Dare To Discover

History is one of the most important disciplines. It is important because our memory of what happened directly informs our viewpoint of what should happen. Everyone has a particular understanding of past based on what they have experienced and what they have learned, even if it is not well developed. If our understanding of what happened and why it happened is incorrect, our understanding of what we should be doing now will also be incorrect.

History, then, is a convenient place for historians to “tell their own story” inside the narrative of the past. A history of the United States, for example, can make it out to be the greatest or worst country in history depending on which facts are highlighted, what contrasts are made, and what conclusions are drawn. Therefore, even those historians who are working hard to be “unbiased” are still “telling a story” by the events they choose to highlight. The issue becomes which story does God want us to tell?

The Bible is, before anything else, a history book – a divinely inspired account of events that actually took place. By studying its historiography, that is the way that it records and views history, we can learn a lot about the correct approach to history.

Human nature never changes. Contrary to evolutionary views, people have always been the same, and therefore the struggles they fight are strikingly relevant to our current time. There are power struggles, heroes and villains. The Bible does not present us with perfect heroes (except for Jesus) either. This is the difference between history and hagiography. Hagiography, as is often found in biographies, exalts an historical person to super human status, and separates us from understanding their real role in history.

Contexts do change. The environment in which human dramas plays out can change radically. Technology such as transportation and communication is the most obvious way in which it changes, but the laws customs and culture in which human nature reveals itself can change. Failing to understand this will lead to a misunderstanding of what happened, and by extension it’s relevance for what is happening today.

There are defining issues, and spiritual issues are the ultimate ones. A secular history of Bible times would tell us much more about the long series of events. The Bible history highlights the issues which define the times. Modern scholarship has given incredible emphasis to remarkably small time periods. Scholars are required to be specialists, not generalists. This means that few people are able to connect the dots to the overarching picture well. As Christians, we look for and see the big picture, and place these smaller events inside of them. Secondly, the defining issues of the times are ultimately spiritual. A great battle is significant, but it does not occur in a vacuum, it occurs in a spiritual context. The Bible sees events in the light of God’s action in them, and His ultimate purpose for His people. History has not changed. There are still critical moments, and they still are ultimately defined against a spiritual backdrop.

The Bible provides us with an inspired account of what was important to the advance of God’s plan in the first era of history. We do not have an inspired record for the last 2000 years, but by following the same approach we can begin to identify where the story that God wants to tell is in the midst of a long litany of events. Conversely, we can begin to identify when we are being told a story that misses the key points.

The first issue for the historian is what is its prime cause? For a long time, American history, basing itself on the thought of the early Puritans, took a “Providential” view. This began with Cotton Mather in the 17th century, and continued in at least a similar tradition all the way down to George Bancroft in the 19th century. It was suddenly replaced, however by the work of a younger generation of scholars, foremost of whom were Charles and Mary Beard. That generation took the view that economic causes were foremost. Marxists see economic class warfare as the prime cause. Others might propose random factors as the prime cause, such as in “Guns, Germs, and Steel.”

Scholarship is no longer open to providential explanations, but does that mean that all of our history will be written from the wrong perspective? No. Within the academy at least, we can not write about spiritual causes, but we can write about “cultural” causes. Culture is the embodiment of the spiritual state of a people — culture is driven ultimately by religion. A people that is turned towards God will have Godly values deeply inscribed in their culture. A people that is turned away from God will have the opposite. By examining culture and religion we are able to determine which people and nations represent God’s purposes in an era, and which are raised up by the enemy to stop those purposes. This does not mean we write racist or nationalist history. It means we tell the story of ideas and people or national moments when those ideas were defended. Once we know who the “good guys” and “bad guys” are, our history has the correct orientation. It become providential when we connect the dots to show how the “good guys” win, and the “bad guys” lose, and how people suffer when the opposite takes place. Therefore you can write moral history without being moralizing, spiritual history without being spiritual.

Sociology is study of society or human grouping. In the social sciences, it is at the “top” of the spectrum with economics because it examines the largest scale trends of human behavior… the results of 4 billion people interacting together. At the “bottom” of the social sciences is psychology, which studies the individual actor. Cultural anthropology is in the “middle” because it looks at tribes or cultures—small groups identified by geography, history, or race.

Sociology, being at the top of the social sciences, yields some of the most interesting information about humanity, but also some of the most philosophical (i.e. least scientific or mathematical). To say that sociology is a science, as most contend, is stretching the truth. Most sociology falls into macroeconomic or macropsychological speculation. The framers of the field were often more philosophers of race or social class than anything else. So the objectivity of the field must be taken with more than a grain of salt, although data and statistical analysis are of course part of being a good sociologist.

