacerbated by the fact that he was unable to do anything to protect his first wife or the two other children he had with her. Neilia, his first wife, and Naomi (known as “Amy”), their one-year-old daughter, both died in a car accident in 1972. Biden had just been elected to the Senate and was on his way to Washington, D.C. when, one week to the day before Christmas, Neilia was driving the family station wagon with all three children and was hit broadside by a tractor trailer. Neilia and Amy were pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. Beau and Hunter survived, suffering a broken leg and fractured skull respectively. There was nothing Biden could have done for his wife and daughter.

Their first-born, a son named Joseph R. Biden III, but known as Beau, died of brain cancer in 2015. There was nothing that Joe Biden could do to protect him, either. Beau was a veteran, receiving the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq, and became the Attorney General of Delaware. In 2010, he suffered a stroke, but it was not debilitating. Three years later, after becoming weak and disoriented, a lesion was found on his brain and removed. He was given a clean bill of health but later that year was diagnosed with brain cancer. He underwent surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, but died in 2015. Despite the fact that he was the vice president of the United States at the time, there was nothing Joe Biden could do about it. Leaving behind a wife and two children, Beau was just 46—and Joe Biden had outlived a second child.

So, as I said, it is completely understandable that Joe Biden would, now that he finally had the ability to do so, act to protect his son Hunter from time in prison. But the fact that it is understandable doesn’t make it right. In fact, it will be a lasting blemish on Joe Biden’s career of more than fifty years in public service. Whenever the time comes and his obituary is written, it will certainly be mentioned. It also sets a dangerous precedent that will surely be followed by Biden’s successors.

All of that has been on my mind since Biden issued the pardon on December 1. But last night, lying in bed trying to go back to sleep after a mid-sleep trip to the bathroom, I was thinking about it being Christmas Eve and what that is really all about. Somehow, in the middle of that somewhere-between-sleep-and-awake state, I thought about the contrast between Joe Biden and God. Yes, I know, the differences are extensive, but I do have a point.

Joe Biden used his power to enable his son to avoid the consequences of crimes he committed. God, despite His unlimited power, sent His Son to earth in the form of a human baby with the sole purpose of living a perfect, sinless life in order to die an excruciating death on the cross for crimes (sins) that He did not commit. God did that, and His Son consented, in order to provide a way for me to be pardoned—for me to avoid the consequences I rightly deserve to pay for the crimes (sins) I have committed. When He rose three days later, Jesus conquered sin, hell and the grave. Today He is alive and seated at the right hand of His Father. But that in no way negates or diminishes the awesome gift of salvation or the unimaginably self-sacrificial obedience of Jesus Christ.

Joe Biden loves his son and he thinks that using his power to enable him to avoid the just penalties of his crimes is a demonstration of that love. It really isn’t, but that’s not the point I want to make here. God loves His Son, too. But He also loves the world (as John 3:16 tells us). In fact, He loves the world so much that He sent His Son to “save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Joe Biden let his Son off the hook for what he did; God put His Son on the hook for what He didn’t do. In so doing, He gave “the gift of…eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). That was given “in accordance with the riches of God’s grace” and, as a result, I have “redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of [my] trespasses” (Ephesians 1:7)

You can have that, too. That’s the first, and best, Christmas gift.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Craig Hudson

Words of Warning

The 2024 election is over. And, I’ll admit, it did not go the way I expected. I doubted Donald Trump would win the White House and I certainly did not expect that Republicans would win the White House, Senate and House of Representatives. Turns out my predictions—or at least my expectations—were wrong. It is no secret that I do not like Donald Trump, but I do prefer the idea of four years of his policies over four years of Kamala Harris policies. That does not at all, however, change the fact that I do not like Donald Trump, that I think his rhetoric is inflammatory and dangerous and that I think it is repugnant that so many professing Christians—including many Christian “leaders”—have attached themselves so firmly to Trump that one could justifiably wonder whether or not they see Trump as a second Messiah.

I am not a prophet by any means and, as mentioned above, my most recent prediction about Mr. Trump proved erroneous. Nevertheless, there are three warnings I want to give as we look ahead to a second Trump administration.

First, I have a number of friends who have suggested—and I have seen it suggested by well-known evangelical figures—that we—America—deserved a Harris administration but God, in His grace, saved us from ourselves. Maybe. But maybe not. Don’t forget that there is another possibility and it is not nearly so exciting. Specifically, it may be that God allowed us what we wanted. Remember in 1 Samuel 8 when the people of Israel demanded a king? It displeased God that they did so. He instructed Samuel to warn them about what they were asking for. Samuel did do, but still the people insisted. “And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Obey their voice and make them a king,’” verse 22 says. God was not saving Israel from anything. Neither was He blessing them. He was giving them what they asked for, knowing full well that they would reap what they sowed. Pray that is not the case now with Mr. Trump.

Second, we must be very careful not to allow the thrill of victory and the apparent wide-spread support for the Republican party to lead us into that which we would never tolerate from the “other side.” We already know that Trump and the Republican party have zero compunction about pushing things through in order to get their way. (Remember the appointment of Justice Coney-Barrett, anyone?) During the one-term presidency of John Adams the country got whipped into a frenzy of anti-French sentiment following the XYZ Affair. As a result, Congress passed, and Adams signed, what came to be known as the Alien and Sedition Acts, many of which were patently unconstitutional. John Adams, one of the leading figures in the American fight for independence, set aside his commitment to constitutional principles when it benefitted him and his party to do so. Donald Trump has a mean streak and a passion for vengeance that is unseen in the history of the Oval Office—with the possible exception of Richard Nixon. The list of people he might seek to get back at once he is back in office is lengthy. Let’s not forget that what goes around, comes around, and it won’t be a Republican in the White House forever.

