Hell, no? Hell, yes!

He wears all black and stylish glasses.
How can we not believe what he says?

Rob Bell knows how to make a splash.  When we moved to Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1998, Bell preached at the Saturday night service at a local megachurch.  In 1999, he founded Mars Hill Church, which, by the time we moved back to Texas in 2002, had taken over a shopping mall, where thousands of people attended multiple services every weekend.  His best-selling books and teachings have raised eyebrows in the church world, but none more than his most recent book, Love Wins: A Book about Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived.

Bell, a gifted communicator who captivates his readers and listeners, couches weak theology in entertaining and thoughtful messages, leaving them wondering how anyone could disagree with him.  In Love Wins, Bell makes the case that a God who loves us and created us for fellowship with him would not toss us into a fiery pit of eternal suffering.  Bell loves narrative theology, the story of God.  He says, "Telling a story about a God who inflicts unrelenting punishment on people because they didn't do or say or believe the correct things in a brief window of time called life isn't a very good story." 

Another gifted communicator whose resume parallels Bell's in some ways is Francis Chan.  Chan started a church in Simi Valley, California, in 1994 which now has thousands of members and has planted a number of other churches.  He also has a couple hot-selling books, especially Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God.  His theology is, shall we say, more in the mainstream of evangelical theology.

Also wears black.  Also shaves his head.
No cool glasses.  Hmmmm. . . .

Partly in response to Bell, Chan co-wrote, with New Testament scholar Preston Sprinkle, Erasing Hell: What God Said about Eternity, and the Things We've Made Up.  They argue that while we may not always understand the ways of God, the full testimony of the Bible teaches the existence of hell, where there is actual suffering.  While Bell certainly does quote scripture, he does so in a selective way to fit his "story."  Chan approaches scriptural themes more comprehensively.  On universalism, for example, in Philippians 2, Paul writes that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow . . . and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord."  Taken alone, that sounds like it could teach universalism.  But in chapter 1 of the same letter, Paul writes of those who oppose Christ being destroyed, and in chapter 3, he says the destiny of the "enemies of the cross of Christ" is "destruction."

Given the choice between story and scripture, I have to choose scripture.  Bell is certainly a good storyteller, and avoids dogmatic statements while making some really good points.  I have to agree with him that we have over-simplified the gospel to mean mere fire insurance.  But he goes too far the other way, stopping just short of declaring himself a full universalist, but still strongly implying that all will eventually be saved.  Hell is not a place to him, as taught in so many passages in scripture, but it is a state of horrible conditions on earth: famine, holocausts, domestic abuse, sexual slavery are all forms of hell.  Jesus will redeem the earth and rescue us all from this earthly hell.  Amen to Jesus' redemptive work, but as hellish as those human experiences are they are not hell.

Not so fast, Chan and Sprinkle argue.  Jesus taught in the context of a Jewish theology and culture that firmly believed in hell as a place of suffering.  He never denied that, and that cosmology is supported in his teaching.  Good stories aside, the one story we should avoid is the one that starts, "If I were God, I would never. . . ."  That seems to be Bell's take: if he were God, he would not send anyone to hell.  But just as the clay can't tell the potter how to shape it, much less understand it, neither can we understand all the ways of God.

My pastor, Jack Deere, has responded to this and other heresies in some recent sermons.  (There, I said it: heresy.  Bell is teaching heresy.  Jack never names Bell, but I am thinking he would agree.)  He made a couple of relevant points.  First of all, we should never put our own reason before scripture.  Sure, we might be able to come up with some good arguments to support a point of view, but it our conclusions are out of line with scripture, we have to lean on God's word.  A second, related point is that mysteries are OK.  Predestination, Trinitarianism, inspiration, all leave us with unanswered questions.  But the author of those questions is much bigger than we are, and we can't expect to have perfect understanding of his ways.

