Why the Episcopal Church obsession over property?

March 19th, 2010

A recent development in the ongoing disintegration of the Episcopal Church prompted me to address something that has been on my mind for a few years.

Quick summary. Problems in the Episcopal Church. Largely disagreements over faith and practice. More traditional Anglicans have been leaving the Episcopal Church. Individuals. Then parishes. Now even a few dioceses.

Here is the problem. The leadership of the Episcopal Church insists that while individuals can leave parishes and dioceses cannot. Which means parishes and dioceses must leave all their money and property behind with the Episcopal Church. Some have tried to keep their money and property. They have been sued. Most of the time they have lost.

Two good websites for description and analysis are Anglican Curmudgeon (focusing on the legal-canonical issues) and Baby Blue Online (focusing on history and testimony).

Now Baptists would never understand this. The money and property belong to the congregation do they not? (Although if a Baptist church splits who keeps what?) According to the leadership of the Episcopal Church the answer is no.

  1. Parishes and dioceses hold the property “in trust” for the Episcopal Church (the national body).
  2. The Episcopal Church has a “fiduciary responsibility” to hold on to that property even if it means suing people.
  3. The Dennis Canon (passed by General Convention some time back although Anglican Curmudgeon asks whether it truly did pass) provides the legal basis and language for #1 and #2.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the leadership of the Episcopal Church is technically correct. That technically and legally #1 and #3 are correct. That the money and property of a parish or diocese belongs to the national church.

What that does not really answer is why does this matter to them so much? #1 and #3 do not in my opinion lead to #2. #2 does not really explain the behavior of the Episcopal Church leadership.

Why would anyone want to keep property that a congregation mostly paid for? Why would anyone want to keep money that came from the people of that congregation?

Think about it. Would not most normal people with a sense of decency say “Look we are sorry but the money and property belong to us. But tell you what. We understand that you and those who came before you are the ones who gave the money and paid for the property. So tell you what. We will ask you to buy the property from us at fair market value”.

Does that not sound minimally decent? Heck they still have to pay for their church building all over again. They lose all the money they gave. But they can still stay in that property and continue to worship and serve in the name of Christ our God.

But the Episcopal Church leadership has not even granted that much. “No you cannot buy the property from us at fair market value. In fact when we sell your property to someone else we will stipulate that no one at any point in the future can sell that property to you or anyone else like you”.

Which is truly astonishing when you think about it. I sell you something but tell you that at no point in the future can you or anyone sell it to someone that I specify. Makes one wonder if the other person truly owns what they are buying.

A better writer and thinker would phrase this better but hopefully you get the idea. Do not just tell me that the canons say such-and-such and that legally the Episcopal Church gets to keep all money and property. That alone does not explain the motivation. That alone does not explain the extreme efforts to which the Episcopal Church has gone. That alone does not explain the Episcopal Church stipulating that no Anglicans at any point in the future can buy that property.

Why would any normal human being want to keep what someone else gave and paid for? Could they not change the canons? Could they not choose to be generous and let people keep? Could they not choose to be minimally decent and let people buy the property they already paid for?

To quote Johnny Cochran in the famous “South Park” episode 214:

That does not. Make. Sense.

Adherence to the letter of the law does not sufficiently explain what drives the behavior of the leadership of the Episcopal Church.

Oh right. Back to the present.

Church of the Good Shepherd in Binghamton New York. (Been there many times. About one hour south of Ithaca and Cornell University.) One of the few growing and thriving Episcopal parishes in the diocese heck in the state. They left the Diocese of Central New York. They tried to keep their property. They were sued. They lost.

The family was abruptly evicted from the parsonage. The church building was closed. (People who came looking for the soup kitchen hoping for something to eat had to look elsewhere. That is an important point. I will come back to this.)

The Episcopal Church sold the building to Muslims.

Who paid one third what the Church of the Good Shepherd was offering. (There is some question about whether they had the funds to make that offer but that is not the most important issue here.)

To Muslims.

See those nasty traditional Anglicans do not believe in same-sex relations. They do not believe in women in ministry. Oh wait they do because the rector’s wife was associate pastor so I guess they do believe in women priests. Anyways. To heck with those intolerant jerks.

Which is why we sell the property to Muslims who do not believe in women in ministry and who believe people who engage in same-sex relations should be put to death. Yeah. That makes sense.

Somewhat amusingly a priest in nearby East Aurora defended this in his comments. Wondered why people were so upset that the church building was sold to Muslims. Sounds like prejudice. Sounds like a lack of regard for religious tolerance.

My response:

“Religious tolerance”.

Toward Muslims. Fair enough. I am all for religious tolerance. When Hurricane Katrina came through I headed over to the Islamic center (housing several evacuee families) with a couple Chinese congregants, greeted them in Arabic, asked what they needed, the next day we provided most of what was on their list.

But not toward fellow Anglicans…

Clearly the issue here is not “religious tolerance”.

… Adherence to the letter of the law does not explain this all consuming crusade that overrides all other considerations.

Including religious tolerance. Toward other Christians.

*If selling a property because there are 2 other parishes makes sense [ed - said priest argued that it makes sense to sell the property in a small town like B'hamton because there are 2 other parishes], why not sell another and leave just one? Because B’hamton needs more than one? Well okay. Why not 3? Not seeing the logic there.

What “fiduciary responsibility”?

What I see is pure spite. Some might call it hate.

Capitalism and Christian faith (or) Why Obama is a closet(?) capitalist

March 18th, 2010

I have started listening to more podcasts while driving. Do not care for much of what passes for “music” these days. And often the times I am driving are when NPR is not broadcasting the news. Plus trying to find ways to feed my mind and my soul.

Downloaded a couple podcasts by Dr Clark Carlton who is assistant professor of philosophy at Tennessee Tech. In his “Faith and Philosophy” podcasts he comments on “matters of faith, philosophy and Orthodoxy”. Today listened to “My Two Cents on Capitalism”.

Interesting and provocative. In a nutshell he tries to explode two – no three – myths about capitalism.

  1. Capitalism does not depend on private property and free markets.
  2. Socialism and progressivism are not (given #1) therefore real alternatives to capitalism.

He argues that much of what we call “capitalism” is not really free market economics and even is the enemy of private property. It is government manipulating markets in order to benefit those whom the government favors. Which often turns into big corporations making huge amounts of money by influencing government policies. (My paraphrase not his.)

“No way” some might say. But think about recent experience. (This next part is me not Carlton.) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Government bailouts of financial companies. Government bailouts of automobile companies. “Green jobs”. “Stimulus packages”. Perhaps even the Federal Reserve. Who loses? Who benefits? The average American?

A dirty little secret is that the Democratic party is the party of big business. Which is not to say the Republican party is much better.

During this podcast Carlton compares how Thomas Jefferson envisioned America as opposed to Alexander Hamilton and further argues that the Jeffersonian vision began to lose ground around 1860. My grasp of American history is very weak so I am not sure how to evaluate what he says. My expertise in history ends around 600 B.C.

The podcast is not long about 10 minutes. You do not have to agree with him. But it is interesting and challenges some of what we call “conservatism”. It also suggests that President Obama is more of a capitalist (properly understood) than many might realize.

Low budget eye candy and debates over worship

March 17th, 2010

What hath the dreadful Star Wars prequel “The Phantom Menace” to do with current debates over worship style?

A few months ago my friend Joshua Villines directed my attention to a critical review of “The Phantom Menace” that is biting, insightful, and very funny. Among other points made is that story and character are among the most important elements of a good film. And all the hundred of millions of dollars worth of computer generated special effects are not a substitute.

The review led to the website of the reviewer Red Letter Media. Which led to an article on movie reviews. Which led to this video called “Low Budget Eye Candy #1″.

LOW BUDGET EYE CANDY #1 from Steven Boone on Vimeo.

Oddly enough Boone makes his points using a clip from “THX 1138″ by George Lucas which for years I have regarded as a classic science-fiction movie of the dystopian genre. Once upon a time George Lucas knew how to use film craft to tell a good story with compelling characters and with a relatively low budget.

What does this have to do with worship?

The congregation which I serve University Baptist Church is going through a difficult time. The senior pastor resigned in October. He used a tremendous amount of pastoral capital aka “chips” to (a) begin a second worship gathering in the (b) “emerging” style in order to (c) attract and communicate the current generation. For the record I supported this move. Many people believe that disagreements over the second gathering were the most important issue leading to the pastor’s resignation.

(I disagree. It was an issue. But maybe 4th or 5th on the list. Anyways.)

