Touchstone Magazine - Mere Comments

And the wall came tumbling down...

Journalist and Lutheran theologian Uwe Siemon-Netto reflects on the upcoming fiftieth anniversary of the beginning of construction of the Berlin Wall, "And the wall fell down flat." He relates the story of the Christian peace movement and its role in tearing down the spiritual walls that helped to hold up the Berlin Wall.

"It is now 50 years since I saw the Wall go up and 22 since it came down," he writes. "The Christian movement in eastern Germany seems to have collapsed. When Germany was reunited on 3 October 1990, most Protestant churches did not even ring their bells in gratitude, in contrast to Catholic churches, which did. Once again, eastern Germans are turning their backs on the Christian faith in droves. Next to the Czech Republic, the former GDR is the most secularized region in Europe, and Berlin is the most godless city."

Wallis and Mohler on the Church and Social Justice

Jim Wallis and Al Mohler are scheduled to debate the question, "Is Social Justice an Essential Part of the Mission of the Church?" The debate is sponsored by the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and is scheduled for Oct. 27, 2011 at 7pm.

We're up against that old faith/works problem again, but this time in the concrete context of American politics. I describe some of the necessary distinctions and definitions that need to be made in order to arrive at a good answer on the question of the church and social justice. It depends largely on what you mean by social justice and what you mean by church.

Getting to the Bottom of the WELS Flap

I’ll come clean. I have to admit it. I am a Lutheran.

And that, at least according to Joshua Green at The Atlantic, would seem to be pretty fringey stuff. Definitely outside the realm of respectable opinion in today’s world. (Which must be a surprise to all those Garrison Keillor fans.)

Or… maybe I’m not a Lutheran at all, really.

If you were to speak to an official of the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, to one of whose congregations presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann used to belong, they’d probably tell you that my own church, a member of a conservative but pietistic fellowship, isn’t really Lutheran in the proper meaning of the term. We’re insufficiently sacramental in our focus, and so not truly Lutheran.

And you know what? I’m OK with that.

Among ourselves, we other Lutherans laugh at the Wisconsin Synod sometimes. You might call them our Hasidim. A little strict, a little stiff by our standards. They have their own ways, which sometimes can even cause offense, as when we visit their churches and are denied communion.

But at bottom we respect them. They have their principles, and they stick to them.

'Christian Witness in a Multi-Religious World'

From the Christian Post: "First Global Code of Conduct on Evangelism to Go Online."

Anugrah Kumar writes, 'It took five years of cooperation between the WEA, the Catholic Church’s Pontifical Council for Inter Religious Dialogue, and the World Council of Churches to reach an agreement on the ethics of Christian mission and evangelism and “the need for every Christian, every church and every Christian organization to live and preach the gospel in accordance with the life and teachings of Jesus,” WEA said.'

This is the first I've heard of this project and I'll be interested in seeing the results tomorrow.

Detroit's Blooming (and Vulnerable) Urban Gardens

In the commentary this week over at the Acton Institute, I examine the move toward urban agriculture in the city of Detroit. I argue that the trend represents a small but significant area of hopefulness in a city in desperate need of economic, cultural, political, and spiritual transformation. In a distant allusion to Edmund Burke, I call these urban gardens "little plots of liberty."

One of the potential problems, though, is that the city government can stand in the way of such transformation. In an environment where everyone needs to "get theirs" and the culture of graft and corruption reigns supreme, the subsistence and rudimentary efforts of many urban farmers can easily be crushed.

I also note that it's worth checking out the piece in New Geography from some years back by Aaron M. Renn, which has some engaging narrative and illustrative photography.  "In most cities, municipal government can’t stop drug dealing and violence, but it can keep people with creative ideas out," says Renn. He adds that this typically hasn’t been true in Detroit. "In Detroit, if you want to do something, you just go do it. Maybe someone will eventually get around to shutting you down, or maybe not."

The latest development of this whole story, however, is that the regulators and bureaucrats are beginning to take notice, with predictably deleterious results.

Why We Are Doomed

I've been waiting for other social conservatives to respond to the recent Gallup Poll which reports that Americans now favor “gay” marriage by a percentage of 53% to 45%.

