Rick Warren and Politics

A helpful profile on Rick Warren and politics by the WSJ. Check it out.

Safety (or just Litigious) Nation

Following up on the last post, here is another WSJ editorial, "Why Safe Kids Are Becoming Fat Kids" by Philip Howard. He complains about the constant reigning in of child's play in the name of safety (but, in reality, of legal liability). For instance, Broward County, FL has outlawed running at recess. What is recess without running?!

His thesis: When play is robbed of risk, it's no fun to be outside. When it's no fun to be outside, kids stay inside. When they stay inside, they get fat. And that's not the only problem facing too-safe kids.

Risk is important in child development. Allowing children to test their limits in unstructured play, according to the American Association of Pediatrics, "develop[s] their imagination, dexterity, and physical, cognitive, and emotional strength." Scrapes and bruises are how children learn their limits, and the need to take personal responsibility.

On a related note, NPR had a wild story about a camp in California meant to counter just this impulse in parents. Here's a description of the story:

Software engineer Gever Tulley felt that his friends who were parents were overprotective of their children. So he started the Tinkering School, a summer camp that encourages kids to play with fire, throw spears and take risks.

Apparently, parents have to sign a release of liability form that says they understand their child could be seriously injured or die while at this camp. I have to admit -- I'd be skeptical about sending my child there. Give it a listen.

Hypochondriac Nation

Have you ever felt like everything causes cancer? Personally, the endless articles on the health dangers of cell phones, chocolate, free-range salmon and farmed salmon have made me more reckless. If the Diet Coke doesn't kill me, driving with flip-flops will.

Ronald Bailey reviews what looks like an interesting book by Geoffrey C. Kabat, Hyping Health Risks. In "Scared Senseless" (WSJ), he recount's Kabat's claim that epidemiologists should not always be trusted. Here's the introduction:

Does the wearing of shoes with heels cause schizophrenia? That was the contention made in 2004 by a Swedish physician in Medical Hypotheses, a scientific journal that specializes in out-of-the-box thinking. "Heeled footwear," the physician observed, "began to be used more than 1,000 years ago, and led to the occurrence of the first cases of schizophrenia." As heeled shoes sprinted across the world, he said, so did the incidence of the disease. He called for epidemiological studies to check his hypothesis.

It is possible that some epidemiologist somewhere is crunching heeled-shoe data and preparing a paper on the subject. And if such a paper appears, the media will treat it with sober regard -- assuming that it confirms the doctor's wild idea. A Nexis survey of newspaper headlines from the past week finds epidemiological studies playing a role in all sorts of claims: that sleep apnea increases the risk of early death; that thunderstorms provoke asthma attacks; that cellphones might cause cancer; that flu shots may not help the elderly; that consuming fruit drinks increases the risk of diabetes in women. Some of these reports may turn out to be important but most will amount to a kind of scientific noise, adding to our uneasy sense that, in the modern world, danger lurks on every side.

In "Hyping Health Risks," Geoffrey Kabat, an epidemiologist himself, shows how activists, regulators and scientists distort or magnify minuscule environmental risks. He duly notes the accomplishments of epidemiology, such as uncovering the risks of tobacco smoking and the dangers of exposure to vinyl chloride and asbestos. And he acknowledges that industry has attempted to manipulate science. But he is concerned about a less reported problem: "The highly charged climate surrounding environmental health risks can create powerful pressure for scientists to conform and to fall into line with a particular position."

Chalk another one to the postmodernists. There's no such thing as naked facts. If you have a chance to read Kabat's book, let me know what you think.

Revelation 23?

I wholeheartedly agree that Barack Obama's candidacy is both significant and encouraging, as the first promising run for the presidency by a black American -- a testimony to much progress in American civil rights (with still a long way to go). But this quote was so extraordinary I couldn't post it in good conscience without verifying it. And, here it is.

Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.), son of the one-time presidential contender, said Obama’s victory overwhelmed him.“I cried all night. I’m going to be crying for the next four years,” he said. “What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance.” [italics added]

Wow. Someone has their sights set far too low. For previous thoughts on political religion, see posts here and here.