This makes sociology wide open to the Christian, however. In contrast to psychology, whose status as scientific is doggedly defended, sociology tolerates more conjecture and revelation. Understanding, generalizing, and predicting human behavior on the largest levels requires some religious understanding (even if it is atheism), and therefore one’s worldview comes naturally into play. If Christians are shrewd about how they present their theories, they can play the game without getting ousted; theology and metaphysics is deftly sneaked in the back door by almost every sociologist of worth.

Yet for this very reason, it is important for Christians to understand that Sociology may be one of the most liberal fields in the social sciences—just slightly more conservative than history, literature, or the other humanities. This is because social analysis intermingles with literary device; the two are often hard to separate. So while no novelist is a sociologist per se, many sociology texts are essentially non-fiction novels. Theories address religion, economics, psychology, education, media, law, ethics, and philosophy. Many contributors, including Merton, Parsons, Martineau, and de Tocqueville, are charming to read. Others, such as Plato, DeBois, Marx, and Nietzche, were never called sociologists formally but were social analysts all the same. Any preacher on social stratification, race, family, urbanology, sex roles, criminology, demography, or industry can effectively be called a sociologist if they follow suit.

Sociology today has some of the most liberal and diverse vocabulary of any social science. Rife with terms such as “structural functionalism,” “phenomenology,” “postivism”/”antipostivism”, “symbolic interactionism,” and “social network analysis,” the field of sociology can seem one of the most hostile. Essentially, these terms and others have cropped up to make the field seem more scientific… the fancier the terms, the more scientific it seems. In reality, though, most terms describe very plain ideas in fancy language, and some can even be retranslated into biblical ideas quite easily. For example:

• Deviance: rebellion
• Conformity: obedience
• Discrimination: justice/injustice
• Anomie: foolishness, idleness, unbelieving

Putting scientific and technical terms into biblical language is important because although the Bible does not give exhaustive answers to every sociological question, it does form the framework for proper social analysis. While some would deconstruct and dissect human relationships and behavior down to an almost indescribably complex level, Scripture maintains that the general ideas behind society and human nature are quite simple: human hearts are depraved, God made men and women a certain way before the Fall, society rejects the knowledge of God, society is in a state of enmity with itself (inner war), sin degrades a culture, power corrupts, work produces and heals, etc. All these simplistic types of statements give the Christian a map through the manmade-complex world of sociology. If he can keep them in mind, they will provide a reliable guide into and out of the fascinating arguments. But he must hold fast: the dizzying terms and models will threaten to lose him.

One path to winning respect from the Academy is to research, promote and parrot the ideas which dominate the scholarship of the moment. This method, along with hard work, of course, is the quick way to become respected and important in the academy. As Christians, however, we are not seeking respect and importance as an ends, our goal is to be a prophetic and transformational voice. At minimum, we should seek to be “salt and light” which slows the slide of the world toward nihilistic and Godless thought.

If we do so under the banner of being “Christian” we are immediately ruled out and “ghettoized” however. The premise of the modern academy is secular. Therefore we must engage it according to its secular rules if we hope to be successful there. We have three things working in our favor.

1. First, the truth is on our side. Careful research will always demonstrate and validate a Christian perspective of the world.
2. Secondly, we have a guide for what that truth is from the outset, from the Scriptures. Although the Bible does not answer some complex questions directly, it provides the proper framework for answering any question.
3. Third, our ideas will usually be novel, because they cut against the current of the prevailing thought.

In addition, if you are a student in the academic arena, you have the advantage of being motivated. Many or most students passing through the university are there to get a degree and move on, not for academic purposes. That means they are often not particularly engaged, which is frustrating for professors. If you are highly engaged, your professors will often take interest in your work just for that fact.

If we refuse to label our work as Christian and to make Christianity the overt theme, what approach can we use? The perspective of this blog is that we identify those thinkers, regardless of their religious background, who are defending a Christian truth, and use their work as a basis for developing it further. You as a Christian are easily dismissed as biased, but the elite members of the academy past and present are not.

Wading around to find those thinkers and ideas which are Christian is difficult, however. It takes serious orientation, developed over many years to sift the various notions of a field for their Christian and un-Christian elements, because the terms and papers elaborately disguise the simple ideas and agendas of those who write them. Your instructors will have you drink at a trough that promotes their perspective, which is often not informed by God at all. If you do not have any other source of information, you will be hard pressed to argue back in the language of the discipline.

