Justin Taylor's Blog, page 49

(Perhaps) The Most Insightful Interview You’ll Read This Election Year

One of the most depressing parts of this election cycle (among many!) was this video of Ted Cruz trying to interact with a Donal Trump supporter:

There is a fair bit about Cruz’s persona and approach as a politician that I do not care for, but I admire his intelligence and his willingness to dialogue with anyone. Here is an example where it went differently:

For all of my qualms with Cruz, they do not compare with my view of Donald Trump. I have been vocal about my opposition to his candidacy on Twitter, which went from viewing it as an entertaining clown show to a frightening destruction of the Republican party, as evangelicals line up to support him with enthusiasm or with utilitarian lesser-of-two-evils reasoning. (For my part, I think he is fundamentally unqualified to be president, and that he is not better than Hillary Clinton.)

To be clear, I have absolutely no empathy for the shameless shilling of Christians like Jerry Falwell Jr., Mike Huckabee, and Robert Jeffress on behalf of Donald Trump, who are not even making a “lesser of two evils” rationale but building a positive case for why evangelicals should enthusiastically support a pathologically uninformed, conspiracy-spreading, race-baiting, morally unfit strongman for President. Nor, of course, do I have any sympathy for white supremacists like David Duke and the alt-right who are enthusiastic about what they are hearing from the Republican nominee.

But I have been convicted of late that I have not worked very hard to understand the appeal of Donald Trump to his working class white poor constituency.

One helpful thing for me has been reading this interview with J.D. Vance, a graduate of Yale Law School graduate who grew up in dysfunctional Appalachian poverty and is the author of the new book, Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and a Culture in Crisis.

The indefatigable Rod Dreher, who conducted the interview, writes:

The book is an American classic, an extraordinary testimony to the brokenness of the white working class, but also its strengths. It’s one of the best books I’ve ever read. With the possible exception of Yuval Levin’s The Fractured Republic, for Americans who care about politics and the future of our country, Hillbilly Elegy is the most important book of 2016. You cannot understand what’s happening now without first reading J.D. Vance. His book does for poor white people what Ta-Nehisi Coates’s book did for poor black people: give them voice and presence in the public square.

Here is a portion of the interview:

RD: A friend who moved to West Virginia a couple of years ago tells me that she’s never seen poverty and hopelessness like what’s common there. And she says you can drive through the poorest parts of the state, and see nothing but TRUMP signs. Reading “Hillbilly Elegy” tells me why. Explain it to people who haven’t yet read your book. 

J.D. VANCE: The simple answer is that these people-my people-are really struggling, and there hasn’t been a single political candidate who speaks to those struggles in a long time.  Donald Trump at least tries.

What many don’t understand is how truly desperate these places are, and we’re not talking about small enclaves or a few towns-we’re talking about multiple states where a significant chunk of the white working class struggles to get by.  Heroin addiction is rampant.  In my medium-sized Ohio county last year, deaths from drug addiction outnumbered deaths from natural causes.  The average kid will live in multiple homes over the course of her life, experience a constant cycle of growing close to a “stepdad” only to see him walk out on the family, know multiple drug users personally, maybe live in a foster home for a bit (or at least in the home of an unofficial foster like an aunt or grandparent), watch friends and family get arrested, and on and on.  And on top of that is the economic struggle, from the factories shuttering their doors to the Main Streets with nothing but cash-for-gold stores and pawn shops.

The two political parties have offered essentially nothing to these people for a few decades.  From the Left, they get some smug condescension, an exasperation that the white working class votes against their economic interests because of social issues, a la Thomas Frank (more on that below).  Maybe they get a few handouts, but many don’t want handouts to begin with.  

From the Right, they’ve gotten the basic Republican policy platform of tax cuts, free trade, deregulation, and paeans to the noble businessman and economic growth.  Whatever the merits of better tax policy and growth (and I believe there are many), the simple fact is that these policies have done little to address a very real social crisis.  More importantly, these policies are culturally tone deaf: nobody from southern Ohio wants to hear about the nobility of the factory owner who just fired their brother.

Trump’s candidacy is music to their ears.  He criticizes the factories shipping jobs overseas.  His apocalyptic tone matches their lived experiences on the ground.  He seems to love to annoy the elites, which is something a lot of people wish they could do but can’t because they lack a platform.  

The last point I’ll make about Trump is this: these people, his voters, are proud.  A big chunk of the white working class has deep roots in Appalachia, and the Scots-Irish honor culture is alive and well.  We were taught to raise our fists to anyone who insulted our mother.  I probably got in a half dozen fights when I was six years old.  Unsurprisingly, southern, rural whites enlist in the military at a disproportionate rate.  Can you imagine the humiliation these people feel at the successive failures of Bush/Obama foreign policy?  My military service is the thing I’m most proud of, but when I think of everything happening in the Middle East, I can’t help but tell myself: I wish we would have achieved some sort of lasting victory.  No one touched that subject before Trump, especially not in the Republican Party. 

I’m not a hillbilly, nor do I descend from hillbilly stock, strictly speaking. But I do come from poor rural white people in the South. I have spent most of my life and career living among professional class urbanite, most of them on the East Coast, and the barely-banked contempt they — the professional-class whites, I mean — have for poor white people is visceral, and obvious to me. Yet it is invisible to them. Why is that? And what does it have to do with our politics today? 

I know exactly what you mean.  My grandma (Mamaw) recognized this instinctively.  She said that most people were probably prejudiced, but they had to be secretive about it.  ”We”-meaning hillbillies-“are the only group of people you don’t have to be ashamed to look down upon.”  During my final year at Yale Law, I took a small class with a professor I really admired (and still do).  I was the only veteran in the class, and when this came up somehow in conversation, a young woman looked at me and said, “I can’t believe you were in the Marines.  You just seem so nice.  I thought that people in the military had to act a certain way.”  It was incredibly insulting, and it was my first real introduction to the idea that this institution that was so important among my neighbors was looked down upon in such a personal way. To this lady, to be in the military meant that you had to be some sort of barbarian.  I bit my tongue, but it’s one of those comments I’ll never forget.  

The “why” is really difficult, but I have a few thoughts.  The first is that humans appear to have some need to look down on someone; there’s just a basic tribalistic impulse in all of us.  And if you’re an elite white professional, working class whites are an easy target: you don’t have to feel guilty for being a racist or a xenophobe.  By looking down on the hillbilly, you can get that high of self-righteousness and superiority without violating any of the moral norms of your own tribe.  So your own prejudice is never revealed for what it is.

A lot of it is pure disconnect-many elites just don’t know a member of the white working class. . . .

You can continue reading the interview here.

 

Voting in the Age of Clinton and Trump

Lightstock

Matthew Franck—Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Radford University in Virginia, and Director of the William E. and Carol G. Simon Center on Religion and the Constitution at the Witherspoon Institute—argues that “it is wrong to think of a vote not cast for Leading Contender A as a de facto vote cast for Leading Contender B.”

For my part, my conscience is more important to me than the outcome of this presidential election. I cannot in good conscience vote for either Clinton or Trump. What matters for me is that I cannot bring myself to intend, to will the victory of either of these ludicrously unacceptable presidential candidates. And that is what a vote for one of them would be—an act of willing that Clinton or Trump be president, carry out her or his stated policy aims, and bring his or her fundamentally bad character to the highest office in the land.

. . .  ”Not making the perfect the enemy of the good” is not the right adage for calculating what to do in our present predicament. Nor is “choose the lesser of two evils” the right way to think. That way of thinking really only works when at least one of the choices is in fact not really evil.

. . . . This is a nominee who, in my estimation, cannot earn my vote even as a “lesser evil” or an “at least he’s not Hillary” candidate. I waver between believing that his defeat would be the worst thing to happen to our country and believing that his victory would be.

You can read the whole thing here, which includes links to pieces that would disagree with his reasoning.

It’s not my place to tell you how to vote. But I do agree with the counsel of Ted Cruz, who told the Republican National Convention (to a chorus of boos) to “vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket who[m] you trust to defend our freedom, and to be faithful to the constitution.”

Update: Here is a thoughtful response from Rick Garnett, law professor at the University of Notre Dame. An excerpt:

One could reasonably think (and, to be clear, I’m not saying that this is what I think) something like this:  ”Look, candidate X has said all kinds of stupid and offensive things and also proposed stupid, dangerous, and immoral policies.  But, it is not the case that, if candidate X were elected, those policies would become operative because Congress, the courts, the press, the bureaucrats, candidate X’s laziness and ignorance, etc., would prevent or obstruct them, or at least most of them.  Candidate Y, on the other hand, is smart and ideologically motivated, and would enjoy the support of the press and other opinion makers, and so would very likely be able to make operative a number of candidate Y’s stupid, dangerous, and immoral policies.  So, I prefer candidate X, not because I intend that candidate X ‘carry out his or her stated policy aims’ but because I intend to do what I can to prevent candidate Y from carrying out his or her policy aims.”

This is different, I think, from the usual “lesser of two evils” argument, because it is focusing more on the “state of affairs that is likely to come to pass as a result of the election of candidate X or Y” than on the merits of X and Y’s character or proposals.

Sportscaster Ernie Johnson on Adopting His Son with Special Needs: ‘It’s Rooted in Our Christian Faith’

Ernie Johnson Jr. is at the top of his game as a sportscaster for Turner Sports and CBS Sports—the lead TV voice for Major League Baseball (TBS), the host of Inside the NBA (TNT), and a contributor to the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament (Turner and CBS).

He is also a faithful Christian and a father who has adopted children, one of whom has special needs.

“It’s rooted in our faith, our Christian faith,” he told the Courier-Journal in 2014. “We’re instructed to care for orphans and widows. We don’t want credit. We don’t want pats on the back. We’re getting a heck of a lot more out of it than they are.”

You might want to grab some tissues before you watch this ESPN E:60 profile:

Note the theme that Ernie Johnson Jr. is the kind of father he is because of the kind of father he had. And for those who have eyes to see, there is an even deeper level if you know of Ernie Johnson’s faith.

If you want to see another couple raising children with special needs, in a Christ-exalting way, see this beautiful and hope-giving new book by Andrew and Rachel Wilson: The Life We Never Expected: Hopeful Reflections on the Challenges of Parenting Children with Special Needs.

Sportscaster Ernie Johnson on Adopting His Son with Special Needs: “It’s Rooted in Our Christian Faith”

Ernie Johnson Jr. is at the top of his game as a sportscaster for Turner Sports and CBS Sports—the lead TV voice for Major League Baseball (TBS), the host of Inside the NBA (TNT), and a contributor to the NCAA Division I Men’s Basketball Tournament (Turner and CBS).

He is also a faithful Christian, and a father who has adopted children, one of whom has special needs.

“It’s rooted in our faith, our Christian faith,” he told the Courier-Journal in 2014. “We’re instructed to care for orphans and widows. We don’t want credit. We don’t want pats on the back. We’re getting a heck of a lot more out of it than they are.”

You might want to grab some tissues before you watch this new ESPN E:60 profile:

Note the theme that Ernie Johnson Jr. is the kind of father he is because of the kind of father he had. And for those who have eyes to see, there is an even deeper level to that theme if you know of Ernie Johnson’s faith.

If you want to see another couple raising children with special needs, in a Christ-exalting way, see this beautiful and hope-giving new book by Andrew and Rachel Wilson: The Life We Never Expected: Hopeful Reflections on the Challenges of Parenting Children with Special Needs.

Why Joni Eareckson Tada Thinks You Should Go See the New Pro-Suicide Movie, “Me Before You”

Reviewing this movie at Revive Our Hearts, Joni Eareckson Tada (who has lived with quadriplegia for over three decades) writes:

I have nothing but disdain for the “you’re better off dead than disabled” message in Me Before You. It can’t help but have a negative impact on young, impressionable moviegoers who already have fundamental fears about disability. It can pull at their emotions, further weakening their convictions about who has the right to doctor-assisted death. Audiences may leave the theater saying, “Why shouldn’t a despairing quadriplegic have the right to kill himself?!”

Right now there are five states in the United States (California, Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and Montana) that have legalized assisted suicide for terminally ill people. Additionally, bills modeled on the California law have been submitted in eighteen states and the District of Columbia. New York could be next to legalize assisted suicide. All of these state bills and laws limit—or they at least propose to limit—assisted-suicide only for people with terminal illnesses.

But Me Before You pushes even that envelope, laying the case that assisted-death should be extended to anyone who finds his medical condition intolerable. According to the movie, you don’t have to be terminally ill, just have a disability you don’t want to live with. After all, if terminally ill people have the right to end their lives, why not anyone who finds their life circumstances unbearable? That’s the law in Switzerland and Belgium.

She offers several thoughtful critics from the standpoint of a Christian worldview, made especially poignant by her own disability and chronic suffering. Joni is a woman of whom the world is not worthy, and the whole thing is worth reading.

But her conclusion might surprise you.

Having said this, please do go see the movie! It provides a timely opportunity for you to share your convictions about life worth living. Too many Christians are buying into the premise that life isn’t worth living if it involves awful suffering. So this movie is a prime opportunity to not only share how films glamorize death and gloss over the facts, but it’s a chance to raise culturally-sensitive issues with your friends and neighbors, helping them understand a biblical worldview on living and dying with suffering.

Many young people have called Me Before You the best romantic film of the summer. Well, this is your chance to engage them in conversation, sharing your beliefs over a cup of coffee at Starbucks, in a college cafeteria, or over your backyard fence. Culture can only be influenced and shaped by our convictions when we voice our opinions . . . when we argue a case persuasively . . . when we speak, write, and vote our principles.

Tell your friends that life with quadriplegia is supremely preferable over three grams of Phenobarbital in the veins. Yes, there is virtue to be found in suffering. Most of all, suffering is what can drive a hurting person into the arms of their Savior. And that is the best argument against cutting your life short—there is no greater suffering than facing a Christ-less eternity on the other side of your tombstone.

You can read the whole thing here.

For some primers on some of the bioethical and philosophical issues involved in this debate, see this introduction by Melinda Penner or this two-part series by J.P. Moreland.

And if you haven’t read it before, consider this quote from Joni’s encouraging booklet Hope . . . The Best of Things:

I sure hope I can bring this wheelchair to heaven.

Now, I know that’s not theologically correct.

But I hope to bring it and put it in a little corner of heaven, and then in my new, perfect, glorified body, standing on grateful glorified legs, I’ll stand next to my Savior, holding his nail-pierced hands.

I’ll say, “Thank you, Jesus,” and he will know that I mean it, because he knows me.

He’ll recognize me from the fellowship we’re now sharing in his sufferings.

And I will say, ”Jesus, do you see that wheelchair? You were right when you said that in this world we would have trouble, because that thing was a lot of trouble. But the weaker I was in that thing, the harder I leaned on you. And the harder I leaned on you, the stronger I discovered you to be. It never would have happened had you not given me the bruising of the blessing of that wheelchair.”

Then the real ticker-tape parade of praise will begin. And all of earth will join in the party.

And at that point Christ will open up our eyes to the great fountain of joy in his heart for us beyond all that we ever experienced on earth.

And when we’re able to stop laughing and crying, the Lord Jesus really will wipe away our tears.

I find it so poignant that finally at the point when I do have the use of my arms to wipe away my own tears, I won’t have to, because God will.

One Simple Thing that Would Help Your Next Internet Debate

Here is one of the most important points that Mortimer Adler makes in his ironically titled book, How to Read a Book:

Every author has had the experience of suffering book reviews by critic who did not feel obligated to do the work of the first two stages first. The critic too often thinks he does not have to be a reader as well as a judge.

Every lecturer has also had the experience of having critical questions asked that were not based on any understanding of what he had said.

You yourself may remember an occasion where someone said to a speaker, in one breath or at most two, “I don’t know what you mean, but I think you’re wrong.”

There is actually no point in answering critics of this sort.

The only polite thing to do is to ask them to state your position for you, the position they claim to be challenging.

If they cannot do it satisfactorily, if they cannot repeat what you have said in their own words, you know that they do not understand, and you are entirely justified in ignoring their criticisms. They are irrelevant, as all criticism must be that is not based on understanding.

When you find the rare person who shows that he understands what you are saying as well as you do, then you can delight in his agreement or be seriously disturbed by his dissent. (pp. 144-145)

This quote came to mind when reading the principal disputants in the current Trinity debate regarding relations of eternal authority and submission in the immanent Trinity. Secondary contributors have actually surpassed the original dialogue partners here, who quickly jumped to criticism and response rather than demonstrating that they had first truly understood what the opposing side is even claiming.

Moments before I posted this, I glanced at a blog post that lamented several developments in the PCA. The author was upset (among other things) by a change at Covenant Theological Seminary. I’ll quote his entire section:

Covenant Seminary changed the name of its Systematic Theology courses, the core of a seminary’s curriculum, to “Missional Theology.” Missional is a fashionable term of recent coinage. This, of itself, is enough to raise suspicions. Systematic theology is where the entire curriculum is supposed to be integrated: biblical theology, Old Testament, New Testament, church history all lend their insights. I’ll never forget Roger Nicole, at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, responding to a proposed revision of the curriculum which would reduce the theological core. Nicole, of even temper; Nicole, who never got angry; Nicole, who never raised his voice; Nicole of cheerful disposition; Nicole turned red with anger and declared that the history of theological education showed that the slide towards liberalism always began with a reduction of the theological core in favor of what inevitably we called “practical” courses. Do our seminary administrators, our permanent committee, or our committee of commissioners know this history? The additional tasks assigned to Systematics, implied by the new title “Missional,” inevitably will dilute commitment to core dogmatics.

There may be an argument within this paragraph worth considering, but the worth of the conclusion is dependent—at a minimum—upon the accuracy of its premises.

When you get to the bottom of the article, you’ll find an editor’s note appended to it:

 One reader has drawn to our attention the fact that it is important to note that there was no ”revision” or “reduction” in the curriculum at Covenant Theological Seminary (CTS). Dr. Dalbey clarified before the Assembly that the same number of hours of the same systematic theology courses are still required.

Additionally, Covenant Theological Seminary changed a department name, not course names.

Finally, there is a separate department at CTS referred to as “practical” theology that was not grouped in with systematic/missional.

What’s unfortunate here—besides the author apparently misrepresenting his brothers and sisters in Christ in public—is that he undermined his own integrity, distracting his readers from what might have been a legitimate critique. If he had simply bothered to quote the decision of the seminary, he would have served his readers and the seminary and himself well, and put his critique on firmer ground.

It’s easier to see this problem in others, and harder to practice it ourselves. I know from my own experience that I am often eager to score points in a debate before demonstrating that I understand what is being said.

It seems to me that we can all do a little better in this regard.

21 Questions With Barronelle Stutzman

Rod Dreher writes:

This is amazing. Barronelle Stutzman is the Washington florist sued by a gay man, a friend and client of almost a decade, who was outraged by her refusal to do the flowers for his same-sex wedding. Whatever you think you know about her case, I bet you don’t know a lot of things in that short three-minute video.

5 Practical Steps Creative Professionals Can Take to Protect Themselves

Alliance Defending Freedom has a very helpful and attractive booklet for creative professionals that can be downloaded for free at CreateFreely.org.

If you are a creative professional, they include this helpful checklist of things you should do to protect your religious liberty to carry out your vocation in ways that do not compromise or contradict your faith convictions.

Include a statement of faith and religious purpose in your bylaws or corporate policies to provide clear evidence of your religious beliefs.
Adopt a policy statement on company expression that clarifies that your business engages in its own expression through the services it provides.
On your company website, include language that describes the expressive nature of the services your company provides.
Implement a personnel policy that requires employees to review and understand your statement of faith and religious purpose.
Get informed about the public accommodation laws in the state, county, and city where your business is located.

They also add: “While these five steps can help protect your ability to express and promote only those messages that coincide with your faith, it is best to have an attorney review your policies and documents. Call ADF at 800-835-5233 to have an attorney review these FOR FREE.”

5 Practical Steps Every Creative Professional Can Take to Protect Themselves

Alliance Defending Freedom has a very helpful and attractive booklet for creative professionals that can be downloaded for free at CreateFreely.org.

If you are a creative professional, they include this helpful checklist of things you should do to protect your religious liberty to carry out your vocation in ways that do not compromise or contradict your faith convictions.

Include a statement of faith and religious purpose in your bylaws or corporate policies to provide clear evidence of your religious beliefs.
Adopt a policy statement on company expression that clarifies that your business engages in its own expression through the services it provides.
On your company website, include language that describes the expressive nature of the services your company provides.
Implement a personnel policy that requires employees to review and understand your statement of faith and religious purpose.
Get informed about the public accommodation laws in the state, county, and city where your business is located.

They also add: “While these five steps can help protect your ability to express and promote only those messages that coincide with your faith, it is best to have an attorney review your policies and documents. Call ADF at 800-835-5233 to have an attorney review these FOR FREE.”

How Do You Spell “Dad”? A Father’s Day Video from Sho Baraka

From our friends at Humble Beast, which also has a new resource available called Daddy Issues: