Midwestern Mugwump (mw)2

Christians (and conservatives - no they're not necessarily the same) on Campus - ABC News Tuesday

I just saw an advertisement for tomorrow (Tuesday) night's World News Tonight about a segment on Christians and Conservatives on University campuses.  Frankly, I'm scared, but perhaps I should be more optimistic.  I'll be interested in reading accounts of it, as I probably won't be able to watch it. 

For what its worth, I hope the Christian's don't play the victim card, better to come across as earnest, committed to learning and let critics sounds shrill and stupid. 

Time, Time - See What You've Done to Me

Time has a cover story on the 25 Most Influential Evangelicals, which looks to be provocative, if nothing else.  Most of them, I'm familiar with, a few I'm not.  It probably makes for an interesting read.  I was glad to see that they included Packer and Noll (though neither are very good photos), revealing that we do have a few people beyond mega-churches and politics in the mix. 

Perhaps I'll have more later on this.

What Cities Should Be Doing

Maybe its that I really hate driving and traffic and am way to impatient for my own good (and frankly, for the common good), but this article in the SunTimes sounds really cool - Computer could unjam Chicago traffic.  No mention of how much it would cost (or what the Daley corruption surcharge would be - can we get an economist to estimate that for us??), but it seems cool.  To wit:

The Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control system is a network of closed-circuit cameras and traffic-detecting devices linked to a central computer that instantly adjusts stop lights at 3,000 intersections when back-ups occur.

It has improved traffic . . . and at this point the technology might buy you a 30 to 40 percent reduction in road delay times, he said. Chicago, with its larger, higher-density downtown, might get a greater benefit.

Okay, so the civil libertarians might be chilled by the prospect of cameras everywhere and as I mentioned, there is always the bloated cost of public works in Chicago, but, this seems like the kind of thing a city should be doing - improving efficiency through the provisions of public goods.  And, think of the environmental side benefits of better traffic efficiency. 

UPDATE - Chicago Report points to this article in Asia Week indicating that a similar system hasn't done to well in Bangkok.  They hope it will make up for our high Chicago tax rate (and that's before the corruption surcharge).

This brings me to another question - it seems like one of the purposes of the jurisdictional superiority of the federal government would be to make my fancy new I-Pass system work on the Skyway, the Indiana Toll-Road and everywhere else they charge to drive - in the name of the regulation of interstate commerce, of course.  Really, how hard can this be?  I doubt that there are that many different companies producing the essential background technology.  Are either Obama or Durbin on the Transportation committee?

What about [Sponge]Bob?

While some uninformed people speculated about what James Dobson was getting himself into regarding the "Spongebob Controversy," Christianity Today did a little reporting and lined up some commentary from people who actually know what they are talking about. 

• A piece by Focus describing their view of the situation, primarily objecting to the pledge behind the video and its appropriateness for this age group.  I agree with that sentiment, but remain uncertain about whether this was the best way to go about raising the concern.  The Times claimed that the video and the pledge were from separate (but similiarly named) entities.  I haven't seen any more on this issue.
• A piece by the creators of Stanley, JoJo's Circus, PB & J Otter, Doug, and a new 10 Commandments based series called HoopDogz.  They largely agree with Dobson in that they are uncomfortable with the pledge behind the video but note that (a) the video has a positive 'love your neighbor' message and (b) they don't own the rights any more, despite creating the characters.  That those other shows (all of which I like, particularly Stanley [for the education value] and PB & J [for the music]) were created by Christians gives me hope that Christians are active creating good material in this field.
• The best piece was an interview with Phil Vischer.  Best because it takes the time to introduce questions like what is the purpose of children's television (introduce the kind of virtues we expect in adults), highlights some of the areas of common and special grace in programming (such as how to discuss more uniquely Christian virtues), and touches on the question of unequal yoking in this context.  It's saddening to me that Big Ideas collapsed in the way that it did.