[HT: Ross Douthot, CFI]

Dishonesty and Political Discourse

In the run-up to the Republican and Democratic National Conventions, there is very little politics worth paying the slightest attention to. It may seem like the debates have already begun, but it's just grandstanding.

Most of the political headlines are taken up with campaign tactics rather than campaign platforms. It's a competition over who can be more outraged at the other -- Obama's "playing the race card;" McCain is "going negative." Each wants to paint the other as a shameless politician, pulling for our sympathy. And, really, both make a good case. This week, McCain compared Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton -- Mrs. Hilton is absolutely right, a waste of money. Obama valiantly called for full inclusion of Michigan and Florida -- too bad he didn't mention anything three months ago when it could have mattered.

But how does the endless debate over politik help us choose a president? James Bowman has a good post over at The New Criterion blog, Arma Virumque. "An Affair of Honor" discusses the effect of calling into question the other candidate's honor:

To question an opponent’s good faith is not to engage in debate but to put an end to debate. The only honorable recourse to such a charge is a violent one, which is why accusations of lying or cowardice were once thought automatically to require a challenge by the man so impugned to mortal combat with his accuser...

There is a reason why that will never happen, alas. It is because the culture of authenticity which has succeeded the honor culture in this country and which believes that, much more shameful than a mere lie, is insincerity and a refusal publicly to air what one really believes. Or feels to use the common and telling idiom of the day. Paradoxically, the result of this cult of sincerity is that hardly anyone ever does say what he really believes — unless there is a calculation that the scandal of it will fall more on one’s opponent than upon oneself.

Maybe that's what the politician's want. No debate, just name-calling. Read the whole thing.

Past Mistakes and Present Credibility

It is striking how past errors affect present credibility, lingering for decades. William Voegeli illustrates this well with his Claremont Institute article, "Civil Rights and the Conservative Movement" (accessed via the WSJ). He follows the conservative movement and particularly, the late founder of National Review, William Buckley, Jr., in his interactions (or lack thereof) with the civil rights movement. Reading it with an eye to my own fallibility, I was humbled and affected with just how much more significant a leader's failures are than his successes.

The conservative movement and the civil rights movement are not inherently in opposition. Buckley frequently and publicly expressed hope for racial equality. However, the key tenet of modern conservatism is favor for small government and states' rights over centralized government. "It was within this framework that National Review conservatism addressed the issues raised by the civil rights movement. Integration and black progress were welcomed when they were the result of private actions like the boycotts of segregated buses or lunch counters, which Buckley judged 'wholly defensible' and 'wholly commendable.'"

However, it was also from these convictions that they opposed any and all federal legislation to achieve equality across the races, because this appealed to an unconstitutional "Big Government." In the 1950s and 60s, the means could not excuse the ends, no matter how appalling the situation. Clearly, they were wrong. No amount of lipservice by Buckley and friends could place them on the right side.

Viewed from 2008, the movement Buckley led was detached from the civil rights struggle because conservatives, despite frequent and apparently sincere expressions of hope for racial harmony, rarely viewed the fight against pervasive, entrenched and episodically brutal racial discrimination as a question of great moral urgency. Conservatives were personally opposed to Jim Crow as liberals of a later generation insisted they were personally opposed to abortion [insightful comparison]. Making the opposition personal was a way to keep the states, in the case of abortion, or the nation, when it came to segregation, from making it governmental.

Present-day conservatives, thankfully, have come around. Buckley himself has expressed regret for his earlier position, agreeing that federal imposition was necessary at the time to effect change. But, in the world of ideas, the damage is done.

Since then, "conservatives have spent half a century trying to overcome the suspicion that they are indifferent to black Americans' legitimate demands, and indulgent toward people who are blatantly hostile to blacks." Further,

The constitutional principles at the heart of this project [states' rights, small government, etc.] were—are—ones that liberals find laughable, fantastic and bizarre. Because they cannot take them seriously, they reject the possibility that conservatives do. Thus, liberals dismiss "states' rights" as nothing more than a code word for racism. There is no point in conservatives' even asking what the code word for states' rights is, because liberals cannot imagine anyone believes this to be a legitimate political concern.

