Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture. Show all posts

Thursday, August 18, 2011

Personal Faith, Public Policy

 Personal Faith, Public Policy

7 urgent issues that we, as people of faith, must come together and solve

a book review by Marlene Luartes,
as presented in WorldMovers Sunday School class

Is the Religious Right really dead?  Ever since the Moral Majority was founded in 1979 the liberal media and liberal Christians have been proclaiming the death of the religious Right.  While some in the liberal press continue to pen eulogies for our movement, the major story still is being missed: the religious Right is not fading away; it is transforming, broadening its base and its focus, sharpening its arguments, and honing its tactics for a new generation of cultural engagement. 

To successfully navigate the transformation: 1. We must keep the core values that have defined the movement: the sanctity of life, the defense of marriage and religious liberty. 2. We must also reshape the message and agenda to include others; such as immigration, poverty, the environment and racial reconciliation.



God has a plan for our nation, which begins with the principles of Scripture, requires involvement of the church, and will be empowered by the Holy Spirit. But many in the secular community will also embrace this approach for America because of its fairness, simplicity and clarity. The issues are:



Rev. Harry Jackson, Jr.
author

Value human life, both abroad in our wars against terrorism, and at home.
Reform immigration policy.
Reduce poverty and ensure justice, including health care.
Cultivate racial harmony and diversity.
Protect religious freedom.
Restore marriage and family.
Care for creation.


Tony Perkins
author

Who is the religious Right?  All different races, cultures, ages and religions…”values voters”.  America wants moral values in their public policies—a common morality based on the Christian faith.  Many paint the religious Right as the aggressor, assaulting the freedoms of a secular culture, with a driving desire for power, wishing to establish a theocracy.  However, it’s made up of people who are concerned over government policy and cultural initiatives that were being influenced and shaped by a worldview that was radically secular and hostile toward the Christian faith. 
Reacting to aggression of the Left, and to organizations that were formed: the ACLU, 1920; Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 1947; and to many court decisions (p. 18-19), the following were founded: the Moral Majority, 1979; the Family Research Council, 1983; and the Christian Coalition, 1989.



The church isn’t called to be a mouthpiece for a political party, but a moral voice to the nation; and the public role of Christians is to be a sort of moral conscience to society.


To regain our voice, we should ask collective forgiveness for: aligning too closely with one party, failing to show a unified church, and being silent on matters concerning the poor. Christians are called to perform a ‘prophetic’ role in modern day culture—we should act and believe as though each one of us has a prophetic assignment to the nation that begins right where we live and work. We must live right, do right, move right, pray right and speak right. Pray for revival in the church...and when revival becomes reformation, the personal becomes public.


Core Value #1 The Value of Life

Part 1—Terrorism, War & the Sword. A ‘just war’ fights terrorism, defends innocent life. We cannot rely solely on our military to fight Islam.


Part 2—Abortion, Cloning, Stem Cell Research, Child Abuse & Neglect, Elder Care, Euthanasia, Slavery & Sex Trafficking, Capital Punishment


Core Value #2 Immigration—The New Slavery

They recommend seven major facets of immigration reform:


1. Enforcing security at our borders.
2. Facilitating assimilation.
3. Recommending source country reform.
4. Establishing a “families-first” approach that includes permanent anchor baby reform.
5. Curtailing chain migration.
6. Sponsoring guest workers.
7. Negotiating third-country resettlement.


Core Value #3 Poverty & Justice

Part 1—Slashing Poverty (PR problem for the religious Right). The working poor need to be directed into life skills and practices to help escape the intergenerational trap of lack. Those in abject poverty, those too young, too old or handicapped, need immediate to long-term help. They talk about the reasons for poverty (p. 103) and the ways it can best be remedied. Mt 25:34-36 (p. 117)


Part 2—Health Care Reform. Goals we agree with (p. 124) Problems (p. 125). We need personal accountability for our health.


Core Value #4 Racial Reconciliation

Moving together, realizing the equality of believers...our brotherhood. (p. 138, top par.) The church can change America...but we must first change the church. Our unity could very well transform our nation!


Core Value #5 Religious Liberties

Cross Purposes, the shaping of public policy


Core Value #6 Rebuilding the Family

Part 1—The New Configuration. Everyone recognizes that in certain ways the institution of the family is fraying at the edges...but, there is also clear recognition today, perhaps more than at any other time in the past several decades, that marriage and family are fundamental to the future of our society. Young people today seem to be avoiding marriage, and there is increased cohabitation—still they’re more favorable to long term committed relationships. (p. 187, last par.)


Part 2—Fatherhood and Education (p. 189, 3rd par.) Nine dimensions to a father’s involvement (p. 190). To restore and assist fathers (p. 192). America’s educational policy should (p. 199) Strategic actions we recommend (p. 199, bottom).


Core Value #7 The Environment & Global Warming

Can We Beat the Heat? Our positions (p. 205, 2nd par.) Scientists are not the enemy. We are conservationists.


