Counterfeit Gods

Counterfeit Gods 1
Counterfeit Gods 2
Counterfeit Gods 3

Counterfeit treadmill: How we turn good things into false gods

Two books about idolatry—one old, one new—are well worth reading. Herbert Schlossberg's Idols for Destruction (1983) is a scholarly look at the idols many of us worship: money, power, nature, humanitarianism. . . . Tim Keller's Counterfeit Gods (2009) is a pastoral look at the idols many of us worship a quarter-century later: money, power, sex, moral excellence. . . .

Schlossberg concluded that only Christianity could overcome the envious spirit that waters the poisonous plants of secular politics and socialism. Keller concludes that the human heart is an idol factory that takes not only bad stuff but "good things like a successful career, love, material possessions, even family, and turns them into ultimate things."

Idols for Destruction, although some of its specific examples are dated, is like a course in macroeconomics that illuminates our society's performance, structure, and behavior. Counterfeit Gods, with examples from the Bible that remain perpetually new, is like a course in microeconomics that shows us how we make decisions to allocate our limited time on this earth—and often make mistakes.

Keller himself tells his own story of how he fell victim to idolatry by taking something good and making it ultimate, as he tried to become the perfect pastor, bearing all burdens and turning down help: "It wasn't until I began to search my heart with the Biblical category of idolatry that I made the horrendous discovery that all my supposed sacrifices were just a series of selfish actions. I was using people in order to forge my own self-appreciation. I was looking to my sacrificial ministry to give me the sense of 'righteousness before God' that should only come from Jesus Christ."

Keller writes, "We think that idols are bad things, but that is almost never the case. The greater the good, the more likely we are to expect that it can satisfy our deepest needs and hopes." That got me thinking about my two decades of involvement with WORLD and my continued delight in every issue that comes out. In this way only, I identify with William Randolph Hearst, who a century ago would put his newspaper on the floor and with his toes turn pages, doing what one sub-editor called "a tap dance around and between them" as he relished what he saw.

I especially enjoy meeting our terrific subscribers. So many say such kind things, all of which I like to think are true. My self-image is that of humble cracker-barrel philosopher to the nation, genially dispensing Bible-based wisdom. I've been writing in WORLD about my pilgrim's progress from atheism to Christian thinking, one episode at a time, always encouraged to continue by emails and comments, always thinking that the story is about God's mercy and not me.

Then something happened to a quotation thrown into the last issue's episode as an amusing example of a Manhattan-centric attitude: A New York foundation president had told me, "If you go to Texas, no one will hear of you again." To my surprise and chagrin, that quotation appeared in big type taking up a third of a page—and since I haven't vanished, it looked like bragging. I saw the big type after WORLD had already gone to press, and I was nauseated at the thought of having 120,000 copies opened over the coming week with that on a page. What would WORLD subscribers think? It would ruin my image.

Keller realized that he was being self-righteous rather than Christ-dependent. Counterfeit Gods helped me to realize that I was doing the same. Did that big-type shock expose my desire to win praise for humility? Had I turned WORLD and my reputation into idols?

A good book helps us to ask ourselves hard questions. This has been a hard page to write, but if it helps you to ask yourself a hard question—What good things in my life are becoming idols?—it's been worthwhile.

The Exercise Option: Who Knew?

The first study using exercise as an effective tool to combat ADHD was done more than 30 years ago. Why are we just discovering it now? Because the information never got out. That raises questions about the role of patient advocacy groups—especially when those groups are partly funded by drug companies.

The nation's leading ADHD advocacy organization, CHADD (Children and Adults with ADHD), supports more than 200 local chapters across the country, works with local school systems and acts as a national clearinghouse for information about ADHD. Because Ritalin is such a useful drug in managing the disorder, it's no surprise that CHADD would tout its benefits. But the relationship between the advocacy organization and the company that manufactures the drug has made some observers uncomfortable. In the late 1990s, CHADD lobbied the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to reclassify Ritalin as a Schedule III drug, which would make it easier to obtain and refill prescriptions. (The FDA declined to change Ritalin's status.)

At the time, Ritalin's manufacturer, Ciba-Geigy, which is now part of the Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis, supported CHADD's efforts with cash. According to a 1995 report by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Ciba- Geigy contributed $748,000 to CHADD from 1991 to 1994, a relationship that was not well known to most within the ADHD community. The DEA noted that in 1993 and 1994, when Ciba-Geigy warned of an impending Ritalin shortage, CHADD went on a media blitz, raising fears of empty prescription bottles in interviews and in letters to Congress. "The relationship between Ciba-Geigy and CHADD," wrote DEA officials, "raises serious concerns about CHADD's motive in proselytizing the use of Ritalin..."

The DEA was also alarmed about the treatment of Ritalin in CHADD literature, where it was "routinely portrayed as a benign, mild stimulant that is not associated with abuse or serious side effects. In reality, however, there is an abundance of scientific literature which indicates that [Ritalin] shares the same abuse potential as other Schedule II stimulants."

Since those concerns were raised, CHADD officials say they've created a firewall between its financial donors and its informational and advocacy work. "It's not unlike a newspaper, which takes advertisements but reports the news in an objective way," says CHADD spokesman Bryan Goodman. The group's income sources are now posted on CHADD's website (chadd.org). Contributions from pharmaceutical companies continue to be a big part of the organization's budget. Over the past five years, the major ADHD drug manufacturers—Novartis (which makes Ritalin), Shire (Adderall), McNeil (Concerta) and UCB (Metadate)—have contributed a total of more than $1 million each year, accounting for more than one-quarter of CHADD's annual budget.

But CHADD doesn't entirely exclude alternative treatments. The group's bimonthly magazine, Additude, ran one of the few articles about Michael Wendt's exercise research in 2002, and last year published material on Spark author John Ratey in "Beyond Meds," a special report on complementary approaches to ADD treatment. "You can't just say, 'Medicate the child and everything will be okay,'" Goodman says. "If you decide medication is right for you, it has to be part of a whole host of treatment options."

Women and Ministry, by Tim & Kathy Keller

Introduction

The Debate in the Church

Redeemer is committed to a high view of Scripture. We believe that, unless the Bible is God's word to us, we live without any real moral authority. "Right" and "wrong" would then become matters of personal taste or popular opinion. We would not really be able to talk of justice or truth at all, for there is no way to know objective truth.

Today, many people charge that the church and traditional Christianity are oppressive to women, denying them the right to the full use of their gifts in ministry. Many claim additionally that the Bible in general (and Paul in particular) is specifically guilty of this unjust treatment of women. These are extremely serious issues, especially for Redeemer Presbyterian. We are committed to the authority of the Bible and also to the liberation of all Christians to use their gifts in ministry.

The following paper represents many years of reflection, discussion, experimentation and practice. It is not an exegetical paper, studying passages in detail. It will, we hope, serve as a foundational paper for future patterns of women's ministry in the life of our congregation.

The Problem of 'Objectivity"

I (Tim) recognize that it may seem easy for me to talk in an objective, studied way about what this or that verse means about this subject. I have had women say to me in the midst of such a discussion, "For you this is a discussion, but for me this is my life you're messing with!" I realize my disadvantage. But please realize that neither men nor women can come to Scripture "objectively". Both men and women will find it difficult to hear God's voice clearly and to submit to God's authority. But only when we do can we even begin to submit to one another.

The Problem of Divisions

The divisions among evangelical Christians over this issue are very tragic. For many centuries, the church did not let the Scripture lead it away from the general oppression of women conducted by society. The church should have seen that the Bible does not teach the inferiority of women. Now, we fear, the fruit of the church's sin are coming home to it.