Both Chan and Bell have a compelling writing style and a refreshing humility when it comes the their teaching.  But Chan's approach, based in scripture, must prevail.  It's not without a cost, though.  If there is an actual hell, where people who don't know Christ will suffer, the burden is on us who do know him to live as if that's true.  People we meet every day, people we love, are destined to suffer there.  Our task is to partner with God in leading people to relationship with Christ.  It would be much easier to agree with Bell, that we'll all end up in heaven anyway, so no big deal, but I'm afraid we don't have that option.

Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy, by Eric Metaxas

A measure of a great biography may be the extent to which it elicits a desire to learn more about the subject and read his or her writings.  With this extensive biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Eric Metaxas has certainly accomplished both, as far as I'm concerned.  I think I first became aware of Bonhoeffer while I was in college, through his Discipleship, or The Cost of Discipleship as most English translations title it.  Other than than, I had no more than a vague, one or two sentence idea of his involvement with the plot to kill Hitler.  That did become a defining element of his life, as it lead to his execution, but, as Metaxas tells the story, there is much more to the man, his ministry, and his work in public and church life.

As a young pastor and theologian during the Nazi's rise to power Bonhoeffer opposed the German church's easy assent to the dictates of the Nazi party, including excluding anyone of Jewish heritage from ministry positions, and supplanting the message of the cross with the message of the twisted cross of Nazism.  As a leader in the confessing church movement, and as head of a new seminary founded as an alternative to the Nazi-tainted seminaries of the German church, Bonhoeffer rose in status and became a target for the Gestapo.

I think I would have liked Bonhoeffer.  Maybe we can hang out in heaven.

While telling Bonhoeffer's story, Metaxas does a beautiful job of portraying life in Germany in the years leading up to and including the rise to power of Hitler and the Nazi party.  Bonhoeffer's family, not rich but certainly among the intellectual and cultural elite of Germany, had close connections in academic, political, and military circles.  For the most part, these groups did not welcome the rise of Nazism; they hoped for its quick demise, and bemoaned its unlikely entrenchment in German politics and governance.  That surprised me as much as anything: in spite of the powerful opponents to Nazism, and there was much, Nazis managed to gain unprecedented power.  Many common Germans, not just Jews, opposed the Nazis.  I can't help but think most of Germany was complicit in Nazi crimes, but Metaxas makes it clear that many opposed them, even in the military.

I particularly enjoyed Metaxas's portrayal of Bonhoeffer as a defender of the faith against theological liberalism and against Nazi attempts to dilute the work of the church.  The ready acquiescence of the German church distressed him.  Neither was he very impressed with the academic theology he encountered in the U.S. during his stay in New York, at Union Theological Seminary.  Of the students, he had this to say: "There is no theology here. . . .They become intoxicated with liberal and humanistic phrases, laugh at the fundamentalists, and yet basically are not even up to their level."  He also had a hard time finding good preaching:

In New York they preach about virtually everything, only one thing is not addressed, or is addressed so rarely that I have as yet been unable to hear it, namely, the gospel of Jesus Christ, the cross, sin and forgiveness, death and life. . . . The sermon has been reduced to parenthetical church remarks about newspaper events. . . . I have heard only one sermon in which you could hear something like a genuine proclamation, and that was delivered by a negro.

Bonhoeffer himself has been, at times, championed by theological liberals, due in part to some fragmentary writings that he left behind, the unfinished nature of which lead to some misinterpretation.  On religionless Christianity, an idea which, Metaxas points out, has "led to a terrific misunderstanding of Bonhoeffer's theology," Eberhard Bethge said the "isolated use and handing down of the famous term 'religionless Christianity' has made Bonheoffer the champion of an undialectical shallow modernism which obscures all that he wanted to tell us about the living God."  Contrary to his liberal interpreters, Bonhoeffer's theology, Metaxas writes, "was dedicatedly Bible centered and Christ centered."

