More MP3 Recommendations

• "How A Christian Worldview Produced Science" - This presentation by John Mark Reynolds (professor of Philosphy at Biola; PhD in Greek philosophy) at the 2009 Norton Lectures at SBTS does a nice job of describing why Homeric, Platonic, and Aristotelian philosophy could not produce science, and why Christianity is the only worldview that provides the necessary assumptions for science.  I had never heard this explanation of why Paul's statement on Mars Hill about them being "very religious" was so scandalous.  This clearly explains why Christianity is fundamentally different from Greek philosophy (and sheds some light on why it's silly to equate common sense reason with Greek philosophy). Highly recommended; warning: some of the philosophy by quickly & Reynolds likes to run down rabbit trails occasionally. All 3 lectures are excellent if you're academically inclined.
• Marvin Olasky presented at the 2009 Norton Lectures at SBTS.  The first two are not bad; the first is an application of the Elder Brother / Younger Brother mindset to today's culture. The second discusses understandings of "social justice."  I might tweak the theology in places, but Olasky is a subject matter expert on governmental efforts to take care of the poor.  I'm not so sure about his emphasis on the linking of righteousness & justice in the OT ... but I see his point and think it has merit.
• "The (too?) Young, (too) Restless, (too) Reformed" - an interesting interview on The Christian Worldview radio show about a movement I was largely unaware of.  Well worth reading / listening to if you follow movements like the Emergent/Emerging Church.  BTW, this is not the first time I've seen someone state recently that, just like the megachurch movement, the emergent/emerging church movement is fading.  Maybe the Internet is shortening the lifecycle of these kinds of movements.
• "N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification" - a SBTS panel discussing what I think is one of the more subtle controversies these days, the "New Perspective on Paul."  N.T. Wright is very orthodox in many areas, but in this area is considered a bit heterodox since the New Perspective tends to undermine the understanding that Christ (a) atoned for our sins (b) by suffering the penalty of death on the cross (c) in our place, but asserting that justification depends in part on works instead of wholly on Christ's sacrifice. Anyway, that's what I got out of it.  I get the impression that Wright perhaps puts more emphasis on the restoration of the created order in this life (vs. eternal life or hell) than Christ did.

Teachers Overpaid?

AEI has just published a study that asserts that teacher pay is 50% above the market rate.

To their credit, they do note that in certain areas (eg, math, chemistry) this level may be fair (or even below market).

I'm a little skeptical of the methodology, which uses "cognitive ability" as a scale for determining relative value.  The left is more commonly associated with metric-driven "fair wage" computations than the right.  If there's an algorithm for a fair wage, then the government can set and enforce wage levels.

The problem with determining a market wage for teachers is that there's not really a free market for their services in this country.  Most K-12 teachers are employed by the government, and graduate/post-graduate education is fundamentally distorted by government funding.

Regardless, it's an interesting read.

Nothing Replaces Persistence

More reality-mugging ... some excellent discussions of understandings that used to be considered essential to American identity:

• "Creativity Is The Enemy" - This interactive graphic accompanying a WSJ article is a picture of "Ten Bullets" that nicely capture some of the structure and discipline required in any work group. I don't necessarily agree with every detail, but this is required reading for any young person.  And, the "Ten Bullets" video isn't bad, either.  Welcome to the real world.
• "Why Do Some People Learn Faster?" - new study showing that academic accomplishment is increased by praising effort and inhibited by praising ability.  More evidence of the pervasive and deep damage caused by the narcissistic self-esteem movement that gained widespread acceptance in the 60's.  And, more evidence of the fraying of the progressive paradigm.  For more, see Freud , John Dewey, the birth of modern progressivism, and the shift from Christian skepticism about fallen humanity to secular optimism about human perfectability.
•  "Can Everyone Be Smart At Everything?" - Identity as a learning disability ... somehow I don't think this will diminish our culture of narcissism, identity politics, self-esteem, and other navel-gazing tendencies to worship the "god within."
• Re-engineered by Google - an intriguing anecdote by a father and employer who is taken aback by the pervasive channeling of Google by his daughter and employees.

Did Govt Cause the 2008 Bubble-Crash?

Interesting article on the recent mortgage debacle in Investors Business Daily. 

Bottom line: In 1994 the Clinton administration told lenders that they would aggressively pursue them as engaging in discrimination if they rejected minority loan applications in greater proportion than whites.  As a result, lenders abandoned traditional risk assessment and management processes.  And, Freddie & Fannie provided de facto government backing for the tsunami of bad loans that ensued.

Unfortunately, the lenders did not have the integrity to stand up to this pressure.  Instead, they lied to the borrowers by telling them they were qualified to buy something they couldn't afford, and they lied to the markets by telling them the loans were solid.

And, the sudden deluge of govt-backed money caused a bubble in the housing market that left even many credit-worthy borrowers under water in the wake of its bursting.

And the Obama administration is growing even more aggressive in pursuing this policy ... but I'm not sure the markets will get fooled again.

Govt as God - Updates

There's a lot of frustration out there about the demise of Government as God.  A few articles that caught my eye recently:

•  Qaddafi as God - this NYT article is a good summary of his rule.  Although the following quote is characteristically arrogant, I can't help but wonder how many people in our government feel basically the same way about it:
  "I am a glory that Libya cannot forgo and the Libyan people cannot forgo, nor the Arab nation, nor the Islamic nation, nor Africa, nor Latin America, nor all the nations that desire freedom and human dignity and resist tyranny!" Colonel Qaddafi shouted in February.  "Muammar Qaddafi is history, resistance, liberty, glory, revolution!"
• Once Upon A Time In America - I don't always agree with Peggy Noonan, but she has a sharp eye and a sharp pen.  Her critique of Narrative-focused politics in this column is especially sharp ... though I would have liked it better if she had tied Narrative to Identity.  Regardless, this "reality-mugging" quote is dead on, even for folks like me who are perhaps overly sensitive to the limits of pragmatism:
  "Here's the problem: There is no story.  At the end of the day, there is only reality.  Things work or they don't.  When they work, people notice, and say it."
• Scorn for Vote Grows - an interesting NYT article on the growing disillusionment with Government as God around the world. I keep looking for an emerging awareness that the only solution is decentralized & deformalized power & responsibility ... not seeing it yet.
• Robert Gates Speech - a typical analysis expressing frustration that highly centralized and pervasive power has become polarized and divisive.  I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this sort of thing ... it's much closer to history repeating itself than to history rhyming ... this aspect of power is fundamental and unchanging.  If you want to localize divisiveness and gridlock, then you have to localize/decentralize power.

