Book Review: Political Thought: A Student's Guide by Hunter Baker

I recently finished Political Thought: A Student's Guide by Hunter Baker, which is a short booklet, only 121 pages, that is a part of the series, Reclaiming the Christian Intellectual Tradition, that I received complimentary from Crossway. The book offers students an introduction to some of the basic philosophical foundations that scholars approach the study of politics and political organizations, such as the idea of the family unit and social contracts. Political Thought is a very quick book to read, I read it in one sitting. As an instructor of history I will say that Political Thought is useful and effective precisely because it is so short. As a book geared towards students, particularly Christian students, they are able to read about some of the main ideas of political thought without being bogged down, and as any educator can attest, students have very short attention spans, especially regarding reading. Political Thought doesn't go into detailed analysis of political systems or ideologies, such as conservative and liberal, democratic and authoritarian, that would make the book much longer. Instead, Political Thoughts strength lies in its brevity, which allows a quick introduction to basic political philosophy. Political Thought would not be a text unto a course, rather, it would be very useful to help students begin understanding and discussing political ideas. I would not use Political Thought as the only textbook in a course, it is much to short for that. However, as a textbook to get conversation going and introduce students to ideas that form the central discussions of politics, especially American politics, then Political Thought is a boon for educators.

Political Thought is divided into three sections, the first introduces students to the basic ideas in political philosophy. The second chapter analyzes the major themes and goals of politics, namely, order, freedom and liberty, and justice. Baker concludes this section by attempting to describe good politics in a way that any classical liberal, that is, a modern day conservative/libertarian, would appreciate, as an attempt to maximize personal liberty while also providing security and ensuring justice prevails. Finally, Baker concludes in his third section by discussing the Christian contributions to political thought. Political Thought is, as the series name suggests, first and foremost a Christian resource for Christian students, and comes from a conservative Christian perspective.

Book Review: Coming Apart by Charles Murray

I recently finished reading Charles Murray's Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010, which I received complimentary from WaterBrook Multnomah Publishing Group. Coming Apart is the culmination of several decades of Murray's work as a political scientist who has studied modern American society and culture. Murray explains that he uses white Americas as the reference point for the book because white America is used by everyone else as the reference point for how minorities fair in the United States in ares such as education, disposable income and job possession. This gets to the heart of Coming Apart, the reference point used by everyone is changing, and that means America is changing. In Coming Apart Murray argues that American culture is facing a crisis of two classes that exist on opposite extremes of one another and their increasing isolation and lack of common ground for understanding one another threatens to divide the political and social unity of America.

Murray says that on the one hand there is emerging a new elite class of the well-educated and affluent who possess at least one college degree, dominate positions of finance, industry and government, and are the principle culture makers in American society. While on the other there is a large class of American families who do not possess any college degrees, are trapped in cycles of poverty and poor decision-making and occupy low wage jobs or dead end careers, or find themselves living off government assistance. Murray suggests that part of the reason for success of those who are a part of the upper classes is that greater numbers of their members have followed the American founding virtues. Murray acknowledges that there are several virtues that could be considered American virtues, but those he addresses are marriage, industriousness, honesty and religiosity. Along with these two classes that exist at the extremes of American society there is also the large middle class. This middle class is composed of an upper-middle, those who make their living in white collar pursuits that involve an education and managing information, and a lower-middle, those who are the working class in blue collar jobs. Coming Apart is about the extremes, what the extremes tell us about America and what they mean for America that there exist classes that cannot relate to one another along common frames of reference.

Murray argues very well that the increased prosperity encountered by those who received an education, excelled in the financial and legal sectors, and took careers in the government and the creative world they became isolated from the culture of other Americans. They had different tastes in material goods, in luxuries and in living arrangements, and because of the economic boom experienced by the US after the 1950s, in part facilitated by these new elites, there was enough "mass," that is, enough people to purchase these goods and choose a life that was set apart. These people did not necessarily want to leave the culture of the other Americans behind, it is simply what happened as they selected those around them and the goods they consumed, which were in part produced by what made them an elite class anyways. Their education had introduced them to foreign goods, entertainment and ideas, which other Americans were slower to adopt, while their interests were generated as a byproduct of their affluence: more expensive (often foreign) automobiles, bigger homes, and more exotic vacations as just a few examples.