That’s why we are here. Our job is to give you the “big ideas” of each subject from a Christian perspective, and then to help you find the scholars who are far ahead of you in advancing those ideas or sympathetic ideas. This includes both Christian resources to orient you, and scholarly resources to build on. You will be surprised at how much progress you can often make with this approach. If you do it right, your professors might even open up to you, despite your differing perspective. At the very least you will receive a true education, learning to wrestle with the ideas of the time .

Too often Christian students have their faith undermined by professors, books, and classmates who are presenting the arguments over something that seems not to have direct bearing on religion. Very rare are the ideas that have no bearing on religion, however. Each idea is a component of how we see the world. Our Christian worldview is comprised of an entire array of these ideas. As these views are removed one by one, we wake up one morning and find ourselves with an empty faith, comprised of nothing but clinging on to a long held belief and community. Essentially, we can get propagandized out of our faith. Christian belief is much more than an empty faith, it is the most rational and coherent way of explaining the entire world. Instead of tearing down our faith with each idea, we should be reinforcing it.

Psychology is a diverse field where the main subject is the human being, the individual. Biological psychology studies the biological basis of behavior (including neuroscience), cognitive psychology examines the role of thinking/believing, social psychology studies the customs and principles of human interaction, and developmental psychology examines the growth of the individual (child, teen, and adult) over time. There are other tangential or specialized fields in psychology such as historical, educational, or evolutionary psychology, but these are not usually fields you can specialize in as an undergraduate.

Psychology obviously dovetails with a number of other professions, such as business, law, medicine, journalism, and education. Psychologists are desired and received in most job sectors.

The study of psychology, from a Christian perspective, is interesting because it is the study of the human being without the light of special revelation. That is, without theology or scriptural insight. It studies the essential nature of individuality and is very helpful in capturing the inner workings of the mind and human behavior. Its limits, however, are defined by the often liberal posturing of the secular psychology researchers–for example, the androgyny or de-genderizing agenda ignores easily observable differences between male and female development, especially in children. And often the “fleshly” side of human nature is captured at the expense of the moral or “spirit-filled” side. Studies on altruism, for example, are riddled with unhelpful and conflicting theories of evolutionary development of conscience instead of the common sense nod to religion or reason, which is normally the basis for moral development. Studies about empathy are likewise ad hoc.

More importantly, the whole field of psychology is led astray by its supposed claim to be a science. Since Freudianism died out in the 1930s and 40s, psychology turned scientific and purports to be neutral and objective in its discoveries. But professional psychologists and the APA are far from objective… they are committed to methodological naturalism (i.e. agnosticism/atheism), humanism (man is essentially good), moral relativism (i.e. what’s “good” changes with time and culture), and evolution. Many psychologists are mini-philosophers, creating semi-religions of their own as they delve into matters of free will, the nature of things, and morality. The result of these commitments and philosophizing is hardly a comprehensive or objective snapshot of the human being, but rather an assortment of politically correct notions. Some of these notions are indeed testable and helpful. Others are a stumbling block, at best. Behavioral and cognitive therapy, as well as some forms of counseling, have yielded some of the best results the psychological world has to offer. But much of the psychological world has gone astray, yet chases after itself within the closed world of the Academy. Any honest researcher will tell you that they can make their data say anything they want; choose the wrong interpretation, however, and you are out of the Ivory Tower. This is hardly objective “science.” It is protected politics.

Some of the most controversial or “charged” areas of psychology today, for the Christian, are:

• Gender/sexuality
• Education
• Ethics

These fields would be very difficult to be in because of the sheer weight of the Academy, pushing contemporary trends that are anti-biblical. Psychologists are often called in to “enlighten” these fields, but their prescriptions only push people farther away from Scriptural tenets and guidelines. In the field of gender/sexuality, psychology has dismantled notions of gender identity, gender roles, heterosexuality, abstinence, purity, pregnancy, and child-training in favor of theories which promote androgyny, feminism, LGBT, promiscuity, experimentation, abortion, and rebelliousness. Pushing against any one of these sacred cows is grounds for censure. In the field of education, psychology has lost faith in traditional methods such as core curriculum, drill, phonics and arithmetic, teacher authority, parents, and code of conduct. Instead, they have embraced a liberal commitment to child-centeredness, values clarification, teacher facilitation, federal intervention, financial solvency, and multiculturalism. They are not willing to abandon these values despite the failure of public schools and American education, and despite the brave naysayers in their own field. Obviously the field of ethics is a dangerous foray too, because appeals must be made without religious support or invoking absolute morality. Ethical psychologists are called on in perhaps every professional field in existence including courts, hospitals, laboratories, correction facilities, Boards of Trustees, and industry. But political correctness and deconstruction constrict the range of argument so much that it is almost impossible for a Christian to converse. Secular psychologists, in denying the soul, dignity, and uniqueness of human beings (i.e. the image of God), have essentially destroyed the very object of their study. They cannot sufficiently guard us anymore.

This is not to say that a Christian should not major or enjoy psychology. There is much to learn and discover, especially when it comes to observable behavior. But when it comes to what is inside the heart/mind of man—the unobservable things—secular psychology gets it wrong almost every time. Thus, Christian psychologists should know that a major revising of what is learned is necessary at all times—comparing results to what the Bible says about man, and comparing prescriptions to what the Creator commands, is necessary to filter everyday lectures and readings throughout college. If a Christian then enters the professional field of psychology, ethics which come from God rather than from the field must narrow the experiments he performs, the counsel he gives, the techniques he uses, or the interpretations he invents. The Holy Spirit is able to blow on the work of a psychologist, but it takes dedication and commitment to His authority.

In posts to follow, we will examine the more “religious” commitments of secular psychology and how to sidestep them so that they do not infiltrate biblical belief. We will also propose better assumptions.

The field of Political Science is comprised of several sub-disciplines. The two main branches, however, are government and international relations. That is the branch that studies the internal operations of a nation states, and the branch that studies their interactions across boundaries. They are related because they both study power, it’s use and attainment. In government you study the structures that facilitate or limit people’s behavior, and how people actually behave within those structures. In International Relations, you study the ways that countries interact with one another. People have often said colloquially that Politics is about “getting what you want” and there is some truth to it. Political Science is the study of how people and nations “get what they want”, and how various structures and policies facilitate or limit that. Political Science then, is ultimately based on what viewpoint you have of humanity.  Keep in mind this is a blog, not an academic journal. The terms and categories are my not all standard to the field.

Some political models do not adequately account for the way people really behave. They mistakenly treat people as if they were naturally “good actors.” The famous negotiation book “Getting to Yes” by the Harvard Negotiation Project seems to have a little of this flavor. It takes the perspective that really all we need to come to an agreement is to understand one another better. If we really understood one another better, all negotiations could be resolved. Usually people on the other side of the table have legitimate needs that we just have to accommodate and everything will work out fine. Give a little on each side. In some cases, this is in fact true. There are many “good actors” out there, who if we could understand each other and account for each others grievances, we could resolve issues. The problem is that not all people our organizations are good actors. This is hard for people who are good actors to see, because people tend to assume that the person on the other side of the table thinks like they do. People who are out to take advantage of others, think that is how everyone else thinks. They will interpret all of your actions as ways you are trying to take advantage of them. People who are trying to be beneficent tend to think that others are too. When some predatory person or entity comes along and pretends to be beneficent and offer “tit for tat” they believe it, and then they are conned. Instead of being the resolution, any thing a good actor gives to a bad actor becomes the new starting place for negotiation, because the goal of the bad actor is to take everything you have.

This is a recognized important first principle of Political Science — that actors are “rational.”   This means that they each pursue their own self-interest.   This is often modeled using game theory such as the “prisoner’s dilemma”  This is the classic problem of two suspects being arrested by the police, and the police try to get them to rat on one another.   Since they are separated neither one knows who is going to rat out whom.  If neither one talks they both get away.  If they both talk they both go to jail.  If one talks and not the other, then one person gets away, and the other one goes to jail.     This gets enhanced by having multiple “rounds” of interaction over time.   This is usually modeled by a game called “tit for tat.”    The key dynamic that emerges is this:  if you both collaborate, then over time you will do better than trying to take advantage of someone else.   Taking advantage of someone may produce a short term gain, but they will ultimately retaliate, and you’ll both lose.   Now there is a lot to be said for game theory, but it is hard to get one that models real political interactions well.

What does this have to do with a Christian view?   A Christian view recognizes that some people are out to “steal, kill and destroy.”  They are not interested in collaboration.  They are interested in domination.   If they can convince you that they want collaboration, they can get you to actually give them some things they would otherwise have to fight for.   The classic case is of course Hitler’s expansion of Germany.   He had every intention of conquering Europe, but why fight for something that they were willing to give to him?  He managed to build a super-Germany pretty easily this way.   But how are bad actors able to get good actors to give them things?   Often they actually feel guilty about their own past actions , and feel that the person on the other side of the table really deserves what they are asking for, to make up for that bad past.     The bad actor never feels guilty.   Only the one trying to do the right thing does.  Instead of seing the issue through a “rational” lens, they are seeing it through an “idealistic” lens.  Therefore, this is what I’m calling “idealistic political theory.”   It’s not a real theory, but it very clearly describes the thoughts and behaviors of some political actors from the civilized world in dealing with tyrants, despots, and other bad actors.    Idealistic politics believes that we truly can “all just get along. ”   A Christian view, however recognizes that the devil is always seeking to foment strife, and take advantage of the good.   A Christian view then agrees with early political thinker Edmund Burke  who stated this when he said “all that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.”

Idealistic politics is a particular feature of democratically elected leaders, but not all leaders of democracies practice it.  Some practice what is called realpolitik.    This view is often associated with Machiavelli and in modern times Henry Kissinger.   Realpolitik does solve the problem of idealistic politics because it assumes that others are trying to gain power and tries to do the same.   Realpolitik is practical rather than idealistic.   Realpolitik can open up ethical problems, however.   Those who have an idealistic view look at this approach as being base and unethical, and it is often summarized by the phrase “the ends justify the means.”  This is a caricature.   Modern practitioners of realpolitik are not purely amoral, they just do not define all of their policies by an overall moral vision.   A more accurate portrayal would be something like- all means should be used to gain and  retain power as long as they are not blatantly immoral.   This obviously raises dicey issues from a Christian perspective.    In international relations this often means collaborating with countries that would otherwise be enemies in order to fight an even greater enemy.

Some Christians see the “turn the other cheek” Scripture as a Biblical instruction to let bad actors have what they want.    Be nice to them, and they will be nice back.   Unfortunately, this is a recipe for disaster both in abusive relationships and with bad political actors.   You do not tell a woman who is being beaten by her husband to keep “turning the other cheek.”  You tell her to leave or get a court order.   Turning the other cheek is really the policy of not practicing revenge.   You don’t hate the man who abused you, or try to abuse him back, you just refuse to keep letting him abuse you.    This is part of what Jesus means when he says “resist the evil one and he will flee from you.”

A Christian view then is both idealogical and realistic.    It is realistic in its recognition that there are bad actors in the world, and that you cannot simply roll over when they make demands.    It is idealogical, however in that it recognizes that there are morally “good” and morally “bad” actors.   It seeks to advance the morally good, while resisting the morally bad.

Economics is perhaps one of the most important and most debated subjects. It is a subject that everyone has a viewpoint on whether or not it is well developed or explicitly stated. The discipline of economics used to be more about philosophy than math, but around World War II, Paul Samuelson reinvented the discipline by adding lots of mathematical modeling. This has caused the average person to see economics and economic debates as primarily about numbers and formulas, when in reality, underneath it is about philosophy.

Probably no one has addressed this problem more effectively than Thomas Sowell in his book “Basic Economics.” Instead of wading through theories and curves whose significance you do not understand, you will learn the very straightforward ideas. You may have been acquainted with economics in high school as a very confusing, dry and mathematical subject, and stayed away from it in college out of fear. Or you may have actually gotten through a number of advanced economics classes and mastered the math, without grasping the philosophy and common sense that drives it. “Basic Economics” will fix that problem.

There are several schools of economists, but the great divide in this discipline is how one views the role of government. The modern debate at the popular level centers around capitalism versus socialism. Looking at the economic schools behind this, as a complete simplification, Marxist, Socialist, and Keynesian economists view the government in a positive light. Classicial and Monetarist economists tend to view the government in a negative light. If you are looking for a solid and highly readable treatment of the history of economic thought, try Mark Skousen’s, “Making of Modern Economics”

Christians are often confused as to where they should align themselves because Christ and the New Testament place a significant focus on helping the poor. Socialism seems to be a natural offshoot of this kind of thinking. We should take care of the poor, and what better way to do so than to tax everyone in the society and give money to them? On the other hand, this creates a problem – it takes away the incentive to work. If someone gives you free money, you do not need to work for it. It gets more complicated when they promise to take away the free money if you start working. Now you are really motivated to not work. Working is an inescapable feature of life handed down to us from the garden of Eden. Although it is not clear from our complex society, ultimately someone has to work hard in order for us to eat, have clothing, and shelter. Should the people who work to produce our food just give it to us? They work hard while we lead a life of leisure? Or should we have to do some work in return? Paul therefore says “if a man will not work he will not eat.” Work is good. It shows respect to those who produce our food, clothing and shelter, develops character and has a part in causing us to want God and a Savior who promises us “rest.”

