Dear Friends, after 9 years at "The Institute" all of my future blogging with be over my website www.dranthonybradley.com, which is still somewhat underconstruction but is now live.
It's been great blogging here and I'm super thankful for my friends in Chattanooga for getting me started as a blogger (yeah, Ben H. that's you!). My very first post was about a Linkin Park song and, if you read it, you'll notice that I've basically had the same emphasis for 9 years.
Over at my website I'm curious to know what people think of the fact that evangelicals are now (kind'a) on the margins in this presidential election with a slate of 1 mainline liberal Protestant and 3 Roman Catholics. The post is titled, No Southerners, no evangelicals: new vistas for election 2012.
]]>The Thomas Nelson publishing company has decided to cease publication and distribution of David Barton's controversial book, The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed about Thomas Jefferson, saying it has "lost confidence in the book's details." (See "The David Barton controversy," Aug. 8.)Casey Francis Harrell, Thomas Nelson's director of corporate communications, told me the publishing house "was contacted by a number of people expressing concerns about [The Jefferson Lies]." The company began to evaluate the criticisms, Harrell said, and "in the course of our review learned that there were some historical details included in the book that were not adequately supported. Because of these deficiencies we decided that it was in the best interest of our readers to stop the publication and distribution."
Why am I not surprised that a conservative pastor with just a B.A. degree wrote a book with questionable historical accuracy? Because conservative evangelicals, and many of their pastors, believe this: since pastors are competent, and may have expertise, at preaching and teaching the Bible they have the skill, expertise, and competence to authoritatively speak on any issue.
Thomas Sowell describes this phenomenon when speaking about the arrogance of intellectuals and why they are often so wrong:
How have intellectuals managed to be so wrong, so often? By thinking that because they are knowledgeable -- or even expert -- within some narrow band out of the vast spectrum of human concerns, that makes them wise guides to the masses and to the rulers of the nation. But the ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking.
Thomas Sowell wrote a book, Intellectuals and Society, to expand on this idea. With Bartonism I'm beginning to wonder if we need a book titled, "Pastors and Society" or "Religious Leaders and Society." Conservative Protestants, even in the Reformed circles with its teaching on vocation and calling, seem too eager to blindly rely on pastors to teach about issues and in areas about which they have no training, expertise, nor competence. Why does this happen?
Is it conservative Protestant anti-intellectualism that encourages people to read about American history written by pastors as opposed to actual historians? For example, why would readers consider Barton credible to write about American history in the first place? Why would readers assume that a pastor (like Doug Wilson, for example) would be credible to write about the history of the South in books that are self-published books? As a counter example, when Peter Lillback was a pastor writing about George Washington he was writing as someone with a Ph.D. in historical theology.
There are Christian scholars, trained and credentialed, in history, mathematics, economics, sociology, psychology, education, the arts, business, literature, the sciences, medicine, philosophy, political science, agriculture, and so on. Why, then, are pastors expected to teach and reflect on these disciplines instead of those whom God has equipped? I'm not sure what the answer is but conservative Protestantism would be better served by taking advantage of the gifts, talents, and resources of the rest of God's people--that is, the ones He has positioned to be experts in their callings and vocations. Maybe more pastors simply need to be encouraged to "stay in their lane."
In the end, Sowell's reminder still holds for winsome pastors who are smart, teach right doctrine, can properly articulate the gospel, and are beloved within a particular tribe: "ignorance of Ph.D.s is still ignorance and high-IQ groupthink is still groupthink, which is the antithesis of real thinking."
What do you think contributes to the phenomena where pastors are encouraged to speak authoritatively about things which they have no training or expertise and the phenomena where conservative Protestants (even Calvinists) find this acceptable?
]]>I wanted to wait to post this later but it's too good.
This is profound, "We can't talk about race without talking about shame." ~ Dr. Brene Brown.
Shame is another topic that many Christian leaders don't talk much about. It's getting ridiculous that secular scholars have such a better understand of human nature than many theologians and pastors. I'm starting to lose interest in reading Christian writers on these topics because many don't seem to have many insights beyond the old formulas that tempt us into thinking that being human is liability to oneself and the world at large. The connection between race and shame is so central that I can't believe it didn't lead conversations on racial reconciliation in the 1970s and 1980s.
