Go Tell It On The Mountain

Pentatonixby Deana Chadwell    12/29/13
This year, as our family celebrated Christmas, our background music featured the new hit a cappella group Pentatonix. My granddaughters entertained us by lip-synching to Little Drummer Boy and Go Tell it on the Mountain – a rendition that made the most of the song’s African American origins. Every time the CD cycled past that wonderful, raucous song a strange synapse fired off in my brain.

I’d see Bernard Whitman, sitting on a panel discussion on Megyn Kelly’s show, saying quite clearly that Christian beliefs should not be discussed “in the public square.” Whitman, who is openly homosexual, was saying this in reaction to Phil Robertson’s infamous quoting of 1st Corinthians 6, but the specific circumstances are not really germane. Whitman was stating a commonly held liberal attitude – keep your religious beliefs to yourself – a mandate that seems only to apply to Christians. The left is strangely silent about Muslim anti-gay pronouncements and punishments, or the Islamic public maltreatment of women.

We see this mindset in the death-by-a-thousand-lawsuits attack on open Christianity. The fear of legal proceedings has chipped away at all things publically biblical or traditionally Christian. No Ten Commandment plaques allowed. No crosses on hilltops. No Christmas carols. No “under God.” Shhhhhh. Don’t talk about Jesus. Shhhhhhhhh..

Why? Unlike Islam, Christianity threatens no one. Unlike the Hindu gods it doesn’t frown on the killing of rats or the butchering of cattle. Unlike Buddhism it doesn’t produce a caste system. Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. It threatens no one. And yet tens of thousands of Christians have been butchered recently by Muslims in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. America hasn’t reached that stage yet, but things are definitely leaning that direction. Antipathy usually ends in violence.[pullquote]…he said that no one should be allowed to say things that “make other people feel bad about themselves.” . . . Can Christians, or anyone for that matter, be held responsible for another person’s feelings about himself? No. Not even parents – eventually we all have to stand on our own feet.[/pullquote]

This keep-it-to-yourself attitude shows not only antipathy, but it also demonstrates incredible ignorance and narrow-mindedness. It assumes that:

•  No religion is true, that all metaphysical thought is merely fantastical imagination and fanaticism. Never mind the religiosity of the Darwinian-AlGorian-Marxist worldview.

•  That the Bible is just a compilation of the mumblings of old men and has no basis in history, archaeology, or science. Besides that, the liberal assumes that since Christians, and the Jews before them, have intensely debated the interpretation of biblical verses and doctrines, that nothing can ever be known for sure about the Bible’s contents. It never occurs to them that this has been part of a process of finding the truth – that little by little we are realizing how it all fits together. The complete rejection of a book that very few leftists have read, and even fewer have read open-mindedly, shows such narrow philosophical bias that it’s breathtaking, especially from people who pride themselves on their tolerance and acceptance, on their multicultural broad-mindedness.

•  That Christians are a group of people who never sin and therefore see themselves as better than the average person. Are some of us so misguided? Yes. Does the Bible teach us such arrogance? Absolutely not. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Romans 3:23) Whitman let something slip in that Kelly File discussion; he said that no one should be allowed to say things that “make other people feel bad about themselves.” That was more telling than he intended perhaps. Can Christians, or anyone for that matter, be held responsible for another person’s feelings about himself? No. Not even parents – eventually we all have to stand on our own feet.

•  That it is possible for Christianity to be a private religious practice. Demanding that we be quiet would be like asking a quarterback to never throw the ball, to never run with it. The point is to spread the good news, to keep the ball moving toward the goal posts. We have that command directly from Jesus, “And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’ ” (Matthew 28:18-20)

This command is known as The Great Commission and the book of Acts gives us the history of just how the apostles went about doing that – first to the Jews, then to the Samaritans, and then to the Gentiles – the whole world. They didn’t, as Mohammed’s followers did, gallop through the Middle East hacking and slashing, raping and burning until much of North Africa, the Middle East, and a large part of Europe was joining them in bowing to Mecca. No. The early Christians merely walked from town to town talking in the local synagogues and later in public squares. They risked death everywhere they went and they suffered much, but they hurt no one, coerced no one, deserved none of what they got.

