Only at St. John's

Part of a containing series. At the bottom of an email from the Bookstore Director advising us of a change in bookstore hours:

Before printing, please think about the environment
Respectez l’environnement, réfléchissez avant d’imprimer

The first line is fashionable in socially aware circles; the second is just in French. What, you don't speak French? The bookstore director at SJC does. I should mention that French is part of the undergrad Program in the third and forth year.

Notes: CHBC Single Men Panel [2010]

Lecture Notes: CHBC Single Men Panel

Background: These notes are from a panel discussion for single men given at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. the evening July 12, 2010. At the time I found the panel extremely helpful, and a friend who attended with me called it the “best guidance I’ve ever had on the topic.” He got married two weeks ago. I came across the notes in one of my old church notebooks and thought it would be fitting to preserve them in another, more accessible form. I have largely copied the notes down verbatim, without editing. It was intended for and exclusively attended by men, thus the notes are oriented towards the male perspective (they had a separate ladies panel a few weeks later).

Reasoning

1. Proverbs 4 — lessons for sons to take heart of (v. 29).
2. Culturally we are seeing a much later marrying age…there are sociological and cultural factors (more single-parent families, high burdens of college debt places on young people, longer cultural adolescence).
3. CHBC specific—a church of many young, single, professional people moving in and out of D.C. to work for the federal government.

Theology of Sex [Deepak P. (Associate Pastor at CHBC)]

• Scripture sets a very clear standard regarding sex. It is exclusively within marriage.
• Marriage as a voluntary covenant following the Biblical pattern, intimacy as the ‘visible’ (hopefully not too visible) sign of that covenant. And it is visible to God. Sexual act calls God to witness (and sanction) the marriage covenant.
• Cultural assumptions of the time quite opposite from the Biblical stnd: a world of many “marriages” where sex was almost a commodity of the society (women as bargaining chips, etc). God’s covenant changes that to one man, one woman. All other women are to be as sisters. Implications:
• Biblically a man is (a) married or (b) not married. All parts of sex are limited to (a) married. Affection, foreplay, etc. all pointing towards sex within the covenant marriage bond. To every other woman you are not married to—as sisters.
• Masturbation. Lust classified in Scripture as sin. Sex meant to bind man and women together in the marriage bond…single sex is contradictory; selfish and a denial of the covenant bond that seals marriage.

Biblical Relationships [Scott Croft, Elder]

Excellent resource Sex and the Supremacy of Christ. Three distinctives between the Biblical and secular dating.

1. Motive. Recreation, fun, sex, dependence on dating v. considering the possibility of marriage. Purpose of Christian dating is for finding a spouse. Not really any other purpose. (on this note, a couple that doesn’t work out isn’t a “failure.” Dating implies that there will be non-compatibilities). Secular Mindset: selfish pursuit about individual desires, trying to find the fit for “me.”
2. Marriage. For the husband a life of service, devotion, and aid (Eph. 5:23); sacrifices as fathers, leaders, lovers. Marriage intended by God service and sacrifice, opposite of selfish goals in Christless-marriages.
3. Methods. Secular methods are to see if you should get married by acting like you already are married—in soul intimacy, time, devotion, emotion, and sex. But we as men are called to act married only to one woman, the (a) status mentioned above. Sexual/emotional dating that is akin to already being married goes directly against this. Again, Paul’s admonition to treat all women as sisters purity and as sisters in Christ.

So, slowly. Dating ≠ marriage. So should we even try to date? Yes. Biblically, commitment proceeds marriage, not vis-a-vis. But marriage is an absolute, life-long commitment. 1 Thes. 4:6.

Elders’ Note on Shepherding the Flock [Matt Chandler? Former Associate Pastor. CHBC]

From an elder’s perspective, as a married man, and as someone who does a lot of counseling in this area, five pieces of advice for any Christian, single man.

