Clinton Vs. Starr
“Bill Clinton and Ken Starr, two men who would engender intense, polar opposite feelings among the American public, in reality embodied flip sides of the same life story. Both had been born into Southern families of modest means — the word poor would not be an exaggeration in either case. Both had been born within a month of each other, a few hundred miles apart. Both seemed destined for great things. Yet both men had deep beliefs and strong ambitions that, in the last decade of the twentieth century, steered them into a collision course that produced disastrous consequences for themselves, and for those surrounding them.”
I’m knee deep in Ken Gormley’s new book, The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr
Why? Well, certainly Ken Starr’s new appointment as president of Baylor University makes it relevant in this part of Texas. But it’s much more than that. The overlap with my own life is huge: the Church of Christ . . . Arkansas . . . Harding College.
Kenneth Starr’s father was a Church of Christ minister in Texas. His first two years of college were at Harding — a decade before I was a student there.
Here are the passages about Harding:
“. . . [President Clinton] knew that Starr had grown up in the ‘hard-scrabbled’ part of North Texas, where the religious right had first planted its seeds, and then attended Harding College in central ARkansas for two years. Everyone from Arkansas, Clinton said, lifting his eyebrows, knew what ‘Harding’ stood for at that time: ‘Well, it was an ultraconservative Church of Christ school that in the fifties had a president who was a leading, militant anti-Communist. And was rather well known in those super anti-Communist circles around America.’ The Church of Christ believed in ‘the saving grace of baptism’ and was ‘steeped in the New Testament teachings of Jesus.’”
[Correction: We were steeped in the New Testament teachings of Paul -- many of our churches considering the words of Jesus less important.]
“Harding was initially a good fit for Starr, incorporating many of the building blocks that came to define his adult life. His freshman yearbook included a prominent picture of Harding’s president pointing to a pyramid that had written at its foundation, FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF IN GOD. Above that was situated a block that represented THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, and atop that a smaller block, THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE: OUR FREEDOM, with an American flag flying at the pinnacle.”
During the seven years I preached at the College Church in Searcy, Gov. Clinton had close connections with Harding. (He became governor at the age of 32 in 1978, the year I graduated. He lost reelection in 1980, but won again in 1982 and kept the position until 1992. We moved to Abilene in 1991.) I remember one time when he spoke on campus. Jim Bill McInteer also spoke, and his humor cracked up the governor so much he pulled out a pen and paper to take notes. Diane remembers another time when Mrs. Clinton came to a small event for Associated Women For Harding — especially the moments they had alone visiting when Hillary encouraged her as a mother of a mentally-handicapped daughter and gave her a crash course on opportunities for special needs kids in Arkansas.
Kenneth Starr returned to the world of the Church of Christ for the past six years as dean of the Pepperdine Law School and as a member of the Malibu Church of Christ. (I think he and his wife technically “kept their membership” — whatever that means! — in their previous church in Virginia, but they attended the Malibu C of C when in town.)
Gormley is doing a great job of balancing his account of both men. Was Kenneth Starr “Satan” (as Susan McDougal suggested), or just an honest, at-times over-zealous prosecutor? (Those who’ve worked with Mr. Starr at Pepperdine wouldn’t even recognize the man described by the harsher critics — compared to the generous, competent man they’ve known the past six years.) And Bill Clinton? Well you can imagine that the opinions are all over the page!
Very interesting read, though. So much that happened came during our dark years of grief. The events that were in the headlines of the nightly news just floated in the background as we tried to survive.
An interesting note is Starr’s statement that if he ran into President Clinton at an out-of-the-way barbecue join, where they could speak without microphones preserving everything, he would say, “I’m sorry that it all happened” — “not in the form of an apology, but really as a reflection.”
It will be interesting looking back on history, and time will surely tell, if the election of President Clinton becomes point at which the difference between the right and left (both politically and religiously) exploded into its current polarization that may or may not ever be mended. The title “The Death of American Virtue” is interesting because as I flip around on CNN, FOX, and MSNBC, there seems to be little, if any, virtue and that is something that I believe we all are responsible for.
Thanks for sharing this book, it sounds interesting.
Grace and peace,
Rex
Mike: I don’t often comment one way or the other and try to stay above the little fray and dance you have with various brethren on your site. But I do think it sad that a rather prominent character had something rather positive to say about his perception of our fellowship and you felt called upon to correct that idea. While it is opinion I would agree that “the Church of Christ…was ‘steeped in the New Testament teaching of Jesus’”.