This year's nine-percentage-point increase in support for same-sex marriage is the largest year-to-year shift yet measured over this time period. Two-thirds of Americans were opposed to legalized same-sex marriage in 1996, with 27% in favor. By 2004, support had risen to 42% and, despite some fluctuations from year to year, stayed at roughly that level through last year.

I haven't seen much yet along those lines, so I'll say something myself. I don't expect to convince anyone of anything (I rarely do), and it goes without saying I'll be compared to a Nazi, but I'll do it anyway, because it's been on my mind.

First of all, I'm not entirely convinced by the figures. My experience is that people with liberal views are generally oversampled in such polls.

But that doesn't alter the fact that, beyond question, acceptance of homosexuality has been growing rapidly among Americans. Among young people, it's barely an issue anymore.

Barring some major critical event, like a movement of the Holy Spirit or a re-make of Rocky Horror Picture Show, it would appear that gender-neutral marriage is in our future. How are we to think about that?

For me, the answer is clear. I shall despair of my country. I do not consider this a minor issue, a cosmetic matter, a sideshow. In my view, even if conservatives sweep all the elections and take all the seats of power for the next century, it will mean nothing if we lose the marriage battle.

It's a matter of fundamental issues.

'Nowhere, Never, by No One.'

At the CT site, S. Donald Fortson III examines "The Road to Gay Ordination in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)."

He writes, "Church history is crystal clear: Homosexual practice has been affirmed nowhere, never, by no one in the history of Christianity." Adoption of amdendment 10-A is therefore, by definition, anti-catholic.

Jim wrote, "This is not your grandmother's church." Fortson also shares, "When I was a young ministerial student studying at a mainline Presbyterian seminary I read Don Williams's 1978 book, The Bond that Breaks: Will Homosexuality Split the Church? and I recall wondering if homosexual ordination would find acceptance among Presbyterians during my lifetime. Now, more than 30 years later, I have an answer to my question."

Speaking of changes of a lifetime, here's the message concerning Amendment 10-A from last year's moderator of the General Assembly.

And it is worth recalling this moment from last year's assembly:

Archpriest Siarhei Hardun from the Orthodox Church of Belarus:

“Christian morality is as old as Christianity itself. It doesn’t need to be invented now. Those attempts to invent new morality look for me like attempts to invent a new religion — a sort of modern paganism.

When people say that they are led and guided by the Holy Spirit to do it, I wonder if it is the same Spirit that inspired the Bible, if it is the same Holy Spirit that inspires the Holy Orthodox Church not to change anything doctrinal or moral standards? It is really the same Spirit or perhaps there are different spirits acting in different denominations and inspiring them to develop in different directions and create different theologies and different morals?

My desire is that all Christians should contend earnestly for the faith, which was once for all delivered to the saints, as St. Jude calls us to do (Jude 1:3). And my advice as an ecumenical advisory delegate is the following: ‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.’” (Romans 12:2).

Keeping it Common

In a somewhat misleading title, The Christian Post ran a story yesterday about Fuller Theological Seminary's approval of the Common English Bible (CEB) for use in Biblical studies classrooms, "Common English Bible Replaces TNIV at Seminary." A spot was opened up, apparently, with the pending removal of the defunct TNIV from Fuller's list. It's not clear whether the updated NIV will make the cut.

Having never really looked at the CEB before, I found a number of the claims in this piece quite striking. The NRSV, for instance, which is reported to written at the 11th grade level, is felt by some to be "out of reach" and more of an "academic Bible." By contrast, the CEB is written at the 7th grade level, which I suppose might be more appropriate for all those academically-challenged seminarians in a Biblical studies course!

Just one more lowlight: 

As with any new Bible translation, the Common English Bible has its fair share of criticism.

One of the big shockers is that the CEB translation ditched the common title to Jesus as the "Son of Man" and instead calls him the "the Human One" where the Greek text reads ho huios tou anthrōpou.

"It will strike a number of readers as surprising," admitted Green. "We think it's a better choice than 'Son of Man.' It's not like that phrase communicates well to modern people anyway."

