PCA Denominational Renewal

I have to say there is some amazing stuff going on over in the Presbyterian Church of America. Now I am not a member of the PCA, and I don’t want to appear to be throwing stones for the RCUS has troubles of its own, we are just too small for them to become internet fodder. No one has sights dedicated to the troubles of the RCUS. That being said, I would like to lovingly point a few things out to my friends in the PCA.

There is a discussion now that follows up on a conference held a few months ago called Denominational Renewal. Of course the goal is to renew the PCA. Fair enough so far. The discussion includes negative voices and friendly voices and is supposed to be a denominational wide discussion. The latest talk was on Renewing Theology and is positively reviewed by John Frame. It is opposed by Sean Michael, a professor at Covenant Seminary. I believe the talk by Jeremy Jones and the response by Dr. Frame are fundamentally very dangerous, and I fear that it is being missed in the PCA.

Note one of Frame’s points.

3. The PCA is a “confessional church,” as we are often told. We should, however, forthrightly ask the question whether this is a good thing. If it is, what role should a 350 year old confession have in a contemporary church? Is it plausible to suggest that we should treat the confession in effect as an infallible presentation of biblical doctrine? How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time? Does confessionalism itself lead to sectarianism? If not, how can a confessional church guard against sectarians who appeal to the confession as a “golden age” document? On these matters I am, for now, content to ask questions, rather than presuming to provide answers.

This is little other than John Williamson Nevin, who is back in vogue even among Presbyterians. Confessionalism leading to sectarianism is pure Nevin speaking of creeds as a "necessary evil". The problem with the Confession for Frame is that it is old. It is not contemporary. And more importantly as he points out people will "appeal to it". That is the real problem for Frame. It is out of date and people want to use it anyway. Renewing Theology then becomes a modernization of theology or at least the bringing to bear scholarly developments to it. Implicitly then Frame is saying the Confession is flawed and thus wrong. He would probably want to couch it in terms of the WCF being a ‘second grade text book that is not enough for our 12th grade understanding of these subjects.’ At least that is the analogy used by Doug Wilson in his works not to mention Philip Schaff in his. What concerns me even more is that the opposing reviewer cannot quite put his finger on it. Michael states:

first, it strikes me that his proposal for renewing theology holds out great hope for “creative theological thinking.” And yet, if we pay attention to those witnesses of the past, like Irenaeus and Tertullian, they stressed not their creativity, but their unoriginality. . . . the unspoken tension in Jeremy’s paper is actually between “theology” and “history.” That is to ask, how does this rich confessional tradition (or, to maintain the stream of thought, collection of witnesses) called “the Reformed tradition” speak to contemporary theological reflection? Should “the Reformed tradition” be a privileged witness among other witnesses for those who subscription to a Reformed confessional standard? If so, how does such privileging work?

The tension is identified, but not exposed. Michael sees the "creative theological thinking" as a potential problem, but does not denounce it at all. He sees tension between theology in history in the talk, but does not seem to see that Renewing Theology means making sure theology keeps up with history.

Over at Green Baggins elder Bob Mattes goes into a review of these talks and Rev. Frame’s particularly. He quotes from Frame and then comments (the Frame quote is from above and is the first two lines).

How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time?
I’m not sure that I understand what Dr. Frame means by this question. Given my response to his last question, does he wish to say that someone has found an error in the Standards in the intervening period? I’m just not sure where he’s going here.

Elder Mattes is being too nice in my opinion here. Dr. Frame in context (as can be seen above) is putting scholarship in contraposition to the confession as an accurate summary of God’s Word although he uses the word infallible in order to make his case look better. Frame is essentially saying if you continue to appeal and use the WCF then you have rejected all the better learning and theological advancements we have made. That is Frame’s position. The goal obviously is the alteration of the WCF or its removal. Why else ask the question in such a fashion. This is the discussion that is going on under the noses of many in the PCA.