Have some Christian missionaries been clumsy and biblically ignorant and fixated on behavior rather than on belief? Yes. Has the Church allowed itself to be swallowed first by Roman Catholic dogma and then later by Calvinist and Reform theology? Yes. Did the Church eventually sink to the level of violence? Yes, but not because of biblical injunctions to do so. In fact, most of the people the Church persecuted were those who held to sola scriptura in spite of the power of Rome. It was G.K. Chesterton who once said, “Christianity has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and not tried.” Many practices and attitudes carry the name of Christ but bear no resemblance to the doctrines clearly outlined in Scripture.

This is what the liberal needs to understand about the biblical Christian:

•  He will not be quiet. He knows that without the willing sacrificial death of Christ on the cross he would be just as damned as the unbeliever. He knows he doesn’t deserve eternal life, that it is a free gift available to absolutely everyone who chooses to accept it. He knows that the eternal life of every person depends on what he or she thinks of Christ. How can he keep quiet about that? How can he keep that to himself? What kind of monster would he be if he kept that secret?[pullquote]We are to care for those less fortunate than we are, to be the salt of the earth, the light of the world, to live our lives so that others see Him in us.[/pullquote]

•  He knows that his eternal destiny was sealed when he first believed. So he has to answer the question of why he’s still here. Why didn’t God just zap him off to heaven as soon as he realized that Christ was God? What does God expect of him? We are to “study to show ourselves approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” (2nd Timothy 2:16) We are to “take every thought into captivity for Christ.” (2nd Corinthians 10:5) We are to care for those less fortunate than we are, to be the salt of the earth, the light of the world, to live our lives so that others see Him in us. We are to spread the good news. Such blessing fills the lives of those of us who know God that we can’t in good conscience keep still.

•  The Christian sees the Bible as the literal Word of God. Does he think every phrase is literal? No, but a lot more of it is literal than not and the parts that are figurative are clearly, obviously so. He sees the whole Bible as divinely inspired; he doesn’t, if he is “rightly dividing the Word of Truth,” just pick and choose passages that appeal to him. He takes it seriously. It controls his worldview, his decisions. He cannot turn that on in church and off in public. He sees things differently. He is not of this world; he doesn’t want to offend anyone, but he has a job to do, and like the early apostles, like it or not, he will go tell it on the mountain.

“How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of those who bring good news, who proclaim peace, who bring good tidings, who proclaim salvation, who say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns!’” (Isaiah 52:7)
__________________________________________________
Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com. • (1446 views)

Share
Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I'm blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing -- and more keeps popping up -- needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation. I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Go Tell It On The Mountain

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Ethnicity/race trumps “gender”, which is why liberals prefer to avoid thinking about how Koranic Muslims treat women and homosexuals (otherwise they might have to object to those who stone rape victims for complaining). Their hatred of Christians is simply a reflection of their hatred of anyone who gets in the way of their utopia.

    If liberals really were sincere in saying that no one should ever be offended, they would never say the hateful things they do about conservatives. But the next time ideological liberals are sincere about their self-proclaimed code will be the first.

    You might be interested in the work of Lee Strobel, a former skeptic who has studied the historical background of the Bible (and found it to be far more accurate than most skeptics would be capable of believing). I mentioned his book The Case for Christmas perhaps a week ago.

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    “Unlike the Hindu gods it doesn’t frown on the killing of rats or the butchering of cattle. Unlike Buddhism it doesn’t produce a caste system.”

    Deanne,

    Just to set things straight it is Hinduism, particularly after the rise of the Vedic tradition which has been predominant for centuries, which has a caste system.
    Some Hindus will eat meat, some not. I have only met one Hindu who would eat beef, however this might have been more common before the Brahmins basically took control of Hinduism.

    There is no official caste system in Buddhism. There are two basic strains of Buddhism with numerous offshoots of each. Some Buddhists eat meat, some don’t. It is a matter of personal choice. A person gains merit if he does not eat meat and hurt other creatures.