A common argument one hears is that churches absolutely have to have a “contemporary” worship service in order to attract younger people including young families with children. Because they do not care for “traditional” worship. The idea that we need to understand the culture of the people among whom we wish to minister is not a bad one. Nor that we need to adjust how we do worship in order to speak to them. Church of the Nations does that too. We use simple English. We follow a very consistent order of worship every Sunday. We sometimes sing in other languages. We adjust our style of worship for people who come here from other countries and have little to no religious background.

But here is the thing. Churches do not need to have “contemporary” worship gatherings in order to attract younger families with children as reasonable as that sounds. There is abundant proof of this.

One of the most thriving churches in Baton Rouge is First United Methodist downtown. A downtown church. With very traditional worship. (Although it is not boring. They have a strong choir and excellent music. Quite a few congregants are professional musicians.) They are busting at the seams. In fact churches which are losing members (for whatever reason) see many of them move to First United Methodist. This includes University Baptist Church and First Baptist Church downtown.

I had the joy of meeting with one of their associate pastors who is a longtime family friend and graduated from Drew Seminary not long ago. “What’s your secret?” She did not really have a clear answer except for the dynamic leadership of their longtime pastor Chris Andrews.

Bob B_ for a long time was part of the ministry of Church of the Nations until last year (when his wife fell asleep in the Lord after battling leukemia for almost a year). He has recently joined South Main Baptist Church in Houston. Which is busting at the seams. And has very traditional worship. I asked him about that specifically.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not against “contemporary” or even “emerging” worship styles. I believe in the need to understand and adjust to the culture of the people among whom you wish to minister in the name of Christ our God. But the idea that we have to have “contemporary” or “emerging” worship because younger people including families with children will not be part of a church with “traditional” worship. That idea just does not hold up.

Tradition is surprisingly attractive.

Ask Anglicans. Ask Roman Catholics. Ask the Orthodox.

John Leo and the deep dark secret of language (or) “Code words”

March 17th, 2010

There has been some hullabaloo of late over Glenn Beck urging Christians to leave churches (read congregations) that preach social justice. Did Jesus not preach social justice? Is Glenn Beck against Jesus?

Please understand I am not a fan or critic of Glenn Beck. Do not watch his show although have seen parts of it a few times. Would say I have a mixed opinion of him. Did watch his entire presentation at Conservative Political Action Committee. Parts of it were very well done. Parts of it were hunh?

But this is not about Glenn Beck. This is about language. Readers of this website know I have a strong interest in languages and how people use words. I have begun to share (when preaching or teaching) a “deep dark secret” of language.

Words do not have meanings. They have uses.

(Not completely sure where I picked that up. Think it was when attending a pastor’s conference in Kerala in India. The Indian pastors got into a friendly argument over English translations of the Bible and concern over translations that change(?) what the Bible teaches. During which Dr Kunjumun Chacko asserted “words do not have meanings they have uses”. He was defending dynamic rather than literal translation.)

John Leo has a piece at National Review Online about how Glenn Beck was “tripped up” by the rhetoric of the social-political-cultural left.

In plain English, “social justice” is a goal of all churches and refers to helping the poor and seeking equality. As a code word, it refers to a controversial package of goals including political redistribution of wealth, gay marriage, and a campaign against “institutional racism,” “classism,” “ableism,” and “heterosexism.” Beck was wildly off base linking “social justice” (of either form) to Communism and Nazism, but he was correct to note that the term is often used as a code.

Leo goes on to discuss further the use of code words on American university campuses such as secure livelihoods and strong economies and especially sustainability.

Now to be fair conservatives and those on the right sometimes do the same thing. Although I confess do not have many specific examples. Family values comes to mind.

Strangely appropriate in light of the new Tim Burton movie “Alice in Wonderland”.

Ecclesiastes: Preacher of Surprising Joy 1/4

March 11th, 2010

Ecclesiastes

For years I have looked forward to teaching the book of Ecclesiastes in a church wide Bible study. Here are the PowerPoint and Adobe Acrobat files for the first presentation.

Ecclesiastes study presentation 1/4

Ecclesiastes study presentation 1/4 – PDF

They ask the questions we avoid (or) Why does God save yet not prevent?

March 10th, 2010

I have one of the best jobs on the planet. Pastoring a small church whose primary ministry is with international students and scholars. Most of whom are here for a limited period of time. Many of whom are studying the Bible and learning about the Christian faith for the first time. We also have Americans and internationals who have been strong Christians for many years.

