The July/August 2010 of Harvard Business Review has an article that finally faces the truth: the MBA degree is NOT a professional degree in the way that a medical, law, or engineering degree is. The author, Richard Barker, is a professor at the Cambridge business school in England, and it is quite refreshing to see a B-school professor ‘fessing up' to what should be obvious.
Much of his commentary is based on things that have been observed by others before, and applies just as much to schools of education as to business: that there is not a well defined body of knowledge to learn to become qualified, that the key to the education is the process and ‘case studies’ more than defined content, that there is no board to measure and license those who are qualified and to ban/discipline those who do not live up to it. All of these areas are quite different than in the professions, though most of them fall short on the part about holding practitioners accountable. He points out that the content of what a medical or law school teaches is what qualifies the graduates, whereas in B-school most alumni will tell you that the classmates and discussions were more important than the content. You hire a doctor or lawyer specifically for the technical knowledge they have but managers are mostly hired for their leadership skills. Professionals provide input and expertise in a defined area but managers mostly assemble input from various professionals and ‘connect the dots’. And as the collapse of the financial sector has shown, there is clearly no accountable and very little in the way of ethics.
This by no means means that management is necessarily an inferior pursuit. It does mean that getting an MBA is not what qualifies you to be a manager. For the most part, you should have already demonstrated the insight and leadership skills BEFORE you get an MBA, which is the reverse of professional degrees. An MBA can broaden your exposure to issues that might take many years for you to encounter on the job, but it does not provide qualifications. In contrast, you would never go to a lawyer, doctor, or engineer until AFTER they are trained. You would never trust a doctor who had spent much of his education just talking about case studies rather than gaining technical skills and technical knowledge. By way of contrast , a great many businesses are successfully led by entrepreneurs who are very effective but not the least interested in an MBA.
As a culture we have tried to make teachers and managers into a content-based skill like engineering, but it just isn’t so. In both cases the attributes for success have more to do with personal traits than with a degree, and much of it cannot be taught. Both teachers and managers should have a ‘real ‘ degree in an area of expertise, but becoming a teacher or manager is more about dealing with people, insight, and connecting inputs across various disciplines than about mastering a body of knowledge. The reverse of that, of course, is that many professionals have mastered a key body of knowledge but have poor interactions with people. There are a great many doctors and lawyers who are very knowledgeable but very inept as well.
Ministry degrees, like the Master of Divinity, have the same issue. For all our pretending otherwise, the M. Div. degree does not qualify a man for ministry. It can enhance the knowledge of one who already has the right insight and people skills, but it does not provide qualification. While academic theology may have to do mostly with particular areas of learning, pastoral ministry and teaching is more like management and teaching. Divinity schools would do well to follow the example of many MBA programs, not accepting candidates until they have already been in ministry for several years.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Nudges, Marriages, and Feminists
I just finished reading the book Nudge, in which a couple of academic economists explore the idea of 'choice architecture' and what they call 'libertarian paternalism'. The basic idea is that many of the decisions that are made in both public and private spheres end up nudging us to choose in a particular direction, even if unintentionally, and that we can use that fact to help improve the choices people make by intentionally 'nudging' them in a better direction. However, they support doing so thoughtfully so that we intentionally seek to maintain freedom of choice rather than mandating things. They open the book with the example of how the way food is displayed in a cafeteria influences which foods are purchased, and that we can influence the choice of healthier food in schools by the way the food is displayed. This doesn't coerce anyone's choice but does give healthy food greater exposure. The way we design buildings and cities also nudge decisions on transportation, housing, etc. and such decisions must be made.
We use government in this way much of the time, via tax deductions and tax credits, subsidies, and rebates. It goes beyond nudging to mandates when we legally require things.I like the author's emphasis on seeking to maintain freedom, the libertarian part of it, as well as the idea that choices which must be made may as well seek to help us. Of course, we will not all agree on what is 'good' and what 'helps'. In many cases, though, like the default option for work or government benefits, this idea can be put to good use. For instance, many companies now automatically enroll you in the 401k savings plan if you do nothing, whereas in the past the default if you did nothing was to leave you un-enrolled. This is a 'nudge' and seems to me a good one.
However, the more the decision involves morality and values, the more diificult this use of 'nudging' gets to be. One chapter in the book proposes changing the societal approach to marriage, proposing that governments no longer sanction any marriages, that marriage be 'privatized'. The change would be that the government would only sanction civil unions, and marriage would be a private or religious matter exclusively. The authors contend that this would improve the freedom of religious groups as well as non-religious folks, as religious groups could be free to exclude whomever they choose and have standards as high as they want without concern about what impacts it might have on things like government benefits.
In many ways that is a place we have already arrived at, though not officially. The June 21 issue of Newsweek magazine, which has Sarah Palin on the cover, has 2 articles that impact this issue. The first article is about Sarah Palin and the renewed energy of women of the religious right and the other is an article that argues against marriage by 2 self-vowed 'secular, urban' women who rail against the evil of marriage. Palin's work is described as a different sort of feminism, one that 'gathers up the Christian women traditional feminism has left behind' and admits that 'mainstream feminism has had an antireligious bias for a really long time.' The other article is the voice of that 'mainstream feminism' which argues that 'marriage is ...no longer necessary' and that 'the idea of marriage has become so tainted...that we're hesitant to engage in it.'
It is interesting to me that secular, urban homosexuals are arguing they should get married while secular, urban women are arguing that they should avoid marriage. Neither of them are arguing on the basis of virtue. Both are arguing on that basis of what makes them more financially successful and more self-satisfied. There is very little discussion of what it means to be human, since being human means little more to them than 'maximizing our marginal benefit' in economic terms, which includes maximizing their personal power and liberty. I said above that in many ways we are already there because 41% of births are out of wedlock, divorce rates remain high, and benefits in both jobs and in government are readily available to both singles and homosexuals who live together or have children (whether adopted for homosexuals or out of wedlock for heterosexuals). The feminist article admits that for dual income marriages, there is no tax benefit to marriage. The battles today about marriage are really more about status and power than about economics and benefits, and it is interesting that the secular feminist argument and the homosexual argument so completely contradict each other. To me, one key weakness of the Christian discussion of marriage for the past 2 centuries, since the onset of Romanticism, is that we talk about marriage mostly in terms of self-fulfillment, not in terms of virtue, living out our humanness as God created it, or learning how to put other's needs ahead of our own desires. The feminist article admits that couples who marry for love find that '90% of couples have lost the passion they originally felt. And while couples who marry for love are less 'in love' with each passing year, one study found that those in arranged marriages grow steadily more in love as the years progress-because their expectations, say researchers, are a whole lot lower.' I think it has more to do with different expectations rather than lower expectations. Expecting to put someone else's needs ahead of your own and being surprised that doing so makes you a better and happier person seems like higher, not lower, expectations to me. The secular, urban feminists haven't figured that out.
All of this points out how very selfish and self-centered we are. The most difficult thing about marriage is that it demands putting our self-centeredness aside so often. The basic idea about Nudge that I like is the call to consider what is best for others, yet it quickly degenerates into defining 'best' as nothing more than maximizing our selfish desire for power or pleasure. And I think this is why Palin is touching a lot of Christian women. They see in her example with her Down Syndrome child and her out-of-wedlock grandchild a person who is still striving to do the right thing as a mom, and a lot of moms seem to relate to that. I am not a Palin political supporter because she still seems uninformed about a great many matters of state and policy. But I do see how she represents for many women an alternative to the selfish, secular, urban women of the political left.
We use government in this way much of the time, via tax deductions and tax credits, subsidies, and rebates. It goes beyond nudging to mandates when we legally require things.I like the author's emphasis on seeking to maintain freedom, the libertarian part of it, as well as the idea that choices which must be made may as well seek to help us. Of course, we will not all agree on what is 'good' and what 'helps'. In many cases, though, like the default option for work or government benefits, this idea can be put to good use. For instance, many companies now automatically enroll you in the 401k savings plan if you do nothing, whereas in the past the default if you did nothing was to leave you un-enrolled. This is a 'nudge' and seems to me a good one.
