After writing an essay about research indicating that childless people are happier than parents, I began to ponder the modern celebration of endless adolescence. There are websites devoted to deliberate childlessness, for example, as well as organizations that affirm intentional singlehood (and not in the monastic sense, for which, at least, there is some precedent in the early Church). There are websites for adult video gamers, for crying out loud, and of course every professional and college sports team has at least one website haunted by fanatics.

Some time ago I saw survey evidence regarding the milestones of adulthood, which researchers defined as: 1) leaving home, 2) finishing one’s schooling, 3) getting a job, 4) getting married, and 5) having children. Whereas in 1960, 65 percent of American males had passed these milestones by age 30, in 2000 only 31 percent had done so. The data for females was little different. Here we have an immediate casualty of America’s burgeoning inability to grow up — the fact that we have to use the clinical terms “male” and “female” more frequently, because “man” and “woman” must be applied with greater selectivity.

We are, it seems, a nation in regression. At least in the past we might have had the cold comfort of shame, but now it seems that the new mood is to proclaim childishness as a virtue. In general, however, I side with the writer at Happily Childfree, who proclaims: “If you don’t want those kids, it’s better to not have them.” I certainly don’t want to persuade any of that organization’s adherents to change their minds; we have enough self-centered people raising children already.

I have a friend in the Orthodox Church who tells me that the Church will not marry couples who express the desire to remain childless. The communion that yields life is so central to the Christian’s journey to godliness, in other words, that those who are unwilling to commit themselves to striving for it are judged unfit for marriage. It’s an idea that’s old-fashioned and revolutionary at the same time, and I think I like it.

At the core of this embrace of the Culture of Me, as I’ve written elsewhere, is the mistaken notion that individual happiness is the heart of human purpose. Hence the gleeful trotting out of research purporting to show that childless people are happier, or that marriage yields no real gain in happiness. These claims may well be true, but the people who bandy them about fail to discern that happiness is transient and shallow, whereas joy is deep and abiding. Joy is won — and here is the real bummer, for the permanent adolescent — by walking a path of suffering. This is why some people nod when they hear C.S. Lewis’s notion that the Christian life is sorrowful joy and joyful sorrow, while others shake their heads in puzzlement.

Posted in Front Page, Odds & Ends | 7 Comments »

Make a list of the people about whom you can say: He really lives like the Bible says a Christian should live.

I have a mental handicap: Preach me a hundred sermons on righteousness and it doesn’t register unless I can mentally picture someone I know who lives that way.

That’s the power of incarnational theology. Who would have thought it had noetic consequences?

I heard a sermon on the following text: “always carrying in the body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be manifested in our bodies. For we who live are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh” (2 Corinthians 4:10,11).

It was mere poetry.

Then I learned about a Christian inmate in Michigan who didn’t push back when a younger inmate walking in his direction muscled him off the track during a pecking order yard confrontation. Instead, Troy stepped down himself and let the “fish” (new inmate) pass — then took him by the elbow, looked him in the eye and said, “How’s it goin’?” Troy “carries in the body the death of Jesus.”

Many years ago my sister visited a friend and took her little Kate with her. During the visit, Kate was on the friend’s lap, and said to my sister’s friend: “You’re the ugliest woman I’ve ever seen.” The friend responded gently: “Yes, Kate, but isn’t it nice that Jesus loves even ugly people?”

When sermons walk around like that, I get them.

Posted in Front Page, Odds & Ends | 7 Comments »

Since Michael Farris claimed he had first dibs on their “Joshua Generation” idea, the Obama campaign is now using a slightly clunkier name for its outreach to young evangelicals: “Young.  Evangelical.  For Obama.”  David Brody has a sneak peek at the site – a place for supporters to find volunteer opportunities, blog, plan house parties and network – and says, “At this point the Obama campaign is winning the narrative on the younger Evangelical front.” 

Despite Obama’s best efforts, however, the data has yet to show serious inroads among evangelicals as a whole.  A Pew Forum survey shows that McCain has a slightly smaller lead among white evangelicals than Bush had at the same time in 2004.  In 2004, Bush had 69% of the white evangelical vote.  This year McCain has 61% of white evangelicals, while Obama polls 25% — about the same as Gore and Kerry polled in June 2000 and June 2004.   

