Sense of place and the ’08 election

My honors English teacher in my junior year of high school used to say that there are three themes in American literature: individualism, sense of place, and the American dream. He said this to a class with a large contingent of Navy brats, including me, including many (though not me) whose only sense of the place in which they lived was that they wouldn’t be there much longer and didn’t particularly want to be. (The town in which, through my parents’ determination, I did the majority of my growing up is a nice town in a beautiful part of the country; but at the time, anyway, it wasn’t the kind of place many of my teenage comrades found all that exciting.) I have long thought of John McCain primarily as a counterpart to my father: a Navy pilot, an officer and a gentleman. For whatever reason, I haven’t thought of him as a counterpart of my own, though from a different generation: a Navy brat. And yet, he was and is that, too; he too knows what it means to grow up in a world where home is not a place, but an institution and a people.Peggy Noonan picked up on this, and on the fact that Barack Obama similarly grew up in a variety of places, in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal titled “The End of Placeness”. She’s right that sense of place, which my old English teacher considered such an important American theme, is disappearing; the Rev. Dr. Craig Barnes, of Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and Shadyside Presbyterian Church, has had some wise and thoughtful things to say on this. As the Rev. Dr. Barnes puts it, before the GI Bill and the rise of American prosperity following WW II, most Americans were Settlers, people who put down roots in a particular place and stayed there (and settled for whatever way of life they had there); those who didn’t were mistrusted. With the GI Bill and the beginnings of modern suburbia, a new generation of Exiles began (exiles being people who know where home is but don’t live there; he cites as an example his own family, which always went “home for Christmas” from their suburban life to the tobacco farm in North Carolina). Now, as he says, Exiles are giving way increasingly to Nomads: people (primarily Gen X and younger) who are equally at home everywhere because they aren’t really at home anywhere. It’s a significant issue for those of us who are pastors, though not everyone has realized it yet.Having this emerging reality mirrored in our presidential candidates is a strange thing, and I can understand Noonan’s reaction to it. That said, as Beldar points out, they mirror this very differently; though this fact is tangential to Noonan’s point, it’s nevertheless significant.I suspect part of Sen. Obama’s appeal to young voters during the primaries (which seems to be fading somewhat) is that his rootlessness, though an extreme form, is a familar type among those of my generation and younger; while few of us had mothers who married Africans and Indonesians and moved us to another continent, the story’s outline is familiar:

Obama, by contrast, can only remember meeting his father once, briefly, when he was 10, and he never met his paternal grandfather at all. They had no presence in Barack Obama’s life while he was growing up; they were only dreams and stories and faded photos, with an occasional letter. . . .While Obama at least had a long-term relationship with his paternal grandparents, even that came at the expense of being effectively abandoned to their care by his own mother—hardly an ideal situation. Indeed, the adults around young Obama seemed in his book to be tied to nowhere and nothing—and outside of their immediate family (and sometimes not even that), to nobody. Obama was both a literal and figurative “step-child.”

Of him it may truly be said, as Noonan does, that he is “not from a place, but from an experience”—and from an all too common experience among younger folks these days: the experience of divorce and remarriage, step-parents and moving from place to place as one’s mother or father or both chase their own self-fulfillment. The place he’s from is the broken family, and it’s a familiar one to many.Sen. McCain, by contrast, grew up with one of the oldest forms of placelessness in the human experience: he grew up in the military. That has some of the same effects, leaving you with the desire to belong someplace; but it doesn’t leave you truly rootless, because you find your roots in the military community and culture. (And it is a culture of its own, connected to but apart from mainstream American culture, make no mistake about that; our local college has even started exempting military brats along with international students from its standard cross-cultural class and including them in the “adapting to American culture” class instead.) Those of us who grow up in Christian homes learn to find our roots in the church as well, which is a very good thing in many ways. (This is why, when Beldar writes that “McCain got a rock-solid and abiding ‘faith’ from his grandfather and father—faith in them, in himself, in the U.S. Navy and the other U.S. military forces, and most importantly, in all of America—while at best, Obama got only ‘dreams’ from his,” I have to say he’s missed the most important faith Sen. McCain learned from his father and grandfather: faith in God.) The effects of this are very clear in this presidential campaign. Sen. Obama can stand before a German audience and call himself a “citizen of the world” because his psychological citizenship is pretty tenuous—his most formative experiences tie him more to Africa and Asia than to America. Sen. McCain could never do that. He doesn’t belong to Phoenix any more than Sen. Obama belongs to Chicago, but he is unquestionably rooted in America, down to the core of his being, through his generations-deep roots in the United States Navy. In the end, I guess that’s why my respect and admiration for the man trumps my deep reservations about him, and why I trust his instincts even if I don’t always trust his ideas.