From this viewpoint, conservatism's "reasons" for opposing civil rights were, in fact and from the beginning, excuses for oppressing blacks. Buckley's least judicious writings make it difficult to wave away that allegation. These are moments in conservatism's history where it was, in Mr. Goldberg's sense, worse than merely missing in action in the battle for racial equity.

This perception colors all statements about affirmative action, welfare policy, taxation, etc. Much-too-late "acknowledgments that the suffering and national disgrace caused by segregation required stronger measures have not satisfied their opponents. Given the political advantages to liberals of conflating racism and conservatism, it's doubtful there is any degree of contrition they would find acceptable."

Errors in judgment have incredible effects on a movement's credibility, especially errors with moral import. The ramifications extend for decades, or at least until the other side makes an equally big blunder (remember, Andrew Jackson was a Democrat; Abraham Lincoln was a Republican).

Today's Christians constantly reckon with the church's past -- slavery in the SBC; Scopes' trial science in the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy. I still hear about the Crusades fought 900 years ago! When we seek to speak up on issues like biblical manhood/womanhood, sexuality, science and faith, we have to fight off red herrings and ad hominem arguements before we can get to the issue at hand. We have to explain that "this issue's different." "We haven't made a mistake this time."

Remember, we stand on the shoulders of giants -- imperfect giants whose occasional wobbles threaten to collapse us all. People will stand on your shoulders, too. Be careful and stand firm.

Online Sermons: Too Much of a Good Thing?

The internet is a marvel. We take for granted all that is available to us at lightning speed. But, just pause and consider how many hours of audio, hours of video and libraries of text is contained in the nebulous space we call the world wide web. It's mind-blowing.

Evangelical Christians haven't wasted anytime taking advantage of this technology. I could listen to sermons uninterrupted for years. This has been a blessing to many of us, but how has it changed us?

Nathan Walter shares his thoughts in "iPod, iSermon, iRighteous?" in the July-August issue of the Briefing (this article not available online). Here is a rundown of perceived dangers:

• Sermon listening is disconnected from the gospel relationship of pastor and congregation. Sermons should have a context based on a pastor's knowledge of his flock and the flock's knowledge of their pastor.
• Sermon listening risks guru-ism. We learn from Driscoll/Piper/Dever/Stott/Carson rather than God and his Word.
• We grow discontent with the regular preachers and teachers God has given us.
• It replaces focused personal reading and study. We just listen to sermons, and even that as a secondary activity -- while running, cleaning, driving.

Here are his suggestions:

• Vary your diet of preachers, and sometimes, why not simply listen to an audio Bible?
• Be wary of comparing the online preacher (publicly or privately) to your own God-given pastors.
• Don't forget your responsibilities as a listener. Test everything. Never listen without your Bible open. Chase up the passages and write notes.
• Keep audio sermons in their place: like good Christian books, they can help us grow enormously, but we mustn't let them loom too large. Nothing beats the godly discipline of reading your Bible.
• As with all preaching and teaching, don't just listen to listen. Listen so that you might put into practice.

Sounds like good advice to me.

Tired of Rihanna? Me too.

I like music -- all kinds. However, I like reading and listening to news far more. Most of my time and extra income is spent in these areas. Sometimes, though, you get tired of Zimbabwe and FannieMae and Barack, and even sometimes canonical reading and imputation and the culture of death. I just want to listen to some good music. Unfortunately, my books don't have a play button. The radio's not much help either. I'm always surprised upon my quarterly flip to the local top40 station to hear the same song I heard 3, 6, and 9 months ago. There's got to be more than Lil Wayne.