Therefore, any system which softens the connection between work and reward is a bad system. The issue with Socialism is not concern for the poor then, or even primarily the governments role in concern for the poor, as many conservatives will quickly say. The big issue is that it undermines the motivation to work. It undermines it not just for the poor, but basically for anyone who receives from it. The follow on issue is that not only does it encourage recipients not work, it discourages the average person from working too — because some of their money is taken against their will and given to someone who is not working. If we reward people for working, this by nature means that there will be a disparity in wealth. Some people will have more who have worked hard and been responsible with what they earn, and some will have less who have either not worked as hard or not been responsible with what they earned. Disparity is not bad then. What is bad is when people who have a lot have it because they got it unfairly.

“Capitalism” is the bucket into which all modern alternatives to Socialism are put. I find this somewhat misleading because “Capitalism” is a term developed by Marx to critique the market economy. An economy that is based on people who control the financial resources (capital) of the society. They control the “means of production” and use that control to exploit people. Capitalism is the system which embraces that control. I believe that Marx’s critique was more applicable to 19th century industrialization than it is to the service economies of developed nations. In those economies, actually owning the factory was the key to vast wealth, and of course not just anyone could own a factory. You can work your laborers to death, and then go find new ones. This is an obvious problem with capitalism that seems to occur in the first stage of industrialization especially.

To advance the discussion any more we need to talk about absolute versus relative poverty, and productivity. Pretty much everyone in a developed country lives like only royalty could live for almost all of history. Those who are relatively poor in our society have access to food, toilets, clothes, transportation, electricity, etc. This makes them richer than most people in the world. Someone who is “absolutely” poor, is in jeopardy of obtaining their basic needs. Someone who is “relatively” poor has a lot less than others, but is able to get what they need to survive. All of the earth, except some royalty used to be very poor compared to us now. The reason why we are richer is not just technology, it is productivity. Ultimately, everything you own was produced by someone, starting with your food. If it used to takes 1 day of work to feed one person then everyone will have to work constantly just to eat. As it takes less and less work to produce food, more and more people do not have to work to eat and they can go focus on something else, such as building homes. The less effort it takes to build homes, the more effort can be spent on producing goods. the less effort it takes to produce goods the more time can be spent in leisure. As we become more productive, we all become richer in the absolute sense. Technology obviously plays a very important part in this. But so does the economic culture. If the society rewards hard work, they will produce more which will make them all richer. If the society punishes work it will be less productive overall, and therefore poorer. Socialism isn’t the only way that this happens though, crime is a second way. Crime rewards people for taking away from others. If crime grows, the society becomes less productive. There are “legal” ways too, and that leads into the next important component of economic thought.

So we need a society which rewards work, and is highly productive, because it makes everyone better off. Some will have more than others, but all will have more. The more productive we are collectively, the richer we will all be. Conservatives have rightly recognized that socialism and crime punish work, but they have turned a blind eye to the other ways in which this is done — ec0nomic exploitation. A very salient example is payday lenders. A recent referendum in my state was to limit the amount of interest that payday lenders could charge their customers down from close to 400% per year to 28% per year. Some hard core conservative types actually supported the lenders because it was “free market.” This is foolish. The money lenders provide no economic benefit to the society as a whole. They simply take money from poor people by trickery. So instead of the poor person having the money, the money lender has it. You can see how this is actually very similar to crime. Wall Street money lenders run the same kinds of scams on corporations, pension funds, and big money players. It’s a form of stealing. Work is not rewarded, deceit is.

This leads to another observation: any time there is an uneven balance of power, someone is being taken advantage of, and if someone is taken advantage of, everyone is poorer because of reduced productivity. If the corporation has a lot of power over the worker, then the people will be exploited. If a vendor has a lot of power over the buyer, the buyer will be exploited. And the reverse is also true. Competition is normally a huge help in preventing this kind of exploitation — if you charge me too much, I will go somewhere else, therefore you will not charge me too much. If you pay me too little, I will do something else, therefore you will pay me enough. However, things can become unbalanced, and this is when exploitation happens. Societies that are based on free transactions and markets therefore are not always fair because they are not always balanced, but overall because they have real competition promote the most fairness.

There are thousands and thousands of different job roles out there in our increasingly diverse economy, and it is impossible to understand, much less explain all of the complexities of these various job roles and their significance. Finding a career path, and a job within that path is as much an art as it is a science. It is very hard to answer the question “What do you want to do?” when you do not understand the options of what you could do, and more importantly the significance of taking any of those paths.

Christians are blessed because our lives have innate meaning — to reach lost people with the Love of God. The tension arises when the work we do to put food on the table has no correlation to this overarching goal. We can easily become bored and long for something else. Therefore, Christian job happiness is often tied to our ability to see a path from where we are to something that fulfills this great goal.

Traditional “career wisdom” says all jobs are created equal and you just need to find the one that is “right for you.” This makes us feel better, and there is of course truth that almost every job has people that love it, but I do believe for the Christian especially that some paths generally lead to more long term fulfillment than others. The goal here is not to denigrate any one’s occupation, but to help everyone find an occupation where they are fulfilled in serving God. The key here is not what we are doing at the moment — since most of us will have to work through periods where our work is not fulfilling — but the long possibilities. Even an unfulfilling job can be enjoyable if we know it is merely a stop on the way to something that is fulfilling.

Many people consider full time ministry roles to be a “dream job” that they hope to find their way into because every aspect of the job has significance. The primary careers are local pastor, missionary, traveling speaker or author, and denominational administrator. The vast majority of these are in a local pastor roles with the most common roles being youth ministry, worship ministry, associate and senior pastor. With good stewardship of resources and a rapidly growing church movement many more people can have full time ministry as a long term goal, but this will still only address a subset of the people in a congregation. Many others are looking for different ways to serve God with their time and talents. I believe the key here is what degree does your “secular” career provide you to perform significant activities. Some careers are innately more fulfilling because the job itself includes an aspect of ministry. We tend to find fulfillment when either our current job or the path we are on to a future job is has some element like this.

First among these are careers where our work can impact the culture. These include Law, Politics, Journalism, Publishing, Academics, Music, Entertainment, and Entrepreneurship. These are elite battleground careers where the fulfillment comes from bringing God’s truth into the secular sphere. They are usually hard to enter because they can have such a significant impact on others.

There are other jobs which can be fulfilling because they help people. These include things like Medicine, Teaching, Counseling, Social Work, the Military, and Law Enforcement. The challenge in these careers is that often there are fairly tight boundaries which prevent you from sharing your faith with others, which limits the ministry and therefore degree of fulfillment.

The fact is that it is generally easier to fall into the jobs that are not as innately fulfilling. We generally have to make specific targeted effort to enter fields where there is built in significance. And many people find themselves in jobs where they do not have a sense of innate fulfillment. This often includes things like retail, manual labor, and even a large number of professional careers. In these jobs, either the work is hard, or it has no innate purpose which gives it meaning. This does not mean that people cannot be happy in these jobs, it just means that Christians often end up feeling like a lot of their time and energy is wasted because no one is directly ministered to through their work. Helping to sell business process enhancement software, for example, might have its moments, but overall leave you feeling exhausted and looking for a way to serve God with all of your time, not just your “off” time.

The traditional solution has been to tell people that they are ministers in their job, and that they can reach out to people there. This is of course true, but not usually a satisfying long term goal for most people. Or we might tell them that their purpose is to bring in financial resources for the Kingdom. Now, for those who truly do make large sums, they might find some fulfillment in this idea, but not normally for the average person.

Another way is to switch careers, but this can be very difficult and costly. Or possibly scale back your current career involvement enough that your ministry pursuits can be the real focus of your life. This can be either by working less hours, cutting out a commute, or switching into a role with less advancement potential but less stress. A third solution is to find a way for your skill to be used to build God’s Kingdom instead of the Business Process Widget Kingdom. One way is through entrepreneurship, but another way is to support someone else’s Christian enterprise. An accountant, for example may be tired of his or her daily work for XYZ corporation, but working as the CFO of a small Christian startup could completely change the situation, even if the pay is less and the risk greater.

In this country we study for approximately 16 years before entering the career field, and in fact it is getting longer now with more and more people going to professional school. Yet, it is remarkable how little we know when we graduate. We have very little in the way of practical skills, and we have major gaps in our understanding of the world at a theoretical level. At best, we have solid training in the area in which we majored. Now, regardless of specific skills, our academic education does in fact serve a purpose — it teaches us to think at increasing levels of abstraction. However, the key thing to understand is that our education system was not really designed with the modern world in mind. It has slowly evolved over the past eight centuries. What would an ideal modern education look like?

1. It would include practical skills. There are some very important skills that people who want to be ready to deal with life’s situations need to know but are not taught. Some of these could be.