Cannibals, Dominionism, and Mt. Carmel

Those who uphold traditional Christian truth claims and values are increasingly seen as dangerous if not downright evil by the secular mainstream culture. 

The threat: Christians are impeding the imposition of a secular theocracy.

A recent New Yorker article on Michele Bachmann is an interesting example.  In it, the author asserts that Francis Schaeffer and Nancy Pearcey ("Total Truth")  promote Dominionism (the belief that only Christians should control civil government and should conduct it in accordance with Biblical law).

This is a version of the common charge that anyone who expresses a religious belief into the public square is imposing a theocracy.  The comparison is secular ("good") vs. religious ("bad").  Conflating Christianity (which invented the separation of church and state) with, say Islam (which dictates the unity of church and state), is trivially absurd, but that's the charge.  Nancy Pearcey has two thoughtful replies (here and here) that are well worth reading.

It reminds me of the way early Christians were accused of being cannibals because they celebrated Christ's death & resurrection by taking the Lord's Supper.

Our reputation isn't quite that bad yet, but there's a growing aggressiveness in secular progressives: fundamentalist atheists like Dawkins attack anyone who doesn't toe the Darwinist line, militants among the gender-confused call those who refuse to celebrate their confusion "hateful" and "homophobic",  and anyone who defends private property rights is selfish, uncaring, a plutocrat, and certainly no follower of Jesus. 

Is 20th century progressivism shifting from derision to violence in its pursuit of  those they think are impeding the project?  As it continues to crack up after 40+ years of concentrated effort by the best and brightest and an incomprehensible expenditure of federal dollars and power, the growing desperation of these attacks reminds me of the prophets of Baal cutting themselves on Mount Carmel to wake up their god. 

Miscellaneous Geopolitics

Here are some recent articles I thought were interesting.

• Geopolitics of the US - a nice diagram showing some of the natural resource advantages the US has.  Stratfor tends to under-emphasize the effect of worldview in their historical analyses, but they're still worth reading if you're interested in this sort of thing
• Clausewitz and World War IV - this Armed Forces Journal article is a nice summary of why there's been so much emphasis recently on social science in the defense domain. The assertion is that WWI was the Chemist's War (key knowledge was chemical engineering), WWII was the Physicist's War (radar, atomic bomb), WWIII (Cold War) was the Information Researcher's War (intelligence knowledge was key), and WWIV will be the Social Scientist's War.  Reminds me of the old cliche about scientists getting to the top of the mountain and finding the theologians there ... only the Gospel will remove the threat of Islam.  I just don't think a stable synthesis of modernism & Islam is possible; I hope I'm wrong.

Current Situation - Pros & Cons

I don't think we'll see much of a swing back toward traditional American values in the near future, so I don't think that Government's increasing involvement in every aspect of daily life will slow much.  However, this article from American Thinker is not a bad summary of why things are unlikely to get better.  Here's my short list of the key positive & negative drivers:

Positives

• Discredited/abandoned Judeo-Christian framework still has significant influence & intertia
• Economy is relatively free
• Property rights remain relatively secure (though this could drop quickly)
• Demographics are better than rest of developed world (more young people)
• Social & physical capital/resources remain the envy of the rest of the world

Negatives

• Rapidly aging population (public & private retirement promises will be modified)
• Degenerating social capital - the 60's embrace of radical individualism & egalitarianism has virtually destroyed large swaths of local informal social ecosystems that used to encourage individuals to build and maintain a healthy identity & role within those ecosystems (family, church, community).
• Degenerating knowledge capital - the effect that social capital loss has had on education is understood best by teachers in the classroom.  However, the increasing power of public sector unions and increased government funding & regulation of education have also contributed to a growing divide between the educational "haves" (eg, those in (some) AP/IB programs) & "have nots" (eg, those who are just cranked through the school to get money from the state).
• Degenerating knowledge/social capital - the loss of any sense of telos/purpose beyond "survival of the fittest/happiest" & of any truth beyond "whatever works" has meant that our "wisdom literature" is seen as irrelevant at best.  At the core of Western social capital is the Bible, and, in the USA, the Declaration/Constitution.  All are increasingly seen as fundamentally discredited.
• Increasing gap between "haves" & "have nots" - degenerating social/knowledge capital is widening the gap between those who maintain/create social/knowledge capital and those who undermine/destroy it.  Regardless of the cause, this kind of disparity tends to be destabilizing at some point.
• Increasing economic & social control by government at all levels
• A worldwide level of private & public debt that is too large to be fully repaid.  And this does not include promises (eg, pensions, social security) that are not debt but are seen as inviolable.  It's inevitable that the unwinding of this debt will create significant dislocations over at least a decade.

The Jig is Dead, Long Live the Jig

Ok, so the metaphor is badly mixed ... but there are two phrases that keep occurring to me these days with regard to the Western socio-political economy:

• "The jig is up", and
• "The King is dead, long live the King"

So, I've mixed them together as an expression of where we are:

• The jig is indeed up.  Over a hundred years of Secular Progressivism, built on a foundation of Marx, Freud, and Darwin, has established Government as God.  After fits and starts in the early 1900's that were interrupted by the Great Depression and a couple of World Wars, the 60's marked a dramatic and radical shift.  "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is the first commandment of such a Government, which under the current U.S. administration has merely acted on what had become a settled understanding in the 1960's ... namely that Government has a monopoly on being the  Protector, Provider, and Controller of every public and private organization, and of every individual.
• This Progressive triumph, however, has generated severe social and economic cracks across the West.  The riots in the UK are the most recent indicator.  A UK rabbi named Jonathon Sacks wrote a Wall Street Journal opinion piece ("Reversing the Decay of London Undone") last week that sums up the situation well.  Here's one excerpt; entire article highly recommended:
  "He quotes a member of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, tasked with finding out what gave the West its dominance. He said: At first we thought it was your guns. Then we thought it was your political system, democracy. Then we said it was your economic system, capitalism. But for the last 20 years, we have known that it was your religion."
• The economic cracks, which are largely the result of the social cracks, are just as ugly.  One of the better reports in this area is by the well-known venture capital firm of Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and is entitled "USA Inc. - Where We Are, How We Got Here, What May Be Next".  These folks are looking strictly at the numbers, and are probably inclined toward the secular progressive end of the political spectrum.  But, the facts speak for themselves.  The jig is up.
• Although Government as God may be in its death throes, there is no clear god to replace it.  So, we may just muddle along with a diminished god, an increasing gap between those with social and economic capital (the two cannot be separated in the long run) and those without it, and increasing chaos among those without it.  My suspicion is that we'll eventually choose one of two paths: 
• A government that abandons all pretense of being God, and settles for pragmatic oppression of everyone it sees as threatening public order.  This is what government looks like in most times and places, but it would be a new experience for the United States, and would require abandoning any pretense of a rule of law under the Constitution.
• A critical mass of Americans return to a pervasive and bold assertion of the truth claims of the Bible, grounded first and foremost in the good news of the cross of Jesus Christ.  As a result, the third Great Revival breaks out in the U.S., and the political, cultural, and social regime of Progressive Secularism comes to an end after 100+ years.

I guess you can tell that I'm a bit on the pessimistic end of the spectrum ... even though the jig is up, it seems likely to carry on in a muddled and muted form.

Origins of the Emerging US Caste System

I've mentioned the social and economic chaos that springs from males unwilling to be men (get married, be loving & faithful, support a family), and females unwilling to be women (get married, be loving & faithful, be a suitable helper (especially with children)).

Mitch Perlstein discusses this in this week's Weekly Standard in an article entitled "Broken Families, Broken Economy" (evidently a short summary of his forthcoming book "From Family Collapse to America's Decline).

Two key excerpts (entire article highly recommended).  Bottom line: there's a growing income gap in America that's largely traceable to changing sexual mores.

Kay Hymowitz, in Marriage and Caste in America: Separate and Unequal Families in a Post-Marital Age, describes “poor or working-class single mothers with little education having children who will grow up to be low-income single mothers and fathers with little education who will have children who will become low-income single parents​—​and so forth.” That perverse cycle is producing what Hymowitz calls “a self-perpetuating single-mother proletariat.” She asks, “Not exactly what America should look like, is it?”


Moderately educated Americans are decreasingly likely to embrace “bourgeois values and virtues” such as delayed gratification, temperance, and an emphasis on education​—​the “sine qua nons of personal and marital success in the contemporary United States.” Most highly educated Americans, by contrast, still “adhere devoutly” to the sequence education, work, marriage, and only then childbearing, thus maximizing their chances of “making good on the American dream and obtaining a successful family life.”


The second paragraph reminds me of Shelby Steele's discussion in "The Content of Our Character" of the shift in black identity in the 60's which rejected traditional moral values as being "white."

A final suggestion: the following two MP3 recordings are from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's recent  Recalibrate conference; the "Boy to Man" is excellent; haven't listened to the other one yet.

From Boy to Man: Biblical Manhood in an Adam-ized World - Al Mohler, Jr
Women of the Word: Biblical Womanhood in a Eve-ized World - Mary Mohler

Patriotism and Authority in a Democratic Republic

During a family gathering this July 4th the topic of patriotism came up.  The comments I made (regarding God's sovereignty over all of reality, including government's role in administering justice) were, on reflection, not as measured or nuanced as they should have been.
So, here's a few observations on the topic, ranging from what seems clear in God's Word to what seems uncertain or debatable.
First the clear items:

• God has delegated authority to governments.  This authority (Rom 13) includes the following: to "carry out God's wrath on the wrongdoer", to approve what is good, and to collect taxes to fund these activities.  It includes national defense and apprehension/punishment of criminals.  It does not seem to include re-allocating wealth/poverty or taking care of those in need;  God constantly calls individuals (Jews & Gentiles in OT,  Christians in the NT) to do these things voluntarily as part of (at minimum) "what we can't not know" (see below).
• Christians are to be subject to this authority, which includes paying taxes, paying revenue, paying respect, and paying honor.
• Jesus' kingdom is not of this world.  The church's reaction to persecution in the first and second centuries AD makes it clear that they followed Jesus' command to not resist evil doers, including governments.  Rome, despite the many evils tolerated, encouraged, and practised by it, never had to put down Christian insurrections.

Then, some inferences that seem highly plausible:

• This delegated authority is illegitimate when (and only when) it is in direct conflict with God's created order of what is good and what is evil.  This is inferred from God's punishment of governments and governmental authorities in the OT and NT when they did what was evil (various verses on the nations the Israelites destroyed, prophecies against foreign governments, Herod's death).
• There are certain things that everyone knows are right and wrong (Rom 2; see also J Budziszewski's "What We Can't Not Know").  I personally think these include a knowledge of (a) the value of life from conception to natural death, (b) the distinctive male-female lifelong unity seen in marriage, (c) the right to private property, (d) the understanding that all humans have an inherent value that makes them equal to each other, and of greater value than the rest of creation, and (e) the understanding that governmental authority is not autonomous, but is constrained by the "law written on the heart."
• Both good and bad governments deserve taxes, revenue, respect, and honor.
• Christians are justified in disobeying government only when its directives or prohibitions conflict with God's (eg, confess Caesar as Lord).  This is inferred from both the nature of delegated authority, and from the early church's example.
• Those who are under Christ's Lordship can serve in government.  This is inferred from examples in the OT (eg, Daniel) and NT (eg, Zacchaeus was not told to "leave your life of sin").  However, it would seem that they are, at least in a democracy, limited in their ability to "approve the good" and "punish the evil."  For example, since God does not coerce individuals to become Christians, neither should the government.
• Christians should give thanks for governments that are good, and pray all, including those that are evil.  In all areas of human stewardship, it seems clear that those who are faithfully carrying out God's stewardship mandates should be praised, and those who are not should be called to account for their rebellion and encouraged to repent.
• Government is not God (see previous posts).  Any Christian who puts family or country or anything else above God is engaged in idolatry.  Daniel's example is perhaps the clearest in the Bible.  He was a wise and "patriotic"/faithful steward, but he made it very clear that ultimate loyalty was to God.  And, he clearly understood that government is not God.