Conclusion: Taking the Land

What kind of government do you want? (p. 221, 3rd par.) (p. 222, 2nd par.) Biblical worldview defined (p. 224, 225)...and poll results!


If there’s one concept to grasp from the book: We must defend truth, but must defend it in love. The key to the religious Right’s success is unity in absolute truth. Moral relativism leads to disunity.

How to make a difference:

Pray: for revival, for community and country problems and needs. Make prayer a priority!


Prepare: Be ready for what God would have you to do.


Participate: Don’t just curse the darkness, turn on the light!

It’s ours to decide!


Sunday, July 17, 2011

Happy Lord's Day!

One of the first verses I remember learning as a child was Psalms 122:1 .  Here is a delightful arrangment sung in an Indian congregation (notice the separation of the men and women!).


Thursday, July 7, 2011

Trivia time

Finishing up the issue of World that the WorldMovers class did not complete in class next Sunday, I bring attention to these items of trivia:

  • Americans spend less on Fathers' Day gifts than on Mothers' Day gifts:  $94.32 for fathers and $126.90 for mothers.  And I think the mothers deserve even more!
  • Earth's moon is shrinking, according to the Smithsonian Institute, because of cooling of the moon's core.   Okay... the scientists admit it's only "slight" shrinkage.
  • The Supreme Court upheld Arizona's law that revokes or suspends the licenses of business that hire illegal immigrants.  The vote was 5-3, with Elena Kagan recusing herself.
  • In another Surpeme Court decision,the state of California was given two years to reduce its prison population by 40,000 prisoner.  Supposedly, the prison system isn't treating the prisoners "right" becuase the failities are overcrowded.  So releasing 40,000 of them back into society is good for California...exactly how?
  • During the Clinton administration, the CIA hatched a plan to sabotage Iran's nuclear program.  And now, nearly 15 years later, former CIA operative Jeffrey Sterling is on trial for leaking this information to the NY Times.
  • Egyptologist Sarah Parcak has used satellite imagery to reveal the whereabouts of seventeen lost Egyptian pyramids.  Those ancient builders were even busier than anyone previously imagined! 
  • "Noodling," the art of catching catfish by hand, in now legal in 17 states, with the addition of Texas recently.  In order to "noodle," one has to stick one's hand in a hole at the bottom of a lake or river and wait for the catfish to sink its teeth into one's flesh.  Then the bite victim hauls the catfish up before it lets go.  Really.  AND there's a web site - CatfishGrabbers.com - really. 

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Two paragraphs from my newest favorite book

"How did the early church supplant...diverse and often hostile ideas?  It studied, critqued, argued against, sometimes adapted, and finally overcame them.  Individuals also demonstrated their commitment by authentic living, to the point of sacrifice and even death.  One of the most amazing success stories in history is the way Chrisitanity supplanted classical religions and worldviews to emerge as the leading influence on Western culture.

What does this suggest about the best strategy for engaging global secularism today?  We often hear Christians speak about recovering the vitality of the early chruch.  But which aspects of the early church are they thinking about?  It's a safe bet they are not thinking about the way the early church went on the offensive against the dominant intellectual systems of the age.  Today's churches pour their resources into rallies, friendship evagelism, and mercy missions that distribute food and medicine.  And these are all vital.  Yet if they aspire to the dynamic impact of the early church, they must do as it did, learning to address, critiqute, adapt, and overcome the domnant ideologies of our day."

Saving Leonardo, Nancy Pearcey, p.14.

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Summer movies: Entertainment has consequences

It used to be that when Christians evaluated movies, they could be obssessed with factors like the amount of violence, quantity of foul language, and explicitness of sexual activity.  And those features, still matter...to Christians....of course. 

But in our time, movies are more than colored celluloid with action and adventure scenes.  There are no neutral plots, and all the ideas therein have implications....and consequences.

It is with this sobering thought in mind that I wish to commend the movie reviews in World magazine. Of course, they do include the obligatory ratings for sex, violence, and language.  But beyond those, World also provides intepretation of how the film manipulates the viewer's mind and emotions...and that's where worldview comes in. 

So here are thoughts of World reviewers on three of this summer's favorites.

Kung Fu Panda 2, reviewed by Michael Leaser:   "....what drives the story are several characters' pursuit of 'inner peace.'  The means of achieving inner peace in this film's universe is definitely Taoist-oriented and leans toward humanism..."

Midnight in Paris, reviewed by Alisa Harris:  "Midnight in Paris slyly critiques the human tendency to bemoan the emptiness and frivolity of every generation - our propensity to see the foreign as superior to the familiar, and believe that changing our setting can change ourselves."

X-Men: First Class, reviewed by Rebecca Cusey:   "...will mutants choose to value human life or to strike pre-emptively in the human versus mutant war they foresee?  Effects are fun, but gravitas makes a movie great.  The choice between good and evil does not always seem clear-cut at the time.  One man will become Dr. X and another his archrival Magneto.  Who will be the better man morally, as well as physically?"

Just thought you would want you to know.