However, it was not just the success of those who formed the upper class that has resulted in a divide between the classes. Amongst those who are the poor and the working class there has been a remarkable shift in their culture over the last fifty years. Murray defines this shift in culture as the loss of the practice of the American founding virtues amongst the working class, marriage, industriousness, honesty and religiosity. These four virtues, contends Murray, are not being practiced by those who are among the working class, instead they are facing a life beset with the problems produced by this cultural shift. This includes rampant sexuality but no responsiblity to marry or care for children fathered out of wedlock, a disregard for honest work, even if it is lowly regarded (such as fast food, which pays the bills but certainly isn't glamorous), the increase in criminal or unethical behavior as a result of diminished respect for honesty, and a loss of religious sympathy. While these other three are perhaps understandable, or expected, it is the lack of religious amongst the American poor and working class that is most surprising. Long considered a bastion of American religious conservatism, Murray argues that instead the many in the working poor of America no longer exercise religious values or moral, and as a result have lost some of the class unity and cohesion that are experienced by other Americans.

Murray offers an analysis of two communities, Belmont and Fishtown, that are taken to be representative of the lives of upper and lower class Americans. It is an interesting exercise, and one that provides insight into how Murray's theories are truly being played out. Certainly Murray's assertions do not apply to everyone, there are many in the working poor who are happily and faithfully married, work hard, live honestly and are devout in the faith they practice. Yet, Murray has observed a concerning trend that the number do not, and this puts them at odds with the culture of those in the upper classes, which values strong and happy family relationships, hard work and productivity, just law-abiding and sincerely following metaphysical moral guidelines (religion, or religions, and tolerance expressed for those who are of a different kind, so long as they are religious). These differences are putting the two classes at odds, and this could very well prove disastrous for American culture.

Murray does not argued that American is imperiled by impending decline, but he does argue that the existence of two classes in America that do not have a common basis for understanding one another, a shared set of those founding virtues, will cause all manner of social and political problems. He also does not argue that the upper classes need to give up any wealth to change the situation. Being a libertarian, he would be appalled by such a solution. Instead he calls upon those who are in the upper classes to work to understand the culture of their fellow citizens. What can be done to encourage the adoption of stronger and better virtues among the working poor, a respect for marriage, hard work, and honesty, held together by the framework of religiosity that builds a community? Murray suggests welfare reform is one such way, while those in communities of the working poor who maintain these virtues should be encouraged, by their faith communities, and by concerned citizens. Coming Apart is highly critical of the poor, that is true, and Murray addresses the creation of a systemic and entrenched elite that keeps outsiders form joining the ranks of the upper classes as a problem, however he does not address other problems associated with affluence, such as white collar crimes. A major problem I noted is that one is left with the impression that the upper classes are not facing problems with a loss of the founding virtues. I would certainly say that rampant greed and workaholic attitudes are problems that on some level must be addressed by the virtue claims that the upper classes are supposed to possess, and a follow-up volume, or a second edition, would be greatly enhanced by such an analysis.

What do you look for?

What do you look for when you find yourself on someone's Facebook page? Myself, I always gravitate towards what they have put in the "religion" category. It just intrigues me. I'm curious if they are a Christian, and if they are, how they phrase that. Straightforward but vague, with Christian, or show their denominational slant with something like Southern Baptist? I, by the way, do both. Or do they go for the more pious sounding phrasing of Christ follower?

How about you, what do you look for when you are on someone's Facebook page? And why? I'm curious is all, because how we describe ourselves on Facebook has become an important part of how we communicate with others.

Open Letter to Employers

This blog post sums up my own thoughts about the usefulness of a history degree. Just a brief excerpt:

"Firstly, ask yourself why you may have dismissed said application. Is your first thought, “What can someone who knows everything about the War of 1812 do to support and contribute to our business to make it flourish?” This is the first mistake. Don’t think about the subject matter; focus on the skills. As Historians, we can’t tell you everything that’s happened in History, that’s not what we do. Among other things, we study trends, theories and problems, that are very relevant to today, and communicate and interpret them."

Yes, this is what we do in history, we analyze why and how "things" happen. This can be thins like economic and social trends, the results of military engagements, or the origins and formations of policy and lawmaking. But these are just how professional historians use their skills in the historical field. The history degree equips people with the skills to analyze market trends and public opinions, always important skills to businesses. It equips people to write and communicate clearly and effectively, once again, qualities that businesses appreciate. Even if you aren't interested in working in sales, whatever career you follow, you will be working with people whom you will need to understand and communicate with.

Read the article, it is pretty good.

Singleness and Marriage in the Church

A write up I have been meaning to share for awhile now, because I think that single people in many Baptist, and other Protestant, churches, are often times simply treated as odd for not being married. Now, I will say marriage is great, and most people want to get married but it should be met with great preparation and thoughtfulness. Marriage, and really any close, intimate relations, is not something to just be rushed into, and our time as a single is a great preparation for this reality. I am very disappointed in the culture around me, the late twentieth and early twenty-first century Western civilization because I see our speech and media devaluing of the ideas of love and companionship, not that we do not care about them anymore, but that we do not understand them. Every teenager in high school is "in love" with their latest significant other, TV shows like How I met Your Mother give the impression that there is just "one" other person out there for you, and if you don't find them, then you're screwed and people I meet in church, teen, young adult and older adult, believe that marriage is some special fix that will take your problems away. Let me assure you, that is not the case. You remain the same broken, fallen person that you were before the marriage as afterwards. Like the rest of your Christian walk, it takes effort and work, as well as the nurture of the Holy Spirit.

We Protestants don't seem to always appreciate the  value of singleness, particularity within the church. Now, to be fair, I don't think this is true across the board in Protestant culture. There are Protestant churches were singles don't feel like they are being pushed towards marriage, or ostracized because they are the only one in their age group who isn't paired off. The Protestant encouragement towards marriage stems directly out of the Reformation. Reformers, such as Martin Luther and John Calvin, argued that clerical celibacy was not something the Church could simply mandate for all clergy. Luther, a former monk, even married a former nun, Katherine von Bora, to show just how serious he was about this (he also truly loved her). So in Protestantism, marriage is held in high esteem, whereas in the medieval church and Catholicism today, celibacy at least receives lip service as an "honorable sacrifice." I say receives lip service because the reality is that there are those for whom the celibacy was not real, it was a facade. In the medieval church clerical immorality was rampant and even today in Protestant as well as Catholic churches, there are problems with sex and immorality.

1 Corinthians 7:1-2 ¹ Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” ² But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.

Here in 1 Corinthians Paul writes that it is actually good, not to have sexual relations, so that one can serve God better through their singleness, as Paul did. For Protestants this can be hard to fathom at times. We are used to seeing marriage as a team activity, the wife as a help-meet to the husband. And this is true, ministry is most certainly through the husband and wife team. For example, no pastor with a proper head on his shoulders would ever meet with a woman alone, without his wife present in the office. Not if he wants to keep the integrity and faithfulness of his ministry. And just as in 1 Corinthians, marriage acts as a bulwark against sexual immorality, it should keep believers from falling into temptation. But for the single person,  what if they are keeping from sexual immorality? If they are serving faithfully in the church, and they are doing so as a single, then wonderful. They don't have the distraction of familial responsibility, and if they can live like that faithfully, then they are doing well.

1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

From this verse it is obvious that control of oneself is the issue. For a time, and the reality is for most people it will only be for a season until one is married, then it is important that the single believer does not allow sexual passion to burn them up and become a distraction, and therefore an idol, in their life. Many people, especially single Christians, become upset that they are single, and the church doesn't help the situation by treating them like they are an aberration because of their singleness. I know, because when I was single it did feel like I was somehow not a part of the rest of the church. Now, to be fair, part of that is on me because I wasn't content with my situation in life, and that left me resentful. But, upon reflection, and with the help of several good mentoring relationships, I realized that my time being single was the perfect opportunity to grow in maturity and discipleship. And that, in my humble opinion, helped make me a better disciple, fiancee and soon to be husband.

Book Review: God on the Streets of Gotham by Paul Asay

 

I recently finished God on the Streets of Gotham: What the Big Screen Batman can Teach us About God and Ourselves, by Paul Asay. I received God on the Streets complimentary from Tyndale House Publishers. This is a very interesting book, and given what everyone has agreed will be the summer blockbuster this year, Christopher Nolan's the Dark Knight Rises, an appropriate book to read to understand how Batman reveals insight into our culture's view of the world, its brokenness and our calling to be something greater. Asay is not under some kind of misunderstanding that Batman/Bruce Wayne is a Christian, though I did chuckle at his musing over the kind of middle school youth worker Batman would make. Instead Asay focuses on what the Batman saga, with examples from several decades, reveals about American society, human nature and how we can see the Christian truths expressed through that art form. Asay examines the Batman mythology from several perspectives, focusing on Batman's origins, adversaries, allies and ultimately the qualities that make Batman a hero and fuel our fascination with him. From those perspectives Asay takes a Christian look at Batman, and what it tells us. While Batman is almost never described as being Christian or religious in any way (aside from the Elseworlds one-shot, Batman: Holy Terror, which Asay did not examine, probably because its stands as an outlier among the wider Bat-mythology), Batman's actions do reveal insight into his philosophy. Batman believes in a higher moral order, one that man-made laws sometimes do not capture, especially when they have been corrupted. Batman's refusal to kill symbolizes his place within the moral order, he is an enforcer of justice, stopping those who cannot be stopped by other means, protecting the innocent and bringing villains to the point where they can be punished. But he is not a killer, that is not within his jurisdiction. Batman likewise believes in a purpose, his own and others, that belie a meaningful, ordered and moral universe, otherwise his work as the Batman would not only be an exercise in futility but it would be madness like the Joker's.

I enjoyed God on the Streets of Gotham, of course, I am also a big fan of Batman, so anytime I can combine an interesting perspective on Christian theology with my favorite caped superhero, well, that is a good day and a good read. Asay does a good job making clear from the beginning what the purpose of the book is, to see eternal, transcendent spiritual truths that are spoken of and mentioned in our modern cultural and artistic medium. Art of course thrives on the production and passing down of stories that support, undermine or reinterpret the ideas and values of a "host culture." Batman, like any other serious art, using images and ideas about values and morals within its story-framework. Batman is a vigilante, and at times irreligious, yet he works, one might even say called, for a higher purpose and a meaningful existence, to bring justice and peace to people who rarely understand, and more rarely, like him. He doesn't give into grief and self-pity, he turns those feelings around and uses them to give him the motive to change his world. Batman, like the rest of us, faces a world that isn't fair and an existence that, some of us may feel, is better lived through self-service and pleasure. But Batman chose differently. Likewise Christianity calls us to choose differently. Life isn't fair, that's true, the rain does fall on the good and the wicked alike. But that doesn't mean you are off the hook. We still have moral choices and obligations, and just like Batman, we are called. Asay quotes C. S. Lewis, "I was not born free, I was called to adore and obey." We can choose to follow or ignore our calling, but in so doing we choosing to ignore fulfilling our role in the greater human narrative.

Compassion International

I've written on several occasions about my affiliation with the Christian ministry, Compassion International, through them I sponsor and correspond with a young man in Ethiopia. Compassion International seeks to alleviate childhood poverty in areas such as Ethiopia, the Philippines and India by working through local Christian congregations to directly minister to children and their families. Working with local congregations is very important because those local congregations are the human face of education, ministry and medical aid. Compassion is financed by the direct sponsorship of children. Donor's contributions of $38 a month are used to fund the sponsored child's education, healthcare and improving their family's standard of living. Compassion sponsors maintain a written relationship with their sponsored children, so that the sponsored child knows there is someone who cares for them, and sponsors can communicate with those they are choosing to help. I believe Compassion is a worthwhile charity for three reasons. Compassion International fulfills a biblical mandate to take care of orphans and widows through spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ and demonstrating integrity by maintaining an open and honest account of its financial records.

Book Review: Canon Revisited by Michael Kruger

 

I recently finished Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books by Michael Kruger, a professor of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminar, which I received complimentary from Crossway. Canon Revisited explores the major discussions and views on the formation and reliability of the New Testament canon. The central purpose of Canon Revisited is answering whether Christians are intellectually justified believing the New Testament documents are reliable witnesses to Jesus Christ and the beliefs of the early Christian Church. Kruger's answer is that indeed Christians are justified believing this, that the New Testament, its generally accepted, Western form of twenty-seven books, offers an accurate presentation of documents written by apostolic witnesses to Christ and the early Church, and it is useful for the formation of Christian doctrine and personal edification. Canon Revisited is a useful and appropriate for use in a classroom on Christian origins, or in a small-group study on the formation of  the New Testament. I highly recommend Canon Revisited to Christians interested in New Testament origins and apologetics, especially those involved in teaching and education, and pastors who want to know their New Testament better.

Canon Revisited is especially useful for two reasons, the first being because it is filled with footnotes, and even if the book itself were not useful on the merits of its arguments, it would still be useful because of these footnotes. Kruger has assembled summaries of the major arguments and schools of thought in New Testament origins for Canon Revisited, and provides the reader with the background for those arguments in his footnotes. For those who are academically and professional interested in Christian origins and the New Testament, those footnotes are a substantial resource. The second reason Canon Revisited is useful is because it provides a summation of the various schools of thought on the formation of the New Testament.  Canon Revisited is divided into two parts, in Part 1 Kruger groups the various schools of thought regarding the New Testament Canon into three major categories that are discussed in chapters 1 through 3: community determined, historically determined and self-authenticating canons. Kruger criticizes the community and historically determined models for being overly reliant on the role of people and events in choosing the books that entered the canon and not giving sufficient leverage to the divine origin and guidance in forming the canon.

This of course is Kruger's purpose behind Canon Revisited, to offer reasoned and evidential support for Christians that the books of the New Testament are divinely inspired, non-contradictory and reliable as a rule of faith for Christian life and belief. The problem with community determined models such as that pioneered by the historical-critical school is that it assumes the text of the canon is only the result of arguments among the early Christian community, or as some recent scholars have suggested, various Christian communities who disagreed on doctrines and books. The problem with historically determined models, such as the neo-orthodox, is that it reduces the canon to once again being the result of the actions of people and forces. This isn't to say that Kruger disapproves of scholarship into the church's role and belief regarding the canon, or the history of the formation of the canon and New Testament doctrines.

The canon as self-authenticating forms the subject for Part 2, the remaining pages of Canon Revisited. This argument essentially states that the documents which form the New Testament, the gospels and epistles, possess within themselves the marks of divine inspiration, apostolic authorship and a core group of accepted canonical books that provided guidelines for the organization of the New Testament canon. Chapter 4 addresses the divine qualities of the canon, especially that the books of our accepted, twenty-seven book canon possess doctrinal unity. The books of the New Testament are non-contradictory, both amongst the other New Testament documents and with the Old Testament books; the books speak to a common redemptive-historical unity, the story of God seeking to redeem mankind, from Genesis to Revelation; and a structural unity in the writing of the documents, making covenant arguments and a having an organization that consciously builds on the Old Testament models, something not found in non-canonical gospels and epistles.

Chapter 5 addresses the apostolic origins of the accepted books of the New Testament canon, that the authors of those books were not necessarily all apostles, but they were all people close to the earliest Christian community, including those who knew Christ personally and those who learned from apostles and disciples of Christ. The final three chapters, 6, 7 and 8, are devoted to the corporate reception of the canon, how the early Christian communities received, understood and accepted documents to be new revelations from God. In Chapter 6 Kruger argues that a core group of books were canonically accepted by all, or at least almost all, Christian communities of the first centuries after Christ. These accepted documents were the four gospels, Paul's epistles, Acts, 1 Peter and 1 John, as well as the Old Testament. They formed guidelines for what Christian communities believed and could reasonably expect to be Christian doctrines. In Chapter 7 Kruger discusses how the Christian communities views on books and manuscripts informed what books they accepted as canonical and guiding. Finally, in Chapter 8 Kruger discusses several non-canonical books and why the Christian communities rejected them, establishing a clear criteria that the Christian community understood certain books to be acceptable and defining.

Happy 4th of July

Happy Fourth of July everyone, today we celebrate the independence of our nation, from separate colonies to the United States, and the promise of our nation for freedom and liberty to its citizens, and especially the recognition of who qualifies as a citizen. Everything comes at a cost, and let us never forget the cost of America's freedom and independence: the Founders who pledged their lives, treasure and sacred honor, the struggles for civil and social equality, and the soldiers and servicemen who have protected America. Freedom and liberty, political as well as economic and social, are not static qualities, remaining unchanged but they respond to their environment, and no society runs on inertia for very long. Every generation must claim its 4th of July, declaring that it will take and use its freedom and liberty. If left to languish, then it will disappear; if unappreciated, then, the sacrifices to acquire it were in vain; if unused, then pointless to posses, for what are freedom and liberty for, but to allow us, the living, to pass on a better world to posterity?

Government belongs always to the living generation.-Thomas Jefferson

What I'm Reading: The Fall of Rome: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather

I recently finished the Amazon Kindle edition of the Fall of Rome: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians by Peter Heather. I enjoyed reading this academic work on the Kindle because once I was reading through the end-notes, I could return to that place in the book simply by clicking on the end-note. Heather is an influential scholar in the fields of Late Antiquity and early Medieval Studies and currently the professor of medieval history at King's College London. The Fall of Rome is Heather's analysis of a topic that has been approached by historians since the early nineteenth century. Heather argues that a greater understanding of the political situation between Rome and the Germanic tribes is necessary to understand the demise of the Roman state. Rome's major military and political rival during the period of Late Antiquity wasn't the Germanic tribes, but the Sassanian Empire in Persia. The Germanic tribes were met with a combination of political and cultural dismissal by the Romans, a situation that the tribes exacerbated by their own efforts to become Romanized. The tribes learned Latin, signed treaties as client states, invested in Roman land-holdings and estates and sent their sons to become officials in the Roman bureaucracy. By all accounts, the tribes wanted to participate in Roman society and take advantage of the benefits it provided, until the faced little opposition to invading Roman territory. 

The reason the Germanic barbarians could invade successfully was because the Roman state was much more concerned about the threat posed by the Sassanian Empire. The barbarians were not considered the serious threat, however, Rome removed garrisons and tax revenue from the barbarian frontiers to fight the Sassanians in Mesopotamia. The barbarians took advantage of the lax military and political situation on those frontiers to make land claims and carve out their own domains on the wealthy, settled Roman territory. As Rome pushed back the Sassanians and returned their focus to the frontier they met these challenges in a variety of ways. Some barbarian tribes were bought off and employed by Rome, other tribes were defeated outright while some tribes managed to hold off Rome and secured their position. This had a disastrous effect on the local economy and political scene in the Western Roman empire, which bore the brunt of barbarian incursions. The trade and financial network, which had functioned efficiently under the Empire,  was completely disturbed by the barbarian tribes and their dissolution into petty kingdoms. Rome's trade and finance network was no mean feat given the distance covered by the Roman empire. The cumulative effect of the emergence of these petty kingdoms in Roman territory was Odovacar's assumption of the kingship of Rome in AD 476. This act brought the Roman empire in the West to an end politically, even though its culturally attributes continued.