However, the more the decision involves morality and values, the more diificult this use of 'nudging' gets to be. One chapter in the book proposes changing the societal approach to marriage, proposing that governments no longer sanction any marriages, that marriage be 'privatized'. The change would be that the government would only sanction civil unions, and marriage would be a private or religious matter exclusively. The authors contend that this would improve the freedom of religious groups as well as non-religious folks, as religious groups could be free to exclude whomever they choose and have standards as high as they want without concern about what impacts it might have on things like government benefits.
In many ways that is a place we have already arrived at, though not officially. The June 21 issue of Newsweek magazine, which has Sarah Palin on the cover, has 2 articles that impact this issue. The first article is about Sarah Palin and the renewed energy of women of the religious right and the other is an article that argues against marriage by 2 self-vowed 'secular, urban' women who rail against the evil of marriage. Palin's work is described as a different sort of feminism, one that 'gathers up the Christian women traditional feminism has left behind' and admits that 'mainstream feminism has had an antireligious bias for a really long time.' The other article is the voice of that 'mainstream feminism' which argues that 'marriage is ...no longer necessary' and that 'the idea of marriage has become so tainted...that we're hesitant to engage in it.'
It is interesting to me that secular, urban homosexuals are arguing they should get married while secular, urban women are arguing that they should avoid marriage. Neither of them are arguing on the basis of virtue. Both are arguing on that basis of what makes them more financially successful and more self-satisfied. There is very little discussion of what it means to be human, since being human means little more to them than 'maximizing our marginal benefit' in economic terms, which includes maximizing their personal power and liberty. I said above that in many ways we are already there because 41% of births are out of wedlock, divorce rates remain high, and benefits in both jobs and in government are readily available to both singles and homosexuals who live together or have children (whether adopted for homosexuals or out of wedlock for heterosexuals). The feminist article admits that for dual income marriages, there is no tax benefit to marriage. The battles today about marriage are really more about status and power than about economics and benefits, and it is interesting that the secular feminist argument and the homosexual argument so completely contradict each other. To me, one key weakness of the Christian discussion of marriage for the past 2 centuries, since the onset of Romanticism, is that we talk about marriage mostly in terms of self-fulfillment, not in terms of virtue, living out our humanness as God created it, or learning how to put other's needs ahead of our own desires. The feminist article admits that couples who marry for love find that '90% of couples have lost the passion they originally felt. And while couples who marry for love are less 'in love' with each passing year, one study found that those in arranged marriages grow steadily more in love as the years progress-because their expectations, say researchers, are a whole lot lower.' I think it has more to do with different expectations rather than lower expectations. Expecting to put someone else's needs ahead of your own and being surprised that doing so makes you a better and happier person seems like higher, not lower, expectations to me. The secular, urban feminists haven't figured that out.
All of this points out how very selfish and self-centered we are. The most difficult thing about marriage is that it demands putting our self-centeredness aside so often. The basic idea about Nudge that I like is the call to consider what is best for others, yet it quickly degenerates into defining 'best' as nothing more than maximizing our selfish desire for power or pleasure. And I think this is why Palin is touching a lot of Christian women. They see in her example with her Down Syndrome child and her out-of-wedlock grandchild a person who is still striving to do the right thing as a mom, and a lot of moms seem to relate to that. I am not a Palin political supporter because she still seems uninformed about a great many matters of state and policy. But I do see how she represents for many women an alternative to the selfish, secular, urban women of the political left.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Musings on Korea
I just spent a week in Korea, my second visit there. Since I knew to avoid the kimchi this time and the hotel was more conveniently located, it was a good visit. Finding a Starbucks within a few blocks of the hotel was nice, too.
It is interesting to observe a culture in which there do not seem to be any significant racial minorities. Everyone in all walks of life, at least that I encountered, seemed to be Korean. There was not a clear divide, as there is in many countries, in which immigrants make up the taxi drivers, the hotel housekeepers, the janitors and farm workers. There also seems to be a strong service commitment in the culture: the taxi drivers often wear a tie, the hotel has several people near the front door to greet, help with luggage, give directions, call a taxi or anything else, much more available than in the U.S., and tips for service are not part of the culture.