The "Green" in question is "Joel Green," who along with fellow Fuller professor Nancey Murphy has promoted the physicalist/monist interpretation and application of Scripture, which denies traditional body/soul duality. On this, see John W. Cooper, “The Bible and Dualism Once Again: A Reply to Joel B. Green and Nancey Murphy,” Philosophia Christi 9 (2007): 459-69.

The State of Christian Higher Education: A Response to Allen Guelzo

UPDATE: You can get Guelzo's piece here.

Many are now taking note of Allen Guelzo's essay in Touchstone on the situation of evangelical colleges in America. He points out a number of troubling issues, such as that few of these schools are selective, alumni are not giving, and many of the schools are in bad financial condition, despite the continued rise in tuition rates.

When I took over responsibility for strategic planning at Houston Baptist University back in 2007, I studied many of these same challenges.  My goal was to get a sense of our position in the market so that we could speak intelligently to donors about what we needed. I discovered the relative lack of high endowments among Christian institutions (and the high reliance on tuition that goes with the lack of such endowments).

In addition, I noted the near complete lack of doctoral programs in areas outside of professional training such as education or counseling. Christian universities are not able to afford graduate fellowships or stipends. If the programs don't generate revenue, we don't offer them. Guelzo doesn't mention that.

Neither does he mention the competitive disadvantage for scholars at our institutions who wish to pursue publication. At many top secular institutions, professors teach only two courses each semester. Sometimes less. Our professors almost always teach four courses per semester, which is a consuming task if you do it well.

I could go on. We have fewer scholarly centers and think tanks, hold less conferences, publish fewer journals . . . You get the idea. We are fighting hard to accomplish our missions, but scarcity is much more real to us than it is to many of our counterparts in state schools whothink they have budget constraints.

All of this is why it was such a galactically big deal when Robert Sloan was in charge at Baylor University and working to make that school into a Carnegie research institution which was simultaneously emphasizing its fealty to the Christian intellectual tradition. When he was forced to resign, many who follow these things closely were despondent.  The worst fears were not realized, though, and Baylor has continued to move forward as a comprehensive (and Christian) institution (which really does carry its weight in the Big 12) and has about a billion dollars in endowment.  Baylor is now a haven for some of the finest Christian scholars on earth. This is a huge accomplishment. Kenneth Starr gives every indication of being the right person to shepherd Baylor's continued flight along this nearly uncharted path. I am somewhat surprised Guelzo would leave the Bears out of his excellent essay.

In addition, Guelzo has missed the ascendancy of some other Christian universities on a smaller scale. For example, just as one Christian school, Lambuth University, announced its closing here in Jackson, Tennessee, Lambuth's longtime sister school, Union University, has enjoyed record enrollments and is receiving some excellent gifts. Union's budget has nearly quintupled over the last 15 years and the school outperforms just about all of its peers in terms of financial health. A study of the percentage of students admitted at Union wouldn't tell the story Guelzo suggests it does. Union likely admits a majority of the students who apply, but that is part of its model. Union sets out to attract applications from students who are a good fit spiritually and academically. Union's selectivity would be better measured by a look at the mean ACT scores of its recent freshman classes, which have been very high.

Just as Guelzo wrote about institutions with which he is familiar, I have referenced some of the ones I know best. I imagine some could come forward with success stories and others with tales of fingernail-hanging survival. I suspect the reality is that Christian universities, as a sector, are undergoing some serious sifting. A wise man once told me several will close in the next decade. I agree with Guelzo that there are very possibly too many and that we would benefit from consolidation. Imagine if we could have Baylor as the research flagship and then 5-10 very strong liberal arts universities.  They would all be cultural gamechangers if they remained faithful.

We don't control these things (the life and death of universities), though, from some central Christian planning office for what we perceive to be the maximum advantage.  Some institutions will fail. Others will surprise us and announce amazing new gifts and innovative programs.

What we can control, however, are matters to which Guelzo alluded. We can hire faculty who care about the mission and not just about their guilds. We can hire presidents with vision for distinctively Christian higher education and NOT for education as a commodity to be sold like gasoline or grain. We can install core curricula which actually help students become well-rounded and well-educated human beings who understand their cultural context, their history, and the interrelationship of the disciplines.

