Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Marsden on Culture vs. Faithfulness

Not long ago I finished reading George Marsden's Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism 1870–1925. It was not a light read, but it was definitely far more intriguing than you might guess from the title. I've not heard as much comment on Marsden as I might have expected. Perhaps I'm just too young to have read many of his books when they were fresh and under discussion.

I doubt that I will ever delve into blogging about the book, mostly because I'm an admitted church history dunderhead, and I don't feel qualified. (I should admit that most of the quotes in my guessing game were from this text.) Perhaps, however, some of you might appreciate the final few sentences of the book. If I ever were to write a book, I hope I could sum up my thesis as well as he has.
Christians' trust in God may be mingled or confused with some culturally formed assumptions, ideals, and values. Inevitably it will. The danger is that our culturally defined loves, allegiances, and understandings will overwhelm and take precedence over our faithfulness to God. So the identification of cultural forces, such as those with which this book is concerned, is essentially a constructive enterprise, with the positive purpose of finding the gold among the dross.

Do the Math: A Stunning Guide to Your Social Security Statement

This must be the time of year when the Social Security Administration sends out its annual statement of estimated benefits; mine came in the mail yesterday. Usually I read it and am disgusted at how little I'll be receiving when I'm 67. Yesterday I did the math, and I was absolutely flabbergasted. You really need to do your own math for yourself. Here's why:

Based on the information in the statement, it will take me more than 11.5 years to receive Social Security payments that equal merely what has been paid into the system on my behalf! Let me say that again in a different way. If you add up all the money that I and my employers will have paid for my Social Security taxes over the course of more than 50 years of work, I will have to live until I'm 78 just to get back the principal! And when I die, nothing is left for my beneficiaries.

I'll try to explain a formula for you to follow. On page 2 of your statement, you'll find a dollar figure for the estimated monthly payment you will receive if you retire at your "full retirement age." My retirement age is 67. At the bottom of page 2, look for another dollar figure that represents "your estimated taxable earnings per year after 2004." This is your salary from 2004 that was subject to Social Security (SS) taxes. It is also the salary that SS is using to estimate what your benefits will be when you retire. Then on page three near the bottom, look for two more numbers that represent the total amount of SS taxes that you and your employer(s) have paid on your behalf. Remember, 6.2% of your salary (up to $90K) is SS tax, but your employer pays another 6.2%. That's the data you need. Now here's the formula.

1. Multiply your annual salary by .124 (12.4%). This represents the amount of tax you and your employer will pay into SS every year. (This formula assumes that your salary will stay constant every year until you retire. It probably won't, but your benefits will increase if your salary increases, so it is a reasonable assumption. The Social Security Administration bases your estimated benefits statement on this assumption.)

2. Multiply your annual tax by the number of years remaining until your full retirement age. This is the total amount of tax you and your employers will pay into SS from now until your full retirement age.

3. Add the number from step 2 to the amounts from page 3 that you and your employer have paid into SS up until now. The sum of these amounts is the total amount that you will pay into SS by the day you reach full retirement age.

4. Multiply your estimated monthly benefit at your full retirement age (found on page 2) by a factor of 12. This will provide an estimated annual benefit that you'll be paid at retirement age.

5. Finally, divide the total amount you pay into SS in your lifetime (the answer to step 3) by your estimated annual benefit (the answer to step 4). The number that is staring you in the face is the number of years it will take for you to receive the principal (no interest) if you start drawing SS at your full retirement age. For me, that number is 11.55 years.

That, friends and neighbors, is highway robbery. The only way to change this system is for young people to start getting obnoxious about how our SS taxes are being stolen from us to pay for Congressmen and Presidents wasting our money on projects that bloat their power base. You do the math, and then let your voice be heard. Your elected representatives can say whatever they want about pros and cons of different plans, but they can't run from these numbers if you won't let them. I'll be contacting my Congressman and Senators. Visit www.house.gov and www.senate.gov to obtain your legislators' contact information.

Monday, October 17, 2005

Music: A Serious Question of Very Little Consequence

Does anybody have an explanation for the prevalence of songs written in a three-beat meter (sorry if I'm butchering the lingo) about the second coming of Christ? I just noticed yesterday how many there seem to be:
1. "Is It the Crowning Day?"
2. "Jesus Is Coming Again"
3. "Some Golden Daybreak"
4. "What If It Were Today"
5. "One Day"

I might have thought there was a connection between the time period when both this genre of song and this musical style was popular, but these songs seem to span about 100 years. Is this a coincidence? Am I making something out of nothing? Is a calliope the instrument that will signal our Lord's return? Will we ride into the sky on merry-go-round horses? But I digress . . .

More Prescient Reagan

This clip from Reagan's speech at the 40th anniversary of D-Day also struck me in my visit to the presidential library as an appropriate perspective in light of current events and controversies:
We in America have learned bitter lessons from two world wars. It is better to be here ready to protect the peace, than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.
Read the full text or access the MP3 here.

All the News That's Fit to Fake

This is one of the reasons I no longer watch network news. I love the irony in the lead-in story too.

Friday, October 14, 2005

Staying Silent About a False Gospel

See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. That's the approach many evangelicals take in the face of the gospel compromise of their college buddies, their co-belligerents, or their denominational colleagues. (And for those who think, "I'm a fundamentalist, not an evangelical," I'm talking to you too.)

