Ron Chernow’s Washington: A Life is a riveting read on one of the most consequential figures of history. George Washington was an amazing leader in a pivotal time in history. He was truly “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.”

Washington’s leadership was marked by an overriding desire to do what was good for the country and to administer his role within the boundaries of the Constitution. As Chernow writes, “again and again the American people had entrusted him with power, secure in the knowledge that he would exercise it fairly and ably and surrender it when his term of office was up.”

Washington was an imperfect man. He could be an overbearing taskmaster, to servant and slave alike. Chernow is unflinching about his contradictory positions on slavery–privately supporting abolition, but unwilling to publicly back attempts by the Quakers (and Benjamin Franklin) for broad emancipation. Nevertheless, Washington freed his slaves upon his death and had the insight to write, “I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union, by consolidating it in a common bond of principle.”

Chernow’s biography is thorough, as the page count suggests. My favorite part was its review of Washington’s presidency, how he was hoping to only serve for 2 years, but ended up serving for 8–and could have easily remained in that office for life, had he chose to. The intrigue between the Federalists (e.g., Washington, Adams, Hamilton) and the “Democratic-Republicans” (e.g., Jefferson, Madison, Monroe) is covered well and is fascinating. In many ways, you can see the beginnings of the schism that would break out in the Civil War.

I’ve been really enjoying The Lord of Psalm 23 by David Gibson. It’s a series of sermons Gibson preached on Psalm 23 which explore how Jesus Christ is our Shepherd, Companion, and Host. As a Shepherd, Christ provides for and leads His people. As a Companion, Christ is with us in our trials, our sufferings, and the valley of the shadow of death. As our Host, He invites us, and welcomes us, and “prepares us a table in the presence of our enemies.”

Here’s a beautiful poem Gibson quotes in his book:

The Lord my shepherd rules my life
and gives me all I need;
He leads me by refreshing streams;
in pastures green I feed.

The Lord revives my failing strength,
he makes my joy complete;
and in right paths, for his name’s sake,
he guides my faltering feet.

Though in a valley dark as death,
no evil makes me fear;
your shepherd’s staff protects my way,
for you are with me there.

While all my enemies look on
you spread a royal feast;
you fill my cup, anoint my head,
and treat me as your guest.

Your goodness and your gracious love
pursue me all my days;
your house, O Lord, shall be my home
your name my endless praise.

Christopher Idle

The previous version of the SAT featured reading passages that ranged from 500 to 750 words with multiple questions following each passage. But the new version has reading passages ranging from only 25 to 150 words, with just one question tied to each passage.

The ACT has made similar changes: 44 fewer questions overall, a shorter test (125 minutes versus the previous 195 minutes), and more time per question. The ACT’s reading section is now 40 minutes long (previously 35 minutes) and has 36 questions (previously 40). It’s one fewer question per passage (four reading passages with nine questions per passage instead of 10).

Both the SAT and the ACT made their math sections easier: The number of answer choices is now four instead of five, meaning your chance of randomly guessing the right answer increases from 20% to 25%.”

Read the whole thing.

Author Josh Brown has written a fascinating book on how higher education in the United States has shifted from “mission driven” to “margin obsessed.” I recently had the chance to interact with him about his book.

You outline four different strategies that private Christian colleges employ. Briefly, what are they?

Each school creates different combinations of endowments and enrollment markets to financially sustain the school and its mission. I found four different approaches and a fifth that was starting to emerge. Briefly they were:

Traditional – a college that expects students “to come” to the residential campus for a traditional in-person education. Leaders solicit donations from a robust web of alumni to grow the endowment. The money generated from the endowment is used to subsidize the expensive in-person residential model.

Pioneer – a college that “goes to” the students to deliver an in-person education in places like high schools, military bases, hotels, and shopping malls to those excluded from the traditional on campus model (usually due to life commitments like jobs, children or distance). The money generated from these “periphery” locations is used to build nicer facilities on the main campus for recruiting residential students.

Network – a college that creates multiple types of educational opportunities beyond its main residential campus (adult education, online, international, transfer, satellite, branch campus, etc.). These many different options function like legs on a table to financially support the main residential campus (tabletop).