I don't feel tasked to be on the front lines of a culture war (which to some may appear a cop out), so I don't feel compelled to touch on the 'Spongebob as icon' issue or when one feels it's necessary to discuss the link between the pledge and the video.  Ultimately, I'm inclined to think that Dobson missed the right tone in speaking out, but its an awfully difficult note to hit.

Teach the Children Well (I'm on a roll here)

Really, Frederica Matthewes-Green follows up Guroian's article with her own much shorter piece.  Regarding educating our kids, she states that there are three responses to the prospect of promiscuity that Guroian describes (and none work):  to tell students to abstain because immorality leads to misery (failing because the libertines seem to be having such a good time); to emphasize the romance and glory of marriage (failing because kids see too much misery through divorce, etc. in many marriages); and to emphasize the importance of 'objective morality' as if the rejection of the concept of value is the problem (failing because kids have a standard of value and its different from ours). 

The most hopeful response, according to Matthewes-Green, is to love kids and model God's love to them - well, at least its an quick and easy fix.   

The other piece of good news is that Christian Smith, the uber-sociologist, has a new book analyzing the data on the religious beliefs of American teenagers - with an interview here.  He's a brilliant and witty sociologist who typically brings a fresh approach to his work.  For instance, when asked about the conventionality of belief among teenagers, he responded (rather encouragingly) -

there is so much yakking out there about spiritual questing, we've been conditioned to look for kids who can't stand traditional religion. But that's just not the case! Most kids are quite happy to go with whatever they are raised to believe.

That good news aside, Smith goes on to skewer evangelicals with the fact that they actually do an unimpressive job communicating the "language of faith" to their children in a way that helps them understand the profundity of the Gospel.  Back to the depressing side:

we can say here that we have come with some confidence to believe that a significant part of 'Christianity' in the U.S. is actually only tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition...this has happened in the minds and hearts of many individual believers and, it also appears, within the structures of at least some Christian organizations and institutions...Moralistic Therapeutic Deism (the de factor cultural religion) is not just an inadequate version of Christianity. It's a different religion.

But he does say that "one of the things that really hit us hard: that parents still have an enormous amount of influence on their kids' lives, even though I'm sure that's very hard for them to believe at times."   Indeed. 

At the end of the day, its a war of backdoor ideas and if we are watching at all, we are watching only the front.

These times - they are a changing

Vigen Guroian has a deeply disturbing article in CT called - Dorm Brothel, which does a good job of describing the cultural outlook of (at least some of) college residential life.  Portions of it were around when I was in college over 10 years ago (though mostly not at Wheaton, where I was), so the article rings true and I can't help but think that things have only accentuated since my time.  Guroian speaks usefully of the strengths and weaknesses of the double standard (strength being that at least there was a standard) of the expectations of how men and women would behave relationally  (if I can be vague in a way that Guroian isn't) while in college.  Guroian states:

Still, in most American college coed dorms, the flesh of our daughters is being served up daily like snack jerky. No longer need young men be wolves or foxes to consume that flesh. There are no fences to jump or chicken coops to break into. The gates are wide open and no guard dogs have been posted. It is easy come and easy go. Nor are our daughters the only ones getting hurt. The sex carnival that is college life today is also doing great damage to our sons' characters, deforming their attitudes toward the opposite sex. I am witnessing a perceptible dissipation of manly virtue in the young men I teach... my more compelling concern about this state of affairs is for the young women, our daughters.

While that might strike some as a bit condescending in tone, he's worth hearing out and he quotes one of his female students (an RA at the Catholic college at which he teaches) saying "[t]he peer pressure and the way things are set up make promiscuity practically obligatory."  Yikes.  As a college professor, he lays a substantial part of the blame at the feet of colleges who lay the groundwork for this.  As a father (though of young children), I can't help but shutter and hope that we can figure out a better way to raise our kids (a son and two daughters) how to properly treat each other.  To say its an uphill task would be a cliched understatement.

Guroian ends, suitably enough, by stating:

I have lived long enough to understand and be thankful for the fact that the sins and indiscretions of youth may be forgiven and overcome. Nevertheless, the behavior of our American colleges and universities is inexcusable. Their mendacity is doing great harm to our children, whom we entrust to them with so much love, pride, and hope for the future.