Monday, June 13, 2011

More about courtship

In WorldMovers this week we discussed the effects of courtship teaching on contemporary Christian young people.  The upshot was that we left with a renewed commitment to praying for the singles in our congregation.  More on that later.

The article in World was partly a response to the book at the right, I Kissed Dating Goodbye, a book that was popularized in the '90's that introduced the idea of courtship versus dating to a mass audience (the actual concept of courtship has been around for centuries, of course, while "dating" is a very recent and intially American phenomenon).  Since writing the book as a very young man, Harris has gone on to become pastor of the largest church in the Sovereign Grace movement, Covenant Life Church in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Here is a description of Harris's new edition of the I Kissed Dating Goodbye from the Sovereign Grace Ministries web site:

"Ideal for single adults and teens, I Kissed Dating Goodbye presents the model for Biblical friendship and principled romance. A best-selling book with more than 800,000 copies in print, this book was named the number one paperback non-fiction book for all of 1998 and number two for all of 1999.


Now, for the first time since its release, the national #1 best-seller has been totally updated. The new edition includes:

• A new foreword by Sam Torode
• A brand new chapter
• Expanded content in many chapters

Most 'new editions' are just the same book with a new cover. This is different. Every chapter has been carefully fine-tuned. Joshua builds on the strength of his book, clarifies its core message and honestly answers the concerns of critics who have written response books since I Kissed Dating Goodbye was first released. The result is that the book's simple message of trusting God with your love-life has more power than ever."

Tuesday, May 10, 2011

More evidence of "Dumbing down"

While working on a literature list for school, I wrote an article for the
parents on why I do not give summer reading credit for students who read Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew mysteries past age ten.                                                                                                                                                                                        
(That is not the subject of this blog, but if anyone is curious I could reprint the article here....if someone would let me know....if anyone is reading....and knows how to post a comment.)                  
                                                                                                                       My research about the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew led me to some reviews which reminded me that the current editions are not the same stories I read as a child.  Using the same titles, all the originals have been rewritten to make them more "culturally sensitive."  I was already aware of this, but assumed it meant innocuous things like replacing roadsters with convertibles and elimnating neckties from the boys' everyday wardrobes.  Comments by several reviewers revealed a wider set of changes.  In brief, the criticisms were:   (1)   the new books are dumbed down (length and vocabulary); (2)  the new books concerntrate on political correctness;  (3) the new books lack depth of character and complexity.   
One reviewer went so far as to say he had saved a complete collection of the Hardy Boys' old versions and had them under lock and key in his home (as though they were the last remaining copies and someone would try to destroy them!).  Another reviewer commented the she was glad she realized they had been rewritten before purchasing the first three volumes for her grandchild.  She went online and found reprints of the originals.  Her closing comment was "They get enough political correctness in their life as it is."                                                              I am writing about this, not because I think the originals of these two series were that wonderful (they were not great writing) or because I think every child should (or should not) read either the originals or the revisions.  My point is that publishers, parents, and "popular wisdom" think that present day children should read shorter books with simpler vocabulary and values different from those of their grandparents....because why? I hope someone is asking these questions before we have produced a generation that can't read, can't understand words of more than two syllables, has no knowledge of the past, and assumes that all old ideas are "wrong."   

If you are a parent, grandparent, or a teacher, I hope you will consider this trend, and then put some "dangerous" books in a child's hands today!  Start with the Bible!      

Friday, May 6, 2011

Honor where honor is due


Today I honor David Schexnayder (who honors his French ancestry) who single-handedly argued off a table of six skeptics regarding French military ineptitude at Wednesday's New Barleymen Choir Practice. 

David "schooled" us in the accomplishments of the French in erecting the Maginot Line (an aspect of WWII I had not concentrated on since my dad was in the Italian Campaign).  He then pointed out that it was actually the Belgians (see "weak fortifications" above) who let the German army into France, an event which spawned the noble efforts of the French Resistance (which he also extolled before us).  Touche, David.  Vive la France!

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Like drowning kittens....

I have used this space to promote Chuck Colson's daily Breakpoint articles a few times before.  I do so once again because today's article is timely and well-said.  It also happens to agree with my biases, so he must be a pretty smart fellow. 

Here's a teaser from what he said today:

"The conservative position is that advocating tax hikes, even to reduce the deficit, is the moral equivalent of advocating the drowning of kittens. Like the liberal position, it is also popular among the American people, who only favor tax hikes on 'the rich.' And by 'the rich,' they mean 'anybody other than me.'"

And another:

"And as Christians, we have to ask examine our own motivations -- are we dancing to an ideological tune, or are we relying on revealed truth to show us the way out of this mess?"

You can read the whole article here.

If you like it, consider becoming a daily e mail subscriber, as I am.  Good stuff!

Sunday, May 1, 2011

Caring for the proper things

I assume many Dovemountaineers have been following, as has my family, the media coverage of the royal wedding. I like what radio commentator Dennis Prager had to say on Friday:  "This was a celebration of all that is excellent in human achievement."  He also commended the fact that the wedding was decidedly non-secularist in the worldview and cultural impact that it had.

