Tony Jones

Robert Plant Doesn’t Age

Tony Jones — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:25:23 +0000

…at least when he’s backlit.

Check out the singer of the greatest rock band in history in 1979…

And last week, as shot by the inimitable Courtney Perry for the Dallas Morning News:

Almost Christian: Generative Faith

Tony Jones — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 13:13:18 +0000

I’m blogging through Kenda Creasy Dean’s new book, a theological follow up to Christian Smith’s Soul Searching. I hope you’ll join me. Find all the posts here.

In chapter four, Kenda turns explicitly theological, arguing that “Catechesis shapes missional imaginations, which help us recognize God’s activity in Jesus Christ and in us, as Christ calls us to participate in his redemptive work in the world.” She writes that the gospel in ineluctably missional, and that teens who are formed by a gospel imagination should also be missional. This happens by,

Claiming a Creed: Teens need not only to have a general, warm feeling about Jesus, but must be able to articulate what, exactly, is special and unique about Jesus.
Belonging to a Community: Teens need the “connectedness” that is fostered exclusively in “authoritative communities.”
Pursuing a Purpose: Teens need to live in a “morally significant universe” in which their good decisions have good consequences and their bad decisions have bad consequences.
Harboring Hope: Teens are pulled out of moralistic, therapeutic deism by hope (that God controls the future), which provides “highly devoted teenagers with a resource for getting through the present.”

Kenda goes on to explicate that “highly devoted teenagers” live out their faith and show that outwardly. She then points to the results of the Exemplary Youth Ministry Study at Luther Seminary for a list of attributes that can be found in these highly devoted teens.

For me, I come back to the question I asked earlier: Is it even developmentally possible for adolescents to articulate a creed, commit to an authoritative community, pursue a purpose, and harbor hope? My gut and experience tell me that they can do 3 and 4, but most probably cannot pull off 1 and 2.

What do you think?

A Note from Andrew Root

Tony Jones — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 14:40:35 +0000

My friend and co-conspirator, Andy Root, has a message for those of you in youth ministry:

Andrew Root (photo by Courtney Perry)

Hello Youth Ministry friends, I’m sorry to interrupt your regularly scheduled blog reading, but I have broken into transmission to offer you an opportunity.

I wanted to get before you the chance to get a free copy of my book, Relationships Unfiltered. As the new school year approaches and you think about volunteer leader meetings and trainings I would like to suggest you take a look at Relationships Unfiltered. It’s written just for this setting with discussion questions and chapters filled with illustrations and stories–but also promises to get you and your team thinking theologically about your core practice this coming school year: forming relationships with young people.

Here’s what I can do: If you’ll email me I’ll send you a free copy of the book so you can look it over and decide if it would be of help to you and your volunteers.

If you’re interested in using it, you can then go to Zondervan.com or Zondervan.com/ministry and type in the code 980752 in the “source code” box. Starting August 1 this will give you a 40% discount on as many books as you’d like.

And I’ll also offer this, if you do use the book with your team, I’m willing to do a select number of skype or ichat conversations with you and your team after getting through the book.

Tony again: I’m a huge fan of Andy’s books, so this is an offer I heartily endorse! And, speaking of Andy, be sure to consider joining us at the next FirstThird Dialogue at Luther Seminary. This one, slated for September 27-29, will tackle the issue of “Ministering to Children of Divorce.” And, until August 7, registration is only $99! Info HERE.

Almost Christian: Mormon Envy

Tony Jones — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:36:13 +0000

I’m blogging through Kenda Creasy Dean’s new book, a theological follow up to Christian Smith’s Soul Searching. I hope you’ll join me. Find all the posts here.

In chapter three, Kenda’s provocative chapter title is, “Mormon Envy.” Those of us who read Soul Searching remember how Mormon teens religiously outperform their peers by every measure, from behavior (later to lose their virginity; less use of alcohol and drugs) to belief (higher attendance at church functions; better able to articulate what they believe).

In this chapter, Kenda introduces and relies upon the “cultural toolkit” theory developed by UC-Berkeley sociologist Ann Swidler (co-author of the sociological blockbuster Habits of the Heart). Swidler published an article in 1986 in which she spells out this theory, “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies” (PDF), the abstract of which reads,

Culture influences action not by providing the ultimate values toward which action is oriented, but by shaping a repertoire or “tool kit” of habits, skills, and styles from which people construct “strategies of action.” Two models of cultural influence are developed, for settled and unsettled cultural periods. In settled periods, culture independently influences action, but only by providing resources from which people can construct diverse lines of action. In unsettled cultural periods, explicit ideologies directly govern action, but structural opportunities for action determine which among competing ideologies survive in the long run. This alternative view of culture offers new opportunities for systematic, differentiated arguments about culture’s causal role in shaping action.

In other words, individuals pick up “tools” in their experiences of life, add them to their “toolkit,” and develop “strategies” by which they use these tools to cope in culturally settled and unsettled periods.