Why must you always look to be critical of those who have supported you, loved you, made possible your wealth and stood beside you in your good days and grief. Yes, there are some mean brothers, and I do not praise them. But the whole of our brotherhood is deeply loving, patient and forgiving…and steeped in the New Testament teachings of Jesus.
Mike,
Why is there a seeming concentration among more and more people among us that it is only in relatively times that some in the church have discovered such foundational principles as Jesus and grace? Have brethren always been perfect? No! Were some things neglected in our preaching and teaching across the years? Perhaps. But to paint with a broad brush that practically everyone up until twenty or twenty-five years was focused on the epistles (especially Paul), and not Christ focused is unfair.
Here is a thought that occurs to me, wouldn’t it follow that since Paul was “Christ focused (Galatians 2:20, I Corinthians 11:1), that being “Paul focused” would be the same as “Christ focused”? I agree Dale, that our brotherhood is steeped in the teachings of Jesus.
It is becoming more and more distressing to read and hear the continuing criticism of faithful Christians from years past (at least that is what I seem to be reading). Some of today’s critics seem to take pride in their constant castigation.
Brethren, we can do better. Our focus needs to be solidly on Jesus and His Truth.
Thanks Dale, for your comments.
I’m shocked at how radically the politics of Harding have changed since my grandparents were there half a century ago. By the way, Laura Ingraham rocked on campus last week.
Good morning, Dale. Thanks for dropping by. Greetings from snow-covered and school-cancelled Abilene!
This is my philosophy about how one deals with one’s own heritage:
Some treat it like a two-year-old does his or her mommy: “My mommy is perfect, and if you don’t think she’s perfect you’re not nice.”
Others treat it like a teenager may his or her mom: “She doesn’t know anything!”
Hopefully, we become mature adults — where we can see the strengths and weaknesses, point them out, but see the heritage in a mature, loving light. Which I think I do. As you can tell, if you’ve been a long-time reader of this “fray and dance,” I deeply love this heritage and I appreciate the way it’s blessed my life. (Wondering what you know that I don’t know about my “wealth,” though! I’m anxious to learn more about that!)
When I was a student at Harding, Jim Woodroof asked everyone to pull out their Bibles and look where their pages were worn. He noted that for almost anyone in this heritage, the pages of the gospels show very little wear (along with the Old Testament pages, except perhaps the Psalms) while the epistles — especially Paul — are nearly worn out. We knew it was true. After that, I heard of people using this same illustration all over — always with the same results. People knew that they’d grown up hearing a lot from Paul and very little from the gospels.
There was a reason for that, of course. This was the dispensation of the church. Many were focused on the right name, the right worship, the right organization, etc. The sense was that Pentecost was the beginning of what really matters the most to us. So Acts to Revelation was the focus. (I’m not saying that all or most thought the words of Jesus were less important — just “many.”)
By the way, I dearly hope that a new generation will challenge the teaching of my generation. I think it would be fair to say that’s already begun! Since I think the gospel must be heard afresh in every culture, that makes me very happy.
You seem to think I don’t believe that there were lots of loving, patient, and forgiving people. Where did you get that idea?
Bruce, I think that Paul can be a window to Jesus, and I think that this is what Paul himself argues. Two things warrant further careful thinking however. First, did we understand Paul right? The past 35 years of scholarship show us that almost all Protestants have had some faulty ideas about Paul’s teachings. Second, does focusing on Paul infallibly yield a focus on Jesus? Above, I called him a “window”; to extend that metaphor, the window is not the object of focus. Paul may tell us valuable things about Jesus, but Jesus himself — not Paul’s teachings — is God’s chief revelation to humanity.
As I grew up in my heritage, I was the “2-year-old” in high school.
I became the “teenager” in my 20s (and not just a little bit mad at myself for having had my 2-year-old blindness).
In my 30s, I found gratitude (and was only a little bit mad at myself for being the “teenager,” but still mad, maybe more regretful & humbled)
Now, in my 40s, I find myself attempting to use my “2-year-old” unconditional love & child-like trust in my heritage, my “teenager” critique & challenge of it, and my gratitude for all of it… to hopefully do nothing else but lead people to the person of Jesus.
Seems like I remember something about all scripture being inspired and profitable. Hear Jesus but also , Paul , Peter, James, etc. All of it is the word of God. I have been in full time ministry since 1970 and all this time I have heard Chrsitians , talk about ” now that we have finally heard about grace”. My mother is 82 and has said to me that she has always known that she was saved by grace. I can remember as a boy hearing sermons constantly about the blood of Jesus. Preachers were teaching about the cross. They were teaching Jesus. But also about worship, church organization , etc. Let us never forget about the central teaching of the Gospel : Jesus and His Death and Resurrection . The substitutionary sacrifice , necessary for justification.His victory over the grave.But also about how we must eat the supper and the necessity of baptism and actually the “whole will of God “.