I later found the paragraphs below by a blogger identified simply as "hogan."   His reflections are worth paying attention to:

"But whatever one thinks of the Monarchy, in an increasingly pathetic MTV world - the ceremony today was extraordinary, and a good thing for the world to see. It was nothing short of impressive - timely, carried out with precision, dripping with military, Christian and royal traditions. The music was magnificent - there were actual hymns rather than gaudy “praise music” rock bands, a church that looks like a church, and the participants and guests were dressed not just appropriately, but perfectly… The procession was extraordinary, with hand-sewn uniforms and white and black horses leading the carriages - the Union Jack lining the streets.

The event was broadcast to an estimated 2 billion people. And in my view - that is a good thing. It can hardly be bad - for whatever flaws of the people involved - to remind people through the broadcast of a high religious ceremony that Christ is Lord. It can hardly be bad to have 2 billion people hear a Christian reminder of the importance of marriage in furthering mankind. It can hardly be bad to remind people that for all its flaws, the Anglo-influence has indeed made the world a far better place. And it is hardly bad to remind people that tradition matters - that carrying ourselves the proper way matters."

And I say, "Amen."

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Victory for School Choice in Supreme Court!


Rejoice with those of us engaged in the war for the souls of America's children today with the news that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Arizona Tuition Tax Credit, dismissing the group of atheists protesting it as "having no standing" in saying that their tax money is being used to support religious schools, since they are not direct donors to a scholarship organization.  My employer, Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization, was the plaintiff in the case, and we have waited expectantly since last November to receive this ruling.

Not surprisingly, the vote went along party lines, with the five conservative justices voting in the majority of a 5-4 vote.  Somewhat encouraging was the fact that President Obama verbally weighed in on our side.   Groups such as associations of Jewish schools, independent schools, and virtually all Christian denominations also filed "friend of the court" briefs in our support. 

A big "thank you" goes to all who faithfully prayed with us for this outcome.  Also, here's a reminder that if you have not filed your 2010 taxes yet, there is still a way to make a donation on your 2010 income.  Any Dove Mountaineer needing more info on how to do this may contact me directly.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Reading the right classics

Classical Christian school leaders have always endorsed reading whole books, and whenever possible, in the original versions.  Well-meaning "child enablers" have been dumbing down the classics for many years. 

In recent years, I have collected a number of examples of this to show to parents.   The contrast between the first page of the original Peter Pan and the first page of the Disney version is an example I have frequently demonstrated.  Ironically, the copy of the "Disney version" I show to audiences is from a book I received as a child in the 1950's.  

In the case of almost every "classic," I have had to go back and read the originals as an adult, in order to appreciate the breadth of thought and language the author actually employed.  But the damage is worse than just "dumbing down."

This year I am teaching Robinson Crusoe for the first time, and once again, I find the original not at all like the childhood version I remember.   In the original, after Crusoe has been on the island long enough to build a shelter and begin a simple form of agriculture, he discovers a Bible in a chest of books salvaged from the ship and begins reading it.  Eventually his whole attitude about the fortunes and misfortunes of his life begin to change.  He becomes conscience-stricken for the first time in his life, and then we come to this paragraph:

 "Now I began to construe the words mentioned above, "Call on Me, and I will deliver thee," in a different sense from what I had ever done before; for then I had no notion of anything being called DELIVERANCE, but my being delivered from the captivity I was in; for though I was indeed at large in the place, yet the island was certainly a prison to me, and that in the worse sense in the world. But now I learned to take it in another sense: now I looked back upon my past life with such horror, and my sins appeared so dreadful, that my soul sought nothing of God but deliverance from the load of guilt that bore down all my comfort. As for my solitary life, it was nothing. I did not so much as pray to be delivered from it or think of it; it was all of no consideration in comparison to this. And I add this part here, to hint to whoever shall read it, that whenever they come to a true sense of things, they will find deliverance from sin a much greater blessing than deliverance from affliction."

What an elegant depiction of salvation!   So many of these gems of our heritage are being edited out of modern experience.  I checked a popularly available edition of the book, and all mention of the Bible and Crusoe's praying have been omitted.

Let me beat this drum one more time:  when children are educated in a literacy which never affirms that others (than their parents and the people at their own church) have any experience of Christ's salvation, it is much easier for them to dismiss faith in God when they become adults.  This is only one of many ways that secular education is destroying the faith of covenant children.

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Happy New Year!

Like most Americans, I spend the first day of each year watching football.  I also watch the Tournament of Roses parade, because I'm a band fanatic.  

From a purely sports fan perspective, it was great fun to see the non-automatic-qualifying Texas Christian Horned Frogs edge past Wisconsin in the Rose Bowl.   On a blog I read this morning, some Christians were complaining that the announcers failed to ever say the word Christian throughout the entire broadcast, consistently referring to them as TCU and the Frogs, instead.  I'm not so sure this was a slight.  Even Texas Christian's own athletic department pretty consistently uses the abbreviation TCU.  If the announcers actually were consciously avoiding the "C" word, that's a bit ironic, in that the sponsoring denomination, the Disciples of Christ, often bill themselves as "progressive" Christians, identifying with many non-Biblical causes in the process.  But like any private college, there are many faithful believers there, in spite of the sponsorship.