That's why I have gotten tremendous use out of NPR Music. They pull music from all over the place and make full-length songs available (and sometimes whole albums and live concerts). All Songs Considered is a great place for up-and-coming artists and albums. I often have need for good classical music when I need something to play at work without scaring the Middletown natives. And sometimes I'll even cringe through five heavy metal songs in the name of my friend, Justin Mullins. It's where I discovered the Fleet Foxes (great concert) and, yes, even listened to Missy Elliot's new single.

Check it out. You can set up your own playlist with hours of music and minimal advertising. You don't even have to listen to the commentary -- just scroll down to "Just the Music."

Kingdom Through Covenant

Just completed Peter Gentry's recent article in the Southern Baptist Journal of Theology (vol. 12 no. 1, Spring 2008), "Kingdom Through Covenant: Humanity as the Divine Image." It is great! Go to your nearest seminary library and read it!

He walks through Genesis 1:26-28 very slowly, considering the biblical theological framework first and then an exegesis of the text with attention to its cultural and linguistic setting. But buyer beware! This isn't your standard systematic theology's image of God.

Here are some quotes to whet your whistle:

"In biblical revelation God communicates in the culture and language of the people. Yet in employing language God also fills the terms with new meaning. The key to correct interpretation, therefore, is to compare and contrast the biblical text and the data from the contemporary cultures. One must not only notice similarities between the Bible and the ancient Near Eastern background, but the differences which show the new meaning being revealed by God." (26)

"Genesis 1:26 defines a divine-human relationship with two dimensions: one vertical and one horizontal. First, it defines human ontology in terms of a covenant relationship between God and man on the one hand and second, it defines a covenant relationship between man and the earth on the other. The relationship between humans and God is best captured by the term sonship. The relationship between humans and the creation may be expressed by the terms kingship and servanthood, or better, servant kingship." (32)

"God has planned a new creation -- a new heavens and a new earth. Unlike the first creation where he first made the place and afterwards the people to live there, in the new creation he is first making the people and afterwards the place where they will live." (33)

"The relationship between Gen 2:8-17 and Gen 1:26-27 is significant. Gen 2:8-17 explains the relationship between "likeness" and "image" in the covenant relationship between man and God. Only when the father-son relationship is nurtured through worship, fellowship, and obedient love will humankind appropriately and properly reflect and represent to the world the kind of kingship and rule intrinsic to God himself. Kingship is effected through covenant relationship." (39)

Is a church still a church by any other name?

Hopefully, I'll catch up on my posts soon. In the meantime, check out this discussion in Matthias Media's The Briefing between Tony Payne, Simon Flinders and Steve Timmis. Steve Timmis' new book is the occasion for the dialogue. Entitled Total Church, it's a book which my church planting buddies say is all the craze in the UK and AU.

I look forward to reading the book, but while we wait for a US publisher, read this interchange. It focuses chiefly on what/who is the church, which has all kinds of implications for church practice. I find myself moved by both sides of the debate. If you're in a similar place, take advantage of listening in to these wise brothers' conversation.

One Wedding and a Funeral: Family Update

My wife has reflected on two recent moments in our family lives: our third wedding anniversary and the death of our cat, Gloria.

My thoughts (in order of importance).

Gloria was a great cat. She was very pretty and sweet and peaceful, contributing a wonderful presence in our home. When ever I was home alone, she'd sleep in the bed. When I stayed up all night writing a paper, Gloria was just as exhausted as I was the next day, having sat next to me through every paragraph. If I read in a certain chair she'd sit on my lap. She was our first pet and I'll remember her for a long time -- especially since I'll be finding her long hair in my books for decades.

Maggie is a great wife. She is very pretty and sweet and peaceful, contributing a wonderful presence to our home.... wait a minute?

Seriously, I love my wife and am so thankful for her. She is the Lord's greatest earthly gift to me. We watched our wedding on home video last night for the first time since only a few weeks after our marriage began. I was so encouraged and thankful as I listened to the vows we exchanged. She has kept every one, which is no easy task when you're married to a sinner like me. Her faithfulness and loveliness is not dependent on my actions. I have no worries about our marriage, because her near-perfect love for me has cast out all my fear. In this, she daily exhibits to me the powerful, sanctifying love of God my Father.

