Note: Here is a clever idea – date your spouse! Now why didn’t anyone think of that before? Who said that dating has to stop once a couple becomes married and has children? In fact, that’s when dating needs to continue. This is not rocket science, but it is foundational to a happy and growing relationship. Surprise your spouse one day soon and plan to go out on a date.
How to Date Your Spouse
Dr. Gary and Barb Rosberg
If you're like many married couples, you've gotten caught up in the routine of jobs, parenting, church, and other commitments. And many of those couples are so busy they don't take time to nurture the foundation of their family - their marriage and their relationship with each other. But when that marriage foundation begins to crumble, everything else will come down with it. And that's why we want to coach you on how to nurture that relationship - and one of the great ways to do that is by dating your mate.
When you were single, dating was a time to get away alone, to talk, laugh, and have fun together. You took time to learn more about each other, about your past and your dreams for the future. But here's the deal: Now that you're married, you need to do the same thing! You need to get away alone and continue to talk, laugh, and have fun together! You need to learn more about each other! And that's why dating shouldn't stop with marriage.
Dating your mate will help the two of you begin to reconnect, rekindle the romance in your relationship, and pull your marriage out of the rut it's stuck in. But it's not just going to happen on its own. It's going to take time, effort, and planning. It means you're going to have to make your marriage and your spouse a priority. And that's why we want to help you get motivated to start dating your mate again, by coaching you on how to get the ball rolling.
First things first - your spouse needs to come to the top of your priority list - just a bubble behind Jesus. You need to give your spouse priority access to your time - instead of just the leftovers. Priority time for your spouse means occasional date nights and getaway weekends. These type of events need to be planned ahead of time, of course, because if you wait until the last minute, you may have trouble fitting them into your busy life. But priority time also means smaller time slots each day, such as having dinner together, taking a brief walk, spending time talking, playing a game, or watching a favorite program together.
If you and your spouse haven't really "dated" for awhile, and you're not sure where to start, just start simple. Think back to what the two of you enjoyed doing together before you got married. Think about what your spouse likes to do. Think of something new the two of you can try together. It doesn't have to be something elaborate! If you used to go for walks in the park together - try that! If your husband loves sports - go to a game with him! If your wife loves antiques - go antique shopping with her! If the two of you have never taken dance lessons - sign up and go together! The idea is to get the two of you some alone time together - time to reconnect as husband and wife!
We realize that people are different and there are different lifestyles and different areas of the country. And we know people are at different stages - some have little children, some have difficult work schedules. People have different financial situations. The point of this article is to jump-start your thinking.
So, as you begin reconnecting and get back to dating your mate, here are some things you need to consider:
First, get the right perspective. Recognize that you have to give you and your spouse some time. If you've been stuck in a rut for awhile, you have to realize that you didn't get there overnight and you won't resolve everything overnight. But you can begin today to work on reconnecting, rekindling the flame, and reuniting your hearts and souls.
Reconnect with God and be in prayer. Seek God's help for wisdom and discernment as you consider how to go about this dating process. If there has been much pain and hurt in your marriage, you may need extra strength and courage to forgive or ask for forgiveness. If there has been distance, you need wisdom to know how to reconnect. Ask God to bless your endeavor.
Make a commitment. You need to "do" the dates, but not just as a quick fix. Planning some dates and going out with your spouse is only the start. You need to maintain your marriage by constantly being aware of your spouse's love needs and striving to meet them on a daily basis in your everyday life.
Keep it up! Don't stop dating just because you went on a couple of dates and your spouse seems to be appeased. Or because you think you've done enough to get out of your rut. Or because you think you've run out of ideas. Be creative! Your dates don't have to be expensive or elaborate, they just need to be. You and your spouse need special times together. That's what dating is all about. It should never stop! So keep on dating!
So, here's the drill today. Ask your spouse on a date. It can be as simple or as fancy as you want. Take your spouse to dinner. Go for a walk. Whisk your mate away for an overnight getaway. The sky is the limit! You were probably pretty creative when the two of you were dating before you got married - so draw on that again! We can guarantee you one thing: The rewards will be well worth it!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
A Sign of the Times: Repent!
Note: No need to comment on this article, just read!
A Sign of the Times: Repent!
By Chuck Colson
No doubt you've seen cartoons of bearded guys in white robes standing on street corners carrying around a sign that says "Repent!"
Well today, I'm going to be that guy. Except I don't want to be standing on a street corner. I want to be walking up and down the aisles of every American church, carrying a simple message: Repent!
And here's why. So many Christians these days I talk to are positively wringing their hands over the state of our nation. And they have every reason to. The economy is in serious trouble, Washington is oblivious (and don't think the recent election will change that much), our children are subjected to sleaze every time they turn on a radio or a TV, and on and on.
Whose fault is that? Don't blame the liberals. Don't blame the gay lobby or the media.
Look in the mirror. The Church, the bride of Christ, has been unfaithful. WE are at fault. We—collectively and individually—have chased after every idol the world has to offer. We have tried so hard to be relevant that we've become almost completely irrelevant. We offer no other way, there is nothing distinctive about us.
We have not been what Jesus called us to be: Salt and light. We have blended in with the world so well that we are practically invisible. That's why so few nonbelievers can see what Paul wrote about in Colossians: "the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."
Has the church in America become the church in Laodicea? Will the Lord say to us, "I know your deeds, you are neither cold nor hot . . . You say, ‘I am rich: I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched…poor, blind, and naked."
Hard words. Terryifying words.
What are we to do? Exactly what Jesus told the church of Laodicea: Be earnest and REPENT! Change our minds—which is what the Greek word for repent means, metanoia! Change our way of thinking, our way of living. Make a u-turn. Abandon our love of self and embrace the love of Christ. Abandon our ways, the ways of the world, for His ways.
Enough of self-absorption. Enough of going to church for self-validation—because it makes us feel good; enough of buying into the "Jesus and me" brand of Christianity that we evangelicals are especially susceptible to.
Enough of living exactly like our non-believing neighbors, glued to electronics, engaging in promiscuity and infidelity, spending beyond our means.
Enough of ignoring the suffering of the poor. Enough of being ashamed of the truth claims of the Gospel. It's time to repent.
A Sign of the Times: Repent!
By Chuck Colson
No doubt you've seen cartoons of bearded guys in white robes standing on street corners carrying around a sign that says "Repent!"
Well today, I'm going to be that guy. Except I don't want to be standing on a street corner. I want to be walking up and down the aisles of every American church, carrying a simple message: Repent!
And here's why. So many Christians these days I talk to are positively wringing their hands over the state of our nation. And they have every reason to. The economy is in serious trouble, Washington is oblivious (and don't think the recent election will change that much), our children are subjected to sleaze every time they turn on a radio or a TV, and on and on.
Whose fault is that? Don't blame the liberals. Don't blame the gay lobby or the media.
Look in the mirror. The Church, the bride of Christ, has been unfaithful. WE are at fault. We—collectively and individually—have chased after every idol the world has to offer. We have tried so hard to be relevant that we've become almost completely irrelevant. We offer no other way, there is nothing distinctive about us.
We have not been what Jesus called us to be: Salt and light. We have blended in with the world so well that we are practically invisible. That's why so few nonbelievers can see what Paul wrote about in Colossians: "the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."
Has the church in America become the church in Laodicea? Will the Lord say to us, "I know your deeds, you are neither cold nor hot . . . You say, ‘I am rich: I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.' But you do not realize that you are wretched…poor, blind, and naked."
Hard words. Terryifying words.
What are we to do? Exactly what Jesus told the church of Laodicea: Be earnest and REPENT! Change our minds—which is what the Greek word for repent means, metanoia! Change our way of thinking, our way of living. Make a u-turn. Abandon our love of self and embrace the love of Christ. Abandon our ways, the ways of the world, for His ways.
Enough of self-absorption. Enough of going to church for self-validation—because it makes us feel good; enough of buying into the "Jesus and me" brand of Christianity that we evangelicals are especially susceptible to.
Enough of living exactly like our non-believing neighbors, glued to electronics, engaging in promiscuity and infidelity, spending beyond our means.
Enough of ignoring the suffering of the poor. Enough of being ashamed of the truth claims of the Gospel. It's time to repent.
Friday, November 26, 2010
The Issue of "Weight" for Married Couples
Note: I know this is bad timing especially right after Thanksgiving! But it is an important topic and something spouses ought to discusses with one another. Should “weight” be an issue for married couples? Should a spouse be judged for being overweight? Here are some remarks about what other Christians believe – some are married and some are not. What do you think? This would be a good topic to discuss with your spouse. Enjoy!
Dear Dr. David:
I once heard a message about husbands complaining about there wives gaining weight. His answer was to buy your wife a membership to the gym and watch the kids so she can go! As a wife and mother of several children, yes I do have a hard time with males telling us to just “lose weight!” Men have never experienced having a baby attached to them for nine months that causes you to crave everything but the kitchen sink while taking sixteen hours of pain equivalent to being ran over by a “Mac” truck to “deliver” them into the world and then having to attach them to your breast for another year or two. All of these activities including having a monthly cycle, causes us to “crave” to replenish our bodies. Not to mention that we start out with more fat cells than you guys do in the first place! Give us a break guys! ~ Also Disappointed
Dear Disappointed:
You are not alone in your sentiments. Many women believe men are too shallow in their concerns about their wives’ weight. Many women believe, as you do, that men don’t fully appreciate what they’ve been through, with child-bearing, raising children, and often working a job, to try to stay fit. Many believe men should not be so visually oriented, and should not place so much emphasis on how their wives look, especially when it comes to weight.
I would love to hear from others on this topic, but let’s be fair. Let’s sound off from both men, and women’s standpoint. The question is this: Should we, as husbands or wives, be concerned about how our mate looks, or should our love be unconditional?
Dear Readers,
In a recent advice column I shared some opinions about whether husbands or wives should be concerned about how their mate looks. I challenged you to respond as to whether love should be unconditional. I received many responses —most suggesting that it was a complex issue. Many of the responses indicated that we should never judge others by their outward appearance, and yet should be concerned with our mate's health. We should also be just as concerned about their inner beauty, and building our relationship on those enduring traits.
What follows are a sampling of the responses I received:
Dear Dr. David,
The question is this: Should we, as husbands or wives, be concerned about how our mate looks, or should our love be unconditional?
The way the question is posed, the answer would seem obvious. Of course we (husbands) should offer our wives unconditional love. But then does that sort of love become a license or carte blanche for anything goes with appearance? I think not. I think the issue is often more complex....with other sub-issues attached. Is she sick of sex and trying to keep him at distance? Is there a wrong relationship with food? Are there relational difficulties that she is working out through gaining weight? And really as a doctor, the underlying question of how this is all affecting the general picture of her health is probably a better place to start.
But raising all these issues is easy compared to actually addressing them in a substantive manner.
Dear Dr. David,
I read the letter from the wife who was responding to a man wanting her to lose weight. She cites many different reasons for having weight issues, among which are pregnancy, child nursing years, and menstrual cycles...all of which are very valid reasons for having a desire to take on a lot of nutrition. I feel the problem is not only that people (men and women alike) are taking on a lot of extra nutrition, but they are taking on foods that are loaded with fats, sugars, hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrups, packaged, processed instant meals - and basically empty calories...couple this with the high stress of today's lifestyle resulting in higher than normal levels of cortisol which is the result of overstressed adrenal glands -- which causes the body to begin retaining excess fat in the stomach and hips especially. We are becoming a very overweight society as a whole - men, women and children.
I believe that the Lord would want men and women alike not to be focusing on the outside, but the inside of a person -- praying and discovering ways to help each other become healthy - which would include a more natural, nutritious diet & exercise. I believe it's a matter of love -- when people are overweight, they tend to have a poor self image, feel tired all the time, have no energy, feel self conscience and are in danger of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and the like. If you truly love someone, you don't want them to feel bad about themselves or be unhealthy - you want to help them to nurture their bodies so you can grow old together, so you have a life and future together, so you know you're doing all you can to be healthy and happy for the Lord, for yourselves, your children and grandchildren. If couples were to approach weight issues in this light, it would be apparent that the motivation was love, not a fleshly desire to see a perfect '10' in their mate, thus removing the resentment and opposition to be 'told' what to do.
Dear Dr. David,
I am responding to the article re: a complaint from a woman who says it just isn't easy to loose weight due to childbirth and cravings, but I believe that there is so much more involved in her response. You see there can be so many variables involved. It isn't as straightforward as we would like for it to be.
There can also be a medical reason as to why weight loss is so difficult, or a genetic disposition to carry more weight if your family background shows this. Not to mention having to take care of everyone else in the family -- starting with your husband and children and possibly your ageing parents. And if you are a mother who also works outside of the home...well there go your extra hours that you could be using at the gym! Who then can find the time to take care of themselves when everyone else is put first and we position ourselves last? It is an uphill battle to say the least!
Dear Dr. David,
I think that men should give women a break. I agree with the woman. But I have had 4 kids and I wasn't the one who had gained the weight. My hubby was. I gained but have gotten back down to almost my regular size. To me as long as you're busy and eat right you can lose the weight if you want.
To me neither man nor woman have the right to judge anyone because of their weight. Some people can't help it, and some can if they have the energy or passion to do it. My hubby is handsome just the way he is. It feels great to lose or to even get in shape and so that is why I choose to be in shape. But men should leave us woman alone. God made us totally different. And God tells us to accept everyone the way they are and, as for me, I do. I think men should have a baby grow in them and see what its like, but that's not how God made them so we have to accept it.
Dear Dr. David,
I read these advice columns quite often but was prompted to reply when you asked for people's opinion.
First of all, I am not yet married. I personally think that it is not just women that need to watch their weight and look their best for their husband. It's also just as important for the husband to keep fit and in an healthy state. Not only is it biblical ("looking after the temple of God") it is also not your body. From what I see in the Bible and read and hear from marriage sermons/ books etc., when you get married you give your life and body to your spouse and you get theirs.
I also believe that 'usually' the shape your body stays in is a reflection of the love and how well your relationship/ marriage is going. If the husband treats his wife as a princess and makes her feel like a princess, the wife will look after her body as she feels loved and special and the husband will have a fit wife. Men are visually minded, it's the way we are wired and it's healthy to be attracted to your wife.
Dear Dr. David,
In response to your question about the appearance of our spouse. We should definitely love a spouse unconditionally, BUT there are health risks involved when individuals (men and women alike) allow their bodies get too far out of control. I don't mean only overweight. An individual can be thin and be unhealthy because of their poor diet and/or lack of exercise. An individual can also be too thin and be controlling their "too thin" body in some very unhealthy ways (anorexia or bulimia). I think it's important that we be concerned about our spouse's health, but a few extra pounds throughout our lives together should not be cause for alarm - love them "unconditionally." Weight does not determine the depth of a loving relationship!
Dear Dr. David:
I once heard a message about husbands complaining about there wives gaining weight. His answer was to buy your wife a membership to the gym and watch the kids so she can go! As a wife and mother of several children, yes I do have a hard time with males telling us to just “lose weight!” Men have never experienced having a baby attached to them for nine months that causes you to crave everything but the kitchen sink while taking sixteen hours of pain equivalent to being ran over by a “Mac” truck to “deliver” them into the world and then having to attach them to your breast for another year or two. All of these activities including having a monthly cycle, causes us to “crave” to replenish our bodies. Not to mention that we start out with more fat cells than you guys do in the first place! Give us a break guys! ~ Also Disappointed
Dear Disappointed:
You are not alone in your sentiments. Many women believe men are too shallow in their concerns about their wives’ weight. Many women believe, as you do, that men don’t fully appreciate what they’ve been through, with child-bearing, raising children, and often working a job, to try to stay fit. Many believe men should not be so visually oriented, and should not place so much emphasis on how their wives look, especially when it comes to weight.
I would love to hear from others on this topic, but let’s be fair. Let’s sound off from both men, and women’s standpoint. The question is this: Should we, as husbands or wives, be concerned about how our mate looks, or should our love be unconditional?
Dear Readers,
In a recent advice column I shared some opinions about whether husbands or wives should be concerned about how their mate looks. I challenged you to respond as to whether love should be unconditional. I received many responses —most suggesting that it was a complex issue. Many of the responses indicated that we should never judge others by their outward appearance, and yet should be concerned with our mate's health. We should also be just as concerned about their inner beauty, and building our relationship on those enduring traits.