As Hitler's power increased and life for Jews and the confessing church (not to mention the disabled and many other groups), Bonhoeffer had the opportunity to return to New York for an extended stay as a lecturer.  He could easily have stayed in the U.S. for the years, perhaps even through the duration of the war.  But Bonhoeffer knew his place and his work was in Germany.  He joined the Abwehr, military intelligence, and worked as double agent.  Besides working on behalf of the church, he helped smuggle Jews out of the country and was a part of the plot to kill Hitler.  (This plot was portrayed in the movie Valkyrie, but I don't remember that Bonhoeffer was named in the movie.  Obviously it involved many in the military, as well as many civilians.)  I was interested to read about Bonhoeffer's struggle with the ethical issues of his work.  Lying, deceiving his government, even plotting to kill a head of state became justifiable in light of the actions of the Nazi government.

Bonhoeffer was arrested not because of his involvement with the assassination plot, but because of his covert intelligence work.  Later, however, after the near-miss with Hitler, the Fuhrer wanted vengeance on everyone he could find who was involved.  Bonhoeffer's name made the list, and he was hanged only days before the Allies claimed victory, and weeks before Hitler took his own life.

Metaxas's biography, a terrific read with just the right blend of historical background and detail about Bonhoeffer's life, renewed my interest in Bonhoeffer.  On my shelf I have copies of The Cost of Discipleship, Life Together, and Ethics.  I read the first two, but I'm not sure I ever tackled the third.  I'm inspired to do so now, and to wonder what Christendom lost with Bonhoeffer's early death.  What more can we ask of a biography: a great writer writing a great story about a great man.  Worth a read.

Inside the Revolution, by Joel C. Rosenberg

It's refreshing to read a perspective of the Middle East that is both informed, from an insider's perspective, and is Bible-centered, from someone knowledgeable about Biblical prophecy.  Joel Rosenberg, a Jew by heritage, Evangelical Christian by faith, has worked as an advisor with U.S. and Israeli leaders, and, as founder of the Joshua Fund has worked extensively on humanitarian projects throughout the Middle East.  He has written a series of novels in which Biblical prophecies play out in today's climate, and has written Epicenter and Inside the Revolution, non-fiction books about the Middle East. 

I was particularly impressed by a promo for his books that pointed out his foresight.  Check this out, from his Wikipedia entry:

Nine months before the September 11th attacks, Rosenberg wrote a novel with a kamikaze plane attack on an American city. Five months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he wrote a novel about war with Saddam Hussein, the death of Yasser Arafat eight months before it occurred, a story with Russia, Iran, and Libya forming a military alliance against Israel occurring the date of publishing, the rebuilding of the city of Babylon, Iran vowing to have Israel "wiped off the face of the map forever" five months before Iranian President Ahmadinejad used similar language, oil and natural gas in Israel (a major gas discovery occurred in January 2009).

All of this to say, Rosenberg has extensive experience in the Middle East, and has uncanny insight into trends and events as they occur, even before.  Whether or not he's right on every point, he deserves to be listened to.

Inside the Revolution is really three books as one, as indicated by the subtitle: How the Followers of Jihad, Jefferson, and Jesus are Battling to Dominate the Middle East and Transform the World.  In the first section, Rosenberg details the threat of Islam from those who believe Islam is the answer and jihad is the way.  This is the message we hear from many on the right: Iran wants to wipe out Israel, American is the great Satan and Israel is the little Satan, the Koran teaches Jihad against infidels, radical Islam won't rest until the whole world is under sharia law.  Based on his account, it's worse that I thought.

The second section, on the followers of Jefferson, showcases the vast majority of the Muslim world, those leaders who truly desire Jeffersonian democracy and an Islam that does not do violence against its enemies.  They believe Islam is the answer, but jihad is not the way.  These are the Muslims President Bush refers to when he says Islam is a religion of peace.  It's hard to believe, if you only listen to reports of terrorist attacks and threats and IEDs and insurgents.  But Rosenberg makes the case that Jeffersonian Muslims are on the rise.  Based on his account, it's better than I thought.

