How Community Is Lost & Regained

Last updated on: April 2, 2025 at 8:31 am By Gene Veith

Yesterday we discussed Alasdaire MacIntyre’s point that every community needs three things: a creed, a story, and a practice. We applied that to Luther’s three Estates of the church, the family, and the state.

But, to a greater or lesser degree, we have lost our sense of community. Today we’ll use MacIntyre’s model to consider what has gone wrong–why people often feel that they don’t belong–in each of these estates. And how we might bring back that sense of belonging.

Lacking community is hard on us, leading to the loneliness and isolation that plague so many Americans today. Lacking community also contributes to the loss of something that may seem its opposite, namely, identity. We usually think of identity as the qualities of a particular, distinct individual. While this is true, ironically, we find our identity in terms of the communities we belong to.

In general, I would say that we have lost the sense of community in the church, family, and state because it’s hard to have a common creed and a common story any more. But because we need to feel that we belong to a community and that we have a specific identity, many Americans are constructing different kinds of affinity groups to take the place of the traditional ones.

Thus, we speak of the “LGBTQ community.” It has a creed: that sexual attraction to the same sex is normal, good, and just as valid as heterosexuality. It has a story: that homosexuality has long been oppressed and suppressed, but that now can be embraced with open displays of “Pride.” That overall story is complemented by common personal stories of mistreatment leading to the conversion point of “coming out of the closet.” The LGBTQ community also has practices that create a sense of unity: not just sexual practices but the flying of the rainbow flag, performative displays, and Pride Parades.

The “Trans community” has a creed that asserts that one’s “sex assigned at birth” is not necessarily one’s true gender. The story is the common testimony of the pain of having to live in the wrong body until realizing one’s true gender and getting “gender affirming” treatments. The practices include a sometimes exaggerated imitation of the appearance and mannerisms of the opposite sex. And often a defensive militancy against anyone who questions their new gender.

Back to the Estates. . . .

The Church

Churches are often hailed even by secularists as good places to find community, and so they can be. But many churches today think community just means being friendly and welcoming. That can be helpful in making an outsider feel a sense of belonging, but there is more to community than that.

Churches used to feature a specific process of initiation into the community: Baptism, Catechesis, and Confirmation. In catechesis, whether of children or adults, the prospective member is instructed in the Creeds and the Story of church community.

Lutherans, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Presbyterians still have adult instruction classes (a.k.a., membership classes), which teach about the church and its beliefs. These can last from a few weeks to six months. After that, new members go through a formal rite of confirmation.

Most Protestants, though, join a congregation by just coming down the aisle at the end of a service and shaking the minister’s hand. Though Baptists and some others do require a baptism by immersion, most evangelicals do not even require that. There is little or no instruction in the creed of the community, though that can be picked up in Bible classes. Non-denominational and other evangelical congregations allow for a wide range of beliefs, which weaken the community-building grounding in a common creed. Although these churches do have a common story in the form of individual conversion “testimonies.”

Many congregations from a wide range of traditions believe that minimizing requirements to membership will result in more people joining, and this may be so. But such churches often have a large turnover as attendees flit from one such congregation to another. The sense of community and “identifying” with a particular church will be stronger if everyone has a common creed and feels like part of the church’s “story” (which is what I try to make happen in my new book Embracing Your Lutheran Identity).

Practice, of course, is also very important. Intentionally including the new members in the life of the congregation–not so much by giving them jobs to do, which often happens and which can be overwhelming, but by helping them get to know other members, by inviting them to meals or other informal activities–will help them feel a sense of belonging to the community.

More broadly, churches have caused members to lose their sense of community to the point of leaving altogether for bigger reasons. Liberal theologians shot down the Creeds of mainline denominations. The Story of Catholics, Baptists, and others has become a source of disillusionment, due to scandals and sexual abuse. And changes in Practice can turn a point of unity into a point of disunity. For example, when Vatican II got rid of time-honored Catholic practices, such as not eating meat on Friday and ditching the Latin mass, many long-time Catholics were confused and drifted away.

The Family

Today’s families often lack a creed. That is to say, they have no common religious commitment. Political disagreements often split families. When children are indoctrinated at school into ideologies–about gender, the environment, homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.–that often conflicts with their parents’ beliefs, which can undermine family unity and thus community.