Third, now that Trump has won the election, we need to insist that our evangelical leaders get back on track—or step aside. Too many of them have devoted their time, energy and passion to getting Donald Trump back in the White House. They have done so as if their lives and the future of Christianity depended on it. They have lost focus. While voting is a privilege that should never be taken for granted and Christians should exercise that right, getting the right candidate in any office is not what God has called us to do. You can look as long and as hard as you want to, but you will not find anywhere in Scripture where we are instructed to devote our time to politics or winning elections. We are, however, instructed to let our light so shine before men that they may see our good works and glorify God. Too many Christians, including a number of Christian leaders, have behaved in an un-Christian manner in their pursuit of a Trump comeback. We need to remember that leading souls to Christ is our calling, not leading voters to the ballot box. Winning spiritual battles is our calling, not winning elections. Yes, encouraging voters and electing godly candidates is commendable and even important. But not when it becomes our focus. Those are good things but not the best thing. Too many Christians and too many churches have lost their first love. They have become modern day examples of the church at Ephesus. If they are not careful, the Lord will come and remove their lampstand.

Evangelical Sellouts

Robert Jeffress prays in the Oval Office. (The White House, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons)

While I have not blogged in months, I have continued to use my social media account to bring attention to Donald Trump’s unsuitability to be the President of the United States, something that increased exponentially when he finally started making it clear that he isn’t really pro-life. Along with my posts aimed at Trump, however, have been many aimed at the evangelical leaders who have so staunchly and adamantly endorsed him. In response to those posts, I have had several people ask me, “Well who are we supposed to vote for? Voting for Kamala Harris would be even worse.” And, from a conservative political perspective, that’s true. The policies that Harris has supported and would pursue were she to be given the keys to the Oval Office are not, for the most part, policies that an evangelical Christian could support—certainly not when it comes to the issues of abortion and homosexual marriage and transgender rights. As a result, more than one person has essentially suggested that I am criticizing Trump without offering any alternative.

So, let me set the record straight. First of all, my position on voting for Trump in November 2024 is the same as it was when it came to voting for Trump in November 2016. If you want to read what, exactly, that position was, you can read this post. How I felt about Hillary Clinton then is essentially how I feel about Kamala Harris now.

Secondly, the reason that I keep posting about Trump and criticizing the support for him is two-fold. One is to call out the evangelical leaders who have supported him all along, essentially joining with the GOP establishment to ensure that none of the other candidates for the Republican nomination in 2024 had a chance. Second is to remind those of us who are conservative Republicans that we have to do better.

In an August 2023 article for Christianity Today, Jonny Williams wrote,

Trump’s political career has been morally fraught from the start, and a plurality of evangelical supporters stuck with him through the Access Hollywood tape, the white supremacist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, revelations of Trump paying hush money to Stormy Daniels, his impeachments, and the Capitol insurrection.

That is, incomprehensibly, true. And, let’s be honest, the selection of Mike Pence as his running mate in 2016 and 2020 helped soothe the fears of many evangelicals and non-evangelical conservatives. But even if we want to give the benefit of the doubt to those who supported him in 2016 and decided to again in 2020, Trump should have all but eliminated himself as a consideration for those voters with his reprehensible behavior on January 6, 2020. But it seems that historian John Fea, as quoted by Williams, is right: “‘most conservative evangelicals gave up on the politics of character in 2016’ and still consider their relationship to Trump as a pragmatic bargain.”

And therein lies the rub. So many people who used to, I thought, be intelligent and intentional about deciding who to cast a vote for have, for reasons that I still do not comprehend, decided to follow Trump no matter what. Even when the Republican party had numerous candidates throw their hats in the ring in pursuit of the GOP nomination in 2024, the majority of Republican voters never even gave any of them a serious thought. And Trump not only knows that, he is counting on it.

Marc Short, a long-time aid to Mike Pence, told NOTUS, “Partnering with Pence gave assurances to a lot of Christian conservatives. And I think today he sort of assumes they have nowhere to go and perhaps takes their support for granted.” Short is correct about Trump’s assumptions and Trump has proven to be correct in taking their support for granted. What is not correct in that scenario is that Christian conservatives have nowhere else to go. They do. Or at least did. Had they shifted to another candidate when they had the chance, Trump’s political career would be over. And while they should be informed enough and smart enough to figure that out for themselves, the real blame lies, I believe, with those leaders who should have known better but stayed loyal to Trump anyway.

In the September 18, 2023, episode of The Briefing, Albert Mohler said that Trump’s position on abortion was “becoming increasingly clear and increasingly troubling.”  In that same episode, Mohler said, “We just need to track these issues very accurately, seek above all things to think consistently according to a biblical worldview, and try to understand all these swirling and controversial headlines around us, seeking actual words to understand actual arguments and to understand the actual consequences of policies once someone is elected President of the United States in November of 2024.”

Now, keep in mind that this was just a few weeks after the first GOP debate of the 2024 election cycle. Eight candidates had participated in that debate—including Pence—and there were several other candidates who had not been allowed to participate in the debate. So it is not as if Mohler and others did not have options. Yet, Mohler never supported anyone but Trump in the 2024 cycle. And even though he has called out Trump’s increasingly pro-choice positions, he has given no indication that he will vote for anyone but Trump.

Franklin Graham did not endorse any candidate during the Republican primaries, but he has continued to support Trump, too. In fact, he spoke just before Trump did at the Republican National Convention in July and, according to the Wall Street Journal, even owns one of the Bibles that Trump hawked to raise money for his campaign.

Robert Jeffress is such a Trump acolyte that he turned over the pulpit of his First Baptist Church in Dallas to Trump for Christmas Sunday in 2021. And he has endorsed Trump again this go-round, too. In fact, Tim Alberta has written about Jeffress’s “shrine” to Donald Trump.

Glancing to my right, his left, I took note of the irony. The corner of Jeffress’s office was a shrine–his secretary used that specific word to describe it–to President Donald J. Trump. There was an eight-foot tall poster memorializing the “Celebrate Freedom” concert in D.C. (the one where the choir sang “Make America Great Again”). There were boxes of Trump cuff links and a golden Trump commemorative coin. There were dozens–dozens–of framed photos of Jeffress and Trump: praying over him, talking with him, shaking hands with him, giving thumbs-up with him…In the sweep of my reporting on the former president and his many sycophants, I had never seen such a temple to Trumpism.

Of course, in 2019 Jeffress said on a radio program that Christians who do not support Trump are “spineless morons.” And in July 2023, Jeffress said that conservative Christians would continue to support Trump because “They are smart enough to know the difference between choosing a president and choosing a pastor.” Maybe. But it sure would be nice if the pastors of evangelical megachurches would have at least some moral expectations for the candidates they are going to throw all of their weight behind.

Tim Clinton, who has been the head of the American Association of Christian Counselors (AACC) for years, is another Trump devotee. Like Jeffress, he was often pictured praying over Trump in the Oval Office. His support of Trump led to a change.org petition to separate the AACC from politics. The petition rightly called out Clinton for his silence in response to the release of the infamous Access Hollywood tape, saying, “As the leader of the flagship Christian Counseling organization, it seemed unconscionable to me that Dr. Clinton refused to condemn such harmful words and behaviors – the very kinds of words and behaviors that we work against in our offices and with our clients every day.” The petition did not generate much support, and it did not seem to have any impact, because Clinton is still head of the AACC and still passionately promoting Trump. He has even invited prominent evangelical Trump supporters to speak at the AACC World Conference. Clinton may not be a well-known name in some circles but he is considered to be a potential successor to James Dobson, so his influence is significant. Clinton and Dobson were both part of Trump’s “evangelical advisory board.”

Jack Graham is the pastor of Prestonwood Church in Plano, Texas, and a large radio ministry. He is an unabashed supporter of Trump, too, and posted on X before the Trump-Harris debate this month, “Last night Donald Trump gathered with thousands of Christians for prayer in preparation for the debate tonight. This is the best preparation imaginable. America needs God and @realDonaldTrump knows it.” The last part is debatable—no pun intended. And while prayer would indeed be wonderful preparation for a debate, Trump really didn’t do very well. According to a report from Baptist News, Graham was one of several pastors on an ”emergency call” with Trump the night before the debate with Biden in June and Graham told the others on the call that they knew that CNN’s moderators would not be fair during the debate. He further said of Trump, “He is a warrior for us. He’s standing for us and always has and representing the principles and the precepts of God’s word that we so strongly believe.” That Graham could still contend, after everything that the world has seen and heard of Donald Trump, that Trump represents the principles and precepts of God’s word is absolutely astounding.

Sadly, I could go on for quite a while with examples of evangelical leaders unapologetically supporting Trump. Ralph Reed, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, Mike Huckabee, Ben Carson and Eric Metaxas are all solidly behind Trump despite the fact that all have made comments about other politicians in the past that, if applied to Trump, who disqualify him from getting their support. But there are other prominent pastors, academics and theologians supporting Trump, too. According to Christianity Today, fully half of all Protestant pastors in the United States plan to vote for Trump. That means his support goes far beyond the pastors named here and the other recognizable names.

Trump does not play nicely with others, so to speak. He has zero respect for anyone who does not agree with him completely, for anyone who does not back him regardless of how preposterous he gets, for anyone who dares to suggest that he might not be the best option. He will turn on someone with lightning speed if they cross him. Just look at what he did to Mike Pence—who had been incredibly loyal to him throughout his presidency—once Pence refused to go along with the idea of not certifying the electoral votes. Look what he did to Nikki Haley when she had the audacity not to drop out of the GOP race. But not only does Trump not respect such people, he talks about them like a playground bully would speak of the class nerd or misfit. Suddenly Haley, upon whom Trump had lavished praise which she was ambassador to the UN, became “Birdbrain.” Even worse, Trump has no qualms about mocking someone’s ethnicity; he frequently made fun of and intentionally messed up Haley’s given first name, Nimarata (Nikki is her given middle name).

Back in January Trump announced that anyone who gave a contribution to Haley’s campaign would be permanently barred from the MAGA camp. I was so excited by the possibility that I gave Haley a donation. In fact, I gave one large enough to get one of the t-shirts she had made in response to Trump’s comments—t-shirts that read, “Permanently Barred.” Sadly, Trump couldn’t even keep his word on that threat, as I have been inundated by Trump’s campaign via e-mail, text and postal mail ever since Haley dropped out.  

Today is Constitution Day. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not give many requirements for being president. The only stipulations the framers included were that the president be 35 years old, a natural-born U.S. citizen and have resided in the U.S. for fourteen years. But it is also important to remember that the framers never intended for the people to choose the president anyway. The Electoral College was put in place precisely to prevent what we are seeing in the U.S. in recent years. In Federalist No. 68 Alexander Hamilton wrote that the Electoral College was designed to “afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder” and to “promise an effectual security against this mischief.” No one could look back on the last six presidential elections and suggest that there has not been tumult, disorder and mischief.

The people were to have some influence in who the president would be, Hamilton wrote, but  it was determined by the framers “that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.”

While we could, and should, discard the restriction of men being the only ones involved, Hamilton correctly anticipated that the public at large has proven ineffective at deliberation and discernment. The media, which should aid in that endeavor, has done anything but. Hamilton has a lot more to say that is worth considering; I would encourage you to read—or read again—Federalist No. 68.

Historian Stephen Knott, author of The Lost Soul of the American Presidency, is correct about where we have arrived. He said, “the president represents the will of an impassioned majority. The president has become a cheerleader for popular feelings, putting at risk those who don’t share them.” That has, sadly, become true of presidents of both parties. In fact, it has become true of both parties, period.

Our republic is in trouble, and Donald Trump is not going to Make America Great Again even if he wins the election in November (which I actually see as increasingly unlikely). If there is to be any chance of making America great again it will require more than just the election of the right person to the White House, but it will certainly require that, too. And until the majority of Americans decide that character in the White House matters more than cheap gas or lower taxes, we will likely continue to see browbeating and intimidation.

Our framers would be sad but, more importantly, God has to be disappointed in those who are giving their all, and using His name in the process, to support the election of such a thug.

Whiter Than Snow

South Dakota has had unseasonably warm weather recently. That, combined with the fact that we have received far less snow than we had a year ago, meant that much of the snow had melted. In fact, I was observing the absence of snow yesterday and thinking how nice it was to see grass in February—even if it was not very attractive grass, given that it is a weird brownish-gray color.

This morning, however, I awoke to find that it was snowing again. It was not a shock, as the meteorologists had accurately predicted it. But within a few hours it had snowed enough that all of that grass I could see yesterday was no longer visible. It had been covered by the snow and the world around me was all white again.

That transformation, on Valentine’s Day, reminded me of the transformation that is made possible by the love of God. I wrote a post about that twelve years ago (you can find it here) so I will not go into detail about God’s Valentine. But God’s love for humanity caused Him to send His Son, Jesus, to die on the cross in payment for our sins, and the forgiveness of sin is often symbolized as a stain being made white. Isaiah 1:18 says, “Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.”

That verse was, I imagine, the inspiration for James Nicholson’s hymn, “Whiter Than Snow,” and it was the lyrics to that hymn that went through my mind this morning, specifically the first verse and the refrain:

Lord Jesus, I long to be perfectly whole;
I want Thee forever to live in my soul,
Break down every idol, cast out every foe;
Now wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.

Whiter than snow, yes, whiter than snow,
Now wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.

Thank you, Father, for the assurance of knowing that “I shall be whiter than snow.”

Photo credit: “Footprints in the Snow.” Wikimedia Commons.

Just Tell the Truth

I recently received a mailing from Hillsdale College that had, visible through the address window, this bold-face question: “Will you help put the Constitution back in South Dakota schools?” As an educator in South Dakota–and a history teacher, specifically–I was curious what this was about. I have known of Hillsdale College for years and I enjoy reading their publication Imprimis. But I knew that the Constitution was not, in fact, missing from South Dakota schools.

The letter begins with the statement, “K-12 education in America is at a crisis point.” Not at all alarmist, right? Of course it is at a critical point, and there are very real problems, but then, when have there not been? The next paragraph is where the buzzwords come out, referencing “activists,” “entrenched education bureaucrats,” “destructive ideas” “critical race theory” and “other Marxist ideologies.” That was followed up with the bold, underlined sentence, “And they’re doing so in K-12 classrooms in your state.”

The letter is a plea to give money so that Hillsdale can continue to distribute pocket-sized copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, one of which they kindly enclosed with the appeal. The letter references a letter from “a little girl named Bailey” and even includes a copy. While neither the appeal letter nor Bailey’s letter says so, the response card says, “Schoolchildren like Bailey in South Dakota are counting on you!” Maybe the intent is to refer to schoolchildren in South Dakota who are like Bailey, but it sure seems to imply that Bailey is from South Dakota–just like the visible part of the letter I received suggests that the Constitution is missing from South Dakota classrooms.

So here’s my message to Hillsdale College–just tell the truth.

I can respect Hillsdale caring about the country. I can respect an effort to provide copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to schoolchildren. I can respect that there are real concerns about public education in the United States and about critical race theory. What I cannot respect is lying to try to get my support.

Sadly, lying seems to have become an accepted part of American life. Politicians do it regularly. Tucker Carlson does in just about every show. So do other so-called journalists. And this is on both sides of the political spectrum. It seems that an “end justifies the means” approach has taken over and few people have an issue with it. But it’s not just sad, it’s scary. And it will, if left unchecked, lead to the end of America as we know it.

For the record, the Constitution is not missing in South Dakota classrooms. The Social Studies standards that were adopted in 2015 say “Students will explain the historical impact of primary founding documents including, but not limited to, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments.” And that’s not for fourth grade, by the way–that’s the standard for kindergarten. The new standards, adopted in 2023, say, “The student identifies and explains the meaning of different symbols of America. Symbols may include, but are not limited to” followed by a list of thirty-three documents, dates, places, songs and mottos, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as well as the national motto, “In God We Trust.”

I could provide ample examples from the 2015 standards, but let me stick with the 2023 updates. For first graders, “The student can recite the Preamble to the United States Constitution from memory.” A second grade student “demonstrates knowledge of the United States Constitution,” with seven subpoints laying out what that looks like. A second-grader also “demonstrates knowledge of the early United States under the Constitution” (six sub-points for that one) and knows the “initial and later views on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution” of Frederick Douglass. Fourth graders have nine-sub points to demonstrate an understanding of the Constitution, seventh-graders have eight sub-points to do so (plus another seven sub-points about James Madison, including his role in the Constitutional Convention and in writing The Federalist Papers) and have another eleven sub-points for demonstrating “understanding of the structure and function of the United States Constitution.” Eighth grade students can name and explain the “16th, 17th, and 18th amendments to the Constitution” and can compare and contrast “the main ideas and programs of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.” This is all before the student reaches high school, where both United States History and American Government are required for graduation.

So please, Hillsdale, don’t act like the Constitution is missing from South Dakota classrooms. Make sure you know what you’re talking about–and tell the truth!

A Modern Day Absurdity

South Dakota has recently implemented a new way of counting students for the purposes of classification of schools in the South Dakota High School Activities Association—the governing body for interscholastic activities among member schools in South Dakota. This means of counting students was approved as a constitutional amendment to the SDHSAA by a 65% favorable vote in 2022. The proposed amendment was actually submitted by the SDHSAA Native American Advisory Council and SDHSAA Staff. Here is the rationale given for the proposed amendment:

We have a number of schools on the line between classifications with large populations of students who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch. In general, those schools and students have severe discrepancies in access to equipment and school/personal access to outside training opportunities as compared to similar sized schools with low populations of students who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch.

That seems reasonable and is no doubt true. After all, schools with a large percentage of students who qualify for Free and Reduced lunch necessarily have a large percentage of students from families with low income—maybe even below the poverty line—and it logically follows that those students do not generally live in areas of high property value. What is absurd is the proposed remedy. The amendment, once approved, actually puts this into Article III, Section 2 of the SDHSAA Constitution:

In addition to actual figures collected by the South Dakota Department of Education, a Free and Reduced Lunch Multiplier shall be utilized to adjust enrollment counts dependent upon the reported percentage of students in grades 9-12 at each school who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch according to the South Dakota Department of Education per Federal guidelines. The free and reduced lunch percentage shall be multiplied by 30%, and the resulting percentage will be used to reduce the enrollment count of the school, with a maximum multiplier reduction of 30%. The resulting enrollment count with multiplier shall be used as the official enrollment number of the school when determining classifications.

Before you go back and read that again, thinking that you surely got something wrong, let me put you at ease. You didn’t. That’s right—you read it correctly. The proposal—which passed with a 65% “yes” vote—says that students who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch will not be counted as whole students for the purposes of classification.

If you are a student of U.S. History, or at least remember your History classes from school, you will likely remember another time when people were not counted as whole persons. When the Constitution was written and adopted—the United States Constitution, not the SDHSAA constitution—enslaved individuals were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of determining representation in the House of Representatives.

The SDHSAA now creates a multiplier by taking the percentage of students who qualify for Free and Reduced Lunch and multiplying it by 0.30 (or 30%). So, for the purposes of illustration, suppose there was a school with 300 students in grades 9-12. Of those students, let’s suppose that 70% of them qualified for the Free and Reduced Lunch program, That would mean that 70 would be multiplied by 0.30, which would result in a multiplier of 21%. That would then be multiplied by the total enrollment of 300, yielding the number 63. That number would be subtracted from the total enrollment and, in this case, the difference would be 237. Now that school’s enrollment is counted as 237 students rather than 300. Suddenly, sixty-three students at that school do not count at all. It is as if they do not exist.

This is an absurdity. It is ridiculous. Who in their right mind thinks that this should be acceptable? I mean who besides the majority of 65% of the school boards in South Dakota. Oh, and the school boards in North Dakota and Minnesota too, which have similar policies in place and actually use even higher multipliers than South Dakota does.

Please understand that I am not suggesting that the wealth of the area a school is in has no impact on its athletic teams or fine arts productions. I am sure that it does. The quality of their athletic or fine arts facilities, the budget for their programs, the quality of their equipment, the salary or stipend (if any) for the coaches—all of those things, and more, will be impacted by the wealth of the area from which the school draws its students. But classification of schools is not based on the wealth of the school or the school district. Not in South Dakota nor, to my knowledge, anywhere else. It is based purely on the number of students in the school. In South Dakota it is called Average Daily Membership. The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS) is, per its website, “the national leader and advocate for high school athletics as well as fine and performing arts programs.” Its website includes a link to a PowerPoint from the South Carolina High School League entitled “Methods of Classification for State Association Tournaments.” What are the methods included? Um, just one. “Schools are ranked by enrollment size grades 9 through 12.” Just for fun, and to look coast to coast, Oregon also uses ADM and Delaware uses “a DOE certified enrollment count for grades 9 through 12.” Maybe it’s different in the South? Nope. In Alabama, “Classification is based on Average Daily Membership (ADM) figures furnished by the State Department of Education.”