This background drama makes it all the sweeter that the winning quarterback, Andy Dalton, provided an amazing interview at the game's end.  Christian sports fans often wince in pain at gratuitous "religious" phrases thrown into these postgame interviews, but here was an articulate young man quoting I Peter 5:6, "Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time.." with word-perfect ease and cogent application.   It spoke volumes for what a consistent, thinking Christian looks like.  It was a great New Year blessing for me, and by the looks of the blogs, to many others, as well.  Thank you, Andy!

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

God's Commandments, humanly approved version


Recently I wrote an article for the Presidential Prayer Team web site about legislation to promote the display of the Ten Commandments in school classrooms in the state of Texas.  Something I didn't talk about in the article is the fact that our culture, through popular media and educational outlets, has been busy rewriting the commandments for many years.  To present day ears, these comandments sound quaint;  they may even be incomprehensible to much of the population.

I tried to imagine what might be "Common Consensus" versions of each commandment.  I based these on what seem to be cultural norms of widely accepted social behavior.  The law of the land recognizes something called "community standards" in determining appropriate levels of public behavior.  Public schools also use this phrase to evaluate appropriate rules and discipline standards.  If we were to reword God's eternal commandments (the very thought feels blasphemous to write!) to reflect current opinions, here is what they might read like:   


I am the Lord your God.

You are the center of your universe and no one really knows where you came from.

You shall have no other gods before me.

Don't make narrow-minded, non-inclusive statements.

You shall not make for yourself an idol.

Everyone has values;  you are free to choose your own.

Do not take the name of the Lord in vain.

Nothing is really sacred, but you should follow social conventions in order to be well thought of.

Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

The practices of older cultures may be of historical interest, but have only symbolic relevance to you.

Honor your father and mother.

They don't get it;  besides, even they think you should just look out for yourself.

You shall not kill/murder.

Don’t break social taboos about killing;  besides, it's certainly just as bad to kill animals for food.

You shall not commit adultery.

Practice serial monogamy:  with or without marriage, either gender.

You shall not steal. 

Don’t break social taboos about property. The ever-changing law will let you know what is acceptable.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Always insist on your own innocence. Sue others if they are not nice to you.

You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, and any thing that is your neighbor's.

Fight politically for equality, so that your rich neighbor will have to surrender his advantage.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Oh no, not more Oprah!


Promising "Health, wealth, and happiness," the new Oprah network (OWN) launches on January 1st.  Like a bad parody of the Christian television networks that thinking Christians intentionally avoid, secular America can now simply substitute faith in Oprah for faith in God and get the same vending machine promises from a benevolent "Queen."

How appropriate that this comes after the assault of secular American Christmas with its messages of "it's about family, sentimentality, giving, and indiscriminate faith."

Please, let's join hands and repeat, "I won't succomb to the enchantment...I won't be mesmerized by the incense....I will escape this ugly but alluring Underworld...."   Where's Puddleglum when you need him?

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Recovering our Sense of Parish, part 1

Some think of him as jazz, some as "bluesy" pop/rock.  Some think of him as a pianist, some as a composer.  Some think of him as a contemporary Christian artist, some as "mainstream."   One time I think of him is when I listen to "In the Light" while on hold for Steve Johnson.  [Steve's phone plays the DC Talk version, but this guy was the original composer].  As of  last week, I now think of Charlie Peacock in terms of storytelling, a genre which he currently promotes, teaches, and defends as worthy of a place in the fine arts.

Geography and history have a place in our Christian world, as was illustrated by elder Dave Bowen's sermon on November 21 from Acts 21.   As Dave said, history and geography anchor us in time and space, and remind us that God has been here and knows where we are.

In the current "tent dwelling" stage of our church, it is worthwhile to engage the question "Does God know where we are?"   To set the stage for some thoughts I would like to share in my next post about the notion of parish life, I encourage you to enjoy listening to Charlie Peacock's story of the town he grew up in.  Here's a hint:  it's not Nashville, where he currently resides.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

What Arthur knows...

As we are currently inundated by political ads, one can only hope that thinking people are realizing they can't all be telling the truth.  One of  the elementary principles of logic is antithesis:  A is not Non A.

One of the things someone is not telling the truth about is:  Who cares the most for the economic needs of the nation?  One side says "We show we care by fighting to give you your money back."  The other side says "We show we care by taking more money away...from the evil (implied) people who have "enough" and giving it to you (assuming every listener is more deserving than the person who nows has it)."

Granted that this is my biased interpretation of things, one can nevertheless see the screaming errors in logic in the second statement.