    The Jains of India are a religious group which will absolutely not each any type of flesh. They are generally so strict that they will not eat anything which has anything to do with flesh. For example, they will not eat a soup if the base is chicken or beef stock. They also avoid root vegetables and things such as onions and garlic.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      First off, terrific article, Deana. Thanks again for letting us share it here.

      Mr. Kung, your corrections regarding Hinduism and Buddhism brought to mind an irrelevant topic.

      A few years back I did a fairly thorough study of Buddhism. It wasn’t with the thought of becoming a Buddhist as much as it was just trying to understand. And, of course, we are all driven to seek avenues which we think could lead the the Ultimates.

      Long story short, I eventually came away with the idea that, although there are some core philosophical and moral ideas there that are of interest, the general body of thought surrounding Buddhism is highly reminiscent of the postmodern gibberish spewed out by academic professors. It’s all built on a house of cards with various phrases and language thrown about as if they meant something.

      And I say that without rancor. But you’d be amazed at how nonsense is piled upon nonsense in that religion/philosophy. The only requirement for being a good Buddhist seems to be in joining the chorus that this nonsense actually means something.

      Morally, despite the touchy-feely “wouldn’t step on a worm” aspect of Buddhism, it is inherently a self-centered, even narcissistic, pursuit. One main aim is to meditate and gain altered states of consciousness — basically Paulbots without the dope.

      And this moral vacuousness (or at least naiveté) is summed up in the various writings of the Buddhist higher-ups, including the Dalai Lama whose philosophy is stuck at a high-school level, if that, not unlike the current Pope. You get a lot of pleasant nothings and very little meat (or clarity).

      That’s not to say that the Pope, the Dalai Lama, or the renowned Thich Nhat Hanh are not nice people. But they are often “nice” in a way that is merely a kind of weak feminism. They, too, have absorbed too much of Cultural Marxism where the traits of the female are held as the ideal. You get no “balls” from them, for lack of a better term.

      In Buddhism I found moral obtuseness if not outright religious fraudulence. They speak as if they have gained great insights. But such “insights” seem to be a learned habit — a vernacular — of the Buddhist culture. You simply spout things that are expected of a Buddhist.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      An interesting take on food taboos of various sorts can be found in several books by the anthropologist Marvin Harris (such as The Sacred Cow and the Abominable Pig). His argument was that such food taboos tend to reflect circumstances; for example, the pig (which needs to wallow in mud to keep from overheating) is a poor choice of domestic animal in the Middle East.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        Ironically, American has turned into a nation of health-nuts, inventing their own religious-like dietary laws. And I say “ironic” because it’s all a farce for the most part. I mean, look at all the fat people. But thank god we have all that dietary information on the outside of the packaging. Some do try to take care of themselves. But even many of these turn it into a fetish based on pseudo-science.

        I respect the Jewish dietary laws even though I would never in a million years want to follow them. I’m sure some of these laws are based on good practices, some are traditions that somehow developed, and some are perhaps completely arbitrary — or are a way to distinguish themselves from other tribes.

        As for pork, isn’t it now “the other white meat”? I guess the quality of the meat depends upon what they eat and not outer appearances. I suppose there is a lesson there for all of us in that.

  3. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    By the way, my favorite version of “Go Tell it on the Mountain” is by Tex Johnson and his Six-Shooters. If you’re not familiar with his Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer Christmas album (which has an odd and wonderful mix of country tunes as well), you’re missing something. Anyone who wants a copy of that one song, just email me. That album is long out of print so I think that’s more than okay. I digitized this album several years ago. There’s another great song on it called “Wait for the Wagon” which is a great non-standard Christmas song.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    “the general body of thought surrounding Buddhism is highly reminiscent of the postmodern gibberish spewed out by academic professors.”

