A Sci Fi Summer

This summer looks to be a pretty interesting one for fans of Sci Fi films. X-Men Origins:Wolverine, Abram's Star Trek, Terminator and the Transformers are all making an appearance in a few months. Which one(s) are you looking to see?

On a similar topic, The City Journal has an interesting look at the Sci Fi genres recent forays into things Spiritual and even things gospel.  For me the connection has been easy to make over the years...if the grand story of all of history is redemption through a chosen savior...Sci Fi has no choice but to rip off the grand narrative for its own purposes. 

We all agree on the following basic facts and this is where Sci Fi tends to tread quite often

• The world is jacked up 
• It needs to be fixed or somehow "saved"
  
• It seems we fight between cynicism and hope - recently I have realized that there is even a rightful place for a cynical hope.
• The world will end up being saved OR end up in some hell (nuked, climate catastrophe, cold heat death...)

The problem with the secular view today is that it has no Savior.  It logically leads to nihilism, which is hopelessly resisted by existentialism (try to think you are a super hero or just indulge pleasure to get by) and ends up in despair. We are all just dancing along to our DNA in a blind, mindless universe that simply does not care. So the western secular mind is left hoping and fearing with no path ahead save the perennial political saviors which promise the world and take your life and your money.  Or maybe defending our "rights" to freely indulge in every sort of base behavior invented by men. 

To be honest, I love the Sci Fi genre - my friends at Jacob's Well tease me about it - but to me the saving stories are not simply hopeful fancies of far out futures, they are the fabric of reality.  We are living in a fallen story, a world of madness, but walking in hope towards a world redeemed for a Savior has come and in invading the present through good news.  One of the ancients put it this way we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe...One thing is sure, this salvation is much better than terminator salvation.

Wolverine, Star Trek, Terminators or Transformers? Lots of back story type narrative coming it seems; so what are you looking forward to?

A Quote from my favorite Catholic friend...

GK Chesterton, one of the most enjoyable authors I have read, has these wonderful paragraphs at the close of his classic work Othodoxy.

The mass of men have been forced to be gay [happy] about the little things, but sad about the big ones. Nevertheless (I offer my last dogma defiantly) it is not native to man to be so. Man is more himself, man is more manlike, when joy is the fundamental thing in him, and grief the superficial. Melancholy should be an innocent interlude, a tender and fugitive frame of mind; praise should be the permanent pulsation of the soul. Pessimism is at best an emotional half-holiday; joy is the uproarious labour by which all things live. Yet, according to the apparent estate of man as seen by the pagan or the agnostic, this primary need of human nature can never be fulfilled. Joy ought to be expansive; but for the agnostic it must be contracted, it must cling to one comer of the world. Grief ought to be a concentration; but for the agnostic its desolation is spread through an unthinkable eternity. This is what I call being born upside down. The sceptic may truly be said to be topsy-turvy; for his feet are dancing upwards in idle ecstacies,while his brain is in the abyss. To the modern man the heavens are actually below the earth. The explanation is simple; he is standing on his head; which is a very weak pedestal to stand on. But when he has found his feet again he knows it. Christianity satisfies suddenly and perfectly man's ancestral instinct for being the right way up; satisfies it supremely in this; that by its creed joy becomes something gigantic and sadness something special and small. The vault above us is not deaf because the universe is an idiot; the silence is not the heartless silence of an endless and aimless world. Rather the silence around us is a small and pitiful stillness like the prompt stillness in a sick-room. We are perhaps permitted tragedy as a sort of merciful comedy: because the frantic energy of divine things would knock us down like a drunken farce. We can take our own tears more lightly than we could take the tremendous levities of the angels. So we sit perhaps in a starry chamber of silence, while the laughter of the heavens is too loud for us to hear.

Joy, which was the small publicity of the pagan, is the gigantic secret of the Christian...

Orthodoxy turned 100 last year and I did indeed celebrate its birthday. If you have never read this work, you would be most blessed to pick it up...even available FREE on the Amazon Kindle (of course if you have one of those you spent 359 bucks already)

To Obey, or Not to Obey...That is the Question

In Daniel 3, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were given an order to obey a law which demanded all leaders of the Babylonian empire to bow down in worship before a golden image set up by Nebuchadnezzar.  They willfully disobey the order and get themselves into a bit of trouble for doing so.  This brings up an important question for followers of Jesus in every time period.  Is it right to disobey governing authorities?  As Americans, who revel in individualism and whose country was born by throwing off the rule of a European monarch, this is hardly a question.  Yet there is a great tension in the teaching of Scripture and in human society in general. 

Practical Tensions

In order to have a culture that experiences anything less than chaos, there must be some order.  It has been demonstrated time and again that human beings are quite capable of bringing havoc upon the world.  In light of this, government has been necessary.  Yet at the same time, governments are made up of the same human beings who can tyrannically and unjustly oppress those whom they serve.  Hence we have a tension that must be resolved.  First, we need government and we need to follow certain rules or laws in order to have a peaceful and meaningful existence.   Second, it is true that a government can be wicked or ask its people to do unjust tings.  In such cases that government's rules ought to be disobeyed. Or should they?

Biblical Tensions

There is clear teaching in Scripture regarding obeying government and the nature of rebellion.  Many are surprised that the Bible actually commands followers of Jesus to obey governing authorities.  For instance, Romans 13:1-5 gives this strong exhortation:

¹Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. ²Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. ³For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, ⁴for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.

It also goes on to say we should pay taxes, but that is painful to read being a resident of New Jersey.  The point is that we should follow the laws of our land because the state is appointed by God to  correct and punish wrong doing so a peaceable society can flourish.   Furthermore, to go against right authority appears to be sin in light of God's strong words about rebellion (1 Samuel 15:22, 23) That is one side of the tension.

The other side of the tension arises from some clear biblical examples of people who in fact disobey governing authorities.  The Hebrew midwives disobey Pharaoh's commands to destroy Hebrew babies in Exodus 1.  In Acts 4 the early leaders of Jesus' church disobey a command from the ruling council in Jerusalem.  They are asked by the authorities to no longer preach or teach about Jesus; their response was clear:

Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard. 

Equally clear was the response of our guys here in Daniel 3.  Their response to Nebuchadnezzar was strong and resolute:

O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. 18 But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.

So it seems we have to reconcile God's commands to obey government and some clear cases where God has displayed his blessing upon the disobedience.  The solution to this problem is actually quite simple, the application of that solution can be quite complex requiring wisdom.  Is it OK to disobey the government? Yes, it seems, when it wants you to sin against God. 