Polls like this have God-o-Meter wondering if Democrats should just give up on cracking the monolithic evangelical voting bloc.  But before they give up, Democrats should see which way undecided evangelicals swing.       

There are more undecided white evangelical voters this year – 12% according to the Pew Forum and 17% according to a July 11 Newsweek poll.  If Obama can gain a little over a third of these voters for 30% of the evangelical vote, it will total 6-10% of the entire electorate, according to sociologist John Schmalzbauer – no small feat, but no small reward either. 

This indecision may mark younger evangelicals, who are less reflexively Republican and more Independent than their parents, just as passionate about abortion but more apathetic about gay marriage.  They may shrug their shoulders at McCain’s confused attempt to take a stand on gay adoption.  But if Obama pairs his Christian rock concerts with a move towards the center on abortion, he’ll have a better chance of winning young evangelicals’ votes. 

Posted in Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation | 35 Comments »

A family that games together stays together, according to a new study by GfK NOP, a U.K. based international market research company. The study reports that 4 out of 5 (83 percent) of people in the UK believe the Nintendo Wii increases family interaction and made parents “feel close to their children.”

Pollster GfK Nop polled 464 people aged 16 and over and the report claims:

“While console games playing has traditionally been by oneself or with friends, the Wii appears to encourage people to play amongst the family. Close to a half (46 per cent) of Wii owners say they play Child against Parent (compared to a fifth - 21 per cent - for PS3 owners) and 43 percent of Wii owners play with their Spouse or Partner (compared to just 27 percent of XBOX 360 owners).

“Less than one in ten (9 percent) of all people asked claimed that playing on a Wii is unsociable; while one in three (33 percent) claim the PS3 is unsociable.”

Richard Matthews, Director of Insight at GfK NOP says, “The Nintendo Wii has been innovative in breaking down age and gender barriers and in changing traditional perceptions of gaming from solitary and anti-social to healthy, educational and interactive.” One wonders, however, if it is the game system that seems to engender feelings of closeness or the fact that the family is engaged in lightly physical, fun activity that enriches their time spent together? I love the tennis, bowling and golf games on Wii.

For many kids, board games are “bored” games because they often do not require much physical activity. The Wii game system, however, involves the entire body.  It also seems that kids really enjoy competing against their parents. Why? Because this is one of the best and most healthy ways for kids to test their own development and progress in their journey toward becoming an adult. One of the most memorable days in a boy’s life, for example, is the day he finally beats his dad at something. It gives him a sense that “I’m becoming a man.”

Additionally, the Wii game system creates a context for convivial family environments. ”Convivial” is the term used by a high school student in a youth ministry context when I asked him what he longed for at his home with his family. “I wish it were more convivial,” he said. This kid, wrestling with his own faith, is in a home with good doctrine but no laughter. Sad, isn’t it? For many kids, home is all business: Do the right things, believe the right things, and think as conservatively as your parents with little to no laughter or genuine affection.

The Wii game system also seems to break down generational and gender barriers, according to the study. Some of you may remember when churches used to be like this before the days of extreme forms of “youth this” and “women’s that” or “children’s this” and “men’s that.” Since most kids grow up in the church totally quarantined from adults in church life, until they graduate from high school (unless they get dumped into “college and career” or immediately turned into youth “interns”), some might suggest that churches set up “Wii Nights” because, according to the study, women and those over 60-years-old have taken a particular liking to the game system as well. Who knew?

Posted in Front Page, Odds & Ends | 7 Comments »

Pastor Rick Warren has pulled together Barack Obama and John McCain for their first joint appearance of the presidential campaign. The two will appear in a “non-debate” format, open to all media and 6,500 ticket holders, on August 16 at the Saddleback Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion, which will be held on the Saddleback Church campus in California.

The candidates requested that questions come exclusively from Warren and not by a panel or audience members. Each candidate will converse separately with Warren for one-hour and, as WoW blogged Monday, Obama will go first, as determined by a coin flip.

Warren, author of the best-selling book “The Purpose-Driven Life,” said he called each candidate personally to invite him to the forum, which “will focus on how they make decisions and on some of Mr. Warren’s main areas of focus, like AIDS, poverty and the environment,” The New York Times reported.

“We’re honored that the candidates chose the Saddleback Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion for their first joint appearance, an unprecedented opportunity for America to hear both men back-to-back on the same platform,” Warren said in a press release about the event.

The Saddleback Civil Forum was established this year to promote civil discourse and the common good of all. The first forum featured five Holocaust survivors sharing their stories. The third Civil Forum will feature former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in September.

“In addition to my primary calling to proclaim the Gospel Truth of salvation in Jesus Christ, these Civil Forums further three other life goals: helping individuals accept responsibility, helping the Church regain credibility and encouraging our society to return to civility,” Warren’s press released continued. “The primaries proved that Americans care deeply about the faith, values, character and leadership convictions of candidates as much as they do about the issues.”

Word of the forum came as Dr. James Dobson said he might change his mind and endorse Mr. McCain, according to The Associated Press. “I never thought I would hear myself saying this,” Monday’s “Focus on the Family” radio show. “While I am not endorsing Senator John McCain, the possibility is there that I might.”

But Dobson’s endorsement may not matter as much as it used to. Chris Bodenner at The Atlantic asked in a column on Monday, “As a moderate Christian leader who focuses on more ‘liberal’ issues like AIDS, poverty, and the environment, could Warren become the new face of political Christianity, eclipsing Christianists like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson?”

Posted in Campaign 2008, Front Page, The Nation | 11 Comments »

John McCain miscalculated in his Iraq policy. He forgot about the Iraqi leadership variable. With the Iraqi government calling for a timetable, and now potentially for an plan like Obama’s, he’ll have to scramble to drop Obama’s growing foreign policy legs out from under him if he wants a fighting chance.

On Sunday, Obama met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Coming out of that meeting, a government spokesmen said Iraq is hopeful US forces would be out of their country by 2010. Obama too, has laid out a plan for troops to leave around then, saying he’d pull forces out within 16 months of his presidency starting in 2009.

In 2004, at the Council on Foreign Relations, McCain said that if an elected Iraqi government asked the US troops to leave, then we could not stay, especially “when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people.”  McCain’s current plans calls for ensuring the Iraqi’s can defend themselves and build their economy before we leave. Considering the success of the surge, that might actually be in 2010, not 2110.

There are still over three months before the election, which is plenty of time for McCain to morph a campaign strategy. If he accepts the Iraqi plan he’ll drop Obama’s criticism of him as a warhawk. If he can shape it as his position all along, to respect Iraqi sovereignty and not fight the tide against that view, he’ll quell much of the criticism against him.

McCain can also support Iraq’s desire for a timed pullout knowing that, regardless of who is president, a timetable will ultimately be subject to change. If, in 2010, oil is not secured or Iraq has gone back to heavy violence, we might not leave after all. McCain said last week, “I know for a fact that [troop pullout] will be dictated by the situation on the ground, as it always has been.”

Many in the media are projecting this as a coup for Obama on foreign policy, saying he was de facto endorsed by al-Maliki, even though the Prime Minister has denied that, saying he will stay neutral in the election. But McCain could take this as an advantage to himself with the right political maneuvering.  Either way, the next few weeks will be dominated by the foreign policy question—unless another bank decides to fold.

Posted in Front Page, The World | 78 Comments »

In my last two posts I’ve taken issue with a theology of work predominant in Protestant circles (and arguably in Catholic circles, though that would entail a longer and more complicated treatment). Many preachers and teachers diminish or even ignore the product of our labor. The work becomes incidental to our sanctification and evangelism, with Reformed and Arminian sects stressing one or the other as might be expected.

And yet we know that God the Creator fashioned us in His image. Further, He gave the first man work, and not just for his sanctification, and certainly not for evangelism. The beginning of man’s history is a story of participation in God’s creative order. How then have we come to the place where we teach, in effect and sometimes even literally, that any old job will do?

I’ve found several thinkers helpful in the face of this puzzle. The first is Dorothy Sayers, who argued that we have to consider: “whether, by confining the average man and woman to uncreative activities and an uncreative outlook, we are not doing violence to the very structure of our being.” Given that we are fashioned in the image of God, in other words, we ought to consider whether that has relevance for the nature of the work we undertake. Perhaps one reason John Eldredge has sold so many books is because too many men are trapped in jobs that require no creativity, and which yield no meaningful value.

We can quibble, of course, over the phrase “meaningful value” (and in such an argument I would suggest we begin by scrutinizing “products” like high-fructose corn syrup, mindless video games, and more than a few contemporary Christian music albums). Yet many of us know people working in jobs that hold no meaning for them other than to pay the bills. In response to this malaise, a great many pastors say, in effect: Grin and bear it, and be sure to pass out some tracts while you’re there. Eldredge has been a huge hit in part because he tells men that it’s okay to feel like there has to be something more than this, and further, that “something more” isn’t just going to church and being a good boy.

Theologian N.T. Wright, meanwhile, writes in Surprised by Joy that Christians are called to participate in God’s creative and redemptive work. While many Christians — Protestants in particular — harbor a Gnostic view of creation, wherein physical things are suspect and of little value, Wright believes that the work we do for God here will have eternal consequences — in a very real physical sense:

“What you do in the present-by painting, preaching, singing, sewing, praying, teaching, building hospitals, digging wells, campaigning for justice, writing poems, caring for the needy, loving your neighbor as yourself-will last into God’s future.”

In this worldview, the content of one’s work is no longer negligible. Consider the accountant pushing paper in a bureaucratic corporation that only survives by dint of government subsidies and trade restrictions. Or the salesman hawking products that are overpriced and clearly inferior to their competitors. Or the HR functionary required to deliver training that he knows is ineffective and doesn’t address the real problems of his company. Our modern theology of work is incapable of speaking an important truth to us, which is that perhaps these are jobs that Christians should not hold. Perhaps we are called, with our hands and minds, to something higher than eeking out a living in purposeless drudgery. And falling back on the “All things work together for good” verse to justify our apathy is a cop-out.

The content of our work matters very much, but a great many pastors, when teaching about work, neglect this. The end result is that the average churchgoer is left with the impression that it is employment that matters (”if a man will not work, neither shall he eat”), and one’s behavior in the employment (”whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord”), but not so much the end product of what one does.

I’m not arguing that we should draw up a list — as the Puritans did — of approved and unapproved vocations. But we should listen more closely to the God-sent internal and external voices that call us toward (and away from) various forms of work. It was Frederick Buechner who wrote that your vocation is “where your deepest joy meets the world’s deepest need,” and I think we ought to maintain some of that reverence — and relevance — as we consider what work we will do with our hands and minds. Some work, in other words, matters more than other work, and we should stop pretending otherwise. And we should expect more from pastors who seem content to tell us to be content, as if the fruit of our labor has no bearing on the kingdom of God so long as we are evangelizing and obeying the rules. That view, in my opinion, diminishes man and God.

Click the following links to read Tony’s first two posts in this series:

“Theologies of work, Part I”

“Theologies of work, Part II”

Posted in Front Page, Odds & Ends | 90 Comments »

The faux-elections are over but Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe is facing opposition to his rule. The United States and other western powers put forth a stern resolution to the UN Security Council last week, asking for an embargo on weapons shipped to the African nation.  Considering that the Mugabe regime reportedly killed 113 opposition party members in the past three months, this request seems reasonable, but Russia and China vetoed the resolution.

The resolution also asked for an international travel ban and freeze on the personal assets of Mugabe and 13 of his top officials.  Considering that Mugabe forced out his top rivals and declared he would not honor the results of any election he did not win, saying, “We are not going to give up our country because of a mere X” on some paper ballot, this request seems reasonable.

The resolution also asked for a UN special envoy to be sent to Zimbabwe to observe the conduct of the government.  Considering Mugabe’s thugs burned a six-year old alive along with his pregnant mother in June, while his cronies have run the nation’s economy into ground with 2.2 million percent inflation, this request seems reasonable.

The official reasoning from China and Russia is that they believed the resolution was outside the charter of the Security Council. Thomas Friedman wrote in a NYTimes op-ed that China and Russia thought the resolution was illegitimate and dangerous, but “Mugabe’s campaign of murder and intimidation strike [them] as ‘illegitimate and dangerous’. Shameful. Meanwhile, China is hosting the Olympics, a celebration of the human spirit, while defending Mugabe’s right to crush his own people’s spirit.”

Zimbabwe claims the resolution could spark a civil war and turn the county “into another Somalia.” Zimbabwe’s U.N. mission sent a letter to the Security Council arguing that, “in their obsession with ‘regime change,’ Britain and the USA are determined to ignore real, entrenched, fundamental and enduring issues that lie at the heart of Zimbabwe’s internal politics.”

Though the UN resolution said nothing of removing Mugabe by force or dissolving his government, Zimbabwe insisted the resolution would “Somalianize” the nation by leaving it without a leader.

Posted in Front Page, The World | 10 Comments »

Because I probably do more dishes than any other single activity, I tape verses to the cupboard door before my face. This week it’s Exodus 33:13:

“If I have found favor in your sight, please show me now your ways, that I may know you in order to find favor in your sight. Consider too that this nation is your people.”

Of course it isn’t very long before two years of seminary exposure kicks in and I begin to question whether I can even validly apply this verse to myself in prayer. The context is historically specific — Moses has been tapped to lead a recalcitrant people to the Promised Land. The speaker of the words is a special figure — prophet and foreshadowing of Christ. The reference to “this nation” is to ancient Israel. 

The question is not a trifling matter inasmuch as one could pose it about almost any verse in the 39 books of the Old Testament. Unless this is straightened out, both my reading and praying are hamstrung to some degree.

What I have arrived at is the childlike reasoning, based on such verses as 2 Timothy 3:16 and Luke 24:27, that all Scripture is mine, and I may pray it all for myself. Moreover, as to the particular verse in question, the New Testament tells me that everyone who testifies of Jesus is a prophet (Revelation 19:10b), and we who call on Him are a “holy nation” (1 Peter 2:9).

But it’s more than that. God’s Word is a living word and not a dead word. I believe that Bonhoeffer was right: When I read the Bible I must think here and now God is speaking to me.  

Posted in Front Page, Odds & Ends | 4 Comments »

In my last post I claimed that many pastors neglect, when teaching about the role of work in the Christian’s life, the content and product of work. We are enjoined against work that is illegal or unethical, of course, but the actual result of our labor is strangely absent. It is the Christian’s behavior in his work that is of much greater concern to the modern Protestant pastor. John Piper, who may well be — after Luther, Calvin, and the Almighty Himself — the most oft-cited writer among Reformed pastors, gives this advice to young people: “Devote yourself to [sanctification] with all your heart, and take whatever job you want.” As for those already in the workforce, he falls back on predestination to sanction occupational apathy: “You are where you are by divine assignment, even if you got there by fraud.”

A broad sampling of Protestant pastors on this topic will reveal that a great many concur with Piper either tacitly or explicitly (though the Arminians downplay the predestination angle, of course). Search “work” at Charles Stanley’s In Touch Ministries and you’ll find lessons that focus on the Christian’s attitude and diligence, not the content of his work. The same is true at Billy Graham’s ministry.

The predominant teaching by modern Protestant pastors regarding work is that the Christian is to do his work diligently unto the Lord, and respect his superiors, and be a shining light in the workplace. His primary goal is sanctification and evangelism, for which most any (legal) job will do. Work heartily unto the Lord, and be confident that you are where He has placed you for a reason. There is the occasional mention of matching a job to one’s talents, but this is rare, and not connected to the question of what one is producing, but again, to one’s diligence and competence.

These messages are especially welcomed, in my experience, by wives who are economically vulnerable to stupid decisions by their husbands. The last thing many wives want is for their husbands to start looking for “meaningful” work, because we’ve all seen men in mid-life crises make ridiculous job decisions in search of that elusive goal. The last thing a good many church budgets could stand, likewise, is for wide swaths of men to begin trading income for purpose. Thus not only do there appear to be good biblical reasons for occupational apathy, but a substantial portion of the church membership has an interest in deterring men from questioning their professions. And somebody has got to pay for all these fancy new church buildings we keep throwing up. I doubt many pastors deliberately shape their sermonizing on work in order to maximize their revenue, but they certainly don’t have much incentive to rock the boat in that domain — especially when it is easy to string together scriptures so that practical (as opposed to spiritual) purpose in work is diminished.

The aforementioned pastors are certainly on solid ground as far as they tread. I don’t think any Christian would dispute that God is sovereign, or that sanctification and evangelism are important, or that doing one’s work heartily unto the Lord is an important goal. But the question remains: does our knowledge of God, and of His creation, tell us anything further about what work should entail? Should we really tell young people to take whatever job they want, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the sanctification process? Next time I’ll offer thoughts from other theologians who suggest that what we do — not just how we do it — is of much greater significance than many modern pastors allow.

To read Tony’s “Theologies of work, Part I,” click here.

Posted in Front Page, Odds & Ends | 31 Comments »