1. Defraud your [current] relationships. Where are you going? Are you pointing towards marriage? What signals are being sent by both parties? Honesty about intent now essential to future.
2. Guard yourself, Prob. 4:23. Guard your heart, mind, body. All of Proverbs about this, much advice in Scripture. Don’t play with fire.
3. Deposit the character of a marriage in yourself now, not after you are married (sure, no one is ready for marriage until they are married, but some men are vastly better prepared, spiritually and emotionally, for the challenges). Strengthen yourself in those areas now, both in yourself and in any woman you might be pursuing. Faithful before marriage, above reproach. Protecting yourself; a security deposit while dating.
4. Relationships are hard to do, hard to compare. Use the church, seek council from and relationship with elders and mentors. Lots of questions out there about romance, and a tendency to avoid the answers. But they are there, and plenty of people have them. Don’t be exclusionary in the sorts of relationship you are building. Make use of the whole counsel of God, in regards to women and all of life.
5. Image. Who are you displaying in your present life? Romans 8:29, 2 Cor. 3:18 (Image of Creation), Col. 3:0-10 (Put off the old self). All men called to display the character and glory of Christ. Applies regardless of your particular relationship status.

General Questions and Answers

• Q. What about opportunities for spiritual leadership of sisters…and potential wives? A. Opportunities for young men to teach and lead in the church naturally come up in the life of the church. You ought to participate and serve in the church as a member. But you ought to be very careful about what capacity you are doing that in and your motives. If you are 20 you probably aren’t the best choice to lead the 20-something. And one-on-one is never a good idea with a young woman. Prudence, dude.
• Q. How do we find good father figures, models, and mentors? A. One good way is to look at the kids! Can reflect a lot on the parents. But just get to know these men, serve and participate with them in the life of the church; most importantly, ask! They are busy but they will make time.
• Q. how much theological agreement does there need to be? A. Enough that you can happily attend and serve in the same church. Not an attend-but-don’t-commune sort of deal. Doctrines of grace incredibly important—define how we relate to one another, not only in the church but in marriage! Think about how an issue will affect future children—things like baptism, understanding of children in the church. And finally a compatible theology of marriage and of the husband/wife relationship. If you have different visions for how you marriage is going to look like in Christ, that’s a problem.

Closing remarks: Give godliness a chance! Always work word for word from Christ and Scripture, not backwards from the world, to determine what something should look like. That in all things He might have the preeminence.

Notes: Reflection and Choice vs. Accident and Force: The Making of the Constitution Webinar

Reflection and Choice versus Accident and Force: The Making of the Constitution

Ashbrook Center at Ashland University
TeachingAmericanHistory.org / Saturday Webinar
(50 Core Documents Series)

Informational Perma Link

Required Readings

• James Madison’s Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 (excerpts) (May 31 and June 6, 1787)
• Constitution of the United States (September 17, 1787)
• Brutus I (October 18, 1787)
• The Federalist No. 1 (October 27, 1787)
• Brutus II (November 1, 1787)
• The Federalist No. 10 (November 22, 1787)
• The Federalist No. 51 (February 6, 1788)

Presenters

• Christopher Burkett, Associate Professor of Political Science at Ashland University
• Peter Schramm, Senior Fellow and Ashbrook Scholar Program Director at Ashland University
• Gordon Lloyd, Honored Visiting Graduate Faculty at Ashland University

Discussion Notes

100 Years ago Charles Beard published his Economic Interpretation of the US, arguing a new take on the American Founding, that it was done for selfish economic class reasons. Represents a fairly significant change in the study of the founding, numerous new alternative views developing. So how can we take the founding seriously? Beard’s approach is interesting, because his view must underlie every word and document from the Constitution and the founding. Flip it and give a constitutional interpretation of the economic theory! (Gordon Lloyd). Forrest McDonald et. al. challenging this underlying progressive assumption that ideas don’t matter, only circumstances matter and the ideas follow.

In fairness, similar conflicts existed at the founding. Dispute between the Federalist and the Anti-Federalist was about the greatest challenge to liberty—both sides agreed that elections were not enough to prevent tyranny, but far deeper details.

Why are the progressives so vital even today? Because we haven’t completely solved the problems of inequality and democracy…and they are very concerned with that challenge. Close connection to how you view private property—is it an absolute and therefore okay to limit to the few, or alright to claim in the name of the many.

