Sacred Fire

I'm pleased finally to have a copy of George Washington's Sacred Fire by Dr. Peter Lillback to dig through. I may need more than a shovel though; it's over 1200 pages! The book is an answer, or should I say THE answer to the question, "Was George Washington a Christian or a Deist?" Scholarship since the bicentennial of Washington's birth in 1932 has tried to say, "Deist!," or at least that he was "not deeply religious" or "not particularly ardent in his faith."

Lillback does an apparently remarkable thing for modern scholarship. He goes to the source and discovers what Washington had to say about himself! Fifteen years of pouring over Washington's personal papers and no wonder the book is so long. One quick, but important, example is that Lillback examines what many scholars have not: the many sermons that Washington read, purchased, received, and commented upon in his life. I'll be posting here as I dig.

Golf, Atheism, and the Invention of Glue

I chuckled this past Easter Sunday as the Masters golf tournament concluded and the champion, Zach Johnson, sat in Butler Cabin being interviewed by Jim Nantz. He made sure to thank his "Lord and Jesus." So, he botched his line a bit; it was only his second tour victory. I'm sure he meant to say "Lord and Savior Jesus Christ" or simply "Lord Jesus," but that's not why I chuckled. My chuckle was because I thought of poor Sam Harris, the atheist author of The End of Faith and more recently of Letter to a Christian Nation. I pictured Harris somewhere enjoying the Masters as a perfectly pagan diversion on a religious holiday of such significance. And just when Harris was pondering the question on everyone's mind, "Who is Zach Johnson?," here comes Zach's truncated profession of faith like fingernails on a chalkboard announcing that he is just another of those idiots Harris likes to write about. He had to think, "Is there no respite from these Christian whackos?" That's what I thought, and so I chuckled.

The reason Sam Harris was on my mind is that I had just read last week's "God Debate" in Newsweak between him and Pastor Rick Warren. The thing that struck me about the debate was that, for an atheist who says "the basic point is that evolution by natural selection is random genetic mutation over millions of years in the context of environmental pressure that selects for fitness," Harris sure does make an awful lot of value judgments.

This point is wonderfully expanded upon in Douglas Wilson's brand new book Letter from a Christian Citizen, which is a direct answer to Harris' Letter. I strongly recommend that you click here to read the fantastic introduction by Gary DeMar and the first ten pages of chapter one. The book is in a big font, so it reads quickly. If that's not enough, you can listen to a radio interview of Wilson by DeMar here. And lastly, if you haven't figured out why this post's title mentions the invention of glue, start clicking!

Technorati Tags: sam harris, atheism, christianity, douglas wilson

Atlas Shrugged – 50 Years Later

There is much to commend, and much to condemn, in "Atlas Shrugged." Its object – to restore man to his rightful place in a free society – is wholesome. But its ethical basis – an inversion of the Christian values that predicate authentic capitalism – poisons its teachings.

I agree. This is why I'm not a libertarian (at least not of the Randian sort). Read more of Mark Skousen's opinion, with which I pretty much concur, here.

Following Jesus

I intend over the next two weeks to provide a summary of N.T. Wright's Following Jesus: Biblical Reflections on Discipleship. It is a compilation of twelve sermons in which Wright outlines the essential message of six New Testament books (Hebrews, Colossians, Matthew, John, Mark, and Revelation) looking in particular at their portrayal of Jesus and what he accomplished in his sacrificial death, and then he takes six key New Testament themes (resurrection, rebirth, temptation, hell, heaven, and new life) and considers their significance for the lives of present-day disciples. If you think that sounds dry, then you've never heard or read Wright's sermons before! He is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England and is an outstanding bible scholar, defender of Christianity, writer, and speaker. I have read Following Jesus before, but I want to take a de novo look at it for myself and so that others might be spurred to read and profit from it. We'll look at a chapter each day, so be sure to come back. You'll be able to click on the "Following Jesus" link under the "By Subject" heading in the left column to read all the entries.

Night

"The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference."

~Elie Wiesel

I recently finished Night by Elie Wiesel. It is a short book, so it will fit into a busy schedule. It is Wiesel's account of the concentration camps of World War II. A teenager at the time, Wiesel and his family were taken from Romania in 1945 and shipped, literally, to Auschwitz. I don't want to tell you what happens; I simply want you to read the book. Try to get the new, 2006 edition. Ignore the fact that it will likely have "Oprah's Book Club" on it; this book mattered long before Oprah made it required reading. The new edition is translated by Wiesel's wife and represents a better conveyance of Wiesel's story. As he says, "She knows my voice." Night is both horrifying and irresistible at the same time.

Wiesel's struggles are not only with Nazi's, but also with God. In fact the original text of Night starts this way:

In the beginning there was faith—which is childish; trust—which is vain; and illusion—which is dangerous.We believed in God, trusted in man, and lived with the illusion that every one of us has been entrusted with a sacred spark from the Shekhinah’s flame; that every one of us carries in his eyes and in his soul a reflection of God’s image.That was the source if not the cause of all our ordeals.

Throughout the book Wiesel speaks of no longer believing in this God. This theme reaches a climax with the hanging of another teenage boy. All of the prisoners are forced to watch the hanging. A man asks, "Where is God now?" And Wiesel answers within himself, "Where is He? Here He is. He is hanging here on this gallows..."

One of the most remarkable things about the book is Francois Mauriac's original introduction to it. It is a Christian introduction to a very Jewish book, and it is very profound in its statements about the Holocaust and the Crucifixion. I am amazed it has survived to be included in the new edition. Mauriac writes of his first meeting with Wiesel and the horrific story he told to him:

And I, who believe that God is love, what answer could I give my young questioner, whose dark eyes still held the reflection of that angelic sadness which had appeared one day upon the face of the hanged child? What did I say to him? Did I speak of that other Jew, his brother, who may have resembled him - the Crucified, whose Cross has conquered the world? Did I affirm that the stumbling block to his faith was the cornerstone of mine, and that the conformity between the Cross and the suffering of men was in my eyes the key to that impenetrable mystery whereon the faith of his childhood had perished? Zion, however, has risen up again from the crematories and the charnel houses. The Jewish nation has been resurrected from among its thousands of dead. It is through them that it lives again. We do not know the worth of one single drop of blood, one single tear. All is grace. If the Eternal is the Eternal, the last word for each one of us belongs to Him. This is what I should have told this Jewish child. But l could only embrace him, weeping.

You will do the same. Read Night.

Are You a Clown?

I have mentioned in the sidebar to the right that one of the books I'm reading is Introduction to Christianity by Joseph Ratzinger, aka Pope Benedict XVI. It is essentially a study of the Apostle's Creed taken from student lectures given at Tubengin in the summer of 1967. In the introduction he cites a famous story by Kierkegaard, about "the clown and the burning village," to best sum up the difficulty faced by any Christian attempting to communicate the Christian faith to those unfamiliar with church language and thought. I would imagine most Christians who have tried to communicate their faith to such a person have felt something of this frustration. He writes,

According to the story, a travelling circus in Denmark had caught fire. The manager sent the clown, who was already dressed and made-up for the performance, into the neighboring village to fetch help, especially as there was a danger that the fire would spread across the fields of dry stubble and engulf the village itself. So, the clown hurried into the village and requested the inhabitants 'come as quickly as possible' and help put the fire out.
But the villagers took the clown's shouts simply for an excellent piece of advertising, meant to attract as many people as possible to the performance; they applauded the clown and laughed till they cried. The clown felt more like weeping than laughing; he tried in vain to get people to be serious, to make clear to them he was speaking in bitter earnest, that there really WAS a fire! His supplications only increased the laughter; people thought he was playing his part splendidly -- until finally the fire DID engulf the village, and both circus and village were burned to the ground.

And so how do people react to the Christian today?