    I have long thought that these profs have taken much of their postmodern gibberish from a superficial study of Eastern religions. Christianity being too familiar to them, they found romanticism in Asia.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Good thought. And although I would argue there are a few harmless notions that Christians have gained from Eastern religions, the net effect has been to water down their generally good ideas with navel-gazing gibberish. This is just my opinion, of course, and I do not speak for all of StubbornThings. 🙂

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        It is all too common for people, who are bored or unhappy with their lives and familiar surroundings, to romanticize the unfamiliar. The familiar is all too real, known and present. The unfamiliar, that which is far away and difficult to attain, is easy to manipulate. For many, Utopia, being non-existent and unattainable is the easiest thing to romanticize. Reality can never break in and shatter the dream.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          There seem to be two types of people in our modern culture. There are those who are driven by novelty for novelty’s sake, wherein the things that are old are deemed to be the things that are most dispensable. Such a mindset is frivolous — barely above the nature of an animal.

          And then there are others who value something precisely because it is old and has withstood the test of time. These people bypass the superficial and vapid and delve into the wisdom of the ages. Such a person develops into a noble human being.

          The former mindset (one I’ve witnessed hundreds of times) is indeed bored with the familiar. They look at Islam through rose-tinted glasses, for example, while belittling Christianity at every turn. Part of this is the result of white guilt, of instilling a sense of hatred for one’s own culture. But it all seems to add up to chasing novelty.

          Obama was elected for a variety of reasons, but perhaps mostly for the novelty of having a black president. Whoop-dee-doo.

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    One of the truisms of American politics and culture is that you can’t be on the wrong side of Christianity.

    I’ll try to espouse my beliefs on this subject without delving into trendy pointy-headed philosophical micro-distinctions or by using a secular lens (hidden though it often is) as the measuring device as if that were some kind of neutral and objective point-of-view with which to give one’s pontifications a special luster. Brad tries not to do stupid or smarmy whenever possible.

    I can sort of understand Judaism’s annoyance with Christianity. And I don’t mean any past persecutions. I mean that Judaism remains a quite narrow tribal-like affair and Jesus (whether the Messiah or just a very good Jew) universalized the message. And a truth that is only good for one tribe is hardly a truth.

    Of course, much of Judaism has been universalized by Christianity (by Christ), so this isn’t an either/or situation. But still, it is interesting to note that, according to Dennis Prager, a very large percentage of Jews in this nation actually practice Leftism, not Judaism. This is happening to Christians to a great degree as well.

    It seems to me that Deana expressed much of the core element of Christianity. And not a word was heard about the importance of “diversity,” “tolerance,” “social justice,” or multiculturalism. Christianity is not a poverty program or a fashionable offshoot of “gender studies” except with candles and stained glass. It is something else. And I admire and respect that something else. And we shouldn’t pollute what that something else is with our own faddish notions, conceits, egos, and bizarre political doctrines.

    America would not be America without Christianity. Whether this is Providence at work or not, I cannot say. But we would not have the progress and freedoms we have if this continent had been settled by Muslims, for example. Nor do I think a “secular” or atheist founding would have done it either. In fact, we see those influences disintegrating our society even as we speak.

    I don’t respect Christianity because I’m “tolerant.” In fact, few have been as critical of the nonsense going on inside that religion than me. I just think something good is worth preserving. And it is good. One cannot stand against Christianity and also be for America, as founded. Nor is there any hope of preserving freedom and limited government if Christianity is marginalized.

    I want to repost a post from a guy (perhaps a gal) named “Liljenborg” over at American Thinker who wrote in response to this excellent article by Trevor Thomas:

    This is the fundamental flaw in the logic of Libertarianism. The Moral Issues are not “religious insanity”. If you want to hoe the row of “fiscal sanity” one of the most powerful tools in your arsenal is the Family. The Moral Issues are all attacks on two ideas, the most obvious is the “religiously insane” notion that sex is sacred and only moral within the bonds of marriage. But this line of attack is, in many ways, secondary to, even a smokescreen for, the primary goal of those forcing the Moral Issues. The primary goal of the leftists pushing the Moral Issues in the “culture war” today is to eliminate the two institutions (the Family and the Church) they see as the competitors to the State, which the leftists believe should be the ONLY institution of human society.