A family’s story can be disrupted by divorce, remarriage, new step-siblings and half-siblings, new extended families children have never known before, and other developments that are confusing and disorienting, to children especially but also to their parents.

Practices can work against a sense of family community. Though breaking bread with others is a prime relationship-builder, reportedly only 30% of families regularly eat dinner together. With our patterns of work and school, children often socialize mainly with their circle of friends (who may not share the family’s “creed”), while their parents socialize mainly with their colleagues (who also may not share the family’s “creed”). As a result, each family member may end up living in his or her own social world, with the family playing an ever-smaller role.

Looking at community in terms of MacIntyre’s template of creed, story, and practices, the family today would seem to be more problem-filled than the other estates. Since family is the most intimate and formative of our influences, no wonder we are having so much loneliness and emotional dysfunctions.

What can be done? This is complicated, because it is one thing to start a family on the right foundations and another to repair a family already broken. I invite your suggestions. Here are a few things that come to my mind. . . .

To build up “creed,” commit to the same faith and go to church together.

To build up “story,” don’t get divorced, or if you are divorced, don’t get another one. Visit your extended family often.

To build up “practices,” eat together, go on vacations together, go to sporting events together, watch TV together, spend time with each other.

Homeschooling has the advantage of raising children apart from the sometimes toxic school culture. Another good thing about homeschooling, apart from potentially better academics, is that parents necessarily spend a lot more time with their children than they would otherwise. That in itself is beneficial to a child.

What else?

The State

For (legal) immigrants to become citizens of the United States, they first must pass a citizenship exam, which covers the founding principles of the nation (the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights), American history, and the elements and responsibilities of civic participation in our democratic republic. Thus, the immigrant must know the American creed, story, and practices.

Would-be citizens must also show mastery of spoken and written English. All of these requirements are meant to ensure and enable the new citizen’s assimilation into the national community. They may certainly retain their ethnic and religious communities, but at the same time they should be fully-integrated Americans.

In Europe, assimilation has been legally down-played in favor of “multi-culturalism,” which is why immigration is even more of a problem there than it is here. Even legal and long-term immigrants in Europe are often unassimilated–keeping their own language and culture, even when their practices are at odds with those of the host nation–so that they are not full members of the national community, to their harm as well as the harm of the nation. In the U.S., “illegal immigrants” present the same problems.

But even long-term, multi-generational citizens of the United States are often losing their sense of community.

The American Creed: Today many Americans on both sides of the political spectrum are rejecting “liberal democracy,” the principles of liberty, democracy, and rights set forth in our Constitution. According to the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Such truths are not self-evident any more. Not everyone in the United States believes in equality or in rights not bestowed by the government. How could they, if they don’t believe in the Creator?

Instead, many Americans believe that government, laws, and culture itself are nothing more than the imposition of power, of one group oppressing other groups. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are nothing more than noble-sounding lies to cover up the predations of the privileged white men who were really in charge. If you believe that, then there is no freedom, no self-government, no rule of law. You deny the very possibility of an American community.

The American Story: Those who believe that in our schools, universities, and media have been actively discrediting American history. By claiming that slavery, not freedom, is at the heart of the American enterprise, casting down American heroes off their pedestals, both figuratively and literally, and downplaying American efforts to right the wrongs that violate the national creeds, our intellectual and cultural elite have done real harm to our national sense of community. Instead, they form citizens who are cynical, guilt-ridden, and ashamed of their country.

Of course, slavery and our treatment of native populations are part of the American story, but such evils violate our “creeds.” That many of the founders who wrote those creeds did not live up to them should not discredit the creeds, which is how the counter-stories argue. Rather, they show the objectivity of the principles, which inhere above all in the Creator. And the development of the nation is the story of those principles finally being applied to groups that were originally excluded.

The American Practices. What are they any more? As the nation fragments into ever-smaller affinity groups at war with each other, due to the lack of a common creed and a common story, our common practices also fly apart.

We still vote, but voting has become contested, on both sides. We don’t trust each other enough–for good reasons–to accept the results.

We observe national holidays, but those have become contested. Columbus Day and Thanksgiving are made to commemorate the European invasion of the natives’ continent. Independence Day reminds us of our founders’ hypocrisies. We are still glad to have a four-day weekend, but Memorial Day and Labor Day have little meaning beyond the occasion to have a cook-out. Community needs more than that.

By the way, to speak of a sense of national community or to bring up the Creator as the Declaration of Independence does, is not Christian nationalism or even American exceptionalism. It might be called the virtue of patriotism, if that word could be stripped of its negative connotations. It is simply the love of country, which citizens of all nations should feel for their homeland and for the other people who inhabit the same society.

What can restore it? I’d like to hear your ideas.

Americans, deep down, tend to be patriotic. Both conservatives and liberals used to share the same patriotic emotions. The eclipse of the woke left will help greatly. Restoring our foundational beliefs and building a consensus around them will help. So will discrediting revisionist history and re-appreciating our past.

National catastrophes–wars, the depression, the 9/11 attacks, natural disasters–have a way of creating national unity. Spare us, good Lord!

Illustration: Dark Boxing by Pixabay via StockVault, CC0

Premium Content

“Abundance Liberalism”

Last updated on: March 21, 2025 at 7:31 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Democrats have been floundering since losing the 2024 election. They have lost all three branches of the government. The public seems to have repudiated their woke progressivism. The base they were counting on in their strategy of identity politics–blacks, hispanics, and the working class–has turned against them.

What should they do now? Some Democrats are saying the problem is that they weren’t radical enough while others say they were too radical. Some are putting their hope in a revival of “resistance” to Donald Trump, thinking that if they demonize him enough, surely Americans will come to reject him. Others think that co-operating with the Republicans, at least to a degree, will improve their image.

The overall problem seems to be that Democrats lack a coherent ideology, one that can give their party direction and inspiration, and, more than that, make themselves popular with voters.

Two journalists, Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, are proposing such an ideology, a new kind of liberalism. They have written a book entitled Abundance. It is a manifesto for what is being called “Abundance Liberalism” or “Supply-Side Progressivism.”

Here is how Klein describes it in a piece for the New York Times entitled There Is a Liberal Answer to the Trump-Musk Wrecking Ball. (also available from out behind a paywall here):

The populist right is powered by scarcity. When there is not enough to go around, we look with suspicion on anyone who might take what we have. That suspicion is the fuel of Trump’s politics. Scarcity — or at least the perception of it — is the precondition to his success.

The answer to a politics of scarcity is a politics of abundance, a politics that asks what it is that people really need and then organizes government to make sure there is enough of it. That doesn’t lend itself to the childishly simple divides that have so deformed our politics. Sometimes government has to get out of the way, as in housing. Sometimes it has to take a central role, creating markets or organizing resources for risky technologies that do not yet exist.

Abundance reorients politics around a fresh provocation: Can we solve our problems with supply? Valuable questions bloom from this deceptively simple prompt. If there are not enough homes, can we make more? If not, why not? If there is not enough clean energy, can we make more? If not, why not? If the government is repeatedly failing to complete major projects on time and on budget, then what is going wrong, and how do we fix it? If we need new technologies to solve our important problems, how do we pull these inventions from the future and distribute them in the present?

Klein admits that government and, indeed, liberal Democrats have been actively blocking such abundance. He wants that to stop. The regulations that stifle big projects and the attitudes that stifle growth are addressing the problems of a previous generation, but the problems have changed.

Unherd‘s Sohale Mortazavi sums up Abundance Liberalism this way: “In their buzzy new book, Abundance, they argue that scarcity is a choice, and that ‘to have the future we want, we need to build and invent more of what we need.’ Progressives, in this telling, must be on the side of dynamism and productive capacity, even if this means bucking the Left’s orthodoxies.”

In a wide-ranging interview with Klein and Thompson in The Free Press, Thompson says, “I think we went from a world where liberalism was a liberalism of building, between the 1930s and 1960s, and then there was a turn in the 1960s and 1970s, and for the last half century, liberalism has too often meant a liberalism of blocking.”

Abundance Liberalism gets away from, for example, the ascetic strictures of the environmental movement, while still seeking to build technologies that will fight climate change. It tones down progressives’ traditional class-warfare rhetoric going back to Karl Marx that demonizes business.

It is still progressive, though, in the sense of bringing back the old faith in “progress,” the trust in science, technology, expertise, and social evolution that can bring on a bright, utopian future. This would seem to fit well into the current Democratic base, no longer the working class, but the affluent, well-educated “knowledge class.”

But, you might wonder, how are these policies and ideology different from what the Republicans are trying to do? What’s the difference between Klein’s technological utopia and Donald Trump’s “golden age”?

The Trump administration is also calling for abundance. Techno-optimists like Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreesen have been saying something similar–as Klein and Thompson in their interview admit–but they have aligned themselves with Trump. Though conflict with MAGA populists has arisen, J. D. Vance, with a foot in both worlds, is trying to reconcile the two.

Here is the difference and what puts the “liberalism” in Abundance Liberalism. Klein and Thompson believe that a strong and active government is the key to achieving abundance. Whereas what we might call Abundance Conservatives believe that the key is unleashing the private sector.

Klein tells the Free Press, “One of the things we’re quite focused on is deregulating the government itself so government has more capacity to act, and act with a certain strength and capability. High-speed rail, or for that matter, public housing, are both good examples of this. There are places where you would want government to be able to act with more agency, more autonomy, and not be quite so vulnerable to endless lawsuits.”

Klein and Thompson have a big problem with Musk precisely because he is tearing government down. They want to build it up and make it both stronger and more effective.

Trump and the Republicans, they say, are really all about scarcity. For example, they discuss the high cost of housing, due to a housing shortage. So we need to build more houses. They admit that the problem is worse in Democratic-run states, like California, due to all of the regulations, restrictions, environmental studies, union rules, etc., etc.

They see a better alternative in Texas, where it is much easier to build houses due to fewer regulations and where housing is much cheaper. Thompson, speaking of Trump, says to Free Press,

He could have said, let’s make America like Texas. Let’s make America the most housing abundant country in the world. Instead, what does he do? He raises tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Totally effing random, but let’s follow along. Our number one source of lumber to build houses comes from Canada. Our number one source of gypsum drywall comes from Mexico.

Two of the most important inputs for any new house you’re going to build, we’ve now slapped a 25 percent tariff on them. There’s no way that does anything other than drive housing prices right up. And by the way, he’s also decreasing immigration. Twenty-five percent of the construction labor force is foreign-born. In California, it’s closer to 40 percent.

OK, some fair points, but they have to do with Trump’s stepping away from the usual Republican position of free markets. He argues, of course, that decreasing immigration will mean more jobs for Americans and that tariffs on foreign imports will encourage American companies to supply lumber and manufacture drywall. We’ll see who is right.

But let’s follow this along. Say the Abundance Liberals get control and government–somehow gaining a competence it hasn’t usually shown–builds more houses, a “supply-side” solution. That will drive housing prices down. Will affluent “knowledge class” progressives appreciate the value of their homes going down? Will the Abundance Liberals abandon the unions, as Texas has? Will they make houses that people really want to live in, if they are supplying apart from consumer demand?

The biggest problem with Abundance Liberalism is that it means an even more powerful, all-pervasive government, one big enough to give us an abundance of everything. And, as a practical matter, government spending on a colossal scale at a time when it is already laboring under a $36.22 trillion debt.

Thompson admits to Free Press, “I’m a tax-and-spend liberal. I believe in high taxes on the wealthy because I believe in income distribution, because poverty, I believe, is a moral sin.”

Well, if you distribute income like that, you won’t have anyone wealthy enough to pay high taxes! Of course, if you eliminate the private sector as a source of investment, the government will have to do it all.

That is socialism, a rather old-fashioned progressive idea, but this is what Abundance Liberalism comes to. To see the kind of building socialist governments manage, freed from market forces, go to Russia or other places ruled by the Soviet Union and see what’s left of the ghastly, impersonal high rise apartments now crumbling from neglect, or talk to someone who lived under that kind of regime about the kinds of products available in their shops.

If Abundance Liberals rely on the tactic of “tax and spend,” they are not that different from regular liberals.

Illustration via Amazon.com

Premium Content

MAGA Targeting Lutherans?

Last updated on: February 14, 2025 at 6:37 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

Lutherans are in the news, which is not usually a good thing, requiring explanations about the different kinds of Lutherans, untangling of misconceptions, defense against the critics, but also investigations into possible wrongdoing.

The previous Republican president, George W. Bush, made it possible for agencies of the federal government to contract with and give grants to faith-based organizations, including religious charities, to carry out some of the agencies’ programs, especially those involving relief (as with hurricanes, earthquakes, wildfires, and other disasters) and social services (as with adoption, rehabilitation, and care for the poor).

Catholics have many organizations devoted to such good works, and so do Lutherans with our tradition of “mercy work.” Evangelicals and mainline Protestants do as well. Some of them, though by no means all, accept federal money.

The Trump administration, with the help of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have been taking a chain saw to government agencies in their zeal to save taxpayer money, especially when those agencies have been using that money to fund leftist projects. Now religious ministries that take taxpayer money are being scrutinized. (See Michelle Boorstein’s story in the Washington Post: Attacks on Catholics, Lutherans suggest new Trump approach on religion.)

It started with Vice President J. D. Vance, a devout Catholic himself, criticizing Catholic charities for helping illegal immigrants. And now, President Trump’s former national security advisor General Mike Flynn has come down hard on the Lutherans. Here is what he posted on X:

Now it’s the “Lutheran” faith (this use of “religion” as a money laundering operation must end): Lutheran Family Services and affiliated organizations receive massive amounts of taxpayer dollars, and the numbers speak for themselves. These funds, total BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars. Here are just a few of the recent grants awarded (pre @RobertKennedyJr) by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

LUTHERAN IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE SERVICE INC: $367,612,906 LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF THE SOUTH, INC: $134,190,472.95 LUTHERAN SERVICES FLORIDA, INC.: $82,937,819.95

There are MANY more organizations cashing in on our hard-earned money. These entities are receiving huge sums, which raise serious questions about how taxpayer funds are being spent and who’s benefiting. It’s time to hold these organizations accountable. American taxpayers deserve transparency. Enough is enough! And there is much more where these screen shots below came from.

Gen. Flynn included a screen shot of spreadsheets showing truly staggering amounts of taxpayer money–hundreds of millions of dollars–going to Lutheran charities.

Musk re-tweeted Flynn’s post, with the comment, “The @DOGE team is rapidly shutting down these illegal payments.”

It isn’t clear exactly what these specific grants are for. (Do any of you know?) Most of the funding went to ELCA organizations. Some of these, including the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS), used to be joint ventures with the LCMS, which eventually cut the ties due to the ELCA’s theological liberalism. But others, such as Lutheran Family Services, are Recognized Service Organizations (RSOs) of the LCMS. At least one, Wisconsin Lutheran Child and Family Services, is affiliated with the Wisconsin Synod, another confessional church body.

Here is the statement from Lutheran Family Services about the controversy:

We at Lutheran Family Services in Nebraska (LFS) work daily to serve all of God’s people and to preserve America’s greatness.

It is our therapists, social workers, counselors and other professionals who are helping people recover and manage their addictions, mental health, and trauma. We work alongside law enforcement during crises, we help children who have been sexually abused, and we provide safe spaces and support for struggling veterans. We do all of this on a sliding scale, meaning if someone doesn’t have insurance or can’t pay for it, we can still help them. That’s possible, in part, because of the federal funding and the trust that we’ve earned over our 133 years of service to our communities and state.

To allegations that we are somehow “money laundering,” please know that we are highly audited, accredited, and endorsed by the Better Business Bureau and Charity Navigator. Our financial reports are available on our website. We were founded by Lutheran pastors, but we are not an evangelical organization. We are not a church. We do not proselytize. We simply serve. We are here because we know if we weren’t, there might not be anyone to lend a hand. And then where would we be?

We have provided refugee services for 50 years, since the fall of Saigon. Those with refugee status are highly vetted people who came to the US at the invitation of our government. Most wait years, even decades before getting the “golden ticket” of being able to come to America to rebuild their lives. They have been driven from their homes by the likes of the Taliban or Isis and have nowhere to return to. Many helped our armed forces during conflicts and face certain death if they go back to their home countries. All persons with refugee status are here legally. They are not trying to sneak in. They have followed our rules and laws from day one, and as part of their resettlement, are required to pay back the cost of their plane ticket once they are working. And we help them, as good neighbors do.

Our services, along with those of other non-profits in our communities, provide a safety net that allows society to operate with calmness and consistency. We know this is something that Americans value.

So, we strongly encourage Gen. Flynn and Mr. Musk to visit us to learn more. Come talk with our clients — parents who’ve adopted children, young people who have a home after aging out of foster care, those in recovery, and our veterans. Learn about who we serve, and how we transform federal grant funding into children, families, and lives saved. Reach out at [email protected].

LCMS President Matthew Harrison also addresses the issue in a letter to the church. The whole thing is worth reading, but here are some excerpts:

The LCMS loves all people. We believe “the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:7). We are sinners loved by Christ. And Christ bids us, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt. 19:19). When our congregations, pastors and people come into contact with individuals who are not legally in the U.S., particularly when such individuals find themselves in our churches, we welcome them. We tell them about Jesus’ forgiveness. We also always urge and often assist them in doing the right thing, that is, becoming legal residents. The LCMS is officially pro-immigrant. Our church was founded by German immigrants.

President Harrison explains that the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) is not part of the LCMS. He surveys the synod’s earlier co-operation with the ELCA with such ventures and the reasons for the breakup. President Harrison noted that some of the RSOs listed apparently have kept some ties with the ELCA, which he will be investigating. He concludes with this:

I’m sure that General Flynn meant well with his muckraking, but he misses the mark in two ways. First, though I do not agree philosophically with every operational aspect of LIRS, if there is something legally amiss, the blame falls squarely upon the federal government. LIRS — and even our own LCMS RSOs — simply does what the government asks and pays for them to do.

During his first term, President Trump and the First Lady visited one of the LCMS RSOs currently under scrutiny. The president wanted to ensure that the institution would be a place to deliver outstanding care to unaccompanied minors. That agency has been quietly doing this work since that visit. They take the work with profound seriousness and love. They did not and do not deserve the broad brush of disdain brought upon them.

Second, οur immigration laws are a mess. I can safely say our LCMS people are all for removing criminal bad actors from this country. Caesar “beareth not the sword in vain” says St. Paul (Rom. 13:4). There are indeed millions who have broken federal immigration law. That is wrong. It is also true that millions have been enticed and encouraged to enter illegally into this country by contradictory American voices at all levels: federal, state and local. I cannot but be sympathetic to their plight. At the same time, a well-regulated border, sound immigration policy, and welcoming space for persecuted refugees are all fundamental parts of a God-pleasing answer to the question: Who will contribute to this marvelous and blessed American experiment?

It would help to learn what exactly these grants are for. And to learn what Gen. Flynn means by “money laundering.”

And the grief these agencies and others are going through due to this bad publicity may serve as a cautionary tale, showing that when the church takes government money, political entanglements are inevitable.

President Trump has vowed to promote religion, establishing a White House Faith Office and signing an Executive Order titled Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias. He may need to remind DOGE that Christianity involves good works.

Illustration: Lutheran Family Services via Facebook

Premium Content

Struggling Towards Christianity

Last updated on: January 30, 2025 at 2:48 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

As we’ve been blogging about, the New Atheists have given way to the New Theists, as prominent thinkers are showing a new openness to religion. Some of them are not quite there yet, stopping short of Christian faith, but possibly struggling towards it.

Michaela Estruth writes about this for Real Clear Religion. She discusses a Free Press podcast conversation between editor Bari Weiss and historian Tom Holland, whose book Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World demonstrates to the satisfaction even of hardened secularists that “humane” values such as equality, compassion, and human worth derive from Christianity and nowhere else.

“Both Weiss and Holland seemed to struggle with an inward desire for Christianity to be true,” Estruth writes. “Neither could declare it so, and, yet, both acknowledge its appeals and consolations.”

Holland said that he finally got bored with atheism. Now, he says, ““I exist kind of in the shadowlands between belief and agnosticism.”

“And I feel that, in trying to make sense of it, I’m trying to make sense of myself and the kind of conflicted nature that I sense exists within me and within the society in which I live,” Holland said. “And I ultimately, I find that it makes my life more interesting to be a part of that, to share in that, and to contemplate the possibility that, as you asked, it might be true. There are times where I dare to believe that. Most of the time I don’t, but there are increasingly times that I do.”

Estruth also draws on an interview by psychologist Jordan Peterson with Elon Musk.

“I’m actually a big believer in the principles of Christianity. I think they’re very good,” Musk said. “I’m probably a cultural Christian.”

Peterson pushed him to clarify. Musk presented an optimistic worldview that aimed for greatest happiness both in the present and the future.

“Happiness or meaning?” Peterson asked.

Musk caved, saying meaning leads to happiness.

“To deepen our understanding of the nature of the universe — that is my religion for a lack of better way to describe it,” Musk said. “It’s a religion of curiosity, the religion of greater enlightenment.”

Well, Elon Musk does not sound particularly close to the Kingdom. I would add, though, that in an interview with the Babylon Bee, Musk pressured into agreeing to “accept Jesus as his lord and savior.” But, contrary to popular evangelical usage, saying that isn’t exactly the same as saving faith.

Jordan Peterson, though, sounds much closer. He has been studying and unpacking the Bible in his book We Who Wrestle with God and his YouTube Biblical Series, offering primarily a psychological interpretation of the texts. Estruth reports:

He shared, in a recent interview, his struggle with meaning and hope during a painful three year period when his close family members were suffering. Just a few minutes before, however, he defined the divine as the image of courage in immense suffering. He said Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament law and prophets and is in fact God — that belief is more than an appreciation for cultural Christianity.

“It’s indisputable. Christ takes the sins of the world unto himself. That means that all the problems that there are, are his problems,” Peterson said.

Well said! He gets to the content of Christianity. But then he launches into how “the spirit of unlimited courage” is what defines the divine and the work of Christ and is the “highest possible value,” and the moment passes.

Religious belief is different from believing in philosophical propositions or accepting bits of information as being true. Faith is not just an assent to facts. “Thou believest that there is one God,” says the Apostle James; “thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble” (James 2:19; KJV). But the devils are ahead of some people. They believe in God. But they don’t tremble.

The trembling part is important. Devils are afraid of God, and so should we be, on account of our sins. But trembling isn’t enough either. Our fear should drive us to Christ, who relieves our fears by His atoning work on the cross.

Faith has to do with salvation. With receiving God’s forgiveness through Christ. With depending on Him for that, trusting Him, and knowing Him. It’s the difference between knowing a fact and knowing a person. If you know a person, you of course believe he or she exists, but it’s much more than that. Growing such a faith takes time. You get that from Word and Sacrament. From going to church.

Estruth also looks at Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her husband, the historian Niall Ferguson. They seem to have gone all the way. Estruth writes:

Niall Ferguson shared his conversion, along with that of his wife, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and two children, in a post on X in December.

“I have embraced Christianity. We were all baptized, Ayaan and our two sons, together in September,” Ferguson said. “It was the culmination of a quite protracted process.”

Ferguson shared that, like Holland, he “lost his faith in atheism.”

While Hirsi Ali converted to Christianity first, her family was soon to follow, and their baptisms publicly proclaim the decision to follow Christ. Ferguson’s and Hirsi Ali’s journeys from skepticism in atheism to profession of Christianity signifies more than an appreciation for cultural Christianity. Instead, they profess a deep, profound conviction and belief in Christian doctrine.

We should pray that the others will eventually reach this point as well.

Photo: Niall Ferguson by Fronteiras do Pensamento, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content

Diversity, Equity, Inclusion

Last updated on: January 31, 2025 at 7:15 am By Gene Veith

0 Comments

The day after he was inaugurated, President Trump issued an executive order reversing the federal government’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) policies and shutting down all government offices devoted to carrying out those policies.

Not only that, he reversed the federal government’s requirement that contractors and grant recipients have DEI programs. Up till now, contractors had to jump through numerous hoops to prove that they have DEI programs and that their workforces are diverse, equitable, and inclusive. From now on, according to this order, contractors and grant recipients must prove that they do NOT have DEI programs. Since so many companies do business with the U.S. government, this executive order may be the death knell to the DEI mandates that so many businesses have adopted.

To be sure, contrary to what you will probably be hearing, federal Civil Rights laws forbidding discrimination in employment will still be in effect. In fact, those anti-discrimination laws are cited as the basis of the order.

According to the Wikipedia article on DEI, “Diversity refers to the presence of variety within the organizational workforce, such as in identity and identity politics It includes gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability, age, culture, class, religion, or opinion.” Most DEI programs seem prioritize the first four. I have never seen “opinion” counted as a favored category, and “religion” seems to refer mainly to “under-represented religions,” such as Islam, as opposed to the various Christian traditions.

The dictionary definition of Equity is “the situation in which everyone is treated fairly according to their needs and no group of people is given special treatment.” Quite recently, though, it acquired a new meaning: equality of outcomes, as opposed to equality of opportunity. Wikipedia calls this “substantive equality.”

Inclusion means creating a welcoming environment, or, in Wikipedia’s words, “creating an organizational culture that creates . . . a sense of belonging and integration.” This usually involves “diversity training” for employees.

What this all means in practice is not simply opening jobs to people from all backgrounds, but, in the name of the new definition of equity, actually hiring individuals with the favored identities. That is, hiring people because they are black, female, homosexual, or transgender. As opposed to their qualifications and abilities to do the job. In practice, this also means that individuals who do not have the right “identities” to fill the slots, get passed over.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 reads, in part:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

It is illegal to “discriminate against” people because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. It is also illegal to “classify” employees or applicants by their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in such a way as to deprive them of employment opportunities. And this is exactly what DEI programs end up doing.

As for “inclusion,” research indicates that DEI training does exactly the opposite of creating a culture of belonging and integration. David Millard Haskell, writing for Quillette, points out that companies have been abandoning their DEI programs even before Trump’s executive order. This is because, in the words of his title, We’ve Known It for Years: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Programs Don’t Work.

He says that several research studies found that “DEI training actually increases bigotry, foments division, and possibly even imposes psychological harm by seeking to convince otherwise tolerant and liberal-minded trainees that they harbour hidden forms of hatred.”

Illustration: “Diversity Training” by Focal Foto via Flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0

Premium Content

Hating the Vulnerable

Last updated on: January 25, 2025 at 7:44 pm By Gene Veith

0 Comments

I’m a big fan of Nadya Williams, the classics professor who walked away from being a tenured full professor at West Georgia, where she taught for 15 years, to homeschool her children. She tells about her decision in a post at Anxious Bench entitled Discerning Vocation: Walking Away from Academia. I commend it to you as a thoughtful reflection on vocation, a major theme here at the Cranach blog.

She continues to write and to pursue her scholarship on the ancient world and the early church. She is the author of Cultural Christians in the Early Church: A Historical and Practical Introduction to Christians in the Greco-Roman World and her latest Mothers, Children, and the Body Politic: Ancient Christianity and the Recovery of Human Dignity.

She has recently written a searing piece for Mere Orthodoxy entitled To Hate the Vulnerable: Roe at 52. Here is a sample:

No question about it: we, as a society, do not like the weak and the vulnerable. Instead of investing resources in them, it is much more convenient to destroy them ourselves (the promise of abortion, which involves the medical killing of the baby in utero) or encourage the vulnerable to destroy themselves (as MAID attempts to do in Canada with medical killing of eligible adults over the age of eighteen). Tragically, some of the weak and the vulnerable—pregnant women in crisis situations, the drug addicted, the ill, the poor—are the most likely to buy into both of these lies. But is this true? Do we as a society realize that we tell some people outright:

Your life is not worth living.

You do not deserve to live.

Your child does not deserve to live.

What kind of monsters does this make us? Of course, most people who support abortion and/or euthanasia do not think overly much about the precise mechanics of what happens in the process. It’s easier to talk about it as “the realm of medicine.” As the slogan goes, “Abortion is healthcare.” This makes it, therefore, generally belonging to the realm of science, and you wouldn’t want to oppose or disrespect science, would you?

This general comfort of our society with such medical killings (which is what these are) is the result of faulty theology and faulty anthropology that has permeated our modern secular therapeutic age.

She goes on to detail what that faulty theology and faulty anthropology is, including a discussion of the Roman law that “A notably deformed child shall be killed immediately.”

Psychological projection is defined as “a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others.” In other words, projection means ascribing negative qualities to others that we actually have ourselves.

The left is always accusing those who do not believe in their ideology of “hate.” Here, Williams turns their rhetoric against them. You advocates of abortion and you advocates of euthanasia “hate the vulnerable.” If you think someone’s life is not worth living and you want them dead, what else can you call it?

The Episcopalian Bishop of Washington, Marianne Budde, called on President Trump at the inauguration Prayer Service to “have mercy” on illegal immigrants and transgendered children.

She has also issued statements favoring abortion. We can implore her to have mercy on unborn children.

Photo by Quinn Dombrowski from Berkeley, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

Premium Content