Higher Authority

It is clear from Scripture that we are to listen to God's word above the commands of human beings.  We are to submit to a law that transcend the borders of nations and cultures. As the apostles in Acts 4 show us, we are to live in a manner that pleases God and not blindly obey a sinful law from government.   How we are to live this injunction in a world of complex situations and circumstances must be considered.  Additionally, whether the law of the land should be the law of God is a difficult subject which various Christians approach differently.  To proceed into some of the complexity of this I will take two paths.  First, we will simply look at the relationships of God's law to the laws of the state.  This is necessary if we are to be able to compare the two and if the state is to rule justly.  Finally, we will look at two different camps regarding civil disobedience and close by giving a positive encouragement from Scripture.

Laws, Higher and Lower

Both church and state have been called by God to govern and have authority in the lives of Christians.  The church is a body of believers called out by God together as a covenant people by the gospel.  As such, the highest authority in our lives is the Word of God, the Scriptures.  Yet each church is in a realm of state authority as well so the lines of separation must be discussed.  Historically, the Roman Catholic Church and the magisterial reformers (Luther, Zwingli and Calvin) held to a unification of church/state.  The state was legitimized by God and the church endorsed this legitimacy.  Additionally, the state enforced and permitted the establishment of religious authority and unity in a realm. This view had long standing back into Greek and Roman times.  A state and its gods were one.  However, this was questioned by many reformers and evaluated in light of Scripture.  Did not Jesus teach that the rule of Caesar was different than the rule of God?  Does not a marriage between worldly power and the church have a corrupting influence on both?  Such questions in Western culture led the founders of the American experiment to articulate clearly the relationship between church and state.  It is found in the well known establishment and free exercise clauses of the first amendment of the US Constitution.  Here is how it reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  The meaning of this statement is quite clear but the implementation has always been a bit fuzzy.  What it means is that there will be no official state religion or church in our country.  Additionally, the government will not prohibit law abiding citizens from freely practices their religion.  It does not make a religion free zone in any portion of society nor does it create a religion of which all citizens must participate.  It means we have freedom of religion - a gracious gift to the people of America.   I take this to be a just solution but it leaves unanswsered how the authority of the church and state are grounded.

The Authority of State - Natural Law

Many thinkers in history, particularly Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and John Locke have taught that there is a law built into human existence which dictates to conscience basic categories of a just society.  I do not have time here, but I discussed various types of law elsewhere¹.  Natural law would be defined in the Christian tradition as follows: Natural law is the law "written on the heart" (Romans 2:13) - the conscience by which people know good and evil - right from wrong. Sin mars this faculty in man, but it remains none the less. These are things that people "can't not know" which flow from the moral nature of God and presses upon the conscience. People suppress this and hold it down in wickedness, many becoming callous as to be seared against God's witness in conscience (See Romans 1,2). This is shared by both Christian and Non Christian. Some recent works on Natural law would be found in the writings of Princeton scholar Robert George and J. Budzizewski of the University of Texas at Austin.²

The state then governs in accord to the law written on the heart expressed in basic morality found in all cultures.  The so called "second tablet" (commands 5-10) of the Ten Commandments is reflective of such basic moral foundations.  The natural law is an expression of God's authority on all peoples and we disobey this moral law to our own peril.

The Authority of Church - The Word of God

Christians however are called to a higher authority than even the state, the authority of the Word of God.  Scripture is the Supreme Court in all matters of life and teaching for Christian believers.  It is to be obeyed and heeded out of love for Jesus Christ who is revealed in this Word.  It reveals the laws of God which demonstrate to us our sinfulness and need of grace.  It reveals the gospel by which we are saved and restored to right relationship with God.  It reveals the mission of the church in the world as the in-breaking of the ultimate rule and reign of God in the Kingdom of Heaven.  It reveals that we are citizens of two realms...the Kingdoms of earth and the Kingdom of God. Scripture instructs us as to when civil disobedience is warranted while simultaneously calling us to submit to just and reasonable laws.

In this age church and state are separate spheres of authority with Scripture guiding the church.  When Jesus returns he will set up a perfect divine monarchy with himself as King of Kings.  Aristotle once wrote that the best government would be by a perfect and virtuous ruler.  Yet none of this metal is to be found among the sinful throng of humanity.  In the current state of affairs it has been said that democracy is the best of all bad forms of government.   Yet a day will come when authority will be always good, kind and just. 

In summary, the state is called to have just laws and believers are called to follow all such laws.  When the state passes unjust laws we are compelled to obey a higher standard.  The question of the application of this principle has typically found Christians in two camps.  We should disobey a government when it promulgates unjust laws or we should only disobey when it compels us by law to act in a sinful manner.  Let's close by looking at this distinction.³

Promulgation or Compulsion?

The Antipromulgation Position-this position simply states that the law is king and the state is not above the law.  If a government rules contrary to just laws than it is illegitimate or tyrannical, failing in its God given duty to promote and protect the common good.  Such governments that promote and promulgate evil should be resisted by protest and self-defensive force if necessary.  Some advocates of this view have even gone as far to recommend revolution against such tyrannical and unjust governments.

The Anticompulsion Position -  this view holds that a Christian should submit to a government until it actively compels a person to follow an unjust law or disobey God.  In this view the follower of Jesus can submit to the just laws of the state while not participating in the evil behavior the state permits.  A modern example would be a doctor refusing to obey a government which might compel him to perform abortions against her conscience. Typically, non violent⁴ resistance is the path followed by the person resisting  an unjust state in this position.⁵ The following table from Norman L. Geisler illustrates the differing views⁶:

Antipromulgationist	Anticompulsionist
When it permits evil	When it commands evil
When it promulgates evil laws	When it compels evil actions
When it limits freedom	When it negates freedom
When it is politically oppressive	When it is religiously oppressive

In closing, it is my conviction that Christians should be good citizens of any realm in which they are living (See 1 Timothy 2:1-3). We should be seek to be helpful to all who govern justly and even do good to those who treat us badly (Matthew 5:43-47). The only trouble we should be starting is the sanctified kind.  If we get in trouble for proclaiming the love of God towards sinners, the forgiveness of God the repentant and the salvation of God which comes through Jesus Christ alone-bring it on.  If we get in trouble for disobeying an evil law, then throw us in the flames.  But if you suffer for law-breaking and doing stupid things...well, that's on you.

As to the myriad of questions surrounding the use of force in self defense, or for a people to wage a violent rebellion against an unjust state...that will have to be junk left for discussion on another day.  