    The Family was the original human institution. Before there were States, before there were Churches or Temples, before there were Schools, Arts, or Markets there were families (and that is true whether you believe in the first few chapters of Genesis or the first few chapters of Darwin’s Descent of Man). As families grouped together to form societies and civilizations the various roles of the family, entertaining, educating, working, defending splintered off into whole institutions of their own. But the Family maintains the central role of Civilization: creating and raising the next generation to carry the civilization into the future.

    The left seeks to bring all human institutions under the umbrella of the State. The Libertarians seem content with letting the left go about the task of dismantling the family because they either see the Market or the Individual as the primary institution of human society. But the Market only views human beings as economic actors, which, incidentally is all Marx saw humans as, not as people. Economic actors are easy to dehumanize, which is why countries founded on Marxist principles become not the stateless utopia (stateless utopia is also a commonality between communism and libertarianism) but the most brutal, humanity crushing, blood soaked totalitarian tyrannies.

    The Family and the Church are the two institutions which elevate humans as individually significant, unique, being endowed with Rights, because they recognize that there is something fundamentally special, even sacred, about human beings. If that notion is “religious insanity” than the notion of “human rights” is also “religious insanity”. Perhaps this is why professional ethicists want to argue for “personal rights” that are dependent upon nebulous concepts of “person-hood” and “quality of life”. It lets them assert the morality of executing unborn children (or even already born children) because they aren’t enough of a person yet, or euthanizing the elderly or infirm because it is somehow more “dignified” to encourage sick and depressed cancer patients to off themselves instead of burden the people around them with their continued presence since their reduced “quality of life” means they aren’t really people anymore. Then, using the same logic, grant the rights we used to call “Human Rights” to animals because they exhibit “person-hood” traits.

    And if humans are in some way “sacred”, as “religiously insane” as you might consider that view, then the biological act that creates humans is also in some way, shape, or form “sacred” as well (and why the Guy who invented sex designed for it to occur within the bonds of a family). Most sane people recognize that sex is qualitatively more than just people engaged in physical acts that cause sensations of pleasure, whether they’re religious or not.

    If the State doesn’t protect the Family as a separate social institution then the State will REPLACE the Family as the institution that raises the next generation of children. And how long with the individual or the market remain free of the State, at that point?

    The “religious insanity” you dismiss is the foundation of the fundamental rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. The “fiscal sanity” of a small and limited government that sees as it’s only true purpose as protecting those rights cannot happen without recognizing and protecting the Natural Family and the Freedom of (not from) religion. They not only go “hand in hand”, they are inextricably linked.

    Try as we might to fit that liberal or libertarian camel through the eye of the realities of the kind of morality that it takes to secure decent families, it can’t be done. And without the family as the foundation of society, the only option left is dependency on government. Christianity’s nurturing of the good family is why it is a friend of the Good and an enemy of the bad.

    Christianity is also derided because it puts a lid on our appetites. Libertarians and others dream a naive dream of being freed from all restraints. But little do they understand the wolf at the door. Either they don’t know much about human history or they are ignorant of it. We dare not unleash the unbridled passions of mankind.

    And, yeah, in this day and age when we are catered to the nth degree by manufacturers (there must be over a dozen kinds of Coke on the shelves), it sucks to not have anything you want whenever you want it. The Pope’s idiotic remarks about “unfettered capitalism” miss the mark. The problem isn’t an economic system. The problem is narcissism. It’s people making an Idol of their trinkets and toys and not developing the spiritual sides of themselves. And to do so means admitting there is something more to life than scratching their latest itch.

    Man is made an animal by “secular” culture. He is kept stupid, uncouth, and unwise by it as well. On the other hand, he is made a decent human being by Christianity. Whether one believes or not, this is self-evident. I love the proof for this that Dennis Prager often uses. He’ll ask some wacky atheist (as he did of Christopher Hitchens): Imagine that you are walking down a dark street all alone. Out of a door you see ten male youths enter into the street in front of you. Would you be relieved or frightened to know that they just came from a Bible study?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Some social conservatives (such as Phyllis Schlafly) have pointed out that the decline of the normal family leads to far higher rates of crime and welfare. This is very undesirable from the libertarian point of view, but their principles tend to prevent them from supporting any government policies that encourage normal family life. This is just another way in which libertarianism, if put into practice, would ultimately lead to bigger government in response.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        This is very undesirable from the libertarian point of view, but their principles tend to prevent them from supporting any government policies that encourage normal family life. This is just another way in which libertarianism, if put into practice, would ultimately lead to bigger government in response.

        Great points, Timothy.

      • griffonn says:

        Human beings cannot compete, to use evolution-speak, as individuals. We need supporting social units.

        There are only two options: the family unit (that is, the self-chosen, self-governing unit) or the governmental (that is, you go where you’re put and you do what you’re told) unit.

        Nobody with a healthy family unit would vote for socialism – who would want to trade in the family house for a slot in a housing project?

        Nobody with a broken family can afford to reject socialism. If you’re on your own, a government handout can mean the difference between life and death.

        Don’t ever think it is a coincidence that marxists have consistently favored policies that “just happen” to have a detrimental effect on the integrity of the family unit.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          The state wants no competition — not from families, not from churches, not from charities, and ultimately not from private businesses acting on their own. Molotov lost favor with Stalin because he abstained from voting on his wife’s request for readmission to the Party — a true party member would never let personal considerations affect his judgment on an issue of concern to the State or the Party (which was the embodiment of the State).

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Great points, Griffon. As I often say, the Left is at war with these things:

          1) The Family
          2) Religion
          3) Knowledge/Facts/Education/Wisdom
          4) Independence of Thought

          All of these things need to be undermined for the Left’s poisonous, destructive, and foolhardy vision to be obtained. And that vision is of a one-party, one-ethic, monoculture ruled by an all-powerful state whose purpose is to enact the Left’s version of Utopia.

          There is no room for dissent. There is no room for political or social structures “not of the body” (as evinced by Timothy’s remarking regarding Stalin and Molotov). This entire political project – exactly like Islam – indoctrinates people into a deranged, entitled, implicitly violent, and supremacist outlook in which (probably mostly for psychological reasons), there is no room for dissent.

          Michael Savage is correct that liberalism is a mental disorder. Look at all the petty, cruel, intolerant actions of the Left every day, whether making fun of the adopted black child by a Romney or the unhinged and tribal-like smears of Steyn, Duck Dynasty, Paula Deen, various businesses in California, and the kind of liberal fascist ideological thuggery that rules in academia (and is spreading outward fast).

          Those on the Left are becoming like animals who need to be put down. We shall put them down rhetorically and (hopefully) legally. But they are bringing a fight to us that may one day lead to vast bloodshed. These kooks are as deranged as the South was before the Civil War. When one is marinating in evil, and you have that evil pointed out to you, that tends to happen.

  6. Let me just say what a pleasure it is to be able to share my writing with people who like to think and respond. It’s always so much fun to read about where your minds go. Nice to know you all. dc

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      You have fallen in with some strange people who believe words have meanings and actions consequences. And I think we are all old enough to know these points to be true.

      Keep up the writing.

  7. griffonn says:

    Whitman was stating a commonly held liberal attitude – keep your religious beliefs to yourself – a mandate that seems only to apply to Christians. The left is strangely silent about Muslim anti-gay pronouncements and punishments

    Speaking of which, has Mark Steyn been sited on NRO since his dispute with Steorts over whether one may offend the Gods of Gay?

    • Timothy Lane says:

      I’m not sure about short pieces, but his big Friday night piece has been missing 2 weeks in a row. Perhaps it has to do with the holidays; we’ll know better next Friday. He could have received the Derbyshire treatment. But at least his usual short article is in the current issue of National Review.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Griffonn, see my blog post here for a little bit of information on that. Long story short, I haven’t read yet if Steyn is on suspension, on vacation, or has said “to hell with the place.” But something is indeed going on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *