Author grants permission to anyone to email this document so long as none of the text is altered.

I recently arrived home after a week speaking at a church camp in Oregon. As I gratefully sat down in front of my computer, relieved to be finally free of all that sunshine, fresh air and physical activity, I eagerly looked forward to reading my email and catching up on things. Two hundred and seven messages filled my mailbox, and not an insignificant number of them from friends across the country telling me that I had finally made the big time; Gary North had blasted me in cyber-print! It seems that a little editorial I had done for our church newsletter, “The News, Views and Snooze Monthly Gazette and Fish-wrapping Paper” on the Y2K problem had somehow found its way into Dr. North’s hands. And, as my British wife might say, “he was not amused.”

What truly amazes me is that a man of Dr. North’s reputation and stature should even READ this silly, insignificant commentary, let alone respond to it in detail. And one has to wonder why he took the time or the trouble to do either. Unlike some of the men whom Dr. North has deflated over the years, I have no national reputation, no widely read mass of publications, no real influence. Why should such a pathetic, little article published in an unknown forum arouse such ire? Maybe Dr. North is getting bored living in rural Arkansas? Has he so deftly defeated all the giants in the land that there is nothing left for his pen but we poor pygmies? Or could it be that as simplistic, reductionistic and over-generalized as my commentary self-admittedly was, perhaps it hit a bit too close to home? One has to wonder.

Most of the folks who forwarded Dr. North’s response were simply extending a courtesy but in at least several messages (mostly from people not known to me personally) I detected the same kind of morbid fascination that makes people slow down to get a ghoulish view of a gruesome accident. They were definitely looking forward to seeing what I would say in response, no doubt anticipating a bloody battle of words, slanders, accusations, charges and counter-charges. In other words, they wanted to see another fight between Christians.

Hence I am in sort of a no win situation. If I respond in detail to Dr. North then I run the risk of fanning the flames even more. If I simply ignore his response, some might take it as intellectual cowardice. Yet, I cannot think that going head to head on this issue would do anyone any good. Dr. North has one opinion and has the courage of his convictions to act on them. I just disagree. And though zingers by the score have been dancing through my head since I first read Dr. North’s response, I am really going to try my best to resist. Instead, perhaps the best course would be to clear up some obvious misunderstandings that Dr. North made in his response.

First, as he corrected in later versions, my name is “Brian” not “Bruce.” There is a Bruce Abshire, my older brother who lives in Wisconsin and runs a thriving business selling and building log homes. At first, the references to “Bruce Abshire” made me wonder what big bro had been up to these days to get Gary North on his case (I didn’t know, maybe Bruce had sold Gary a deficient log cabin or something as a survivalist retreat?) Thankfully, the later versions cleared that up.

Secondly, Dr. North compared my article with young upstarts in the Old West wanting to test their mettle against the tried and trued gunslinger. He was wearied of such futile attempts by vain young men and regretted having to shoot them down. So, let’s see, that would make him Walter Brennen as Ike Clanton in “My Darling Clementine” leaving the Henry Fonda part to me. But if I’m Henry Fonda, that means Jane is my daughter and surely even the inestimable Dr. North’s rhetoric would not descend to that level! Maybe he just meant that as a compliment. I have not been called a “young” man for over a decade now and after a week of softball, volley-ball, capture the flag and playing with my kids at camp, every muscle in my body reminds me that 40 was a long way in the past. But it was a nice thought, even if it was a mistake.

Thirdly, I also have to thank Dr. North for giving that stupid commentary a dignity it certainly did not deserve by responding to it as well as a far wider circulation than it would have ever had on its own. Perhaps a total of a hundred people might have read the original. Now thanks to Dr. North’s response, I suspect the figure is in the thousands. It was really an honor I did not want or intentionally seek, for as I note below, the essay was written for a very select group of people I know, and who know me. But as they say in Hollywood, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.”

Fourthly, Dr. North seems to have completely misunderstood the context of the article (not unsurprisingly since it was never intended as either a serious critique or for wide-spread distribution). The essay was originally posted on Theonomy-L, an Internet discussion list. Over the past few years, many of the guys on T-L have become good friends. We do on the list, something similar to what the men in my church do after worship on Sunday; gather together (smoke stinky cigars) and talk about anything and everything that grabs our interest. We make caustic comments and scathing remarks about each other, all with sense of genuine affection and a hearty sense of humor. Taken out of context, T-L might seem a bit rough for some people, but for the most part, participants are more than willing to seek forgiveness if the rhetoric gets too hot. Reading T-L is always interesting, and a lot of fun.

When the issue of Y2K came up, various people took sides pro and con on the “end of civilization as we know it” scenario. My point was that most of the people who stated “This WILL happen in THIS way” simply did not have the professional or technical expertise to really have an informed opinion on the subject. No one can predict what will happen, at best only what might happen. The certainty which some people had on this issue concerned me, a certainty that appears to have more in common with religious fervor rather than reasoned debate.

Furthermore, I made the point that people develop convictions often due to sociological criteria that have nothing to do with the “facts.” Borrowing a phrase I first learned from Dr. North’s books 20 years ago, I stated, “There are no brute facts, only interpreted ones.” Everyone has an agenda, and that agenda influences which facts are accepted, which are rejected and what weight we give to various experts. Hence, there are computer consultants who have a vested interested in hyping the Y2K scare because they sell software support and Y2K fixes. Some companies have a vested interest in protecting themselves from lawsuits by claiming they warned their customers about Y2K. Politicians have a vested interest in getting congress to fund their pet projects by appealing to Y2K disaster scenarios.

My original comments regarding Dr. North were never intended to be an attack against him, per se, but rather as an example of how one’s presuppositions color one’s use of “facts.” Dr. North theologically, philosophically and economically has a vested interest in the disaster type scenario. Neither his integrity nor his sincerity were being questioned, simply his credibility as an “impartial” witness. If a prosecutor brought charges against a man, and then one discovered a long history of animosity between the two, one might well question the prosecutor’s objectivity. Dr. North makes his living by forecasting economic trends, usually in the negative (as one person said, “Gary North has successfully predicted 12 out of the last 8 recessions”). There is a market for this kind of analysis. To recognize that Dr. North appeals to this market does not mean that he is not genuine in his concerns, or insincere in his motives, or that he is not nice to puppy dogs and small children. But his presuppositions do color his judgments, as do our own. And as good Van Tillians, we should all agree that examining presuppositions is certainly necessary in evaluating the credibility of anyone’s predictions.

About the same time as the discussion on T-L I had a newsletter to get out for Reformed Heritage Church. After writing about our various ministries, I found I had some space left to fill on the inside. So I summarized the discussion we had on T-L as “our” (read Reformed Heritage Church’s) official position on the Y2K debate. I then sent a copy to T-L.

Hence, my essay was never intended as a direct challenge to Dr. North, though certainly he has not been the only one to see it that way, but rather a funny, but also hopefully thought provoking alternative to the Y2K paranoia that appears to be engulfing some people. I certainly never expected Dr. North to read it, let alone interact with it.

Thus to follow the good doctor’s analogy of a gun fight; rather than a young punk seeking out the old gun-slinger and challenging him to a shoot out, in reality, it was more like a bunch of guys down at the local saloon wondering aloud if the poor old fellow was losing his eye-sight. Suddenly he bursts into the bar and starts shooting up the place. Whether he hit his target or simply shot himself in the foot on this one remains yet to be seen.

Yes, I do confess, admit and hereby repent of an irreverent and slightly mocking tone in that essay. Yup, I was going for a cheap laugh and trying to poke fun at what I see as a recurring form of paranoia that exists in some circles. Dr. North, I hereby offer my sincere apologies for offending you, for holding you up to ridicule and ask for your forgiveness. If I had thought this essay would have been read outside of the context of a very select audience, I would certainly have tempered the language.

At the risk of self-justification, I really did think I was only following the example Dr. North himself has set for us all in his many attacks against positions he deems harmful to the faith. If I had known he would read it, I would have expected him to laugh at the mimicry of his own rhetoric, and perhaps even been just a little bit flattered by the feeble attempt of one trying to model their polemical style after his own (granted, no one can do polemics like Gary North, but gee, it sure is fun to try!). However, I guess what’s sauce for the goose, is definitely NOT sauce for the gander; e.g., I notice Dr. North was not above equating me with Hal Lindsey (ouch!). Now that was scathing! And funny!

Dr. North also took exception to my calling our “Snooze Letter” “prestigious” (as if I were putting on airs). This is really pretty funny. I thought this was fairly evident, self deprecating humor. Perhaps if Dr. North had seen the entire newsletter, with such gripping headlines as “Top Ten Ways to Know You’re in the WRONG Church” (of which my favorites were “The Media refers to your church facilities as a ‘compound’” and “Three of the Women in the Ladies Quartet are married to the Pastor”) perhaps the humorous aspect would have been more obvious.

Dr. North then attacks my position theologically, stating that because I do not necessarily believe that Y2K will be quite the disaster he says it will be, that therefore I deny the sanctions of Deuteronomy 28. Let me see if I can put this another way; even though I state categorically and explicitly that America is NOW already under judgment and will continue to be under increasing judgment until she repents, Dr. North says I deny God’s judgments in history. Wow, amazing hermeneutic there. Interesting how one can make words say the exact opposite of what they mean (and the crack about Meredith Kline was really hitting below the belt. However, I de-kline to respond in kind!).

The most serious problem was my comment regarding false prophecy. And here is the heart of the issue. Those who have adopted the “retreat is the only option” mentality insist that Y2K will be God’s judgment on America. All I asked was, “how do you know?” Jesus told his disciples that it is not so easy to discern the judgments of God in history. Eighteen people died in the collapse of the tower of Siloam (Luke 13:1ff) but they were not more deserving of judgment than anyone else. God brings His sanctions in history according to His own sovereign plan and it can be difficult to see why God does what He does, when He does it, especially before He does it. Why does God allow some cultures to flourish and prosper for centuries and judge others almost immediately? To know the answer to these things would require special revelation (as in the prophecies of God’s judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD). God’s sanctions in history are not random, chaotic or neutral. They are real, and they will come. And Y2K just might be one of them. But “might” is the operative term here.

Hence, if a man says “this WILL happen” and “THIS is the judgment of God,” it sounds awfully much like a prophecy to me. Does Dr. North really believe that there is no such thing as false prophecy today and that the penal sanctions are no longer binding? The gang at the Psychic Hotline will be glad to hear that God no longer holds them accountable. Granted, we orthodox and reformed types believe there can be no TRUE prophets since the closing of the canon, but does that really mean there is no such thing as a FALSE one? What is this new teaching Dr. North? I don’t recall hearing this before. Calvin seems to have disagreed with you, “God briefly defines who the false prophets are, namely those who prophesy out of their own hearts… The Spirit of God pronounces every one who prophesies from his own heart to be an imposter… God puts a perpetual distinction between the human mind and revelation of his Spirit.” Calvin’s Commentaries, Ezek II:7-8

And regarding Dr. North’s comment about church adjudication; since when does responding to published material require private consultation? I notice Dr. North did not send ME a personal refutation before he went public with his response. I guess, “What’s sauce for the goose is NOT…” sorry, I used that one already didn’t I? Regardless, the time for a charge of false prophecy is AFTER the prophecy has been proven false.

Dr. North ends by saying that I really object to him putting the Reconstructionist case on the line with the Y2K disaster. I respectfully disagree. It is not Reconstructionism that is being put on the line, only Dr. North’s reputation. While he is certainly an important representative of one branch of Reconstructionism, he is NOT the only one. People will remember those who cried, “wolf” and those who said, “Hey, maybe it’s just a big dumb dog.”

When the dust settles from Y2K, and we sort out what happened and why, and if the disaster he predicts does NOT occur, then HIS professional reputation will be shattered for good. And if his reputation and credibility is blown, that means that all the great books Dr. North has written, or caused to have been written over the years just might suffer as well. That would be a great loss. For Dr. North has made an incredible contribution to the cause of the Kingdom. Even when I have disagreed with him, and despite what was less than a flattering essay, for the public record I hereby state that I have always had a profound respect and deep appreciation for his labors.

Oh well, I guess Dr. North won’t be inviting me over to the new house for a cold beer anytime soon. And I suppose this is not a good time to talk about a book contract?