Life is quite busy at the moment (final exams, band concerts, baseball games, and the like), but I wanted to share a few things with you:
A few days ago I was scrolling through The Website Formerly Known as Twitter and encountered a lengthy and thoughtful thread from Brad Littlejohn, on the present tensions between conservatives and institutions. Some highlights:
Conservatism requires institutions and institutional norms, but so many have now been captured by the Left that conservatives don’t trust institutions and no longer know how to think or act institutionally.
And:
The conservative distrust of government that began six decades ago has expanded into a distrust of governance. But institutions are impossible without governance. Accepting governance means respecting process, not merely results.
And:
Conservatives today are standing up new institutions in a dizzying frenzy of activity. But none of these institutions will endure without an institutional mindset. Most of them exist purely as grenade-launching stations, firing off projectiles at nearly every other institution around them. The moment the common enemy disappears, or becomes uninteresting, they’ll start blowing one another up.
As someone who generally identifies as conservative and who strongly believes in the importance of institutions in helping to order our lives together—heck, I dedicated a chapter in my forthcoming book to encouraging Christians to invest in institutions—Littlejohn’s thoughts resonated in more ways than one. Even if you don’t buy every part of his argument, his perspective is worth your time.
Samuel James continues to be one of my favorite writers and cultural commentators. In a recent essay on his Substack (which you should follow), he reflects on the film The Zone of Interest and concludes that, despite our near certain thinking to the contrary, most of us today would have been members of the Nazi Party in pre-WWII Germany.
No, James is not saying that you and I would have been manning the gates of concentration camps, nor is he saying that we would have been captured by Nazi ideology writ large. But consider this:
We survey the bloodstains of history with an air of superiority, confident that, had we been the colonist or the German, we would have been “on the right side of history.” What’s behind this attitude is not just self-righteousness, but a subhuman mental picture of the characters who commit these crimes. We think of them as beasts and cannot imagine ourselves or anyone we love that way.
He continues:
All variables being equal, you and I would likely have been dutiful members of the Nazi Party, had we been ambitious young adults in 1930s Germany. The question is not “why,” but, “Why not?” The overwhelming majority of people who considered themselves reasonable, compassionate, and thoughtful simply accepted their regime as a fact. You and I would have as well. We balk at this thought experiment only because we imagine ourselves knowing and feeling the way about those times the way we feel about them now.
But that’s not how life works. Even the moments where we might contemplate the depravity of what’s around us tend to be interrupted by the banal demands of the day, and our tendency is to shrug, say “What can you do” and then try to as best we can to navigate our lives. It’s what we do, and it’s what they did.
Princeton’s Robert George shared similar thoughts a few years ago in the context of slavery in the antebellum south. “I sometimes ask students what their position on slavery would have been had they been white and living in the South before abolition,” he wrote. “Guess what? They all would have bravely spoken out against slavery, and worked tirelessly against it.”
Of course, George is being facetious — most of them (and us, he believes) would have gone along with the status quo. It’s a healthy reminder to consider history carefully, and not to think ourselves too morally superior to previous generations.
For Christianity Today, Alan Noble comments on recent remarks from prominent atheist Richard Dawkins, who described himself as a “cultural Christian” as a symbolic identity in opposition to Islamic radicalism. And while cultural Christianity does bring certain benefits to society (such as a shared moral foundation, strong families, and political stability), these are not the purpose of the Christian faith. Noble writes:
If one can receive the material benefits of Christianity without actually believing the gospel, then why bother dying to self and living in radical obedience to Christ? As I argued in Disruptive Witness, the modern tendency is to view Christianity as a lifestyle option, not as a revealed truth from a transcendent God who entered into history in the form of Christ. If people come to Christianity only because they see it as a superior way to self-optimize, then when the demands of Christianity become too great, they will abandon it for some easier fad.
“There is danger here,” he continues, “and we must be wary of encouraging a superficial, denatured Christian culture.” At the same time, though,
We find ourselves with a remarkable opening to proclaim the gospel. Whether people come to church to socialize or out of obedience to God, they need to hear the gospel. Whether people show interest in Christianity because of their fears about progressive culture or because they are convinced about the historicity of the Resurrection, they need to hear the gospel.
Also in Christianity Today, Hannah McClellan reports on a new initiative from the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities aimed at training future Christian college presidents. Notably, the article features one of my colleagues at John Brown University: Chief Innovation Officer, Chief Intercultural Engagement Office, and Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering Ted Song.
From the article:
“If presidency is God’s calling, great,” Song said. “If God wants to use a person as a president of a Christian college, great. But that can also happen in the classroom or on an athletic field. I want to remind myself and also remind my students that we always need to go back to our mission.”
Finally, some personal news: Last week I learned I am a recipient of this year’s Faculty Excellence Award from John Brown University. The award, per the announcement, “is designed to honor faculty who have demonstrated excellence in teaching, scholarship, service, and spiritual modeling & student care; positively impacted students, colleagues, and the JBU community; and contributed substantially to the goals and mission of JBU.”
I am, of course, deeply honored and grateful to be recognized in this way. But it’s even sweeter to receive the award alongside my colleague and friend, Prof. Kim Cornett. I haven’t seen her in action in the classroom, but comments from students and other faculty suggest she is more than deserving of this award for her teaching, advising, and service. Bravo, Kim!