As devout Catholics and faithful Mormons step forward boldly, evangelical Protestants appear in cultural disarray. The most popular of the new generation of evangelical pastors—Rick Warren and Joel Osteen—stay out of the cultural fray. Evangelical youth may have orthodox opinions on marriage or life, but they're increasingly reluctant to voice those opinions, lest they appear "divisive" or "intolerant." In fact, at times it appears as if much of the evangelical world has retreated into a defensive crouch, eager to promote its universally-loved work for the poor while abjectly apologizing for the cultural battles of years past.
Ouch. If you're an evangelical, that had to hurt a little. Speaking of the Catholic faith, French mused that:
Catholics who study church doctrine, who immerse themselves in the teachings of the church, understand that to defend life is to imitate Christ. Life is not just an "issue," for a Catholic; it is at the core of the Gospel
And speaking of the Mormon faith, he observed:
Born in an atmosphere of violent persecution, with a cultural heritage buttressed by their own perilous trek across the wilderness to the haven of Utah, and with strong emphases on family and church bonds, the Mormon culture is inherently resilient in the face of cultural headwinds. Two-year missions teach Mormon children about selfless service but also how to face rejection and even scorn. Evangelicals, by contrast, are often shocked when co-workers turn on them, or when the country drifts from its heritage. Mormons aren't so easily shaken.
I think his observations are interesting. He's captured the essence of Catholics, Mormons, and mainstream Protestant evangelicals with just a few brushstrokes. His scathing assessment of mainstream evangelicals may ruffle a few feathers, but perhaps that's a good thing. French sums up by saying:
We also lack the shared Catholic and Mormon culture and the solidarity that comes with it. We're more unified than we've been in the past, but we're a collection of subcultures that comprise a shaky, larger whole. And we are often desperate for acceptance. We view the transient scorn of popular culture as a virtual cataclysm, and our distressingly common health and wealth gospels wrongly teach us that Christian faith carries with it measurable earthly pleasures. We lack a theology of suffering. We lack a unity of purpose. And our convictions all too often collapse in the face of strong cultural opposition.
Simply put, we evangelicals are blown and tossed by the cultural winds. Right now, the winds are blowing against us, and our young people are reluctant to engage. But God is sovereign, and the fate of the nation is in His hands, not ours. And if we fail, there are others—some from an ancient tradition, some from a new one—who may very well carry out His work with more faith and courage than we ever could.
H/T to the advert-plagued HotAir.
A very interesting read. I think this is an expansion of "You'd better stand for something or you will stand for nothing." And that is precisely what the left has in mind.
ReplyDeleteI think that one advantage that both Catholics and Mormons (more so Mormons in America) have over mainstream Protestant denominations is that our faith is also a culture for us.
ReplyDeleteWe have rites of passage and social events that we can all call up as common experiences; attending CCD, baptism, First Communion, Confirmation. We all hear the same Bible readings each Sunday (technically, each day - as Bible readings are assigned each day). And even those who are Christmas and Easter Catholics share the commonalities of the expectations.
It is easier to hold fast to your beliefs if you feel that you are a vested part of a larger group that you can count on.
The Catholic Church no longer supports its schools the way it used to in America, and if you ask me that is a screaming shame. I realize that there is always a decision about monetary expenditures, but an affordable Catholic education used to be the linchpin of the church's future. It makes a HUGE difference, and solidifies the church's place in families.
I think it's the biggest future tragedy the church will face - the lack of children with this common background because our own religious institutions have made it beyond the means of the majority of American Catholic parents.
That's very insightful, afw. I never thought of it that way but, yes, it is a shared culture.
ReplyDeleteThat is concerning, I thought Catholic schools were thriving. I hope they(Church)go back to fully supporting schools, it's an excellent learning experience, parochial a far better education than public.
florrie - AFG and I make above the average income in the US (although that doesn't mean a lot in our area), and we could not afford a Catholic education outside the home for our children.
ReplyDeletePARTICULARLY not for #2, as she enters high school next year.
It bothers me very, very much.
Oh gosh, I had no idea, afw. That *is* a serious problem.
ReplyDeleteThe practice wife and I tried to get my son into Catholic school , but he only made it to the waiting list.