Moreover, I agree with Dr. Brown that we have a shame epidemic in our country. It's so bad that people turn to narcissism as an antidote but, as we all know, that approach fails.
Shame versus guilt, says Brown:
Shame drives two big tapes -- "never good enough" and, if you can talk it out of that one, "who do you think you are?" The thing to understand about shame is it's not guilt. Shame is a focus on self, guilt is a focus on behavior. Shame is "I am bad." Guilt is "I did something bad." How many of you, if you did something that was hurtful to me, would be willing to say, "I'm sorry. I made a mistake?" How many of you would be willing to say that? Guilt: I'm sorry. I made a mistake. Shame: I'm sorry. I am a mistake.There's a huge difference between shame and guilt. And here's what you need to know. Shame is highly, highly correlated with addiction, depression, violence, aggression, bullying, suicide, eating disorders. And here's what you even need to know more. Guilt, inversely correlated with those things. The ability to hold something we've done or failed to do up against who we want to be is incredibly adaptive. It's uncomfortable, but it's adaptive.
Why do you think conservative Protestants rarely seek to help people deal with issues of shame?
]]>For self-haters, they only believe that they are vile and disgusting as persons. So what do they need to hear? How do they need to be cared for in community?
It's unfortunate that narrow understandings of human nature created the conditions for Christian leaders having never heard of, nor read, the work of Dr. Karen Horney.
Here's a good introduction on the topic that I found here:
In Neurosis and Human Growth, Karen Horney explains how the pride system generates self-hate.
"Briefly, when an individual shifts his center of gravity to his idealized self, he not only exalts himself but also is bound to look at his actual self -- all that he is at a given time, body, mind, healthy and neurotic -- from a wrong perspective. The glorified self becomes not only a phantom to be pursued; it also becomes a measuring rod with which to measure his actual being. And this actual being is such an embarrassing sight when viewed from the perspective of a godlike perfection that he cannot but despise it. Moreover, what is dynamically more important, the human being which he actually is keeps interfering -- significantly -- with his flight to glory, and therefore he is bound to hate it, to hate himself. And since pride and self-hate are actually one entity, I suggest calling the sum total of the factors involved by a common name: the pride system" (Horney, 1950, pp. 110-11).
"Horney (1950) recognized six major ways in which people express self-hatred. First, self-hatred may result in relentless demands on the self, which are exemplified by the tyranny of the should" (Feist, pg. 256)."The second mode of expressing self-hatred is merciless self-accusation" (pg. 256).
"Third, self-hatred may take the form of self-contempt, which might be expressed as belittling, disparaging, doubting, discrediting, and ridiculing oneself" (pg. 256).
"A fourth expression of self-hatred is self-frustration" (pg. 256).
"Fifth, self-hatred may be manifested as self-torment or self-torture. Although self-torment can exist in each of the other forms of self-hatred, it becomes a separate category when people's main intention is to inflict harm or suffering on themselves. Some people attain masochistic satisfaction by anguishing over a decision, exaggerating the pain of a headache, cutting themselves with a knife, starting a fight that they are sure to lose, or inviting physical abuse" (pg. 257).
"The sixth and final form of self-hatred is self-destructive actions and impulses, which may be either physical or psychological, conscious or unconscious, acute or chronic, carried out in action or enacted only in the imagination. Overeating, abusing alcohol and other drugs, working too hard, driving recklessly, and suicide are common expressions of physical self-destruction. Neurotics may also attack themselves psychologically, for example, quitting a job just when it begins to be fulfilling,m breaking off a healthy relationship in favor of a neurotic one, or engaging in promiscuous activities" (pg. 257).
"Horney believes we can witness four consequences of self-hatred. One is a compulsive need to compare self with others. Typically, the result is a 'comparative inferiority'" (Cooper, pg. 136)."Another consequence of self-hate is a hypersensitivity to criticism, and hence, an excessive vulnerability in our relationships" (pg. 137).
"Still another consequence of self-hate is allowing too much abuse from others" (pg. 137).
"The last consequence of self-hate is the compulsive need to alleviate self-contempt with attention, regard, appreciation or admiration from others" (pg. 139).
Cooper, Terry D. (2003). Sin, Pride & Self-Acceptance: The Problem of Identity in Theology & Psychology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.
Jess Feist (1994, c.1985). Theories of Personality. 3rd. ed. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Karen Horney (1950). Neurosis and Human Growth. New York: W. W. Norton.
How should people who hate themselves be helped? Why do you think leading voices in conservative Protestantism fail to address issues of self-hatred?
]]>Narcissistic people have an inflated sense of their own importance and a deep need for admiration. Those with narcissistic personality disorder believe that they're superior to others and have little regard for other people's feelings.
Here are some traits to look for when encountering a narcissist: Reacts to criticism with anger, shame or humiliation; Takes advantage of others to reach his or her own goals; Exaggerates own importance; Exaggerates achievements and talents; Entertains unrealistic fantasies about success, power, beauty, intelligence or romance; Has unreasonable expectation of favorable treatment; Requires constant attention and positive reinforcement from others; Is easily jealous; Disregards the feelings of others, lacks empathy; Has obsessive self-interest; Pursues mainly selfish goals.
In religious contexts, these people can rise in popularity and become "leading" voices quite easily in a world driven by branding, messaging, the need to have "influence" and legacy, etc. It's easy: build a movement around yourself, gather people around you who will not challenge you, get the largest following you can, be accountable to no one, create a niche in which you are a self-proclaimed authority, dominate those around you, and so on. Celebrity status is easy to come by for senior pastors, solo pastors, church planters, bloggers, etc. When a narcissist lands in this position it can be dangerous.
Dr. Terry Cooper adds that narcissists and those who are committed to their own self-expansion have a conquest mentality. In conservative Christian circles this could present as a mission to conquer "liberals," those with bad theology, defend the faith, etc. They are authoritarian and value vindictive triumphalism against their opponents. They are convinced of their own superiority. They boast about their ability to "call a spade a spade." They are often highly charismatic, persuasive, and charming. They appear loving and generous but much of this is to cultivate anticipated (future) praise and flattery. They don't mind jokes about themselves as long as those jokes promote what they love about themselves.
Any criticism sends them into deep resentment, "often with an accompanying outburst of fury," says Cooper. They crave the respect of others. When challenged, "vindication, or vengeance becomes a way of life." These responses lead to an extreme sense of competitiveness. They will intimidate others into submission (esp. opponents). They tend to be insensitive and when others object they charge opponents with being weak and soft.
Although they criticize others often they feel that they are entitled to never be criticized. They handle conflict by being arrogant and vindictive.
In religious traditions characterized by fighting against liberal Christians and a declining American culture, like the Reformed tradition, these types of men can quickly rise to celebrity status. These narcissistic, self-expansive types are lauded as generals--heroes in the "battle" for truth.
Who are these narcissistic, self-expansive celebrities "leaders?" You'll know them by how they set up mini-empires around themselves (with dot coms, conferences, etc.) and (and this is an important "and") how they respond to criticism and challenge. In an age of celebrity Christianity, narcissistic leaders are running wild and free while being supported by others who care more about their topical content than their narcissistic affects on others.
Why do think narcissistic leaders are so appealing to young conservative Protestants in the 20s and 30s?
]]>I get asked this question often: "why do blacks tend to vote for democrats when their social commitments tend to be more traditional and conservative?"
Here's the reason: white conservatives dropped the ball in the 1970s. The black middle-class in the 1970s was built on the following: government jobs (public education, postal workers, etc.), government forced minority contracting (construction, etc.), the Nixon administration using government programs to guarantee loans for black businesses, various affirmative-action programs mandated by government agencies, and so on. This creates a certain type of loyalty.
Who were the most resistent to racial integration in public schools? Answer: white conservatives--many of whom started private schools in the late 60s and early 1970s in quiet protest.
Who were the most resistent to voluntary diversity initiatives in the public and private sectors?" Answer: white conservatives.
Who were the most supportive of Jim Crow? Answer: white conservatives (whether they were democratic party or republican party conservatives).
Who opened up more job opportunities for blacks in the 1970s as told in the social narrative? Answer: the public sector.
These voting trends have more to do with political economy than social mores. Blacks have not had the luxury of choosing presidential candidates who are consistent with their moral values because the economic and liberty issues took priority. Issues and values voting [on themes related to personal sanctity] comes with a certain amount of cultural privilege.
Pay attention to this from the Department of Labor:
Black workers are more likely to be employed in the public sector than are either their white or Hispanic counterparts. In 2011, nearly 20 percent of employed Blacks worked for state, local, or federal government compared to 14.2 percent of Whites and 10.4 percent of Hispanics. Blacks are less likely than Hispanics and nearly as likely as Whites to work in the private sector, not including the self-employed. Few Blacks are self-employed -- only 3.8 percent reported being self-employed in 2011 -- making them almost half as likely to be self-employed as Whites (7.2 percent).
Do you expect blacks to vote themselves out of a job?
Think: what was it that set blacks up to be so tied to government in the 1970s in the first place? Answer: the "War on Poverty" programs of President Johnson announced in 1964. Richard Nixon increased the coupling of blacks and government by expanding these programs during his administration. America has wasted trillions of dollars on programs that don't work. Trillions.
So my question is this, "Given that most people vote according their perceived economic advantage anyway, why would anyone NOT be surprised that most blacks vote for democrats (given recent history)?"
Two things to keep in mind: (1) Conservatives often ask, "but what about all the failed government social programs that have destroyed urban cities? Why don't blacks see this?" Answer: conservatives since Nixon have done a pathetic job of telling stories that connect those dots and, instead, have chosen to argue ideologically. This approach makes no sense. For example, conservatives believe that The Moynihan Report (1965) "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action" [Office of Policy Planning and Research United States Department of March 1965] appeals to the heart. Seriously? You'd be surprised how many times conservatives today refer to this report. They seem to have not yet figured out that the document is not persuasive as literature; (2) Through the 1980s and 1990s democrats and progressives were successful at crafting the narrative that republicans were against black progress for reasons of race and class. In fact, progressives should be noted for successfully creating a narrative that government programs fail (now and in the past) because Republicans sabotage their success. Republicans have yet to shake that stigma.
In the end, then, a far more important question is, "why do blacks vote for libertarians and republicans at all?
]]>
The Free Market Doesn't Need Government Regulation
Bureaucrats regulate by threat of physical force while the market operates peacefully through millions of cooperating participants.
by Sheldon Richman
August 5, 2012
What's overlooked--intentionally or not--is that the alternative to a government-regulated economy is not an unregulated one. As a matter of fact, "unregulated economy," like square circle, is a contradiction in terms. If it's truly unregulated it's not an economy, and if it's an economy, it's not unregulated. The term "free market" does not mean free of regulation. It means free of government interference, that is, legal plunder and other official aggressive force.Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek pointed out years ago that the real issue regarding economic planning is not: To plan or not to plan? But rather: Who plans (centralized state officials or decentralized private individuals in the market)?
Likewise, the question is not: to regulate or not to regulate. It is, rather, who (or what) regulates?
Read the rest here.
]]>Many of our social and political issues are, in fact, matters of Christian prudential judgement.
]]>by Sheldon Richman
Aug. 1, 2012 1:30 pm
Reason Magazine
When economic times are bad, animosity is directed at foreigners: "They're taking our jobs!" So it's unsurprising that the presidential campaigns feature charges and countercharges about outsourcing, the employment of foreign labor by American companies. This is a dangerous game because it sows the seeds of trade war.
Economists understand the benefits of the division of labor. If you and your family had to live on only what you could produce yourselves, you'd be dirt poor. You wouldn't be much better off if you could buy only what the residents of your town or county could produce. As the trading area grows, a more intensive specialization and hence division of labor are possible. Combine this with the increased productivity that the growth in knowledge and inventiveness also make possible, and dramatic prosperity results.
Adam Smith observed, "The division of labor is limited by the extent of the market." If the extent of the market is artificially constricted by politicians (no one else has such power), the division of labor and its concomitant progress are stunted--and we are poorer than we would have been.
Thus we should worry whenever politicians attempt to incite the public against global trade in goods and services.
"But they're taking our jobs!" In the course of things, jobs are moving, changing, disappearing, and emerging all the time. It can be disconcerting and disruptive, but we wouldn't like the alternative: a government powerful enough to stifle freedom and change. When the free market is allowed to operate (which is not the case today), change is the rule. Consumer preferences evolve. Entrepreneurs try to win favor by offering new or improved goods. New knowledge brings technological developments that lower costs, which enable things to be produced with fewer resources and less labor.