My loving brotherly encouragement to men like brother Mattes and Michael is to dig deeper into what they mean. Have the debate of whether history and modern scholarship really has advanced theology to the point of changing it substantially so that it needs to be renewed. Do not be distracted by the talk of theology is application to modern life because it is not. Theology is the study of God, words about God. I have no problem with applying theology to life, and I admit that as history and technology move forward we will apply our theology to new situations. But the talk of changing the way we apply theology or updating or contextualizing applications of theology is really a back door way to change the theology itself. Has man’s sinful condition changed so much that we need a new way of applying ‘justification by faith alone’? What about Scripture? Is allowing people to understand creation as either 6-day creation or Framework or Day-Age really just contextualizing the doctrine of creation for modern man or updating it considering all the great ‘science’ or is it altering the theology fundamentally?

Normally, I would keep my mouth shut about such things, or at least I might have. But, I fear that the PCA is letting its guard down. I have spoken to several who believe the threat of challenges to justification by faith and other fundamental doctrines are basically over since the Federal Vision has been “defeated”. Many have said it but Bob Mattes again gives it the best expression in a comment on Professor Michael’s essay.

Al - May I offer that our current constitution (Westminsters + BCO) handled everything thrown at it so far? To address your specific examples,the Standards handled Federal Vision nicely. Yes, it took a study committee to ferret out the details, but there's nothing wrong with a careful effort. Feminism in the church context is nicely covered in the BCO backed up by Scripture.

While I have no doubt the Westminster rejects Federal Vision the problem is far from handled. Rev. Wilkins left as a minister in good standing and is now a part of another denomination. We could all list several other ministers still in good standing in the denomination who follow the Federal Vision and contributed to a book by that title. The fight is not over, it is simply in a new phase. The direct attack failed. Now the back door approach comes. Read Dr. Frame again. He complains of appealing to a 350 year old document and how it hampers new scholarship. I hope you can all see how accepting this Denominational Renewal would allow the NEW perspectives on Paul and the Federal Vision in the driver seat.

An Political Earthquake among Third Parties

One last thought about Third Parties before I resume regularly scheduled blogging. Every now and again something comes along that is ignored by the major parties, but not by the American people and the Third Party becomes a major party. Note the Republican Party was once a localized third party that never even appeared on the ballot in most Southern States. They ran a candidate for President in 1856, but failed miserably. All the Whig Party had to do was reject slavery’s expansion into the west and the Republican Party would have dried up and gone away. They didn’t and the rest they say is history.

Well, this recent economic downturn might just might shed light on the big government-free spending-punish the taxpayer-socialist leanings of both parties. Which would open the door for Third Party asking for a return to the free market-low tax-small government way America was meant to run. It will have to be a party that holds to its convictions despite pressure. Thus, the big winner from all of this might be the Constitutional Party. They did the one thing that the Republican Party would not do, the Green Party did not do, and the Libertarian Party would not do. The Constitution Party did not choose their candidate based on who would win the most votes. McCain was clearly a pick based on electability. Cynthia McKenny and Bob Barr are both picks designed around who can win, not who supports the ideology of the party since both are very recent converts to those parties. The Constitution Party selected Chuck Baldwin, a sure-fire loser, and rejected a bigger name in Alan Keyes, who is a recent convert to the Constitutional Party.

The reason they may very well be the big winner is the force of rogue Republican Ron Paul. Paul raised millions without effort during the campaign and recorded votes on the floor of the convention, which was an unusual occurrence that did not get much media attention. Paul was planning on staying neutral and endorsing no one which was a loss for McCain, but served the Libertarian Party just fine. However, things have changed and Paul has endorsed Baldwin and the Constitutional Party. Note the number of responses and this was posted on Wed. Paul has a massive following that is now directed to vote for Baldwin. Expect a huge leap in the numbers the Constitutional Party receives. Expect Bob Barr’s campaign to wither and die with this explicit rejection.

I know this did not even make the news and is probably not even a blip on the radar screen of most people; however, for a Third Party junkie like myself, this was some pretty ground breaking news.

Party Differences on Display

The financial bailout that seems to be looming of many investment banks is a good time to see the state of the Republican and Democratic Parties. The only real difference is where the increased power of the federal government will go. Will it go to the Executive branch as the Republicans like to do? Or will it go to the Legislative branch as the Democrats like to do? The few conservative voices that reject the idea of a bailout at all are few and far in-between proving once and for all that the two parties are basically the same. So the real question you have to ask yourself in this election is whether or not you want the President to be stronger than Congres or Congress stronger than the President.