Finally, some complications that are introduced by the fact we live in a democratic republic (though the republic aspect has faded significantly in the past 100+ years):

• Every citizen eligible to vote has been delegated a "piece of the government."  I take this to imply that Christian stewardship includes faithfully carrying out the duty to (a) run for office if they believe that is what they have been called to do, (b) vote for individuals who will best carry out God's purpose for government, and (c) praise good government actions and condemn evil government actions.
• Since all humans are fallen, all institutions are also fallen.  I can understand the temptation to withdraw from all contact with the unsaved (ala the Amish), but I think Godly stewardship in a democracy includes voting in elections as part of rendering respect and honor.
• And, I think that this stewardship includes being thankful for governments founded on the basic principles "written on the heart" and praising those governments when then live according to those principles.
• Finally, I think it is, at the very least, unwise (and possibly a deliberate undermining of God's structure of delegated responsibilities) to, in a democracy, direct the government to take on responsibilities that God has delegated to the individual (saved & unsaved via the "law written on the heart") and the church.  This includes care for those in need.

This topic is little discussed in the NT, and is currently complicated by individual Christians being part of the government in a democracy.  As a result, there's a fair amount of room for serious and faithful Christians to disagree on various details.  For one recent view, see Wayne Grudem's "Politics According to the Bible."

Male, Female, and Authority

INTRODUCTION

This topic is so wide and deep that I've avoided it.  However, some recent prep I did for a class on the Pastoral Epistles has prompted me to make a few observations.

Before jumping in to the details, there are four areas (at least) where most Westerners (including those who follow Christ) tend to be confused when discussing Authority:

1. As I discussed previously, a Biblical view of Authority focuses primarily on encouraging us to submit to those whose authority is legitimately delegated to them by God.  The Bible rarely focuses on the exercise of Power by those in Authority.
2. A culture (like ours) that does not recognize God, much less His authority, will logically infer that there is no difference between Authority and Power.  In such a culture, any assertion that certain structures of delegated authority exist will be reflexively denied/resisted.  I suspect this is one reason why even faithful Christians are often uncomfortable discussing male and female roles in the family and church ... we tend to focus on the horizontal relational aspects of this and lose sight of the fact that our primary relationship, the one that defines and frames all other relationships, is vertical (to God the Father, Son, and Spirit ... again, note the relationship among the Godhead, including roles & authority, discussed repeatedly by Jesus in John's Gospel.  For a scholarly treatment, see Ware's discussion of roles in the Godhead).
3. Associated with these first two is a tendency to assert that equality in Value necessarily requires equality in Role.  This is perhaps plausible in a Godless universe where no legitimate source of identity, role, or authority exists.  However, we are all "in God's image" and therefore equally valuable.  That does not mean we have, or can assume, the same roles.  As we will see, God (through general and special revelation) has clearly created gender-based roles.  Again, Ware's discussion of roles in the Godhead and its relationship to male and female being in God's image is relevant.
4.  God's guidance regarding gender-based roles in the family and church is not unclear.  I think just about everything that can be said on the topic has been said (and recorded at cbmw.org) over the past 25 years.  The issue is not lack of clarity; the issue is obedience.

A RECENT DEVELOPMENT

Widespread controversy over male and female roles in the family and church appeared in the past 150 years; this article provides a short summary. Prior to that point, the writings of prominent Christians either assume traditional roles or mention it only in passing.  It just wasn't an issue, unlike slavery (see Titus 2 and Ephesians 6 for a discussion of the primary non-church roles in the NT (husband-wife, parent-child, master-slave); note that these are instructions to those who are under Christ's Lordship; they are not to the unsaved).

There are several reasons for the recent emergence of feminism that I'll discuss; I'd be interested if you think there are other reasons.  I suppose I should state that I'm discussing feminism in a largely Christian culture; female roles in a pagan culture are a different topic. I recognize that the U.S. today could be considered neo-pagan in its morality, but Judeo-Christian concepts and frameworks remain influential.

• The death of God as the creator and sustainer of the universe
• The demise of scriptural authority
• The explosion in technology
• The unprecedented increase in wealth
• The change in work from labor-based to knowledge-based

The Death of God

The Enlightenment originated in the pursuit of "thinking God's thoughts after Him" (Kepler).  In this view, God was the ultimate knower and man has a limited and flawed ability to understand some of what God knows.  With the Enlightenment and the birth of modernism, man became the ultimate knower in pursuit of complete and perfect human-based knowledge.

In this secular framework, God is an unnecessary hypothesis.  Deism removed God from the universe after creation, and secularism tossed God out totally.

How does this effect our understanding of male and female?  Ultimately, that it is a mere biological accident that is sustained sociologically.  The endpoint we seem to be approaching is that gender is ultimately an existential issue ... if you feel male, you're male; if you feel female, you're female.  Since the center of the universe in the West is the Individual, the Individual's desires must overrule nature and command society's approval.

The loss of "created in the image of God", "male and female created He them" has destroyed the ontological foundation for making a distinction between male and female.  We, with our technology, will ultimately transcend the inconvenient chains of gender, especially those associated with reproduction and the raising of children.

This neo-skepticism pounded the final nails in the coffin of God in the 19th century when Marx, Freud, and Darwin provided human-centric understandings of the economy, the psyche, and the origin of species.

Undermining Scriptural Authority

As secularism erected an ever more sophisticated intellectual framework, Christians tended to run away from challenges to the Christian worldview.  Fundamentalists moved toward a presuppositionalist approach to truth (grounded largely in Calvinism) that eventually led to a withdrawal from arguments based in general revelation, including defending the historicity of the Gospel and other Biblical truth claims.  Liberals tended toward a secular approach to truth that eventually asserted that the Gospel (and the Bible) is better seen as sociologically constructed (vs. true history).  Fundamentalists ignored secular attacks on traditional, nature/Bible-based understandings of male and female; in effect rebelling against the command to be "salt and light."  Liberals adopted (and adapted to) shifting cultural mores, which most recently include promotion of homosexuality and other types of gender confusion, with polygamy potentially emerging as the newest "alternative lifestyle."