Accelerated – a college that chooses to rapidly scale its online division to generate a substantial amount of money each year — ranging from hundreds of millions to over a billion dollars. The money is used to build nicer facilities on the main residential campus and grow the endowment using money from student loans rather than from donors, essentially making current students the “new philanthropists.”

In my conversations with Christian college leaders, some were working hard to figure out how to create a new approach called “Accelerated Networks” that would generate “superprofits,” which are profits that compound to make additional profits.

***

Read the rest of my interaction with Dr. Brown, along with more background on his book, here. 

For those who enjoy the classic film “It’s a Wonderful Life”: Have you ever wondered about how Mary is portrayed in the alternate world in which George Bailey never existed? Bizarrely perhaps, she winds up an “old maid” – closing the library on Christmas Eve.

Wouldn’t she have married someone else and lived a great life? This essay examines that question, showing that Mary is the greatest hero in this story. Intentional, purposeful, and wise throughout, she makes George into the man he becomes. In his darkest moment, she’s what makes him want to live again. As she said in her childhood into his deaf ear: “George Bailey, I’ll love you ’til the day I die.”

Consider:

1. It was Mary’s vision to live in that old, forsaken house. On their wedding day, it’s she that acquires it. She willingly gives out their honeymoon money to keep the Building and Loan business open.

2. It was Mary’s understandable displeasure in George that serves as the last straw, sending him into a suicidal tailspin.

3. Similarly, it was seeing Mary in the “no George” world that makes him finally realize his desperation and plead with God to live again.

George: Clarence! Clarence! Help me, Clarence. Get me back. Get me back. I don’t care what happens to me. Only get me back to my wife and kids. Help me Clarence, please! Please! I want to live again.

Read more in this brilliant analysis from Clare Coffey.

Each asks what sounds like a similar question. But Zechariah receives a rebuke and Mary sings a Magnificat. What’s the difference? Z’s question stems from a posture of distrust and Mary’s from a posture of trust.

There’s a world of difference between How shall I know this? (Zechariah) and How will this be? (Mary). One says “I don’t believe you–yet. Prove it!” The other says, “Ok, wow, that’s amazing. How is this going to work?” The latter receives the promise in faith and submission.

Is there an implication for the subordinate-superior relationship in the workplace? When a subordinate receives a new or unexpected duty, he may have questions on logistics (as did Mary). But the first thing his superior needs to see/hear/FEEL from the subordinate is trust. Compliance. “If you need me, sir/ma’am, you can count on me!”

We must start there. Once we give our boss what he/she needs, a dialogue on logistics can occur. But if we start with questions, our superiors may not perceive compliance. They may perceive pushback. We must be sensitive and considerate, first giving them what they need.

So we must be like Mary, not Zechariah. Start with trust/compliance.

More here.

What do you think?

This soft totalitarianism, argues Dreher, will be supported by a nexus of big business (Fortune 500 companies and others), big tech – social media, and consumer habit data collection mechanisms in particular (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft), and big government. These three groups of actors will assume and advance a progressive, LBGT-affirming ideology to such an extent that the space for traditional/conservative religious expression will become vanishingly small. Think of a world filled with speech codes, a shrinking Overton window, and the blacklisting of dissenters. Think of the free speech limitations and related controversies we’ve seen in recent years at elite universities. Now imagine this “speech I don’t agree with = violence” view becoming pervasive throughout the cultural, economic, and political power centers of our country.

Brendan Eich

Think of Brendan Eich, the creator of the JavaScript programming language and the co-founder of Mozilla in 1998. In 2014, Eich was appointed the CEO of Mozilla. But news had come out that Eich had donated $1,000 to a 2008 CA grassroots effort to prohibit same-sex marriage. The effort succeeded at the ballot box: A majority of Californians in 2008 affirmed the definition of marriage as “one man, one woman.”

It’s not that Eich was accused of discriminatory behavior. No, Eich was attacked for a view that he held as a private citizen six years earlier, a view that was the majority position at that time. As per usual in these cases, Eich expressed remorse. He pledged to “work with LGBT communities and allies” at Mozilla. But it was all for naught: Eich was forced to resign after just 11 days as CEO.