In his . . . old-fashioned clown's costume he is simply not taken seriously. Whatever he says, he is ticketed and classified, so to speak by his role. Whatever he does in his attempts to demonstrate his (seriousness) people always know in advance that he is in fact just -- a clown. They are already familiar with what he is talking about, and know he is just giving a performance which has little or nothing to do with reality. So, they can listen to him quite happily without having to worry too seriously about what he is saying.

Interesting stuff. I'll bring more of it to you over the next few days.

Because They Hate

I have just begun Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle. If you are unfamiliar with her story I encourage you to read these excerpts from her speech at the Intelligence Summit in Washington DC in February. It is just maddening in the wake of the Iraq Surrender Group's report to imagine that there are still people who don't get it. There is a profound religious element to this current war that is ignored to our peril. The "Fabulous Baker Boys" are supposed to be noted for their outstanding service to our country. I wonder what sort of report we would have gotten if the blue ribbon panel included the likes of Brigitte, who has outstanding firsthand experience with Islamic terrorism? The best question of the press conference asked why the President should listen to this gang. He shouldn't. He should read Because They Hate instead.

Find Out Who's Going to Hell

That's the master list according to Joel Kilpatrick in his book A Field Guide to Evangelicals and Their Habitat. Follow the link for an excerpt from the book. Remember, people, that this is SATIRE! If you're not sure where you fit on the master list, then go here to take the "EQ" Test.

Watch Your Language

We have also just begun reading together as a family G. A. Henty's The Cat of Bubastes: A Tale of Ancient Egypt. Henty was the prolific author of 122 works of historical fiction. His adventure stories were well-received in the late 19th century and have enjoyed a resurgence in popularity in the last decade or so. I was reading aloud to the boys when I suddenly heard this sentence:

Now from behind the lines of the Egyptian archers a column of men advanced a hundred abreast, each carrying a great faggot; their object was evident, they were about to prepare a wide causeway across the marsh by which the chariots could pass.

In addition to being carried, the faggots went on to be laid down, torched, trodden, forced deep into the mire, etc. So, who knows what kind of faggot Henty wrote about, and how did we come to have such a decidedly different meaning of the word?

Militant or Defeated?

It is customary to speak of the Church "Militant," which is the Church in the present age fighting "against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places" (Eph. 6:12), in contrast with the Church "Triumphant," which is the Church presented to Christ "in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish (Eph.5:27). Yet, sometimes in our present struggle we begin to think of ourselves more as the Church "Defeated" than Militant.

Our family is going through the Gospel of Mark together and we are being ably aided by N.T. Wright and his Mark for Everyone. In reflecting on Mark 4:21-25, about the lampstand, he makes these remarks:

On the day I am writing this, a radio station telephoned me. Would it be true, they asked, to say that fewer people in the Western world know the basic Christian story than was true 30 years ago?

Certainly, I replied, in Britain and Western Europe. I'm not sure it's true in America, and it certainly isn't true in Africa and southeast Asia, where the churches are growing rapidly. But where, as in Britain and much of Europe, it's widely assumed that Christianity has had its day, is old-fashioned and out of date, those who still call themselves Christians need to take the warning of these verses very much to heart. We have to pay closer heed to what we have been taught, to the kingdom message, the Jesus-message, the story of our salvation. If we loosen our grip on it, we may lose it altogether.

On the other hand, if we go deeper into what we already basically know, we will find there is more, and more, and more to learn, to feed on, to grow into. And we will find that the things we whisper to one another in small groups, in apparently dwindling churches, will one day be shouted from the housetops.

Amen. That's a great reminder to us that the Church Militant is not and will not be defeated. In fact, it is the same Church Militant (not some other body or group) that will become, through the ministry of God's Spirit, the Church Triumphant! We need to be careful not to be shaped as a Church by negative attacks upon us from without, or negative theologies (disguised as best-selling fiction, etc.) from within.