ReplyDeleteI think David French's insights with respect to Catholicism and the LDS are interesting... but I'm not sure what French means by this:
ReplyDelete...God is sovereign...
I don't like the sound of that one bit. "Sovereign" has a specific meaning with respect to temporal politics.
And with respect to that meaning, God is not sovereign. In this country, we the people are sovereign. (In Britain, the Queen is sovereign - Dieu et mon droit and all that).
Either French is speaking very causally, or he's betraying a theology which is profoundly problematic in its political implications (and since I don't know exactly what he meant, I'll leave it at that).
I'm all for evangelicals fighting a culture war.
I would agree with them that the anti-religious bias in this country (and others) is deserving of sharp rebuke and I wish them well in persevering against that bias. So much of what religious people encounter in the public square isn't argument so much as de-legitimization.
But the thing is, I don't see that French opposes this kind of attitude - he just wants to see more of it on his side.
What I get from reading French is that he admires those with unshakable faith that they know God's will and refuse to compromise with or listen to others with different opinions. This doesn't strike me as a recipe for political success. In fact French strikes me as someone with the potential to be both immediately and endlessly tiresome.
I continue to believe that the biggest threat to this country is public insolvency and the threat to property and stability that this entails. We're going broke and we need to do something about it, or the result will be poverty, chaos, and irreversible decline.
If some people believe this, and would also, given their druthers and enough votes, enact a host of social conservative measures - fine, I'll march along side them, and we'll sort the societal issues out later. And if my (arguably non-social conservative) set of preferences loses, well, OK. At least the country will be solvent, and things will evolve.
But - if you believe the sanctity of human life (i.e. abortion) and traditional family values (exclusion of homosexuals from marriage, the military, etc) remain the biggest issues facing the country...
AND you work to split off other social conservatives from the larger Tea Party movement dedicated to fiscal reform, and the candidates they support...
AND there's no talking you out of it, since you believe you're doing God's work...
...then I'm sorry, you are my political enemy, and you'd best buck up, because you'll be getting quite a few pallet loads of bile and ridicule from me and those like me.
Lewy said: "... the larger Tea Party movement dedicated to fiscal reform, ..."
ReplyDeleteI have no issue with fiscal reform and the larger Tea Party Movement. Hell, I am part of it.
I do have issues with the carpet bagger self anointed leaders who emerge with more mouth than grit. They tend to get off the fiscal track or never get on it.
I also have great difficulty with all sides when definitions of "cost" versus "expense" comes up ... a.g., how the terms are used in political discourse today. GAAP is apparently unknown. When I hear that Social Security is the biggest "cost" to our government I want to punch out the speaker. (Maybe that's 'cause I've paid in since 1958) How is a vested interest defined as "cost?" How is repayment of internal federal debt (borrowed SSA funds)a "cost?"
If an expenditure is not increasing production or revenue, then it is an "EXPENSE" not a "cost." This country is expensed to near bankruptcy. The SSA payments to beneficiaries are not "costs", nor "expenses", they are returns on vested interest. If the nation decides to cut such returns, they are defaulting pure and simple. The money paid in was used to pay for other things, without ROI, so now it is a "cost?!!"
Aggghhhh.
When one self anointed "leader" who once governed a deficit riddled state, one that has about $1.83 in federal dollars sent to them for every $1.00 paid in taxes, decides to pay each person in the state around $1200 in resource income premiums, while not reducing the deficit or the debt inequity vis a vis federal dollars, I call BS on it. THAT is not fiscal reform.
Lewy said: "I continue to believe that the biggest threat to this country is public insolvency ..."
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. Bigger than any weapon. Truth is, if carefully measured, we are already insolvent or nearly so. If we get "called" on it then 100% of any vested interest of all citizens vanishes. Poof!
Lewy, I'm virtually certain that the "sovereign" reference has nothing tied to it politically; it's a common theological phrasing for the perspective that God will accomplish his purposes with or without our help - we are to do what is asked of us, but it's his job, not ours, to accomplish his objectives.
ReplyDeleteAs an aside, his assertion that young evangelicals are theologically orthodox and socially conservative, just quiet about it, doesn't jibe with research I've read recently. How to keep the next generation of our young people has many evangelicals very concerned. (And I literally LOL'd at his description of evangelicals having the need to reinvent the church every 90 seconds...)