Finally, we can make the case to donors to meet our greatest needs. We need scholarships and scholarship endowments so we can compete with the state universities on price. We need investments in endowed chairs, funded centers, and journals which can provide lighter teaching loads for our productive scholars. Donors, if you are reading this, then understand that the Christian university can provide a tremendous bang for the buck culturally. We educate the student. We provide the student with a spiritual community.  We teach them to put their minds and spirits to work in tandem.  Our scholars can teach, write, and speak into the world conversation. We can convene scholars into networks of influence.

Read Guelzo. Heed this essay. And help us do what only the Christian university can do.

 

Considering Atlas Shrugged on Film

This piece was originally written for the Breakpoint blog.  Crossposted with their permission.

Christians have a deep ambivalence about Ayn Rand that probably draws as deeply from the facts of her biography as from her famous novels.  When the refugee from the old Soviet Union met the Catholic William F. Buckley, she said, "You are too intelligent to believe in God."  Her atheism was militant.  Rand's holy symbol was the dollar sign.  Ultimately, Buckley gave Whittaker Chambers the job of writing the National Review essay on Rand's famous novel Atlas Shrugged that effectively read her and the Objectivists out of the conservative movement.  The review characterized Rand’s message as, "To a gas chamber, go!"  Chambers thought Rand's philosophy led to the extinction of the less fit.

In truth, the great Chambers (his Witness is one of the five finest books I've ever read) probably treated Rand's work unfairly.  Though Rand certainly made no secret of her contempt for those unable or unwilling to engage in true exchange of economic value, she was right to tell interviewers that she was no totalitarian because of her abhorrence for the use of force.  She did not believe in compulsion.  Instead, she wanted a world in which a man stood or fell on his productivity.  Rand saw production as the one great life affirming activity.  Man does not automatically or instinctively derive his sustenance from the earth.  He must labor and produce.  This was Rand's bedrock and explains why she had such contempt for those who try to gain wealth through political arrangements.  She saw this parasitism on every point of the economic spectrum from the beggar to the bureaucrat to the purveyor of crony corporatism.

 

The critical tension between Rand and Christian theology is on human worth.  Christians affirm the inherent and very high value of individuals because of their creation in the image of God.  Rand values human beings only for their achievements.  A person who does not offer value is a leech, a “second rater.”

Atlas Shrugged, the film, is well worth seeing, both because of the challenge posed by Rand’s worldview and because it avoids the pedantic speech-making of the overly long novel.  Rand doesn’t trust her story to get her philosophy across.  The novel struggles under the weight of her desire to teach.  Thanks to the constraints of the film medium, we learn through the development of the characters and the plot.  As a result, the tale comes through quite clearly and simply.

The story proceeds from a fascinating premise:  what if the most able were to go on strike and take their gifts away from the broader society (like Lebron taking his from Cleveland!)?  These talented individuals stop producing because society (in the form of government) has begun to take their contribution for granted and seeks to control the conditions under which they live, work, and create.

Government action occurs under the rubric of equity, but these people who “move the world” -- as one conversation in the film expresses -- do not understand what claim the government has to order their lives or to confiscate the fruits of their labor.  The villains of the piece are not so much any welfare class as much as corporatists who want to link their companies to government arrangements so as to assure profit without the need for strong performance.  They go on about loyalty and public service, but it is a mask for mediocrity and greed.  The heroes (Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggert) want to make money, but they are virtuous because they give obvious value for every cent they earn.

The underlying moral is that we must not make too great a claim to control the inventors and entrepreneurs lest we frustrate them into inactivity.  Though we think we gain by taxing and regulating their efforts, there is a strong possibility that we will lose a great deal more by blocking the creative impulse and inspiring a parasitic ethic of entitlement.

Rand’s atheism, materialism, and reduction of the human being’s value to economic productivity are all severely problematic for a variety of good reasons.  But one might compare her political and economic thought to chemotherapy, which is basically a form of poison designed to achieve a positive outcome.  You don’t want to take it if you can avoid it.  You hope the circumstances in which you would use it don’t arise.  However, in an age of statism, it is a message that may need to be heard.  Not so much in the hopes that it will prevail as much as to see it arrest movement in a particular direction which will end badly if it continues.