"He who calls you (plural, the Church) is faithful; he will surely do it." 1 Thessalonians 5:24

The Aped Crusaders

I have finished with Ann Coulter's Godless. It was very good. You should read this book! I could squabble with some of her characterizations of Christianity (e.g., I'd like clarification about the "spark of divinity in the human soul," but I think I know what she means). My favorite chapters were the last four or five on evolution, and the last chapter, "The Aped Crusader," was especially good. In it Ann shows how the godless ideology of evolution was celebrated and implemented by racist scientists, Nazis, communists, and, alas, today's liberals--aped crusaders all. The following is a selection from the chapter. (Ineluctable means "inevitable," by the way.)

The path between Darwinism and Nazism may not be ineluctable, but it is more ineluctable than the evolutionary path from monkey to man. Darwin's theory overturned every aspect of Biblical morality. Instead of honor thy mother and father, the Darwinian ethic was honor thy children. Instead of enshrining moral values, the Darwinian ethic enshrined biological instincts. Instead of transcendent moral values, the Darwinian ethic said all morals are relative. Instead of sanctifying life, the Darwinian ethic sanctified death.

So it should not be surprising that eugenicists, racists, and assorted psychopaths always gravitate to Darwinism. From the most evil dictators to today's antismoking crusaders, sexual profligates, and animal rights nuts, Darwinism has infected the whole culture. And yet small Schoolchildren who know that George Washington had slaves are never told of the centrality of Darwin's theory to Nazism, eugenics, abortion, infanticide, "racial hygiene" societies, genocide, and the Soviet gulags.

Buy it. Read it. Share it with a friend. My next read? Bennett's Last Best Hope.

Audible Sigh

I enjoy the music of Athens, GA based Bill Mallonee (aka Vigilantes of Love and VOL). One of our family favorites is Audible Sigh from 2000. While I love it musically (and vocally), I really love the lyrics. An especially interesting song lyrically is "Resplendent" (which also includes some amazing backup vocals from Emmylou Harris). It's about the dust bowl days and one guy's hard luck (or is it?). The first verse ends this way: "in desperate times you know everybody's part / it's your own lines you're like to forget / 'til what you were meets what you've now become / grins and says "hey, haven't we met." It's really a pretty heavy song that explores huge issues like the imago Dei, the yet future dimensions of redemption, God's sovereignty, and the problem of evil. The final verse and chorus go this way:

• honey we're all resplendent
  yeah honey we are all thrift store
  like a wino with a twenty dollar bill
  i'm forever and eternally yours
  and i can make you promises
  if you don't expect too much
  yes and i will run the distance
  if you'll please, please excuse my crutch
  
  how much of this was meant to be
  how much the work of the devil
  how far can one man's eyes really see
  in these days of toil and trouble
  how much of this is failing flesh
  how much the course of retribution
  my my how loudly we plead our innocence
  long after we've made our contribution

That's a fave for an old philosophy grad, but there are also a bunch of upbeat songs that the boys used as theme music to jump on our bed in days past! I don't know who George Graham is, but here's his review of the album. Mr. Mallonee is probably a Bulldog fan, but his music is well worth a listen!

Godless

I got my copy of Godless by Ann Coulter today. I have just begun to look at it, but this is a great book. I couldn't read it quietly: I was laughing, cringing, yelling "Honey, come hear this!" just in the first chapter alone. Here's just one little bit:

• "Liberal doctrines are less scientifically provable than the story of Noah's ark, but their belief system is taught as a fact in government schools, while the Biblical belief system is banned from government schools by law. As a matter of faith liberals believe: Darwinism is a fact, people are born gay, child-molesters can be rehabilitated, recycling is a virtue, and chastity is not. If people are born gay, why hasn't Darwinism weeded out people who don't reproduce? (For that we need a theory of "survival of the most fabulous.") And if gays can't change, why do liberals think child-molesters can? Pedophilia is a sexual preference! If they're born that way, instead of rehabilitation, how about keeping them locked up? And why must children be taught that recycling is the only answer? Why aren't we teaching children "safe littering"?