Memories Pizza

Think of Memories Pizza, a family-owned business in a town of about 2000 outside South Bend, IN. In 2015 the owners were posed a hypothetical question by a journalist: Would they cater a gay wedding? Their answer was no. It quickly made national news, drawing the ire of even President Obama. Memories was forced to shutter their doors. The owners went into hiding.

Nobody was ever refused service at Memories Pizza. Moreover, the owners made clear that anyone was welcome in their restaurant — that they would not, in the future, refuse service to a gay man or woman. That wasn’t enough. Because they would not cater a gay wedding (something nobody had ever actually asked them to do), they had to not only close, but hide in fear.

We Lost the Culture Wars

With examples like these, Dreher argues that the culture wars regarding marriage and LBGT issues has been lost. (Dreher doesn’t even mention Bostock vs. Clayton, which would support his thesis.) Traditional conservatives are not only in the minority, but they’re increasingly regarded as extreme, retrograde, and a hindrance to cultural progress and the establishment of a tolerant society.

Note the redefinition of tolerance. Historically, tolerance presupposed an actual disagreement. Tolerance was a commitment to behave respectively in the midst of such disagreement. Now, tolerance means we must affirm each person’s right to define truth subjectively, according to their own dictates, and thus immune from dispute or critique. “What’s true for you, is true for you. What’s true for me, is true for me.”

Having lost the culture wars, what can we expect from the victors? Dreher’s answer, effectively, is that we will increasingly be silenced, pushed to the margins of society. It’s an argument he introduced in The Benedict Option. The sequel’s message is this: We must “live not by lies.” We have to live in a world of lies, but we must not allow that world to live in us. Instead, we must bear faithful witness to the truth. accepting any suffering that may come in the path of obedience. Our Christian faith must be deep and genuine. It’s not enough to admire Jesus. We must love and imitate Him, following in His footsteps. Superficial Christians will wither in the face of what’s coming.

Dreher spent a lot of time talking about suffering well, drawing lessons from dissidents in the former Soviet states, and how they held fast in the face of intense persecution. How they formed tight-knit communities, strengthening one another, and serving as a beacon for outsiders seeking deeper purpose and meaning in their lives. Dreher discusses the importance of faith and family in resisting the pull of soft totalitarianism. (Note that while Dreher is an Orthodox Christian, he draws examples from Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christians. He makes statements about relics and icons that I can’t support.)

How To See Soft Totalitarianism Coming

Dreher gives five signs:

1. Increasing loneliness and depression among young adults. Dreher leans on the research of Hannah Arendt, who argued that totalitarian movements are “mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals.” Dreher argues that it’s no coincidence that millennials and Gen Z are both more lonely and more supportive of socialism than older Americans.
   
   
2. Loss of faith in hierarchies and institutions. Gallup polling shows Americans’ confidence in institutions is at historical lows. All kinds of institutions: political parties (the rise of independents), media (distrust and suspicion are rampant), religious (more people than ever affirming no religion) and denominations (among Christian groups, a rise in non-denominational churches). The word “hierarchy” now has bad connotations, as people — especially young adults — distrust those in authority (those at the top of any hierarchy).
   
   Dreher writes, “As radical individualism has become more pervasive in our consumerist-driven culture, people have ceased to look outside themselves for authoritative sources of meaning. This is the fulfillment of modern liberalism’s goal: to free the individual from any unchosen obligations.”
   
   
3. Propaganda and the willingness to believe useful lies. Dreher points to the 1619 Project, whose goal was “to revise America’s national identity by making race hatred central to the nation’s foundational myth.” Even after the project’s core claim (that the American Revolution was found to preserve slavery) was thoroughly debunked, the project’s director was awarded a Pulitzer Prize.
   
   Why? Because proponents look beyond the veracity of the core claim to the usefulness of the 1619 Project in establishing a desired social end. Namely, the advancement of a certain notion of “social justice.”
   
   
4. A Mania for Ideology. Dreher argues that people are willing to believe lies because of the “desperation alienated people have for a story that helps them make sense of their lives and tells them what to do.” Incisively, Dreher applies this to the political left and right, as it drives our unhealthy attraction for conspiracy theories.
   