Among the specific items that reinforced the demise of scriptural authority were:

• knower.  Both implicitly deny that God can, as the creator of man and of language, communicate clearly to us; even in a fallen world.
• The astonishing increase in and widespread acquisition of technical knowledge.  The technical knowledge of our society is far beyond the dreams of the most educated person of a few hundred years ago.  We tend to think that intelligence equals wisdom, and that technical expertise provides the foundation for a superior morality.  This is seen, for example, in "sex education" where technical instruction is presumed to lead to wise sexual choices.  It is seen in church movements that use the tools of marketing and therapy to rob the Gospel (and God's word in general) of its power.  These movements reinforced the societal drift toward grounding knowledge in the individual knower's experience instead of God's revelation.
• Finally, the demise of Biblical authority in the culture and the church established a negative feedback loop where both society and the church emphasized Biblical knowledge less and technical knowledge more, resulting is less Biblical knowledge and a lower view of scripture ... which led to less emphasis on acquiring Biblical knowledge.

Technology

Technology has freed women from housework.  The PBS reality show "Frontier House" showed vividly just how much work was required to do maintain a household prior to the invention of the washing machine, vacuum cleaner, and the dish washer, along with the widespread availability of an electrical infrastructure to power them.  Without this technology, most women would not have the option of working outside the home.

Unlike the Amish, I think the invention of these technologies is part of fulfilling God's stewardship mandate to "subdue the earth."  This cannot be said about other technologies that are used to undermine God's command to "multiply and fill the earth."  These include various abortion technologies, and surgical, hormonal, and emerging genetic technologies that enable the gender-confused to attempt to impose their feelings on their bodies.

The technology that has been perhaps the most influential is birth control.  Birth control pills separated reproduction from sex and catalyzed the sexual revolution.  The negative effects of this on men, women, and children are well documented (see recent blog posts), and one reason for an emerging backlash in some areas (eg, single sex dorms).  Ironically, the strongest negative effects have been on children (50+ million aborted since Roe v Wade) and women (single motherhood is displacing married parents).  The seemingly repressive Biblical sexual roles and mores, not surprisingly, protect those who are most vulnerable.

Increasing Wealth

Biblical values spawned a massive increase in wealth.  These include the rule of an objective law (in imitation of a personal and rational God who writes His law on the heart and on tablets of stone), private property rights (man in the image of God with a specific task and organizational structure (family) that owns property), faithful stewardship of God's gifts, and the belief in a personal God who has made Himself known to his image (which spawned the scientific revolution underlying modern technology; see Pearcey & Thaxton's "Soul of Science").

With this explosion of technology-based wealth came an increasing amount of leisure time and a focus on self-fulfillment.  When combined with the sexual revolution, fertility rates quickly dropped below replacement level across the West, a trend that is now seen in all urban populations around the world.  This tends to result (in the short term) in more wealth, helping to establish a self-reinforcing cycle of having fewer kids to obtain more wealth and leisure.

Changing Work

Finally, work (and wealth) has changed from being labor-intensive to being knowledge-intensive.  In 1800, 90% of the US work was on the farm, in 1900 it was 40%, in 1950, 10%, and today it is 2%.  As farm work declined, manufacturing increased.  But, as with farm work, technology displaced humans.  Manufacturing as a percentage of the  workforce dropped to 30% by 1950 and is 9% today.

Bottom line: approximately 10% of the US workforce is in a traditionally labor-intensive job (farming, manufacturing), and those jobs are so technology-intensive that the male strength advantage is relatively insignificant.

Summary

All of these factors (philosophical, religious, sociological, technical, economic) created an environment more favorable to female liberation from the traditional ties to husband and family.  Even secular sociologists are beginning to express concern about the growing imbalance between male and female wealth-producing capability.  For example, the male-female college graduate proportion was 60-40 in 1970; today it is 40-60.

THREE WAVES OF FEMINISM

Sociologists generally recognize 3 waves of feminism in the West.  They are:

• 1800 - 1920 - focus on equal rights in property, inheritance, voting, education
• 1960-1990 - focus on workplace equality and liberation from marriage and children
• 1990-present - focus on gender politics/power, lesbianism, feminine spirituality (eg, Goddess worship)

I think Christians in general see the first wave as being a generally good thing, despite its tendency to undermine the Biblical structure of husband-wife "oneness" as the basic building block of society.

However, the radical individualism that blossomed in the West in the 1960's directly and forcefully attacked the Biblical understanding of gender-based roles in the family, and, by implication, of gender-based roles in the church.  Although the term "women's lib" seems quaint today, the term "liberation" is perhaps the most accurate way of describing second-wave and third-wave feminism.  Asserting freedom from men and children was relatively easy; living it turned out to be impossible.  Even if you had your tubes tied, you still had to live with the emotional fallout of promiscuity (and/or the gender confusion of lesbianism) and growing old without children.  Many women tried to pursue men, career, and children simultaneously, with predictably disastrous results (see Venker & Schlafly's just-published "Flipside of Feminism" for details).


FEMINIST THEOLOGY

The effects of secular feminism on theology were predictable.  New interpretations of scripture proliferated to explain why (a) traditional Christian orthodoxy was wrong, or (b) male and female roles/differences are ultimately cultural/societal, not universal and unchanging.

It is impossible to even scratch the surface of this topic without a book-length treatment (several such books are available for free at cbmw.org; these have detailed (and fair) presentations of various feminist understandings).

