What's the Matter With Obama Supporters?

While Mrs. Miller occasionally indulges her guilty pleasure of following celebrities (at right, her favorite dress from this year's Oscars), one of my vices is following the law-gossip blog Above the Law (even further right, my pick for best dressed).

Anyway, last week an AtL post caught my eye: Obama, BigLaw, and Taxes (Or: Obama = $34,000 Paycut) As the title suggests, the post calculates the stiff tax increase an associate at a big firm would face under an Obama administration. But despite the fact that theseattorneys have a reputation of greedily jumping to whichever firm pays the most, a vast majority them are Obama supporters. What gives?

A few years ago, I stumbled over a book called What's the Matter With Kansas by Thomas Frank. The book's basic premise was that evil Republican strategists (often named Rove) had tricked working-class Kansans (and other middle Americans) to vote against their economic interests. Frank doesn't bother considering other explanations; after all, doesn't everyone know that those hillbillies are stupid?

Maybe it's cause I spent some of my childhood in southwest Missouri a couple hours from the Kansas border (I even attended the Walnut Valley Festival in Winfield once), but I can think of two other good explanations. First, I'd bet that there are many conservative Kansans whom would rather not "take from the rich and give to the poor" even when they are the poor. These folks would consider that practice to be "stealing." But even beyond that, I am certain that many Americans care about unborn babies, traditional marriage, national security, and a host of other issues more than their direct economic self-interest. But Mr. Frank, blinded by his Marxist-materialistic orthodoxy, just assumes that they've all been duped!

I wonder what Mr. Frank would say about these Obama-supporting lawyers? Would he berate them for allowing themselves to be duped by David Axelrod (Obama's Rove) and Will.i.am? It's probably safe to say, he wouldn't. He'd be quick to point out that they either think their taxes should be higher or that Obama's positions on other issues are worth taking a financial hit. 

All I am trying to say is that there's nothing "the matter" with Obama-supporting lawyers. They plan on voting for the candidate that best represents their values (I just happen to radically disagree with those values). I guess the real question is what's the matter with Mr. Frank that he can't give conservative Kansans the benefit of the doubt?

Strange love for McCain

I provided an all-too-thorough analysis of the presidential primary elections back in January. Now that the Republican Party has essentially selected John McCain, it seems time for an update. Instead of more of my bloviating, here is the quality analysis of a lawyer-friend of mine:

To quote the subtitle to Dr. Strangelove: "How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"

McCain, in this case, being the bomb.

Well, before Super Tuesday, I put McCain's odds for winning the GOP nomination at 95%. Safe to say that number increased (I had McCain winning 620 delegates, I think he'll end up with 720ish).

So, as a matter of political reality, I've spent some time contemplating McCain. I think he's obviously better than the Dems on foreign policy. On judges (which I care about more, or view to be a more decisive issue), McCain is likely to support good Justices, even though I don't trust him.

I wrote quite passionately before with reasons not to trust McCain - Gang of 14 chief among them.

However, in a two-party race, James Dobson is wrong; it would be foolish to allow Clinton or Obama to appoint 5-6 Justices. Their picks definitely will set the clock back even further on Roe - not to mention the rest of Constitutional law.

I'd much rather trust Mitt or Huck to make those picks, but that's not my choice anymore. So, I've decided to start defending McCain on this regard. Even though I don't totally trust him, and will issue a big fat "I told you so" if he appoints Justice Souter type picks, I think our chances are way, way better with him in the Oval Office. We may not get a picks like Michael Luttig or Janice Rogers Brown, but maybe we'll get someone like Senator Cornyn. For more on the judiciary aspect, I agree much of what Calabresi and McGinnis said in the WSJ (sans their spin on Gang of 14 and distrust of Mitt).

On the Gang of 14, the NRO editors said it better:

We believe that a President McCain would prefer to appoint conservative judges, for example. But would he fight for them or cut a deal with Pat Leahy? That is the fear that underlies the complaints about McCain's membership in the Gang of 14.

That's exactly my concern. But even with that concern, can I really say I'd rather risk Obama/Hillary picks? No. Not even close.

About all the domestic issues, McCain is very similar to Bush, and we I think we all agree that Bush was a less-than-ideal-but-better-than-the-alternative president. I'll take that choice again, any day. On immigration and campaign finance reform, Bush knifed us just as much, if not more so (expressly promising not to sign campaign finance reform before taking office).

On taxes, McCain is not totally committed, but again, marginally much better than the Dems who are constantly invoking class warfare rhetoric and basically calling for massive theft from the rich to give to the poor. McCain's theft is much less, and all moral normative claims aside, less theft is better than more theft.

Certainly McCain, the "Maverick," has enjoyed sticking his thumb in the eye of conservatives. But his electability is an asset, and the alternatives are grim.

Finally, I'll add that I think we may have over-estimated Mitt's electability. Despite my trying, I've been unable to move may of my strong conservative, Evangelical-type friends to support Mitt. He's never surged in the national polls, and despite spending vast sums of money, people just don't like the guy. I think I know why; it's because he's too slick. As a lawyer, this never really bothered me, but it appears to bother tons of people. (Not to mention the vast hoards of evangelicals who simply won't vote for a Mormon, and will make up any reason to justify that end result).

So, in the end, maybe the primary process has worked well, and we avoided picking a marginally better (Mitt used to be liberal after all) but less electable candidate. We did avoid picking a pro-choice candidate. Sometimes I think we forgot that Giuliani would be far worse for the pro-life cause than McCain, even on McCain's worst day. Beggars can't be choosers. Griping about McCain at this point is simply begging.

As for Huckabee, I think he strongly evidences how Evangelicals are important to the GOP. Everyone but John McCain got that message. Huckabee was not strong enough, in the end, to capitalize on his Iowa victory. He changed too many positions and said too many stupid things. I really tried to love Huckabee, and still think he's a more natural, brilliant speaker than anyone else in the field. But, you just can't change positions, as he has, and fail to raise money, as he has, and be viable. Huckabee as Veep, or maybe a future GOP nominee is exciting to me. He's still really young.

So, I expect McCain to win, to pick someone other than Mitt or Huckabee as Veep (someone like Sarah Palin, the Gov. of Alaska), and for all of us Christian conservatives to fight hard for McCain. I even hope, cleared away from the emotion of the primary process, Dobson will support voting for McCain. If you really care about Roe and protecting the unborn, how could you not support McCain in the general?

That's politics; you never get what you really want. Prudence dictates that we take incremental steps.

It's time to start loving the bomb.

Happy Iowa Caucus Day!!! (The Political Musings of Mr. Miller)

Today marks the kickoff of the most unsettled Presidential year of our lifetimes. As a political junkie, I've been following all of the twists and turns of the campaign with obsessive detail. In this post, I offer a summarization of a year's worth of my political observations and a couple of prognostications for the race.

Let us start with a quick look at the Democrats:

Edwards has lived in Iowa since the end of the 2004 campaign and has based his whole campaign on the premise that a win there can springboard him to national success. He's in striking distance in the Hawkeye State, but I don't think he'll pull off the upset. And even if he wins in Iowa, I don't think the rest of the country's Democrats really want to nominate a White Male when they have, as Mark Steyn pointed out, "a woman, a black, an Hispanic . . . and they all think exactly the same. They remind me of The Johnny Mathis Christmas Album, which Columbia used to re-release every year in a different sleeve: same old songs, new cover. When your ideas are identical, there's not a lot to argue about except biography."

Hillary is running as a quasi-incumbent. Her name identification and her perceived campaign machine have kept her at the top of the national polls all year long. But her support is somewhat soft. If she loses Iowa or New Hampshire, her national lead will probable evaporate and the Democratic race will be tight. She also struggles among liberals who don't think they are Democrats, e.g., if you watch The Daily Show for your news and think you are "balanced," you don't like Clinton.

Instead, all of those Jon-Stewart-heads will vote for Obama. He is nothing but a traditional liberal, but my friends who love him think that he "transcends the partisan divide." Whatever. In any event, he will likely gain the lion's share of the anti-Hillary vote. If he wins Iowa and/or New Hampshire, he'll be a real force.

MY PREDICTION: I predict that Hillary and Obama will engage in a bloody fight for the next two months. And even then it might not be settled. The Democratic delegate selection process provides for proportional delegate selection. Meaning, if Obama wins 40% of the vote in a state, he gets about 40% of the delegates. I think this will mean that neither of them can clinch the nomination early. And, with both of them boasting huge war chests, this thing will be a knock-down, drag-out fight!

In the general election, Obama would be a little tougher to beat than Hillary. Her negatives are stratospheric while Obama coos tenderly about "uniting the country." But Obama's inexperience and youth would be a liability as well. None of the major Republicans should despair at their general election chances.

Now, onto those Republicans:

No presidential primary in either party has looked remotely like the 2008 GOP race. There is no frontrunner. Rudy, the guy who is still the odds-on favorite according to betting websites, is polling below Ron Paul in Iowa and has basically conceded he will not win a single primary before Florida on January 29th. And Fred Thompson, while sitting in fifth place nationally, is just five or six points out from first place. Crazy!

My first principle in this race is Anybody But Giuliani (ABG). Rudy's unabashed pro-choice and pro-gay stances are indistinguishable from those of the Democratic candidates. He'd be a fine nominee for that party, just not mine. Despite his promises to nominate "strict constructionist" judges, Rudy winning the White House would end the period of the GOP as the pro-life party. In all future elections, Big Business Republicans would point to Rudy and say we need to nominate a social "moderate" in order to win. The pro-life cause would be set back for decades.

Because of the imperative of ABG, I've been casting about for a candidate strong enough to prevent his nomination. But thankfully for the good guys, Rudy has shown clear signs of slipping over the last six weeks. His path to the nomination is premised on winning big-state primaries like Florida, New York, New Jersey, and California. The first of those states to vote is Florida on January 29. South Florida has a huge number of former New Yorkers who harbor affection for their former mayor, but the northern part of the state is conservative like the rest of the South. Rudy will get about 30% of the vote there, but I think that one of the other candidates will be able to unite the conservative majority in the party to Stop Rudy in FL. If that happens, his victories on February 5th in Delaware, Connecticut, New Jersey and New York will be hollow. While he will likely hold the most delegates of any candidate on the morning of February 6th, if he lost in Florida, he probably won't win the nomination.

But which of the other four major candidates should we support? That is a really good question. Let's consider each in turn.

1) First, there is John McCain. He plans on winning New Hampshire a week from today and having that rocket him to the head of the GOP field. McCain was the frontrunner a year ago, but is now the plucky underdog. The mainstream media has basically willed into being his rally in New Hampshire, reporting it two weeks before it materialized in the polling. They have not forgotten how they almost handed him the 2000 GOP nomination and are giving it another try this year. McCain is a very viable general election candidate because a lot of independents think he "transcends the partisan divide." He's done this by thumbing his nose at the conservative movement's standard bearers. This five-year-old article in the liberal New Republic thought McCain would make a fine nominee for the Democrats in 2004. John Kerry asked him to be his running mate! But for all of those heresies, I'd take him over Rudy in a heartbeat.

2) Then we have Fred Thompson. He's a bit of an enigma. While in the Senate, Thompson worked closely with McCain on Campaign Finance "Reform," but other than that built a solid conservative record. He's played YouTube clips of Romney's former pro-choice positions, yet his claims of historical pro-life purity fall flat. His campaign has been hardest hit by the rise of another Southerner, Huckabee. Unless Huck crashes and burns, Fred's campaign is Dead on Arrival. Indeed, a story released today says that Fred will drop out unless he surprises (finishes ahead of Huck) in Iowa.

3) As some of you may know, I've been a supporter of Mitt Romney for some time. Mitt clearly has campaigned on bad social positions in the past, but I think his conversion to conservative views, while "convenient" is real. He's not going to take office and suddenly revert to pro-choice or pro-gay-agenda positions. That's why both the Republican Majority for Choice and the Log Cabin Republicans have run ads intended to undercut his candidacy. They know that he's no friend of theirs anymore.

But for many Evangelicals, whether they acknowledge it or not, the question of Mitt's Mormonism has been more poignant. I don't think believers should rule out supporting him over this issue. A Mormon President would not lead to mass conversions to the Mormon faith. Americans already are aware of Mormonism and have decided not to convert. But in the political arena, why shouldn't Evangelicals work with Mormons? The vast majority of Mormons hold political views largely indistinguishable from my own. This agreement on pro-family policies (including both social and fiscal conservatism) is natural because Mormons share a pro-family ethic in their personal lives. I've always taken it as a complement when someone thought my parents must be Mormons because they had five kids. (See the homeschooler-friendly station wagon pictured below!)

Ever since the founding of the pro-life movement, Evangelicals and Roman Catholics have worked hand-in-hand as cobelligerents. I disagree with Catholic theology on many, many points and actually believe that in the Roman Church are not regenerated. Yet our political cooperation is a good thing for society. Political cooperation with Mormons should be endorsed, even welcomed, on the same principle.


Once Mitt's past liberal views and Mormonism are set aside, a very attractive candidate emerges. He has been faithful to one wife and has raised five successful sons. He has executive experience in business, in the Olympics, and as governor. He holds conservative positions on all of the major issues. He is strong in all of the early voting states and has a vast personal fortune that he is willing to spend in this campaign. He has been endorsed by Wayne Grudem and National Review.

4) Yet, I don't list Mitt last, because he's the candidate I support with my head. Huckabee has won a lot of my heart. Huck does not hold all of the conservative views that Mitt does, but he is a candidate loved by Josh Harris, Josh Harris's little brothers ( who told Chuck Norris), Justin Taylor, Michael Farris, and my groomsman David Talcott. I love that list of people! Those are my people! How can I dislike the guy that they all find so inspiring?

In the last six weeks, Huckabee has surged to the top of the Republican field. This surge has dismayed the Conservative Establishment. As compiled in a long list here, a TON of good people (Rush, National Review, etc.) are anti-Huck. I think there are three main reasons for this animosity. First, Huckabee's come-from-nowhere surge has proved wrong pundits who long ago limited the top tier to Rudy, Mitt, Fred, and McCain. Nobody likes looking bad. Secondly, there are Huck's conservative heresies: complaining that some CEO's make too much, raising taxes while Governor of Arkansas, and calling Bush's foreign policy an "arrogant bunker mentality." Huck does seem too willing to use populist rhetoric on the economy. But the final and most distressing reason that the conservative intelligentsia has turned on Huck is that he is an Evangelical who doesn't believe in Evolution. Erick at Redstate captured this trend perfectly in this must read post. These non-believing Conservatives are freaked out that Nominee Huckabee would embarrass them at their cocktail parties.

So I love Huck for his friends and I dislike the motivations of some of his enemies. The conservative intelligentsia and the liberal press think that Huck would be destroyed as a Christian extremist in the general election, but I think he could engineer a repeat of the 2000 and 2004 Red/Blue 50/50 elections that gave us Republican White Houses. He's not a sure loser. He's a political genius, who while untested, would be a tremendous nominee.

So, if I were in Iowa, I don't know which way I'd go. But by February 5th, the race should have crystallized with either Mitt, Huck, or McCain being the obvious Stop Rudy choice.

MY PREDICTION : Mitt Romney wins the nomination by the skin of his teeth and nominates Huckabee as his Veep to strengthen his Southern and Evangelical support.

Thanks for reading. The Burrow wishes you a Happy Election Year!

Christ of cities and suburbs

Urban church planting is hip right now. Church planters may be taking their cues from the culture. Renewing city centers to attract young, single professionals as the key to economic growth has been the focus of developers and city councils across the nation for a while. As a member of their target demographic, not surprisingly urban love hit me during college. I dreamed of moving to Boston, New York, or DC and living in an old warehouse converted to studio apartments with exposed brick walls and in close proximity to a wine bar, live jazz, and the performing arts center.

These "cool cities" projects have failed to produce the promised financial returns, however, as noted by a WSJ opinion piece yesterday. They failed because the target demographic moves out as quickly as it moves in. Young, single professionals opt with far more frequency than the previous generation to marry and start families. When they do, they abandon the city for the surrounding suburbs. Moreover, it is these "married people with children [not singles who] tend to be both successful and motivated, precisely the people who make the economies go." Thus, affordable housing and short commutes, not loft apartments and nightclubs, are the key to cities creating burgeoning and stable economies.

Our experience in New York City squares with the statistics. The members of our church who live in the city are largely educated professionals who are single or newlywed. As families grow, they tend to leave the city entirely. Indeed, the joke is that professionals leave Manhattan for Brooklyn when they have their first baby, and then move out to Long Island or leave the area entirely when the second baby arrives.

It's not that people start hating the city. They just find it hard to raise a family in a one-bedroom walk-up apartment using public transportation. For the same monthly cost, you can buy a spacious four-bedroom home in Gilbert, Arizona, own two cars, and stock the fridge with twice as many groceries.

Because we believe that children are a blessing from the Lord and an essential element of marriage and because of the economic forces moving married couples with children to the suburbs, Mr. Miller and I have been puzzled by the emphasis on "missional" ministry to the city over the work of the allegedly vacuous churches of suburbia. It's encouraging to see new web resources like Mission to Suburbia (HT: Between Two Worlds) mostly because it means the pendulum might be swinging back to center.

Most troubling in the current urban trend are the ideas that living in an urban area makes one more sensitive to poverty or have more opportunities to evangelize. After living in NYC a total of six months, I've already become immune to the pleas of the countless beggars (as well as the urine scent in the subway and the grime on the streets.) As for evangelism, those opportunities abound just about anywhere; it's a matter of seizing them. My father and sister put me to shame in this regard. Dad, a supervisor for the utility company that provides power to most Arizona suburbs, seems to share the gospel with co-workers and business associates as naturally and frequently as he breaths. And my sister, a suburban housewife, shares the gospel with young mothers she meets through mommy groups and pregnancy classes.

The obvious truth is that people need Jesus whether they live in track homes or high rises. Pastors and church planters certainly face unique issues depending on location because of the different demographics, but the essential need of human beings remains constant.

The distinction for the Christian, then, is not, as the real estate slogan goes, "location, location, location!" but rather "faithful, faithful, faithful." Whether I live in a city or suburb (in God's providence, I've had opportunity to live in both), I am called to faithfully love the Lord by keeping his commands and love my neighbors by caring for them, most especially for their souls.

The Burgeoning Belly

Pregnancy is marked by all kinds of challenges. If you've been pregnant, you know them. You also know that joy outweighs them.

Watching my belly grow has been one of the great joys of pregnancy. Under that skin is a beautiful little girl, being knit together by God according to a plan he made before time.

"I'm just like inviting you to join me on the bandwagon of my own uncertainty"

This guy's name is Taylor Mali and while I don't think he's a believer this critique cuts at the core of the postmodern zeitgeist.

(HT: EvangelicalOutpost, via PyroManiacs, via BaylyBlog. I list all three, because they are all important Evangelical blogs. Joe Carter at EvangelicalOutpost has just joined Justin Taylor in endorsing Mike Huckabee and is now attempting [with mixed results] to defend Huck's record on fiscal issues. TeamPyro.blogspot.com is rising on my blogroll for posts like this one challenging "humble orthodoxy". And Tim Bayly of BaylyBlog is the pastor of a really awesome church in Bloomington, IN where one of my college roomates attends with his family.)

The Heresy of Cool

I wish I had written this piece. I would have titled it, "The Heresy of Hip," because that is alliterative and hip is the new cool. Er...unless hip has been further eclipsed by some new verbiage.

For those, like me, who slave at the feet of cool:

Coolness is heretical. Or at least the pursuit of it is. This is because an inverse relationship exists between our attempts at being cool and our faith in Jesus Christ. The one struts, confident in his ability to do and say all the right things. The other limps, just as confident in his ineptitude, his missed cues and bad timing.

The professionally cool know the short shelf life of their product and are thus characterized by an ability to be just ahead of the curve. They seem to just be leaving the places at which the rest of us are just arriving. It all looks as effortless as it is actually rigorous. That is to say, it’s hard work being cool. And a funny kind of hard work to boot, because it’s not allowed to look hard. Read on...

Of Columbia and Mr. Ahmadinejad

While Mrs. Miller keeps our home and brings in some Mahalo bacon, I study law at Columbia University. That august institution recently created a good deal of controversy by inviting President Ahmadinejad to speak to students and faculty.

I found myself torn. On the one hand the invitation of a the leader of a country hostile to American interests seemed to be very unpatriotic, but on the other the practice of shouting down the exchange of ideas seems to be the province of lefties at Columbia.

But a couple days after the speech, my favorite political columnist, Mark Steyn, really crystallized the issue. For Columbia's liberals, the invitation of Ahmadinejad is merely a method for them to declare their self-righteousness. Go read the column, not least for the distinction between "humanitarian needs" and "human needs," and for the classic quip, "But enough about Iran, let's talk about me!" That Mark Steyn!

Evangelicals can't write fiction?

For Chris and Mom--who want to know what I'm musing about...

English Professor Donald T. Williams is troubled by the lack of bono fide evangelicals recognized as serious fiction writers. He rightly points out that famous modern Christian authors G. K. Chesterton, C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, T. S. Eliot, Graham Greene, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn, Walker Percy, and Flannery O’Connor, are from liturgical, not evangelical, traditions. According to him, this literary poverty within evangelicalism results from:

Our failure to encourage our people to apply doctrine to the realities of life; our failure to include in our theology the whole counsel of the God who called Bezalel and Oholiab and gifted them as artists; and our pragmatism, an uncritical reflection of American culture rather than a biblical mandate, with our mystery-impoverished worship tradition are all simple failures to be what we claim to be, faithful to Scripture.

He urges evangelical churches to cultivate writers in the same way the Roman Catholic Church nurtured Flannery O’Connor––by providing a comprehensive worldview to its members, encourage fiction writing as a vocational calling, and provide a sense of mystery in its theology. I have no disagreement with Prof. Williams’ call for evangelicals to teach worldview, encourage writing as a vocational calling, and even emphasize our “abasement before a transcendent deity.”

But I disagree with his diagnosis of the problem. I’m unconvinced that evangelicalism is deficit in notable fiction writers. And, even if it is, I am unconvinced the deficit results primarily from a failure to encourage fiction writing as a vocation and a lack of artistic imagination that needs to be enhanced through worldview instruction and theological “mystery.”

First, I question the assertion that there are no recognized fiction writers who are evangelical. The fact that none come to mind could result from the fact that evangelical writers operate under a veil of anonymity. Identifying their religious commitments may jeopardize their chance to get signed by major publishers. Publishing companies are no less political or secular than any other business, and evangelicals are the bane, not the darling, of mainstream America. “Evangelical” connotes the secularist’s bogymen: television evangelists, the Scopes Trial, Jerry Fallwell, and the Christian Coalition. Christians from liturgical traditions are innocuous by comparison.

In the same vein, the literary elites who decide what fiction is “good” (mostly academics and journalists) also dislike evangelicals, providing yet another reason for evangelical writers to keep quiet about their religious commitments.

Still another reason we may not be able to identify evangelical fiction writers is because they haven’t matured yet. Think about it. The evangelism movement grew in the second half of the 20^th century. Most literary figures are recognized in their old age, not in their youth. Indeed, five of the eight recognized liturgical Christian writers on Prof. William’s list died before 1965, explaining why we know of them. Contrasting those older, liturgical authors to an alleged present dearth of Evangelical writers hardly seems accurate.

Second, even if there are no recognized evangelical fiction authors, I question placing a lot of blame for it on evangelical churches not encouraging fiction as a vocational calling. Again, I hold cultural elites more responsible for marginalizing evangelical writers than churches for discouraging the profession. In fact, cultural elites probably depress some evangelical writers before the writers even submit their first manuscripts to publishers. The colleges and universities that train writers and essentially provide them with a salary to write full-time are very hostile to evangelicals. Rejected by their professors and excluded from the mentoring or resources necessary to pursue fiction writing, evangelical writers have little choice but to give it up, especially if they wish to marry and provide for a family. At best, they are left exercising their talent as a "Hidden Art" for the benefit of family and close friends.

Finally, I resist Prof. Williams’ implied assertion that evangelical Christians shirk fiction-craft because they lack artistic imagination; his account does not explain why evangelical Christians excel in other artistic pursuits such as music, and why they write good prose in abundance. Evangelicals must avoid fiction writing for some reason other than lack of artistic talent.

I propose that the evangelical aversion to writing fiction––if it exists at all––may be the result of a faith that values truth over the ambiguity of myth and the appeal of beauty. I use the term “myth” not to denote lie or falsehood but to denote fiction as the only way to express certain trainscendent truth intelligibly. For the evangelical, Creation-Fall-Redemption is best understood by reading the Scriptures, not stories that allude to it. For the evangelical, the hope of the Gospel is in its validity, not in its beauty, though it be beautiful. For the evangelical, writing about The Story is more fulfilling than writing stories that hint around about it. After all, even an atheist, upon accurate observation of the creational order and human nature, can produce fiction alive with truth. Thus, it is not surprising that the evangelical would trade quality fiction for deft prose about the God who loved her and saved her from death.

Brains and bodies

As reported by Justin Taylor, a number of modern thinkers in the Reformed movement are discussing Federal Vision over at Daryl Hart's blog.

This particular quote by Doug Wilson made me smile: "There is a marked tendency in the modern Reformed world to think that God gave us bodies so that we would have something to walk our brains to church in." I had a vision of a headless man walking to a white-washed country church holding a bit of twine with his head tethered to it like a helium balloon.

More seriously, the quote brings to mind Ephesians 4:1 where the apostle Paul urges the church to "live a life worthy of the calling you have received." As Christians, we are called both to know our calling and to live our calling, to both mentally assent to truth and to incarnate truth with our bodies. How satisfying that we can honor the Lord with all we are.

Once more, Eisley lilts nicely

The elfish homeschoolers are back with new melodies, but the same ethereal appeal.


Here's the story with Eisley. As many of you know, Mr. Miller and I got to know each other largely through e-mail after meeting briefly at a conference. Just a couple e-mails were enough to convince me that Mr. Miller was the most honorable, godly, brilliant young man of my acquaintance. Yet I had no clue whether he was corresponding with me to merely exchange ideas with a fellow law student and Sovereign Gracer, or, whether there was interest.

Of course I thought the worst. Thus, I was dismayed when I noticed that his e-mail signature read, "Eisley is lovely." I thought, "Great. He has a girlfriend named Eisley and he's trying to give me a hint." Still, the e-mails kept coming so in a moment of brilliance (or jealous curiosity) I googled Eisley and discovered that Eisley is a band, not a girl. Ok, it's technically a girl-band. But I still felt immediate relief!

Days later, Liz, my beloved friend who keeps me abreast of the music world, invited me to see Eisley in concert. Her invitation was fortuitous. Not only did I get to spend time with her, but I got to do so while listening to music enjoyed by this amazing-man-who-did-not-have-a-girlfriend-named-Eisley. Joy!

Last month, Eisley released its second album. We are all happy: Liz, Mr. Miller, and me. I am the most happy. I am married to that Eisley fan, and he's changed his signature line to, "Bethany is lovely."

Routine rhythm...and melody

Now that Mr. Miller has resumed classes, we've fallen into a routine in the burrow. The alarm sounds at 7:30. My husband heads for the shower. Fumbling with my glasses, I walk into the kitchen and start preparing his lunch, counting off the items as they drop in the brown bag: 2 sandwiches, 1 ziplock bag containing a salty snack, 1 bag of baby carrots, 1 apple. Then, I brew the coffee. Mr. Miller finishes his shower and dresses. I scramble two eggs, which I lay in a whole wheat tortilla and sprinkle with cheese and salsa. Breakfast burrito in a bag, coffee in the travel mug. All the food goes in the backpack, which Mr. Miller slings across his back. Then, his count by the door: wedding band, i-pod, wallet, cellphone, keys. Check. A quick kiss, and he's down the stairs. Closing the door, I prepare fruit and toast. Sitting down, I open the Word...

It's the same, every Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Yet the repetition is not monotonous perhaps because there is an elegance to our ease in executing a fairly complicated process. Consider if a film director were to shoot the same; coordinating the set and actors would take hours of preparation to achieve a smooth take.

The repetition is not objectionable for another reason: it permits us to play varied melodies to its steady rhythm. A few minutes of cuddling before answering the demand of the alarm clock; laughing over some spectacular bedhead; slipping cookies into the lunch bag; a great thought from the day before, recalled and shouted from or toward the bathroom; a compliment or extra embrace before leaving each other for the day. All these unplanned moments sound clearer, sweeter, deeper when contraposed against the predictable pattern of our mornings.

Even More Supreme Court Review!!!

Lest the impression be left that Mrs. Miller is more attuned to Today's SCOTUS Action, I also want to weigh in.

Kennedy thinks he still likes Casey... but... he wants everyone to know that it is a "moderate" decision. Of course it wasn't actually very moderate, as Ginsburg strenuously points out.

Most interesting today is the silence from Roberts and Alito. My guess (endorsed by Mrs. Miller and her mother) says that they kept their powder dry because they want to overturn Roe-Casey. They refused to be quotable today to prevent the next SCOTUS nomination fight from being even more explicitly about overturning Roe. I think they will keep mum until Kennedy can't write badly for a majority anymore. Then they'll take a case and kill Roe 6-3 with Roberts writing for the majority.

/rampant speculation

High Court Upholds Federal Ban on Partial-Birth Abortion!

Court divides 5-4. Justice Kennedy writes for the majority. You can read the opinion here.

The Majority upholds the law against attacks that the law is facially vague and poses an undue burden on a woman's "right to choose" because it is overbroad and does not contains an exception for the health of the women. The Majority says the law is neither vague nor overbroad but rather narrowly targets intact D&Es (i.e., late term partial birth abortions). The state's interest in promoting the dignity of life together with the availability of other late-term abortion procedures removes the need for a health exception.

Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, concurs and writes to make sure everyone knows he thinks the Court's abortion jurisprudence is unconstitutional.

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer, dissents. She harps on the law's lack of a health exception.

My take: the decision is a small, but important victory for the unborn, pro-life advocates, and judicial conservatives. The most important part of the decision is the blow at Casey's requirement of a health exception in abortion bans. I also like Kennedy's frequent deference to legislative findings and judgements.

Quotes from the Majority Opinion:

• "The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman." 27
• "Respect for human life finds an ultimate expression in the bond of love the mother has for her child. The Act recognizes this reality as well. Whether to have an abortion requires a difficult and painful moral decision. While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow." 28-29 (citations omitted)
• "The law need not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice, nor should it elevate their status above other physicians in the medical community." 33
• "The Court has in the past confirmed the validity of [Congress] drawing boundaries to prevent certain practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned." 28
• "The Court.s precedents instruct that the Act can survive this facial attack [that some medical evidence shows that an intact D&E is safer than a regular D&E (baby is dismembered inside the women)]. The Court has given state and federal legislatures wide discretion to pass legislation in areas where there is medical and scientific uncertainty." 33

The Honeymoon Skinny

And that is all you're getting on that topic!

After the ceremony, reception, and photographs, Mr. Miller whisked me off to La Hermosa Inn, a local resort that authentically embraces all the beauty of the Arizona desert. We dined that night at Lon's.

The next morning, we overslept. Short of Mr. Miller's daring maneuvers at the airport including cutting over 50 people in line, we would have never boarded our plane to Las Vegas. No, that is not where he took me for the honeymoon! It was just our layover to Maui. ::grin::




For the next six days, we

• slept,
• swam in the ocean,
• picnicked on the beach,
• slept on the beach (see below)

• built a sandfortress (no castles for us),
• watched movies (Hitch, Fever Pitch, The Maltese Falcon, Thank You for Smoking),
• read (Evangelicals in the Public Square, Total Truth, The New York Times Magazine, and Blueprint--the subscription to which was a wedding gift from Mr. Miller), and
• discussed the first two chapters of Genesis and brainstormed ideas of how to implement a pre-Industrial Revolution model of the family in our home.

Our condo had a kitchen so Mr. Miller indulged my long-suppressed home-maker sentiments and allowed me to cook for him frequently. We enjoyed all our breakfasts on our back patio overlooking the beach.

Our Condo (we stayed on the 8th floor)

Breakfast is Served

The Eager Eater

Mr. Miller also tutored me in college basketball. We made a NCAA bracket and watched portions of several games. Go Wisconsin! (So, our bracket didn't work out very well...)

We dined our final night at an open-air restaurant in Lahaina. We enjoyed mai tais, fresh Ahi tuna, crab cakes, sweet peas, and many, many kisses!