The Rabbi

A fascinating read, especially for a self-professed evangelical. After reading Shorris, I will stick with my definition of what I am, not that of the norm. This personally haunting book only confirms my own thoughts developed over the years. Shorris writes of a movement not social, not political, lacking appellation, but mostly religious that he fears could someday come to power in the USA, bringing with it disasters unimagined. His book traces the growth of the movement against the backdrop of the founding of our country, which are not unlike what many believe coincident.

The movement he discusses is the neo-conservation political and religious evangelical union that has by its very nature defined right versus wrong. Shorris laments over what would happen, if the movement gained political control, to those who are in the "wrong." This Shorris contrasts to the dialogical approach of the founding fathers. Difficult decisions can only be made when all parties sit to work out a compromise to some degree beneficial to all.

Here I stop with Shorris to throw in my own thoughts. Not much do the New Testament writers provide on government during the time between Jesus’ two advents, other than that the Christian community must submit to its dictates while praying for its function as societal peace keeper. Ancient Israel failed as a theocratic nation, the church was not established to take its place, rather to function more on an enlightened patriarchal, community level. Only when Jesus returns will the divinely established monarchy work. The question that demands consideration is whether an evangelical government in the USA would be good for the country? Any thoughts?

Never tried that before but I am sticking these two excellent works side by side to see what comes out. Luntz is a dream, just keep him in his context, using the right word to best convey the desire message, and this book is well worth the read. It may be worth buying just to copy and convey to my students his "ten rules of effective language," but then his motto: "it's not what you say, but what people hear," if given thought would help anyone wanting to be an effective/affective communicator.

But what intrigues is Luntz's work with the Republican party, or the democrats when they want to listen to his advice, with developing the exact words/wording to convey the desired message. Today sound bites win elections, but hardly solve problems. Just consider much of what comes out of Washington: real work is compromise, popular vote getting requires making certain pledges of what one "believes" or not. Life demands far more than simplistic one liners.

Luntz knows of what he advocates, since we have lost the capacity to process large amounts of data give it to them in ways they can manage. But what if that just is not good enough to get the (more complex) job done? I find myself in between, present the bible simply so they can understand, but just how small do I make my god in so doing? A puzzle!