Is it possible that anyone could be more unlike Obama’s mother, with her dizzying moves from husband to husband and country to country, than McCain’s mother, who was always the quintessential “Navy wife,” wholly integrated into an American military-family culture that is proud and vast and long-standing? However often Roberta McCain and young John moved, they were never alone, never strangers, never “lost”—and they never had to flail about trying to “find themselves.” Rather, from birth to adulthood, McCain was surrounded by people whose lives were dedicated to a clear set of ideals and a clear purpose. All those people continuously reinforced and reminded him of the faith—the dedication to duty, honor, and country—that he inherited as a legacy from his grandfather and father.

And for Sen. McCain, that’s the bottom line; that, ultimately, is his sense of place.

Speaking of vandals

we got back from a trip and picked up the car at our hotel to find that someone had tried to steal the platinum out of its catalytic converters. We weren’t the only one hit, either, though it seems to have been a pretty incompetent set of thieves (they had damaged the cars but failed to get what they were after). The upside to the downside is that the dealership looked our vehicle over pretty closely and found a couple other unrelated problems which need fixing; the downside to the upside is that the cost of all that is going to be a right hook to the budget.The interesting thing is that as I was dealing with our crippled car the other morning, I got about the same reaction from everyone: “I don’t understand how people can do this. It’s sad how there’s no respect for other people’s property anymore.” Personally, I sort of understand it—it goes back to what Jason Lee Steorts was writing about in National Review in the piece I posted on the other day. It’s all about the spirit of vandalism: the willingness or even eagerness to deface and destroy those things which one does not personally value. Steorts talks about it with regard to beauty, but I think it’s a little broader; vandals destroy order (which is the foundation of beauty) for their own purposes, whether logical or illogical. We don’t normally think about breaking into someone’s property to steal something as vandalism, but at the spiritual level, it is: it’s vandalism for the sake of profit. We might call it applied vandalism. And this whole little mess has driven home for me just how much I agree with Steorts when he writes, “My friends ask what makes me a conservative, and sometimes I wonder myself, but there is an answer, and it’s that I hate vandals.” Me too—the acts, at least, even if I’m called to love those who perpetrate them. The spirit of vandalism is the spirit of chaos, of uncreation; it’s one of the truest expressions of the mind and character of the Uncreator.

The Joker as vandal and the limits of moral relativism

I can tell the kind of effect The Dark Knight is having from the fact that, even though I haven’t seen it, I keep running across reasons to blog about it. Whatever one’s opinion of the movie itself, it’s undeniably sparking some thoughtful people to write some perceptive analyses of evil, the human heart, and our Western culture. The latest is a piece by National Review‘s managing editor, Jason Lee Steorts, on the magazine’s website called “Lessons from the Joker”; it’s an interesting meditation on the Joker, moral relativism, the nature of vandalism, and the way to make moral arguments to those who don’t think they believe there’s any such thing as right and wrong. I won’t try to summarize it—I’m still pondering it, at this point; but I encourage you to read it.

The myth of choice

As I’m continuing my “catch-up tour,” I dove back into Confessing Evangelical, John Halton’s blog, this afternoon; John’s a British Lutheran, and his blog is one of the deepest I know, especially but not only theologically. It’s really not an easy one to catch up on—far better to stay abreast of it, really—but I’m enjoying getting back into it. I particularly appreciate his newest post, “I choose, therefore I am,” in which he addresses “the myth of personal autonomous choice—that our decisions are free, conscious, independent, entirely ours alone”—and the difficulty we have in combating that myth. I think his conclusion is particularly important (it’s something I tell my congregation fairly often):

I am not denying that we make true choices, and that those are truly our choices. However, what I am saying is we need to be more suspicious of our choices, and more aware of the forces that are at work in influencing them.

Wise words. I encourage you to read the rest of it.

The Dark Knight of the soul

“My subject in fiction is the action of grace in territory held largely by the devil.”—Flannery O’ConnorI have not seen The Dark Knight, nor did I ever really intend to; I don’t watch all that many movies (though it’s nice to be able to see them in the theater again), and I’ve never been a Batman fan. It does sound like a remarkable movie, though, judging from the reviews—and, no less, from the arguments over it in the Christian blogosphere. I know Thinklings Phil and Jared loved it, and I know Brant Hansen hated it, and their reactions seem to be pretty much representative. The most interesting response, though, has to have been the question Grant Thomas asked:What would Flannery O’Connor think?As he points out, given her artistic philosophy and her view of what it takes to communicate the reality of sin and grace to an unbelieving world, there’s good reason to think that she would have approved of the movie.