• Basic Law. This would focus on contracts and various kinds of basic legal dealings that most people will encounter during their lives.
• Finance and Investment. All most people know is “be diversified.” Everyone who has been following this advice lost a diversified 50% of their investments last year. People need to understand all of the instruments of investment and how the economy actually works. High School economics with its supply and demand curve is pointless. This should include doing your taxes.
• Basic Automotive Skills. This would be an understanding of all of the parts of the car and the standard things that can come up.
• Home Ownership. This could be something fairly basic like coverage of all the kinds of things that can come up when owning a house and the way to deal with them. It should include how to buy and sell, and how real estate markets work.
• Cooking. Everyone needs to know how to cook, but no one does.
• Basic Personal Care. Medicine, Nutrition
• Relationship and Communication Skills. Overcome pride and self-centeredness. Listening. Understand the perspectives of others. Boundaries. Deal with conflicts.
• Citizenship. People should be taught to understand the way their government functions. How do local governments work? How are people elected?
• Basic Computer Skills. Reinstall Windows. Setup networks. Remove Spyware, Typing.

2. It would include the arts. Specifically, a well rounded education should include

• Basic drawing skills — something incredibly handy throughout life, and a gateway to developing expression.
• Playing an Instrument — Everyone should learn to play an instrument. By this I do not mean that everyone should put their kids in piano at age three to become some great player. What I really mean is that around middle school age, kids should develop the ability to read music and express themselves on an instrument. By this I envision something more like Jazz training than classical training.
• Basic Literary Techniques — We should develop the understanding and use of images, metaphors, and all kinds of ways that language is used to convey complex and beautiful ideas. (like a poetry class)

In addition to these, A well rounded academic education. This is what is intended by many schools, but not what exactly results. This is partly because a lot of what we’re taught has to be filtered, and it’s partly because the “core” is seen as a “weed out” or boring. The components of a true academic education would definitely have more classical moorings.

3. Historical Studies

• Complete understanding of the 4 thousand years of recorded history. One should have century by century knowledge since at least the time of Solomon when the dates become more firm. I believe this should start with an understanding of “Western Civilization” because of the Christian roots. Focus should be on culture and large scale political movements, not specific wars and kings.
• Modern History. Perhaps instead of “American History” specifically we tell the story of the modern world since the Reformation, placing America in context.
• Understanding of Global Civilizations. Once one understands the Western and Christian story lines, one needs to revisit the entire world to understand the important features of every other civilization, including Islam, India, China, and Africa
• History of Philosophy. With an awareness on the cultural and political outworking of ideas, the line of reasoning of Thought at least since the Enlightenment.
• Political Science. Specifically the need to understand the nature of “power.” The depraved nature of people in geopolitics and local politics. Game theory, and practical application.
• Cultural Geography. This should include both cultural and economic geography. Knowing where a country is does not explain how the world works.

4. Language Studies.

• Great Literature. This should culminate in Shakespeare, and include the greatest literature from European history.
• Competency in Greek. This is the language of the New Testament, the Septuagint, and a lot of important ancient literature.
• Overview of Latin. Most of the rest of Western Literature is in Latin as, or Latin based languages. One should have an overview understanding of the basics of Latin. We import a lot of terms from Latin as well. Both “overview” courses could be taught young, and then language competency later.
• Fluency in one Modern language through living abroad for a semester.
• Rhetoric/Argumentation – Life is full of arguments. Understanding their structure helps us take them apart. Include public speaking/presentation.
• Cultural Literacy. There are a lot of things that will not be studied in school but are icons of communication.
• Biblical Interpretation. Including imagery and metaphors, intertextuality.

5. Practical Sciences. The “Applied” topics are often considered for “Vo-Tech” people. because academic understand promotes higher levels of cognition. I disagree. People will retain what is applicable to their lives. In reality Engineering is simply a return to the hard sciences with an “applied” focus.

• Practical Statistics. How to use Statistics in leadership, research, etc.
• Applied Math. Teach Math through Calculus I with a focus on practical application.
• Applied Physics. Physics is actually a pretty practical science if taught that way.
• Physical Geography and Basic Astronomy. Orientation of the planets and star navigation as was practiced for thousands of years. Basic weather patterns. Natural boundaries.
• Biology. Emphasis here on how things operate including human anatomy, not evolutionary mythology.
• Applied Chemistry.

I will refine and update this as we go. As you can see this is a fusion of a classical paradigm, with a revision for practical knowledge, as well as the modern global reality.