The third section is most encouraging.  In pockets of the Muslim world, revival is breaking out!  Many Muslims are becoming Christians.  They believe that Islam is not the answer, and Jesus is the way.  Of course, by the very nature of life in the Muslim world, we don't hear much about these Christians.  But some Muslim countries do enjoy a measure of religious freedom.  It's fascinating to hear about these MBBs (Muslim background believers) who are following Jesus and evangelizing the Muslim world.  Prepare to be amazed both by the incredible stories of faith under persecution, and the miraculous ways our loving God reaches out to people in these countries that lack much Christian witness.  He wrote more about the conversion of Muslims in the booklet Inside the Revival. 

Rosenberg's reporting is thorough, and the cast of characters is huge.  Inside the Revolution provides valuable insights into the recent history and current trends in the Middle East.  Unsurprisingly, he is strongly pro-Israel, which will bother some of his Muslim readers.  He also clearly holds a pre-tribulation rapture view, which some of his Christian readers will nod in agreement with, but others (like me) pause and wonder if he's right.  (Side note: I was curious about his fiction, so I picked up Dead Heat, which starts with a nuclear attack on the U.S. and ends with the rapture.  He writes in page-turning, pot-boiler style, but raises some good questions, not the least of which is, How do we protect the U.S. from a terrorist attack like this one?  It would be very easy for a dedicated band of bad dudes to pull off an attack that makes 9/11 look mild.)

Another side product I looked at was his documentary, Epicenter, which is based on his first non-fiction book by the same name.  The video focuses more on the first 1/3 of Inside the Revolution, the threat of Islam.  Even though the threat comes from a tiny portion of Muslims in the world, it's hard to overlook.  A small group of people can do a tremendous amount of damage, physically, culturally, and otherwise.  So in spite of the hope Rosenberg offers in Inside the Revolution, I can't help but focus on the threats, and the possible scenarios of Dead Heat and his other novels.  There's no question that Islam poses a grave threat to the U.S. and to the hope of peace around the world.  Rosenberg reminds us that whatever the state of the world, God is in control, has a plan, and loves his children.

Farthing, by Jo Walton

Here's another fun story set in an intriguing alternative history of World War 2 and its aftermath.  Farthing is a murder mystery not unlike what I imagine Agatha Christie would have written.  (I've never read Christie's books, which is why I imagine. . . .)  At a gathering of aristocratic Englishmen and -women at a storied country estate, one of the guests, an up-and-coming politician, is found murdered.  A detective from Scotland Yard, feeling a bit out of place among these blue bloods, comes to investigate.

The year is 1949, and the victim was one of key players in the negotiation of Britain's peace treaty with Hitler in 1941.  Yes, you read that right.  In Walton's world, the British and Germans negotiated for an end to hostilities before the U.S. even entered the war.  Hitler reigns on the Continent, and anti-Jewish Fascism is taking hold in England.

Walton weaves an intriguing mystery, drawing out the suspense while capturing the culture and mores of the mid-20th century British upper class.  But what makes Farthing most interesting is her exposition of her alternative post-WW2 history.  I think we'll all agree that Germany's defeat and Hitler's death were good things, but what about the loss of lives and destruction during the war?  Could that have been avoided?  My tendency is to think that the lives lost and cities destroyed were worth the defeat of Hitler, but if it were my city, my father, my sons who were lost, I might think differently.

By exploring a world in which Hitler still reigns in most of Europe, Walton can show the dangers and evil of fascism, both in an established expression under Hitler, and its creeping influence in England.  Farthing is quite entertaining on a number of levels.  Highly recommended!

Saving Jesus from the Church, by Robin R. Meyers

 In the interest of Christian charity, I will begin this review by looking at the positive elements of Robin Meyers's Saving Jesus from the Church: How to Stop Worshiping Christ and Start Following Jesus.  As a tenured pastor, at Mayflower Congregational Church in Oklahoma City, and a professor of rhetoric at Oklahoma City University, you might expect that Meyers knows how to communicate.  Indeed, his writing is lucid and engaging, as I suspect his sermons are as well.

The latter half of the book's subtitle encapsulates the strength of Meyers's message.  The church has tended to ignore the teachings of Jesus and has not done a good job of following him.  We have reduced faith to "a set of 'beliefs' that certain statements about the Bible, Jesus as the Christ, and church doctrine and dogma are true. . . . faith as intellectual assent to propositional statements."  In doing so, we neglect the Christian life as a way of being.  Being a Christian should not simply mean reciting a creed or praying a formulaic prayer, but should be an all-encompassing way of life.

Some of Meyers's chapter titles show how he builds on this theme: "Faith as Being, Not Belief," "Christianity as Compassion, Not Condemnation," "Religion as Relationship, Not Righteousness."   I can jump in with Meyers on many of his assertions, especially as they apply to American megachurches and fundamentalists.  There is often more concern with theological, biblical purity that with practice, defending the Bible but neglecting to do what it says.  As a telling example, he recalls Albert Schweitzer.  While he was toiling in Africa, heroically treating the sick and destitute, well-fed theologians sat in their comfortable offices criticizing Schweitzer's liberal theological writings.  Meyers asks, Who better exemplifies and follows the teachings of Jesus?

So Meyers rightly calls on the church to examine itself and follow the example and teachings of Jesus.  The problem is that Meyers jettisons orthodox Christian theology.  The first half of the subtitle reveals Meyers's case: Jesus is not the Christ.  Stop acting like he is.  The church's obsession with the blood atonement needs to stop.  We are not sinners in need of a savior, we are children of God trying to do good works.  So in spite of his friendly tone and readable prose, Meyers lost me early in chapter 1, "Jesus the Teacher, Not the Savior."  That title says it all.  He buys into the whole liberal project, denying the divinity of Christ, his resurrection, and his redeeming work on the cross.  How about these examples:

[Fundamentalist Christians] are 'decoding' the salvation 'contract' that is presumed to be hidden in scripture, so that true believers can cash in their winning ticket and collect their eternal inheritance.  Being a disciple today means little more than believing stuff in order to get stuff.

The conviction of the followers of Jesus that he was still with them was itself the resurrection.  To ask the question of whether the resurrection is true, and to mean by this that only a resuscitated corpse constitutes such proof, is to impose the standards of the modern mind upon a prescientific culture of myth and magic. 

We need to turn away from the institutional forgeries that constitute orthodoxy for millions: the blood atonement, fear-based fantasies of the afterlife, 'vertical' notions of heaven and hell, selective providence based on human ignorance. . . . (emphasis added)

Winning ticket?  No resurrection?  Myth and magic?  Forgeries?  Fantasies?  Ignorance?  Throughout Saving Jesus, Meyers ridicules and rejects core values of orthodox theology.  Many Christians have held to the Apostles' Creed as a statement of central beliefs that unify Christians across denominational lines.  He can only mock it, directly and indirectly.  "The Apostles' Creed . . . eliminated the life and message of Jesus."  Meyers quotes from the Creed: "'Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate. . . .'  Look carefully at what separates the birth of Christ from his death.  The world's greatest life is reduced to a comma."  He makes a clever point, but the larger point is that he would throw out most of the Apostles' Creed as superstition or irrelevance.

Here is the creed, and my imagined response by Meyers.
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.(OK, so far so good.  But the creation stories in the Bible are primitive superstitions.)
I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord, (Yes, as a historical figure, but certainly not divine.)
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, (Are you kidding me?)
born of the Virgin Mary, (Mary, sure, but a virgin?  A laughable claim added by later Christians.)
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried; (He may have been crucified.  He certainly died--doesn't everyone?--and would have been buried, perhaps, although he may have been carrion, like most who were crucified or otherwise executed.)
he descended to the dead. (Are you talking about Hell?  It doesn't exist.)
On the third day he rose again; (Haha!  You really believe that stuff about the resurrection still?)
he ascended into heaven, (a figment of hopeful imaginations. . . .)
he is seated at the right hand of the Father,
and he will come again to judge the living and the dead.(Whatever.)
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints, (This is what it's all about.  People who follow Jesus' teaching getting together to share community and do good works.)
the forgiveness of sins, (As if we need forgiveness.)
the resurrection of the body, (Not.)
and the life everlasting. Amen. (This life is the one that matters.  Not some fantasy of an afterlife.)

Meyers'sMeyers's position is not unlike that of followers of Buddha, Hare Krishna, Martin Luther King, or Justin Bieber.  Pick someone you admire, and try to be like him.  But Jesus did not come just to be a teacher or role model; he came to seek and to save the lost!

I can join with Meyers's mocking of televangelists, megachurches, and certain streams of fundamentalism such as the prosperity gospel.  But he uses these as straw men to attempt tear down a huge swath of historical Christianity, anyone who believes in the redemptive power of the cross and Jesus death and resurrection as atonement for our sin.  It's almost as if he's never met Christians who both believe in the traditional Christian faith and follow Jesus.  For every Albert Schweitzer, there are thousands of Christians whose theological conservatism would appall Meyers but whose works in service to God would rival Schweitzer's.

Paul said he "resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified," and that "Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day," and that "if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless."  Dr. Meyers, I'm sure you know how to preach a lovely sermon.  Although I've never been to your church or heard you preach, my thought is that perhaps your preaching is useless.


Don't buy this book.

Was this review helpful to you?  If so, please give my review at Amazon.com a helpful vote!
If it wasn't helpful. . . .Sorry.  Forget I asked. . . .

Skallagrigg, by William Horwood

Earlier this year my whole family read and loved Sharon Draper's Out of My Mind (review here), a novel told from the perspective of a young teenage girl who has cerebral palsy.  That wonderful book gives insight into the life of this girl and any other individuals who have difficulty communicating due to physical disabilities, and the frustrations they experience when their mind can't connect with the minds of others.

An Amazon.com review of Out of My Mind referred to another novel with a similar theme, William Horwood's Skallagrigg.  Following the lives of Arthur and Esther, who both have C.P., Horwood delves into not only the communication challenge, but the culture of the disabled and the changing role of institutionalization in the 20th century.  Arthur, in the early part of the 20th century, is institutionalized as a boy.  He begins to tell stories of the Skallagrigg to his friends, and the legends grow, passed along from one institution to another.  Esther, in the latter part of the century, hears bits and pieces of these stories, begins to compile them, and incorporates them into a video game which becomes a world-wide hit.  Her whole life turns into a quest to find the Skallagrigg.

Without getting too much into or giving away the story, several elements are worth noting.  First, the system of institutionalization of the disabled in England.  Arthur, institutionalized most of his life, suffered terrible abuse by those charged with caring for him.  With no means to communicate, and inadequate supervision, the abuse continues for years.  Although not the main purpose of the book, Horwood's depiction of the institutions and the changes and reforms over the course of the story make me glad for more humane and enlightened treatment of others.

Second, Horwood describes a subculture of the disabled that I never thought about.  With limited ability to communicate with others, people with C.P. communicate with a combination of speaking (as they are able), gestures, sounds, and eye movements.  I love the way the characters manage to communicate on a different plane from the rest of us, and create a unique community and relationships that others are only dimly aware of, if at all.

Finally, Horwood traces the development of assistive technology for disabled persons.  Esther's father, a high-tech executive who got into the field early on, directs the resources of his computer company to develop specialized keyboards and devices to help Esther and others communicate like never before.  Of course we all think of the brilliant Stephen Hawking and shudder to think of how different his life would have been had he been born a few years earlier.  But even non-genius but perfectly intelligent people benefit from the efforts of the non-fiction counterparts of Esther's dad.  Like Melody in Out of My Mind, Esther's life is completely changed by the simple ability to type.

Besides being a story that brings insight into the life experiences of people with cerebral palsy and the improvements that have come in treatment and communication, Skallagrigg is a thoroughly enjoyable story of a young woman's quest.  It doesn't pack the emotional punch of Out of My Mind, primarily because it's a densely told, intricately plotted novel of over 700 pages, versus OOMM's 300 pages, written for a younger readers.  But with the additional length comes a more satisfying and substantial read.

I highly recommend Skallagrigg for anyone who comes into contact with people with cerebral palsy or other disabilities.  It's guaranteed to broaden your view of people with disabilities.  Besides that, though, it is a beautiful story, beautifully written.
--------------------
First published in 1987 in the UK (I'm not sure if it was ever published in the U.S.), Skallagrigg was not the easiest book to find.  I got it through ILL at the FW library.  Because I want to read it again and share it, I have ordered a copy from Amazon.  If you are reading this and would like to read the book, let me know and I will lend it to you.

Also, for an abbreviated but still decent portrayal, the BBC produced a movie version in 1994.  You can watch it on youtube.

The Declaration of Independents, by Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch

During the 1996 budget battles in Congress, when the "Contract with America" was beginning to show its worthlessness, and the Ds and Rs fought over who can spend money faster, I received a solicitation in the mail to join the Libertarian Party.  It seemed like they were the only political voice supporting limited government, free markets, and personal freedom.  The Ds and Rs get bits and pieces, but inevitably increase government power, constrain the market, and limit freedom.  Alas, the Ls have not made any no significant inroads in national politics.  The D/R duopoly has reigned for decades.

In the meantime, Reason, one of my favorite magazines, has been promoting "free minds and free markets."  Editors in chief Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch have teamed up, with their characteristic good humor, solid insight, and strong libertarian perspective, to give a breath of fresh air and a challenge to conventional two-party thinking in American politics.

The Rs squandered the opportunity, with a majority in congress and a popular president, to bring real change to the way the U.S. government works.  Instead of cutting spending and reducing government programs, they increased federal involvement in education, added an enormously expensive drug entitlement for seniors, and spent billions on war and everything else.  To top it off, they gave millions away to failed business at the end of Bush's term.  Obama has only made things worse.  Gillespie and Welch write:

Americans have watched, with a growing sense of alarm and alienation, as first a Republican, then a Democratic administration has flouted public opinion by bailing out banks, nationalizing the auto industry, expanding war in Central Asia, throwing yet more good money after bad to keep housing prices artificially high, and prosecuting a drug war no one outside federal government pretends is comprehensible, let along winnable.  It is easy to look upon this well-worn rut of political affairs and despair. (6)

There doesn't seem to be much hope that either party has anything to offer, and fact share the goal of centralized power.  "It's time to stop pretending that the two parties are actually in conflict with one another (as opposed to colluding in a power-sharing agreement at the expense of the rest of us)." (14)

Knowing that we cannot look to government for serious reform--"Looking to Democrats and Republicans for the next big thing is like asking General Motors and Ford circa 1975 to map out the future for the auto industry." (37)--the authors look at the airline industry, trends in the business world, and the media for direction.  Whether we're talking about travel, corporate structures, or how we get our news and entertainment, choices are better and freer than ever before.  We should embrace that same sense of independence and choice in the world of politics.

Unfortunately, in three important areas, health care, K-12 education, and retirement, the government has such a stranglehold that innovation is near impossible.  The authors point out that "we are so out of money," and to expect government to bring real reform to these areas may well be delusional.

This is a terrific read, and will be sure to challenge Rs and Ds alike.  If you are familiar with libertarian thinking, and/or are a reader of Reason, not much here will surprise you.  More power to Welch and Gillespie as they try to get Americans to both be independents in politics and to declare independence from politics.