I think Flannery would say that Joker shows us that the world we are living in is in the territory of the devil. . . .I think in light of what I’ve been reading from Flannery O’Connor, that she would applaud the film for showing evil for what it is. Not only does it make evil look evil (rather than funny like in the old Adam West TV series), but I think Flannery would say that we need the Joker to realize how much we need grace. We need him to wear make up to realize that this kind of person should seem out of place in our world when most of the time we simply think this sort of thing is normal or at least tolerable.

As I said, I haven’t seen the movie to be able to judge, but what Grant says here makes sense to me. Read the whole post, including his several quotations from Flannery O’Connor, and see what you think.HT: Joyce

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, RIP

“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts.”—Aleksandr SolzhenitsynThe world lost one of its giants today: Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn is dead of a stroke at the age of 89. Novelist, historian, poet, Soviet dissident, cultural critic . . . to try to sum up the meaning and significance of this towering modern-day prophet, one of the deepest thinkers and most powerful bearers of Christian witness of our age, is beyond the scope of anything so brief as a blog post, though John Piper took a good shot (thanks to Jared for the link); I’ve linked a few articles below in an effort to do what my words cannot do. For me, the least I can do is to say that our world would be vastly poorer had he never lived. Requiescat in pace, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn; you have earned your rest as much as anyone can.The Last ProphetTraducing SolzhenitsynSolzhenitsyn and Modern LiteratureAleksandr Solzhenitsyn: The Ascent from IdeologyPaul Weyrich: A Tribute to Alexander Solzhenitsyn25 YearsLions

Hypocrites at Panera

I’ve gotten the chance this week, among other things, to catch back up on some of the blogs I try to follow; this post over at Between Two Worlds made my jaw drop. Do they really not see the disconnect here? I won’t even try to comment; just go read it for yourself.