This one kinda took on a life of its own, huh, Mike?
It’s in how you say it.
Regarding Starr, it does seem evident that something drastically changed from his Harding heritage (Good or bad depending uppon one’s viewpoint). Also seems odd that one can go from teaching at Pepperdine(Churches of Christ heritage) and become President of a Baptist university; he has publicly stated that he will join a Baptist church in Waco. Real irony? Starr and Clinton will now belong to the same denomination.
Mike, I think the time you recall Gov. Clinton speaking on campus in the presence of Jim Bill McInteer was Dr. Burks’ inauguration as president of Harding. Gov. Clinton thought Jim Bill was the funniest MC he had ever heard.
Seems like Dale is a bit envious of Mike. I checked out your site…appears kind of self-promoting to me.
Relax Dale! Don’t be so uptight.
I must say Mike that, after reading and commenting on your blog for 5 years, your reply to Dale is probably one of the most profound, and dead-on posts I’ve read here. God bless your continued writings/reflections on ministry. There’s about a 10 part series in there – would love to hear or read it.
Looking back on my growing-up years in rural Arkansas in the 70s, I certainly remember the emphasis at my church of Christ–where my family attended 3 times a week, along with 2 gospel meetings a year (some 7 days long)–being on Paul, not Jesus. I was a scholar on the book of Acts before I turned 12.
Mike, thanks for the book review. I am going to go to Amazon and order it in the next day or so. I will compare notes with you after I get through reading it.
I concur completely with your one sentence “correction”. If someone outside of our fellowship in the 50′s, 60′s and 70′s had been asked the question “hey, you know and live among those folks over at the Church of Christ……….so tell me, what is their passion?” From others I have talked to outside of our fellowship, I don’t think the answer would have been “Jesus”. It most likely would have been something to the effect of: “They are really good Christian people who seem to have a passion for restoring the New Testament church”. Hence, the worn out pages in Acts and the Letters. It’s refreshing to hear Brian Mashburn and others advocating a “Restoration of Discipleship”. Of course Jim Woodroof was preaching that in the 70′s! Remember his “hooking my anchor to Jesus” statement?
Again, thanks for the heads up on the book. Should be an interesting read.
DU
David – You’ve been in my prayers a lot recently. I look forward to a day that we can sit down over some fajitas and you can tell me more about your dad.
You’ll enjoy the reading. (I’m currently in a six hour layover at DFW thanks to my dear friend, American Eagle, so I’m now waist deep in the book.) If nothing else, it’s full of names like Flippin, Clinton (as in Clinton, AR), Cabot, etc. It’s home turf! Still hoping to come across Alread (the first place I preached weekly/weakly). From Alread, Clinton WAS the major city to go buy groceries!
And it’s full of Arkansas characters. The kind that people assume must be — but aren’t! — made up.
When Jim Woodroof asked us to look at our Bibles, my OT was nearly as studied as the NT…and the gospels were well marked. I’m a decade older than Mike…grew up listening to Burton Coffman, my dad and grandad, Frank L Cox, Tillit S Teddlie, Gordon Teel…gospel meetings throughout the summer (8 days to 2 weeks) with men like Gayle Oler, Horace Busby, R B Sweet, George Benson, George Bailey Jimmy Allen, Charlie Coil…and there was lots of teaching from the OT. Blackboards were the norm until I moved to Searcy…regardless of the sermon it was not uncommon for ministers to draw the “three ages” either from Tisdall’s Charts or something they worked up to help us see where the lesson came from. For 7 years I was in Bible classes that studied that wonderful series by R B Sweet “Journey’s Through the Bible” which took you through the entire Bible in 3 years, then started over at the next grade level up…the first series that good teachers supplemented with flannel graph and wonderful word illustrations. Oh, yes…the sermons were usually 45 minutes…occasionally longer if we were at a gospel meeting.
Dee,
While my experience’s were not identical to yours, they were similar in type. The end result was that we did know a great deal of the Bible – but with a heavy emphasis on favorite CofC proof texts and concepts. I fear there is a generational difference between the boomers and whatever they call the last generation or two. Some things are probably better each way, but I am thankful for the Bible knowledge I gained and the emphasis on knowing scripture.