We live in an era of tension. In many churches, a particular view of women-in-ministry has become a basis for fellowship. Sometimes the message is: "though we believe in the Scripture, in Jesus as the Son of God, the need for repentance and faith in order to be born again, the importance of spreading the kingdom through the ministry of the Holy Spirit—if you don't share my view of women-in-ministry, there's the door!" Some 15 years ago, we would have entered the Presbyterian Church USA to minister, but we were told that our view of women-in-ministry precluded us from serving there. Though we would have worked beside people with different views, those on the other side of the fence would not work with us.

We do not want that to be the case at Redeemer. If you hold a view that differs from church policy or of the personal approach of the pastor, you should not feel bound to leave. We know what it was like to be "disfellowshipped" over this issue once! We will not do it to anyone else.

The Trinitarian Pattern

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of woman man, and the head of Christ is God.” -1 Corinthians 11:3
Here Paul says that the man is the "head" of the woman. But what does that mean?

1. Biblical headship involves servanthood.

Let's look at the two analogies. First, Christ's headship of man is clearly one of authority (there is submission), and yet his authority is expressed through sacrificial service. He discovers our needs and meets them. "Christ did not please himself", therefore we must "please our neighbor for his good, to build him up" (Romans 15:2-3). A "head’s" job is to use authority to please, to meet needs, to serve.

2. Biblical headship involves voluntary, respectful submission between equals.

The second analogy is critical: "the head of Christ is God". Whereas Christ is of a higher order of being than human beings, the Father and the Son are equal in power, greatness and dignity. The Son is not inferior to the Father all. This second analogy proves that "headship" does not imply superiority. Philippians 2:6 tells us that the Son was equal to the Father, but voluntarily took on a subordinate role, obeying the Father. He did this to accomplish our salvation.

What do we conclude about "headship" from the Christ-to-mankind and God-to-Christ analogies?

3."Headship" is something given by one person to another. The giver is equal to the receiver: the receiver has a real and final authority, but uses it only to serve and please and build up the giver.

The traditionalist misunderstanding

What does it mean, then, when Paul says (when discussing the role of women in the church) "the head of the woman is man?” There is a traditional view that comes to Scripture with a prejudice. It believes that women are inferior in many ways, unfit for leadership. This leads to all sorts of conclusions: "it means women should stay home, should not have careers, should not take jobs of leadership, and so on." This view looks to the first analogy of headship (Christ and man) but not the second one (the Father and the Son), where there is no inferiority at all. Men and women are both given the mandate to rule the earth (Genesis 1:28), and they are joint-heirs in God's grace (I Peter 3:7; Galalatians.3:28). Even here in I Corinthians 11 Paul makes it clear that there is equality of being. In v.8, he points out that Eve came from Adam, so "woman was created for man, not man for woman". Yet in v. 11-12, he points out that each human male is born of a woman, so "man is not independent of woman". Man should not lord it over women with his authority, since "everything comes from God". All authority is derivative from God and partial. We exercise authority only as an act of submission to God.

The feminist misunderstanding

But others come to Paul's statement on headship and try to ignore it. Some say, "Paul only means that Eve came out of Adam". Many interpreters point out that the Greek meaning of "head" {kephale) means "source", not "authority". Virtually all evangelical feminist interpreters make this point. The problem is that, while Christ did create humankind, God did not create Christ. He was not the "source". A survey of 2,336 example of the use of kephale in Greek literature reveals only two times that it is used as "source" and not "authority". Actually, Paul probably means kephale in both senses. In I Corinthians 11:8 he says, "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." There the two are combined. Paul grounds male headship in creation, while in I Corinthians 11:3 he grounds it in the Trinity.

Evangelical feminist interpreters also point out that Paul told slaves to submit to their masters and also told wives to submit to their husbands. Isn’t it (the reasoning goes) natural to assume that, just as slavery has gone by the boards with time, that female submission should as well? The difficulty is Paul's basis. Does Paul ever say: "slaves, obey your masters because of the way you were created?" Does Paul ever ground the basis for slave-master submission in the nature of creation or in the nature of the Trinity? Many feminists say that Paul was simply accommodating himself to the times. But the relationship of man to woman in Paul is not based on customs of the times but the relationships within the Trinity itself.

The evangelical feminists do not come to the Scripture "neutrally" (who does?). They come with this conviction:

"Many Christians thus speak of a wife's being equal to her husband in personhood, but subordinate in function. However, this is just playing word games and is a contradiction in terms. Equality and subordination are contradictions.'-L Scanzoni and N. Hardesty. All We're Meant to Be (Word, 1974), p. 110

This crucial statement is completely at odds with the God-Christ analogy. Christ was equal with the Father, yet took a submissive, subordinate role. It ignores the I Corinthians 11:3 definition of headship, just as does the traditionalist.

The biblical pattern of headship is neither the traditional nor the feminist. The feminist rejects the idea that subordination can ever co-exist with equality (though this is the basis of the trinity's relationship). The traditionalist believes that subordination assumes inequality. So both of these groups agree! They reject the biblical concept of headship as inconsistent.

Now let's see how the Trinitarian pattern of rule-and-submission-among-equals works itself out in marriage, in society in general, and in the church.

The Pattern In Marriage

1. A head may never use authority to please self.

In marriage, wives are told to give headship to their husbands (Ephesians 5:21 ff.) This does not mean that the man simply can make all the decisions nor does it mean that he gets his way whenever there is a difference of opinion. Why? A "head" may never overrule his spouse simply to get his way or please himself (Romans.15:2-3). A head sacrifices his wants and needs to please and build up his partner (Ephesians 5:2ff.).

2.Headship is “tie-breaking” authority.

Well, since this is also true of the wife (Ephesians 5:21 -"submit to one another," then what is the difference? A head only exercises authority to over-rule when he believes his spouse is doing something destructive to her or the family. In a marriage, where there are only two "votes", now will the stalemate be broken in cases where there is not just a difference in taste or preference, but in cases where both parties believe the other is seriously mistaken? There can be no unity unless one person has the right to cast the deciding "vote". That person knows that, along with this "right' comes the greatest accountability and responsibility.

The Bible directs that a wife, when she marries, give that "right/responsibility" freely to her husband. The husband realizes that ordinarily, his authority does not take the form of "over-ruling''—in fact, the servant-model directs the "head" to usually put aside his own tastes and preferences in deference to pleasing his spouse. But when there is a "hung jury", and it is critical for one person to take both leadership and responsibility, the “head's” service takes the form of initiation. He leads by over-ruling.

3. Why do men and women have these callings?

It is fairly obvious that the need for "tie-breaking authority" is necessary in a marriage partnership. But why does God direct in his Word that it go to the man? Many people struggle the most with this very point. If they cannot see a practical reason for a command of God, they hesitate to commit to it.

We must reject the traditional rationale.

The traditionalist says: "Women must submit because women aren’t fit for making decisions, for leadership." But many couples will admit that the wife is more decisive and has better judgement than the husband. Besides, the Bible no where gives that as a reason.

Our likeness to the Trinity.

The "reason" given by the Bible is simply that man-and-woman were made in the image of the Triune God. Women are called to follow Christ, who voluntarily subordinated himself in response to the Father's call. To put this in perspective, let’s ask this question: "Why was Christ the one who gave up authority to become subordinate? Why did Christ answer the call from the Father to give away authority?" We don’t know, but if anything, it is a mark of his greatness, not his weakness! A case could be made, then, that women have this calling because they are greater than men!