Fear of the culture and the American church

Fear of the culture has driven the church in a lot of ways over the last two or three centuries. The first part of the story is the birth and rise of modern liberal theology. (Note, I said liberal theology, not liberal politics; this isn’t about whether one voted for John Kerry, or supports Barack Obama. Though it can be related, it’s a different set of issues, as can be seen from the number of prominent evangelical leaders who are quite liberal politically, such as Ron Sider and Tony Campolo.) Liberal Protestantism, though its roots may go back further, began in earnest in 1799 when Friedrich Schleiermacher published his book On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. Schleiermacher, who was only 29 when he began writing this book, was part of a group of young upper-class German intellectuals who met weekly to discuss the ideas of the day. Though the others in the group respected and admired him for his intelligence and wit, though he became quite good friends with most of them, and though he shared most of their beliefs, in one key respect they could not understand him at all. You see, most of those in Schleiermacher’s circle were convinced and passionate atheists, people who despised religion, while Schleiermacher was a minister, a chaplain at the Charity Hospital in Berlin; how could he share so many of their beliefs and yet be a Christian? His closest friends in the group decided to resolve the issue: at Schleiermacher’s birthday party, they badgered him into writing a book.Though he initially tried to avoid writing it, Schleiermacher took the task quite seriously. His purpose as he set pen to paper was not to challenge his friends’ beliefs, nor to bring them to an encounter with the transcendent, personal, holy God of the Bible; rather, his aim was to present them with a conception of religion, and particularly of Christianity, that they could accept on their own terms. He sought, in other words, to produce a version of religion that fit with what the educated culture already believed, to accommodate religion to that culture. Given the beliefs and expectations of that culture, he produced an interpretation of Christian faith that sounds closer to Buddhism than to historic Christianity, in which religion is “to be one with the Infinite and in every moment to be eternal”; and while those who followed after him argued with one aspect or another of the picture he painted, producing their own pictures of religion to fit their own cultural situations, they accepted his approach to theology, seeking to conform their faith not to Scripture but to the demands of their culture. Thus, we had a later German scholar, Rudolf Bultmann, “demythologize” the New Testament, removing all miracles and other supernatural elements; after all, the educated people of his time didn’t believe in miracles, so there couldn’t have been any.Around the same time as Bultmann was beginning his career, a backlash was beginning in America. Between 1910 and 1915 a series of twelve booklets were published, titled “The Fundamentals,” which set out five fundamental doctrines of orthodox Christianity. These were: the doctrine of the Trinity; the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, that Jesus was fully human and also fully God; the doctrine of the literal physical Second Coming of Christ; the doctrine that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, by Christ alone; and the doctrine that Scripture is the inerrant word of God. In 1920 the term “fundamentalism” was coined to describe the beliefs of those who held to these five fundamentals, as over against those who didn’t, and for a couple of decades, that’s all it meant. In the 1940s, however, there was a split among those who held to these fundamentals, resulting in a new group which came to be known as “evangelicals.”The cause of the split was, once again, fear of the culture. The fundamentalist movement had fought liberal theology on detail after detail for years, but it had absorbed the belief that the gospel cannot address the dominant culture without changing; so, refusing (rightly) to conform the gospel to the culture, fundamentalism moved to wall out the culture. When some leaders in the fundamentalist movement—most notably a radio preacher named Charles Fuller, who would give his name to Fuller Seminary—sought to go in a different direction, it was that which provoked the split and launched the modern American evangelical movement.There was good reason for that, as the cultural separatism of fundamentalism is problematic on a number of levels. Though it has been a pretty effective way to ensure doctrinal purity, it has severely restricted the witness of that part of the American church. What is more, far too many kids who grow up in that subculture go off to college and see their faith melt on their first real encounter with people of other beliefs; sadly, the result of such encounters tends to be people who don’t believe in much of anything anymore.Unfortunately, while fundamentalism represents the most obvious expression of, and response to, fear of the culture, it continues to be a problem as well for both liberals and evangelicals, if in subtler ways. Specifically, I think many among both liberals and evangelicals are at some level afraid to challenge the assumptions of the culture to which they belong, and so choose to conform their preaching and ministry to fit their culture; the only difference, really, is which section of American culture they’re conforming to. Thus in evangelical circles it seems that most pastors aspire to lead megachurches, and the whole idea of the church as a business and the pastor as its CEO has become very powerful in the last decade or two; thus we have influential pastors of evangelical churches openly measuring their success by their market share. Effectively, then, you can measure how good your ministry is by how good you are at giving your “customers” what they want, whether that be in the music selection on Sunday mornings, in the range of programs you offer, or whatever. The result, too often, is the baptism of American consumer culture, and the Jesus who once overturned the tables of the moneychangers is used to sell coffee mugs, T-shirts and figurines.The flip side to that is the liberal wing of the American church, which is tuned into a very different strain of American culture. Among liberal pastors, it seems to be an article of faith that our culture—by which they mean the culture of our elites—must correct the Scriptures, rather than the other way around. The Bible, on this view, is a rather outdated book produced by cultures that didn’t know as much as we do about biology, psychology, physics, and any number of other things; therefore, if the Scriptures contradict what our culture believes it knows, we are justified in concluding that it is the Bible that is wrong and must be brought into line. Thus orthodoxy is dismissed as old-fashioned and outdated, as if the truth of a statement could be determined by its age, and by whether or not our culture finds it amenable.What we need—and it isn’t easy—is to get free of that fear of what the culture thinks of us, and what it might do to us, and to learn to speak the truth whether it’s what people want to hear from us or not. Democracy is the greatest form of government this world has yet invented (which, as Winston Churchill noted, isn’t saying much), but it has the unfortunate tendency to give us the mindset that truth is determined by majority vote; we need to shake ourselves free of that mindset and learn to recognize, and challenge, the unexamined assumptions in our culture that conflict with the character and will of God. We need to learn to look for the unasked questions, and ask them, knowing that we will be challenged if we do, and then stand up to that challenge. If our brothers and sisters in other parts of the world can stand up to persecution when it might cost them their lives, the least we can do in America (and in the West as a whole) is take a little verbal abuse.

Barack Obama as overhead-projector screen

Shelby Steele, an analyst for whom I have tremendous respect, has a fascinating column up on the Wall Street Journal website—and I’m not sure what to make of it. It’s titled “Why Jesse Jackson Hates Obama,” but that’s only what the first half (or so) of the piece is about; having laid out why, on his read, Jackson hates Sen. Obama, he then spends the rest of it meditating on the consequences of his conclusion (with a particular note on its consequences for John McCain). I’m still figuring out what I think of it; I recommend you read it and do the same.HT: Presbyweb

Ministry in emerging adulthood

I’ve been mulling over these links for a while, and I haven’t really come to a clear sense of what I want to say about them; but somewhere in there, I think, are some important things about what it means to be a young pastor in a time when more and more people in their twenties and early thirties are finding the transition into adulthood long, disorganized and uncertain (such that sociologists are now labeling this stage of life “emerging adulthood”). The pastor of a church is, essentially, the Adult in Chief; that’s a hard role to fill if you haven’t yet come to see yourself as fully an adult and the peer of all those grizzled, experienced, opinionated, strong-willed folks who most likely make up the lay leadership of the church you serve. That’s a problem, because if you don’t see yourself as their peer and equal, they won’t either . . . and if they don’t, you’re toast.Emerging AdulthoodEmerging Adulthood IIThe Father Pfleger ShowSFTS Experience