Ironic that Progressives really brought back the reading of the Federalist Papers, Beard reviving No. 10 esp. as a document protecting private property (ergo class interest). Madison understood in his context that property and liberty were the same thing (with the whole problem of chattel slavery). But even until the 70s documents weren’t really read by your typical students…viewed through Beard and a few others. Ultimately the reason a place like Ashbrook reads documents straight—without the interpretation of Beard et. al.—is an opening assumption that the human mind is free and able to rationally consider and think for itself; ergo Beard et. al. don’t provide any mystical understanding and frequently cloud the waters. Not that they are irrelevant, but not the source. Ad fontes. And in this case that means reading Wilson instead of Beard.

What we see is that there is a compelling logic and reason behind the constitution, not just an accidental structure that emerges. Again, an appreciation for the ability of the human mind to reflect and choose, not simply a ‘belief’ in humans ‘rights’ (i.e. freedom, but corrupted by the French). America perhaps the only country in the world that was “born talking” (Peter Schramm)—that is we came into being as a country with a deliberate, considered, thoughtful debate about who we should be and what our core beliefs would be. Current challenge and debate is what sort of freedom do we desire? Thinking today says “if one fat kid is left behind” we are doing it wrong; but that becomes dangerous to freedom. So what do we want government to do? Can have a freedom that is dangerous to government; and a government that is dangerous to freedom.

Consider: life is so complicated today, we needs lots of experts and systems to make life work. Is good government then administrative government? Need good scientists and bureaucrats etc. Very different question! Though not the first time it has happened…the ratification was the first major dispute or four or five, which are always revisiting the old ones:

1. Ratification
2. Lincoln and the Civil War dispute over Freedom
3. Wilson’s Progressive Vision
4. FDR? (con’t of above)
5. Technology and Terror

Opposite of slavery is not, for instance, equality, it is liberty. Opposite of tyranny is consent of the governed. It is fascinating how the early progressive vision was passed through the constitutional mechanism of amendments: the 15-18th were radical amendments, yet passed through 2/3 of the Congress & 3/4 of the states. Later progressive vision is through courts and gov’t—bureaucratic administrative expertise state. The next amendment? The Twentieth Amendment, which limits the powers of the president, and then the 22nd Amendment which attempts to limit the executive any further. Both a bit of an anti-federalist return.

Long diversion on the Tea Party as restoration of the anti-federalists…not really. Action ≠ thoughtful deliberation or engagement; fascinating that conservatives have adopted the more progressive idea of action and movements in place of reasonable debate. Entirely different perceptions of government…Coolidge said there wasn’t much to do as president, since then everyone has seen it as a call to action, problem solving! Politics as War…Roosevelt’s War Power kicking the can down the road rather than solving problems; gov’t isn’t really designed to solve problems, it is designed for liberty under the same roof. All about compromise and long-term perspectives; in our modern perspective politics is a declaration of war!

Constitution to (a) restrain gov’t powers or (b) solve problems. Radically different imaginations of what government should do and will do; hence the different views of courts, etc. Conversation between Madison and Sherman on June 6th, who slowly come to an understanding. Reflection a necessary element of deliberation.

Practically speaking, kids don’t understand this perspective on gov’t at all. Best solution is always to go back to the beginning. Remember that historically rule was determined by whoever had the biggest guns! Aristotle traces things back to our passions—hunger and sex! Put that into view and you can work your way forward to a very different view of government not as provider but protector. As Hamilton points out in Federalist 9, all governments, republics to tyrannies, fail in this regard, and all the quicker when they attempt to do anything more than protect the people. Different definitions of “security;” ability to enjoy liberty v. “job security.”

Back to the idea of deliberation…notice how when we think of government and laws we think first of the president and the courts, not the Congress! Fascinating mixup, Congress is suppose to be our thoughtful element and the progressive vision completely ignores that; far more than the anti-Federalists would have ever dreamed possible (substituting a different sort of tyranny instead). The number of people Congress is suppose to represent is a huge part of this problem; 1:600,000 ratio isn’t really representative or thoughtful at all. And really no good way to fix that in a republic of our size. Voter turnout and voter literacy about who their representative is v. who the president is also quite telling here. Probably the best way is a return of many of the functions of government back to the state and local government…and local institutions! Private schools, local aid societies; civic education, etc.

Another reminder that freedom is not lack of restraint. Reiteration of earlier points. FDR’s strange half-breed understanding. Why are young people better understand gov’ts role in freedom of speech than other protection of liberties instead of something like education or welfare? Natural sense that speech is a very fundamental part of their existence and liberty. Necessary to connect to broader world and role of government. Their idea is that gov’t is to make us free not only from our fears, but also our problems in the democratic world. Difference in who applies the restraint—for the modern democratic man, it is society; for the founders, it is ourselves. Means a vastly different role for government.

So ask your students: what areas of life are they capable of governing themselves? What food you eat? Who you should date? Which pills you can take? Riding your bike? Where do you draw the line about what we can do or not do?

Democratic consensus is majority rule; Rousseau’s vision says everyone agrees before something can be done. Absolutely absurd; Locke would never buy it. Rousseau’s line that people “must be forced to be free.” Slightly problematic? Perhaps the most we can do is nudge them.

(Talking about the counties in Northern Colorado that are attempting to secede? Is secession a valid attempt from the founding perspective? Seems more like a realization of the limits of the conversation and the whole inability to compromise. Obviously one hopes it isn’t necessary…but the CSA was definitely a case where the conversation had no future. Fascinating side into Rousseau/Hobbes idea that there is no ‘exit’ right from government; Locke gives you a small exit right but under strict conditions. Whereas today we have no-fault divorce in almost all the states, no real reason required or even therapy (appeal to the experts). No-fault divorce and secession both seen to abandon the idea of deliberation and working to overcome differences. Revolution as the traditional exit right; states aren’t sacred and don’t have inherit rights.)

Still trapped in the notion that action is simply the implementation of previously agreed upon policy. Not really. An election is not a “mandate” because the people do not speak with one unified voice. Elections are just one small part of the overall discussion…instead we seem to view them as imperative voices-of-god that mysteriously seem to to run into thousands of problems when attempted to implement. Haste to execute before deliberation, “we won’t know what’s in the bill till we put it into action” (Nancy Pelosi). And when it doesn’t work we say “we didn’t sell it properly!” Politics has simply become policy salesmanship…not thinking or compromise. One of the great reasons we need to reclaim federalism…yes, Jim Crowe happened. But the policy overall can be quite healthy (pot excluded, perhaps). A valve and view worth reclaiming.

Three Root Questions We Must Always Ask:

1. What should gov’t do? At elections, at votes, at every possible opportunity.
2. Which level of gov’t should do this?
3. And which branch of gov’t should do this? Constitutional prudence dictates it…as power always tends towards terrible centralization.

Q: President seems like the papacy…somehow representing everyone. A: Liberty and infallibility never go together.

Very sidelining discussion about diversity and discrimination related to the idea of federalism; challenge of the idea of absolute equality in all things across all states at all times…big difference between owning another human v. manufacturing intoxicating liquor. There is a line in somewhere that we seem ignorant of. Same dilemma with just war v. unjust war. We desperately want a one-size fits all; perhaps a result of the very ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence of universal claims! Distinction between universalizing core values and universalizing particular values…Jefferson was not a Kantian; one size does not fit all in all regards and Jefferson understood that (contra John Rawls). A denial of prudence.

2013-11-02

Pedophilia and Marriage

In Civics we have been discussing some of the influences on the formation of the American Constitution, including classical republicanism (thanks, Dr. Rahe) and the standard Enlightenment thinkers. But in addition to these worthy matters current events also come up, by design as I require a weekly reading response to a recent op-ed in one of the major papers. Though some students dislike the task of browsing the weekend op-ed pages on the weekend and having to find something they are vaguely enough aware of to respond to, several find it an interesting exercise in engagement with current events and good conversation fodder. Our class, which is 4th period immediately before lunch, is always attracted to a good secondary conversation (This is the same class where J. raised his hand in 10th grade during a discussion of slavery and deliberately asked with a his lethal-smirking face "Mr. Fuller, what do you think about the N-word?"). Today the fodder was provided by H., who offered a great deal of concern and outrage at an op-ed noting how pedophilia is now being justified in some states with arguments similar to those used by the gay rights (and several other) movements.