It does seem to me that we studied Acts (written by Dr. Luke which certainly dealt heavily with Paul’s missionary journeys) more than we studied the actual letters that Paul wrote. In my experience James and Hebrews got a lot of attention as we could use them to diminish some of the things Paul wrote in his letter to the Romans.
That’s it – thanks for allowing Geezer to engage in geezing for a moment.
Peace,
Geezer
I agree with Dale. I think more and more of us “moderates” need to “call to the carpet” and not let these grossly overstated assertions stand uncontested. It saddens me that some among us always seem to have such a low and critical estimate of the brethren in the Churches of Christ.
As a graduate of Harding I remember shortly before his death, brother James D. Bales reviewed Jim Woodroof’s book, “The Church in Transition.” Bales called his book “The Church in Transition to What?” Bro. Bales was a longtime professor at Harding University and the author of some 85 books and hundreds of articles. Even in his advanced years, brother Bales with the skill of a surgeon, he analyzed refuted Woodroof’s criticisms of the Lord’s Church which today has some become so “commonly accepted” and espoused by our more progressive mind folks. One of “Woodroof’s pillars” that Bales addressed was: That the Gospels are of greater value and importance than the rest of the New Testament!
Michael Weed, Professor of Theology and Ethics Austin Graduate School of Theology, wrote a chapter in the Directions for the Road Ahead book entitled, “Gospels vs. Epistles, Jesus vs. the Church – A Misplaced Debate” In his footnotes he said after quoting from a section in Woodroof’s book that said “Plugging into any part of the Scripture, except the Gospels, expecting there to find power, is like plugging an electric motor into a reflection of a power outlet….” (p. 34). Weed notes: “Woodroof appears oblivious to the fact that the Gospels are written after most of the New Testament epistles. His point might better be made that Christian faith should center on the gospel, rather than the Gospels.”
And in his chapter Weed writes, “One of our errors some suggest, has been in anchoring our efforts to restore early Christianity solely in the Acts and Epistles rather than in the Gospels. This argument occasional leaves the impression that the Gospels and Epistles stand in some tension, even competition. Thus the impression may be left that Christians must choose between Gospel and Epistle, or that one is clearly of less value than the other.” ( Directions for the Road Ahead, p. 143)
Robert Prater
I believe Michael Weed is right when he says the Christian faith should center on the gospel if by that he means that the Christian faith should center on a person – namely, Jesus of Nazarreth, the Messiah – rather than a construct identified as Gospel since the Gospels and Epistles are pointers to the historical Jesus. Nevertheless, this was not the focus of the Churches of Christ in the 20th century. Our focus was on a doctrinal construct that became a legalistic (constitutional) endeavor to define and maintain the perceived form of the church. It is a focus not centered in the person of Jesus but instead it is centered in a systematic construct extrapolated from scripture and done so through the lens of Scottich Philosophy. In its worst form it allowed us to argue over what is the correct form for helping the widows and orphans rather than just helping. That is not being hypercritical of our fellowship, it is simply acknowledging what it for what it is – a conclusion that not only seems fairly standard among restoration historians but also one that more and more among our fellowship are realizing that it woefully missed the intentions of Jesus calling us and commissioning us to be his disciples.
Grace and peace,
Rex
I’ve been the two-year old and the teenager and agree with Brian Mashburn’s assessment now – what’s really important is bringing folks to Jesus.
I recently heard an interesting observation from a family member who now attends a CofC but didn’t grow up in one. After sitting through a Bible class where yet again the conversation turned to something along the lines “well we used to be so legalistic in the Churches of Christ” or “remember when all we did was fight about dancing and kitchens?”, she remarked “why do you guys spend so much time looking at the past?” Her point was no one cares about our past but us and that a lot of the stereotypes of the Church of Christ are fading with each generation. She said she was “bored” of sitting through classes and having to hear about old CoC baggage. Just one interesting perspective …
Yes , preach and teach Jesus as revealed in Matt.- John but never forget that when you preach/teach Acts- Rev. you still preach / teach Jesus.
Mike;
In the beginning was the Word. The Word was with God and the Word was God. Jesus and the Word are one and the same. The same Holy Spirit that inspired Matthew, Mark, Luke and John inspired Paul. That inspiration was and is, 100%. We are to make disciples, baptize and teach all things commanded by Christ in the Gospels, the Acts, the Epistles and the Revelation. To do anything less is to embrace the multiple “truths” of Origen, the “imagination is truth” of Aquinas, the manic-depressive theology of Kierkegaard, the duplicity of Vatican II and the Darwinian ramblings of Brian McLaren.