Here’s another old pal o’ mine, Paul who’s just started blogging. Since he’s such a brainbox, clever-cloggs, academic kind of guy, he ought to be worth checking out.
Mark Steyn makes some observations about post-religious societies. Here a quote:
… what’s at issue is … whether [casual sex is] an appropriate organising principle for society. Or at any rate whether a cult of non-procreative self-gratification is, as the eco-crazies like to say, “sustainable”.
… Frank Field made [some remarks] at a Centre for Policy Studies seminar last week. The subject under debate was poverty and social disintegration, and pondering the collapse of civility in modern Britain Mr Field gave seven reasons. Number One, he said, was the decline of religion.
At that point, many Britons will simply have tuned out for the remaining six, and the more disapproving ones will be speculating darkly on whether, like yours truly and other uptight squares, he has “casual sex” issues. Religion is all but irrelevant to public discussion in the United Kingdom, and you’d have to search hard for an Anglican churchman prepared to argue in public, as Mr Field does, that material poverty derives from moral poverty.
But the point is: he’s not wrong. There aren’t many examples of successful post-religious societies. And, if one casts around the world today, one notices the two powers with the worst prospects are the ones most advanced in their post-religiosity. Russia will never recover from seven decades of Communism: its sickly menfolk have a lower life expectancy than Bangladeshis; its population shrinks by 100 every hour, and by 0.4 per cent every year, a rate certain to escalate as the smarter folks figure it’s better to emigrate than get sucked down in the demographic death spiral.
And then, of course, there’s the European Union.
Of course, his observations are empirical, but interesting nonetheless.
Righteousness exalts a nation, But sin is a reproach to any people. (Prov. 14:34, NKJV)
If you want to know what happens when you have a religious ‘hatred law’ read this news report about what is happening in Victoria, Australia.
The Christian Institute has more background.
Personally, I am not a great fan of CV. I agree with their positions on all issues (I think – to be honest I have not checked every jot and tittle) but their tactics leave a lot to be desired. Nevertheless, whatever one’s view of CV, this is a remarkably illiberal move by the Co-op Bank. Not only do they take a position themselves in regard to ‘diversity’, which they have a right to do I suppose, but they require their customers to agree with them or they will not do business with them.
In other words, they disagree with with what a segment of society says and they oppose its right to say it. Let’s see where this kind of thinking takes our society in the coming days.
A couple of days ago I posted on the failed PCA resolution to encourage members to withdraw from state education. Now it looks like the Southern Baptists are going to revisit the issue. Al Mohler has written of the need for the SBC to have an exit strategy for its members. Though a ‘common’ educational system has done much good for the peope of the US, there are now serious problems. Here’s a quote (emphasis mine):
The breakdown of the public school system is a national tragedy. An honest assessment of the history of public education in America must acknowledge the success of the common school vision in breaking down ethnic, economic, and racial barriers. The schools have brought hundreds of millions of American children into a democracy of common citizenship. Tragically, that vision was displaced by an ideologically-driven attempt to force a radically secular worldview.
In other words, the danger is not in the vehicle of any state system itself, but it is in the ideology it is allowed to convey.
In case anyone is confused, R. C. Sproul Jr. is not the same person as R. C. Sproul. R. C. Jr. is pastor of a church in Tennessee and is son of R. C., as you might guess.
Sproul Jr. has written a book called Bound for Glory: God’s Promise for Your Family. It is short (119pp.), an easy read and very stimulating. Sproul writes as a presbyterian committed to covenant theology and all that that means for family life. So serious is he about this that he is a strong advocate of home-schooling, a growing trend in the US. He is also a paedo-communionist (i.e. he believes baptised children of believers should take communion) , a point over which he differs from his father.
The book covers a big topic: what the covenant means for family life. Therefore, it is not a complete treatment by any means. Indeed, it is much more of an exhortation for those basically convinced to take seriously biblical implications for family life.
Sproul starts by examining the fragmented nature of modern family life. Though some families live under the same roof, at a very early stage each member begins living separated lives, each with their own space or room, entertainments, social connections. Christian families are affected too. Family suffers. As he observes,
Even if we could get them together in the one room, it would only be to watch the blue-eyed glowing idol in their living room. (p. 25).
Sproul argues further that the segregation within the family is seen also in church life: youth groups, men’s meetings, women’s meetings, segregated worship, and so on. This is all extremely challenging, but strikes a chord.
Sproul goes on to look at the family in the Bible, starting with Adam and Eve. He goes in a direction I found surprising. They were to exercise dominion over the earth, and they were to raise children to do the same. This serves as a paradigm for covenant families, to make manifest the reign of Jesus Christ over the earth. It seems clear therefore why family life is is the most important activity a man or a woman can be involved in, far more important than secular career. Christ’s reign on earth begins with his reign in your family. My observation on this is that it does seem one-sided. Perhaps this is necessary at times to highlight a point. But there is a strong hint of covenant-sucession being more important that free and open gospel proclamation to all who will hear.
Nevertheless, the book moves on to consider the role of the husband, the wife and the child, with its focus on the exhortations of Ephesians 5. These sections are very helpful and practical.
The penultimate chapter deals with the role of the church as a wider family. In particular Sproul has in mind the care and nurture of single people and single parents. In these cases, many of the functions that a family would provide are to be taken up by the church. A particular example was instructive. There was a family in Sproul’s church that was damaged when the husband left. As a result the wife and children were left destitute. The church stepped in. One of the married elders who lived nearby became an ‘uncle’ to the children to serve as a father figure in order to support the abandoned wife’s nurturing and discipline. Then, perhaps the most radical step taken was for the church to agree to support the family financially rather than have it cast upon the State. This challenged me because I realised that one of the ways the State corrodes the life of the church is to remove the need to care for its people and to share what the members have with one another. I wondered in how many other ways we allow State involvement in our lives such that true church life is throttled.
The final chapter consists of a transcript of a radio interview between R.C. Jr. and R. C. about family life. Though they have their differences, through it all you get this strong sense that R. C. Jr.’s greatest (earthly) hero was his dad, and that R. C. was proud of his son and how he had turned out!
This book was extremely interesting and challenging. Aside from some theological questions noted above, I would thoroughly recommend it.
The public schools are by law humanistic and secular in their instruction, and as a result the attending children receive an education without positive reference to the Triune God
eventually Christians will wake up to their God-given responsibilities and care about the influences on their children.
Our situation in the UK is different. State schools are still required to perform a daily act of Christian worship, though I understand this is very loosely interpreted. But it would be no surprise to me that in time this will disappear.
There are two issues for Christians, I think. Firstly, Christians must not be complacent about our children’s upbringing, but I think often we are. Too many of us believe the most important influences on their children are the youth group or Sunday school. At the same time we don’t take seriously our obligation before God to be the primary source if instruction in the faith. Education begins in the home with family prayer and worship, godly conversation, joy in the Lord.
Secondly, just what place do state schools have in the Christian education of our children? There are those who believe that the reason so many drift away from the faith is that the schools are not sufficiently ‘Christian’. I am not one of those. I believe if there is a fault it is more likely to be at home. I have previously looked on state education as a means of educating children in aspiritual disciplines. They gain basic information and skills. In this view the state system is independent of the Christian faith, in the same way that going to the doctor or buying a pair of shoes is. There is no more need for acts of worship in school than there is to have them down at the Asda checkout. So I have not been able to advocate the Baker-ite acts of worship.
However, in recent months I have been more aware that
The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge (Prov. 1:7)
This is a chainsaw to the root of the view that knowledge can be aspiritual and independent. Solomon tells us that the fear of the LORD is foundational to all knowledge. Therefore can any subject be studied without reference to Him?
This raises other big questions. What is a genuinely Christian education? Can it be just a ‘daily act of worship’? Or must it affect the subjects themselves and how they are taught? What does that mean for our one-size-fits-all National Curriculum? Can this be sustained without allowing a necessarily secularist, aspiritual worldview erode the spiritual nurture of our children?
I’m open for suggestions.