Now, that's some good stuff there, I don't care who you are. Those are in fact articles of faith on the part of liberals, and what Ann Coulter is so good at is pointing out the contradictions in funny, ironic, and sometimes outrageous ways. She does that masterfully above, and the whole stink over the "Jersey Girls" makes Ann's point exactly. In the estimation of the Left and media they are unassailable, precisely as she says in the book! They apparently don't know that they're making her point because they're having so much fun piling on, but they are.

The reason I say it's a great book is that she attacks this myth of neutrality that surrounds public discourse in this country. This is the idea that Christianity, or any other belief system (but especially Christianity) is clouded by faith commitments, and scoffs at reason, and is inherently contradictory, etc. Therefore, it is impossible to be a Christian and be fair-minded about things because of all the baggage the Christian's beliefs bring with him. But the elephant in the room, which Ann focuses a big spotlight on, is that the liberal (Darwinists, secularists, etc.) brings just as much baggage to the debate as does someone like Billy Graham or the Pope. The notion that only the "non-religious" are somehow "neutral" is laughable because the so-called non-religious are in fact religious themselves. The statement, "There is no God" is just as religious as the statement "There is a God." The statement "Man is an animal" is just as religious as the statement "Man is made in the image of God." Everyone does theology. No one is "neutral." And that needs to be pointed out again and again.

NT Wright on Da Vinci Code's Myth of Christian Origins

NT Wright, one of the world's preeminent New Testament scholars, offers here a good summary of the tired version of "history" recounted in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code:

The myth that I am about to describe and critique is well known and widespread. I have met it at Harvard; I have met it in Baptist churches in the South; I have seen bits of it all over the American Academy of Religion and the Society of Biblical Literature, which is the more ironic since those societies used to be devoted, in theory at least, to the supposedly scientific historical study of religions and ancient texts, and this myth is anything but scientific or historical. There are five elements in the myth, and The Da Vinci Code offers a sketchy but clear enough account of all of them.

This is the myth: First, there were dozens if not hundreds of other documents about Jesus. Some of these have now come to light, not least in the books discovered at Nag Hammadi in Egypt 60 years ago. These focus on Jesus more as a human being, a great religious teacher, than as a divine being. And it is these books which give us the real truth about Jesus.

Second, the four Gospels in the New Testament were later products aimed at divinizing Jesus and claiming power and prestige for the church. They were selected, for these reasons, at the time of Constantine in the fourth century, and the multiple alternative voices were ruthlessly suppressed.

Third, therefore, Jesus himself wasn’t at all like the four canonical Gospels describe him. He didn’t think he was God’s son, or that he would die for the sins of the world; he didn’t come to found a new religion. He was a human being pure and simple, who gave some wonderful moral and spiritual teaching, that’s all. Oh, and he may well have been married, perhaps even with a child on the way, when his career was cut short by death.

Fourth, therefore: Christianity as we know it is based on a mistake. Mainstream Christianity is sexist, especially anti-women and anti-sex itself. It has aimed at, and in some places achieved, considerable social power and prestige, enabling it to be politically quietist and conformist. This, I find, goes down especially well with those who are escaping from either fundamentalism or certain types of Roman Catholicism.

Fifth, the real pay-off: It is time to give up, as historically unwarranted, theologically unjustified, and spiritually and socially damaging, the picture of Jesus and Christian origins which the church has put about for so long, and to return to the supposedly original vision of Jesus himself, not least in terms of getting in touch with a different form of spirituality based on metaphor rather than literal truth, of feeling rather than structure, of discovering whatever faith you find you can believe in. This will revive the truth for which Jesus lived, and perhaps for which he died.

Dan Brown adds his own touches to this fivefold myth; for instance, in line with some other recent writers, the suggestion that this genuine spirituality, which Jesus would have taught us had his message not been hushed up, may well involve reconnecting with the sacred feminine. (How that actually works out in terms of his own plot isn’t clear, and the ending of the book is a major anticlimax. Is the Holy Grail itself after all just another metaphor for boy-meets-girl romantic love?)