I stayed in one of the cities in the metro-Seoul area, the city of Suwon. It is an old city on the south side of Seoul with an old fortress that is a well known landmark, and it also has a large Samsung manufacturing site. All the places I went seemed to be quite safe with lots of people around and usually lots of traffic. There are a lot of churches as well, and you see a lot of crosses on the top of steeples and roofs as you walk around. There continues to be a great deal of construction going on. In one area we drove past, something like 30 or so high rise condo buildings are going up at once. These are 20-30 stories each. It is like a whole, new city being built at once.
One of the most interesting things from this trip was the discussion on the current tension with North Korea about the sinking of a navy ship in April. I was surprised to learn that quite a large number of folks, which was estimated at something like 25-30% of the South Koreans by the folks I talked with, think the sinking could have been caused by the South Korean government. Some think it may have been an accident in war games and that the government is covering it up. Others think it may have been a deliberate attempt by the government to influence the elections that took place soon after the sinking. Many of the citizens clearly do not trust their government on this sort of thing, and most especially they do not trust the military. The view of this is much less clear cut in Korea than the way it is presented in the U.S. news media.
It was also interesting to me that there are very few semi-tractor trailers on the road. You see lots of trucks, but they are smaller than semi’s. I had to think about that for a bit, but since South Korea is about the size of Indiana, you can see how smaller trucks would work fine if all the trucking you needed to do were within the confines of Indiana. The only semi’s I saw were sea-going containers headed for a seaport to be loaded on a ship. However, there are buses everywhere. I used a bus to and from the airport, which is about 1.5 hours from Seoul at Incheon. Buses are a well used means of transport and take the place of the semi’s on the road.
Overall, I continue to be impressed by the amount of construction and development going on, despite the current economic issues; and I found it interesting that in a land with much less ethnic and racial diversity, and that appears to an outsider as much more uniform in thought, there is still a strong suspicion of the motives of politicians.
It is interesting to observe a culture in which there do not seem to be any significant racial minorities. Everyone in all walks of life, at least that I encountered, seemed to be Korean. There was not a clear divide, as there is in many countries, in which immigrants make up the taxi drivers, the hotel housekeepers, the janitors and farm workers. There also seems to be a strong service commitment in the culture: the taxi drivers often wear a tie, the hotel has several people near the front door to greet, help with luggage, give directions, call a taxi or anything else, much more available than in the U.S., and tips for service are not part of the culture.
I stayed in one of the cities in the metro-Seoul area, the city of Suwon. It is an old city on the south side of Seoul with an old fortress that is a well known landmark, and it also has a large Samsung manufacturing site. All the places I went seemed to be quite safe with lots of people around and usually lots of traffic. There are a lot of churches as well, and you see a lot of crosses on the top of steeples and roofs as you walk around. There continues to be a great deal of construction going on. In one area we drove past, something like 30 or so high rise condo buildings are going up at once. These are 20-30 stories each. It is like a whole, new city being built at once.
One of the most interesting things from this trip was the discussion on the current tension with North Korea about the sinking of a navy ship in April. I was surprised to learn that quite a large number of folks, which was estimated at something like 25-30% of the South Koreans by the folks I talked with, think the sinking could have been caused by the South Korean government. Some think it may have been an accident in war games and that the government is covering it up. Others think it may have been a deliberate attempt by the government to influence the elections that took place soon after the sinking. Many of the citizens clearly do not trust their government on this sort of thing, and most especially they do not trust the military. The view of this is much less clear cut in Korea than the way it is presented in the U.S. news media.
It was also interesting to me that there are very few semi-tractor trailers on the road. You see lots of trucks, but they are smaller than semi’s. I had to think about that for a bit, but since South Korea is about the size of Indiana, you can see how smaller trucks would work fine if all the trucking you needed to do were within the confines of Indiana. The only semi’s I saw were sea-going containers headed for a seaport to be loaded on a ship. However, there are buses everywhere. I used a bus to and from the airport, which is about 1.5 hours from Seoul at Incheon. Buses are a well used means of transport and take the place of the semi’s on the road.