Thank you, baby. May I love you so well.

Everyone Lives in a Ghetto

Or so says this week's edition of The Economist. In "The Big Sort" (June 19th 2008, The Economist), the authors observe that Americans tend to surround themselves with like-minded people. Conservatives with conservatives; liberals with liberals.

Check out these stats:

In 1976 Jimmy Carter won the presidency with 50.1% of the popular vote. Though the race was close, some 26.8% of Americans were in "landslide counties" that year, where Mr. Carter either won or lost by 20 percentage points or more. The proportion of Americans who live in such landslide counties has nearly doubled since then. In the dead-heat election of 2000, it was 45.3%. When George Bush narrowly won re-election in 2004, it was a whopping 48.3%.

This isn't just gerrymandering, either. Americans are very mobile. While we usually move for practical reasons (e.g., new job), once we decide to move we normally have lots of choices on neighborhoods. And house income (itself a poor predictor of political affiliation in America) is not the only factor -- in most cities, there are several neighborhoods that share the same price range but are culturally very different.

How does this affect the national conversation? Basically, it eliminates it altogether.

Because Americans are so mobile, even a mild preference for living with like-minded neighbors leads over time to severe segregation. An accountant in Texas, for example, can live anywhere she wants, so the liberal ones move to the funky bits of Austin while the more conservative ones prefer the exurbs of Dallas... Over time, this means Americans are ever less exposed to contrary views. In a book called "Hearing the Other Side," Diana Mutz of the University of Pennsylvania crunched survey data from 12 countries and found that Americans were the least likely of all to talk about politics with those who disagreed with them. Intriguingly, the more educated Americans become, the more insular they are. Better-educated people tend to be richer, so they have more choice about where they live. And they are more mobile.

This doesn't bode well for a healthy democracy. Democracies depend on more than just majority-rule. They hope for national consensus through freedom of thought and speech and civil discourse. The lack of a national conversation makes such discourse highly unlikely.

There is a danger in this. Studies suggest that when a group is ideologically homogeneous, its members tend to grow more extreme... Voters in landslide districts tend to elect more extreme members of Congress. Moderates who might otherwise run for office decide not to. Debates turn into shouting matches. Bitterly partisan lawmakers cannot reach the necessary consensus to fix long-term problems such as the tottering pensions and health-care systems. America, says Mr. [Bill] Bishop [author of "The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart"], is splitting into "balkanised communities whose inhabitants find other Americans to be culturally incomprehensible."

These dangers are intensified by trends beside residential segregation: for instance, cable channels which only reinforce prejudices (right or wrong) and home-schooling movements which are motivated by sheltering rather than equipping the next generation of Americans. "We now live in a giant feedback loop," says Mr. Bishop, "hearing our own thoughts about what's right and wrong bounced back to us by the television shows we watch, the newspapaers and books we read, the blogs we visit online, the sermons we hear and the neighbourhoods we live in."

People within and without conservative American evangelicalism criticize the existence of a Christian subculture, rightfully so. Christians avoid non-Christian books, music, artists, pundits. They workout at their church's gym. They watch Fox News and listen to Janet Parshall or James Dobson or Rush Limbaugh exclusively.

This article shows that such "clustering" might be a natural tendency. But Christians must resist this temptation. Circling the wagons (physically or mentally) and refusing to engage alternate ideas is hazardous. Some may call it wise and safe, but it's lazy and dangerous.

Raising Taxes and Informed Morality

Here is a helpful walk-through on some of the reasoning behind conservative views on raising taxes, illustrating why conservatives believe such actions usually negatively affect the economy and the taxpayer while only marginally helping the government.

Here's a line to raise the eyebrows: "It is shocking to think that we have a presidential candidate who would make the private sector $5 poorer in order to make the government $1 richer." ("Obama Turns FDR Upside Down," by Lawrence Lindsey, The Wall Street Journal) That's right, persons are taxed in such a way as to lose $5 while the government gains $1. You might wonder how that could be? Read the article to find out.