As I say, I had met this myth in various forms all over the place, long before Dan Brown wrote his book. Brown has, however, given it wings, and I fear that it is now flying all over the place and confusing many people as to what they can and can’t believe. The deepest irony about it is that it portrays itself as historically rooted, when it is a tissue of fantasy; as going back to Jesus himself, when he would not have recognized anything like it; as embodying the really creative new voice of Jesus, when it is simply offering a variation on a well-known pattern of postmodern spirituality.

The lecture can be read in its entirety here.

ID

This is some Intelligent Design (ID) stuff for your perusal:

• This is an interview with Michael Behe on Janet Parshall's radio show. It is only one segment long, so it's an easy listen. Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, got things going ten years ago. In it he criticizes Darwinian theory by looking into what for Darwin was a "black box" into which he could not see--the cell and sub-cellular structures. Behe proposed that these structures are "irreducibly complex," that is, they cannot be broken down into simpler parts or they would cease to function. His simple example is the mouse trap. To alter or remove part of a mouse trap leaves something that won't catch mice. Likewise, he says, to alter or remove part of these tiny structures (machines, really) within the cell leaves something that does not function. And if this is so, then the "explanation" that these structures evolved bit by bit under the "direction" of nothing but chance is not an explanation of anything. What is astounding is that in the past decade there has yet to be a serious challenge to Behe's claim. Oh, there's been enough hot air to fly a zeppelin air force, but nothing in the way of experimentation to definitively destroy Behe's claim. Here is Behe's response to the latest attempt in Science magazine.
  

• This is an article from the student newspaper at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania. Lehigh is where Michael Behe teaches. The article is about a talk given by Eugenie Scott, executive director of National Center of Science Education. There are a couple of good quotes in here. The first, which is highlighted in the article itself is, "Believers just make all of their conclusions based on the fact that evolution doesn’t cut it." What is funny about this is that she essentially admits the problems with Darwinian theory ("evolution doesn't cut it"), but she doesn't like it that "believers" bother to point it out! Of course, all the supporters of ID are not "believers" like she means (backwoods, fundamentalist Jesus-freak hicks), but neither are they "believers" like Eugenie is in Darwinian dogma. The real money quote is this one, and I don't think it needs more comment than a simple, "Duh!" "The problem with teaching intelligent design with evolution is that it undermines the theory of natural selection," Scott said.

• These are a couple of blogs about ID and evolution from the Discovery Institute. Very interesting!
  

• And the following is from the Icons of Evolution website. You are probably familiar with many of these because they were in the textbooks we grew up with:

When asked to list the evidence for Darwinian evolution, most people--including most biologists--give the same set of examples, because all of them learned biology from the same few textbooks. The most common examples are:

Be he
Be-he
Bethe
Bee
Bebe
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

Pars hall's
Pars-hall's
Marshall's
Marshal's
Marchall's
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

Be he's
Be-he's
Bethe's
Bee's
Bebe's
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

Be he
Be-he
Bethe
Bee
Bebe
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

Be he's
Be-he's
Bethe's
Bee's
Bebe's
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

Be he's
Be-he's
Bethe's
Bee's
Bebe's
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

Le high
Le-high
Leigh
Leigha
High
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

Le high
Le-high
Leigh
Leigha
High
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