The thing about extremely intelligent and well educated internationals who are studying the Christian faith for the first time is that they ask questions that American Christians do not normally ask. Either because we have asked and answered them long ago. Or we avoid them because we have yet to find a satisfactory answer.

Jesus teaches us to forgive others. So why does God not forgive human beings unless we believe in Jesus? And why could God not forgive unless his son died on the cross? And yet God expects us to forgive others without such conditions.

Jesus teaches us to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. President Bush is supposed to be a Christian. So why did America go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Do not misunderstand me. I am not saying there are no satisfactory answers to these questions. Just that they sometimes ask questions that one does not hear from Americans who have grown up going to church. This Sunday they hit me with a good one. We were discussing the Psalms. A short study on different types of Psalm. Wisdom. Lament. Thanksgiving. And praise. For the last type looking at Psalm 146. How often we think “God must be on the side of those who prosper and must be angry with those who suffer”. And yet Psalm 146 clearly proclaims that God cares especially for the oppressed the hungry the imprisoned the blind the fallen the foreigner the widows and the orphans. We might think God must have been punishing the people of Haiti because they “made a deal with the devil”. And yet Psalm 146 invites us to see how God cares about them.

And how does God care for all these different kinds of people who are in need or are suffering? Does he make food *poof* appear out of thin air? Or does he help them through us? I do believe in miracles. That God can and does *poof* provide what people need. But I also believe strongly that we are junior partners with God. That we participate in his ongoing mission to heal and to forgive and to save.

And then someone asked:

Yes but why did God not prevent the earthquake in the first place?

I did not have a good immediate answer for that. Perhaps I should have. Yes there is Genesis 1-3 and the story of the Fall or more precisely the Falling Apart. We can talk about the brokenness of creation and how that goes back to when human beings first turned against God. Paul Achtemeier argues persuasively that the book of Romans is not primarily about the doctrine of salvation by grace which we receive by faith. It is really about the story of God and his relationship with a world in rebellion against him. And it is in that context as part of that story that yes indeed Paul the apostle brings up salvation by grace received by faith.

But somehow that does not seem to answer adequately the question my Chinese friends ask. Or does it?

We talk about how God saves. But these people from other nations who frankly are the best in their home countries ask why God saves but does not prevent in the first place.

In The Silmarillion by J. R. R. Tolkien why does Eru Ilavatar allow the drama to continue?

What's so bad about national health care anyway?

March 9th, 2010

People are willing to pay more for good care.

Talking with a friend from South Korea during our monthly fellowship meal yesterday. Cannot remember how we got onto the subject. In a nutshell he wondered why so many Americans are upset about the health care reforms that President Obama wants the Congress to pass. After all many nations have national health care in the sense that health care is provided by the government. Rich or poor – you receive the care that you need. It either is free or you pay a nominal fee.

(This friend from South Korea his boss is the head of the local Tea Party. Who used to be one of our active ministry volunteers and is a great guy.)

During an English Conversation lesson about going to the dentist one friend from Japan explained how in Japan you pay $10 to see the dentist. Typically you pay 10% of whatever the cost is. That sounds fair and reasonable to me. I especially appreciate a system in which dental care is not separate from other health care as it is in the United States.

My friends from South Korea and Japan say that people in those nations are generally pretty happy with the care they receive.

I have been greatly concerned about the health care reforms being pushed through(?) Congress. Will it mean what we spend each year goes up? Will it become more difficult to get an appointment with our doctor? Will it reduce the level and quality of care we receive? Because let me tell you right now our family is extremely happy with our doctors and very happy with the care we receive.

This is not to say there have been no problems. Speaking of the government limiting your choices – our private insurance has been limiting our choices. During the last few years we have been told that we can longer go to that excellent hospital we are only fully covered if we go to this hospital. Two of my doctors became so dissatisfied with our private insurance that they pulled out of the network. Because it is difficult to find someone else in those fields I still see them but must pay cash for each visit. So much for having private insurance.

I like the idea of every American receives the care they need. And I am not as repelled by the idea of a “single payer” system as most conservatives are. Talking with congregants from other nations one wonders “What’s so bad about national health care anyway?”

Do not misunderstand me. That does not mean the health care reform(s?) being proposed by President Obama and considered by the Congress are not problematic. There is little question in my mind that they will become another hugely expensive entitlement program. That they will further damage an already struggling economy. That proponents of these reforms have resorted to extensive dishonesty and demogoguery. And because we live in a finite universe there will be times the government will say “no you cannot receive that treatment or procedure because it is too expensive”.

But what exactly is so bad about national health care anyway?

Senator Alexander should have quoted the president

March 4th, 2010

Driving home yesterday listening to National Public Radio “All Things Considered”. Michele Norris interviewing Senator Lamar Alexander concerning the recent push to pass health-care reform in the Senate. She pressed him on the reconciliation issue. Basically “gosh you Republicans did it in the past and are against it now”. Senator Alexander attempted to explain the difference between reconciliation on tax or budget issues versus reconciliation on major policy changes. Ms Norris replied “I guess I still don’t see the difference”. Oh.

Ironically President Obama could have explained it better.

Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning: A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked.

Ding ding ding. That was then Senator Obama in 2005. Ann Althouse assembles similar examples from 2004 2006 and 2007.

Senator Alexander should have just quoted the president. Wonder if Ms Norris would have understood it then.

H/T Opinionated Catholic

Charter schools and teacher bashing – Conservatives take heed!

March 2nd, 2010

Having a family member who teaches in a public school gives one a new perspective on the debate over how to reform public education in America.

Can we agree on the following generalizations regarding how politicians on the left and the right propose to improve our public education system?

  1. We need to make teachers and schools accountable by using scores to measure their effectiveness.
  2. Schools that are not measuring up to these scores need drastic change.

Let us start with the first. How do we measure teacher performance? By looking at scores. There are several different scores by which reformers suggest we make teachers and schools accountable. One is standardized test scores. The other is some sort of composite score (which may include such things as standardized test scores but also attendance and graduation rates). The common assumption is that if a class is not achieving a certain score then that teacher is ineffective. And/or if a school is not achieving a certain score then something is wrong with that school.

Conservatives of all people should know better than to accept uncritically this method for measuring teacher/school performance. Why? Because there is an unspoken and unexamined assumption that if one simply applies the correct methodology then it will produce the desired behavior. Think about that for a moment. That assumption fails to take into account what in my opinion are two principles of conservatism.

  • Human beings have free will.
  • Human beings are flawed.

Children are human beings. They have free will. And they are flawed. So just because one applies the correct stimulus (teaching method) that does not guarantee the desired outcome. One of the great insights of the apostle Paul (which theologically we would say is inspired by God the Holy Spirit) is that the law (and yes I am aware of the problem with interpreting torah as nomos) does not make people good. Too often Christians and conservatives (the two groups overlap but are not necessarily the same) fall into the trap of thinking that people will do the right thing if we just pass the right laws. Or that students will perform if we just employ the right methods. It is not that simple. Ultimately a child has the freedom to say “no I will not cooperate”. And because children are not exempt from human nature there is always the real chance that they will choose not to do the right thing.

Do we really think that good parents always produce good children?

Do we really think that good teachers always produce good students?

One thing I have learned from being married to a dedicated and excellent public school teacher is there are many more factors involved in how a student performs academically.

The principal. The administrative staff. The school district. The families.

Let us say you have a disruptive student. Makes it difficult to teach a lesson. But the principal does not back you up (allows that student to remain in the classroom with no discipline or consequences). (That is not the case where my wife teaches but one hears of this at other schools.)

Let us say you have a child with learning difficulties. You try to get that child extra help. You do all the administrative paperwork and jump through all the bureaucratic hoops. But the administrative staff will not follow through. Or the parents refuse to work with you (and they have the right to refuse special intervention). Then you have a child who drags down the scores of the class and of the school.

Let us say the child comes from a family that is struggling to get by. So the family moves to a new apartment every few months. Which means the child moves to a new school every few months. And if that child has learning difficulties it becomes not difficult but impossible to provide that child extra help.

Let us say the school district has magnet schools which only the best students attend. That will naturally pull down scores in regular schools that now have only average to poor students.

I could continue but you get the idea. There are limits to what the best teacher using the best teaching methods can accomplish. There are several factors involved in student performance over which the best teachers using the best teaching methods have no control. And conservatives of all people should be sensitive to the effect the bureaucracy can have on rank and file teachers!