Overall, I continue to be impressed by the amount of construction and development going on, despite the current economic issues; and I found it interesting that in a land with much less ethnic and racial diversity, and that appears to an outsider as much more uniform in thought, there is still a strong suspicion of the motives of politicians.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Slobs and Preppies
Here we go again….there are 2 kinds of people in the world, slobs and preppies. I am sitting here thinking about Timothy Keller’s book The Prodigal God, which of course is about two kinds of people in the world, elder brothers and younger brothers. Those are the two brothers in the parable of the prodigal son. One of them is a preppie, the other one a slob. You may have other terms for them, like one is Party-er and the other a Do-gooder; one is a Pharisee and the other a sinner; one of them is liberal and the other a conservative; one is Ford guy and the other a Chevy guy. They are all related to each other.
I wrote last year about how irritating this ‘two kinds of people’ thing gets after a while. I think that maybe it is better to think that there are two kinds of people in the world: those that think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don’t. Unfortunately I was reminded again of how poignant this little device can be last Sunday morning. You see, I generally go to the early morning service in the sanctuary at our church, but every so often I go to the ‘contemporary’ (aka, ‘rock n roll’) service to help out with the offering and such. Last week I was at the contemporary service.
I am always amazed at the effort some folks put in to looking like slobs. Especially the guys in the band. There they are in front of the crowd with jeans full of holes, a shirt that is too small and looks like it was rolled up in wad for the past week, a stubbly beard, and hair that hasn’t been combed in who knows how long. These are not poor folks who can’t afford clothing without holes or don’t have access to a shower and a laundry. These are folks who work hard at looking like slobs. I don’t get it. Somehow it is ‘cool’ to look like the younger, prodigal son after he hit bottom.
Which reminded me of the prodigal son. Or rather, it reminded me of one section of Keller’s book in which he comments about how traditional churches chase away the younger-brother types by our elder-brotherness, which in turn raised in my mind the question of what church is supposed to be about anyway. Is church supposed to be designed to attract the younger brother, party going, slob types? Or is it supposed to attract the elder brother Pharisee types? Or neither?
My current vote is for ‘neither’. The reality is that we seem to be doing one or the other, with the ‘traditional’ service being to attract the elder brother types and the ‘contemporary’ to attract the younger brother types. Neither of these types want to venture outside their own comfort zone. Neither wants to be made uncomfortable. Both seem to me to go to church at least in part to demonstrate their own style rather than to worship God.
I think the idea of ‘seeker sensitive’ church doesn’t serve the purpose of church and doesn’t make much sense anyway. I am Calvinistic enough to think that there are no seekers without God first seeking us. But we should not be chasing people away either. We should instead be true to what worship is supposed to be, which is to cause us to recognize our own need for God and then respond by worshipping God. So, the goal of church is not to attract younger brothers; nor is it to attract elder brothers. Both brothers are in it for themselves. Both see their approach as best and both seek to put God in a position of owing them something.
The hard thing about church is to cause the Pharisee elder brothers to recognize their Pharisee-ism, repent of it, and respond in humble worship while also causing the partying libertines to recognize their libertinism, repent of it, and respond in humble worship. Instead we often just reinforce both of them by playing to their style. Maybe we should make everyone switch to the other service after they choose the one they want? As someone said, ‘to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted’ is what we should be trying to do. Not easy. It is certainly done best by the Spirit.
I actually enjoyed a couple of the songs we sang in that service, despite the band’s appearance. But I can’t say I left with a sense of having encountered God there. Some people appeared to have done so. Still, I wonder how we reconcile these ‘2 kinds of people’ in our church services.
I am re-reading the book Nudge as well. In it there is a blurb about a product called Clocky, a robotic alarm clock that ‘runs away and hides if you don’t get out of bed’! Such a product is needed because there are two kinds of people in the world: those who get up when the alarm goes off, and those who don’t. We need to get one of those for Daniel!
I wrote last year about how irritating this ‘two kinds of people’ thing gets after a while. I think that maybe it is better to think that there are two kinds of people in the world: those that think there are two kinds of people in the world, and those who don’t. Unfortunately I was reminded again of how poignant this little device can be last Sunday morning. You see, I generally go to the early morning service in the sanctuary at our church, but every so often I go to the ‘contemporary’ (aka, ‘rock n roll’) service to help out with the offering and such. Last week I was at the contemporary service.
