I am fascinated by the political ideology expressed here and what this signals about the currents in evangelicalism. Is it the role of government to force companies to have leave policies? Or should workers only work at companies that do have such policies?
Also interesting: the sociology of these policies. When children were born adjacent to grandparents, the policies weren't needed as much. When extended family networks disintegrated in a careerist culture, gov't policies were proposed to replace what family networks used to do.
There's incredibly good data on this: the key person who contributes to infant thriving is grandmothers. When you chose not live near grandmothers, there are more demands for family leave. I find this sociology fascinating. No grandmothers, no society. smithsonianmag.com/science-nature…
Personally, I'm ambivalent on the issue. I'm not sure it should be gov't coerced with penalty of fines, which gives the power to gov't to throw people in jail. But if company X wants to have a family leave policy, it should be how ever long they want.
Ultimately, this is a discussion about the proper role of government. Of course family leave policies are a great idea, the why question is who should drive the implementation, enforcement, etc. Are there good reasons a politician might vote against such a policy? Thoughts?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Living in a mouse infested building 2009-13, I believe I developed a mild case of musophobia. Mice crawling around my feet while sitting my desk. At night, hearing them crawling over my furniture. Ok, not a mild case. This is my 3rd apt & they arrived this week. I am not rich.
When I arrived home last night, I walked into the kitchen and one of these demonic creatures greeted me. In NYC, this is a reminder of one’s social class;). So, this is Season 3 of the mice war for me. They are not paying rent nor potty trained so they can’t live here.
I learned from the first three years of these mini-demons crawling around me day and night at home, that they cannot resist peanut butter. Yes, I also made popcorn for them. They love that as well.
Wait, why American religion reporters are sleeping on this Doug Wilson story? His views were advanced by Desiring God, The Gospel Coalition, John Piper, etc. for years & his views are implicated in racism scandals currently destroying all of American evangelicalism+. Crickets?
Somehow I was linked in this UK article warning the West about Doug Wilson. He was removed from the PCA(1990s), yet promoted by J. Piper, Desiring God, & The Gospel Coalition for years. How did that happen? theguardian.com/world/2021/nov…
Many Presbyterians have been trying to warn the world about Doug Wilson for 25+ years. 1689ers, YRR types, Calvinist Baptists in the SBC, TGC types, & many conservative evangelicals, etc., refuse to see what the PCA saw. I don't understand it. theaquilareport.com/a-question-for…
Screwtape: "Wormwood, I need something that's going to rip Christians apart after the death of George Floyd. Got anything?"
Wormwood: "Hmm, I found this obscure legal theory from the early 70s called #CRT."
Screwtape: "What is it?"
Wormword: "Well, it centers race as the interpretive key for understanding social & racial inequality in America."
Screwtape: "Oh, this is brilliant. Race and politics are blinding for these patients. Has been for 400 years."
Wormwood: "Blinding?"
Screwtape: "Yes! Politics is their Achilles' Heel. They'll be so distracted by the fake hysteria about CRT & their stupid culture war anxieties that they'll ignore actual demonic evil at work in other areas of society."
Wormwood: "Brilliant! Now what?"
Real life scenario: (1) Tina is sexually abused by her grandfather at 6 years-old, unknown to parents. (2) Tina self-medicates abuse by binge drinking in high school. (3) Tina only hears sermons about her rebellious drunkenness, need to repent, & how terribly sinful she is.
(4) Tina is given an oversimplified, pietistic version of the gospel at _____Church's youth group. (5) After several chord progressions, some preacher uses her emotional turmoil to induce a crisis about her moral dereliction about being a "party girl" so that she follows Christ.
(6) At some youth camp, she walks down to the front & throws the stick of her debauchery into the fire with a commitment to live morally acceptable life. (7) Youth leaders report that they'd added to their "decisions" for Christ. 8) Her body never forgets the trauma of her abuse.
Covenant children are not born as “objects of wrath.” Covenant children are “heirs according to promise.” So we baptize them as infants and don’t ever expect them to have a “testimony” or some felt-need conversion experience or story. prpbooks.com/book/children-…
I was talking to a Covenant College alum who felt shame because he didn’t have some sort of sensational conversion story to tell. As the child of an elder, unbelief was never a part of his life. His shame was a consequence of hanging around evangelicals instead of Anglicans, etc.
When the church’s kids are treated as “objects of wrath” in need of a conversion/testimony rather than catechized “heirs to promise,” don’t be surprised when they’re not around in their 20s. Individualism in, individualism out the back door.