What follows are a sampling of the responses I received:
Dear Dr. David,
The question is this: Should we, as husbands or wives, be concerned about how our mate looks, or should our love be unconditional?
The way the question is posed, the answer would seem obvious. Of course we (husbands) should offer our wives unconditional love. But then does that sort of love become a license or carte blanche for anything goes with appearance? I think not. I think the issue is often more complex....with other sub-issues attached. Is she sick of sex and trying to keep him at distance? Is there a wrong relationship with food? Are there relational difficulties that she is working out through gaining weight? And really as a doctor, the underlying question of how this is all affecting the general picture of her health is probably a better place to start.
But raising all these issues is easy compared to actually addressing them in a substantive manner.
Dear Dr. David,
I read the letter from the wife who was responding to a man wanting her to lose weight. She cites many different reasons for having weight issues, among which are pregnancy, child nursing years, and menstrual cycles...all of which are very valid reasons for having a desire to take on a lot of nutrition. I feel the problem is not only that people (men and women alike) are taking on a lot of extra nutrition, but they are taking on foods that are loaded with fats, sugars, hydrogenated oils, high-fructose corn syrups, packaged, processed instant meals - and basically empty calories...couple this with the high stress of today's lifestyle resulting in higher than normal levels of cortisol which is the result of overstressed adrenal glands -- which causes the body to begin retaining excess fat in the stomach and hips especially. We are becoming a very overweight society as a whole - men, women and children.
I believe that the Lord would want men and women alike not to be focusing on the outside, but the inside of a person -- praying and discovering ways to help each other become healthy - which would include a more natural, nutritious diet & exercise. I believe it's a matter of love -- when people are overweight, they tend to have a poor self image, feel tired all the time, have no energy, feel self conscience and are in danger of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and the like. If you truly love someone, you don't want them to feel bad about themselves or be unhealthy - you want to help them to nurture their bodies so you can grow old together, so you have a life and future together, so you know you're doing all you can to be healthy and happy for the Lord, for yourselves, your children and grandchildren. If couples were to approach weight issues in this light, it would be apparent that the motivation was love, not a fleshly desire to see a perfect '10' in their mate, thus removing the resentment and opposition to be 'told' what to do.
Dear Dr. David,
I am responding to the article re: a complaint from a woman who says it just isn't easy to loose weight due to childbirth and cravings, but I believe that there is so much more involved in her response. You see there can be so many variables involved. It isn't as straightforward as we would like for it to be.
There can also be a medical reason as to why weight loss is so difficult, or a genetic disposition to carry more weight if your family background shows this. Not to mention having to take care of everyone else in the family -- starting with your husband and children and possibly your ageing parents. And if you are a mother who also works outside of the home...well there go your extra hours that you could be using at the gym! Who then can find the time to take care of themselves when everyone else is put first and we position ourselves last? It is an uphill battle to say the least!
Dear Dr. David,
I think that men should give women a break. I agree with the woman. But I have had 4 kids and I wasn't the one who had gained the weight. My hubby was. I gained but have gotten back down to almost my regular size. To me as long as you're busy and eat right you can lose the weight if you want.
To me neither man nor woman have the right to judge anyone because of their weight. Some people can't help it, and some can if they have the energy or passion to do it. My hubby is handsome just the way he is. It feels great to lose or to even get in shape and so that is why I choose to be in shape. But men should leave us woman alone. God made us totally different. And God tells us to accept everyone the way they are and, as for me, I do. I think men should have a baby grow in them and see what its like, but that's not how God made them so we have to accept it.
Dear Dr. David,
I read these advice columns quite often but was prompted to reply when you asked for people's opinion.
First of all, I am not yet married. I personally think that it is not just women that need to watch their weight and look their best for their husband. It's also just as important for the husband to keep fit and in an healthy state. Not only is it biblical ("looking after the temple of God") it is also not your body. From what I see in the Bible and read and hear from marriage sermons/ books etc., when you get married you give your life and body to your spouse and you get theirs.
I also believe that 'usually' the shape your body stays in is a reflection of the love and how well your relationship/ marriage is going. If the husband treats his wife as a princess and makes her feel like a princess, the wife will look after her body as she feels loved and special and the husband will have a fit wife. Men are visually minded, it's the way we are wired and it's healthy to be attracted to your wife.
Dear Dr. David,
In response to your question about the appearance of our spouse. We should definitely love a spouse unconditionally, BUT there are health risks involved when individuals (men and women alike) allow their bodies get too far out of control. I don't mean only overweight. An individual can be thin and be unhealthy because of their poor diet and/or lack of exercise. An individual can also be too thin and be controlling their "too thin" body in some very unhealthy ways (anorexia or bulimia). I think it's important that we be concerned about our spouse's health, but a few extra pounds throughout our lives together should not be cause for alarm - love them "unconditionally." Weight does not determine the depth of a loving relationship!
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 4
Note: This is the fourth and final piece in Michael Craven’s article on “Changing Culture.” He gave two examples: Prohibition which lasted from 1920-1933. And the second was the legalization of abortion which was the promotion of the autonomous self. His third example will be on how the early Christians overcame pagan Rome.
In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul mentioned a Christian virtue that is considered to be the greatest. Remember what he said it was? LOVE. The virtue of love is the greatest weapon we have to topple strongholds. Not just love itself, but love that comes to us from God – agape! Yet, love is one of the least virtue we practice. We are more into power, prestige, money, fame, techniques, and cleverness, but least into love. God has already given to the church the greatest weapon of all which Paul referred to as the “greatest of these.” But rather than practicing love, we choose to practice lesser things.
Why is this so? Because the very definition of love entails “personal sacrifice.” How much sacrifice is spent on power? Prestige? Fame? Accumulation of money? Cleverness? Love on the other hand demands our all. This is why we set love aside and look for something else less demanding of us. If you haven’t read all four articles, go back and start with Part 1. By the end of your readings, you will be given a better perspective on what battles you need to focus on and how to best fight such battles. Enjoy!
Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 4
Michael Craven
We now come to our third and final example of cultural engagement: the early Christian church and its triumph over the pagan culture of Rome. The Roman world was brutal and generally indifferent to suffering. Sympathy and mercy were weaknesses, virtues anathema to those of Rome. The ancient world was both decadent and cruel. The practice of infanticide, for example, was widespread and legal throughout the Greek and Roman world during the early days of Christianity. In fact, abortion, infanticide, and child sacrifice were extremely common throughout the ancient world.
Cicero (106-43 BC), writing in the period before Christ, cited the Twelve Tables of Roman Law when he wrote, "deformed infants should be killed" (De Ligibus 3.8). Similarly, Seneca (4 BC-AD 39) wrote, "We drown children who are at birth weakly and abnormal" (De Ira1.15). The ancient writer Plutarch (c. AD 46-120), discussing the casual acceptance of child sacrifice, mentions the Carthaginians, who, he says, "offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds while the mother stood by without tear or moan" (Moralia 2.171D). Polybius (ca. 200-118 BC) blamed infanticide for the population decline in Greece (Histories 6).
Historical research reveals that infanticide was common throughout India, China, Japan, and the Brazilian jungles as well as among the Eskimos. Dr. James Dennis, writing in the 1890s, showed how infanticide was common in many parts of Africa and was "well known among the Indians of North and South America" (Social Evils of the Non-Christian World, 1898). Suffice it to say, for much of the world and throughout most of its history the culture of death and brutality has been the rule, and a culture of life, love, and mercy has been the exception. It is to the cause of this exception that we now turn.
In roughly AD 27, a young Jewish carpenter—in an obscure Roman outpost—began to preach and teach, saying he was the Son of God, the savior of the world, the promised Messiah of the Jewish Scriptures. He claimed to be a king whose kingdom was not of this world—a kingdom without end. This king—Jesus—would validate all that had been revealed to the Israelites: there was a God and this God, who was hidden from the world, was a personal being who had made mankind in his image because he desired a relationship with mankind.
And so this Holy God further revealed himself—becoming incarnate. God became flesh and dwelt among us to do what only he could do: reconcile the chasm between God and man that sin had caused. God would implement his plan for reconciling man to God, man to himself, man to man, and man to creation. Suddenly, a radically new conception of reality, the world, and life would take hold. A new ethic and morality would challenge the old. All life would now be understood as precious, the intentional gift of a loving God. The kingdom of God was inaugurated on earth! A new day had dawned, and those who had been drawn into this kingdom began to think and act in new ways. They would strive to live and act in obedience to their king—not their flesh and not their culture.
These early Christ-followers did not organize special interest groups or political parties. They never directly opposed Caesar; they didn't picket or protest or attempt to overthrow the ruling powers. They didn't publicly denounce or condemn the pagan world. Instead, they challenged the ruling powers by simply being a faithful, alternative presence—obedient to God. Their most distinguishing characteristic was not their ideology or their politics but their love for others. They lived as those who were, once again, living under the rule and reign of God, a sign and foretaste of what it will be fully, when Christ returns.
They expressed their opposition to infanticide by rescuing the abandoned children of Rome and raising them as their own—an enormously self-sacrificial act at a time when resources were limited and survival was in doubt.
Following the end of the Punic Wars in 146 BC, the breakdown of marriage and the family had begun in earnest. By the time of Christ, Rome was a pornographic culture. Marriage was a "loose and voluntary compact" (Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [reprint, London: Penguin Books, 1994] 2:813). Sexual licentiousness, adultery, marital dissolution, and pornography were widespread. It was into this depraved cultural context that Christians would introduce a radically new and different view of life, sexuality, marriage, and parenting. In contrast to the Roman concept of Patria Potestas, according to which fathers had the right to kill their wives and children, Christians taught husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Eros gave way to agape.
The early Christians, acting in obedience to Christ, began to care for the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. So alien were their charitable acts and self-sacrificial lives that the Romans referred to them as "the third race." In the centuries to follow, even though Christians were still a demographic minority, their care of the poor and sick, would serve as the first steps in achieving cultural authority. By being seen as those who reached out to and cared for the weak and suffering, the early church would establish its "right to stand for the community as a whole" (John Howard Yoder, For the Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public [Eugene, OR: Wifp and Stock, 1997] p. 8). Sociologist James Davidson Hunter points out, "because Christian charity was beneficial to all, including pagans, imperial authority [political authority] would be weakened" (To Change the World, 2009, p. 55).
Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome, clearly understood the power of these Christians when he wrote the following:
These impious Galileans (Christians) not only feed their own, but ours also; welcoming them with their agape, they attract them, as children are attracted with cakes… Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. Such practice is common among them, and causes contempt for our gods (Epistle to Pagan High Priests).
Emperor Julian clearly saw the writing on the wall. The Roman Empire would not succumb to political upheaval or force but to love, the love of Christ. Julian's dying words in AD 363 were "vicisti Galilaee" (You Galileans [Christians] have conquered!).
Once imperial power was discredited by the superior life and ethic of the Christian community, the church would build upon its newfound cultural credibility and eventually ascend to the heights of cultural power and influence. And, Western civilization would become the most successful civilization in history.
If I am correct—and the history of the church bears this out—then the most effective approach to changing the culture in our day begins by being a faithful presence. Being faithfully present—odedient to God—in our families, our marriages, our neighborhoods and communities, and our vocations, a presence woefully lacking in the American church today.
I am reminded that our struggle is not against flesh and blood but "against the cosmic powers over this present darkness" (Eph. 6:12 ESV). And how did Christ conquer these powers? By coercive might or worldly conceptions of power? No! Christ overcame the world by the unanticipated and ultimate act of love and humility—he poured out his life on behalf of the world. May we do the same and pray the rulers of our age say on their deathbeds, "vicisti Galilaee" (You Christians have conquered)!
End of Part 4 of 4
In 1 Corinthians 13, Paul mentioned a Christian virtue that is considered to be the greatest. Remember what he said it was? LOVE. The virtue of love is the greatest weapon we have to topple strongholds. Not just love itself, but love that comes to us from God – agape! Yet, love is one of the least virtue we practice. We are more into power, prestige, money, fame, techniques, and cleverness, but least into love. God has already given to the church the greatest weapon of all which Paul referred to as the “greatest of these.” But rather than practicing love, we choose to practice lesser things.
Why is this so? Because the very definition of love entails “personal sacrifice.” How much sacrifice is spent on power? Prestige? Fame? Accumulation of money? Cleverness? Love on the other hand demands our all. This is why we set love aside and look for something else less demanding of us. If you haven’t read all four articles, go back and start with Part 1. By the end of your readings, you will be given a better perspective on what battles you need to focus on and how to best fight such battles. Enjoy!
Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 4
Michael Craven
We now come to our third and final example of cultural engagement: the early Christian church and its triumph over the pagan culture of Rome. The Roman world was brutal and generally indifferent to suffering. Sympathy and mercy were weaknesses, virtues anathema to those of Rome. The ancient world was both decadent and cruel. The practice of infanticide, for example, was widespread and legal throughout the Greek and Roman world during the early days of Christianity. In fact, abortion, infanticide, and child sacrifice were extremely common throughout the ancient world.
Cicero (106-43 BC), writing in the period before Christ, cited the Twelve Tables of Roman Law when he wrote, "deformed infants should be killed" (De Ligibus 3.8). Similarly, Seneca (4 BC-AD 39) wrote, "We drown children who are at birth weakly and abnormal" (De Ira1.15). The ancient writer Plutarch (c. AD 46-120), discussing the casual acceptance of child sacrifice, mentions the Carthaginians, who, he says, "offered up their own children, and those who had no children would buy little ones from poor people and cut their throats as if they were so many lambs or young birds while the mother stood by without tear or moan" (Moralia 2.171D). Polybius (ca. 200-118 BC) blamed infanticide for the population decline in Greece (Histories 6).
Historical research reveals that infanticide was common throughout India, China, Japan, and the Brazilian jungles as well as among the Eskimos. Dr. James Dennis, writing in the 1890s, showed how infanticide was common in many parts of Africa and was "well known among the Indians of North and South America" (Social Evils of the Non-Christian World, 1898). Suffice it to say, for much of the world and throughout most of its history the culture of death and brutality has been the rule, and a culture of life, love, and mercy has been the exception. It is to the cause of this exception that we now turn.
In roughly AD 27, a young Jewish carpenter—in an obscure Roman outpost—began to preach and teach, saying he was the Son of God, the savior of the world, the promised Messiah of the Jewish Scriptures. He claimed to be a king whose kingdom was not of this world—a kingdom without end. This king—Jesus—would validate all that had been revealed to the Israelites: there was a God and this God, who was hidden from the world, was a personal being who had made mankind in his image because he desired a relationship with mankind.
And so this Holy God further revealed himself—becoming incarnate. God became flesh and dwelt among us to do what only he could do: reconcile the chasm between God and man that sin had caused. God would implement his plan for reconciling man to God, man to himself, man to man, and man to creation. Suddenly, a radically new conception of reality, the world, and life would take hold. A new ethic and morality would challenge the old. All life would now be understood as precious, the intentional gift of a loving God. The kingdom of God was inaugurated on earth! A new day had dawned, and those who had been drawn into this kingdom began to think and act in new ways. They would strive to live and act in obedience to their king—not their flesh and not their culture.
These early Christ-followers did not organize special interest groups or political parties. They never directly opposed Caesar; they didn't picket or protest or attempt to overthrow the ruling powers. They didn't publicly denounce or condemn the pagan world. Instead, they challenged the ruling powers by simply being a faithful, alternative presence—obedient to God. Their most distinguishing characteristic was not their ideology or their politics but their love for others. They lived as those who were, once again, living under the rule and reign of God, a sign and foretaste of what it will be fully, when Christ returns.
They expressed their opposition to infanticide by rescuing the abandoned children of Rome and raising them as their own—an enormously self-sacrificial act at a time when resources were limited and survival was in doubt.
Following the end of the Punic Wars in 146 BC, the breakdown of marriage and the family had begun in earnest. By the time of Christ, Rome was a pornographic culture. Marriage was a "loose and voluntary compact" (Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire [reprint, London: Penguin Books, 1994] 2:813). Sexual licentiousness, adultery, marital dissolution, and pornography were widespread. It was into this depraved cultural context that Christians would introduce a radically new and different view of life, sexuality, marriage, and parenting. In contrast to the Roman concept of Patria Potestas, according to which fathers had the right to kill their wives and children, Christians taught husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church. Eros gave way to agape.
The early Christians, acting in obedience to Christ, began to care for the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. So alien were their charitable acts and self-sacrificial lives that the Romans referred to them as "the third race." In the centuries to follow, even though Christians were still a demographic minority, their care of the poor and sick, would serve as the first steps in achieving cultural authority. By being seen as those who reached out to and cared for the weak and suffering, the early church would establish its "right to stand for the community as a whole" (John Howard Yoder, For the Nations: Essays Evangelical and Public [Eugene, OR: Wifp and Stock, 1997] p. 8). Sociologist James Davidson Hunter points out, "because Christian charity was beneficial to all, including pagans, imperial authority [political authority] would be weakened" (To Change the World, 2009, p. 55).
Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of Rome, clearly understood the power of these Christians when he wrote the following:
These impious Galileans (Christians) not only feed their own, but ours also; welcoming them with their agape, they attract them, as children are attracted with cakes… Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. Such practice is common among them, and causes contempt for our gods (Epistle to Pagan High Priests).
Emperor Julian clearly saw the writing on the wall. The Roman Empire would not succumb to political upheaval or force but to love, the love of Christ. Julian's dying words in AD 363 were "vicisti Galilaee" (You Galileans [Christians] have conquered!).
Once imperial power was discredited by the superior life and ethic of the Christian community, the church would build upon its newfound cultural credibility and eventually ascend to the heights of cultural power and influence. And, Western civilization would become the most successful civilization in history.
If I am correct—and the history of the church bears this out—then the most effective approach to changing the culture in our day begins by being a faithful presence. Being faithfully present—odedient to God—in our families, our marriages, our neighborhoods and communities, and our vocations, a presence woefully lacking in the American church today.
I am reminded that our struggle is not against flesh and blood but "against the cosmic powers over this present darkness" (Eph. 6:12 ESV). And how did Christ conquer these powers? By coercive might or worldly conceptions of power? No! Christ overcame the world by the unanticipated and ultimate act of love and humility—he poured out his life on behalf of the world. May we do the same and pray the rulers of our age say on their deathbeds, "vicisti Galilaee" (You Christians have conquered)!
End of Part 4 of 4
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 3
Note: In Part 3, Michael Craven will focus in on abortion and show that a root cause for it was born out of a need for maintaining personal autonomy. He shows in Part 3 how the advancement and expression of SELF we see in the sexual revolution of the past and on into our present is really about personal autonomy. The bible calls this idolatry or the worship of self (Rom. 1:23).
Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 3
Michael Craven
The second example in our study of cultural engagement is the legalization of abortion. The legalization of abortion did not emerge out of a vacuum nor did it appear as a sudden and unexpected contrast to established values. Roe v. Wade was the inevitable consequence of incremental cultural changes that began with the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. The Enlightenment would, among other things, give birth to the "autonomous self." Modern man would seek to exalt himself above God, leading to sexual anarchy and removing all impediments to unfettered sexual expression.
Pitirim Sorokin, the founder of the sociology department at Harvard University, wrote this in 1956:
Among the many changes of the last few decades, a peculiar revolution has been taking place in the lives of millions of American men and women… it goes almost unnoticed. … Unmarked by dramatic events on a large scale, it is free from civil war, class struggle, and bloodshed. …It does not try to overthrow governments… Without plan or organization, it is carried on by millions of individuals, each acting on his own….Its name is the sexual revolution.
Sorokin is describing a change in our cultural condition, a condition that—on the surface—appears free from any visible or overt influence. However, that is not to say that forces instrumental to this change weren't present. As to the cause of this revolution, Sorokin observed that, "Any considerable change in marriage behavior, and increase in sexual promiscuity, and illicit relations, is pregnant with momentous consequences" (The American Sex Revolution, [Porter Sargent: Boston, MA, 1956] p. 7).
It is here that we can begin to identify the emergence of cultural change. In 1870 there was one divorce for every 33.7 marriages. By 1956 that number had already changed to 1 divorce for every 3 marriages (Revolution, p. 8). This is not a significant difference from where we are today, with roughly 1 divorce for every 2 marriages. Thus the breakdown in marriage began somewhere between the latter half of the nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth century. This shift in attitude toward marriage and monogamy corresponds with the establishment of Enlightenment ideas within our culture-forming institutions such as education, media and the arts, science and philosophy, government, and so on. This transfer of power within the commanding heights of culture was only made possible by the church's retreat from these same institutions.
The Enlightenment sought to free man from subordination to the divine. Human reason became divine and man—unrestrained by anything outside himself—would, in essence, worship himself. Modern man would (and still does) embrace the myth of the autonomous self and this assertion of autonomy would eventually find it fullest expression in sexuality.
In the late nineteenth century, Sigmund Freud would argue that "sexual love [is] the prototype of all happiness." Among other things, this definition implied that love is based ultimately on the pursuit of pleasure—a quest to satisfy the self rather than others. Thus the self-sacrificial love of agape, rooted in the Christian worldview, would begin to be supplanted by the self-centered desire of eros or erotic love, rooted in the autonomous self.
On the heels of Freud came Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League in 1921, which would go on to become Planned Parenthood. Sanger, like Freud, argued that the repression of sexual desires was harmful, adding that such repression would result in negative health consequences and even the inhibition of intellectual capacity—not an uncommon theory in her era. From our vantage point, we easily see Sanger as a moral monster. However, Sanger's argument for abortion as a tool for population control and poverty alleviation gained traction precisely because there was growing agreement with Darwinism and eugenics among elites, which was buoyed by a racism among the populace that was prevalent at the time.
Following Sanger, a two-part cultural phenomenon took place in 1948 and 1953 with the publication of Dr. Alfred Kinsey's monumental works on male and female sexuality. Kinsey [a zoologist] determined to demonstrate that Americans were far more sexually deviant than was actually the case, thereby disproving the traditional belief that private immorality has public consequences. For Kinsey, any moral restraint on sexual conduct was against nature. Kinsey would succeed by fabricating new science using dubious data to reform America's laws governing sexual conduct and subsequently changing social attitudes toward sexual mores.
Then, in December of 1953, Hugh Hefner, building on Kinsey's inspiration, launched Playboy magazine. In his first issue, he acknowledged his commitment to Kinsey's findings. He wrote, "We believe we are fulfilling a publishing need only slightly less important than one just taken care of by the Kinsey Report."
According to Hefner, "Playboy freed a generation from guilt about sex, changed some laws and helped launch a revolution or two." Playboy is the magazine that changed America by waging war on marriage and its implicit monogamy—a major impediment to sexual autonomy.
While Hugh Hefner was popularizing the Kinsey philosophy through the Playboy culture, another notable figure was introducing the Kinsey philosophy to America's school children beginning in 1964. Dr. Mary Calderone, a former Kinsey associate, was chosen to lead the newly formed Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Established by the Kinsey Institute, SIECUS became and remains one of the most influential resources for sex-education in America's public schools. The initial grant to establish SIECUS was given by Hugh Hefner through the Playboy Foundation.
Calderone wrote: A new stage of evolution is breaking across the horizon and the task of educators is to prepare children to step into that new world. To do this, they must pry children away from old views and values, especially from biblical and other traditional forms of sexual morality—for religious laws or rules about sex were made on the basis of ignorance (Mary Calderone and Eric Johnson, The Family Book About Sexuality (New York: Harper & Row, 1981), 171.
Finally, in 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States would remove the final barrier to complete and absolute sexual autonomy: the risk of procreation. Americans would now have the right to kill their unborn children and preserve their autonomy.
And what was the basis of the court's decision? Privacy. In other words, the autonomy of the individual woman was elevated over and above both the interests of society and the child she carries.
It was the quest for autonomy, born in the ideology of the enlightenment and expressed in the secular humanistic worldview that now shaped the culture-forming institutions in America.
Rather than a grass-roots movement, the abortion culture was the product of a distinct worldview held by a relatively small network of people—cultural elites who possessed the credentials to shape our key culture-forming institutions. Christians, generally speaking, no longer lead the institutions of culture‚ where the culture is actually formed. It is why we are losing the culture war: we're not fighting on the right battlefield or with the right weapons.
End of Part 3 of 4
Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 3
Michael Craven
The second example in our study of cultural engagement is the legalization of abortion. The legalization of abortion did not emerge out of a vacuum nor did it appear as a sudden and unexpected contrast to established values. Roe v. Wade was the inevitable consequence of incremental cultural changes that began with the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. The Enlightenment would, among other things, give birth to the "autonomous self." Modern man would seek to exalt himself above God, leading to sexual anarchy and removing all impediments to unfettered sexual expression.
Pitirim Sorokin, the founder of the sociology department at Harvard University, wrote this in 1956:
Among the many changes of the last few decades, a peculiar revolution has been taking place in the lives of millions of American men and women… it goes almost unnoticed. … Unmarked by dramatic events on a large scale, it is free from civil war, class struggle, and bloodshed. …It does not try to overthrow governments… Without plan or organization, it is carried on by millions of individuals, each acting on his own….Its name is the sexual revolution.
Sorokin is describing a change in our cultural condition, a condition that—on the surface—appears free from any visible or overt influence. However, that is not to say that forces instrumental to this change weren't present. As to the cause of this revolution, Sorokin observed that, "Any considerable change in marriage behavior, and increase in sexual promiscuity, and illicit relations, is pregnant with momentous consequences" (The American Sex Revolution, [Porter Sargent: Boston, MA, 1956] p. 7).
It is here that we can begin to identify the emergence of cultural change. In 1870 there was one divorce for every 33.7 marriages. By 1956 that number had already changed to 1 divorce for every 3 marriages (Revolution, p. 8). This is not a significant difference from where we are today, with roughly 1 divorce for every 2 marriages. Thus the breakdown in marriage began somewhere between the latter half of the nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth century. This shift in attitude toward marriage and monogamy corresponds with the establishment of Enlightenment ideas within our culture-forming institutions such as education, media and the arts, science and philosophy, government, and so on. This transfer of power within the commanding heights of culture was only made possible by the church's retreat from these same institutions.
The Enlightenment sought to free man from subordination to the divine. Human reason became divine and man—unrestrained by anything outside himself—would, in essence, worship himself. Modern man would (and still does) embrace the myth of the autonomous self and this assertion of autonomy would eventually find it fullest expression in sexuality.
In the late nineteenth century, Sigmund Freud would argue that "sexual love [is] the prototype of all happiness." Among other things, this definition implied that love is based ultimately on the pursuit of pleasure—a quest to satisfy the self rather than others. Thus the self-sacrificial love of agape, rooted in the Christian worldview, would begin to be supplanted by the self-centered desire of eros or erotic love, rooted in the autonomous self.
On the heels of Freud came Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League in 1921, which would go on to become Planned Parenthood. Sanger, like Freud, argued that the repression of sexual desires was harmful, adding that such repression would result in negative health consequences and even the inhibition of intellectual capacity—not an uncommon theory in her era. From our vantage point, we easily see Sanger as a moral monster. However, Sanger's argument for abortion as a tool for population control and poverty alleviation gained traction precisely because there was growing agreement with Darwinism and eugenics among elites, which was buoyed by a racism among the populace that was prevalent at the time.
Following Sanger, a two-part cultural phenomenon took place in 1948 and 1953 with the publication of Dr. Alfred Kinsey's monumental works on male and female sexuality. Kinsey [a zoologist] determined to demonstrate that Americans were far more sexually deviant than was actually the case, thereby disproving the traditional belief that private immorality has public consequences. For Kinsey, any moral restraint on sexual conduct was against nature. Kinsey would succeed by fabricating new science using dubious data to reform America's laws governing sexual conduct and subsequently changing social attitudes toward sexual mores.
Then, in December of 1953, Hugh Hefner, building on Kinsey's inspiration, launched Playboy magazine. In his first issue, he acknowledged his commitment to Kinsey's findings. He wrote, "We believe we are fulfilling a publishing need only slightly less important than one just taken care of by the Kinsey Report."
According to Hefner, "Playboy freed a generation from guilt about sex, changed some laws and helped launch a revolution or two." Playboy is the magazine that changed America by waging war on marriage and its implicit monogamy—a major impediment to sexual autonomy.
While Hugh Hefner was popularizing the Kinsey philosophy through the Playboy culture, another notable figure was introducing the Kinsey philosophy to America's school children beginning in 1964. Dr. Mary Calderone, a former Kinsey associate, was chosen to lead the newly formed Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS). Established by the Kinsey Institute, SIECUS became and remains one of the most influential resources for sex-education in America's public schools. The initial grant to establish SIECUS was given by Hugh Hefner through the Playboy Foundation.
Calderone wrote: A new stage of evolution is breaking across the horizon and the task of educators is to prepare children to step into that new world. To do this, they must pry children away from old views and values, especially from biblical and other traditional forms of sexual morality—for religious laws or rules about sex were made on the basis of ignorance (Mary Calderone and Eric Johnson, The Family Book About Sexuality (New York: Harper & Row, 1981), 171.
Finally, in 1973, the Supreme Court of the United States would remove the final barrier to complete and absolute sexual autonomy: the risk of procreation. Americans would now have the right to kill their unborn children and preserve their autonomy.
And what was the basis of the court's decision? Privacy. In other words, the autonomy of the individual woman was elevated over and above both the interests of society and the child she carries.
It was the quest for autonomy, born in the ideology of the enlightenment and expressed in the secular humanistic worldview that now shaped the culture-forming institutions in America.
Rather than a grass-roots movement, the abortion culture was the product of a distinct worldview held by a relatively small network of people—cultural elites who possessed the credentials to shape our key culture-forming institutions. Christians, generally speaking, no longer lead the institutions of culture‚ where the culture is actually formed. It is why we are losing the culture war: we're not fighting on the right battlefield or with the right weapons.
End of Part 3 of 4
Monday, November 22, 2010
Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 2
Note: Remember the statement: "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Michael Craven gives one proof from history the church has forgotten – The Prohibition Movement. Morality cannot be legislated. His statement: “The church's characteristic love of neighbor was diminished by a perceived desire to control thy neighbor. This perception would only embolden resistance to the church's role in the public square and its kingdom mission.” Enjoy the history lesson.
Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 2
Michael Craven
Our first example of cultural engagement is Prohibition (also known as the Noble Experiment), which lasted from 1920 to 1933, and banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption. The prohibition movement, which actually started in the 1840s, suffered a brief respite during the Civil War and was revived in 1869 with the creation of the Prohibition Party. However, it was the establishment of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union in 1873 that would mobilize its constituents—primarily the Protestant church—to achieve Prohibition in 1920. This was‚ in effect‚ the beginning of the culture war as we have come to know it. At its peak, the Temperance Union boasted close to 400,000 members with chapters in almost every major city and town throughout North America.
The Temperance Union initiated and led one of the largest grass-roots movements in American history. The sheer enormity of this movement brought extraordinary political weight to bear on state and federal legislators. The goal was moral reform and the means were political pressure, eventually resulting in the 18th amendment to the constitution.
Upon achieving Prohibition, the famous preacher and evangelist Billy Sunday declared: “The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.”
Like so many Christians of his day, Billy Sunday believed a great moral and religious victory had been won. He, and they, would be wrong.
Initially, Prohibition appeared to be working. Liquor consumption dropped, arrests for drunkenness fell, and the price for illegal alcohol rose higher than the average worker could afford.
However, shortly after Prohibition was passed, disobedience toward the law and law enforcement began in earnest. The intensity of the temperance movement was matched only by the inventiveness of those who wanted to keep drinking. Enforcing Prohibition proved to be extremely difficult. The illegal production and distribution of liquor, or bootlegging, became rampant, and the national government did not have the means or desire to try to enforce every border, lake, river, and speakeasy (an establishment illegally selling liquor by the drink) in America.
In fact, by 1925 in New York City alone there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs. The demand for alcohol was outweighing (and outwinning) the demand for sobriety.
In addition to the fact that Prohibition was largely ineffective at reducing (much less eliminating) alcohol consumption, it actually created new and more serious social problems. Crime became organized on a scale previously unseen—still a problem today—and crime syndicates accumulated unprecedented wealth and power. Violence skyrocketed as gangs fought for supremacy and corruption among government officials became an embarrassing national scandal. Economically, tax revenues of nearly $500 million annually disappeared from federal coffers, more than ten percent of federal income. In an effort to stop bootleggers from using industrial ethyl alcohol to produce illegal spirits, the government ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols.
Bootleggers responded by renaturing the alcohol at which point, the Treasury Department ordered the use of even more deadly poisons such as methyl alcohol; this killed more than 10,000 people during the period of Prohibition (Deborah Blum, "The Chemist's War: The Little-told Story of how the U.S. Government Poisoned Alcohol During Prohibition, with Deadly Consequences," Slate, Feb. 2010).
Near the end of Prohibition, Americans were weary of what had become a social and moral disaster. In 1932 wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Jr. summarized the sentiment of Prohibition's many disheartened supporters:
When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.
Here's the point. As Robert George, fellow Christian and noted Princeton law professor points out, "the legal prohibition of anything works well only when supported by a widespread recognition of the evil of the thing prohibited" (Clash of Orthodoxies: Law Religion & Morality In Crisis, [Intercollegiate Studies Institute: Wilmington, DE, 2002]). Unfortunately for Prohibition, the public did not recognize "the evil of the thing prohibited." This is the problem with trying to moralize society through political coercion: good law follows the cultural and moral consensus; it cannot create it. In other words, law cannot change the culture as it relates to the actual beliefs and values of society.
Finally, the church's aggressive actions in the prohibition of alcohol helped to alter the public perception of the church from a valued social institution to an overbearing political interest group determined to impose its will on an unwilling public. The church's characteristic love of neighbor was diminished by a perceived desire to control thy neighbor. This perception would only embolden resistance to the church's role in the public square and its kingdom mission.
End of Part 2 of 4
Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 2
Michael Craven
Our first example of cultural engagement is Prohibition (also known as the Noble Experiment), which lasted from 1920 to 1933, and banned the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol for consumption. The prohibition movement, which actually started in the 1840s, suffered a brief respite during the Civil War and was revived in 1869 with the creation of the Prohibition Party. However, it was the establishment of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union in 1873 that would mobilize its constituents—primarily the Protestant church—to achieve Prohibition in 1920. This was‚ in effect‚ the beginning of the culture war as we have come to know it. At its peak, the Temperance Union boasted close to 400,000 members with chapters in almost every major city and town throughout North America.
The Temperance Union initiated and led one of the largest grass-roots movements in American history. The sheer enormity of this movement brought extraordinary political weight to bear on state and federal legislators. The goal was moral reform and the means were political pressure, eventually resulting in the 18th amendment to the constitution.
Upon achieving Prohibition, the famous preacher and evangelist Billy Sunday declared: “The reign of tears is over. The slums will soon be a memory. We will turn our prisons into factories and our jails into storehouses and corncribs. Men will walk upright now, women will smile and children will laugh. Hell will be forever for rent.”
Like so many Christians of his day, Billy Sunday believed a great moral and religious victory had been won. He, and they, would be wrong.
Initially, Prohibition appeared to be working. Liquor consumption dropped, arrests for drunkenness fell, and the price for illegal alcohol rose higher than the average worker could afford.
However, shortly after Prohibition was passed, disobedience toward the law and law enforcement began in earnest. The intensity of the temperance movement was matched only by the inventiveness of those who wanted to keep drinking. Enforcing Prohibition proved to be extremely difficult. The illegal production and distribution of liquor, or bootlegging, became rampant, and the national government did not have the means or desire to try to enforce every border, lake, river, and speakeasy (an establishment illegally selling liquor by the drink) in America.
In fact, by 1925 in New York City alone there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs. The demand for alcohol was outweighing (and outwinning) the demand for sobriety.
In addition to the fact that Prohibition was largely ineffective at reducing (much less eliminating) alcohol consumption, it actually created new and more serious social problems. Crime became organized on a scale previously unseen—still a problem today—and crime syndicates accumulated unprecedented wealth and power. Violence skyrocketed as gangs fought for supremacy and corruption among government officials became an embarrassing national scandal. Economically, tax revenues of nearly $500 million annually disappeared from federal coffers, more than ten percent of federal income. In an effort to stop bootleggers from using industrial ethyl alcohol to produce illegal spirits, the government ordered the poisoning of industrial alcohols.
Bootleggers responded by renaturing the alcohol at which point, the Treasury Department ordered the use of even more deadly poisons such as methyl alcohol; this killed more than 10,000 people during the period of Prohibition (Deborah Blum, "The Chemist's War: The Little-told Story of how the U.S. Government Poisoned Alcohol During Prohibition, with Deadly Consequences," Slate, Feb. 2010).
Near the end of Prohibition, Americans were weary of what had become a social and moral disaster. In 1932 wealthy industrialist John D. Rockefeller, Jr. summarized the sentiment of Prohibition's many disheartened supporters:
When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.
Here's the point. As Robert George, fellow Christian and noted Princeton law professor points out, "the legal prohibition of anything works well only when supported by a widespread recognition of the evil of the thing prohibited" (Clash of Orthodoxies: Law Religion & Morality In Crisis, [Intercollegiate Studies Institute: Wilmington, DE, 2002]). Unfortunately for Prohibition, the public did not recognize "the evil of the thing prohibited." This is the problem with trying to moralize society through political coercion: good law follows the cultural and moral consensus; it cannot create it. In other words, law cannot change the culture as it relates to the actual beliefs and values of society.
Finally, the church's aggressive actions in the prohibition of alcohol helped to alter the public perception of the church from a valued social institution to an overbearing political interest group determined to impose its will on an unwilling public. The church's characteristic love of neighbor was diminished by a perceived desire to control thy neighbor. This perception would only embolden resistance to the church's role in the public square and its kingdom mission.
End of Part 2 of 4
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Changing Culture: A Study in Cultural Engagement, Part 1
Note: How should the church seek to change the culture around it? Is it by preaching the gospel? Is it through social activism? Is it through a political process? What exactly is the church's mission and how can it best carry it out?
Michael Craven has put together a four part series on this very issue. I have underlined and highlighted sections of this article and future ones (four parts total) that caught my interests. Read these four part articles closely and prayerfully. Michael touches upon a topic that in some ways divides Christians. Where do you stand? Enjoy!
By Michael Craven
(Adapted from a lecture given at the Troutt Lecture Series on behalf of the Council for Life in Dallas, Texas on October 7, 2010.)
Changing from the culture of death to a culture of life. This is really an audacious statement when you think about it and yet we talk of changing the culture all the time, as if this is an easy thing to do. Of course, as Christians, we do desire to see the culture reflect values and beliefs that represent the kingdom and honor Christ. However, when we speak this way we are speaking in terms that reflect an inadequate understanding of culture‚ what it is and how it is formed. Furthermore, such declarations assume that culture is a rather simple state of affairs—the mere rearrangement of which will yield a different culture. The fact is, culture is a far more complex phenomenon‚ especially our culture today with its extraordinary contest and synthesis of ideas, values, and worldviews.
As to the means of achieving this "rearrangement," the prevailing view seems to be, "If you can change the hearts and minds of enough people, the culture will necessarily follow." Over the course of the next several weeks, I will challenge this assumption and offer what I think—and what history seems to prove—is a far more effective approach to cultural engagement, especially if the goal is real change in the society's values and beliefs.
In light of the "hearts and minds" approach, there have‚ over the years‚ arisen a multitude of well-intended—mostly conservative—organizations built upon this premise. However, I would argue that this approach tends to only garner a constituency of like-minded folks; those who already share the same hearts and minds. What they generally fail to achieve in any measure are conversions‚ meaning the persuasion from one side of an issue to the other. This reality ultimately leads to a shift—intended or otherwise—in strategy. What often begins as an earnest effort at public persuasion—the affirmation of a higher ideal—inevitably gives way to political advocacy on behalf of the organization's constituents. The already converted don't need to be persuaded; what they want is to see their view of the world advanced over and against all other competitors. They want a "champion" who will insure their view triumphs.
This change in approach to cultural engagement is largely the result of politicization. What do I mean by politicization? Several weeks ago, In James Davidson Hunter's recent book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2010), he argues that "in response to a thinning consensus of substantive beliefs and dispositions in the larger culture, there has been a turn toward politics as a foundation and structure for social solidarity." Hunter is saying is that due to the disintegration of common values, worldviews, and the like that now animate our pluralistic culture, our society is increasingly polarized as competing interests seek to establish their respective views as the right view. As a consequence, persuasion is thought to be an inadequate way of competing, so in order to defend (or advance) our view, we resort to worldly forms of power—namely political power.
In light of this quest to triumph rather than persuade, organizations—including, in some ways, the American church—inevitably alter their mission. We are no longer content to say, "Help us persuade others to see a better way‚" or "Help us help others be faithful." When the issues become politicized, concerns necessarily shift from the good of all to primarily the interests of the group and their advance. Fear replaces the affirmation of higher ideals as the means of motivation, and opponents become the enemy. And in the case of the church, we simply make ourselves one more "special interest group."
Of course, everyone justifies this approach‚ both on the left and the right‚ convincing themselves that the advance of their agenda is in the best interest of all. However, politicization forces the abandonment of the "us for them" approach for an "us against them" tactic and constituents simply become the financiers of the campaign. Success is only measureable by "winning"; merely being faithful—a somewhat ambiguous quality—is no longer tolerable. Thus these efforts, which began with the goal of commending their view of the world, eventually descend into political coercion as the means of cultural change.
That is not to say that political activism is unimportant; it isn't! Nor am I saying we should avoid politics. I'm not! What I am saying is this: our expectations of politics are often way too high, far beyond their real power. For one, politics has never been the means of actually changing the culture and, two, it is certainly not the means by which the Christian church—the most powerful social and cultural transforming force in history—has or should fulfill its mission and purpose.
Over the course of the next several weeks, I will give three examples of cultural engagement. The first is the Prohibition movement, which sought to accomplish moral reform through coercive political means and ultimately failed, eventually doing harm in the process. Next we will examine the abortion-on-demand movement, which as I will show, employed a more sophisticated approach to cultural engagement and thereby achieved a significant measure of success. And finally, we will look at the early Christian church and its true triumph over pagan Rome.
End of Part 1 of 4
Michael Craven has put together a four part series on this very issue. I have underlined and highlighted sections of this article and future ones (four parts total) that caught my interests. Read these four part articles closely and prayerfully. Michael touches upon a topic that in some ways divides Christians. Where do you stand? Enjoy!
By Michael Craven
(Adapted from a lecture given at the Troutt Lecture Series on behalf of the Council for Life in Dallas, Texas on October 7, 2010.)
Changing from the culture of death to a culture of life. This is really an audacious statement when you think about it and yet we talk of changing the culture all the time, as if this is an easy thing to do. Of course, as Christians, we do desire to see the culture reflect values and beliefs that represent the kingdom and honor Christ. However, when we speak this way we are speaking in terms that reflect an inadequate understanding of culture‚ what it is and how it is formed. Furthermore, such declarations assume that culture is a rather simple state of affairs—the mere rearrangement of which will yield a different culture. The fact is, culture is a far more complex phenomenon‚ especially our culture today with its extraordinary contest and synthesis of ideas, values, and worldviews.
As to the means of achieving this "rearrangement," the prevailing view seems to be, "If you can change the hearts and minds of enough people, the culture will necessarily follow." Over the course of the next several weeks, I will challenge this assumption and offer what I think—and what history seems to prove—is a far more effective approach to cultural engagement, especially if the goal is real change in the society's values and beliefs.
In light of the "hearts and minds" approach, there have‚ over the years‚ arisen a multitude of well-intended—mostly conservative—organizations built upon this premise. However, I would argue that this approach tends to only garner a constituency of like-minded folks; those who already share the same hearts and minds. What they generally fail to achieve in any measure are conversions‚ meaning the persuasion from one side of an issue to the other. This reality ultimately leads to a shift—intended or otherwise—in strategy. What often begins as an earnest effort at public persuasion—the affirmation of a higher ideal—inevitably gives way to political advocacy on behalf of the organization's constituents. The already converted don't need to be persuaded; what they want is to see their view of the world advanced over and against all other competitors. They want a "champion" who will insure their view triumphs.
This change in approach to cultural engagement is largely the result of politicization. What do I mean by politicization? Several weeks ago, In James Davidson Hunter's recent book, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2010), he argues that "in response to a thinning consensus of substantive beliefs and dispositions in the larger culture, there has been a turn toward politics as a foundation and structure for social solidarity." Hunter is saying is that due to the disintegration of common values, worldviews, and the like that now animate our pluralistic culture, our society is increasingly polarized as competing interests seek to establish their respective views as the right view. As a consequence, persuasion is thought to be an inadequate way of competing, so in order to defend (or advance) our view, we resort to worldly forms of power—namely political power.
In light of this quest to triumph rather than persuade, organizations—including, in some ways, the American church—inevitably alter their mission. We are no longer content to say, "Help us persuade others to see a better way‚" or "Help us help others be faithful." When the issues become politicized, concerns necessarily shift from the good of all to primarily the interests of the group and their advance. Fear replaces the affirmation of higher ideals as the means of motivation, and opponents become the enemy. And in the case of the church, we simply make ourselves one more "special interest group."
Of course, everyone justifies this approach‚ both on the left and the right‚ convincing themselves that the advance of their agenda is in the best interest of all. However, politicization forces the abandonment of the "us for them" approach for an "us against them" tactic and constituents simply become the financiers of the campaign. Success is only measureable by "winning"; merely being faithful—a somewhat ambiguous quality—is no longer tolerable. Thus these efforts, which began with the goal of commending their view of the world, eventually descend into political coercion as the means of cultural change.
That is not to say that political activism is unimportant; it isn't! Nor am I saying we should avoid politics. I'm not! What I am saying is this: our expectations of politics are often way too high, far beyond their real power. For one, politics has never been the means of actually changing the culture and, two, it is certainly not the means by which the Christian church—the most powerful social and cultural transforming force in history—has or should fulfill its mission and purpose.
Over the course of the next several weeks, I will give three examples of cultural engagement. The first is the Prohibition movement, which sought to accomplish moral reform through coercive political means and ultimately failed, eventually doing harm in the process. Next we will examine the abortion-on-demand movement, which as I will show, employed a more sophisticated approach to cultural engagement and thereby achieved a significant measure of success. And finally, we will look at the early Christian church and its true triumph over pagan Rome.
End of Part 1 of 4
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Coping with Consequences
For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal – 2 Corinthians 6:17-18 NIV
Charles Swindoll wrote the following words. He expressed it so well that I offer it to you. The two truths he lays out below are the truths that I also have exactly felt and believed during some of my own darkest times. Enjoy!
I have found great help from two truths God gave me at a time in my life when I was bombarded with a series of unexpected and unfair blows (from my perspective). In my darkest hours these principles still become my anchor of stability, my only means of survival.
Because they work for me, I pass them on to you. Memorize them. Write them on a card and carry it at all times.
First Truth: Nothing touches me that has not passed through the hands of my heavenly Father. Nothing. Whatever occurs, God has sovereignly surveyed and approved. We may not know why, but we do know our pain is no accident to Him who guides our lives.
Second Truth: Everything I endure is designed to prepare me for serving others more effectively. Everything. Since my Heavenly Father is committed to shaping me into the image of His Son, He knows the ultimate value of this painful experience. It is being used to empty my hands of my own resources, my own sufficiency, and turn me back to Him---the faithful Provider. And God knows what will get through to me.
Things may not be logical or fair, but when God is directing the events of my life, they are right.
Charles Swindoll wrote the following words. He expressed it so well that I offer it to you. The two truths he lays out below are the truths that I also have exactly felt and believed during some of my own darkest times. Enjoy!
I have found great help from two truths God gave me at a time in my life when I was bombarded with a series of unexpected and unfair blows (from my perspective). In my darkest hours these principles still become my anchor of stability, my only means of survival.
Because they work for me, I pass them on to you. Memorize them. Write them on a card and carry it at all times.
First Truth: Nothing touches me that has not passed through the hands of my heavenly Father. Nothing. Whatever occurs, God has sovereignly surveyed and approved. We may not know why, but we do know our pain is no accident to Him who guides our lives.
Second Truth: Everything I endure is designed to prepare me for serving others more effectively. Everything. Since my Heavenly Father is committed to shaping me into the image of His Son, He knows the ultimate value of this painful experience. It is being used to empty my hands of my own resources, my own sufficiency, and turn me back to Him---the faithful Provider. And God knows what will get through to me.
Things may not be logical or fair, but when God is directing the events of my life, they are right.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)