Arhtur Brooks (pictured above)  author of World's "Book of the Year," The Battle: How the Fight between Free Enterprise and Big Government will Shape America's Future wrote an earlier volume entitled Who Really Cares:  The Surprising Truth about Compassionate Conservatism.   Here are some interesting statistics from that book:

  • Ninety-one percent of people who identify themselves as religious are likely to give to charity, writes Brooks, as opposed to 66 percent of people who do not.
  • The religious giving sector is just as likely to give to secular programs as it is to religious causes.
  • Those who think government should do more to redistribute income are less likely to give to charitable causes, and those who believe the government has less of a role to play in income redistribution tend to give more.
  • People who couple and raise children are more likely to give philanthropically than those who do not. The more children there are in a family, the more likely that a family will donate to charity.
  • One of Brooks's most controversial findings was that political conservatives give more, despite having incomes that are on average 6 percent lower than liberals.

Just thought you would enjoy some data to balance with all the rhetoric flying around...

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Who influences whom?


This morning my son Ethan was talking about the federal judge's ruling in California yesterday against Proposition 8, which had declared that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. The judge, in trashing Prop 8, called the prevention of homosexual "marriage" by law one of the last forms of government sanctioned discrimination in this country.

Ethan commented that this morning's blogs and news shows are full of Hollywood personalities hailing this as a great moment in American history. We both wondered out loud why anyone would want to know what a movie or television star thinks about a legal or moral issue. The fact that our society would even be interested in what people of their stature think on serious issues is disturbing.

In the course of the discussion we wondered who else are the big "influencers"? Ethan suggested parents, but I helped him understand that his growing-up experience with parental influence in faith and politics was pretty unusual in this country. I offered the opinion that among those who influence the future "movers and shakers" of the nation, it is probably teachers in general, and college professors in particular, who wield the most influence.

And then there are the media pundits. I can't tell you how many television interviews I've seen recently regarding (for example) SB 1070, in which the interviewee (always a protestor against the bill) is asked vague, softball questions which are replied to with passionate "fighting for a just cause" rhetoric. These are edited and included in the nightly news as if they actually mean something. They don't deal with questions like rule-of-law, national security, economic impact, or international reciprocity. They basically posit that somebody made somebody else feel badly about themselves, and so the first one who points a finger and yells "Bully" gets to claim victim status with all the attendant rights and privileges. This is less mature than the squabbles I arbitrate among elementary age children on the playground.

In contrast to the hours of interviews with these poor victims, what television station aired the photos of American flag desecration at a rally this past Sunday at the state capitol in Phoenix (photo above)? Right, not one.

And for the record, I'm not mad at the Hollywood stars, college professors, and media personalities for being who they are, any more than I would hate a snake or a scorpion for being what they are. I am mad at the church for not being the influence God created it to be. This will come to pass (Ephesians 5:27, Ephesians 3: 10-11, Isaiah 11:9) although not in my lifetime. I just want someone in my generation to be found faithful in standing against the affrontery of man's (insipid) wisdom against the eternally true counsels of God.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

Cultures exposed!


Last night I watched the second episode of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution (the first two episodes are available online here), and I have never seen such an enlightening exposure of contemprary American culture.

First of all, I am not a food evangelist. What we eat is of some importance - certainly interesting to study and discuss - but it is only one measure of deeper issues in our culture. I am more interested in the culture of groups of people, and what lifestyle choices reveal about their root values.

I'm also not interested in debating the merits of "reality" television. Accepting the limitations of the genre (how "real" is anyone when a host of cameras are following them around?), it is certainly more worthwhile to use reality TV to study small-town America than having sex parades of bachelors and bachlorettes.

In a nutshell, Brtish chef Jamie Oliver has come to Huntington, West Virginia, to start a "food revolution," a transformation of the way Americans eat. His particular targets are a volunteer family named Edwards and Central City Elementary School.

With those caveats having been said, here are some amazing insights from four of the cultures exposed in this episode.

Family culture

The Edwards family are very brave to let Jamie come into their lives so intimately. They are uniformly obese, and an analysis of their week's worth of meals reveals no surprises: highly processed, high fat, easy-to-prepare food like corn dogs, doughnuts, pizza, pancakes, hot dogs, bacon, sausage, biscuits, etc. Jamie makes the comment that "everything is yellow and red." The family eats no vegetables or fruits.

The Edwards are sweet people. The mother wants to do better in feeding her family, and laughs nervously as Jamie exposes their folly of their food choices. The father is apparently away on business a good bit and seems somewhat passive in his leadership.

My commentary:

When confronted by the preponderance of convenience food in their diet, Mrs. Edwards makes an off-handed remark about "just trying to get through each day." I think that Americans in general think they are too busy (I hear this all the time), and yet we live in an age of cheap appliances and instant information. When will we take responsiblity for our choices and prioritize the best things, like cooking healthy meals for our families? Not to mention keeping the Sabbath...

I don't think Jamie's analysis of their food consumption was a complete shock to the Edwards family, but habits are hard to change. And the incentives seem small. Americans in general have become very poor at long term goals and deferred gratification. We want pleasure now, and few things seem to be worth really working and waiting for.

Jamie only alluded once to the possiblity that members of the family take solace or comfort in eating, but this is no doubt a major theme in our culture. The fact that food is a quick and easy-to-obtain (and generally socially aceptable) medicine makes one wonder, how wounded are we? I suspect we are much more desperate than we are willing to admit. I know it sounds pompous, but somewhere and somehow we need to learn to find our comfort in God alone.

Community Culture

Huntington, West Virginia, was chosen for this special because of a study (never identified in the program) that revealed it is one of the "unhealthiest" cities in America. While this may or may not be true, it is probably representative of most American communities. What was evident from the snapshot of Huntington conveyed through the program was: a fairly high level of obesity; the usual availablity of fast food; a somewhat complacent attitude about the status quo.

Jamie's presence stirred controversy through interviews with both the newspaper and a popular radio show. The radio host openly ridiculed Jamie's somewhat boastful claim that he can change the eating habits of a whole city, and the newspaper did the usual hatchet job of taking statements out of context to paint Jamie as a "Huntington-hater," instead of the "bad-nutrition-hater" he would prefer to be known as.

My commentary:

Although we have all seen instances when a prideful person is more invested in defending himself than in receiving constructive criticism, it is pratty dramatic when it is portayed by a whole community. It would have been refreshing to see someone admit, "Yes, we know we are eating ourselves to death, but that's our suicide method of choice, so leave us alone." Or to see someone humbly accepting Jamie's criticism and actually changing.

As is typical when folks do not want to face the truth about themselves, they turn the focus from their bad choices to killing the messenger through character assassination. Over and over they yell, "Jamie's saying we're stupid!" while offering no defense for their bad choices. I have spent hours and hours of my adult life in frustration over discussions which never address the merits of the argument, but turn quickly to character defamation, as though that outweighs everything.

A Christian worldview would recognize that there are no perfect vessels, Jamie Oliver least of all.  Ever hear of "total depravity"?  A mature person would say, "What can I learn from this donkey?" (Numbers 22:30)

School Culture

Jamie has ongoing conflicts with the "lunch ladies," who see him as intrusive, arrogant, and unlearned in the ways of the infallible nutrition guides from the USDA. The district nutritionist works hard at being open-minded, but is also concerned about the almighty nutrition guides, as well as cost-effectiveness. The school principal is sympathetic to Jamie's presence, but appropriately protective of the orderliness of school functions and the mental health of his staff and the children.

Three interesting scenes give an insight into school culture. In one scene, pictured above, Jamie demonstrates all the disgusting parts of a chicken that are ground together to make chicken nuggets, and proceeds to make such a chicken nugget in the spot. After breading and pan-frying this gunk right before the children's eyes, Jamie asks "Who would like to eat this?" and is blown away when every hand goes up. Jamie asks "Why would you want to eat it after you saw how it was made and what went into it?" One child answers, "Because I'm hungry." The other wide-eyed children nod in mutual assent.

In the second, Jamie takes two trays of food into a kindergarten room. The children cannot identify, by name, cauliflower, eggplant, or even tomatoes and potatoes. They do not know that french fries come from potatoes, or that ketchup is made of tomatoes. They have no trouble identifying french fries, corn dogs, and pizza.

In the last, Jamie is taken to task by the kitchen staff and the nutritionist when a meal he has created for the lunchroom fails to include "two breads" by USDA standards. The meal already included brown rice, which Jamie (correctly) asserted was quite enough starch and fiber for one meal. But never mind, Jamie and the kitchen ladies scramble to pull out some sliced white bread to "nutritionally balance" the meal.  Really.

Other important insights from the school culture: when Jamie's first meal went head to head with pizza as a choice on the lunch line, it is not surprising that very few of the children choose Jamie's chicken legs over the pizza. And when his second meal is served as the only choice, school officals are horrifed by the amount of uneaten food dumped in the garbage at the end of the meal. When Jamie asks that the children be given knives and forks to eat with for his third meal, the response of the lunch ladies and school staff is similar to the horror that might be shown when someone utters a public obscenity.

My commentary:

First of all, what is significant about this show is that they actually got a camera crew into a public school in the U.S. School culture is remarkably guarded in the U.S., for both good and bad reasons. I could not be happier that American adults got to see it first hand. The unfamiliarity of adults with what actually goes on (even parents with children in these institutions) is staggering.

If anything in the stories above concerns you, (and if it doesn't, God help you), then we should wonder where we should point the finger of responsiblity. So let's look at each incident separately:

1. The children want to eat the yucky chicken-parts nugget (which astonishes Jamie, who says that this would never happen in England, where he comes from). The explanation finally given, which I find plausible, is that the American diet of high fat, processed food leaves our bodies still hungry. This is not the school's fault (alone).

2. The children cannot identify normal vegetables in their natural form. This is also not entirely the school's fault; however, the kindergarten teacher heroically creates a food unit and invites Jamie back in a week later where the children pass his test with flying colors. Hooray for this conscientious teacher! I believe public schools are replete with such good teachers (and public schools are still a very bad idea).