However, the following are examples of some of the novel interpretations that emerged in the decades after 1960:

• Galatians 3:28 ("In Christ there is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, slave nor free") means that the coming of Christ's kingdom has re-established a hypothetical pre-Fall order which included no distinctive male-female roles (see below for more on this).  This interpretation ignores the context of this passage which is discussing who can inherit salvation.
• Ephesians 5:21 ("submit to one another out of reverence for Christ) means that "mutual submission" must be practiced in the family and the church with regard to male and female roles.  This seems strange in light of the roles that are discussed in this section of Ephesians: husband-wife, Christ-church, parent-child, master-slave. It is clear in the context that "submit to one another" is referring to submission that is in accordance with your role(s).
• Ephesians 5:23 ("husband is head of wife as Christ is head of the church") uses "head" (Greek kephale) as a synonym for "source", not "authority."  Not only is this not consistent with the context, but the Greek support is extremely weak (ie, the one use of kephale for "source" is in the 5th century BC, and that is for a river's source; in human relationships it always means "authority").
• The Trinity are in mutual submission - this is a recent (1990's) assertion.  See the article by Bruce Ware (linked in #2 of the INTRODUCTION above); I don't see how anyone can thoughtfully read the Gospel of John and come to this conclusion.
• The redemptive thrust of the Bible moved away from divorce and slavery (two results of the Fall); in a similar way, it moves us away from gender-based roles.  This ignores the fact that Genesis 1 & 2 clearly describe gender-based roles prior to the Fall.  A similar rationale has been offered to justify homosexual relationships.
• The NT context is addressing (a) uneducated women, or (b) women who are false teachers, or (c) other cultural/contextual issues.  This is not what the text says (or can be reasonably inferred from the text); Paul clearly grounds these differences in creation.
• Pentecost restored the Garden by undoing the effects of the Fall.  This assumes equality before the Fall (previously discussed).  And, unlike Adam and Eve, we still know "good and evil."
• Selective literalism ("aren't you inconsistent by not requiring, for example, women to wear head coverings?").  Paul points to the Fall to highlight what appears to be a created structure (male & female roles).  A similar line of reasoning is often heard in justifying homosexual behavior.
• Pragmatism ("aren't you cutting yourself off from half of your potential leaders?").  God is the one who defines who can fill what roles; this is a question of whether we accept God's authority.  A similar line of reasoning could be offered for bisexual behavior.

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS

Well, make that "some of what the Bible says."  The reason why the orthodox Christian understanding of male and female roles in the church and family was largely unquestioned for over 19 centuries is that the Bible is clear on the topic.  Here's a cursory listing of a few of the fundamental passages:

• Christ (through the Spirit (per John 16)) makes it clear that male leadership (a) in the home is grounded in creation as a type of Christ and the church (Eph 5:31-32),  and (b) in the church is grounded in Adam being created first with Eve as his helper (1 Tim 2:14).  The implication of the Greek word for "authority" in 1 Tim 2, by the way, is neutral or positive in tone; it does not have a negative (eg, "domineering") implication.  Associated with this is "women remaining silent in the church" (1 Cor 14:34-36).  See cbmw.org for a detailed discussion of how this coheres with such passages as Acts 21:9 (Phillip's virgin prophetess daughters) and 1 Cor 11:5 (concerning women praying and prophesying).  I have to say that I don't really see how you interpret 1 Cor 14 as being "silent in the discussion of the meaning of a prophecy", which seems to be the dominant understanding of CBMW.
• Genesis 2-3 makes it clear that there is a clear distinction in male-female roles prior to the Fall.  This distinction is made clear in numerous ways, including: Adam was created first (from dirt), Adam was given specific directions regarding his purpose and prohibited behavior prior to Eve's creation, Adam names those under his authority (including Eve), Eve is created from Adam (not from dirt), Eve is created as a suitable helper for Adam, and "a man" leaves the authority he lives under (his parents) and unites with his wife.
• In the Fall, Satan approaches Eve, thereby undermining the authority/responsibility structure created by God.  And, it appears that Adam is present, but silent, thereby shirking his leadership/protection responsibility.
• In the Fall, Adam is held responsible.  In Gen 3, Adam, then Eve, then the serpent are questioned, with the punishments handed out in reverse order.  And, in the NT (Rom 5:12, 1 Cor 15:21) Adam is held responsible for the Fall.
• Two of Eve's three curses involve a distortion of the relationship between her and Adam.  First, she will desire to possess or rule over her husband (the Hebrew for "desire" appears only one more time in Genesis (4:7) and is "sin desiring to have Cain"; the implication is a desire to reverse the creation order with Adam being a helper to Eve).  Second, she will be ruled by her husband in a domineering sense.  The continuing existence of all three curses are all too clear to this day.

RESTORING UNITY

Perhaps the most tragic and destructive result of this controversy is that it tends to set male against female and husband against wife.  This presupposes the core issue is "who's in charge" or "who submits."  That is not what is revealed in nature or in God's Word.  God makes it clear that the church is to be unified; a perfect bride for Christ. Likewise (per Gen 2 and Eph 5), the center of being male or female is that "it is not good to be alone."  While some may be called to the life of a single person, God's creative intent is for a unified male-female entity, just as Christ and the church a unity (Eph 5).

Unity, then, provides the fundamental framework for discussing roles in the home and the church. If Biblical roles are abandoned, unity will surely disappear.

As with all distortions of God's creation, the fundamental solution is the Gospel and its power to change lives. Neither the desire to live out God's purposes, nor the power to do so is possible without the Good News that makes us "slaves to righteousness" (Rom 6:16-17, 1 Cor 1:24-25).


SUMMARY

The only thing more fundamental than the male-female distinction is being created in the image of God.  It should not be surprising that, in a fallen world, the most easily distorted things are the foundations, and, because they are the core of our identity, distorted foundations are often the most difficult for us to clearly see.

Attacks on a Biblical understanding of male and female, and on distinctive male-female roles in marriage and the church, will probably increase in intensity and frequency for the foreseeable future.  Christians in Europe and Canada have already been persecuted by the government for defending a Biblical understanding of sexuality.  More worrisome, perhaps, are attacks from within Christianity (in a broad sense).  The latest is the statement by Zondervan that they will cease publication of the 1984 NIV, and will replace it with a revision of the TNIV that deliberately distorts the clear meaning of numerous passages in pursuit of a "gender neutral" translation.

Regardless, God's Word has always called His people out of the world.  And, the Gospel has always provided them with the power to live a life under His authority.

Culture Observations - June 2011

1. Catholic University is switching back to single-sex dorms; reasons include less binge drinking (18% vs. 42%) and less promiscuity/depression.  Expect lots of backlash; sexual "liberation" of various sorts is the foundation of the post-60's Western culture.  It won't (and can't) be replaced by nothing ... which means a Biblical understanding of male and female may begin to get a more thoughful hearing in the near future. (search Google news if you don't get the entire article with this link)

2. Seems like almost all Americans have been (consciously or unconsciously) seduced by the radical individualism that is the core identity of our time, despite everything from ancient writings (the Bible) to current research indicating that such an identity is poison to social, economic, and spiritual health.  Like all fundamental sins, the issue is not knowledge ... it's an unwillingness to live the way we know we should, in accordance to the "law written on the heart".  This column by Tony Perkins clearly describes why economic capital depends on human capital, and human capital depends on stable (ie, sacrificial) families.  For example, the economic difference a mom makes in, say, 4 children (between them being wards of the state, and them being a key part of a family as a mother/father) is far more than almost every father will earn in a lifetime.

3. Which brings us to ... another liberal mugged by reality: David Mamut's new book sounds intriguing ... I liked "The Spanish Prisoner" a lot, not the least because it's a bit quirky.  Some other favorites from folks who : The Content of Our Character (Shelby Steele), The Dream and the Nightmare (Myron Magnet), The Destructive Generation (Collier & Horowitz).

Bottom line: it takes a lot longer to both build and destroy human capital than it does for economic capital.  This country has spent over 40 years pursuing changes in culture and policy that have destroyed large chunks of our human capital.  An unprecedented revolution in information technology is the primary reason this destruction has not already triggered an existential crisis.  Ironically, this same revolution (by enabling sophisticated obligation structures like derivatives) may trigger the reckoning.  Regardless, human capital can only be rebuilt slowly and at great sacrifice.  We're about to find out if this country is willing to face up to the fundamental causes of our economic crisis, and then, whether we're willing to begin the long and difficult task of rebuilding.

Tolerance and Authority

Although we associate authority with intolerance (with good reason), it seems that there's a sense in which authority may encourage tolerance.  Specifically, where an authority sets clear boundaries, tolerance *within* those boundaries *may* be more robust than if these boundaries clarify the limits of freedom .... unless one of the authority's boundaries is that the individual is "owned" by the authority.

When the authority recognizes no other authority as legitimate, then oppressive intolerance appears inevitable.  The trend toward autonomous intolerance seems to be growing worldwide, in China, in the Arab world, and in the West ... here are just a few recent items that illustrate the point:

• Four recent columns by Al Mohler:
  (1) Nero in Beijing - as Mohler notes, "One of the hallmarks of democratic societies is the existence of 'mediating institutions' between the individual and the brute power of the state."  If the state is all-powerful, it cannot tolerate these institutions, the primary ones being the church and the family.  Christians in China now outnumber the Communist Party; I suspect the Chinese leadership understands all to well what happened to Rome when Christianity hit critical mass.  See, also, STRATFOR's China and the End of the Deng Dynasty.
  (2) Why Conservative Churches Are Growing - it seems that humans don't thrive outside of a group that constrains our tendency towards individual autonomy.  While this can be unhealthy if the group is based on false beliefs, living under God's authority clearly results in growth.
  (3) "God's True Vision ... - A church with roots in the Restoration Movement announces that it will no longer perform weddings ... as a protest against Kentucky's refusal to recognize same-sex marriage.
  (3) A Warning of Intimidations to Come - the law firm hired by the House to defend DOMA is attacked by homosexual activists, and the firm drops the case.  For those who think that proponents of sexual liberation are interested in "live and let live", think again.  The evidence grows daily that *any* public expression (workplace, school, city council, etc) that is neutral or skeptical of such liberation will be greeted with the sort of intense hostility last seen in the 1960's protest movements.  If you are involved in a profession that is publicly funded (eg, school teacher) or is certified by a national or state organization (eg, medical doctor), be prepared for persecution if you hold to the traditional Christian understanding of "all truth is God's truth."
• Three lectures by Hunter Baker (author of The End of Secularism) - Freedom, Democracy, and Secularism; Decline, Fall, and the Options; and Secularism, Church, and Society are all interesting lectures.  I found the last two had more depth, but anyone who thinks a secular society will be tolerant of Christianity and Christians is willfully ignorant of the past century.

Note that Christianity and the secular institutions it shaped (public and private) are careful to (a) disperse authority, (b) recognize that there are multiple legitimate and complementary loci of authority, and (c) recognize (explicitly or implicitly) that all authority is ultimately delegated by God.  These (and other) reasons are why Christian cultures are the most tolerant the world has ever seen.

Interesting Take on Churches of Christ by Methodist Professor at SMU

"Why The Churches of Christ Were Right After All" ... It's always interesting to see the familiar through the eyes of a stranger.  Ted Campbell is an Associate Professor of Church History at SMU's Perkins School of Theology.

His blog is subtitled "Renewal in the Methodist and Wesleyan churches"; I suppose it's only natural that any serious student of the Bible associated with any of the various mainline Protestant groups might be prompted to investigate a more fundamentalist perspective on Christianity in light of the chaos (epistemological, theological, etc) that is engulfing some of them.

A more recent post, "Why the Baptists Were Right After All", is also worth reading.

Is the Reality Drought Ending?

It seems like the two major U.S. political parties are in the midst of an existential crisis.  The Republicans can't figure out Moral Reality, the Democrats are struggling with Fiscal Reality, and both are uncertain on Relational Reality (foreign policy).

Moral Reality - after almost five decades of sexual revolution, reality is setting in.  The relational and economic costs of abortion, promiscuity, objectification, perversion, and other flavors of "liberation/choice" are obvious to even the most libertine observer.  But ... if you've rejected God's authority as non-existent or antiquated, then you're left with an appeal to pragmatism ... a very weak defense against the power of sexual desires, which are fundamental in both focus and strength.  It's still unclear whether most Republicans understand that any culture (this is more about identity than laws) that does not set clear limits on sexual conduct cannot long survive.

Fiscal Reality - after eight decades of making promises with other people's money, reality is setting in.  We long ago ran out of our own money, so we started making promises with our children's and grandchildren's money.  That game is over.  We have two choices: (a) follow Europe and increase taxes into the 25%+ GDP range, or (b) admit that we made promises we can't keep and scale back benefits.  The former runs the risk of actually making things worse by making the U.S. even less competitive than it is today, and the latter runs the risk of a violent backlash by several generations of individuals who have lost any idea of how to create wealth (ie, they either work for the government, or take from the government).  It's still unclear whether most Democrats realize that making promises with other people's money is no longer possible, and that they will have to find some other basis for attracting voters.

Bottom line: declining birth rates, chaotic families, and raising taxes / monetizing the debt (ie, inflation) will inevitably reduce national income (and tax revenues).  While there may be temporary methadone-type relief, I'm not sure I see any alternative to some sort of "cold-turkey" withdrawal in the sexual and fiscal arenas.  Whether the patient has the will to survive is unclear.

Here's a few recent articles on these and related topics:

1. "We've Become a Nation of Takers, Not Makers" - Most folks just don't realize (a) how productive we are in manufacturing and farming (ie, how few people it takes to produce good & food), and (b) how unproductive government is.
2. "Where The Tax Money Is" - this helps explain why the leaders of President Obama's bipartisan commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform recently said that we have less than two years to fix our spending problem (ie, before we either default or monetize our debt).
3. "How to Get a Real Education" - a great description of "making something happen" by the creator of Dilbert, Scott Adams
4. "Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to be Knowledge Workers" - Andrew McAfee of Enterprise 2.0 fame throws cold water on the naive post-WWII notion that anyone who gets an education is set for life.  If you don't realize that you're potentially competing against every smart person who has an Internet connection, then it's time to wake up.

What Are the Real Stats?

It shouldn't come as any surprise that the federal government changes the way it computes statistics.  Sometimes there are good reasons (e.g., seasonal adjustments make a lot of sense).  However, sometimes it seems they're just trying to make a bad situation look a little better.
shadowstats.com is nice alternative perspective on such items and the unemployment rate and the inflation rate.

Kodachrome is Dead

For those of us of a certain age, it is sad to hear that the last Kodachrome processor has shut its doors.
I recognize the superiority, in many ways, of digital media, along with the Moore's Law dynamics that drive it.  I suppose my nostalgia is similar to those who mourned the passing of the horse and buggy, but that doesn't make it any less real.

One Reason I don't like Skype ...

... is that it's a peer-to-peer network. See this post on its recent crash for some high level details.

Compounding 1 Million+ fewer children per year

Two recent stories (links below) reminded me that only the religious press discusses the fact that roughly 1 million children per year have been aborted since Roe v. Wade.  Seems like this would be a contributing factor to the "STEM crisis"

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/1221/2010-census-results-Why-did-US-population-growth-slow
http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-birth-rate-20101221,0,10406.story

The STEM Crisis

If you follow education, you know that there's been a lot of noise recently about the dramatic decline in Americans getting degrees (especially advanced degrees) in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM).  This recent report (free; registration required) from the National Academies of Science, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine is typical.
What I find most striking is the complete absence of any discussion of such fundamental factors as (a) the family, (b) the disintegration of marriage, and (c) the social fragmentation associated with modernism.  I'm sure there's lots of good work here, but it seems ineffective at best to focus on fourth and fifth order effects and ignore the fundamentals that are driving this shift.
Reminds me of the old cliche about scientists climbing up the mountain and finding theologians at the top.

Wealth in Medieval England

An interesting article on how average income in Medieval England was double the average of the poorest nations today.  Seems to cohere with the view that the era was not the "Dark Ages" (a pejorative created by those promoting the humanism of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment).

Are "Facts" Declining?

This interesting article ("The Truth Wears Off") in The New Yorker discusses something that is disconcerting to the positivist ... researchers in a number of fields are finding it hard to verify studies that seem to be solidly grounded in the scientific method.
I was struck by the fact that most of the examples dealt with behavioral research (which is exploring a very different landscape than, say, physics or chemistry).  Regardless, it's an interesting reminder of the limits of modernism.

What We Can't Not Know

J. Budziszewski, professor in the departments of Government and Philosophy UT Austin and an ethical and political philosopher, is one of the leading thinkers in considering what is universal and objective in human moral understanding.  I recently finished his book "What We Can't Not Know" and highly recommend it if you're interested in human moral knowledge.
However, I realize most folks have limited time for such reading ... so, "The Revenge of Conscience" (First Things, June/July 1998) is a short summary of some of the key points.  Required reading for anyone interested in what, if anything, an individual can understand about morality from general revelation.
By the way, his story is interesting ... he was hired because he was, at that time, a leading proponent of relativism in ethics.  He later became a Christian (after being granted tenure) and continues to disappoint those who hired him.

"Values" as a novel concept

We tend to take for granted that the word "values" and the concept it represents are universal and timeless.  The idea that morality is subjective and individualistic is so pervasive that most Westerners see it as a self-evident truth and find it difficult to even conceptualize an alternative truth claim.
The evidence indicates otherwise; most times and places see morality as objective and found in all "humans" (though who is "human" is often limited to "those who are of my tribe or culture").
Two data points:
1. The term "morals" declines and the term "values" grows dramatically from 1800 to 2000 - see this comparison generated by Google's very cool Ngrams tool
2. Chapter 3 of this doctoral dissertation discusses the history of the concept.

"Emergence Magic"

Almost 25 years ago, I became intrigued by developments in science and math that have come to be known various labels, including "complex adaptive systems", "the mathematics of chaos", and "emergence."  Through the 1990's I read a variety of books (popular & technical) and journal articles in these areas trying to better understand both the promise and the limitations of what was a radical shift in perspective (from top-down and reductionist to bottom-up and emergent).
While some of the work in these areas has been helpful in solving difficult problems (e.g, via agent-based systems), and I think that a grasp of the basic concepts is essential to anyone working with large complex systems, most of the initial hype has faded.
So, what was all the fuss about?  It was, at a fundamental level I think, about whether information-intensive objects, structures and processes could spontaneously emerge under the right conditions (e.g., information networks with connections that are neither too numerous or too few ... the "edge of chaos") ... what I've come to think of as "emergence magic."
If such a thing could be achieved, then we would have the first demonstrable naturalistic explanation of where life came from and how its pervasive information-intensive objects, structures and processes came into being.  And, we would have the promise of a powerful new tool for creating information-intensive capabilities that might very well increase computer hardware and software productivity by many orders of magnitude.
This article by Douglas Axe summarizes the latest of a long string of research that indicates that "emergence magic" is probably exactly that .... "magic."  Although the emergence of higher levels of order is a pervasive feature of the universe (e.g., relatively simple individual behaviors in an ant colony results in much more complex behaviors at the colony level), it appears increasingly clear that emergence must be designed in.  And, we have almost no understanding of how to design emergence.