Response to Blogs on Third Parties

It is election time again and it is time for people to start bashing Third Parties again. So, it is time for me to defend them again as a vital part of the process. One might could even argue as restrictions against third parties got tighter, the country as a whole got worse.

Rev. Mark Horne has a post up about his problem with the logic of Third parties. I could spend some time arguing about immigration and wondering if Rev. Horne is confusing the duty of the church to welcome people when they are a stranger and the job of the state, but that is a side point in this blog. Rev. Horne contends that to be a member of a Third party one has to renounce any and all compromise and thus any minor point of disagreement should chase one from that party. I am not sure that is the real motivation for Third parties. Are all members of the Constitution Party or the Libertarian Party saying that they agree 100% with their party and they would never deviate at all? Need I remind you that Congressman Bob Barr beat out super liberal Mike Gravel for the Libertarian Party nomination. These two do not exactly see eye to eye. In fact they are simply joined together by a fundamental commitment to the government staying out their personal business. Hardly the situation Rev. Horne describes. Besides, I think it also a leap in logic that one who accepts compromise must then accept so much compromise as to be stuck supporting one of the two major parties. Could he not support compromise and see that he compromises less by supporting Constitution Party? Is it not better to compromise less by only compromising on immigration and voting for the Constitution Party than compromising on taxes, ethics, foreign policy, the size and role of government, and executive power by voting for the Republican Party?

Andrew Sandlin also has an article up against Third Parites. His article is actually a quote from someone else. The claim is that Third parties are irrelevant. The author admits that these Third Parties do only two things. One is cipher off votes from the major candidates. And the second is stated as "they may provide an issue or a voting block that one of the major parties successfully woos before the next election."

YES!!!!! Someone finally gets it. It is amazing to me that this is listed in an article against Third Parties because this is the critical point. Third parties can reform the major parties, but only if you vote for them. Third parties call the major parties back to their roots. If the parties do not listen then they are eventually replaced. Most of the time they will listen. Take for example Ross Perot. He clearly cost George H.W. Bush the election in 1992. Perot ran and took votes out of the conservative base by running on governmental reform, lower taxes, balanced budgets, and less spending. Clinton gained the White House because people “threw away” their vote on Perot. However, in 1994 a bevy of new Republicans took control of the House and Senate on the Contract with America, which called for governmental reform, lower taxes, balanced budgets, and less spending. The House, which was the new guys for the most part, delivered on every part of the Contract. Eventually the budget was even balanced and a surplus created under Clinton. Do we really think that Perot had nothing to do with any of this? Clearly, at least Newt Gingrich was listening.

In the end, I think Third parties are not just the domain of the crazed fringe. Rather it should be the place that people run when the major parties ignore them and drift from their ideological roots. It is good to have these ideology-based parties so that the people can always have a voice. It is not all about winning. That is hard for a lot of people to believe, but it is not. The State will always be the State in the long run, and the Christian’s responsibility to the state is the same whether it is to Nero or to Constantine. It will never bring any real change. However, we do have an opportunity to make sure the candidates continue to focus on what is important to us by voting on what is important to us. That may mean voting for a Third party from time to time or

The need for a new history for Presbyterians

History is often written by the winners. That much is a truism. However, these days we can often go back and examine the claims of the winners by looking at the source material to make sure that our histories are correct. Sadly, I do not believe I have yet found a good history of the Presbyterian Church as it exists in America. Some are okay such as Richard Webster’s A History of the Presbyterian Church in America, but it only goes to 1760. It has a fairly New Side slant to it, but oddly enough, not nearly as much as the current histories. Charles Hodge’s Constitutional History of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America is good as well, but it is written for a political purpose. Thus, Hodge, while mentioning Old Side leaders and even occasionally championing them, still tries to smooth the differences between the two sides in order to help his debate against the New School. Other histories such as James Smylie’s A Brief History of the Presbyterians are just pathetic. His mentions the schism between the New Side and Old Side, but fails to mention any of the Old Siders by name, completely takes the New Side line and even makes historically inaccurate statements such as when he says, “Old Side members of the Presbytery of Philadelphia decided to go their own way.in 1741” (pg. 49). This is simply factually wrong. The New Side leaders left the meeting, not the Old. The New Side leaders formed the Conjunct Presbytery after marching out. But, it always helps to demonize the side one disagrees with as schismatic. The problem is not to be confined to broad histories. Even the more particular histories such as Morton Smith’s Studies in Southern Presbyterian Theology calls the difference between the Old Side and New Side “having been over matters of experimental religion and not doctrinal” (Smith Pg. 28). Of course the participants in the schism disagree greatly. Smith does admit that trouble continued in the north, but contends the southern part of the church was able to continue in peace. He of course forgets to mention that this was because those Old Side ministers were denied their right to form a presbytery west of the mountains. They proposed one which would have had a 3-2 Old Side majority, but it was denied for obviously partisan reasons by the Synod. Hardly the sign of peace pictured in the book. Books about the Great Awakening itself are almost always worse. Joseph Tracy’s famous work The Great Awakening actually says that the Old Side would have become “Arminian” and they even would have slide into “Unitarianism” (Tracy, pg. 388). This bold claim of course goes unsupported.