4. The Biblical pattern calls both parties to submit.

Many godly couples have come to realize, then, that the Biblical pattern is equally difficult for both parties. The woman and the man both must submit first of all to their roles, their call from God.

Society traditionally gave to men the authority to over-rule their spouses for their own pleasure. But the Bible's "headship" authority is quite different, we have seen. As a result, many Christian men would gladly give up "tie-breaking", servant authority to their wives. They don’t like the heavy responsibility for service and self-denial that "headship" brings.

On the other hand, many women would gladly take the authority themselves, because they see how men abuse it, just as God predicted (Gen. 3:16). But both must struggle to submit to God's call.

5. Tapping into the mystery.

When a Christian couple does so submit, however, they do so because God's Word directs them to. And after years of practice, they begin to see that this pattern somehow gets them in touch with something deep within them. Neither is demanding submission from one another, but after first submitting to God they are enabled to submit to one another's needs. It makes them both strong and tender, bringing them to serve one another yet in different ways.

Woman was created as a "helper” (Genesis 2). This word indicates no weakness at all, but complementary strength. In the Bible, God is our Help. A helper is someone who can help because he or she is stronger than the one being helped. For example, I can help my son with his homework because I know more than he. On the other hand, if I do his homework for him, I have stopped using my strength as a helper. In the same way, women have inherent strengths, insight and endurance and adaptability that men do not generally have. Women "help" their husbands through a willing submission through strength.

Mysterious it is! Real "masculinity" is full of tenderness and real "femininity" is full of strength. But they are still different from one another in many indefinable ways. Submission to God's pattern for marriage gradually gets you back in touch with these deep truths and you begin to discover your true self.

The Pattern In Society

The next logical question is: "is every man the head over every woman?" Paul's statement might lend itself to that conclusion, but the Bible's testimony is otherwise.

1. Women achieve leadership in society.

Even in ancient Israel, at a time where women in society were the property of their husbands or fathers, women were endued with unusual power in civil affairs. For example, women could not inherit property in those days. Yet, God specifically dictated that daughters could inherit the property of their father (Numbers 27:8). Also, Deborah eventually became the political leader, the "president" of Israel (Judges 4). There is no indication that she was acting illegally or extraordinarily.

There is therefore no indication that women in general society need to defer to men. Women can be executives, presidents of banks, or the president of a country. Does this seem inconsistent? Why would the Bible insist on a Trinitarian pattern in marriage, but ignore it in society?

Again, we must speculate a bit, because the Bible does not answer all of these "why" questions. One good possibility, however, may lay in the Biblical basis for democracy.

2. Democracy is for society while rule-submission is for our spiritual lives.

Christians are for democracy because we believe in sin. Many folk believe in it for the opposite reason. Rousseau believed in democracy because he thought that people were so wise and good that no one is fit to be a slave. Of course, Christians wish for no one to be a slave, but we believe democracy is good because no one is fit to be a master!

Because of sin, people misuse absolute authority. Thus it is clear that monarchy, wise and good kings, would be a form of government that very much fits the Trinitarian pattern. God is a King, not a President, and our spiritual lives are based on monarchy. So why don’t we have Kings? The answer is that we have to abolish monarchy due to sin. We have to treat all people as equal.

C.S. Lewis explains the Christian view of equality:

This introduces a view of equality rather different from that in which we have been trained. I do not think that equality is one of those things (like wisdom or joy) which are good simply in themselves and for their own sakes. L think it is in the same class as medicine, which is good because we are ill, or clothes which are good because we are no longer innocent. I don’t think the old authority of kings, priests, husbands, or fathers, and the old obedience of subjects, laymen, wives, and children was in itself a degrading or evil thing at all. I think it was intrinsically good and beautiful as the nakedness of Adam and Eve. It was rightly taken away because men became bad and abused it. To attempt to restore it now would be the same error as that of the Nudists. Legal and economic equality are absolutely necessary remedies for the Fall. and protection against cruelty.

When equality is treated not as a medicine or safety-gadget but as an absolute ideal, we begin to breed that stunted and envious sort of mind that hates all superiority. That mind is the special disease of democracies, just as cruelty and servility are the special diseases of monarchies. It will kill us if it grows unchecked. The man who cannot conceive of a joyful and loyal obedience on the one hand, nor an unembarrassed and noble acceptance of obedience on the other, the man who has never even wanted to kneel or bow, is a prosaic barbarian. There are men whose taproot to Eden has been cut: whom no rumor of the polyphony, the dance, can reach—men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where we are forbidden to honor a king, we honor millionaires, athletes, film-stars, even famous prostitutes and gangsters. For our spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.

We must wear clothes since the Fall. Yes, but inside, under what Milton called these troublesome disguises", we want the naked body, on proper occasions, to appear. It is still so in the marriage-chamber. In the same way, under the necessary outer 'covering" of legal equality, the whole hierarchical dance and harmony of our deep and joyously accepted spiritual differences should be alive. It is there when, as Christians, as laymen, we can obey the priest all the more because the priest has no authority over us on the political level. It is there in our relation to parents and teachers—all the more because it is now a willed and wholly spiritual reverence.

It should also be there in marriage. Husbands have so horribly abused their power over women that to women, of all people, equality is in danger of appearing as an absolute ideal. Naomi Mitchison speaks of women so fostered on the defiant idea of equality that the mere sensation of the male embrace rouses an undercurrent of resentment. This is the tragi-comedy of the modem woman; taught by Freud to consider the act of love the most important thing in life, and then inhibited by feminism from that internal surrender which alone can make it a complete emotional success.

This whole question is of immense practical importance. Every intrusion of the spirit that says, ‘I’m as good as you’ into our family and spiritual life is to be resisted as jealously as every intrusion of bureaucracy or privilege into our politics. Let us wear equality, but let us undress at night.”

In summary, the pattern of rule-and-submission is greatly muted in society because of sin. People abuse authority, so politically, all authority must be elected authority—and all individuals must have access to places of authority.

The Pattern In The Church

When we come to Scriptural teaching on women-in-the-church, we discover again a different pattern. Unlike in marriage, all women do not submit to all men. But unlike society, there is a Trinitarian pattern. It is not muted.

On the one hand, women are clearly partners with men in ministry. The Christian church is far ahead of Judaism and pagan religions in this.

Women were full members of the covenant community (Acts 1:14). They were deaconesses (I Timothy 3:11; Romans 16:2); this meant they were ministry leaders, initiating and supervising ministries. It is wrong, therefore, to say that women cannot be area directors in para-church ministries, or to say that women cannot lead evangelistic, discipling, educational, or teaching ministries. Tabitha (Acts 9:30) was a leader of mercy ministry to the poor, while Euodia and Syntyche (Philippians 4:2,3) were Paul's evangelistic associates. Priscilla discipled and instructed Apollos (Acts 18:26) and led a house church (Romans 16:4,5). As in the Old Testament (Exodus 15), women were prophets and did prophesy. They spoke and prayed in public worship (I Corinthians 11:5).

It appears from this that there are no ministry gifts nor ministries that are forbidden to women. And yet, Paul draws some limits.

The office of elder is forbidden to women.

Elders are to be men (1 Timothy 3:1-3). In 1 Timothy 2:11, Paul forbids women to "teach or have authority" over men. In 1 Corinthians 14:35-36, women are not to take part in determining whether a teacher is teaching sound doctrine. (Note: Paul's command for women to "keep silent in church" cannot mean that they may never speak publicly. That would contradict I Corinthians 11 where women are told to pray and prophesy. It means they are to keep silent when the prophets are judged.)