I am always amazed at the effort some folks put in to looking like slobs. Especially the guys in the band. There they are in front of the crowd with jeans full of holes, a shirt that is too small and looks like it was rolled up in wad for the past week, a stubbly beard, and hair that hasn’t been combed in who knows how long. These are not poor folks who can’t afford clothing without holes or don’t have access to a shower and a laundry. These are folks who work hard at looking like slobs. I don’t get it. Somehow it is ‘cool’ to look like the younger, prodigal son after he hit bottom.
Which reminded me of the prodigal son. Or rather, it reminded me of one section of Keller’s book in which he comments about how traditional churches chase away the younger-brother types by our elder-brotherness, which in turn raised in my mind the question of what church is supposed to be about anyway. Is church supposed to be designed to attract the younger brother, party going, slob types? Or is it supposed to attract the elder brother Pharisee types? Or neither?
My current vote is for ‘neither’. The reality is that we seem to be doing one or the other, with the ‘traditional’ service being to attract the elder brother types and the ‘contemporary’ to attract the younger brother types. Neither of these types want to venture outside their own comfort zone. Neither wants to be made uncomfortable. Both seem to me to go to church at least in part to demonstrate their own style rather than to worship God.
I think the idea of ‘seeker sensitive’ church doesn’t serve the purpose of church and doesn’t make much sense anyway. I am Calvinistic enough to think that there are no seekers without God first seeking us. But we should not be chasing people away either. We should instead be true to what worship is supposed to be, which is to cause us to recognize our own need for God and then respond by worshipping God. So, the goal of church is not to attract younger brothers; nor is it to attract elder brothers. Both brothers are in it for themselves. Both see their approach as best and both seek to put God in a position of owing them something.
The hard thing about church is to cause the Pharisee elder brothers to recognize their Pharisee-ism, repent of it, and respond in humble worship while also causing the partying libertines to recognize their libertinism, repent of it, and respond in humble worship. Instead we often just reinforce both of them by playing to their style. Maybe we should make everyone switch to the other service after they choose the one they want? As someone said, ‘to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted’ is what we should be trying to do. Not easy. It is certainly done best by the Spirit.
I actually enjoyed a couple of the songs we sang in that service, despite the band’s appearance. But I can’t say I left with a sense of having encountered God there. Some people appeared to have done so. Still, I wonder how we reconcile these ‘2 kinds of people’ in our church services.
I am re-reading the book Nudge as well. In it there is a blurb about a product called Clocky, a robotic alarm clock that ‘runs away and hides if you don’t get out of bed’! Such a product is needed because there are two kinds of people in the world: those who get up when the alarm goes off, and those who don’t. We need to get one of those for Daniel!
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Carville Finally Gets One Right
James Carville was on 'Good Morning America' this morning, and finally someone blasted the government not only for not responding quickly to the oil well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico, but for not paying attention to the families of those workers who were incinerated on that well. He made it clear that the President and other officials should be there meeting with those families and doing what they can to both console them and be actively directing efforts to stop the oil damage. It is the lack of empathy for the families that bothers me at the moment.
Last night on ABC news was the first time I saw any significant media coverage of the families of those 11 men killed in the explosion and fire on the oil rig. It had been35 days since the accident. Had it been a coal mine or an airplane, most of the media attention would have been on the families. The lack of attention to the families has been telling in my opinion. That lack of attention has made the national values clear: nature and wildlife matter more than people.
The oil well is clearly doing a lot of damage, and that is definitely an environmental disaster. No question about that. But the people matter even more. There is no reason for ignoring them. Certainly the coverage could have been both the horrible loss of life and also the environmental damage instead of focusing only on the ecological impact. It seems to me that the media focus on the loss of life with the recent coal mine cave-in was more focused on the people. Why? My opinion is that it was because that was the best way to show their opposition to underground mines. With underground mines, the environmental damage is less obvious so focusing on the people best accomplishes their agenda. With the oil well, they clearly want to focus on the opposition to the oil industry since the loss of life has been barely covered.
This is part of an overall tone in our culture that disturbs me: a woman's choice matters more tha a baby's life; avoiding the burden of a disabled child or parent is more important than the life of a Down's syndrome baby or a elderly and ill parent; ecological damage matters more than the fatalities in this oil well disaster. I am not a fan of James Carville at all, but he got it right this time. There is a least hope that we will deal with the oil spill, but those families will never be the same.
Last night on ABC news was the first time I saw any significant media coverage of the families of those 11 men killed in the explosion and fire on the oil rig. It had been35 days since the accident. Had it been a coal mine or an airplane, most of the media attention would have been on the families. The lack of attention to the families has been telling in my opinion. That lack of attention has made the national values clear: nature and wildlife matter more than people.
The oil well is clearly doing a lot of damage, and that is definitely an environmental disaster. No question about that. But the people matter even more. There is no reason for ignoring them. Certainly the coverage could have been both the horrible loss of life and also the environmental damage instead of focusing only on the ecological impact. It seems to me that the media focus on the loss of life with the recent coal mine cave-in was more focused on the people. Why? My opinion is that it was because that was the best way to show their opposition to underground mines. With underground mines, the environmental damage is less obvious so focusing on the people best accomplishes their agenda. With the oil well, they clearly want to focus on the opposition to the oil industry since the loss of life has been barely covered.
This is part of an overall tone in our culture that disturbs me: a woman's choice matters more tha a baby's life; avoiding the burden of a disabled child or parent is more important than the life of a Down's syndrome baby or a elderly and ill parent; ecological damage matters more than the fatalities in this oil well disaster. I am not a fan of James Carville at all, but he got it right this time. There is a least hope that we will deal with the oil spill, but those families will never be the same.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
The Mystery of Women (Post-Mother's Day)
It is ironic, or perhaps even a conspiracy, that as we celebrated Mother's Day this past Sunday the media was celebrating the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill. I commented a couple of weeks ago how 'The Pill' has had unintended consequences for women that are ingored by the left. Having this in the papers, magazines, and on TV during Mother's Day prompted a few questions on my part:
- Why do women praise the sexual liberation and sexual equality they think is produced by the pill but then wonder why many men find marriage no longer necessary?
- How is it a good thing that the pill, which was sold to the public as 'family planning', has resulted in a society where 40% (and still rising) of all children are born out of wedlock?
- If women object to being treated as sex objects, why do they use the pill before marriage in order to be treated more like sex objects and less like potential marriage partners?
As my mind wandered, a few other thoughts related to Mother's Day occurred to me, which are not related to the pill, but here they are anyway:
- Why do women who would never marry 'momma's boys' do all that they can to make their own sons into 'momma's boys'?
- Why do women define 'helping' in a way that men define as 'nagging'?
- Why do women who compete against men in the marketplace, sports, school, etc find it surprising when men come to view them as competitors instead of as marriage partners?
None of this is to belittle Mother's Day. I like Mother's Day. Our society, on the other hand, seems to be very confused about motherhood in general. Newsweek's Julia Bard wrote about how bad mothers can give us hope to 'lower the bar' from the thought of being a perfect mother, but goes beyond that, quoting the French philosopher Elizabeth Badinter (from The Conflict, the Woman and the Mother) that women are no longer oppressed by men, but rather by children. While she hedges by saying that she doesn't agree with everything in the book, she does find it 'bold' and 'refreshing'. This sort of thing, along with the continuing plague of abortion, simply reminds me that there are a great many bad mothers out there, mothers unworthy of Mother's Day. Which should make us all the more grateful for good mothers. So I once again say a big 'Thank You!' to my mom and my wife for their work as mothers.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
The Great 'Caught Up' (or 'Catch Up'? Ketchup?)
We recently had a sermon series on the book of Revelation and it necessarily included some discussion of what is called 'The Rapture' of the church. One of the books recommended by our pastor during the series is titled Three Views of the Rapture and is a debate on Pre-, Mid-, or Post-tribulation points of view by 3 seminary professors. Since they teach at Trinity where I attended seminary for a couple of terms, I decided to read it and I recently finished the book.
First I must vent a little, however. The first thing I dislike about this whole topic is the title. 'The Rapture'. I had never even heard of 'The Rapture' until I went to college and became friends with some folks who had been reading Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth. This doesn't prove much except that it is at least possible to be a serious Christian without caring a whit about 'The Rapture'. But why call it that? It comes from the Latin translation of I Thessalonians 4:17 where Paul says that at Christ's Second Advent those believers who are alive at that time will be 'caught up' to meet Him. 'Rapturos' is the Latin for 'caught up'. So 'The Rapture' is actually 'The Caught Up'. Huh? I suppose trying to talk in Latin makes folks think you are educated or something, like talking about chemistry to marketing folks. It might make you feel smart but it doesn't communicate anything. It reminds me of the way the media today is constantly turning verbs into nouns and vice versa. Rapturos is a verb, not a name for an event. 'The Caught Up' : yuck. If the aforementioned marketers had been involved, they would have quickly changed that (alas, 'morphed' it) into 'The Ketchup' just to make it more catchy. Talk about anticipation! But then I just realized that my kids probably don't even remember that great ketchup commercial that I immediately recall whenever I hear the word 'anticipation'. In any case, the very term 'The Rapture' irritates me.
I much prefer the words that are actually used for the event rather than for an action. Those words used often for Christ's return include apocalypse (revelation), epiphany (appearing), and parousia (coming). 'Apocalypse' and 'epiphany' are both transliterations of greek words in the Bible (apocalypsis and epiphaneia) rather than translations, though we don't use transliterations of 'parousia' in English. I like all of them better than 'rapture', though, since 'rapture' has lots of other meanings in English as well.
Enough venting. The book, though, was a more studious and non-hysterical approach to the subject than most of what is out there. It does point out the history of the subject, which is important since it has only been in the last century that this idea of a pre-tribulation 'Rapture' has gained any significant support among believers at all. My take on it is that the Post-tribulation view has by far the best argument that requires much less reading into the text than the Pre- or Mid- tribulation points of view. Basically, the Post-tribulation view is that 'The Rapture' and the Second Advent are one event, not two separate events. It is not an easy read and the writing style tries your patience at times, but it does a good job in pointing out the differences among these views.
Meanwhile I prefer to skip the ketchup and have the second advent instead.
First I must vent a little, however. The first thing I dislike about this whole topic is the title. 'The Rapture'. I had never even heard of 'The Rapture' until I went to college and became friends with some folks who had been reading Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth. This doesn't prove much except that it is at least possible to be a serious Christian without caring a whit about 'The Rapture'. But why call it that? It comes from the Latin translation of I Thessalonians 4:17 where Paul says that at Christ's Second Advent those believers who are alive at that time will be 'caught up' to meet Him. 'Rapturos' is the Latin for 'caught up'. So 'The Rapture' is actually 'The Caught Up'. Huh? I suppose trying to talk in Latin makes folks think you are educated or something, like talking about chemistry to marketing folks. It might make you feel smart but it doesn't communicate anything. It reminds me of the way the media today is constantly turning verbs into nouns and vice versa. Rapturos is a verb, not a name for an event. 'The Caught Up' : yuck. If the aforementioned marketers had been involved, they would have quickly changed that (alas, 'morphed' it) into 'The Ketchup' just to make it more catchy. Talk about anticipation! But then I just realized that my kids probably don't even remember that great ketchup commercial that I immediately recall whenever I hear the word 'anticipation'. In any case, the very term 'The Rapture' irritates me.
I much prefer the words that are actually used for the event rather than for an action. Those words used often for Christ's return include apocalypse (revelation), epiphany (appearing), and parousia (coming). 'Apocalypse' and 'epiphany' are both transliterations of greek words in the Bible (apocalypsis and epiphaneia) rather than translations, though we don't use transliterations of 'parousia' in English. I like all of them better than 'rapture', though, since 'rapture' has lots of other meanings in English as well.
Enough venting. The book, though, was a more studious and non-hysterical approach to the subject than most of what is out there. It does point out the history of the subject, which is important since it has only been in the last century that this idea of a pre-tribulation 'Rapture' has gained any significant support among believers at all. My take on it is that the Post-tribulation view has by far the best argument that requires much less reading into the text than the Pre- or Mid- tribulation points of view. Basically, the Post-tribulation view is that 'The Rapture' and the Second Advent are one event, not two separate events. It is not an easy read and the writing style tries your patience at times, but it does a good job in pointing out the differences among these views.
Meanwhile I prefer to skip the ketchup and have the second advent instead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)