But you also might wonder, why read it? The minutiae of tax policy is only for policy wonks and professionals, right? Voters are only to consider matters of principle when casting their votes.

Campaigns are built off this misconception. Presidential candidates and political professionals are well aware of voters' aversion to detail. So they cast their tax policy claims in terms of "fairness" -- the conservatives claim that the government has no right to take more money than they need (which is less than the liberals think) and the liberals claim that the wealthy are not putting in their fair share (which is more than the conservatives think).

Now, I suspect both campaigns and many voters are often disingenuous when appealing to "fairness." Notice, for instance, how the appeal in speeches is always to the suffering middle class, never the 12.5% of Americans living below the poverty line. That aside, there are ethical concerns worthy of discussion in these questions. They center on two issues: how much does the government need and who's going to pay for it.

What people miss (and what politicians and media often hide) is that there are pragmatic considerations as well, considerations which must inform the ethical issues. In these sorts of gray areas, you can't begin to make an ethical decision without knowing the facts. So, move past the rhetoric and take some time to understand the boring details. In a democracy, we are all the ruling class. Rule well.

Taking Back Heaven (Part 2)

Yesterday, I considered the frequent abuse of Christian truth in times of death. What can a pastor do to counter this abuse within the church and within the wider culture? Here are some thoughts. Again, follow-up with yours.

1. Prepare your church. We must prepare our people for suffering, for their own sake and for the sake of a watching world. If we wait until tragedy strikes, people will not have the theological and practical reserves to endure it faithfully. As a result, they will search for comfort elsewhere, in alcohol or fantasies or atheism. Preach and teach about suffering and death, heaven and hell. Teach salvation history, which culminates in Christ glorified. Sing about the River Jordan.

Two resources: John Piper and CCEF. John Piper seems to have made it his mission to esteem suffering these past years. Desiring God has an incredible amount of powerful resources relating to suffering, including a helpful compendium of talks, Suffering and the Sovereignty of God. As well, CCEF (David Powlison, Paul Tripp, Ed Welch, et al.) helps to give a gospel vision of the everyday, tragic and mundane. By practicing trusting God daily, the Lord is preparing us to face the promised affliction.

2. Watch and listen critically (ahead of time). Not only must we provide positive instruction, we must listen for times when correction is needed. The funeral of the anorexic mother of three or the fallen American soldier is not the ideal time for theological correction. Listen critically to your flock's thoughts and expressions during casual times. When a pet dies and parents comfort their children with All Dogs Go to Heaven, make it a priority to find an appropriate time to engage them on eternity.

3. Be willing to correct even in the hard times. Again, deaths and funerals are not the ideal time to correct someone, but consider that we taught them this error. They are responding poorly partly because the church has failed to speak clearly on eternity. It's not as if they are appealing to Buddha for comfort -- they are using Christian truth to anesthetize. At some point, the church needs to own up to our failings and speak against error. I should own it if given the chance.

4. Preach funerals. I have not had the privilege of preaching a funeral. The thought of officiating an unbeliever's funeral frightens me. I think I'd do it in a heartbeat, though, because of the opportunity to teach people to interpret death in a way that is faithful to Scripture and to the gospel, to provide hurting loved ones the chance to own their hurt fully and unashamedly, but without either total despair or religious dishonesty.

5. Respond to tragedy. As a pastor, be the first to respond to tragedy. Model Christian suffering by owning your own heartache, both in personal affairs and public, in a self-controlled, biblically-comforted, gospel-centered, sovereignty-trusting, God-glorifying way. This requires that we also be prepared.

A wonderful example is an NPR interview with John Piper responding to the 2004 Tsunami which killed more than 225,000 people. It is phenomenal. Piper, fully aware that he is speaking to a non-believer, talks with a boldness matched only by his compassion. I am struck most by her interest in the Christian theodicy -- it's clear Piper is providing an answer she has never heard from anywhere else.

May the Lord provide more such opportunities to take back heaven and more faithful ministers to take them.