While of course this all can create hardship for those--workers and business owners--invested in the old ways, the general benefits are undeniable. Whenever fewer resources and less labor are required to produce a good, resources and labor formerly devoted to that good can now be directed to things we couldn't afford yesterday. That's how societies prosper.
Moreover, whenever a new good comes to market, it plants the seeds of new opportunities for other people. Think of the many firms launched to complement the personal-computer industry, with products ranging from software to a multitude of accessories. No one was making mouse pads, laptop fans, and web cams a few years ago, nor mobile-phone cases, ring tones, and apps.
The same process that "destroys" jobs also creates them. Our desire for goods and services is open-ended, and so the opportunities for work--absent government impediments--are similarly unlimited. Even if we could acquire all imaginable "necessities," we also value leisure, which results in the demand for skis, tennis racquets, fishing rods, e-book readers, tablets, game consoles, and things yet to be dreamed up.
I don't wish to understate the hardship that change can produce. But government policies designed to tamp down change are a blueprint for poverty for the poorest among us. The wealthy have their riches already. It is those who have yet to make it who stand to lose the most from economic stagnation.
Read the rest here.
]]>Read the whole thing here.
Here's what I know.1. Jerry Sandusky's conviction on 45 counts of child sex abuse makes him a repeat child sexual predator.
2. According to the conclusions in the Freeh report:
Four powerful Penn State administrators--the president, a senior vice president, the director of athletics, and the head football coach--knew of two episodes related to Sandusky and "repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the university's Board of Trustees, the Penn State community, and the public at large."
The Penn State Board of Trustees failed to exercise its oversight duties.
The four administrators "exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky's victims," neither inquiring as to their safety and well-being nor attempting to identify the child seen with him in the showers in 2001.The four administrators, football coaches, and staff ignored "the red flags of Sandusky's behaviors."That, because of all this, Sandusky remained free to prey on children until 2011.Here's what else I know: None of this, standing alone, is reason for NCAA penalties.
But what made this a case for the NCAA's president, Mark Emmert, and the NCAA Division I Board of Directors is that the Freeh report traced the reasons for what occurred to the "culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community," a culture that subverted institutional processes and upended the core NCAA requirement that there must be institutional control of athletics programs.
Thoughts.
]]>As an academic, like a journalist, I am expected to ask critical, investigative questions for research and teaching. I am expected to critically expose and challenge what I perceive to be weaknesses and bad paradigms. I have no political ambitions about being accepted by the famous pastors. None. I have been advised that "if you want to be a leader in certain churchy circles then you should write differently, etc." Playing church political games for the sake of being a future "influencer" seems sinfully ambitious to me. I do know people who plot that way, however. I have no interest in playing church politics. None. No, not even one. I'm not wired for church politics. I'm too much of an academic to remain silent for the sake of moving up the "influence" ladder within Christian celebrity networks.
Academics poke around. Cornell West, Stanley Hauerwas, Peter Slade, Mark Knoll, and the like. They poke around and poke often. People don't like it. One of the weaknesses of my vocation, however, is that we raise many questions and do not provide many answers. I do this frequently. I am guilty of not always knowing what to do next. I'm not that smart. It's also not my job. Some people are great analysts and others are great problem solvers. The latter comes with wisdom that I do not have in many areas.
However, being mordant and sardonic is neither the goal nor the intention of my research and writing. With probity and sound judgment Washington, Slade, myself, and others raise issues before us. Anyone familiar with any of my previous work will see no difference in these questions directed at Reformed evangelicalism versus other questions I raise about other organizations, institutions, and social systems. The etiology and diagnosis of racial issues in Reformed evangelicalism have implications for all of Protestantism. Most academics are not prigs for sport. I am committed to Truth not to being a prig.
Anyone familiar with academy inquiry in Protestant studies knows that it is a methedrine compound of theological pastiche formed with culturally driven juxtapositions that provide the apotheosis of why academics, and not churchmen with sworn allegiance to certain bureaucratic structures, are needed to speak outside of church structures to raise issues within the church. The absence of non-bureaucratic, outside voices on important issues enfeebles Christianity and creates the conditions for the church's apoptosis.
]]>Well, mis amigos, I don't want to be out of the loop anymore so I'm asking that y'all post in comment section any books in the history and/or the social sciences that you've found particularly interesting or helpful.
GRACIAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BTW, Brene Brown has a new book that coming out in the September. It's called Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead.
]]>