Elders are leaders who admit or dismiss people from the church, and they do "quality control" of members' doctrine. These are the only things that elders exclusively can do. Others can teach, disciple, serve, witness.

There are a number of qualifications for this office—God must call and give elder gifts. When the congregation elects elders, it is not to elect people it likes, but people God has gifted along the lines of 1 Timothy 3:1ff. Most men and all women do not qualify and will never be elders. It is not something they can attain through hard work. It is a calling from God the King.

Why does God call certain ones? Because they are inherently more worthy? That has never been the case. It is the same question: why did the Father rule while the Son submitted? The answer is that both were great and wise persons who did not resent the submission-and-rule pattern but rejoiced in it.

Does exclusion from the eldership mean that women are inherently unfit for leadership? The only thing we can conclude is that women do not fit this particular kind of leadership. Consider the types of leaders in Israel. There were prophets, kings, priests, and elders. Though kings had physical, political power over the priests and elders and prophets, they could not take over their duties. Saul, for example, was forbidden from doing priestly work, offering sacrifices.

Women were prophets and also were heads of state (a queen-Attialiah, and a judge-Deborah). On the other hand women could not be priests or elders. Not only were women precluded from the priesthood, but all men not of the tribe of Levi. Was God being arbitrary? No, he was acting like a King. He called some people into some kinds of leadership and precluded other people from other kinds. Sometimes the preclusion was done on the basis of gender, other times on the basis of nationality. All people gladly submitted to his Lordship if they understood his rights over them.

Women and non-elder males can use any and all spiritual gifts in ministry.

Though the job of elder is a high calling, every believer is a "prophet, priest, and king". All non-elders in the church must and can use their gifts in the church, whatever they are.
In a nutshell, our position is this: whatever a non-ruling elder male can do in the church, a woman can do. We do not believe that I Timothy 2:11 or I Corinthians 14:35-36 precludes women teaching the Bible to men or speaking publicly. To "teach with authority" (I Timothy 2:11) refers to disciplinary authority over the doctrine of someone. For example, when an elder says to a member: "You are telling everyone that they must be circumcised in order to be saved—that is a destructive, non-Biblical teaching which is hurting people spiritually. You must desist from it or you will have to leave the church." That is "teaching authority"—it belongs only to the elders.

Thus, women at Redeemer will be free to use all the gifts, privately and publicly. There are no restrictions on ministry at all. There is a restriction on the office of elder. Why? Because the Bible precludes it, and therein it points us back to the Trinitarian pattern which is strong in marriage and muted in society, but which is practiced in the church.

Aren't Paul’s prohibitions to women in authority specific instructions just for those local church situations?

Evangelical feminists have for years recognized the difficulty of denying Paul's prelusions to women and yet maintaining a high view of Biblical authority. There are two ways they have argued:

1. First, they say we must distinguish between absolute norms and circumstantial advice, instruction given only to some churches at some time. Paul's advice about women and authority has only to do with particular churches at that time.

The serious problem with this view is that everything Paul wrote he wrote to specific situations. All his writings were letters, not theological essays. When we hear Paul say, "In Christ there is no Jew and Greek, no male and female,” he has written it to Galatians who are embroiled in a particular problem. When he says, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" in I Timothy, he is speaking to a man (Timothy) whose job it was to plant churches and set up an organizational structure. 1 Timothy is all about how to appoint elders and deacons, how churches are to function. If anything, I Timothy 2:12 could be said to be a general principle in a book of general principles about how churches are to be operated!

But our point here is that even 1 Timothy is a particular letter to a particular situation. Everything Paul teaches is to a specific situation. To distinguish between "timeless" and "temporary" is to set up a "canon within a canon", and one based on your own opinion. In fact, if the ordination of women is a "justice issue", then surely to preclude women from speaking or having authority in even one church would be horribly wrong. This leads us to the second approach.

2. The second way for evangelical feminists to respond to Paul is to frankly admit he was in error.

This is the position of virtually all folks who favor women's ordination to all offices.
Feminist interpreters continually point out that there are ambiguities and difficulties in the passages on women. What does it mean that "because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head” (I Corinthians 11:11)? Or "women will be saved through childbearing" (I Timothy 2:15)? By bringing up these difficulties, it is often implied that "these are difficult passages and who knows what they really mean?" But actually, Paul's basic points are extremely clear. Hardly anyone doubts that Paul meant to exclude women from ruling office. So, the real question is: how do we regard his view?

The basic answer of evangelical feminists is: he was wrong. Usually, this kind of blunt statement is avoided in print, but it is everywhere assumed. One of the first evangelicals who wrote in favor of women's ordination was the most frank:

Because these two perspectives—the Jewish and the Christian-are incompatible, there is no satisfying way to harmonize the Pauline argument for female subordination [which Jewett considers "Jewish"] with the larger Christian vision of which the great apostle himself was the primary architect. (P.Jewett, Man as Male and Female, p.113)

In other words, Paul's teaching on women cannot be avoided. It is there. But it is wrong, contradicting the rest of the Bible. We are, then, really back to the same thing-a "canon within a canon", set up arbitrarily, determining which parts of Scripture are "higher, and purer" and which parts are backward, retrogressive. If Scripture alone is our final authority, where we get a standard for judging Scripture?

Virginia Mollenkott, an evangelical feminist, gives great insight into how it was necessary to change a view of Scripture to accommodate women's ordination. In an interview with The Other Side magazine (TOS) she tells how she was speaking at a conference with Paul Jewett and others on women in the church.

Mollenkott: Anyway, the night before Jewett spoke, some of us had a long and painful private meeting. We were discussing whether he dared say his thing on the Pauline self- contradictions. We decided he didn’t dare to because it would jeopardize the job of the person who had set up the conference. So Jewett retreated into what is the safe thing to do: that is, talk about Jesus' behavior...
TOS: If we interpret the Old Testament by the New, we have some sort of criterion for the Old Testament. But how do we tell in Paul? If his teaching about women is merely cultural, then maybe what he says about justification is, too....
Mollenkott: It seems to me that at this point we have to rely on good, careful scholarly exegesis. We have to place passages in context... We have to pay attention to word choice, literary form...
TOS: But...your approach will help us find out what a passage means, but so far you haven’t said much that I can see which helps me pick out what passages are true. In literature it is one process to determine what something means and quite another to determine if it’s true...Now how can I tell which are records of errors and which are normative?
Mollenkott: When we find a passage, a spirit which runs all the way through the Bible-at that point I know which one is for all time and which one for the hardness of our hearts. Another guideline is the analogy of what Jesus said and did. If something doesn’t fit the life and teaching of Jesus, again I know which is for all time...
TOS: I am gradually moving toward your position...But if l wind up where you are, l am seriously considering resigning from The Other Side. Our stance has been to call America and the church back to the Bible. It seems to me that calling people to that is one very important thing which accepting your position makes hand to do. Maybe I should just clear out and go work for some less evangelical magazine...
Mollenkott: I don’t think you should do that....I think before long many, many evangelicals will come along toward a more scholarly approach to Scripture...Let the rest have their iron maiden of a definition of inspiration which they use to oppress other people. Let them declare themselves as fundamentalists. Let's the rest of us get on with the job”. The Other Side. May/June 1976

This interview does show that it requires a shift in one's view of Scripture to work around Paul's limitations on women's authority in the church. Moltenkott says that we can choose the normative from relative passages on two criterion:

1) If a teaching is repeated more often in the Bible, an apparently contradictory one can be rejected if it appears less often, or

2) if a teaching contradicts the life and teaching of Jesus, it can be rejected.

These criterion do not work, if you hope to find Biblical support for the ordination of women! Consider the first criterion. In the Old Testament, God is the "husband" of Israel, who is the "wife". In the New Testament, Christ is the "husband" of the church as we are the "bride" of Christ. When God wishes to express his loving authority over us he depicts us as feminine and himself as masculine. This is a repeated, broad-based Biblical theme, throughout. All believers are "feminine" toward God, for we give ourselves in surrender to him. See Romans 7:1-6. By putting ourselves in his arms, he bears his fruit into the world through our bodies.

And consider the second criterion: Jesus' life and ministry. Not one of his apostles was female. Feminists are quick to point out that he was adapting to his culture. But now they are doing the same thing to Jesus that they did with Paul. What really is the standard, now, by which we judge Jesus? If women's ordination is a real justice issue, can we excuse our Lord on the basis of cultural pressure? Was he the type of person to succumb to popular opinion?

We feel that there is a deep inconsistency in the phrase "evangelical feminism". The feminists who are consistent recognize the Bible as a sexist book throughout. They reject it. The feminists who try to hold to complete Biblical authority have, really, an impossible balancing act to conduct.

The Pattern At Redeemer Presbyterian Church

On the basis of the above position paper, how will women function in ministry at Redeemer Presbyterian church?

Leadership structure at Redeemer Presbyterian.

We hope to have two boards of officers: elders and deacons/deaconesses.

The Deaconesses themselves.

The Deaconesses will be women elected by the congregation who will do discipling, counseling, and shepherding in the church, particularly among the women. Spiritual maturity is the qualification. They will probably also exercise a teaching ministry in the church, depending on their gifts.

The Deaconesses and the Deacons.

Together with the deacons, they will equip and guide people into ministry in the church. At Redeemer we want to help laypeople begin and conduct ministries. Deacons and Deaconesses will do this together.

The Deaconesses and the Elders.

The church will continue to have broad-based planning and strategizing. Deaconesses will serve on planning/oversight committees (e.g. evangelism, education, worship) with other officers and non-officers. Deaconesses could chair such a committee if the group so elects. Also, the Elders, Deacons, and Deaconesses will meet regularly for strategy and oversight of the church. In matters of discipline and doctrine, the elders have the final say-they have "tie-breaking authority"! Also, the elders represent the church at denominational meetings. But deaconesses will sit in positions of influence and will have regular part (along with many women on program committees) into the strategizing and decision-making process of the church.

The real challenge will not be to create a structure, but to create a climate in which men and women truly work together as equal ministry partners in the church, still recognizing the principle of male headship in the eldership. Will we really let women lead ministries? Will we really release women's gifts to witness, nurture, and serve in the church? Will we incorporate the wisdom of all the mature Christians into the planning of the church? Or will we have a paternalistic attitude which in thousands of subtle ways puts women down and does not listen to their advice or concerns? That remains to be seen! But that is our goal—to create a community that even non-believing feminists recognize as not oppressive, yet one that honors the Biblical distinction between the genders.

Conclusion

We know from experience that our position on women-in-ministry dissatisfies many people. Many friends from the traditional evangelical church find it far too "liberal" and "permissive", while many other friends on the other side still feel it is oppressive. Our position is not totally unique. See J. Hurley's book, Man and Women in Biblical Perspective or Susan Foh's book, Women and the Word of God. They come close to where we are.

The fact remains that nearly everyone we meet is more "conservative" or else more "liberal” than we are. Thus we appeal to our friends to work with us on this. We do not to make this issue a cause of division, as we said above. We see no reason why friends with the same view of the Bible cannot work together, all the while influencing each other and refining one another's viewpoint in order to become truly Biblical. Please be partners with us.

In U.S., Majority Now Say Obama’s Policies "Mostly Liberal"

Fewer than half believe he has kept his election promises

The Economics of a GOP Gubernatorial Sweep

By Larry Kudlow

Against the backdrop of high unemployment and a public revolt against a Democratic health-care bill -- which would significantly increase taxes, slash Medicare spending, and massively raise health-care spending elsewhere in a government takeover of our leading growth sector -- the Republicans swept the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial races.

It's interesting that early signs of economic recovery are not helping the Obama Democrats. This is largely because of the 9.8 percent unemployment rate, which is expected to move higher. Even the crazy jobs-saved-or-created campaign is having no discernable impact while the Obamacons try to fight the unemployment rate.

If you go to recovery.gov, the official stimulus website, you'll find that there has been $207 billion in stimulus spending through Oct. 30, 2009 -- including $84 billion in tax benefits, $52 billion in contract grants and loans, and $71 billion in entitlements. So even if we give my friend Jared Bernstein his highly flawed "1 million jobs saved or created," that's $207,000 per job in an economy where the average wage is about $46,000. Not good. Wasteful and ineffectual spending. (In reality, tax credits are spending. For incentivizing, you need marginal tax-rate cuts.)

Mike Flynn of Breitbart's biggovernment.com notes that the government pumped $170 billion into the third-quarter economy. But gross domestic product grew by only $150 billion. As I said, ineffectual spending.

That doesn't meant the economy isn't rebounding. It is. Glitches and all, third-quarter GDP popped up 3.5 percent at an annual rate after inflation. Statistically, the recession is over. That's good. And it corroborates the big stock market rally over the past seven months. This is going to be a business-led recovery as self-correcting firms build profits on top of huge cash flows.

Yesterday's ISM manufacturing report for October also confirms the growth trend with a recovery reading of 55.7, the strongest since April 2006. And this morning's factory orders for September also show a stronger-than-expected gain. Even car sales are expected to rise in October by more than 10 million, at least 1 million better than September. Ford, which refused to take TARP bailout money, reported a surprise increase in profits.

But the depreciating dollar remains a storm cloud over recovery. So are scheduled tax-rate increases and health care legislation that will slam individuals and firms with higher tax burdens and higher tax costs for job creation.

And then there's the Federal Reserve. With gold up another $25 -- setting a new nominal record of $1,079 -- the Fed released a policy statement Wednesday that continues a program of massive money-pumping and a zero interest rate.

This whole Obama policy mix of huge government spending and a depreciating greenback is all wrong. It's pro-inflation, not pro-growth. For a true economic recovery, we need a stable King Dollar and lower marginal tax rates to incentivize job creation.

Jimmy Pethokoukis and others have noted that the first recovery quarter under Ronald Reagan was better than 8 percent, not 3.5 percent. In fact, the average real GDP growth rate for the first quarter of the 10 postwar recoveries is 7.3 percent.

So the economic-recovery story, and even the stock market rally, won't bail out the Obamacons today, although it remains to be seen whether a free-market, anti-tax-and-spend message will emerge from the election sweep by the GOP. If so, it could doom the so-called health care reform that has become a symbol of the leftward-tilting, big-government, economic-control policies emanating from Washington.

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC's The Kudlow Report and co-host of The Call. He is also a former Reagan economic advisor and a syndicated columnist. Visit his blog, Kudlow's Money Politics.

The Double Standard About Journalists' Bias

By John Stossel

I made The New York Times last week. It even ran my picture. My mother would be proud.

Unfortunately, the story was critical. It said, "Critics have leaped on Mr. Stossel's speaking engagements as the latest evidence of conservative bias on the part of Fox."

Which "critics" had "leaped"? The reporter mentioned Rachel Maddow. I wouldn't think her criticism newsworthy, but Times reporters may use MSNBC as their guide to life. He also quoted an "associate professor of journalism" who said my speeches were "'pretty shameful' by traditional journalistic standards." All this because I spoke at an event for Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a "conservative advocacy group."

It is odd that this is a news story. In August, AFP hired me to do the very same thing. I give the money to charity. The Times didn't call that "shameful."

But in August, I worked for ABC News. Now, I work for Fox. Hmmm.

It reminds me of something that happened earlier in my career.

I was one of America's first TV consumer reporters. I approached the job with an attitude. If companies ripped people off, I would embarrass them on TV -- and demand that government do something. (I now regret the latter -- the former was a good thing.)

I clearly had a point of view: I was a crusader out to punish corporate bullies. My colleagues liked it. I got job offers. I won 19 Emmys. I was invited to speak at journalism conferences.

Then, gradually, I figured out that business, for the most part, treats consumers pretty well. The way to get rich in business is to create something good, sell it for a reasonable price, acquire a reputation for honesty and keep pleasing customers so they come back for more.

As a local TV reporter, I could find plenty of crooks. But once I got to the national stage -- "20/20" and "Good Morning America" -- it was hard to find comparable national scams. There were some: Enron, Bernie Madoff, etc. But they are rare. In a $14 trillion economy, you'd think there'd be more. But there aren't.

I figured out why: Market forces, even when hampered by government, keep scammers in check. Reputation matters. Word gets out. Good companies thrive, and bad ones atrophy. Regulation barely deters the cheaters, but competition does.

It made me want to learn more about free markets. I subscribed to Reason magazine and read Cato Institute research papers. Then Milton Friedman, Friedrich Hayek and Aaron Wildavsky.

My reporting changed. I started taking skeptical looks at government -- especially regulation. I did an ABC TV special, "Are We Scaring You to Death?" that said we TV reporters often make hysterical claims about chemicals, pollution and other relatively minor risks. Its good ratings -- 16 million viewers -- surprised my colleagues.

Suddenly, I wasn't so popular with them.

I stopped winning Emmys.

I was invited on CNN's media program, "Reliable Sources," to be interviewed by The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz and an indignant Bernard Kalb. They titled the segment, "Objectivity and Journalism: Does John Stossel Practice Either?" It was in big letters over my head.

Apparently, I had broken the rules.

On the air they told me that I was no longer objective. I was too stunned to defend myself effectively. I said something like: "I've always had a point of view. How come you had no trouble with that when I criticized business?"

In hindsight, I wish I'd said: "Look at the title on the wall, you hypocrites! It shows you have a point of view, too. Many reporters do. You just don't like my arguments now that I no longer hew to your statist line. So you want to shut me up."

But I didn't.

So I'll say it now: Reporters who think coercive government control is generally good and I, who thinks voluntary market forces are generally better, both have a point of view.

So why am I the one called biased?

I like what "Americans for Prosperity" defends. I'm an American, and I'm for prosperity. What creates prosperity is free and competitive markets. That means limited government.

And I will speak about that every chance I get.

W.H. diplomacy 'back down to earth'

Foreign policy never goes according to campaign plan, but for President Barack Obama, who promised a hardheaded new engagement with the world, the last week and the weeks he sees looming ahead must be discouraging.

Across a region spanning Pakistan to the Mediterranean, foreign leaders seem to be challenging the very premise of his policy: that foreign countries can reasonably be persuaded to move in the direction of common interests, and that a better-loved America can get more done.

In Afghanistan, an all-out effort to promote a legitimate election turned into a scramble to prevent a civil war and ease the defrauded challenger off the stage. Iran persuaded the White House to drop its late-September deadline for action and then appears to have rejected a deal on nuclear fuel. Great powers such as Russia and China show no appetite for crucial concessions, while the U.S. Congress continues to block major action on a pillar of Obama’s policy goals — international action on climate change.

“This is a clarifying moment,” said David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration foreign policy hand. “It’s not the week that they wanted to have happen, but sometimes it’s better to get your rough lessons early when the stakes are lower.”

Another Democratic analyst, the National Security Network’s Heather Hurlburt, labeled this “back-down-to-earth week.”

“None of these things is more ugly than they were a week or a month or six months ago,” she said. “They’ve now done the easy things, and we got spoiled for six or eight or 10 months: easy thing, applause, Nobel Prize. We’re now at the stuff that’s really hard.”

Less sympathetic analysts see the clarification in more negative terms.

“For an administration that came in thinking it was going to be more realistic than the previous administration, they’ve certainly been hit in the head by real facts,” said Gary Schmitt, a former Republican congressional staffer and a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, citing a “growing perception that they’re the team that can’t shoot straight.”

“They had — ironically for realists — unrealistic expectations on what they could accomplish,” he said.

It’s a cliché of presidencies that foreign policy priorities set themselves and that presidents have far less control than they imagine they will. Obama’s key priorities looked, weeks ago, intact. On his most profound challenge, Afghanistan, he was herding key constituencies — from the British military to American Democrats — toward a consensus.

“There had been a huge amount of momentum behind his emphasis on Afghanistan — thanks also significantly to [envoy Richard] Holbrooke — and this election has halted all that momentum,” said Peter Galbraith, an American diplomat who left the U.N. mission to Afghanistan in a dispute about the election.

In Iran, meanwhile, detailed and painstaking talks about shipping nuclear fuel to Russia — a subject of cooperation with French and Russian leaders — also foundered last Friday, when Iran rejected the deal.

Iranian officials were quoted Monday offering only the haziest reassurances.

The country’s foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, told reporters that Iran has “some technical and economic considerations” about the proposal, The Associated Press reported.

The central problem in those two theaters, and in others, has been the lack of a reliable partner whom Obama can engage.

“There is a unifying issue in the Palestinian territories, in Iraq, in Iran, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, and that is you need to have a trustworthy partner and the people on the ground need to want to change,” said Rothkopf. “Unless both of those conditions are present, then you’re playing at the margins.”

Some analysts also question the focus of an administration whose foreign policy seems dominated by the president’s personal interest.

“The administration is finding it difficult to have six major priorities,” said Jon Alterman, the director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “It’s not a question of can the administration walk and chew gum, but it’s hard to devote high-level attention to a wide diversity of things.”

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s trip to the Middle East and Central Asia in recent days contributed to the impression of an unsettled policy approach. In Pakistan, she said bluntly that the Pakistanis ought to know where Al Qaeda leaders are — then walked the candid comment back. In Israel, she praised Israeli leaders for their willingness to compromise — then rushed to shore up a Palestinian leadership that appears to have been badly weakened by that same compromise.

And so Obama has been forced to adjust his targets. On Afghanistan, he declared Karzai’s election “legitimate” Monday — a statement of hope as much as a description of reality. On Iran, he faces congressional pressure for harsh sanctions and a choice of imperfect options, some weaker compromise with skeptical Russian and Chinese partners on international sanctions or sanctions enacted by the sort of Bush-style coalition of the willing, dubbed “the coalition of the like-minded nations” he’s long derided.

What had appeared to be a new approach to foreign policy — a combination of charismatic leadership, moral suasion and cool judgment of interests — at this moment looks like a simpler pragmatism.

But that, for those who want Obama to succeed, is still a welcome change.

“Any foreign policy is going to have ups and downs, but what characterizes Obama’s foreign policy is a great deal of pragmatism and strategy,” said Galbraith. “Strategy by definition means you’re always evaluating the circumstances — the terrain — and making adjustments.”

Chris Christie's Next Case: Who Stole My Election?

Absentee voter fraud may play a significant role in New Jersey's gubernatorial election

By JOHN FUND

The race for governor in New Jersey is so close in final polls that it may well end up in a recount -- the 1981 election did and was decided by less than 1,800 votes. If there is a recount, you can bet disputes about absentee ballots will loom large. Moreover, if serious allegations of fraud emerge, you can also expect less-than-vigorous investigation by the Obama Justice Department -- which showed just how seriously it takes such allegations when it walked away from an open-and-shut voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia earlier this year.

Plenty of reasons exist for suspecting absentee fraud may play a significant role in tomorrow's Garden State contests. Groups associated with Acorn in neighboring Pennsylvania and New York appear to have moved into the state. An independent candidate for mayor in Camden has already leveled charges that voter fraud is occurring in his city. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party in New Jersey is taking advantage of a new loosely written vote-by-mail law to pressure county clerks not to vigorously use signature checks to evaluate the authenticity of absentee ballots, the only verification procedure allowed.

The state has received a flood of 180,000 absentee ballot requests. On some 3,000 forms the signature doesn't match the one on file with county clerks. Yet citing concerns that voters would be disenfranchised, Democratic Party lawyer Paul Josephson wrote New Jersey's secretary of state asking her "to instruct County Clerks not to deny applications on the basis of signature comparison alone." Mr. Josephson maintained that county clerks "may be overworked and are likely not trained in handwriting analysis" and insisted that voters with suspect applications should be allowed to cast provisional ballots. Those ballots, of course, would then provide a pool of votes that would be subject to litigation in any recount, with the occupant of New Jersey's highest office determined by Florida 2000-style scrutiny of ballot applications.

Absentee voter fraud is in danger of becoming a hardy perennial in New Jersey. Atlantic City Councilman Marty Small and 13 campaign workers were indicted in September on charges of conspiring to commit election fraud using absentee ballots. One worker pleaded guilty last month. In Newark, five campaign workers were indicted in August on charges involving absentee ballot fraud.

Victor Negron, a campaign adviser for independent mayoral candidate Roberto Feliz, a former director of Camden's public works department, says he's shocked that more than fifteen times the normal number of voters are casting absentee ballots in Camden this year. In the 2005, when the city's voters voted for both governor and mayor on the same day, only 200 absentee ballots were cast. This year, some 3,700 have already been received. At least four voters have approached the Feliz campaign to complain that an absentee ballot was sent to them without their permission or cast for them without their understanding the documents they were signing. I spoke with Uremia Rojas who reports that "a man with a clipboard knocked on my door and had me sign something so I could vote by mail. I was skeptical but signed and got a ballot. I never really wanted one." Says Mr. Negron: "We believe this to be underhanded and a possibly illegal strategy by the Democratic Party to undermine the civil rights of the residents of Camden."

There are additional reports from Camden that Hispanic voters have been misled into voting absentee ballots. So-called bearers who are allowed to collect and carry absentee ballots are said to have encouraged voters to fill out applications for absentee ballots. A few days later, the bearers reportedly return with the actual ballots, which they offer "assistance" in filling out.

Authorities in nearby Philadelphia know about such scams. In one infamous case, a key 1993 race that determined which party would control the Pennsylvania state senate was thrown out by a federal judge after massive evidence that hundreds of voters had been pressured into casting improper absentee ballots. Voters were told by "bearers" that it was all part of "la nueva forma de votar" -- the new way to vote. Local politicos tell me Philly operatives associated in the past with Acorn may now be advising their Jersey cousins on how to perform such vote harvesting.

Elsewhere, an investigation is being conducted into a report that people wearing Acorn T-shirts entered an East Orange hospital near Newark carrying blank absentee ballots and left with completed ballots. New Jersey law allows anyone to pick up an absentee ballot for someone else -- these are called messenger ballots.

After repeated election-related scandals, Acorn has become toxic for many candidates who once relied on the group. But Acorn's longtime allies, the Service Employee International Union and New York's Working Families Party, have both moved into New Jersey. Peter Colavito, Acorn's former political director in New York and a board member of the Working Families Party, is now the political director of SEIU Local 32BJ, which is heavily involved in New Jersey's election. Nationally, the SEIU is a political powerhouse with White House visitor's logs showing that Andrew Stern, its national head, visited 22 times in the first six months of the Obama White House -- more than any other person. "Andrew Stern practically lives at the White House," notes Politico.com.

The Working Families Party, which is co-chaired by Acorn head Bertha Lewis, is no stranger to absentee ballot fraud. A special prosecutor in Troy, N.Y. is investigating New York's September primary, in which at least 38 ballots cast for Working Families Party candidates were thrown out as forged or fraudulent. New York Judge Michael Lynch found "significant election law violations that have compromised the rights of numerous voters and the integrity of the ballot process."

Nor is in-person fraud at the polls unknown in New Jersey. In 2007, a former Hoboken zoning board president noticed a group of men outside a polling place being given index cards by two people. One of the loiterers later tried to vote in the name of a voter who had moved out of the area. When challenged by the former zoning board president, he ran out of the building and was caught. He later admitted to police he was part of a group from a homeless shelter who had been paid $10 each to vote using the names of other people.

That's one reason ElectionJournal.org will be deploying observers with cameras around New Jersey to hunt for irregularities. The Web site hit gold last year when its cameras captured footage of two members of the New Black Panther Party in black combat boots and black uniforms blocking the door of a Philadelphia polling place. One was brandishing a large police-style nightstick and hurling racial epithets at voters.

The Bush Justice Department filed a civil-rights lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and the two individuals. When none of the defendants answered the lawsuit, a federal court rendered a default judgment against the defendants. But last May, Attorney General Eric Holder dropped charges against the party and the two individual defendants. Another man was given the mild sanction of being barred from displaying a weapon near a polling place for three years. To groups that may be contemplating vote fraud in tomorrow's races, such an outcome will hardly be seen as a big deterrent.

Does U2 Still Matter?

Published October 29, 2009

By Craig Rosen / LiveDaily Contributor

"The only band that matters." Those words were thrust upon The Clash upon the release of "London Calling," when the punk legends were at the height of their powers. While The Clash's stand as rock's most important band was brief, they did have an enormous impact on a little group from Dublin, Ireland, known as U2. Since The Clash's demise, U2--Paul "Bono" Hewson, Dave "The Edge" Evans, Adam Clayton, and Larry Mullen, Jr.--is one of the few rock acts in the world that managed to "matter" during the '80s, '90s and into '00s. Whether it's shilling iPods (now Blackberrys), trying to save the world one small gesture at a time, or delving into sonic experimentation with their longtime producer pals Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois, U2 has had an undeniable impact on not only music, but popular culture.

Yet there are signs U2's influence may be faltering. "No Line On The Horizon," the band's most recent release, has failed to yield a mainstream hit single; "Get On Your Boots" reached No. 5 on Billboard's Modern Rock Tracks, but failed to crossover to the pop chart, stalling at No. 37 on The Hot 100. And, with sales of 1 million copies in the US, according to Nielsen SoundScan, "No Line On The Horizon" is the band's weakest-selling effort since SoundScan began tracking sales data in 1991. By comparison, the band's polarizing 1997 effort "Pop" has sold 1.5 million copies, according to SoundScan.

Still, U2 remains a juggernaut in the concert arena--or, in the case of its current trek, on the stadium circuit. The band topped Pollstar's recently released 2009 third-quarter ticket-sales chart with sales of 2.3 million ducats, besting such perennial best-sellers as AC/DC, Bruce Springsteen, Coldplay and Madonna.

As the band rolls out additional dates on its groundbreaking 360 Tour, LiveDaily thought we'd check out U2's impact by asking various musicians (from the legendary Quincy Jones and Rock and Roll Hall of Famer Doug Clifford to up-and-comers like electronic sensation RJD2 and rising indie band Portugal The Man) and assorted music-industry types if U2 still matters and why.

Quincy Jones, legendary producer/arranger, entertainment mogul

"Are you kidding me? I just went to a show of theirs in New York that seemed like it had 200,000 people in attendance! They had the audience in the palm of their hand, and, most importantly, they showed their care for the world. Their relevance transcends music--it's almost like its own belief system, which is probably why those four dudes have stayed together for so long. On a side note, I just want to point out that my knowledge of Da Vinci wouldn't be remotely the same without Bono."

(In honor of Jones' attendance at U2's Giants Stadium show on Sept. 23, Bono slipped in a few lines from Michael Jackson's "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough," which was produced by Jones.)

Ray Waddell, Billboard, senior touring editor

"I think it's pretty obvious U2 matters and could make a case as the most 'important' rock band in the world, if demand and creativity are the barometers. They continue to push themselves artistically, both in the studio and through innovative, ambitious touring. They are in the uppermost echelon of artists in terms of global demand, rarefied air occupied only by The Rolling Stones. U2 are currently touring with a production unlike any before, playing to packed stadiums in a 360-degree configuration all over the world, setting attendance records all over the place. The staging and video are pretty mind blowing, but do not overwhelm the band, which is playing in top form. They open with several songs from the new album and the crowds instantly embrace the new material. By the time they wrap the tour next year, U2 360 will be one of the biggest tours ever in terms of both gross and attendance. I think they can continue to do this as long as they want to do it."

Doug "Cosmo " Clifford , drummer, Creedence Clearwater Revival

"I have nothing but respect for U2 because they have managed to stay together as a band for decades. They have stayed viable at a very high level through the many changes in the industry over the years. They have given back so much to people in need, making a real difference in the lives of millions of people around the globe. They are truly a class act. Bravo!"

Bob Lefsetz, industry commentator/author of the "Lefsetz Letter" blog

"They matter financially. And to those in their forties who remember 'The Joshua Tree.'

"They're meaningless in terms of new music. If only they'd realize this, and start to record and release new music that's not overmanaged and overmanipulated to try and be successful, but is recorded for the pure joy of it."

John Baldwin Gourley, singer/guitarist, Portugal. The Man

"U2 will matter forever, that is not up for debate. I just can't imagine charging your fans, who have made you, that much for a concert or a T-shirt, but maybe I have no perspective of the size of things"

Kasim Sulton, bassist/singer, Utopia, session and touring pro

"Very few bands/musicians have the capacity to remain popular and contemporary after 25 years together. Much like a roman candle, there might be four or five truly good records before the magic sputters and the artists find themselves held hostage to their initial success, playing the same old songs because that's all the audience really wants. U2 is one of the only bands that consistently tops the last record, the last tour, and continues to remain one of--if not the only--bands that can release an album and have it mean more than the previous one. Consistently. Case in point: The Rolling Stones, Elton John, Paul McCartney, Billy Joel, Aerosmith and most other artists in that stratosphere of success can still sell out tour after tour, yet nothing they've released in the last 15 years compares to their early material. U2 still matters."

Paul Donoghue, bassist/vocalist, Glasvegas

"I don't think there's a question over whether U2 still matter or not. They still play to stadiums of new and old fans alike, something very few acts can achieve over such a long career. They still have desire and soul, which doesn't seem to have waned. They're still writing strong material and aren't relying on their back catalogue, which so many people do. They also are a huge inspiration to so many people ... any band with aspirations larger than playing the local shithole to four of their mates has taken something from U2. And just look at the huge bands lining up to support them. It was an honour for us to support them, and if they threw the towel in tomorrow, they'd still be relevant in 50 years time. Of course they still matter."

Bertis Downs, R.E.M. advisor

"Of course U2 still matters--they make music all their own, are many people's favorite band, carry themselves in a manner like no one else, and make a huge difference with their approach to their responsibilities as a role model for so many others. And, to my ears, they are still pushing their creative envelope every time they release a record."

RJD2 (a.k.a. RJ or Ramble Krohn), artist/producer

"U2 sells out venues that are literally 100 times the size of rooms that I play. So if U2 doesn't 'matter,' then what is a degree 100 times smaller than 'mattering'? Does it surpass 'existing'? Whatever it is, that is what I am--sub-existence. Also, for the record, anyone who goes around saying things like 'someone doesn't matter' is a status-obsessed douche."

Glenn "G5" Gyorffy, bassist, Anvil

"Absolutely! U2 have been, and still are, one of the biggest bands in the world. They've inspired some of the greatest music of the past two-and-a-half decades as well. There was a time when they sounded unique but now you can hear their sound in just about every pop band. U2 will always matter! Just like the Beatles will always matter!"

Cities I've Visited

• Create your own travel map or travel blog


• TripAdvisor: airline tickets

Who Killed Nortel? The Inside Story - Ottawa Citizen

U2's Rose Bowl show breaks U.S. attendance record

NASHVILLE (Billboard) – It took 22 years, but U2 has broken its own attendance record for the best-attended single concert performance at a U.S. venue by one headliner.

The band's 360 Tour played the Pasadena, California, Rose Bowl on October 25 to a sellout crowd of 97,014 -- the highest attendance on record for one U.S. show by a single headliner based on box office totals reported to Billboard.

The old record was set on September 25, 1987, at the now-demolished John F. Kennedy Stadium in Philadelphia with a crowd of 86,145 in attendance for the band's Joshua Tree Tour.

This year's Rose Bowl performance grossed more than $9.9 million, considerably more than the 1987 Philly show, which brought in a mere $1.5 million in ticket sales.

Among the top five single-concert attendances on record in the U.S., the top three are all U2 performances. The third-highest attendance is also from the band's current tour, at its September 29 sellout at FedExField in Landover, Maryland, with 84,754.

Pink Floyd's May 29, 1994, show at the Ohio State University football stadium is in fourth place with 75,250. The Backstreet Boys round out the top five with a sold-out show at the Georgia Dome on February 19, 2000, when 73,337 fans filled the Atlanta stadium to see the pop group's Into the Millennium Tour.

U2's Rose Bowl show excelled in gross ticket sales as well as attendance. With $9.96 million grossed, it is the second-highest-grossing single U.S. concert by a solo headliner. The concert is second only to the Three Tenors' July 20, 1996, sold-out show at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The Rolling Stones make up the rest of this top-five list with a Giants Stadium concert of its own on September 15, 2005, a sold-out benefit concert at Radio City Music Hall on March 14, 2006, and an outdoor show at Chicago's Soldier Field on September 10, 2005.

TOP ATTENDANCE AT A U.S. CONCERT BY A SINGLE HEADLINER:

1. U2 - Rose Bowl; Pasadena, Calif. (October 25, 2009) Attendance: 97,014 Gross: $9,960,036

2. U2 - John F. Kennedy Stadium, Philadelphia (September 25, 1987) Attendance: 86,145 Gross: $1,593,683

3. U2 - FedExField; Landover, Md. (September 29, 2009) Attendance: 84,754 Gross: $6,718,315

4. Pink Floyd - Ohio State University Stadium; Columbus, Ohio (May 29, 1994) Attendance: 75,250 Gross: $2,406,920

5. Backstreet Boys - Georgia Dome, Atlanta (February 19, 2000) Attendance: 73,337 Gross: $2,787,098