And to think, rather discouragingly, that he teaches at a Catholic college.

Like a Rolling Stone

Every once in a while, evangelicals keep the victim card in their hand and let someone else make a fool of themselves.

I had meant to post on this very funny piece by Cathleen Falsani in last Friday's SunTimes, but we were headed out of town.  GetReligion picked it up yesterday including a bit that Rolling Stone has resolved "internal miscommunications that led to the previous misstatement of company policy and apologize for any confusion it may have caused."  Or something like that.  GetReligion also quotes Zondervan (who appears) to have seen the positive benefits of the controversy and played it cool.  Being out of town, I wasn't able to pay attention to whether evangelical leaders rushed to play the outraged/victim card or, like Falsani astutely articulated, recognized that this wasn't going to play to Rolling Stone's benefit and so avoided getting tangled up in the rope that Rolling Stone was hanging itself with.

Like GetReligion, my favorite line in the column was:

Perhaps Rolling Stone honchos were worried that an ad for a Bible would somehow blow the cool.

Sadly, that ship has already sailed, having been launched (if it hadn't been years earlier, as many argue) when "American Idol" star Clay Aiken graced its cover on July 10, 2003.

Given that the "Ship of Cool" never stopped in my port, I'll have to take her word for it.

More on Influence

In the Agora points to this New York Times article about James Dobson taking on Spongebob Squarepants.  Whatever. 

If you want to change culture, do something, and COMPLAINING DOESN'T COUNT (what are you doing - ed.).

Create something new, invest in an animation studio - create, create, create.

And then go back and read the Sider piece mentioned here.  The failures of the Christian church in America do start at home, but not because of Spongebob.

More EGO than ECO

The Tribune has an interesting story about recovered wood used in new and remodeled homes.  The article begins with a wood finder who buys a house in Laos (which is teak) in order to bring it back to California and turn it into someone's floor.  Interesting, extravagant, but interesting.  As one can surmise, this is not for the faint of pocket book (me):

On average, reclaimed wood floor prices run from about $15 to $30 a square foot installed, depending on variety, compared to $9 to $14 for high-quality new woods. On the high end, prices can climb to $100 a square foot installed.On average, reclaimed wood floor prices run from about $15 to $30 a square foot installed, depending on variety, compared to $9 to $14 for high-quality new woods. On the high end, prices can climb to $100 a square foot installed.

But you are getting teak from Laos or Trans-Siberian Railroad ties.  As the article says, the floors become conversation pieces.  But this is where things (to me, at least) start to break down, the article continues:

"We're ecologically minded," one homeowner stated [by shipping wood from Indonesia - ed.].  (Not to mention that) "costs incurred finding, transporting and processing reclaimed woods also are high. "Wood brought to our mills must first be cleaned of surface debris and metals, sorted for species, graded for yield and then carefully de-nailed," explains Rick Guynn, sales and marketing manager for Chambersburg, Pa.-based The Woods Co. Then it's re-sawn if required. Waste can reduce the yield by 50 percent."

And this stuff masquerades as "green"?  What about search and processing costs?  Just because 'reclaiming 1 million board feet saves 1,000 acres of forest" in some contexts, I don't imagine it does in all contexts.  But hey, you do get the benefits of having a floor that:

may be described as 'exceptionally tough with a rich butterscotch base highlighted by chocolate swirls and bird's-eye details.' Another is 'eye-catching, with a mix of red and yellow heartwood, dark-brown knots and occasional blonde sapwood that patinizes to deeper red.'

And that's what really strikes me as the point of all this. 

Local Influence

Related to the post below, John Zimmer has a post about local influence.  In our rush to write and speak broadly and importantly to large numbers of people, we lose sight of those whom God has placed directly in our path.  It seems a smaller piece of the general loss of the pastoral in many American churches.

There was also more than a bit of this in law school, what a friend described as the drive (almost requirement) to do something "publicly extraordinary."  Is that really our call?  As usual, John is provocative and right on target.