   Another example is the politicization of everything. Dreher writes, “The Left pushes its ideology ever deeper into the personal realm, leaving fewer and fewer areas of daily life uncontested.” Think of the sports leagues which have turned into occasions for protest. Or regular folk out in public being forced by an agressive mob to say the words “black lives matter.” (This goes well beyond affirming the rights of groups like BLM to hold organize rallies/protests.)
   
   
5. A Society that Values Loyalty Over Expertise. We have cancel culture to root out dissent. We also have loyalty tests to get into certain lines of work, like what we saw with Brendan Eich. Dreher notes how LBGT progressives believe that science is on their side, even when their claims are unscientific: “Men have periods. The woman standing in front of you is to be called ‘he’.”
   
   Dreher writes, “Transgender activists insist that their radical beliefs are scientifically sound; scientists and physicians who disagree are driven out of their institutions or intimidated into silence.” Remember what happened to Martina Navratilova? Or J.K. Rowling?
   

Two Minor Critiques

Dreher assumes the culture wars have been lost. He doesn’t so much prove this point. Of course, many would agree with Dreher. But others find such resignation to be needlessly pessimistic. For example, look where we are on the abortion issue. Millennials and Gen Z are increasingly pro-life. Or the most recent election. Progressive ideology was beat back decisively at the ballot box, even in left-leaning places like California. Sure, the LBGT movement is now ascendant, but if there’s an overreach, might we be due for a correction? Dreher doesn’t engage this possibility.

Dreher really drilled home the importance of suffering well as Christians. I appreciated his critique of the permissive, sentimental, unwilling-to-suffer-for-truth Christianity so common in our day. But he seemed to spend less time convincing readers that they will, in the future, be suffering. If you’ve been blacklisted, or know someone like Brendan Eich, you don’t need more convincing. But I think Dreher’s book would have a wider appeal among Americans if he had more slowly and carefully made his case that LBGT-affirming progressives are so narrow-minded and bigoted towards those who don’t accept their dogmas that they will soon cast them out of society. Dreher may be right. This may be coming. But I’m not sure this view is obvious to all. For one thing, Dreher’s book is published by a mainstream, non-religious publisher.

Live Not By Lies is an important and well-written book. Many would benefit from its timely insights.

One of Stephen Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People was to “begin with the end in mind.” It’s in this same vein that Pastor David Gibson exhorts us to live life backward. We must allow the inescapable reality of our death to dictate how we live:

“Death can radically enable us to enjoy life. By relativizing all that we do in our days under the sun, death can change us from people who want to control life for gain into people who find deep joy in receiving life as a gift.”

Gibson draws from the mysterious book of Ecclesiastes to unpack his theme. The book can be thought of as one, long, engaging expository sermon: The message of Gibson’s book is the message of Ecclesiastes. Life “under the sun” is like exhaling on a cold, winter day. You see the air coming out of your mouth, but in a moment, it’s gone.

Therefore, we should receive each new day as a gift. Fear God. Keep His commandments. In your work, marriage, family, church, and community, lose your life in the joyful service of others. Therein you will find deep joy and contentment. Be diligent, consider cause and effect, plan for the future, but don’t think you can master every circumstance or fully predict (let alone control) the future. You can’t. Wisdom has its limitations.

Each chapter begins with a recitation of a chapter or so of Ecclesiastes. Then, Gibson unpacks and applies the text. Here are a few of his themes:

Life is a Gift – Not Gain

Ecclesiastes 1:3 asks a central question: “What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?” In verses 4-11 comes the answer: Don’t think in terms of “gain” but in terms of “gift.”

“Everything is a breath” writes Gibson. (Breath is Gibson’s translation of the word hebel, which our Bible’s often translate — unhelpfully — as “meaningless” or “vanity.”) The point is that it’s brief, elusive, like a vapor.

Once we realize there’s nothing to gain from chasing the wind, we’re freed from the chase. “There is no gain to be had under the sun, and that’s precisely the point. None need be sought.”