For Jesus,

Reid S. Monaghan

Notes

¹ See my Christianity and Nation States...Law and a Just Society at http://www.powerofchange.org/2005/5/3/christianity-and-nation-stateslaw-and-a-just-society.html

² See J. Budzizewski Written on the Heart-The Case for Natural Law and What We Can't Not Know-A Guide  and Robert P. George The Clash of Orthodoxies-Law, Religion and Morality in Crisis.

^3. This is a synopsis of the treatment in Norman Geisler's Christian Ethics-Options and Issues (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1989) 241-246.

^4. Note: This is a separate issue from the discussion of just war vs. pacifism. 

^5. For a good treatment on why Christians should not favor the use of violence see John S. Feinberg, Paul D. Feinberg Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1996, c1993), 402-405.

^6. Geisler, 243.

John Updike and a Quote on Preachers...

The Pulitzer price winning American author and novelist John Updike passed away yesterday at the age of 76. For those who are unfamiliar, I found our good friend wikipedia to be of help - John Updike March 18, 1932 - January 27, 2009)

A friend sent me a quote from a character in one of his works, which I felt was quite relevant for seminary students and pastors alike.

"Do you think this is your job, to meddle in these people’s lives? I know what they teach you at seminary now: this psychology and that. But I don’t agree with it. You think now your job is to be an unpaid doctor, to run around and plug up holes and make everything smooth. I don’t think that. I don’t think that’s your job…. I say you don’t know what your role is or you’d be home locked in prayer…. In running back and forth you run away from the duty given you by God, to make your faith powerful.... When on Sunday morning, then, when you go out before their faces, we must walk up not worn out with misery but full of Christ, hot with Christ, on fire: burn them with the force of our belief. This is why they come; why else would they pay us? Anything else we can do and say anyone can do and say. They have doctors and lawyers for that…. Make no mistake. Now I’m serious. Make no mistake. There is nothing but Christ for us. All the rest, all this decency and busyness, is nothing. It is Devil’s work." John Updike Rabbit, Run p 146.

(HT - Tim Dees)

The Utopian Vision of Wikipedia Interrupted by Sin

Wikipedia is a wonderful online repository of information.  For the most part, on subjects which are without much controversy, Wikipedia provides timely and helpful information on a plethora of subjects.  The idea behind the site was to create a user editable resource which could offer a vast array of knowledge that is updated regularly.  Over time the information would be refined by those who were passionate about a certain subject and areas of their expertise.

It places a strong emphasis that the crowd will eventually get it right and a vast resources is made available on the world wide web.  I love the idea and it is a work of idealism which I really respect.  The thought of a group of kind human beings working together for the common good and offering their knowledge to the world gives one warm fuzzies for sure.  Wikipedia has often found its critics.  Some say that only experts in a field should weigh in on such fields.  Others have had concern that such a vast resource would sphaghetti out of control when very little control is exercised.  Yet the effort seems worth the time to correct the mistakes and work towards refining the information. 

There is one problem that I believe the Wiki Foundation has underestimated.  Human Sin.  It is no surprise there is terminology in wiki-world which reflects that we are not all prone to good natured editing of information for edifying our fellow human beings. The most common problem on wiki's is Vandalism.  This sort of thing is a problem where pages can be filled with slander, lies, false information and propaganda.  How deep the problem affects wikipedia is subject to debate, but sometimes the misinformation can be quite harmful or disturbing.

The New York Times bits blog is reporting the following this week:

Stung by criticism after vandals changed Wikipedia entries to erroneously report that Senators Edward Kennedy and Robert Byrd had died, Wikipedia appears ready to introduce a system that prevents new and anonymous users from instantly publishing changes to the online encyclopedia.

The new system, called Flagged Revisions, would mark a significant change in the anything-goes, anyone-can-edit-at-any-time ethos of Wikipedia, which in eight years of existence has become one of the top 10 sites on the Web and the de facto information source for the Internet-using public.

The idea in a nutshell is that only registered, reliable users would have the right to have their material immediately appear to the general public visiting Wikipedia. Other contributors would be able to edit articles, but their changes will be held back until one of these reliable users has signed off, or “flagged” the revisions. (Registered, reliable users would see the latest edit to an article, whether flagged or not.)

So the original vision of Wikipedia is slowly being modified and eroded over time.  By what you may ask?  Human nature. People are sinners who are prone to do jacked up stuff to people's visions of Utopia.  I would be nice if everyone was courteous online, if everyone wanted to the common good, if everyone saw humanity as joint progress narrative where we all buy the world a coke and teach it to sing in perfect harmony. This is not our world, this is not what human beings are. A segment of Steve Turner's poem Creed comes to mind:

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behaviour that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

Wikipedia only works as a completely free site if people were not sinners.  So because of sin we need editors, we need flagging and we need God's grace.  For wiki vandalism is but a small problem in our chaotic world.  Wikipedia needs saviors now, it needs some responsible editors to rescue it. All things involving humans are in need of such redemption - for we ourselves are our problem.  Some admit it (repentance) some do not (pride).  Scripture comes to mind:

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus...Romans 3:21-24.

Here is the link to the piece on the Bits Blog - interesting to see how this is all playing out. It seems a small group of idealists is holding on while the realists are calling for more control. Go weigh in and influence the decision in either direction you please - hey, it is wikipedia after all.

Fighting with God

If you are into both MMA and Jesus (I do submit that this is indeed a possibility) there is a conference upcoming in Oregon that the PACNWers may be interested in.

See the following Fighting with God Conference page for more information.  PS - if you watch the View, apparently you cannot attend. Also of interest is a lengthy piece in the Atlantic Monthly on the UFC in general and Quintin Rampage Jackson in particular. Well written piece and a curious read - be warned the language therein is not always good and some of the spiritual stories shared are "theologically interesting."

As I stated before, the UFC has the good, the bad and the wicked aspects of humanity associated with it - it is not a cozy place on earth as it is in heaven.  For those interested, here is the apologetic I wrote for MMA from a biblical perspective. 

Penn says "Proselytize?"

Penn Jillette, well known for both his atheism and his star as an entertainer, shares a short story about his encounter with a kind man who gave him a Bible.  It is pretty convicting stuff if you actually hold to a belief in the biblical gospel.

His logic is pretty simple and straightforward.  If you believe in the offer of eternal life and that there is heaven or hell before us at our departure from this earth, you OUGHT TO care enough about others to tell them.  Makes sense to me...though I would want to give some concern to "how we go about telling people" we certainly need to be about the telling.

Jesus told his followers to proclaim the gospel to all...and even Penn sees the logic in true believers sharing good news. Some of Penn's stuff is not the most respectful, but this video is heartfelt, sincere and charitable.

Pray that those of us who believe would take the time to reach out to others as this man did with Penn. It seems this person understood how to approach someone with "gentleness and respect."

A Savior and King

Mark Driscoll posted a non political, political commentary a few days ago.  If you are more Christian left or more Christian right...or maybe just more Christian purple and don't want to take colors...this is worth the time to read. It points to Jesus as the source of our longings for a savior and king.

 

In God We Do Not Trust

Also, if you are a Christian conservative...I have a question for you.  It seems your Facebook updates, blogs, etc. focused quite a bit on "How God is still sovereign" and "God sets up rulers" etc.  I'm cool with that and understand why you say that in your disappointment.  But I do have a question - if McCain would have won would your reaction and quotation of our holy texts have been the same?  Just asking.  The truth of those texts is truth no matter who won, but it has bothered me a bit that some quote them when they think things went "bad" politically, but probably would have been dancing in the street in their guy won.  Maybe I am wrong.

Anyway, I am a pastor with both Red, Blue and Purple in our small church plant - so this is as close as I am going to get to political banter.  I like Mark's article because he points out something real in the hearts of all of us when engaging political hopes and dreams.  We are looking for a king who will defeat all our enemies and we are looking for a savior who will rescue us from the sins of our own hands.  I know of only one.  The color that mattered most to him was red, and not because he was a republican, but because with his blood he ransomed men for God from every tribe, tongue, people and nation (Revelation 5:9,10).  Truly, his Kingdom and rule shall have no end (Isaiah 9:1-7).

Finally, rejoice with those who rejoice about this election...not for certain policies that you may or may not agree with, but for the wonderful fact that America, with freedom, and overwhelming support elected our first African American president. You don't have to agree with our new President elect and you certainly should not worship him (slow down Oprah) but you should be thankful for the progress of race relations and bigotry in our lands.

OK, that is as political as the POCBlog will ever get.

SAHD Fathers

Yesterday was a sweet day for me.  I have two little girls who love making plans and love surprising their Daddy.  To be honest, my kids love me...I don't say this out of pride or anything, they just love me and I know it.  To be quite honest the love of my children is one of the most gracious and lavish gifts of God in my life. Part of the new covenant is that the hearts of fathers will be turned to their children (See Malachi 4 and Luke 1).  Many of us are aware that the involvement of fathers with their children is vastly important in their upbringing and the results of absent fathers upon our society are undeniable. See this site for more information - http://www.fatherhood.org/

Yet oddly enough I have been meditating upon a differnt "trend" in our society...perhaps not as harmful as the absent father, but the stay at home dad (SAHD). Now here we are not talking about Dad being at little league games, dance recitals, schools and spending good chunks of time with his children.  This phenomena is men choosing not to work, to stay at home and be the primary care giver for young children.  Mr. Mom, Daddy Daycare - Daddy with the diaper bag going to the play group. 

I recently watched an ABC News report about stay at home fathers which began some thinking about the issue.  You can read the transcript of that report here.  It was actually entitled "When a man's place is in the kitchen - How Stay-at-Home Dads Redefine Gender Roles." The report was couched in the notion that these men are challenging the status quo, living enlightened lives and pioneering new social trends. Several things stood out in the report.  One of the reasons that was given for Dad to take up the bottles and diaper bags was financial.  She makes more money and we want to care for our kids.  Of course most of it was couched in language of "doing whats best for the children." Additionally, the report made such a choice to have Dad at home sound like a significant social trend.  Oddly enough, the US Census reports the number at only 143,000. The report clearly wants to tell us that Mr. Mom is a new trend, a new way that is being taken on by men in rising numbers.  The truth of the matter is that throughout history, and everywhere in the world today, Mothers and women are the primary care givers for small children. Yet there are men doing this today and you can find several web sites which offer things from articles to "support groups" to men staying at home full time.  See Rebel Dad, At Home Dad, Daddy Stays Home. 

Nevertheless, the tone of ABC report showed that this was a new sort of gender enlightenment happening in our time. I found it to be quite sad and a bit silly. One guy even laments how it is still not "socially acceptable" to invite another woman over "to play."  Good grief, I felt bad for the guy - maybe the world will make it better for him to go to play group with the Moms and other SAHDs some day soon.  Now I am sure this post mayperhaps anger some SAHDs yet I wanted to look a little bit into this phenomena. I mean no harm to anyone walking this route, but I do hope they would change their minds.  In this post I am not referring to temporary situations or single fathers or fathers who work from home.  What I am addressing is men who intentionally do not work to be the primary source of care for babies and small children.

Not just wanting to have an emotional response against stay at home daddydom I thought I would think through my initial objection and think about "why" I do not think this is a good plan for men or for society.  One more disclaimer.  As this is a new "trend" and therefore a social experiment their will be more sociological studies of this phenomena in the decades ahead, I do not claim to offer anything here that claims to know the outcomes or social trends related of this configuration.  What I do want to do is offer some reason why I do not think it is a wise path for men and women to follow.  I reasoned this from first a secular naturalistic worldview AND then from the biblical worldview to which I subscribe.

Evolutionary Explanations against Mr. Mom

In the worldview of naturalism, humans and our societies are the result of material and environmental concerns (also completely material) by which species struggled to adapt and survive on the earth.  Evolution is driven by our genes desire to replicate and pass their information on to the next generation.  Mutations and adaptations to various environments created fit species which thereby passed on their genes to the next generation.  Such thinking has been applied to literally all areas of human life be it ethics or societal structures.  If you ask "WHY" about various phenomena we see and experience, today's evolutionary ethicists and psychologists can cook up a recipe that tells you why evolution favored certain behaviors which then were carried into the community/society.  If you ask why societies favor altruistic behavior, it must have had an evolutionary benefit for our ancient ancestors as they climbed down from the trees. 

Such a way of thinking can be applied to explain WHY mothers have always been the primary care givers for young children.  First, and too obvious, babies come from and feed from their mothers.  OK, we are modern people and can get away from that...we'll create ways for a man to feed the baby so the mother does not have too.  Second, for whatever reason, evolution has created almost a universal situation where women care for young children...in this worldview this configuration MUST have evolutionary advantages.  At this point, it is usually thought that the male needed to be out hunting and gathering...jumping on the back of prehistoric animals with spears and bone made weapons.  So Dad had to go to work as it were...even way back in the day.  Of course male and female bodies were "designed" by evolution to care for children or fight back the saber tooth tiger.  My whole point in all this would be this.  In a naturalistic worldview evolution has created the childcare scenario and helped us survive.

Of course the apologetic given at this point would be - but we humans no longer need submit to evolution, we have become so smart we can now "take control of our own evolution" and do whatever the heck we want.  We can jettison nature for technology so that men can feed infants and Mom and others (men, women, gay people) can use tanks to fight off any wild beasts.  There are so many problems with this system of thinking.  First, it assumes that humans, because we are smart, can actually escape "natural evolution" and be "guides" of evolution. That is like saying nature can overcome nature to make a new path.  Of course, this worldview offers no such resources.  What is will evolve and we cannot kick against the goads of what matter + time + energy do in their mindless contortions.  Perhaps if humans are "special" or "different" we could do such things, but this worldview lacks these resources.  Second, if the system of mothers caring for children and fathers providing for families and protecting their flock evolved in every human society that rears children (and please, no comments about Amazons or the island of Lesbos) should we not see the wisdom of nature and align to her wishes?  Could intentionally rejecting breast feeding, mothers caring for their children and other "ways of nature" be unwise. OK, I fail to see how naturalism would support Daddys becoming the primary care givers for children, so perhaps human beings want to make choices based on other concerns than mere survival...but of course this is precisely what we cannot do if evolutionary naturalism is true.

OK, enough with naturalism, I find the worldview fatally flawed anyway.

Biblical Manhood means providing and protecting

Scripture teaches a different story about sex and child rearing.  From the beginning human beings were designed by our creator as "male and female" of equal value in the image of God (see Gen 1:26,27).  The role of child bearing is a great gift of God to women and also part of God's work in redeeming and sanctifying women.  Men are also charged to love their wives and care for them.  Men are to serve their wives and sacrifice for them.  Fathers are called to teach their children (Ephesians 6) and provide for their household (1 Timothy 5). Additionally, men ought to care for their families and protect them from evil doing as much as possible. I am also not a pacifist and believe that some men ought to learn to fight.  This is a necessary reality in a fallen world filled with sin and violence and a responsiblity of good government (Romans 13). I have written at length on gender roles from a biblical perspective so you can read the rest here. My little apologetic for virtuous fighting is here.

Now, this is not a discussion about whether a mom should stay home or pursue a career.  That would be for another day.  I will only say that families should work for Mom to have that option available and not force her to work for "lifestyle" issues...simply for money.  We counsel young couples to plan for one income and save aggressively when you have two.  This way a couple actually has a real choice to make when the wonderful words "I'm pregnant" come forth. There are many creative ways today for both parents to work and there are many creative ways today for a Mom to choose to stay at home.  Planning ahead makes it a real choice.

What I am saying here is that men ought to work and learn to provide for a family. Men are called to be responsible, to learn to stand on the wall for others. It is good for young men to feel and teak responsibility, in fact this is part of becoming a man.  We have far too many little boys today prancing around the world living maxim magazine manhood and checking out of their families.  The solution is not taking up the pacifier and baby food jar, but rather commitment to work and family.  That work exists to give honor to God and to provide for those in need.  Furthermore, if more men in a culture are moving to man the diaper bag I fear for our future ability to fight off the hoard.  Of course the response is that universal stay at home dadness is not probable, practical or realistic.  I would simply agree as it points out the weaknesses of the practice.

Final Thoughts

I simply find very few good reasons for a man to choose a permanent and perpetual post as Mr. Mom.   In reading on the subject it seems that social goals are part of the motivation as much as money or looking out for the kids.  What we have seen in segments of western culture is the evacuation of the words "Mom" and "Dad" from any sort of meaning.  They can mean whatever we construct them to be - if that means Dad acts like a traditional Mom then lets cheer the innovator (it seems ABC News will publish on it just about every year around fathers day - at least a search of their site seem to show this). It seems that many like to see themselves as more just, more enlightened, more progressive than other humans - and being a stay at home dad perhaps say "we get it and reject backward patriarchy so much that Dad stays home."  If there is ever a contraption created to have men become pregnant or physically bear the children, I am guessing some "progressives" would cheer the development and some would sign up for this as well.  Huxley foresaw a new world where Mom's loose the ability to bear children and the human race was forever produced in little bottles.  I, for one, am thankful for Moms and Dads.

Thanking God for Fathers and Mothers

So on the day after Fathers day I want to thank God for both Fathers and Mothers.  I want to thank God for the stay at home Dads who are married to one woman and giving their lives to their kids.  I want to say again that I mean no harm to any guys who are SAHDs in writing this. I then want to exhort them to get out of the play group and make their stint as primary child care giver as short as possible.  For their sake and for the sake of the kids...especially their sons.  For the little men will be watching Dad to learn how to focus and develop masculinity. He needs to see a humble king who provides, a tender warrior who fights for what is good right and true, a gracious mentor who will coach life for young men and a friend to guide him through the perils of life outside of the garden. 

Breaking Faith...

British bishop Michael Nazir-Ali has an intersting essay in the June 2008 issue of Standpoint magazine...his premise is that he collapse of British Christianity in the last half century has left the culture beleagured and ripe for Islamic radicals to fill the ideological void.

Interesting read - the source can be found here - Breaking Faith with Britain - When one looks at history the armies of Islam were held at bay in Europe by two powers.  First, the hammer of Charles Martel and the Frankish armies.  Second, the philosophical and scientific efforts of the great philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas.  My fear is that Europe has neither the will to dispute with or resist Islam - I hope I am wrong.

Where art thou Pessimism?

John Mark Reynolds has a refreshing dose of optimism online with his essay Great News Today! Or Despist Us the Church is Winning! OR Ten Reasons to be Happy!  over at the Scriptorium.  If you are typically found hanging out with Chicken little, lamenting how bad everything is or just tend towards a modicum of moribundity this little piece will be good reading for you.  Of course, you will simply want to refute his post and tell us how bad it really is...but hey, it is worth a try to look on the bright side every now and then...no?  Of course John Piper will tell you that our joy is in God and not simply good goings on in the world or culture...but if and when both may be true it is a day for smiling is it not?

Personally, I love Chesterton's exhortation for Christians to be irrational optimists.  At that I will leave you with one of my very favorite sections of Chesterton's book Orthodoxy...I find very few write like this today:

This at least had come to be my position about all that was called optimism, pessimism, and improvement. Before any cosmic act of reform we must have a cosmic oath of allegiance. A man must be interested in life, then he could be disinterested in his views of it. "My son give me thy heart"; the heart must be fixed on the right thing: the moment we have a fixed heart we have a free hand. I must pause to anticipate an obvious criticism. It will be said that a rational person accepts the world as mixed of good and evil with a decent satisfaction and a decent endurance. But this is exactly the attitude which I maintain to be defective. It is, I know, very common in this age; it was perfectly put in those quiet lines of Matthew Arnold which are more piercingly blasphemous than the shrieks of Schopenhauer --

"Enough we live: -- and if a life, With large results so little rife, Though bearable, seem hardly worth This pomp of worlds, this pain of birth."

I know this feeling fills our epoch, and I think it freezes our epoch. For our Titanic purposes of faith and revolution, what we need is not the cold acceptance of the world as a compromise, but some way in which we can heartily hate and heartily love it. We do not want joy and anger to neutralize each other and produce a surly contentment; we want a fiercer delight and a fiercer discontent. We have to feel the universe at once as an ogre's castle, to be stormed, and yet as our own cottage, to which we can return at evening.

No one doubts that an ordinary man can get on with this world: but we demand not strength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good without once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Can he, in short, be at once not only a pessimist and an optimist, but a fanatical pessimist and a fanatical optimist? Is he enough of a pagan to die for the world, and enough of a Christian to die to it? In this combination, I maintain, it is the rational optimist who fails, the irrational optimist who succeeds. He is ready to smash the whole universe for the sake of itself.

The Loneliness of Immortality

I just jumped off the plane from Newark, NJ for a medium sized three hour layover in the Chicago airport.  On the flight into the windy city I read through an article on a persona I have followed a bit over the years.  The article was in WIRED magazine and was simply titled Futurist Ray Kurzweil Pulls Out All the Stops (and Pills) to Live to Witness the Singularity. Well, maybe that title is not so simple nor the ideas being discussed therein.  Let me try to summarize, in a few words, the work of Ray Kurzweil.

In my opinion, Ray Kurzweil is one of the intellectual geniuses of our times. He has been a bit of a legend in the computer science and artificial intelligence worlds.  I know, that is probably something like .00001 percent of the world's population but he has contributed greatly in inventing technology that has changed the world.  His work has been mainly in pattern recognition and machine text/speech recognition.  He has invented software that can read books out loud to the blind and answer you phone calls for large companies.  Well, maybe the latter one has been a bit of a frustrating experience to some.  Kurzweil's more controversial work however has been as one of the leading proponents of what is known as Strong AI. 

Strong AI holds that human intelligence (even consciousness for that matter) can be reduced (read my previous post on reductionism) to processes similar to a very complex computer.  In other words, if you can mimic human thought, decision making...even emotions, you then have consciousness and self awareness. So in his theory, there will be a day when computers are powerful enough for Skynet to "wake up" make its own decisions and take over the world. Many of you have been exposed to the Strong AI view in pop culture through cinematic exploration.  The aforementioned Skynet of the Terminator lore, HAL2000 of 2001 a Space Odyssey, the weird boy robot flick AI, the bizarre world of Minority Report, Will Smith's rambunctious robot romp in iRobot and the new theistic, philosophical cylons of the new Battlestar Gallictica.

Kurzweil believes that as computational power increases the ability to write a brain simulating, consciousness simulating algorithm draws nearer in time.  In other words, given enough processing power, computers will some day be as human as you.  Hence, his earlier works evolved from The Age of Intelligent Machines to the book I read some years ago entitled The Age of Spiritual Machines.  Now, Kurzweill did not suddenly become a dualist in changing his language to "Spiritual Machines."  His point is simply that future computers will appear to be every bit as conscious as ourselves - they might even worship and read books by the compuDalilama (my term, not his).  His latest update of the book and its ideas deals with what he calls the singularity, and according to Kurzweil, it is near.

In the work, The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology (Viking Penguin), he speaks of a soon coming day where a radical shift in life as we know it will take place. At this singularity, we will all be uploaded as software into the network, with non perishing "bodies" (if you want) and live forever.  Immortality, the fountain of youth and becoming as gods all in one push of a brain upload button.  Now, if you believe this narrative (and many do not - read the sidebar in WIRED, Never Mind the Singularity, Here's the Science, featuring research of those that think the whole scheme of things is flawed) you will want to stay alive long enough to reach this glorious land.  If you die before we arrive, so to speak, you will not get to gather at the other side with the other comphumans. Interestingly enough a Physicist Frank Tipler in The Physics of Christianity is writing about similar ideas though from a theistic perspective; though I found it very bizarre. If all this sounds a bit nuts, you are not alone. 

One of the philosophical problems with computing=consciousness is that of self-knowledge.  Computers, by nature of their design, perform by processing tasks according to algorithms.  Even the learning and evolving systems, do so according to predetermined rules of logic placed upon them from minds - in this case programming.  In other words, computers process data and symbols , they do not "know" anything.  I actually thought of this over the weekend observing the functioning of a GPS navigation system in a car.

Our realtor during our house hunting in NJ would punch in an address and then a kind woman's voice (perhaps using Kurzweil inspired technology patents) would tell us precisely where to turn to arrive at our destination.  In our case it was usually a small, dumpy, overpriced house...but I digress.  Let me do a bit of a thought experiment with you at this point.  Imagine for a moment that you were in a vehicle where you could not see where you were going yet you could cause a car to turn right or left based upon the cues from a GPS system processing your location.  You would receive data, act upon it, then arrive perfectly at your desired destination.  I felt like I actually did this many, many times sitting in the back seat of a car zipping around New Jersey this weekend.  Now, in our experiment, you would seem to have a great knowledge of the area and a great sense of directions.  Yet there is one glaring problem - you actually have no idea where you are.  You have zero knowledge of New Jersey or any conscious sense of direction.  You simply processed input and data.  Computers process symbols and data, they do not know anything.  They can do many things, appear intelligent, etc but they do not know.  For a more sophisticated argument John Searle's now famous Chinese Room Problem is similar and much more cogent.

I also find massive ethical problems with this view because it will mean the rich and technological persons will keep themselves alive while others will languish in the pre-singularity world of death and decay.  A new elitism will be even more severe in the imagined world of Kurzweil's future.  It seems like a world that will have more selfish people, concerned only about the perpetuation of their own lives.  God forbid the poor masses ever decide to pull the plug (literally) on the machines - we all know that will mean war.  I've seen the Matrix you know.  Or perhaps we will be self-deluded once again that we will make the world perfect this time around.  Perhaps we have forgotten what happens in reality, as well as literature and film, when human beings think they can make the perfect world in their own image.

So what is Kurzweil doing besides promoting his vision of the coming singularity? He is taking hundreds of supplements a day and trying to experiment with any life lengthening idea just to keep his biological existence intact so he can make it.  He is quite wealthy and is spending massive amounts of resources on keeping his ticker going as the clock ticks forward.  Unfortunately none of this can keep one from getting hit by a bus, shot by a crazy person, or succumbing to disease. Yet it does seems that hope for immortality, even eternal life, lives even among materialists.  Many today hope in aliens, hope in getting off this mound called earth by a coming Starship Enterprise and many hope to create our descendants and be transferred into machines by fiber optic transfer (or whatever high bandwidth technology is available at the singularity).  Sadly, some may choose suicide. 

What does all of this reveal about the human soul? I think we see that we long to live, not die.  We long for a better future where the harsh realities of life outside of Eden are brought to an end.  Some choose to trust in the promises of God and resurection for the hope of eternal life.  Others seek to become godlike themselves.  Where does this leave a human being?  In Kurzweil's own description - it has left him lonely.

Note

For all one of you interested in wrestling with these ideas further I recommend the work
Are We Spiritual Machines?: Ray Kurzweil vs. the Critics of Strong A.I. edited by Jay Wesley Richards.

Stations without a Cross

A few interesting articles in this easter season.  First, my friend Tim Dees sent me an article on Slate.com which talks about the Episcopal Relief and Development agency's "new" stations of the cross exercise. For those of you who don't know the stations of the cross is a long traditional exercise found in catholic and some high Protestant traditions. It is used to remember the passion of Jesus Christ, particularly during holy week.  Now here's a new twist from the ever creative Episcopalians...just a short excerpt from the Slate piece.

This year in time for Lent, Episcopal Relief and Development, the relief agency of the Episcopal Church, began offering a variation on the Stations of the Cross called the Stations of the Millennium Development Goals. It features eight stations, one for each of the global priorities identified by the United Nations in 2000, from eradicating poverty to promoting gender equality. Where each of the 14 stations of the traditional Stations of the Cross represents an event leading up to Jesus' death—"Jesus is condemned to death" and "Jesus falls the first time," for example—the alternative version, promoted by Episcopal Relief and Development, shifts the focus to righting global problems. At Station 8, "Create a Global Partnership for Development," participants are reminded that a "fair trading system, increased international aid, and debt relief for developing countries will help us realize" the U.N. goals. An optional activity at Station 7, "Ensure Environmental Sustainability," asks that "pilgrims calculate their carbon footprint and come up with three strategies to reduce it."

Interestingly enough even Slate understands why this is just goofy and trivializes the sacred:

The value of liturgy lies in its ability to unite people around powerful ritual moments. But the Stations of the Millennium Development Goals appropriate the form of the old-school Stations of the Cross service without retaining the sense of sacred mystery that makes it so powerful. That's no sin—but it is a bit of a shame.

I just think it is possible to worship the God-man Jesus Christ and care about global development too.  Maybe its just me. It seems some denominations cleverly invent new paths to loosing one's way.  You can read the whole thing here.

Easter Madness 2008

This time of year the easter eggs, bunnies, chocolate and fake green grass fly around in a consumeristic frenzy making all the little kids happy.  I remember how much I loved getting an Easter basket this time of year.  This year I have wrestled quite a bit on the season and how easy it can be lost to each of us.  Let's make it clear - there is no commandment in Scripture to have a celebration/feast called Easter. The observance does however have a long history and such celebrations hinge upon what it is we are celebrating.  At Easter the church celebrates something extremely important, in fact the central kernel of the gospel.  Easter is the celebration of the passion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to bring sinful human beings back into relationship with God.

Every year people come out with opinions, articles and documentaries about the life and death of Jesus.  The usual experts are paraded around on both sides to say that Jesus was or was not this or that.  Yet the central tenet and claim of Christian faith is remembered annually at this time - God became a human being and died himself for rebellious human beings.  The question for me - is this lost to the church at Easter in our day?  

This year I have struggled a bit in soul with a sort of goofy reality.  This year Easter came early in the church calendar which also meant it coincides with another religious activity found on the American cultural landscape - March Madness.  Now you may think - Reid, basketball does not compare to Jesus.  Not so fast friend.  My guess is that Good Friday and Easter will not cause a blink away from the massage celebration of the round ball in America.  In fact I have struggled with what to do with the NCAA Tournament because I am a huge fan.  I am a sports guy, love the tourney, but feel awkward about Easter and talk of Sweet 16s in the same breath.  Maybe because I sense that I am actually a worshipper of both God and basketball games.  Thank God for Easter – as it demonstrates God’s grace to me as an idolater.   

My fear is that in our culture of show without substance we might miss, and our neighbors will certainly miss the incredible, radical implications and claims of the gospel.  Many will do their hat tip duty of church attendance for family this year at Easter - yet what will they hear in the churches?  My hope is that sin, death, the cross and the resurrection might be on full display.  My hope is that people will be corned by good news and choose to turn to God for his forgiveness...or they will have to wrestle with the gospel in its biblical form - not the "here are three things to make you happy this Easter" drool that some churches will peddle. 

May Christ dwell in each of your hearts richly through faith this Good Friday.  May his love and wrath, mercy and justice, grace and severity be real to each of you in these days.  And please don't shame yourself for watching basketball games with friends.  I will be cheering for the UNC Tarheels in the tourney and have a few brackets I will check.  Yet do examine your hearts if you are feeling that Good Friday and Easter celebrations are "in the way of your getting back to the games" - such would be a huge adventure in missing the point.  My hope and prayer for this weekend is that my life, love and worship will be found in Christ alone...even amongst Easter eggs and Easter hoops.

Man-terms and confusion

Al Mohler has a good post up on the confusion faced by young men in our times as to their roles in life.  One quote that stuck out was from Mark Peters recent article in the Boston Globe:

How to act like a man is a humdinger of an issue if you are one. The late Steven L. Nock, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, said in an e-mail to me last year that it doesn't take much for women to prove that they're "real women" in the widely accepted senses, but men are in a more slippery situation, especially with the role of father/protector/provider not considered as necessary or desirable as it once was. "[M]asculinity must be continuously earned and displayed. It is never won," Nock wrote. Without a traditional role to embrace, being a man requires constantly defining yourself in opposition to all things female: "No wonder things like man-purses attract attention."

For those who have not seen this, Harvey Mansfield (yes, the name is ironic) put out a book in 2006 which chronicles the decline of Manliness.  An interesting read as well.

Christian Art History...

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece on early Christian Art by Willard Spiegelman. It is interesting how the humble beginnings of the crucified good shepherd turns toward the pomp and jewels reflecting imperial majesty.  Jesus - he is a shepherd and a lofty King...but how much loot should be spent reflecting these truths?

Here is the link

Loosing my Religion...

Shortly after I was really into the REM song "Loosing my Religion" Jesus saved me and changed my whole game life game plan. Yet many travel the opposite path down the river away from churches and the infamous, eeeevil things which get labeled with the term "organized religion." 

There is an interesting article about perceptions about “religion” in the coming generation. The article is by Stephen Prothero Chair of the Department of Religion at Boston University. This being so, it is a fair assessment that his classes do not represent “a whole generation of young people” across America but I do think his editorial is indicative of the mood of the younger folk today. 

The big mistake people make today is adjusting doctrines to the “tastes” of young folk as if we change the product to “sell to the young consumer.”  Yet I do think understanding how people think helps us to communicate truth in a manner which connects with the next generation.  Anyway, I thought this might interest others as well…

Here is the link – Is religion losing the millennial generation?

Authentic? Authenticity

Daniel Henninger has an interesting article over at the Wall Street Journal regarding what he calls one of the most popular presidential accessory for a candidate in this election.  What is it? Authenticity. I found the opinion piece fascinating in that it is all about how to be an "authentic" politician.  The ironic thing touched upon is that authenticity, being real, being yourself is very hard for political folks trying to win elections and please many different interest groups.  It is so easy to pander to left, right, etc. 

The funny thing about Henniger's piece is that it chronicles the struggle of candidates trying to be or appear to be authentic.  A few quotes:

One almost feels sorry for the 13 or 14 pols who've been running for the presidency this year. Keeping the authenticity balloon afloat is hard work. For starters, the press is obsessed with the phenomenon. The modern reporter is a human tuning fork, alert to the merest false note of inconsistency. It isn't widely known, but no journalist is allowed to moderate a presidential debate unless he vows to turn every question into an accusation of hypocrisy.

...

If we want a better understanding of the style of authenticity that people who vote are looking for, consider the real meaning of Barack Obama's controversial praise for Ronald Reagan. Sen. Obama was correct that Reagan caught the nation's need for a new direction, which is now the senator's claim. But Reagan's published letters and papers make clear that he believed in his political ideas for a long time. By 1980, they were deep and clear. They were authentic.

If that is the standard of true political authenticity, and I think it is, then the relationship in this campaign between the people and the pols will remain as it has been -- difficult.

That is fancy speak for - America does not seem not find it easy to trust the convictions of the folk running for office.  One wonders if someone can actually be themselves and win broad elections - maybe politics is for people who like the game and the dance even as they complain about it and talk about "bringing change to Washington."  In Reading Obama's book, it seems to attempt to show him as a centrist, an authentic person who is different than the others who are part of the political machine.  But in his book I still hear pandering to different groups - perhaps politics can be done no other way?  At least winning politics.  But to be honest, I think we all should vote and participate in self-government.  But I do understand why some in the younger generations get cynical about the whole song and dance - it seems, well, inauthentic.  Thats as political as I want to get around here.

Secular and Charitable?

There is a great article in this month's Book's and Culture magazine summarizing a book by Arthur Brooks entitled Who Really Cares?  The work studied the difference between religious conservatives and secular liberals in the area of charitability.  Here is a summary from the article:

Religious Americans are not only much more likely to give money and volunteer their time to religious and secular institutions, they are also more likely to provide aid to family members, return incorrect change, help a homeless person, and donate blood. In fact, despite expecting to find just the opposite, Brooks concluded: "I have never found a measurable way in which secularists are more charitable than religious people."

Commuting the soul...

There is a very interesting article by Nick Paumgarten in the New Yorker regarding commuting culture in America.  As we are soon moving the the New York City metro area, I found the article to be of great interest.  We will soon be ministering to people in New Jersey, some of whom will be on trains during the week.  It is one of the challenges of church planting in the area we are going as people are strapped for time and financially stretched thin.  Weekends are also sacred as the pace slows from the hours in cars and on trains.  Here is an excerpt:

“People with long journeys to and from work are systematically worse off and report significantly lower subjective well-being,” Stutzer told me. According to the economic concept of equilibrium, people will move or change jobs to make up for imbalances in compensation. Commute time should be offset by higher pay or lower living costs, or a better standard of living. It is this last category that people apparently have trouble measuring. They tend to overvalue the material fruits of their commute—money, house, prestige—and to undervalue what they’re giving up: sleep, exercise, fun.

Robert Putnam sociologist and author of the book Bowling Alone made some insightful statements about the reality of modern life:

Putnam likes to imagine that there is a triangle, its points comprising where you sleep, where you work, and where you shop. In a canonical English village, or in a university town, the sides of that triangle are very short: a five-minute walk from one point to the next. In many American cities, you can spend an hour or two travelling each side. “You live in Pasadena, work in North Hollywood, shop in the Valley,” Putnam said. “Where is your community?” The smaller the triangle, the happier the human, as long as there is social interaction to be had. In that kind of life, you have a small refrigerator, because you can get to the store quickly and often. By this logic, the bigger the refrigerator, the lonelier the soul.

Please pray for us as we move to a place that has fragmented community and very large refrigerators.  I pray that God might use the church to allow people a respite and joy for the soul as we live for the glory of God, the good of the City extending hope through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Growing in community will be difficult in commuterland - but it is also a deep felt human need. 

For those of you from the Atlanta area, this sprawling southern city receives some treatment as well.  It is not a land of time spent on trains, but rather a car bound people guzzling down gasoline.   Just think, for some in Atlanta -" travelling ten miles can take forty-five minutes." One final segment was of interest to me as it actually mentions the great garden state of New Jersey. In this, Putnam is comparing Bologne, Italy and its quaint, smaller feel to the land of Tony Soprano.

Putnam’s favorite city is Bologna, in Italy, which has a population of three hundred and fifty thousand; it’s just small enough to retain village-like characteristics. “It would be interesting to swap the citizens of Bologna with the population of New Jersey,” Putnam said. “Do the Bolognese become disconnected and grouchy? Is there a sudden explosion of malls in Bologna? How much of the way we live is forced on us? How much is our choice?”

It is a lenghtly article but well written and worth your time.  May God use Jacob's Well in the lives of disconnected and grouchy people.