Do not misunderstand me. I do not deny there are such things as poor teachers who teach poorly. I do not deny that good teachers who employ good methods will generally see better results. Nor am I arguing one should have no standards or no accountability. But it is deeply problematic to impose a score and assume that if a class or a school fails to measure up to that score then there must be something wrong with the teachers or with the school.

Let me address briefly “generally see better results”. During the season of Lent I have been leading a series of Bible studies on the book of Ecclesiastes. Ecclesiastes would have something to say about all this.

Human beings are finite. The ultimate futility of human effort. The ultimate futility of human knowledge. No one knows the future. No one knows what God is doing. Everybody dies.

Which means there are no guarantees. You can have wisdom and live righteously and still lose everything in a moment.

But Ecclesiastes does recognize the relative value of human effort and human knowledge. Wisdom is better than folly. Righteousness is better than wickedness. Perhaps that good teachers are better than bad teachers. And good teaching is better than bad teaching.

It is in light of the above I would address the issue of consequences. Charter schools and school takeovers.

Yesterday I heard on the radio that President Obama is proposing some new efforts to improve public education. The kernel of which is “schools that fail to produce a certain score will be taken over and turned into charter schools”.

Lest it sound like I am picking on President Obama let me point out that this stand is hardly new and hardly the exclusive domain of leftists liberals and/or Democrats. Can you say “No Child Left Behind”? Can you say the state of Louisiana? Governor Jindal? Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek?

For the last several years we have seen many schools declared as “failing” then put on probation then taken over and turned into charter schools. In some cases there has been no improvement. (In New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina there has been although it is fair to ask if the improvement the result of handing control to charter school organizations.) Schools that are taken over and turned into charter schools have a mixed track record.

One middle school here in Baton Rouge was taken over. This year all students at that school were given A’s. Seriously. All students. Why? Because it looks good and encourages nervous parents not to remove their children from a school that has just been taken over.

And now Education Superintendent Paul Pastorek has raised the stakes. Now schools have to have overall passing scores in science and social studies in addition to mathematics and language arts (English). The passing score is now 75. There is no longer a probation period. Failing schools will be taken over and turned into charter schools immediately.

There was a school in Shreveport with a very low score that was not taken over. Because there were “extenuating circumstances” beyond the control of teachers and administrators. Which may be entirely true. But why does this school get a pass and a dozen schools in Baton Rouge do not?

You know what one African-American parent said about the then impending takeover of these Baton Rouge schools? “This is just one more way to keep black people down”. At the time I thought “Oh come on you’re being paranoid”. But then I thought about the pattern of takeovers. About which schools. Where. With what population. And I looked up which state school board members voted for and against this. And even which were white and which were black.

Hmm.

President Obama yesterday mentioned making available $900 million in “turn around grants” including to outside organizations that would take over failing schools and turn them into charter schools. Again lest it sound like I am picking on President Obama the same thing is true within the state of Louisiana. Tens of millions of dollars to school management companies to take over failing schools and turn them into charter schools.

Dare we ask who is making money from this?

I do not deny there are such things as failing schools. That should be taken over. That should be turned into charter schools. By outside organizations. In return for fair and reasonable amounts of money. I am not arguing that “charter schools are (always) bad”. I understand the conservative fondness for consequences and competition. And I recognize that at least in some states teachers’ unions bear large responsibility for problems with public education.

But liberals and conservatives alike are jumping onto this bandwagon too easily. Conservatives of all people should be suspicious of the “politicians give large amounts of taxpayer money to some outside organization to do something locally and not bound by the usual rules”.

Health Care Summit – finally an open debate

February 25th, 2010

Remember when many conservatives said that Republicans should stay away from the Health Care Summit called for by President Obama? Because it would be a sham? Because the president was not really interested in open debate?

Oh. My.

Jonah Goldberg was right when he said sham or no sham the Republicans should go. They did. The first day alone has been interesting.

The Republicans were given an opportunity to make their points without being filtered or misrepresented by the mainstream media. And boy did they use it.

I think in some ways this has hurt President Obama. He does not respond well when people disagree with him or challenge him. And he and the Democrats did not have good responses to some of the Republican arguments. They did not even try to respond to most of them.

But I also think it may help him. He has finally allowed an open debate. He sat there and took it. He has an opportunity to make some changes to his healthcare reform plan that just might gain bipartisan support. If he is willing to learn and adapt he just might get healthcare reform – even if it is not the reform he originally wanted.

{More later.}