This World is Not a Permanent Home

The author of Ecclesiastes bursts our bubble with regular reminders that our death is not only certain, but that it can come at any moment. We need to be reminded of death lest we view ourselves as permanent residents on this planet. We’re not. We’re travelers passing through. Life is short. Eternity is long. This is consistent with Jesus’ message that we should lay up treasures in heaven, where “moth and rust do not destroy” (Matthew 6:19-21).

The writer of Ecclesiastes “bursts the bubbles of pleasure and profit, materialism and laughter” with the reality of death. But he also bursts death’s bubble with a prescription for a good life: Find enjoyment in God’s everyday gifts. Gibson writes:

“When we accept in a deep way that we are going to die, that reality can stop us expecting too much from all the good things we pursue. We learn to pursue them for what they are in themselves rather than what we need them to be to make us happy. Death reorients us to our limitations as creatures and helps us see God’s good gifts right in front of us all the time, each and every day of our lives.”

We Must Accept Our Limitations

We are finite. We’re limited in knowledge (even the most learned), in power (it grows in youth, then fades as death approaches), and in time/space (we exist within it, whereas God inhabits eternity and is omnipresent).

In short, we’re not God. Yet much of our anguish in life comes from trying to know everything, do everything, control everything. This is not the path of wisdom.

For example, our longing for justice in this world is often frustrated. Ecclesiastes is honest about the fact that the wicked often triumph whereas the good sometimes die young. Wealth and poverty are not always correlated with virtue and vice. But in time, God will right every wrong. In this world, under the sun, we will not and cannot see how it all fits together. The wise know this and are spared from trying.

Living Life Backward is a highly accessible book. My teenage children are reading it in Sunday School right now. Pick it up today and see for yourself.

More in this great lecture:

On July 17 the former best-selling author and pastor Josh Harris announced that he was separating from his wife. On July 26 he confirmed that this separation was in fact a divorce and–in bigger news–that he no longer considered himself to be a Christian.

On July 19, in between Josh’s two instagram announcements, Sojourners published a long interview with Josh Harris. I know from experience that interviews like this are completed months in advance. The timing of their publication is often designed to maximize exposure.

The interview included this exchange:

Villarreal: You say in the documentary that there are a lot of people who want you to throw out everything that was kind of the basis for your book. But I’m curious when you say “everything,” do you mean your belief in Christianity as a whole or about premarital sex in general? I’m curious what you include in that.

Harris: I think that there’s a push by some people to say being sex positive means — the kind of the historical sexual ethic related to sex outside of marriage, related to homosexuality, is basically laid aside, and embracing a healthy view of sex means just accepting all that as fine within the Christian tradition. … I do think though that, for me, in that change of interpretation of such a fundamental level when it comes to sexuality, it’s just hard for me to … In a way it’s almost easier for me to contemplate throwing out all of Christianity than it is to keeping Christianity and adapting it in these different ways.

I don’t know if that makes sense, but I think I’ve just been so indoctrinated in a certain way of interpreting scripture and viewing sexuality that it’s just hard for me to see the scriptures and its kind of overall, you know, commands and principles and so on and see how that can be consistent.

I think that I probably need to engage with some of those people — like I have people send me their e-books showing why premarital sex is fine, and I just don’t have the energy right now. Like, I do not want to read your book. I do not want to. I do not want to engage in a massive, you know, theological expedition to think about all these things. So it just sounds really exhausting to me, honestly.

But I think what you saw in that moment in the film is it is a real struggle for me. I’m really struggling with — I think that rethinking some of these things and having had my faith look so specific for so long that now as I’m questioning those specifics, it feels like I’m questioning my entire faith.

A week later we’d learn that Josh did, in fact, no longer consider himself to be a Christian. In response, I wrote him an open letter. I forwarded the link to several people who know Josh personally. My letter defended Josh’s (imperfect) writings on dating/courtship, though I acknowledged that some of his teachings lacked nuance. But I also tried to convince him that he may have had a formulaic approach to his marriage and to the Christian faith–leading him to abandon both when the formula no longer “worked.”

In my letter I also asked Harris to not start a podcast. To use this time instead to reflect upon the message of the New Testament, particularly the gospel accounts of Jesus Christ.

A day later Josh clarified that he would not be writing a book or starting a podcast. I doubt Josh read my letter, but who knows, maybe he still will?