Tom Ascol of Founders Ministries is not one of those evangelicals. I find more that's interesting to read and essential to the gospel on his blog than on any other, and he takes a lot of pot shots for doing it. Two recent posts responding to the audacious claims of one prominent modern evangelist are fascinating. Here's the first. Here's the second.

The SBC Landscape: An Outsider Analysis from the Inside

I found this to be an interesting read on the SBC. Some might argue that it's inaccurate, or too broad-brush, but my limited experience gives me the sense that a lot of it rings true.

HT: Founders blog

The Lion, the Witch, and the Evangelical Hype

A couple days ago I wrote:
Remember all those predictions that “The Passion of the Christ” would change the world? Yeah, me too. I think everyone remembers them but the people who pronounced them. You’ll remember who they are because they’ll be the same ones saying the same things about “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.”
Well, I found out yesterday that on that same day Gene Veith of World Magazine was writing this. Here's a summary: LWW is the next big thing, and oh, by the way, here are some excuses for why "The Passion" didn't meet up to its evangelistic expectations. I wonder what the excuses for LWW will be two years from now.

I appreciate Gene Veith's writing, I like World, and I'm looking forward to this movie. I hope that it's good. I hope that people think about the gospel because of it. But it's not the gospel or even an explicit gospel witness. Let's not pretend that it is.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

The Uneasy Conscience of a Modern Paleoevangelical

During my recent trip, I heard the beginning and ending of an address by Nancy Pearcey to a group of Christian day school teachers. Pearcey is the co-author of Total Truth (which I am sure makes some excellent arguments) and is recognized for her insight into confronting modern culture with a Christian worldview. She began her lecture by relating a recent e-mail conversation with a self-professed “fundamentalist, dispensationalist seminary professor” who said he “didn’t even believe in all this worldview stuff.” She did not offer much detail about the professor’s point, but it was immediately clear that she viewed his argument with some incredulity and that it would serve as the foil for her discussion of misconceptions about worldview.

Although I don’t have enough context to know exactly what the professor was intending to communicate, I suspect that I would agree with much of it. All this trendy talk of “worldview” is well-intentioned, but, I believe, misguided.

The Christian mantra is that we are “in the world, but not of it.” We ought to invade the world, not evade or pervade it. Yet it seems that a variety of factors springing from the fundamentalist/neo-evangelical controversy of past decades have pushed many Christians to one of two extremes—world evasion and world pervasion. Too many professing believers either run from unbelievers or simply act like them. I have heard youth leaders and young people themselves say, “I don’t know any unsaved teenagers.” That kind of reality reduces conviction of the responsibility to invade the world in order to conquer it with the gospel to mere theory.

Those who have made “worldview” a buzzword among evangelicals are critical of this state of world evasion, and their criticism is just. When she says, “We are still coming out of this fundamentalist era when we isolate ourselves rather than bringing Christianity into the world,” Pearcey is wrong to suggest that fundamentalism is equivalent to isolationism, but she is right to the degree that fundamentalists do isolate themselves.

Adaptation to or conciliation with modern culture are not the alternatives I’m suggesting. Seeing evangelicals jump predictably on the every cultural bandwagon that rolls around the bend grows wearisome. Remember all those predictions that “The Passion of the Christ” would change the world? Yeah, me too. I think everyone remembers them but the people who pronounced them. You’ll remember who they are because they’ll be the same ones saying the same things about “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.”

The worldview alternative purports to strike a balanced view, ambitiously setting forth to win culture. “We are called to have an impact on culture,“ Pearcey said. Now, it is impossible to deny that if all Christians lived like first century Christians, our culture would be impacted. But is impacting culture what we are called to do? How do we “win culture”? Through politics? By infiltrating Hollywood with Christians? By creating a separate culture that tracks a couple decades behind the culture of the world? I cannot remember much in Scripture about winning culture, but battling spiritual powers and evangelizing unbelievers seems to be a fairly consistent theme. Maybe I’m missing something, but political influence, movie production, and even slick apologetics strategies do not strike me as promising platforms for proclaiming the gospel and bringing in the kingdom. It seems as though worldview in this mindset has ceased to be something that results from the work of the gospel, and has become the gospel itself.

So I’m uneasy. I’m uneasy because the distasteful options that have been most common—isolation from the world and solidarity with it—are now augmented by a third that seems just as misguided. As C. S. Lewis said it, “We will never save civilisation if civilisation is our main object. We must learn to want something else even more.” What do we want? A nice, shiny, Christianized culture? Yikes, I’m scared to think what a mess we would make of that project. Or maybe it's more important to win Christ or those who need to know Him. We can and must find beachheads to invade.

Monday, October 10, 2005

Wise As Doves, Harmless As Serpents

Why does it seem that every time an "Evangelical leader" opens his mouth about politics, he does more harm than good? The latest installment:
The issue arose from remarks made on a syndicated radio show by James Dobson, founder of the conservative advocacy group Focus on the Family. Dobson said last week that he had spoken in confidence with Rove about the Miers nomination and that their conversation convinced him to support her.

"When you know some of the things that I know, that I probably shouldn't know, you will understand why I have said ... that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice," Dobson said.
Read the full story here.