Kenda nods to Swidler’s theory, writing,

Highly devoted young people seem adept at using at least four cultural tools in ways that mark them as members of their traditions: (1) they confess their tradition’s creed, or God-story; (2) they belong to a community that enacts the God-story; (3) they feel called by this story to contribute to a larger purpose; and (4) they have hope for the future promised by this story.

She then uses the results from Mormon teens as a prime example of a community of religious teens who are given and taught how to use valuable tools:

By intentionally reinforcing the significance of Mormonism’s particular God-story, by immersing young people in a community of belonging, by preparing them for a vocation and by modeling a forward-looking hope, Mormons intentionally and consistently create the conditions for consequential faith.

Kenda unpacks Mormon theology quite a bit in this chapter, and I learned some things about the Mormon conception of God that I had not previously known. Among them, as alluded to in that last quote, is the very specific eschatology that Mormons hold, to which Kenda attributes some of the deep religiosity of Mormon teens. In short: there’s something very specific for Mormons to believe in after death, and that helps Mormon teens believe during life.

It’s not till the end of the chapter that Kenda raises a theological problem with all this Mormonophilia in the NSYR, and that’s the lack of grace in Mormon theology and practice. She even puts Swidler’s theory into question, writing that “Christian formation is less about acquiring cultural tools than surrendering them…”

I’m not a huge fan of Swidler’s theory because I think it gives too much agency to the individual human being — in general, I think that we’re trapped in larger systems and structures of influence than we’re able to see. In other words, I don’t think we really choose our tools.

I also wonder if Kenda (and the NSYR researchers) underplay the fact that Mormons tend to live in community with one another, thus muting the parallels that most church-based youth workers can draw from the study. The tightness of the Mormon community is something that simply cannot be replicated by the average American youth pastor.

But, the bigger question for me is this: Are we as Christian pastors and youth workers able to learn from Mormons about what works and doesn’t work in spiritually forming teens?

Katherine Kersten’s Many Fallacies

Tony Jones — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:34:05 +0000

Katherine Kersten, MinnPost photo by Bill Kelley

Katherine Kersten is the often-mocked conservative columnist at the Minneapolis StarTribune. Often mocked because her columns regularly sound like she’s Michelle Bachman’s a-little-bit-less-stupid big sister. Mainly, she touts reactionary talking points and far-fetched anecdotes as her arguments.

Yesterday, her column was so cloddish that I thought I’d break it down, paragraph-by-paragraph. She wrote about same sex marriage and the death of all that’s holy.

Is same-sex marriage just over the horizon in Minnesota? Many say yes. A suit to legalize it has been filed in Hennepin County, and a slew of bills on the subject were introduced in the last legislative session. All the Democratic candidates for governor — along with Independent Tom Horner — endorse gay marriage.

Yes, indeed, same sex marriage will likely be legalized in Minnesota rather soon. Why? Because most people are coming around to the realization that it is not only harmless, but actually good for the stability of society.

At the national level, a federal judge in Massachusetts recently ruled unconstitutional the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. Any day now, a federal judge in California is expected to strike down Proposition 8, which was endorsed in 2008 by California voters and defined marriage as a male-female institution in the state’s constitution.

Same-sex marriage supporters assure us that redefining marriage is no big deal. “How will my same-sex marriage hurt you?” they ask, expecting the answer to be “it doesn’t.”

Don’t believe it.

Same-sex marriage would transform American law and social life. That’s because it’s grounded in a radical idea: that male-female marriage, an institution rooted in human biology and intended to create the best setting to beget and raise children, is just irrational bigotry.

Here’s where KK really hits her stride. Same sex marriage is about as “radical” an idea as miscegenation, another form of marriage that KK would have likely opposed just a few decades ago. Really, what’s become clear as notions of family have evolved — and evolved they have over the past 10,000 years — is that “American law and social life” are always transforming. That’s what happens as time goes on. Institutions change, reform, and transform.

I mean, seriously, does she not understand that if our ideas of sexuality and equality hadn’t evolved, she wouldn’t be a columnist for a major daily newspaper! There are plenty of places on this planet that KK could move that steadfastly uphold the kind of marriage she desires, and she can move there today. But I don’t think they’ll publish her essays.

And on the final sentence in that paragraph, let’s remove the dependent clause and see what she’s really saying:

“male-female marriage…is just irrational bigotry”

I know a few GLBT persons, and many allies, and I don’t know one who thinks that male-female marriage is bigotry. I mean, seriously, how does an editor even let that sentence stay in her column?

The implications of this revolutionary notion are far-reaching, and many are unforeseeable. But one thing is certain: If adopted, it will put government on a collision course with religious institutions and believers, and it’s a sure bet government will win.

No such think will happen. See below.

Male-female marriage is a foundational tenet of all the major world religions, including Christianity, Judaism and Islam. If gay marriage becomes government policy, people who believe that kids need both a mother and a father will be treated with the contempt formerly reserved for racial bigots.

First of all, most of the major world religions — including the three she cites — are based on a very different version of hetero-marriage: it’s called polygamy. And I can’t imagine that’s what she’s advocating. Secondly, she has absolutely no basis for claiming that those who opt for hetero-based family systems will be treated with contempt in society. Regarding her parallel to racism, the fact is that while most people in America believe in equality among races and ethnicities, most also choose to live, work, and go to school with those who look like them. In other words, societies tend to find equilibriums on contentious issues like race and sexuality.

If you think I’m exaggerating, listen to Mark Dayton, who may be Minnesota’s next governor. In 2004, he told a crowd of gay-rights activists that people who support a constitutional amendment to protect male-female marriage are “the forces of bigotry and hatred” who “spew hatred and inhumanity,” according to the Star Tribune.

If you’ve got to go back to 2004 to get a quote you don’t like from a full-time politician, well, I don’t think you’ve got much to work with.

Today, we’re already seeing the implications of this view play out:

•If gay marriage becomes law, churches and religiously affiliated organizations may be denied tax exemption, on grounds that their beliefs are “contrary to public policy.” The threat is “credible” and “palpable,” according to Robin Wilson, a law professor at Washington and Lee University. In New Jersey, for example, a Methodist ministry had to fight government officials to defend its tax exemption for a facility after declining to allow two lesbian couples to use it for civil union ceremonies.

Not going to happen. Every state in which same sex legislation has passed has included language that exempts religious organizations from financial penalties for maintaining hetero-normativity; and if they didn’t have that language, they have since added it.

•Some faith-based charities may have to stop providing social services. Catholic Charities in Boston — which specialized in adoptions involving hard-to-place kids — had to give up adoption after gay marriage began in Massachusetts. Religiously affiliated hospitals, rehabilitation centers and homeless shelters that get government contracts or deal with Medicaid and Medicare may be similarly threatened.

Some faith-based charities may have to stop… Thanks for the qualifiers, KK.

•Public employees may be disciplined or dismissed if they refuse to approve of homosexual acts. Recently, for example, a professor who taught Catholic theology at the University of Illinois was fired after a student accused him of hate speech. The professor had written in an e-mail that Catholic theology teaches that “sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same,” and had said he agrees with this view.

For one thing, the University of Illinois is currently reviewing its firing of Kenneth Howell (and I’m sure if he’s reinstated, KK will write a column commending the university for its tolerance of conservative opinions). For another, he wasn’t a professor of Catholic theology but an adjunct lecturer in the religion department. And for yet another, he wrote a lot more in the email than KK reports.

•In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Christian Legal Society at the University of California, Hastings, College of the Law could be denied status as a registered student group because it holds that the only rightful form of sex is between a man and woman within marriage — a view that violates the school’s nondiscrimination policy on sexual orientation. The ruling may sound the death-knell for orthodox Christian, Jewish and Muslim campus groups.

Oh, puhleeze. This SCOTUS decision has been much debated and has yet to be fully fleshed out. But no one of sound mind has suggested that Campus Crusade and InterVarsity groups start packing their bags and leaving campus.

•Small-business owners could be liable under discrimination laws if they decline to provide goods or services in contexts that violate their beliefs — providing wedding photography at a same-sex marriage, for example. Boards that license professionals, including psychologists and social workers, may require approval of same-sex marriage for licensure or admission to professional schools.

Again, KK peppers her paragraph with conditional — could, may, might. The rest of us will appeal to common sense and reply, won’t.

In California in 2008, we saw what’s in store for traditional-marriage supporters who stand up for their beliefs. Same-sex marriage activists there vandalized property, targeted jobs and defaced houses of worship. Here in the Twin Cities, leaders of the recent Gay Pride celebration also refused to tolerate dissent. They went to court in an unsuccessful attempt to bar a lone Christian evangelist from handing out Bibles in the public park where their event took place.

Let’s use her same reasoning in another context: Last year we saw what happened to Jews who dare to frequent a house of worship. Christian activists vandalized their property and defaced their houses of worship with the Nazi sign of the swastika. The sinful actions of the few, of course, do not reflect the normative actions of the many.

In its early years, the gay-rights movement marched under the banner of tolerance. No more. Activists are demanding conformance with and approval of their agenda, and are punishing those who dare to disagree.

No, KK, no one is “punishing those to dare to disagree.” What same sex marriage advocates are asking for is protection under the law. We’re asking for the same financial incentives afforded to heterosexual couples. It’s not going to destroy hetero-marriage; it’ll simply be the next step in the many millennia development and evolution of how human beings mate and express love toward one another.

Hey, that’s kind of interesting. In all of Kersten’s columns about the importance of hetero-marriage, I don’t read her talking about love. Yet when I hear my GLBT friends talking about their desire to marry, that word comes up a lot. That’s something to ponder.