Richard Dawkins recently made headlines asserting that "mild pedophila" is generally harmless, something quite verboten in our Puritanical culture of Miley Cyrus stripper poles and incessant flesh-filled advertisements, movies, books, and magazines. Given his understanding of the world, it is hard to disagree. Anthony Esolen recently noted that America's objection to pedophila "rests on sentiments and not on moral reasoning." We are proper to find it revolting; we are hypocrites to then consume and celebrate both high and pop cultures of sexual liberation and empty sexuality and then find ourselves shocked by the results. Esolen's essay is quite damning.

The moral structure of pedophilia is simply this: the welfare of children is subordinate to the sexual gratification of adults.

Inflamed by the warrior-poet Esolen I took passionate hold of the topic, and proceeded to launch a classic diatribe, (available against almost anything, it seems) that awkwardly ended when I called arguments over the age of consent "pious self-congratulating bulls---" before realizing exactly what I was saying to a classroom full of my students. A slightly stunned and highly amused laugh immediately filled the room, drowning out my quiet apology.

At least that was with the seniors, who tend to view me (for good or ill) as a close ally in the fight towards adulthood than a faculty member to be feared (except my history exam short IDs. Everyone still fears those).

Not one period later, I found myself discussing marriage and the much-disclaimed verse from Ephesians 5:22 "wives, submit to your husbands as to the LORD." I think the path there was the Hebrew's conception of man as in the image of God per Genesis, to woman being made from the Rib of Adam so which image was she, and then why did God make the Woman from out of the Man and how does that in itself justify the ideas that Dad's are suppose to be in charge?! Because if you look at it Mom's run things. I refrain from comment and proceed to construct a short theology of marriage, recalling the next verse as "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church." Ah, here is a pattern they can begin to recognize, a cosmic order of creation. Christ as the Head of the Church who gave Himself for her; Man as the Head of the Woman, suffering as responsible for her deception due to his place as her head;* and as the head of their family loving her as a foreshadowing of Christ's love for the church. We are now speaking the language of covenant, and the more catechized heads begin to nod. Further explanation; empathetic comment that it strikes me as a pretty terrifying calling from the man's perspective; discussion of the Assyrian Empire waylaid til tomorrow. Class over.

Fifteen minutes later I climb the stairs to sixth grade, plotting how to best teach a new motion for our history memory song.

* Another question raised: would we all be held guilty for Eve's sin if Adam didn't eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, but just Eve did? Would the curse still be valid through the mother, or would Adam's (hopeful) righteousness have prevented Adam's fall, in which we all fall? I haven't the faintest clue, my dears, but you have three other teachers with M.Divs so go ask them. Seriously, this is #abovemypaygrade.

A Certain Light Out of Place

For some reason that still remains a mystery to me, Josh Ritter's recent album The Beast in Its Tracks was the record I returned to again and again this summer. Dislocated from my regular residence (though I would hesitate to call it my "home") for the purposes of study, I found myself gathered with a small group for an eight-week period devoted to reading and study. It was a wonderful time of learning, discovery, and mirth (the dorm chalk board was a never ending supply of nerdiness); and yet it was very temporary. By the time we were friends and settled it was time to return home to students and jobs. The summer, which earlier seemed so laden with promise, passed.

The Beast in Its Tracks is a breakup and recovery (new girl!) album for Ritter, neither which I empathize with at the moment (that would require there to be girls in this state, for starters). But in-between the central emotions of love and loss runs a quiet theme of sentimentally, of memory and wishes for good things. That girl looks like your old lover, prompting an act of recall and memory; in the same way the light at evening or the way a tree frames the sky might remind one of childhood or a specific moment of the past. I suspect it is these themes—perhaps with a touch of my occasional romantic—that drew me in, especially as I was dislocated from my regular habits and thrust into new ones with new people. Even in good times we remember the old, and love is not just something that touches people, but every aspect of our beings. The things we cherish, devout our leisure to, practice, accomplish of our own will—these are expressions of love, recognized or not, perverted or pure. Through his focus on the pain of romantic memory, Ritter touches something that runs even deeper through our veins.

"A Certain Light," John Ritter from The Beast in Its Tracks, 2013.