Be he
Be-he
Bethe
Bee
Bebe
Edit...
Ignore all
Add to dictionary

* a laboratory flask containing a simulation of the earth's primitive atmosphere, in which electric sparks produce the chemical building-blocks of living cells;
* the evolutionary tree of life, reconstructed from a large and growing body of fossil and molecular evidence;
* similar bone structures in a bat's wing, a porpoise's flipper, a horse's leg, and a human hand that indicate their evolutionary origin in a common ancestor;
* pictures of similarities in early embryos showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds and human beings are all descended from a fish-like animal;
* Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link between ancient reptiles and modern birds;
* peppered moths on tree trunks, showing how camouflage and predatory birds produced the most famous example of evolution by natural selection;
* Darwin's finches on the Galapagos Islands, thirteen separate species that diverged from one when natural selection produced differences in their beaks, and that inspired Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution;
* fruit flies with an extra pair of wings, showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution;
* a branching-tree pattern of horse fossils that refutes the old-fashioned idea that evolution was directed; and
* drawings of ape-like creatures evolving into humans, showing that we are just animals and that our existence is merely a by-product of purposeless natural causes.
These examples are so frequently used as evidence for Darwin's theory that most of them have been called "icons" of evolution. Yet all of them, in one way or another, misrepresent the truth.

• Finally, here's a link where you can, if you like, view a list of over 500 scientists (probably all backwoods, fundamentalist Jesus-freak hicks) who have signed a statement which reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

A Tale of Two Books

Dueling books have been released from the principal parties in the sad case of Terri Schiavo. Michael Schiavo has released Terri: The Truth, and the Schindler family has released A Life That Matters: The Legacy of Terri Schiavo -- A Lesson for Us All. The early returns from the press surrounding the releases confirm the eminent unlikability of Michael Schiavo. What is his hope for his book? That the book will motivate people to get living wills and oppose politicians who try to intervene in the personal affairs of others. To this end he has started a political-action committee — TerriPAC — to counter government interference in family matters. As if anyone cares, he plans to announce his endorsement for Florida governor through TerriPAC within weeks. Further, the book reveals that Michael was talked out of a last minute decision to let Terri's feeding tube remain by his evil puppet master, attorney George Felos. "He reminded me that we had to realize that it wasn't just about Terri anymore. It was about the rest of the people who didn't want the government telling us how we could die and when we were allowed to decide that we didn't want further medical treatment. And it was about who has the right to make decisions between a husband and wife.'' That is the sort of drivel that passes for great moral thinking in our society. And the media were there in the trenches with this foul "dynamic duo" then and now. They concur that the great lesson of all of this really boils down to "living wills."
As for the Schindlers, now that Terri is dead they were granted a congenial interview on Good Morning America with Diane Sawyer. What is their hope following Terri's death? In their book the Schindlers talk about their fight against medical neglect of those especially vulnerable . "We've become comfortable in our society to kill someone simply because they have a brain injury," Bobby Schindler said. "That's what we're trying to change." They have established the Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation "dedicated to ensuring the rights of disabled, elderly and vulnerable citizens against care rationing, euthanasia and medical killing."
Okay. You can tell where I stand on this one. I'll simply say this: I agree with the letter of what Michael Schiavo says he hopes for, but the spirit in which he carried it out was, and is, chilling. The very issue in this case was that Terri's "wishes" were unknown, only "remembered" years later after Michael met a fanatical "right to die" attorney who thinks it is wonderful to starve to death. No. In principle, we don't want the government "interfering in family matters" (though millions of us each year strangely let the government decide who gets the stuff and the kids in divorce). But we do want the government to protect innocents from those who would take advantage of them, even within families. That's why we have laws against things like incest, spousal abuse, and even (ahem) uxoricide.
Likewise, we as a society need to wake up regarding end of life issues. Too many people in the youth and vigor of their teens, 20's, and 30's seem to think that older and disabled folks are just sitting around wishing that death (preferably by starvation) would just hurry up and claim them. That's not the way it is. And even the almighty living will written up at age 25 cannot possibly reflect one's thinking at age 75. Nor can it possibly cover every contingency one might face. So the lesson is bigger than simply "living wills." (Sorry, Michael. Sorry, media.) The lesson is, in fact, the one the Schindlers would have us to learn. May we learn it.

• Try this experiment. Search for "Schiavo" on the web in the Google search at the bottom of the sidebar. See what ad is above the search results.