I know there are a number of evangelicals who are framing the national financial insolvency as a moral issue almost on par with abortion (cf. the prophet's repeated denunciations of those who profited by the misery of others.)
ReplyDeleteIt's gaining traction.
Lyana, thank you for your comments and clarifications - I figured "sovereign" might have a nuanced meaning in context and so I tried to hold my tongue a bit.
ReplyDeleteAri, you have some important points on the accounting thing and I have a response but it will have to wait for a bit right now.
Lewy .... I'll read your response with interest. It has to be far better than Mr Blauhaus' presumptive jargon and fantasy predictions in the WSJ this week. I'd link it but it isn't worth the time to read it, and you'd need a subscription to waste that time.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, I'm the last guy who should comment on theological matters, other than when they become political issues, so I won't.
Ari, I'm not an expert on SS, but some things seem pretty basic.
ReplyDeleteWhen you say
The SSA payments to beneficiaries are not "costs", nor "expenses", they are returns on vested interest.
I think you're mostly right, but not completely.
Specifically, SS is a defined benefit pension - right? I get little notices from SS telling me what my payments are going to be _way_ into the future. OK. This is interesting to me, because nobody really knows what the rate of return for Treasury bond investments is going to be for those years. Or, for that matter, how many years SS will have to pay me.
So there are benefits and there are contributions. Some of those benefits are vested interest, to be sure. And some of them, especially now and into the future, are guarantees - or subsidies, or what have you. (Whether this is a "cost" or "expense", I don't have the accounting chops to tell you - but it is more than the vested interest).
E.g., SS has a COLA - and there is no way you are going to convince me that a dollar invested today in Treasury securities are going to even keep up with inflation thirty years hence, never mind compound beyond that. Money that SS invests today in Treasury securities is money that will have to be augmented by general revenues in the future to meet the current statutory obligations.
Isn't this right? And so how do you count that extra money - isn't it a cost or expense? I'm not sure about the generally accepted terminology but in my book a "vested interest" can only sum to the actual return on the actual money invested, not what was promised in a defined benefit scheme - and defined benefit schemes are Ponzi by definition, in my book. (Which makes benefits paid out under them "fraudulent conveyance" and subject to clawback, to be perfectly inflammatory! :D )
---
There is the further matter of the SS surplus disappearing, and now running a deficit.
Sadly all the money in the SS "lock box" was "invested" in government deficits. Now those deficits will have to run surpluses for the system to stay solvent. Fat chance of that happening.
Or, the debt will have to be rolled into the public markets. I don't see the Treasury market taking on trillions of new securities in the next decades - no new Chinas are coming online.
Or, the debt will have to be monetized by the Fed - in which case, good luck with that whole COLA thing. It'll be Wiemar time for sure.
For the people who have been paying in since the fifities (or the eighties), there is a good chance the investments made in Treasuries covered the benefits. I don't know, there is probably some good data on this. I know that SS bought some insanely phat coupon bonds with the money _I_ paid in, that's for damn sure.
But the funds being collected in FICA tax _today_ are will not be sufficient to fund the benefits promised to those people being taxed - under any plausible Treasury market scenario.
Maybe if we invested them in Chinese bank stocks and Australian mining stocks and Canadian fertilizer stocks and Brazilian petroleum stocks...
But that ain't happening.
"Life is not just an "issue," for a Catholic; it is at the core of the Gospel"
ReplyDeleteAfter everything we went through last year I have found it very difficult to reconcile what happened and the 'choice' we had to make with the strict teachings of the Church and the picture it paints of me (and me alone being female in spite of the shared nature of the tragedy). Had it not been for the Papal visit last year I might have found myself further alienated from my church. As it is I found myself strangely drawn to it and comforted by it. And yet our actions would in theory see us ostracised. I always come back to Christ and what he would think say or do in the end and still believe that this is at the heart of the church. From speaking to fellow catholics on twitter of all things I have felt reconciled. I find much comfort in that because frankly I've been in little bits and pieces this past year and for the most part probably still am.
{{alison}}
ReplyDelete