Tag: politics

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 112

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. ‘God’s ACLU’ Seeks Free­dom For The Faith­ful (Tunku Varadara­jan, Wall Street Jour­nal): “The pro­gres­sive or lib­er­al approach is to equate free exer­cise of reli­gion with the free­dom to wor­ship and to deny that it has any­thing to do with how a per­son orga­nizes his life. The Beck­et Fund and oth­ers assert that most reli­gions have com­plete codes gov­ern­ing not only wor­ship but oth­er aspects of con­duct. This com­pre­hen­sive Way of Life—which leads a devout­ly Chris­t­ian bak­er to decline to dec­o­rate a cake for a same-sex wed­ding, for instance—commands much more from believ­ers than pro­gres­sives will allow.” Beck­et is Chi Alpha’s pro bono legal team. The author is a fel­low at Stan­ford’s Hoover Insti­tu­tion.
  2. For Cul­tur­al­ly Illit­er­ate Sci­ence Reporters, Canaan­ite DNA Yields Occa­sion to Slap Bible Around (David Kling­hof­fer, Evo­lu­tion News): Did you see all those head­lines sug­gest­ing that a DNA study proved the Bib­li­cal accounts wrong? Yeah… don’t lose any sleep over that. When some­one tells you that the Bible is wrong, don’t assume they actu­al­ly know what the Bible says. See also a longer and more reflec­tive post from an OT schol­ar Break­ing News: Sci­ence Dis­proves The Bible (but I real­ly like the short and punchy one that’s the main link).
  3. The ‘Prophets’ and ‘Apos­tles’ Lead­ing the Qui­et Rev­o­lu­tion in Amer­i­can Reli­gion (Bob Smi­etana, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “It’s very spon­ta­neous. We went to a con­fer­ence where a num­ber of apos­tles were speak­ing and Bill John­son was doing a Bible teach­ing. He had prob­a­bly talked 20 or 30 min­utes, and you could feel the rest­less­ness in the room. He said, ‘I know you are just wait­ing for me to stop preach­ing because you want the pow­er. But just hang with me here.’ Peo­ple weren’t there to lis­ten to him. What they want­ed was for him to lay hands on them.” Inter­est­ing read that is not entire­ly fair but also fair­ly insight­ful. 
  4. Venezue­la’s Unprece­dent­ed Col­lapse (Ricar­do Haus­mann, Project Syn­di­cate). “Mea­sured in the cheap­est avail­able calo­rie, the min­i­mum wage declined from 52,854 calo­ries per day to just 7,005 dur­ing the same peri­od, a decline of 86.7% and insuf­fi­cient to feed a fam­i­ly of five, assum­ing that all the income is spent to buy the cheap­est calo­rie.” The author is a Har­vard pro­fes­sor and for­mer Venezue­lan offi­cial.
  5. Why The Scari­est Nuclear Threat May Be Com­ing From Inside The White House (Michael Lewis, Van­i­ty Fair): “The Unit­ed States gov­ern­ment might be the most com­pli­cat­ed orga­ni­za­tion on the face of the earth. Two mil­lion fed­er­al employ­ees take orders from 4,000 polit­i­cal appointees. Dys­func­tion is baked into the struc­ture of the thing: the sub­or­di­nates know that their boss­es will be replaced every four or eight years, and that the direc­tion of their enter­pris­es might change overnight—with an elec­tion or a war or some oth­er polit­i­cal event.” Fas­ci­nat­ing and fright­en­ing, even once you fac­tor in the author’s hos­til­i­ty to the Trump admin­is­tra­tion.
  6. Mar­riage Mat­ters (W. Brad­ford Will­cox, City Jour­nal): “…young adults who fol­low three steps—getting at least a high school degree, then work­ing full-time, and then mar­ry­ing before hav­ing any chil­dren, in that order—are very unlike­ly to become poor.” The author is a soci­ol­o­gist at UVA.
  7. From the Enlight­en­ment to the Dark Ages: How “new athe­ism” slid into the alt-right (Phil Tor­res, Salon): “As a philoso­pher — some­one who cares deeply about intel­lec­tu­al hon­esty, ver­i­fi­able evi­dence, crit­i­cal think­ing and moral thought­ful­ness — I now find myself in direct oppo­si­tion with many new athe­ist lead­ers. That is, I see my own advo­ca­cy for sci­ence, crit­i­cal thought and basic moral­i­ty as stand­ing in direct oppo­si­tion to their posi­tions.”

Things Glen Found Amusing

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Read­ing The Whole Bible in 2016: A FAQ (Gospel Coali­tion, Justin Tay­lor). How much time each day would it take you to read the entire Bible in a year? “There are about 775,000 words in the Bible. Divid­ed by 365, that’s 2,123 words a day. The aver­age per­son reads 200 to 250 words per minute. So 2,123 words/day divid­ed by 225 words/minute equals 9.4 min­utes a day.” This arti­cle is full of good advice for what could be the best com­mit­ment you make all year. Do it! (first shared in vol­ume 31 and use­ful for any year)

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it).

Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.

To Change The World, Week Six

To Change The World by James Davison Hunter
To Change The World

Today’s read­ing is about the reli­gious right. I know some of you are con­ser­v­a­tive and some of you are lib­er­al. Whichev­er camp you align with, I encour­age you to read both this chap­ter and the next chap­ter (on the reli­gious left) care­ful­ly, seek­ing to gain sym­pa­thy for the side you oppose. I also encour­age you to read the attached essay “The Prob­lem With Con­ser­vatism” by J. Budziszews­ki, a Chris­t­ian polit­i­cal philoso­pher at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Texas. He has a com­pan­ion essay about lib­er­al­ism which I’ll send next week — so whether you are lib­er­al or con­ser­v­a­tive you’ll find a chap­ter that describes your views fair­ly while also encoun­ter­ing a thought­ful cri­tique of your tribe.

Any­way, on to today’s insights. Hunter is fair and insight­ful in describ­ing the Chris­t­ian right:

“In the present world order, many if not most of the prin­ci­ples [polit­i­cal­ly con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians] most esteem have come under fun­da­men­tal chal­lenge. There has been a chal­lenge to het­ero­sex­u­al­i­ty, to monogamy, to mar­riage as a life-long com­mit­ment, to the sacred respon­si­bil­i­ty of par­ent­ing, to the author­i­ty and auton­o­my of the fam­i­ly. There has been a chal­lenge to the sanc­ti­ty of human life, most clear­ly in the ear­li­est stages of life but also life at its most vul­ner­a­ble and at its end. Not only has there been a chal­lenge to the truths of the Chris­t­ian faith and the tra­di­tions and scrip­ture that express them, but there has been a chal­lenge to the very con­cept of truth as well. And there has been a chal­lenge to the moral author­i­ty of the church. These chal­lenges have been expressed intel­lec­tu­al­ly, edu­ca­tion­al­ly, and artis­ti­cal­ly, but also com­mer­cial­ly, through adver­tis­ing, and in the range of enter­tain­ment media. Not least, all of these chal­lenges have also been expressed legal­ly and polit­i­cal­ly.” (page 111)

I would be sur­prised if you have not heard sim­i­lar sen­ti­ments in the lob­by after church. In response,

Con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians “defend a promi­nent role for reli­gion in pub­lic life, a tra­di­tion­al nuclear fam­i­ly, and tra­di­tion­al moral­i­ty.” (page 122)

Hunter deeply under­stands the per­spec­tive of con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians. It makes me won­der what church­es he has attend­ed. Even in small things he gets their self-under­stand­ing. I think it would sur­prise many at Stan­ford to learn that most polit­i­cal­ly-engaged con­ser­v­a­tive evan­gel­i­cals con­sid­er them­selves to be the true activists who pur­sue human flour­ish­ing in the face of an unjust cul­ture.

“In this view, the Toc­quevil­lian lega­cy that cel­e­brates the active role of reli­gion in pub­lic extend­ed into the mod­ern age through the abo­li­tion­ist move­ment, pro­hi­bi­tion, and with the civ­il rights move­ment of the 1960s and it extends to the present in the move­ment against abor­tion, homo­sex­u­al­i­ty, and the like. In their own view, con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian activists are any­thing but strange. They are, rather, the “right­ful heirs” of pro­gres­sive Chris­tian­i­ty.” (page 114)

Hav­ing said all of that, Hunter address­es some­thing that I hear often: many con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians are fed up with the Repub­li­can par­ty because they feel tak­en for grant­ed.

This is the prob­lem with elec­toral pol­i­tics in our time. Politi­cians can­not get nom­i­nat­ed with­out the sup­port of the grass­roots activists, but they can­not get elect­ed and gov­ern with­out mov­ing to the polit­i­cal cen­ter. It is inevitable that politi­cians who do get elect­ed betray their most ardent sup­port­ers by mod­er­at­ing (p.126) their posi­tions. Need­less to say, this comes as a source of ter­ri­ble frus­tra­tion to the move­ment lead­ers. Move­ment lead­ers reg­u­lar­ly and prob­a­bly right­ly accuse Repub­li­can politi­cians and offi­cials of “just ignor­ing those that put them in office.” (page 125–126)

Hav­ing said that, as long as the Demo­c­ra­t­ic par­ty con­tin­ues on their cur­rent tra­jec­to­ry it is dif­fi­cult to imag­ine a large-scale drift of con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­tians from Repub­li­can to Demo­c­rat. As I said in the runup to the elec­tion, I could not in good con­science vote for either Trump or Clin­ton and so I cast my bal­lot for a third par­ty can­di­date. But I know many of my friends who vot­ed for Trump as a way of pre­vent­ing a Clin­ton vic­to­ry. I think if I was to ask them why they would say some­thing like this. “Sure, Trump is crazy and per­son­al­ly immoral, but Clin­ton is dis­ci­plined and devot­ed to pro­mot­ing wicked­ness. I think Amer­i­ca will be bet­ter off under the crazy sleaze­bag.”

It is dif­fi­cult to over­state the cen­tral­i­ty of the Supreme Court to the think­ing of most of my con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian friends. Hunter nails it with this para­graph:

If there is an epi­cen­ter of the prob­lem, though, it is seen in the judi­cial system—“the last great bas­tion for lib­er­al­ism.” Some have called “the sec­u­lar-lib­er­al takeover” of the judi­cia­ry the great­est assault rep­re­sen­ta­tive self-gov­ern­ment has ever faced; an assault that is “more dan­ger­ous and suc­cess­ful because it comes from with­in and aims to destroy not just our phys­i­cal defens­es, but the moral ideas, habits and prac­tices that sus­tain our char­ac­ter as a free peo­ple.” The prin­ci­pal instru­ment for their assault has been “an abuse of the judi­cial sys­tem,” and in par­tic­u­lar the Fed­er­al judiciary’s asser­tion of supreme and unchecked con­sti­tu­tion­al pow­er. In par­tic­u­lar, the U.S. Supreme Court has arro­gat­ed to itself gov­ern­men­tal pow­er that the Tenth Amend­ment unam­bigu­ous­ly reserves to the States, arbi­trar­i­ly with­drawn the pro­tec­tion of the com­mu­ni­ty from gen­er­a­tions to come, inter­fered with the pub­lic cel­e­bra­tion of reli­gious fes­ti­vals and obser­vances deter­mined by the peo­ple, and now seeks to remove all ref­er­ences to the Cre­ator, God, (p.117) from pub­lic dec­la­ra­tions adopt­ed by the peo­ple. The cam­paign of “lib­er­als and pro­gres­sive forces” has been noth­ing less than “insid­i­ous.” The prob­lem, then, is not just the fact that the courts are com­plic­it in “try­ing to erase our Judeo- Chris­t­ian her­itage.” “The courts have also imposed immoral deci­sions on the Amer­i­can peo­ple.” The courts’ deci­sions lib­er­al­iz­ing the prac­tice of abor­tion and homo­sex­u­al­i­ty are par­tic­u­lar­ly galling since the major­i­ty of Amer­i­cans oppose them. Cumu­la­tive­ly, these actions amount to “judi­cial tyran­ny.” (pages 116–117)

My friends who vot­ed for Trump felt a huge sense of vin­di­ca­tion when Neil Gor­such was con­firmed to the Supreme Court. Trump could do every­thing else wrong and get the Supreme Court right and my friends would say, “I made a good call. Thank God Hilary Clin­ton is not pres­i­dent.”

I am very eager to see how he por­trays the reli­gious left in next week’s read­ing and then how he cri­tiques them both after­wards.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 111

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Meet the Megadonor Behind the LGBTQ Rights Move­ment (Andy Kroll, Rolling Stone): “More broad­ly, for Gill and his allies, nondis­crim­i­na­tion is the new front of the move­ment: a cam­paign that pits LGBTQ advo­cates against a reli­gious right that respond­ed to mar­riage equal­i­ty by redou­bling its efforts…. Gill refus­es to go on the defense. ‘We’re going into the hard­est states in the coun­try,’ he says. ‘We’re going to pun­ish the wicked.’.… ‘We have been fight­ing for [nondis­crim­i­na­tion] since the Six­ties,’ he says. ‘It’s the reli­gious right that decid­ed to make mar­riage an issue. They worked tire­less­ly on it for decades and they lost.’”
  2. Fusion GPS Illu­mi­nates the Brave New World of Man­u­fac­tured News For Hire (Lee Smith, Tablet Mag­a­zine) “There is no accu­rate account­ing of how many of the sto­ries you read in the news are the fruit of oppo­si­tion research, because no jour­nal­ist wants to admit how many of their top ‘sources’ are just infor­ma­tion packagers—which is why the blind­ing suc­cess of Fusion GPS is the least-cov­ered media sto­ry in Amer­i­ca right now.”
  3. The Death Of Read­ing Is Threat­en­ing The Soul (Philip Yancey, Wash­ing­ton Post): “I am read­ing many few­er books these days, and even few­er of the kinds of books that require hard work. The Inter­net and social media have trained my brain to read a para­graph or two, and then start look­ing around.”
  4. Ask Andrew W.K.: My Dad Is a Right-Wing Ass­hole (Andrew W.K., The Vil­lage Voice): apolo­gies for the title, this is a sur­pris­ing­ly good piece (pub­lished back in 2014).
  5. Char­lie Gard and the Experts (Ross Douthat, New York Times): “The rights of par­ents are essen­tial to a free society’s archi­tec­ture, and fathers and moth­ers are far more like­ly than any oth­er par­ty to have their child’s best inter­ests close to heart. To inter­vene on behalf of experts against the fam­i­ly is some­times nec­es­sary but always dan­ger­ous, fraught with total­i­tar­i­an temp­ta­tions to which the mod­ern West is not immune.” Char­lie Gard died after this col­umn was writ­ten, which makes the piece even more impor­tant.
  6. How Cool Works In Amer­i­ca Today (David Brooks, New York Times): argues that being woke is a cul­tur­al replace­ment for being cool. “The woke men­tal­i­ty became promi­nent in 2012 and 2013 with the Trayvon Mar­tin case and the rise of Black Lives Mat­ter. Embrace it or not, B.L.M. is the most com­plete social move­ment in Amer­i­ca today, as a com­mu­nal, intel­lec­tu­al, moral and polit­i­cal force.”
  7. Free Mar­kets and Uni­corns (Andrew Strain, First Things): “In the age of cor­po­ra­tions, a tru­ly free mar­ket is as myth­i­cal as a uni­corn.” This essay called forth the response piece Why is social­ism being pro­mot­ed by con­ser­v­a­tive Chris­t­ian out­lets? (Joe Carter, Acton Insti­tute): “by ana­lyz­ing his essay we can see a com­mon pat­tern that is emerg­ing, even in once con­ser­v­a­tive pub­li­ca­tions: writ­ers who don’t know the first thing about free mar­kets explain­ing why they are infe­ri­or to social­ist poli­cies.” Read­ing them togeth­er is illu­mi­nat­ing.

Things Glen Found Amusing/Entertaining

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Chris­t­ian Mis­sions and the Spread of Democ­ra­cy (Greg Scan­dlen, The Fed­er­al­ist): This is a sum­ma­ry of some rather won­der­ful research Robert Wood­ber­ry pub­lished in The Amer­i­can Polit­i­cal Sci­ence Review back in 2012: The Mis­sion­ary Roots of Lib­er­al Democ­ra­cy. If it looks famil­iar it’s because I allude to it from time to time in my ser­mons and con­ver­sa­tions. (first shared in vol­ume 14)

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it).

Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.

To Change The World, Week Five

To Change The World by James Davison HunterBlog read­ers: Chi Alpha @ Stan­ford is engag­ing in our annu­al sum­mer read­ing project. As we read through To Change The World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Pos­si­bil­i­ty of Chris­tian­i­ty in the Late Mod­ern World by James Davi­son Hunter, I’ll post my thoughts here (which will large­ly con­sist of excerpts I found insight­ful). They are all tagged sum­mer-read­ing-project-2017. The read­ing sched­ule is online at https://xastanford.org/summer-reading

Ear­li­er this week I saw an essay that illus­trates many of the ideas from our read­ing so far: Why Didn’t the Planned Par­ent­hood Videos Change the Abor­tion Debate? (Joe Carter, Gospel Coali­tion). Carter makes many points, but two stand out — the video mak­ers failed to coor­di­nate with insti­tu­tions and they also were attacked by elite net­works. To use Hunter’s ter­mi­nol­o­gy, Planned Par­ent­hood is an insti­tu­tion on the cen­ter and the Cen­ter for Med­ical Progress is an insti­tu­tion on the periph­ery — they had an uphill bat­tle for which they were unpre­pared because they appar­ent­ly held to the naive view of cul­ture Hunter cri­tiqued. I encour­age you to read the arti­cle and reflect upon the read­ings so far in light of it.

Hunter is now mov­ing onto the sec­ond theme of his book — rethink­ing pow­er in light of faith. He’s going to focus “on the con­ser­v­a­tive, pro­gres­sive, and neo-Anabap­tist posi­tions — because in con­tem­po­rary Amer­i­ca, these are the most promi­nent” (page 109). As Hunter hints, there are more the­o­log­i­cal options than these. Per­haps we will dis­cuss them as we move through this sec­ond essay.

His main point in this week’s read­ing is that in mod­ern soci­eties dis­cus­sions of pow­er are inevitably polit­i­cal.

“Pol­i­tics has become so cen­tral in our time that insti­tu­tions, groups, and issues are now defined rel­a­tive to the state, its laws and pro­ce­dures. Insti­tu­tions such as pop­u­lar and high­er edu­ca­tion, phil­an­thropy, sci­ence, the arts, and even the fam­i­ly under­stand their iden­ti­ty and func­tion accord­ing to what the state does or does not per­mit. Groups (women, minori­ties, gays, Chris­tians, etc.) have valid­i­ty not only but increas­ing­ly through the rights con­ferred by the state.” (page 103)

Hunter says this ten­den­cy is evi­dence of a weak social fab­ric.

“…the amount of law that exists in any soci­ety is always inverse­ly relat­ed to the coher­ence and sta­bil­i­ty of its com­mon cul­ture: law increas­es as cul­tur­al con­sen­sus decreas­es. By these lights, the fab­ric of the com­mon cul­ture in mod­ern Amer­i­ca has worn even more thin in the last sev­er­al decades and the extra­or­di­nary amount of lit­i­ga­tion we have seen in recent decades is just one place we see it.” (page 102)

Giv­en that laws will mul­ti­ply, the reach of the state will become ever more encom­pass­ing, and so inter­est groups feel it is imper­a­tive to get the state to act in align­ment with their val­ues. The state can­not sim­ply remain neu­tral, as Hunter explains:

“There is a tra­di­tion in polit­i­cal the­o­ry that claims that in a lib­er­al democ­ra­cy, the state is or should be neu­tral when it comes to ques­tions of the good. This is wrong main­ly because it is impos­si­ble. Law infers a moral judg­ment; pol­i­cy implies a world­view.” (page 103)

There is, of course, the caveat that this ressen­ti­ment-dri­ven impulse toward pow­er-seiz­ing is not always true of indi­vid­u­als — even influ­en­tial ones — but as Hunter demon­strat­ed in the pre­vi­ous essay the atti­tudes of indi­vid­u­als prove less sig­nif­i­cant than the atti­tudes of insti­tu­tions.

“I don’t want to over­state the case—clearly what I describe here are not ful­ly and com­pre­hen­sive­ly estab­lished real­i­ties; all is not pow­er and ressen­ti­ment. What makes it more com­pli­cat­ed (and inter­est­ing) is that there are gen­uine­ly pub­lic-spir­it­ed peo­ple on all sides of all issues. Indeed most peo­ple are not resent­ment-filled and pow­er hun­gry. But con­sis­tent with my view all along is the fact that the motives of indi­vid­u­als and the struc­tures of cul­ture are not the same thing.” (page 109)

This essay is off to a promis­ing start. I’m eager to see how he sum­ma­rizes the three the­o­log­i­cal options he men­tioned.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 110

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The First Church of Inter­sec­tion­al­i­ty (Eliz­a­beth C. Corey, First Things): “Inter­sec­tion­al­i­ty is, then, a qua­si-reli­gious gnos­tic move­ment, which appeals to peo­ple for pre­cise­ly the rea­sons that all reli­gions do: It gives an account of our bro­ken­ness, an expla­na­tion of the rea­sons for pain, a sav­ing sto­ry accom­pa­nied by strong eth­i­cal imper­a­tives, and hope for the future. In short, it gives life mean­ing.”
  2. Nondi­crim­i­na­tion For All (Jonathan Rauch, Nation­al Affairs): “The land­mark civ­il-rights bills that broke the back of racial seg­re­ga­tion in the 1960s were not abso­lutist. They pro­vid­ed exemp­tions for reli­gious orga­ni­za­tions. They exempt­ed ‘Mrs. Mur­phy,’ the land­la­dy rent­ing a room in her own house. At the time, civ­il-rights advo­cates in Con­gress made the prag­mat­ic argu­ment that exemp­tions were need­ed to pass the bill, but they also made the polit­i­cal­ly prin­ci­pled argu­ment that excep­tions would increase social com­fort with the leg­is­la­tion while still cov­er­ing the vast major­i­ty of cas­es — a trade they deemed worth mak­ing…. In fact, the pop-cul­ture ide­al of zero-tol­er­ance nondis­crim­i­na­tion is pos­si­ble only because of the under­ly­ing real­i­ty of ubiq­ui­tous accom­mo­da­tion.”
  3. The Wast­ed Mind of Ben Sasse (Ben Math­is-Lil­ley, Slate): “What is most mad­den­ing about Sasse is not his par­ty feal­ty per se—I’m not expect­ing a Repub­li­can sen­a­tor to sup­port left-wing poli­cies; that’s not the stan­dard we should hold him to—but the way he has out­lined the basis for a path he has yet to take him­self.” This is more par­ti­san than most things I share, but since I high­light­ed Sasse as one of my two favorite Sen­a­tors back in issue 107 it seems appro­pri­ate. I still like both Sasse and Book­er, by the way.
  4. Some ques­tions I’m ask­ing while off to my white evan­gel­i­cal church (Lisa Robin­son, per­son­al blog): “Has all this atten­tion on white suprema­cy maybe pushed down cen­tral issues to being part of the king­dom of God togeth­er, with its dis­ci­ple­ship man­dates and being salt and light in the world? Because it seems to me, based on what I read in Scrip­ture any­way, that only through him can true rec­on­cil­i­a­tion hap­pen.”
  5. Meet Five Men Who All Think They’re The Mes­si­ah (Jonas Bendik­sen, Nation­al Geo­graph­ic)  “If Christ were to come back to com­plete his work today, I’ve thought, what would he think of the world we’ve cre­at­ed? And what would we think of him? With these thoughts tum­bling around in my head, I decid­ed to start look­ing for mes­si­ahs. I found them the way you find every­thing these days: through Google.”
  6. “Main­line” Church­es Are Emp­ty­ing. The Polit­i­cal Effects Could Be Huge (Lyman Stone, Vox): “While pro­gres­sives are keen to see in the decline of labor unions an impor­tant com­po­nent in the rise of con­ser­v­a­tive polit­i­cal pow­er, they rarely con­sid­er the impact of los­ing their movement’s soul. Despite main­line denom­i­na­tions com­mand­ing as much or more pop­u­lar sup­port and mem­ber­ship as labor unions, their decline seems to be unmourned with­in the pro­gres­sive move­ment they birthed; the con­se­quences of that decline like­wise go uncon­sid­ered.”
  7. Get­ting the Rich and Pow­er­ful to Give (SSRN, Kessler, Milk­man & Zhang): “Con­sis­tent with past psy­chol­o­gy research, we find that the rich and pow­er­ful respond dra­mat­i­cal­ly, and dif­fer­ent­ly than oth­ers, to being giv­en a sense of agency over the use of donat­ed funds. Gifts from rich and pow­er­ful alum­ni increase by 200–300 per­cent when they are giv­en a sense of agency.”

Things Glen Found Amusing

Things Glen Found Interesting A While Ago

Every week I’ll high­light an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. This week we have Alco­hol, Black­outs, and Cam­pus Sex­u­al Assault (Texas Month­ly, Sarah Hep­o­la), the most thought­ful sec­u­lar piece I’ve read on the issue. “Con­sent and alco­hol make tricky bed­fel­lows. The rea­son I liked get­ting drunk was because it altered my con­sent: it changed what I would say yes to. Not just in the bed­room but in every room and cor­ri­dor that led into the squint­ing light. Say yes to adven­ture, say yes to risk, say yes to karaoke and pool par­ties and argu­ments with men, say yes to a life with­out fear, even though such a life is nev­er pos­si­ble… We drink because it feels good. We drink because it makes us feel hap­py, safe, pow­er­ful. That it often makes us the oppo­site is one of alcohol’s das­tard­ly tricks.” (first shared in vol­ume 25)

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it).

Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 107

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. The Sim­ple Ques­tions to Ask Every Time You Open Your Bible (Justin Tay­lor, Gospel Coali­tion): “1. What does God want me to under­stand? 2. What does God want me to believe? 3. What does God want me to desire? 4. What does God want me to do?”
  2. Ben Sasse on the Space between Nebras­ka and Nev­er­land (Tyler Cowen, Con­ver­sa­tions With Tyler): Sasse is my favorite Repub­li­can Sen­a­tor and he does not dis­ap­point in this inter­view. While you could just read the tran­script, the audio is great and high­ly rec­om­mend­ed. The Con­ver­sa­tions With Tyler pod­cast gen­er­al­ly is a worth­while sub­scrip­tion (iTunes, RSS). My favorite Demo­c­ra­t­ic Sen­a­tor, by the way, is Cory Book­er. You can read the tran­script of Booker’s 2012 com­mence­ment speech at Stan­ford. Sasse and Book­er being my favorites does not imply that I agree with them on any spe­cif­ic pol­i­cy issue — I just think they’d be great to have as neigh­bors.
  3. Reli­gious Free­dom and Dis­crim­i­na­tion: Why the Debate Con­tin­ues (Albert Mohler, Gospel Coali­tion): “Great moral debates ride on argu­ments, but they’re decid­ed on emo­tion and moral intu­ition. That doesn’t mean argu­ments don’t matter—they assured­ly do. What it does mean is the win­ning side in a great moral cri­sis will nev­er win on argu­ment alone. Moral sen­ti­ment is more basic than moral argu­ment.” Rel­e­vant: In Sex Dis­putes, Most Amer­i­cans Still Favor Reli­gious Rights.
  4. The Supreme Court made a very encour­ag­ing rul­ing in defense of reli­gious lib­er­ty. Here are a few takes on it:
    • SCOTUS ruled that church­es qual­i­fy for state mon­ey. Church­es, beware. (Lyman Stone, Vox): “Church­es should cel­e­brate the Court’s deci­sion, yet think hard about how they’ll act on it…. Reli­gious peo­ple and groups do deserve and are one step clos­er to receiv­ing equal access to pub­lic pro­grams, but if they are wise, they should avoid actu­al­ly avail­ing them­selves of these pro­grams in most cas­es. The expe­ri­ence of cen­turies has shown that far from sacral­iz­ing the state, pub­lic sup­port of reli­gious bod­ies sec­u­lar­izes the church.”
    • The Supreme Court Strikes Down a Major Church-State Bar­ri­er (Emma Green, The Atlantic): “Sev­en jus­tices affirmed the judg­ment in Trin­i­ty Luther­an v. Com­er, albeit with some dis­agree­ment about the rea­son­ing behind it. The major church-state case could poten­tial­ly expand the legal under­stand­ing of the free-exer­cise clause of the First Amend­ment of the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion. It is also the first time the Supreme Court has ruled that gov­ern­ments must pro­vide mon­ey direct­ly to a house of wor­ship, which could have impli­ca­tions for future pol­i­cy fights—including fund­ing for pri­vate, reli­gious char­ter schools.”
    • Paving a Play­ground, and Weed­ing the Unruly Gar­den of Reli­gious Lib­er­ty (Matthew J. Franck, Pub­lic Dis­course): “Some­thing of this gen­er­al­ized ani­mos­i­ty to the place of reli­gion in Amer­i­can soci­ety can be seen in the star­tling­ly reac­tionary dis­sent of Jus­tice Sonia Sotomay­or, who was joined by Jus­tice Ruth Bad­er Gins­burg. Con­sid­er­ably longer than Roberts’s opin­ion of the Court, Sotomayor’s dis­sent stakes out the amaz­ing posi­tion that Mis­souri is not only per­mit­ted by the free exer­cise clause of the First Amend­ment to exclude church­es from equal access to fund­ing avail­able to oth­ers; it is required to exclude them by the estab­lish­ment clause.”
  5. I think health care is a right. I asked an expert to tell me why I’m wrong. (Sean Illing, Vox): “Fun­da­men­tal­ly, you have to under­stand that get­ting access to health­care ser­vices, get­ting peo­ple to be will­ing to pro­vide high-qual­i­ty ser­vices and inno­v­a­tive treat­ments, is the result of a mar­ket deci­sion for those providers as well, and so if you don’t treat it like a mar­ket­place to some degree, you’ll get less inno­va­tion and few­er new treat­ments than you will if you do.” The jour­nal­ist inter­views an econ pro­fes­sor at North­west­ern and they dis­agree help­ful­ly.
  6. The Seat­tle Min­i­mum Wage Study (Alex Tabar­rok, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “The authors are able to repli­cate the results of oth­er papers that find no impact on the restau­rant indus­try with their own data by impos­ing the same lim­i­ta­tions that oth­er researchers have faced. This shows that those papers’ find­ings were like­ly dri­ven by their data lim­i­ta­tions. This is an impor­tant thing to remem­ber as you see knee-jerk respons­es com­ing from the usu­al cor­ners.” See also The Min­i­mum Wage: Evi­dence from a Dan­ish Dis­con­ti­nu­ity.

Things Glen Found Amus­ing

From The Archives

I’m exper­i­ment­ing with a new fea­ture — every week high­light­ing an old­er link still worth your con­sid­er­a­tion. First up we have the very first link I ever shared way back in vol­ume 1: The Spir­i­tu­al Shape of Polit­i­cal Ideas (Joseph Bot­tum, The Week­ly Stan­dard). It argues that some of our mod­ern and sup­pos­ed­ly sec­u­lar polit­i­cal ideas are mutant vari­ants of Chris­t­ian the­ol­o­gy.

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it).

Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 106

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. One Amer­i­can fam­i­ly’s mis­sion to res­cue civil­ians in Mosul (Mar­co Wer­man, PRI’s The World): I heard this sto­ry on NPR this week and was floored. Lis­ten to the thir­teen-minute inter­view (don’t just read the sur­round­ing text ‑the siz­zle is in the audio ver­sion). Amaz­ing. For more about David Eubank’s min­istry, read Jun­gle Cow­boys (Sophia Lee, World Mag­a­zine).
  2. The Legal Mean­ing of the Cos­by Mis­tri­al (Jean­nie Suk Gersen, New York­er): “The extra­or­di­nar­i­ly high pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al bur­den of proof in any crim­i­nal tri­al is inten­tion­al­ly designed to heav­i­ly favor defen­dants, because we long ago embraced as a soci­ety Blackstone’s prin­ci­ple. For­mu­lat­ed in the sev­en­teen-six­ties by the Eng­lish jurist William Black­stone, the pre­sump­tion is that it is bet­ter to have ten guilty peo­ple go free than that one inno­cent per­son suf­fer. Hard as it is to stom­ach today, embrac­ing that cal­cu­lus means that we should even want ten rapists (not to men­tion ter­ror­ists and mur­der­ers) to go free in order to pro­tect the one false­ly accused.” Gersen, a Har­vard Law prof, also has anoth­er sol­id arti­cle this week: Why Racial­ly Offen­sive Trade­marks Are Now Legal­ly Pro­tect­ed.
  3. Phi­lan­do Castile After­math (Rod Dreher, The Amer­i­can Con­ser­v­a­tive): “Still, I can’t grasp why Castile’s killer got away scot-free, and why there hasn’t been much of an out­cry. If a police offi­cer can shoot to death a motorist who was obey­ing all his com­mands, and walk away a free man from that shoot­ing, how safe are any of us?” On Slate, Leon Ney­fakh writes Phi­lan­do Castile Should Be the NRA’s Per­fect Cause Célèbre. There’s Just One Prob­lem. See also David French’s The Unwrit­ten Law That Helps Bad Cops Go Free.
  4. Camille Paglia: On Trump, Democ­rats, Trans­gen­derism, and Islamist Ter­ror (Jonathan V. Last, The Week­ly Stan­dard): “Although I describe myself as trans­gen­der (I was don­ning flam­boy­ant male cos­tumes from ear­ly child­hood on), I am high­ly skep­ti­cal about the cur­rent trans­gen­der wave, which I think has been pro­duced by far more com­pli­cat­ed psy­cho­log­i­cal and soci­o­log­i­cal fac­tors than cur­rent gen­der dis­course allows. Fur­ther­more, I con­demn the esca­lat­ing pre­scrip­tion of puber­ty block­ers (whose long-term effects are unknown) for chil­dren. I regard this prac­tice as a crim­i­nal vio­la­tion of human rights.”
  5. Mis-Edu­cat­ing The Young (David Brooks, NY Times): “Child­hood is more struc­tured than it has ever been. But then the great engine of the mer­i­toc­ra­cy spits peo­ple out into a young adult­hood that is less struc­tured than it has ever been.”
  6. The most impor­tant truth about hard work, and also read­ing, that you can find (Tyler Cowen, Mar­gin­al Rev­o­lu­tion): “Giv­en two peo­ple of approx­i­mate­ly the same abil­i­ty and one per­son who works ten per­cent more than the oth­er, the lat­ter will more than twice out­pro­duce the for­mer. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the oppor­tu­ni­ty – it is very much like com­pound inter­est.”
  7. Two minds: The cog­ni­tive dif­fer­ences between men and women (Bruce Gold­man, Stan­ford Med­i­cine): “In a study of 34 rhe­sus mon­keys, for exam­ple, males strong­ly pre­ferred toys with wheels over plush toys, where­as females found plush toys lik­able. It would be tough to argue that the mon­keys’ par­ents bought them sex-typed toys or that simi­an soci­ety encour­ages its male off­spring to play more with trucks.” Rec­om­mend­ed by a stu­dent.

Things Glen Found Entertaining

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it).

Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 95

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. ‘You Can’t Give In’: Mon­ty Williams On Life After Tragedy (Chris Bal­lard, Sports Illus­trat­ed): “He puts on a good face, but talk­ing about what hap­pened, as he does over the course of the next three days, often paus­ing for min­utes at a time, remains dif­fi­cult. ‘I just couldn’t under­stand it,’ he says. ‘And nev­er will. But my faith in God nev­er wavered. Just, some­times your faith and your feel­ings don’t line up.’” This is the pick of the week. Very pow­er­ful.
  2. When Char­ac­ter No Longer Counts (Alan Jacobs, Nation­al Affairs): “What is required of seri­ous reli­gious believ­ers in a plu­ral­is­tic soci­ety is the abil­i­ty to code-switch: nev­er to for­get or neglect their own native reli­gious tongue, but also nev­er to for­get that they live in a soci­ety of peo­ple for whom that lan­guage is gib­ber­ish. To speak only in the lan­guage of prag­ma­tism is to bring noth­ing dis­tinc­tive to the table; to speak only a pri­vate lan­guage of rev­e­la­tion and self-pro­claimed author­i­ty is to leave the table alto­geth­er. For their own good, but also for the com­mon good, reli­gious believ­ers need to be always bilin­gual­ly present.” Includ­ing for the sum­ma­ry para­graph. That’s gold.
  3. Count­ing The Cost: DR Con­go Demon­strates Dif­fi­cul­ty of Mea­sur­ing Mar­tyr­dom (Sarah Zyl­stra, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “Why do cal­cu­la­tions of Chris­tians killed for their faith world­wide each year range from 1,000 to 100,000? The rea­son large­ly comes down to one coun­try: the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Repub­lic of the Con­go (DRC).” Many sur­pris­ing pieces of infor­ma­tion. Worth­while.
  4. Book Review: See­ing Like A State (Scott Alexan­der, Slate Star Codex): “Peas­ants didn’t like per­ma­nent sur­names. Their own sys­tem was quite rea­son­able for them: John the bak­er was John Bak­er, John the black­smith was John Smith, John who lived under the hill was John Under­hill, John who was real­ly short was John Short. The same per­son might be John Smith and John Under­hill in dif­fer­ent con­texts, where his sta­tus as a black­smith or place of ori­gin was more impor­tant. But the gov­ern­ment insist­ed on giv­ing every­one a sin­gle per­ma­nent name, unique for the vil­lage, and track­ing who was in the same fam­i­ly as whom. Resis­tance was intense.” This is long and amaz­ing.
  5. Chi­na’s Suc­cess Explains Author­i­tar­i­an­is­m’s Allure (Tyler Cowen, Bloomberg View): “…if there is a pow­er­ful sys­tem on the world stage, many of us will be drawn to it and seek to emu­late it, with­out always being con­scious of the rea­sons for those attrac­tions. This process is actu­al­ly not so dif­fer­ent from how neolib­er­al­ism attract­ed greater sup­port dur­ing the 1990s, when it was per­ceived as the major vic­tor on the world stage.”

Things Glen Found Amusing

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it).

Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 94

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Sor­ry, but if you’re a Chris­t­ian, you need to go to church. Reg­u­lar­ly. (Paul Prather, Lex­ing­ton Her­ald-Leader): “You might see your­self as a ter­rif­ic base­ball pitch­er. But if you only throw base­balls in your back­yard at a ply­wood cutout, you won’t progress. You’re not even real­ly play­ing base­ball. To dis­cov­er the full extent of your abil­i­ties, to under­stand the true game, you need a catch­er, a coach, infield­ers and out­field­ers — and even some­one stand­ing in the batter’s box ready to swat your best fast­ball right back at you.”
  2. Review­ing Rod Dreher’s “The Bene­dict Option” (Jake Meador, Mere Ortho­doxy): The Bene­dict Option is a much-dis­cussed book which lays out a strat­e­gy for Chris­tians in the mod­ern world — delib­er­ate with­draw­al from some aspects of cul­ture, delib­er­ate engage­ment with oth­ers. This is one of the most insight­ful reviews I’ve read.
  3. Just Who Are These ‘Peo­ple of Faith’ Any­way? (John Stack­house, Chris­tian­i­ty Today): “The Ther­ava­da form of Bud­dhism, still the dom­i­nant ver­sion of that reli­gion in Sri Lan­ka and South­east Asia, does not ven­er­ate a deity. The Chi­nese tra­di­tions of Con­fu­cian­ism and Dao­ism do not, either. Many forms of belief in the super­nat­ur­al do not require faith so much as knowl­edge of the divine and of the cor­rect prac­tices to align one­self with it in order to best nego­ti­ate the world.”
  4. Can Reli­gious Char­i­ties Take the Place of the Wel­fare State? (Emma Green, The Atlantic): “Keis­ter [a pro­fes­sor of soci­ol­o­gy at Duke Uni­ver­si­ty] has argued that reli­gious engage­ment is close­ly asso­ci­at­ed with finan­cial generosity—in a recent paper, for exam­ple, she found that those who attend reli­gious ser­vices every week give near­ly three times as much as those who don’t.”
  5. Read the above in con­junc­tion with How Utah Keeps The Amer­i­can Dream Alive (Megan McAr­dle, Bloomberg View): “The vast wel­fare infra­struc­ture from the Mor­mon Church nat­u­ral­ly makes it eas­i­er to have small­er gov­ern­ment. Per­haps that could be repli­cat­ed by oth­er com­mu­ni­ties. But the val­ues of the Mor­mon Church may cre­ate a pub­lic that sim­ply needs less help. That’s hard­er for anoth­er com­mu­ni­ty to imi­tate. I’m not sure this key ingre­di­ent is avail­able in a sec­u­lar ver­sion; I think reli­gion might only come in reli­gion fla­vor. How the heck is some state gov­ern­ment sup­posed to get peo­ple to mar­ry, and stay mar­ried?”
  6. In Europe, cohab­i­ta­tion is stable…right? (Brad Wilcox and Lau­rie DeRose, Brook­ings): “It is easy to see why some con­clude that mar­riage per se does not mat­ter. But here’s the thing: mar­riage is itself strong­ly asso­ci­at­ed with fam­i­ly sta­bil­i­ty. U.S. chil­dren born to cohab­it­ing par­ents are twice as like­ly to see their par­ents’ rela­tion­ship end com­pared to chil­dren born to mar­ried par­ents…”
  7. Does it pay to get a dou­ble major? (Chris­tos Makridis, Quartz): our very own Chris­tos ana­lyzes whether get­ting a techie plus a fuzzy major yields a high­er salary than get­ting either alone.
  8. Why Amer­i­can Farm­ers Are Hack­ing Their Trac­tors With Ukrain­ian Firmware (Jason Koe­bler, Vice): “It’s quite sim­ple, real­ly. John Deere sold farm­ers their trac­tors, but has used soft­ware to main­tain con­trol of every aspect of its use after the sale.”

    Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it).

Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.

Things Glen Found Interesting, Volume 93

On Fri­days I share articles/resources about broad cul­tur­al, soci­etal and the­o­log­i­cal issues. Be sure to see the expla­na­tion and dis­claimers at the bot­tom. I wel­come your sug­ges­tions. If you read some­thing fas­ci­nat­ing please pass it my way.

Things Glen Found Interesting

  1. Yes, You Can Please Your Heav­en­ly Father (Kevin DeY­oung, Gospel Coali­tion): “Over and over, more than a dozen times in the New Tes­ta­ment, we [are clear­ly taught that our actions can please God]. We ought to be gen­er­ous. We ought to be god­ly. We ought to love and live a cer­tain way because it pleas­es God.”
  2. Break­ing Faith (Peter Beinart, The Atlantic): “As Amer­i­cans have left orga­nized reli­gion, they haven’t stopped view­ing pol­i­tics as a strug­gle between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ Many have come to define us and them in even more pri­mal and irrec­on­cil­able ways.”
  3. Sor­ry, But The Irish Were Always ‘White’ (And So Were Ital­ians, Jews, and So On): (David Bern­stein, Wash­ing­ton Post): The author makes intu­itive and com­pelling argu­ments. He is a law pro­fes­sor at George Mason Uni­ver­si­ty. 
  4. The Expe­ri­ence of Dis­crim­i­na­tion in Con­tem­po­rary Amer­i­ca: Results from a Nation­al­ly Rep­re­sen­ta­tive Sam­ple of Adults (SocArX­iv): note that this has not yet under­gone peer review and that the dataset has some lim­i­ta­tions. Hav­ing said that, I don’t think I’ve ever seen such research about how fre­quent­ly peo­ple feel dis­crim­i­nat­ed against. Table 2 on page 11 is where the most inter­est­ing infor­ma­tion can be found. Dif­fi­cult to sum­ma­rize but provoca­tive. 
  5. Relat­ed: White Evan­gel­i­cals Believe They Face More Dis­crim­i­na­tion Than Mus­lims (Emma Green, The Atlantic): “White evan­gel­i­cals per­ceive dis­crim­i­na­tion in Amer­i­ca in vast­ly dif­fer­ent terms than all oth­er reli­gious groups, includ­ing their minor­i­ty peers.”
  6. The recent nation­wide threats against the Jew­ish com­mu­ni­ty seem to have been per­pe­trat­ed large­ly by a 19 year-old dual-cit­i­zen­ship Amer­i­can-Israeli Jew (Yon­ah Jere­my Bob, Jerusalem Post) with a small sub­set stem­ming from a reporter stalk­ing an ex-girl­friend (Eric Lev­en­son and AnneClaire Sta­ple­ton, CNN). A use­ful reminder that our assump­tions are often wrong. 
  7. The Fake Kid­nap­ping Scan­dal That Almost Destroyed A Megachurch Pio­neer (Luke Har­ring­ton, Christ and Pop Cul­ture): “…it turns out the cul­ture wars weren’t invent­ed last week. The U.S.’s reli­gious and cul­tur­al land­scape of the 1920s was rocked by no short­age of its own con­flict, with fac­tions of evan­gel­i­cals, fun­da­men­tal­ists, main­line Chris­tians, and sec­u­lar­ists all vying for pow­er, and McPher­son had man­aged to make ene­mies of most of them.”

Things Glen Found Amusing

Why Do You Send This Email?

In the time of King David, the tribe of Issachar pro­duced shrewd war­riors “who under­stood the times and knew what Israel should do” (1 Chron 12:32). In a sim­i­lar way, we need to become wise peo­ple whose faith inter­acts with the world. I pray this email gives you greater insight, so that you may con­tin­ue the tra­di­tion of Issachar.

Disclaimer

Chi Alpha is not a par­ti­san orga­ni­za­tion. To para­phrase anoth­er min­is­ter: we are not about the donkey’s agen­da and we are not about the elephant’s agen­da — we are about the Lamb’s agen­da. Hav­ing said that, I read wide­ly (in part because I believe we should aspire to pass the ide­o­log­i­cal Tur­ing test and in part because I do not believe I can fair­ly say “I agree” or “I dis­agree” until I can say “I under­stand”) and may at times share arti­cles that have a strong par­ti­san bias sim­ply because I find the arti­cle stim­u­lat­ing. The upshot: you should not assume I agree with every­thing an author says in an arti­cle I men­tion, much less things the author has said in oth­er arti­cles (although if I strong­ly dis­agree with some­thing in the arti­cle I’ll usu­al­ly men­tion it).

Also, remem­ber that I’m not report­ing news — I’m giv­ing you a selec­tion of things I found inter­est­ing. There’s a lot hap­pen­ing in the world that’s not mak­ing an appear­ance here because I haven’t found stim­u­lat­ing arti­cles writ­ten about it.

Archives at http://glenandpaula.com/wordpress/category/links.