I certainly hope that no one is suggesting the children from financially-challenged circumstances cannot be good athletes. There are far too many examples otherwise for anyone to argue that. Those in favor of these adjusted counts based on Free and Reduced Lunch, then, must be arguing that overall financial resources of a school’s enrollment can impact level of play. If someone wants to argue that—and I think they could make a strong case—then let them. And if classification are going to be determined that way, then let them. But do it honestly, not by pretending that certain students do not exist.

My Year in Books – 2023

I read fifty-three books in 2023. And here, without further ado, is my overview. As usual, I will address them more or less by genre or topic and not in the order in which I read them.

Jon Meacham’s And There Was Light is an excellent biography of Abraham Lincoln. With the abundance of Lincoln biographies already in existence it is understandable to be a bit skeptical of whether or not yet another one could really add anything new to our understanding of Lincoln. Pleasantly, Meacham manages to do that. Allan Gallay’s Walter Ralegh: Architect of Empire is a hefty book but one that I would strongly suggest for anyone interested in in first English attempts at colonizing the New World or in Raleigh himself. And yes, I spelled the title correctly; there were, evidently, numerous spellings of Raleigh’s name, and that is the one Gallay went with.

Larry Loftis’s The Watchmaker’s Daughter is a terrific biography of Corrie ten Boom. Even for those who know her story, I would highly recommend reading this book. And Ron Rapoport wrote a first-rate biography of Ernie Banks with Let’s Play Two. I did not know much about Mr. Cub before reading it other than that he was a great baseball player and always seemed to enjoy the game. Those things are true, and reinforced by the book, but it also gives a look at Banks’ personal life (difficult) and details of his career.

David Maraniss is an excellent writer and his Path Lit by Lightning, a biography of Jim Thorpe, is no exception. This, too, is a hefty book, but it would be enjoyable reading for anyone interested in Thorpe, in professional sports in America (particularly baseball and football), in the Olympics, in the boarding schools attending by so many Native American youth of Thorpe’s generation, or just in that period of history in general.

Barack Obama’s A Promised Land may be the most well-written political autobiography I have ever read. I am sure that Obama had someone helping him with it, but its readability is also a testament to the fact that Obama is a good writer and an effective communicator. I did not anticipate that Obama would change my mind on any political issues on which we disagree, and he did not, but it is worth reading, especially for anyone who enjoys presidential history. So Help Me God, by Mike Pence, is a very readable autobiography that makes clear that Pence is the decent person he seems to be. Given the way Donald Trump turned on him on January 6, 2021, Pence does an incredibly admirable job of treating Trump fairly, and even admiringly, up to that point in the book. But he makes no apologies for his actions on January 6 and reinforces, for anyone who cares, exactly why Donald Trump should not be elected president again. But if Pence doesn’t convince you, read Cassidy Hutchinson’s Enough. On the one hand, the book amazed me in its revelation of just how much power and influence someone so young was able to wield in the Trump White House (Hutchinson is only 27 now). On the other hand, and unfortunately, her first-person accounts of what went on in that White House—particularly after the elections in November 2020 and on January 6, 2021—do not shock. She famously testified before the January 6 Committee, of course, and Trump responded to her testimony—then and since—the way he usually responds to anything and anyone he doesn’t like: like a playground bully. But for the life of me I cannot see that Hutchinson had anything to gain if her story is not true.

A disappointing read was Robert Dallek’s How Did We Get Here? The subtitle is “From Theodore Roosevelt to Donald Trump” and the book purports to show how previous presidential administrations paved the way for the election of Donald Trump. This is an important thing to understand and I was interested in knowing what a respected historian like Dallek would have to say about it. Unfortunately, this reads as chapter-long overviews of the presidents Dallek chose to include—nice, short, historical overviews that are fine in and of themselves—but that completely fail to answer the title’s question. Dallek’s own politics are revealed more often, and more clearly, than they should be in a book like this. Dallek did not include every president from TR to Trump and that might be fine. What is bizarre, though, is the fact that he did not include any president between Reagan and Trump! To think that it would be possible to show how previous presidencies led to the election of Donald Trump without addressing at all the preceding twenty-eight years and the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama is just plain foolish.

In part because of the debates around recent presidential elections—and, because of the increasing tendency of states to want to award all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote—Tala Ross’s Why We Need the Electoral College is an important book. For those who understand the electoral college—including how it works and why the founders set up our presidential elections the way that they did—it will not share much that is new, but it will serve as a valuable reminder of why we should be very careful when it comes to discussions of eliminating it.

Elizabeth Rogliani’s How Progressivism Destroyed Venezuela: A Cautionary Tale struggles a bit at times but overall it is an insightful and important examination from someone who grew up there of how the progressive politics of Venezuela’s recent “leaders” have destroyed the country.

I was excited to read Mari Eder’s The Girls Who Stepped Out of Line, which tells the stories of fifteen women who “changed the course of WWII” as the subtitle states. I was particularly excited because Eder is herself a retired Army general. Unfortunately, the book was disappointing. Yes, the stories told are interesting, but Eder makes some factual blunders in the book which she should have known and/or her editor should have caught. Also, the end of the book strays into her own political opinion. On the other hand, David Denton’s The Reverend Spy was a delightful look at how a pastor was able to serve America as a spy for America, in America, during WWII. It was loaned to me by a friend or I doubt I ever would have come across it.

T. J. English’s Dangerous Rhythms is a captivating story of jazz and the influence of organized crime in the early years of jazz. I thoroughly enjoyed this book and the appearance of so many jazz greats in its pages. David Kirp’s Improbable Scholars is a celebration of how a city in New Jersey has turned around a failing school system. Unfortunately, like most books of this ilk, it is a wonderful story about committed educators but falls short of anything that other places could implement in their own struggling schools. And, of course, a strong left-leaning political bias peeks through.

David Grann’s The Wager is an incredible story. If it were fiction, readers would, understandably, say, “Okay, he took it too far, that is no longer believable.” Since it is not fiction, the reader is left in awe of what humans are capable of enduring. Grann’s account of the shipwreck of The Wager in 1740 and the ensuing fight for survival and return to England was named Best Book of the Year by multiple publications and it is easy to see why. John Carlin’s Playing the Enemy tells the story of Nelson Mandela’s election as president of South Africa, and the beginning of his term in office, with rugby as the backdrop. The book was the inspiration for the movie Invictus and it offers a masterclass in dealing with people with whom you disagree in pursuit of a worthy goal. It also provides insight into how deeply rooted Apartheid was in South Africa.

Charles Person’s Buses Are A Comin’ is his first-person account of being one of the African-Americans selected to be part of the first Freedom Rides challenging the segregation of buses and bus stations. It is an important book and one that I will surely read excerpts from to my class when teaching about the Civil Rights movement.

Richard Snow’s Disney’s Land tells the story of the imagining, construction and opening of Disney Land. In the course of doing so, it provides a look at Disney as a person, his marriage, his personal interests and hobbies and his unique style of management. That Disney Land was not a flop after the chaos of its first day is a testimony to the desirability of what Disney wanted to accomplish. The book would be particularly interesting to anyone who is a fan of Disney—the man or the company.

Shane Claiborne and Michael Martin wrote Beating Guns both to address the issue of gun violence in America and to propose alternatives, such as literally beating guns into gardening tools. Some of the book comes across as a bit too Pollyanna-ish but it does ask some real questions that deserve real answers. I just do not think it is as easy as they want to make it seem.

Saying It Well, by Charles Swindoll, is essentially a primer on how to communicate effectively. What I personally found most interesting was Swindoll’s overview of how he prepares his sermons. The End of Average, by Todd Rose, is an overview of the problem of doing things based on averages. He presents evidence that while average may have its place, almost never is there anyone who actually is average. For example, the design of airplane cockpits for an average pilot resulted in a wide variety of issues for the actual pilots of those planes. The point of the book is to resist averages and embrace uniqueness.

Victory, by A.C. Green, is a collection of advice and life lessons from Green, a former NBA star. This was a book that my father actually sent to my son, but I decided to read it, too. It would be of most interest to someone who likes basketball, but I appreciated Green’s clear stance on doing what is right even when that is not popular or easy to do. Kidnapped by the Taliban by Dilip Joseph is the author’s account of exactly what the title says, something that occurred while he was doing medical work in Afghanistan. It is an engaging, and at times harrowing, story.

Ken Ham’s Divided Nation is a short book, easy to read, and is Ham’s commentary on the importance of a biblical worldview, especially in this age in which such a worldview is increasingly unpopular. Those familiar with Ham will not find a lot of new information here but it is a pertinent reminder. Roger Erdvig’s Beyond Biblical Integration is a book targeted at teachers and is an effective tutorial on doing more than just integrating biblical concepts and Bible verses into classroom lessons. Inside the Nye Ham Debate lists Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge as the authors, but Hodge is really the author. He interviewed Ham and included some of his comments in the book verbatim. The book purports to be an in-depth look at the well-known debate 2014 debate between Bill Nye, “the Science Guy,” and Ken Ham. The book does include the full transcript of the debate, which can be a valuable resource, but the book itself has some definite weaknesses. For one, while Ham is given the opportunity to provide further explanation of some of his debate answers, and Hodge provides yet more detail, Nye was apparently not given that opportunity. Granted, the book is published by Master Books, which has published most of Ham’s books and is a Christian publisher, so it is understandable that presenting the creationist side is their goal. But the book’s subtitle is “Revealing Truths from the Worldview Clash of the Century.” That should entail a deeper revealing of both sides. After all, there is no harm is exposing more of Nye’s position. If Nye was given the opportunity to expand on his answers and declined, that’s one thing, but I do not recall any mention of that being the case. The book’s other weakness is that Hodge is Ham’s son-in-law and more than once the book seems to stray into hagiography.

I am not sure if excitement would be the reaction of most people upon discovering that John Piper had written a 750-page book entitled Providence but that was my reaction, and the book did not disappoint. Piper provides a thorough examination of God’s providence, or “purposeful sovereignty,” as seen throughout the Bible. Martyn Lloyd-Jones: His Life and Relevance for the 21st Century is written by Lloyd-Jones’s grandson, Christopher Catherwood. It is an excellent read and fulfills the subtitle’s claim.

Robert Lewis’s Raising a Modern Day Knight is not a new book by any means, but as the father of a teenage son, it seemed an appropriate time to read it. While Lewis lays out a specific plan that was adopted by him and two friends for teaching their sons what it means to be a man, including ceremonies and the creation of a family crest, many of the principles he includes are valuable even if the details of the process or not of interest.

Martin Marty is considered one of America’s preeminent religious historians, and his October 31, 1517 is a short but worthwhile overview of the Reformation. William Barker and Samuel Logan are the editors of Sermons That Shaped America. It includes some interesting choices—some of which I question really helped shape America—and leaves out others that might have been better choices, but it is worthwhile reading, both for the content of the sermons and for the introduction that reading them can provide to previously-unknown ministers and theologians.

Is Christianity the White Man’s Religion? by Antipas Harris has parts I may disagree with, but it addresses a number of relevant questions, such as why the Bible seems to endorse slavery and why Jesus is so often depicted as European. If nothing else, it effectively answers the question in the negative. C. Herbert Oliver wrote No Flesh Shall Glory in the 1950s, and it, too, effectively quashes any notion that racism is biblical. What is sad is that Harris needed to write his book more than sixty years later since the same question is still being debated. Skot Welch and Rick Wilson attempt to do the same thing in Plantation Jesus. Again, I don’t agree with them on everything, but I applaud their efforts to set the record straight on the ridiculous notion that the Bible condones slavery or racism.

Constantine Campbell’s Jesus vs Evangelicals showed promise initially. It seemed that it was going to be what I expected it to be—a look at how so many Evangelicals have abandoned, or conveniently set aside, their biblical convictions in the pursuit of political victory. But it strayed from that. Partially that may be due to the fact that Campbell lives in Australia now, but some of what he had to say left me wondering how in the world he had ever been a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. The book purports to be “an insider’s critique” but I would have to disagree. He is not as faithful an adherent to what evangelicalism is—or is supposed to be—as he would have us believe.

Joseph Stowell’s Eternity was written almost thirty years ago and I don’t know that it is still in print. I found a used copy. Stowell is one of my favorite Bible teachers and this book is among the best of his that I have read. It does not give much insight into what heaven will be like; rather, it shows how the reality of heaven should shape the lives of Christians here and now.

Fiction this year included James Patterson’s Triple Cross and Cross Down (with Brendan DuBois), both part of the Alex Cross series, and Shattered and Obsessed (with James Born) in the Michael Bennett series. I have written about both of those series before, so I will add only that this is the first of Patterson’s books co-written with DuBois that I recall reading. I do not know how much Patterson writes and how much his co-authors write, but there seemed to be a distinct difference in how Nana Mama was portrayed—and not for the better. Also, in Cross Down, Cross’s partner, John Sampson is the narrator, something that it takes a bit of getting used to. Thomas Perry’s A String of Beads is the second of Perry’s books that I’ve read, but the first featuring Jane Whitefield, who is apparently the main character in nine Perry novels. Whitefield is Native American and Perry connects that—and Native American culture and religion—to some of her abilities in protecting innocent people whose lives are at risk. That makes for some interesting character details but also sometimes seems a bit unbelievable.  I have read all of Mark Pryor’s Hugo Marston novels. Die Around Sundown is the first installment of his new series featuring Inspector Henri Lefort. Fans of Marston will likely enjoy Lefort, as well. Gabriel Allon is back at it in Daniel Silva’s The Collector. It is, of course, quite unrealistic that Allon would be able to do all of the things he does in this book, but Silva continues to create enjoyable stories that intertwine international espionage and the art world. Find Me by Alafair Burke was an pleasurable read. It leaves the reader wondering—and going back and forth—in trying to determine who to believe and who really is the victim. I was disappointed by John Grisham’s The Exchange. It was supposed to be a sequel to The Firm, but it really wasn’t. Other than the fact that Mitch McDeere makes a visit back to Memphis early in the book, and the memories that that brings, the book could have been written about completely different characters and been the same book. Jeffrey Archer’s Traitors Gate continues the ongoing battle between William Warwick and Miles Faulkner. But the plot this time centers around a theft more bold that anything Archer has written about since Honor Among Thieves. I had not read a David Baldacci book in a few years but I did read One Good Deed in 2023. It was an enjoyable read. It was apparently intended as a stand-alone book, not part of a series based on a character, but there are now two more books featuring Aloysius Archer. The book is set in 1949 and tells and interesting story. I think one of the reasons I had abandoned Baldacci books was the increasing inclusion of sex, and this book does have that too, unfortunately.

In the Time of the Butterflies, by Julia Alvarez, will celebrate its thirtieth anniversary in 2024 but I just finally read it in 2023. It is a wonderful work of historical fiction, telling the story of three sisters who worked against the dictatorship of General Rafael Trujillo in the Dominican Republic. A fourth sister, who was not involved, tells the story. If it were possible to remove two or three sentences from the book, I would recommend it for high school students. Sherman Alexie’s The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian is often assigned reading for high school students, and it has a lot of good things going for it. It tells the story of a Native American teenager in Washington state who decides to attend the high school in the local all-white town rather than the school on his reservation. What Alexie describes is a conflict that I have read about from others and have witnessed firsthand with a number of Native American students I have had the opportunity to work with. Unfortunately, the book also includes a lot of adolescent “humor” and references to sexual activity. Arthur Spiegelman’s Maus: A Survivor’s Tale, however, is a novel—a graphic novel—that I would highly recommend. It tells the story of Spiegelman’s father during the Holocaust and it depicts the Jews as mice and the Nazis as rats. I am not big of graphic novels and had never read one in its entirety until this one, but it is both a creative and effective way of presenting this important history.

Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck and Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front were the “classics” I read in 2023. The Steinbeck book I had read in high school but wanted to reacquaint myself with it. I am not sure why I had never read Remarque’s book, but it is certainly worth reading. It is intriguing to read the perspective of a German soldier in WWI determined to oppose hatred—especially knowing what happened in Germany not many years later. I understand the book has been made into a Netflix movie, but I haven’t seen it and that is not why I read it.

So, there it is, another quick overview of another year of books. I hope it prompts you to check out a book or two for yourself.