I am sure that other areas of history in the Presbyterian Church are just as biased. I just finished reading Can the Orthodox Presbyterian Church be Saved?, by John Robbins, which makes a similar claim of amazing neglect of primary sources and popular bias in the history of the OPC. Whether that is true or not, I am not qualified to say, but bias exists in us all, so it should not be hard to believe.

I am not claiming that I am unbiased. I have a great deal, I am sure. However, I do think that a new history of the Presbyterian Church needs to be written. One that critically examines the history we know and uses the primary sources. History is vitally important. The mistakes of history are all too often repeated if not learned from. If the history itself is wrong, then one be assured never to learn from it because they will be unaware of it. So you historians out there. Get to it! The time for writing is now.

Why College Football is broken

USC has beaten Ohio State. Sports fans are now going to have to put up with USC is the greatest dynasty of all time talk again. Let us remember that USC only has one legitimate national championship, and that a disputed one. They won one AP title out of spite for the BCS system not because they were actually better than LSU. They won the next year in the BCS although Auburn went undefeated and was left out of the BCS title game out of spite for the SEC. Utah was also undefeated. The next year USC lost to Texas ending their run. Last year they were overrated losing multiple games just to prove it. Of course I will not mention the allegations of paying Reggie Bush to play football. USC is a good football team because they are able to recruit up and down the west coast with no competition. UCLA and the rest of the PC-10 are a joke. Thus, every good football player in California ends up at USC (probably for a good signing bonus). This is not the case in other big states like Florida, which has a legitimate 5 colleges to choose from, and Texas where there are at least 3 big programs to take up quality players. Even Alabama has two big time schools. Something to remember.

But more important than that is the fact that USC will now run the PAC-10 and be in the national title game for sure. But, there are non-BCS schools that are better and play in better conferences. The announcers for the game mentioned what a joke the Big 10 had become thanks to two embarrassing beat downs put on Ohio State in National Championship games. Both to the SEC I might add. Throw in Michigan getting beaten by Appy St. and you have a conference that is a joke. But, the real bias of the announcers is in the fact that they do not see that the rest of the BCS conferences are a joke too. The SEC is okay. The Big 12 has two good teams, which makes them deeper than the ACC, the Big 10, the Pac 10, and the Big East. Just as a refresher course, I should remind everyone that Utah went undefeated a few years ago wining a BCS bowl game. Boise St., of the Western Athletic Conference, conference went undefeated and beat Oklahoma of the Big-12 in a BCS bowl, two years ago. Hawaii, also of the Western Athletic Conference, also went undefeated, but they lost their BCS bowl game. Little conferences have a winning track record against the BCS conferences. Let me just start this year with East Carolina from non-BCS Conference USA. They beat the defending ACC champ and the defending Big East champ in back to back weeks. Surely that says something about East Carolina and Conference USA. The Mountain West Conference is even better. BYU is now 2-0 against the Pac-10. They beat Washington and this week put a 59-0 beat down on UCLA, who beat Tennessee from the SEC in week 1. But, do not stop at BYU. Utah beat Michigan of the Big 10 in week 1 and New Mexico beat Arizona, from the Pac-10, tonight. UNLV is only down three at halftime to Arizona State, nationally ranked from the Pac-10, at the time of writing this post. Is the Pac-10 really a better conference than the Mountain West? These games are not being played in the Mountain West home stadiums you can count on that. The Western Athletic Conference continues its tradition this year as Fresno State beat Big East hopeful Rutgers on national TV earlier this year. Louisiana Tech, surprisingly of the WAC, also beat Mississippi State of the SEC in week 1. The MAC (Mid Athletic Conference) is also flexing its muscle since Akron (currently second to last in the conference standings) beat Syracuse of the BCS Big East in week 2. Bowling Green of that same conference, and with the same record as Akron, beat then nationally ranked Pittsburgh of the Big East. They did lose this week to the aforementioned Boise State of the Western Athletic Conference. Do we really think that the Big East is a better conference than the MAC? Surely not. The games on the field say no.

Yet, the announcers will continue to support the BCS. And if they do favor some playoff system it is poll based and not just putting the champs from each conference into the playoff. No, they want two or three teams from these so-called ‘power conferences’ because these conferences send them the most promotional material. It is ridiculous to watch people neglect the obvious truth. The BCS conferences are all a joke.

Learning from 9/11

Today is September 11th, a day that will forever be marked in our minds. I used to think it was weird that people of my parents generation could tell you exactly what they were doing and where they were when Kennedy was shot. I no longer think it is weird. I can tell you exactly where I was when the radio broadcaster first mentioned a plane into one of the towers. A few minutes later they interrupted a song to say that a second plane had hit and that this was no accident, it had to be terrorism. It made the rest of the drive to work pretty quick. It was only my second day of work, so I did not go to the room where everyone kept gathering to watch the news. I had meetings about insurance and stuff, and I was still trying to make that good first impression. I sat quietly listening to the radio and folding letters. I did not see the first images until I got home that day after 5pm (MST). They are images I will never forget. I actually preached my first sermon ever that Sunday. Of course that Tuesday I complete scrapped what I was going to say and started over.

We should never forget as a country, as people. We need to be constantly aware of terrorism and that we are not protected from it. But what is the message that we as the church should remember from 9/11. The church is not America, and we should never confuse the two. I was preparing a message on Jonah 4:2 this week. There Jonah says the reason he ran from God in the first place, "I know that You are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, One who relents from doing harm." It really struck me this week that Jonah would rather the Ninevites die than be saved. Of course, I had noticed this before, and it is pointed out in seminary class after seminary class. It had always been easy to laugh off Jonah as a really bad prophet. The unloving prophet, the prophet who did not have the right attitude. Yet, how many of us would rather Bin Laden die than be saved? I am not saying that he should not face criminal punishment for his actions. Being saved it not a get out of jail free card, but we should still whole heatedly desire his repentance. Islam is no religion of peace, no matter how much our President like to think it is. It is a religion of evil that enslaves millions to its lies. Yet, we must have the same view of them that God has: pity. "And should I not pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than one hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot discern between their right hand and their left" (4:11). Is this not true of those Islamic fundamentalists we hear so much about? They cannot discern their right and their left. So, I think that this is the lesson of 9/11 for the church: we must never lose our pity. We must never forget to spread the gospel, because it is the only weapon against evil. The Sword of the Word (Eph. 6) is stronger than any tank, any bomb, or military force we can send. The church can never forget its mission to evangelize. No matter what Rick Warren, Barak Obama, and John McCain think evil is not defeated by the state, it is defeated by Christ.

The Future of the Pirates

The Pirates need a little more time. This year is over. It has turned out to be a disaster, but with a few high points. I like the new management that did not stick with players that were not producing. It sends a good message, to me the fan at least. They demoted Ronnie Paulino, starting catcher from a year ago. They demoted Tom Grozelanny, who had the most wins on the team last year and was the starter for the home opener. They sort of forced a pitcher to retire at the beginning of the year, and they finally traded Jose Bautista who was a hole at third. That was also a good thing because they let Bautista go and try to make his mark with another team rather than keep him in the dungeon of the Pirate farm system.