3. Jamie has to follow idiotic nutrition guidelines from an USDA manual. This is not the fault of the district nutritionist, the school principal, or the lunch ladies. But they are all complicit in a bureaucratic system which defies common sense. Somebody needs to step up, be the adult, and tell the government "nutrition nanny" to take a hike! But the parents are happy to have the free babysitting and cheap meals which theydon't have to prepare, so no one speaks the obvious.

4. When Jamie's chicken and brown rice meal is rejected in favor of pizza, the lunch ladies and school officals speak as though the children are sovereign, and it is their duty to appease them as much as possible. Then they take the very bold move of allowing Jamie's second meal to be served (without a choice to opt for pizza), but chastise Jamie over the amount of (his excellent) food which is thrown away. Who is running the asylum (or prison might be a better analogy here)? I can't tell you how wrong it is for adults to abdicate leadership for children's lives and well-being.

In a later interview, the nutritionist admits that she likes Jamie's food better. Then who are she (and the principal and the lunch ladies) afraid of? Like most adults in the U.S., they are terrifed of displeasing the children. So are the parents, who will much more likely take the school to task if the children complain about the lunchroom food, than they will over whether or not the child is learning to read and write.

Finally, the knife and fork incident. The school staff actually speak as though they believe that children are developmentally unable to eat with anything other than their fingers and a spoon until they are at least twelve years old. This is so symptomatic of the dumbing-down of American children, that I have a hard time saying anything about it calmly. As Jamie put it, it is hard to conceive that the same nation that put a man on the moon feels it is impossible to teach children to eat correctly with silverware.

To the principal's credit, he watches Jamie patiently teaching the children to hold the fork and slice with the knife, and eventually he jumps in and begins doing likewise. In a later interview, he humbly admits, "I saw Jamie doing this, and realized I could be doing it, too." Bless this humble man's heart. What is it in the professional preparation of teachers and school adminsitrators that made him think his job was anything other than teaching to the obvious need sitting right in front of him?

And one gratuitous aside: Those of us who promote school choice over the favored status of government-sponsored secular naturalism are often accused of creating a rhetoric which harms votes for more money for public schools. It is very apparent in this episode that Central City Elementary School is well-equipped (the kitchen has every conceivable appliance), well-staffed (the kindergarten teacher has an aide), and the classrooms are well stocked and attractive. All this in spite of the fact that it is in an older building and Huntington is not a wealthy town. But those are the things that money can buy. What money isn't changing is academic success. And transcendent truth isn't even on the radar screen. More money will not cure these ills.

Christian culture

One of the early interviews in the episode shows Jamie visiting with a Christian minister who is the first Huntingtonian who appears to be sympthetic toward Oliver's mission. He is also shown preaching to his congregation about the high incidence of early death in the church and in the community at large.

A particularly humorous moment comes near the beginning of the episode when Jamie says "May the Man Upstairs judge me if I'm not right about this." The sardonic lunchroom lady Alice, who is in serious need of some sanctification herself, nods knowingly and says, "He will, Jamie."

In one scene at the home of the Edwards, Jamie persuades Mrs. Edwards to bury her "Fry-Daddy" (deep fat fryer) in the back yard. Before filling in the hole, Jamie says, "I know you're a woman of faith, so why don't you say a prayer over this burial." Rather than following Jamie's tongue-in-cheek parody of a funeral, Mrs. Edwards actually prays an earnest, heartfelt prayer for her family. Jamie is clearly impressed with her sincerity.

My commentary:

It should not surprise us that a person Jamie's age from highly secular post-Christian England would refer to God as "the Man Upstairs." It may be that someone briefed him that the is headed into the heart of the Bible belt and that he should frequently make gratuitous references to Deity.

What is disarming is that the camera can't make the faith of these people look ludicrous. The pastor comes across as affable and well-educated, and Mrs. Edwards, albeit hapless in taking care of her family, is nevertheless sincerely God-fearing.

We should be thankful for this fair representation of Christianity.

And we should be concerned that these good Christians, just as ourselves, are not always consistent in integrating the implications of their faith into their daily lives.

Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Facing the "Culture of Death"


Inspired by Pastor Allen's frequent quotations from Peter Kreeft, I am now reading his book, How to Win the Culture War. In the first chapter, he points out that not long after Ronald Reagan had the chutzpah to call the Soviet Union
"The Evil Empire," Pope John Paul II prophetically called this generation "The Culture of Death." This is cetainly reflected in the discussions we have been having on abortion and euthanasia in the Manhattan Declaration class.

Here is Kreeft's commentary on "the culture of death":

"If the God of life does not respond to this culture of death with judgment, then God is not God. If God does not honor the blood of the hundreds of millions of innocent victims of this culture of death, then the God of the Bible, the God of Abraham, the God of Israel, the God of the prophets, the God of widows and orphans, the Defender of the defenselss, is a man-made myth, an ideal as insubstantial as a dream."

Naturally, Kreeft believes that God is God, and spells out the terms of engagement in our war with the culture of death.

My concern is not that God will fail to judge the culture of death, but that many who have named the name of Christ will have compromised and wound up on the side being judged. May it not be so among us!