September should always be an exciting time for people who are fans of teams out of the race. Ten players are joining the Pirate roster. Some are familiar like Ronnie Paulino, who played well at Triple A all year, Brain Bixler, who struggled while filling in for Jack Wilson, and Steven Pearce, who was called up when Xavier Nady was traded and would never have gone done except for a freak illness for our center fielder. Others have seen some time at the major league level, but are not so familiar like Criag Hansen, T.J. Beam, Marino Salas and Romulo Sanchez. All of which are bullpen guys. However, the people I am most excited about are Ross Ohlendorf, a pitcher who came over in the Xavier Nady trade. He saw some time in the bullpen for the Yankees, but he is going to be a starter for the Pirates. His first outing was a win for the team and a quality start for Ohlendorf. He is in the mix to be a starter next year. I am also excited to see about Robinson Diaz. Diaz is a catcher who was acquired in the Jose Bautista trade that came after the trading deadline. I want to see what kind of quality we got in this late season deal. Luis Cruz, who was just added to the 40 man roster. He is a middle infielder, where the Pirates are weak. He came out of no where this year with a decent Double A season and then got even better when promoted to Triple A. If he can show he is good, then the Pirates will be better off rather than putting all of their eggs in the Brian Bixler basket, which looked scary early in the season. In fairness it must be said that Bixler improved during the rest of the year at Triple A.

The real problem with the Pirates is not offense, it is pitching. Lots of pitchers are not living up to their expectations. The bullpen particularly is a problem. So far this season the Pirates have used 26 different pitchers, a franchise record. That is a lot of pitchers. This is where the Pirates are really going to look different next year and where September is important. The starting line up ought to be fairly set. They should have an outfield of McCutchen, McLouth, and Moss (with Morgan and Pierce backing up). They should start LaRoche at first (with Pierce backing up), Sanchez at second, Wilson at short (with middle infield back up is up for grabs), and Adam LaRoche at third (with Walker as back up) and Doumit catching (with Paulino as back up). The bullpen and starting rotation will be what to watch.

Take for example the bullpen. Matt Capps is the closer. John Grabow probably has a safe spot as does Tyler Yates. I will even go out on a limb as say Sean Burnett is in for next year. That means competing for the remaining spots are R. Sanchez, Beam, Hansen, Bautista, Davis, Chavez, and Salas. All of whom are getting their try out starting now. One could also throw in Evan Meek, who is not on the current 40 man roster and thus unable to be with the team, but is a possibility to earn a bullpen spot. That is a lot up in the air. The starting rotation is also a question. Right now the Pirates are doing a six man rotation with Snell, Grozelanny, Malhom, Duke, Olhendorf, and Karstens. That is six guys and five spots. Add into the mix for next year the currently injured Dumatrait, who looked good before the injury, and former top pick Van Benschoten. That makes 8 guys fighting for 5 spots.

The future of the Pirates looks bight with possibility, but it could also be a sign of complete mediocrity. It gets worse if you look further down in the Pirates organization. Their Triple A, Double A, and High Single A teams all finished at the bottom of their leagues. In fact, the only team that played well in the minors was the Rookie League organization, and that is a bad sign for the Pirates minor league system. No matter what, I am looking forward to seeing these new Pirates play.

Culture War

I admit that I have been watching the Republican Convention. My neighbor is a delegate, and I have been trying to get a glimpse of him on TV. No luck so far. However, I have heard a lot of CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News guys talk about the culture war. CNN keeps saying that the Republicans are trying to restart the culture war. MSNBC asked the same question of a pastor this afternoon, and his response was that the war never ended.

It is a real shame that the phrase ‘culture war’ is in the political lexicon. I guess we can thank people like Dr. James Dobson for that one. There is a culture war, but politics is not where it is fought, and it is not the answer. Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned there will still be a culture war. I am not saying that politics is unimportant, but I am saying it is not the most important. The culture war is about this:

The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil. (John 7:7)

This is the root of the culture war, and this then is the only answer. It is an answer that cannot be given by John McCain or Barak Obama. There is only one hope in life and in death, and that hope is Jesus Christ.

Convention Thoughts

It never fails that the Republicans run against the media and the Democrats run against America. The Democrats fail to understand that constantly appealing to the UN, touring Germany, and never being proud of America does mean that you are not quite putting country first and will be perceived as unpatriotic. The Republicans always fail to understand that they will never get a conservative media as long as they continue to ruthlessly pound the media. Although I have to admit it is funny to watch the media get offended and write cranky thing and say cranky things. Every time Tom Brokaw says that he and his colleagues will "try to get by" it makes me laugh. Especially since you can tell he is serious.