The unicorns! This week we move from the funny to the thought-provoking and to the depressing.
***
New Testament scholar Mike Bird and Seminary Now collaborated this April Fools Day not just on one but TWO terrific pranks:
1. Mike Bird’s proposed new Bible translation
2. Mike proposes a new course: Becoming a Christian Influencer
***
Speaking of Bible translations, historian Lynneth Renberg offers insightful and really fascinating analysis on last week’s Bible controversy, “Authorized Bibles and Political Figures, 1611 and Now.” Unlike Mike Bird’s proposed translation, the one that made news last week was assuredly no joke. A taste:
So how do these versions of the Bible from 1611 and 2024 compare? How does this 1611 “Authorized Version,” as it would come to be known, compare to what’s happened this past week? First, we need to note one similarity: whatever else the motivations of the translators involved, the 1611 project did have political ends. James sought to create unity within both church and nation and sought to minimize resistance to his rule. But this, I think, is where the similarities between these two Bibles stop.
First, James (and the translators working under his orders) removed commentary and marginalia alongside the scriptural text, allowing it (whenever possible) to stand on its own. The God Bless the USA Bible instead adds in documents. The translators of the KJV would have rejected this choice, with their understanding that marginalia and framing texts shaped how one read scripture; in this case, adding in US government documents and a nationalist song encourages the reader to view scripture almost solely through an American nationalist view and read nationalist claims into the biblical text. Second, James and his translators actually created a new translation, with the six committees of around fifty translators in total spending seven years working with Greek and Hebrew texts to create an accurate translation. The God Bless the USA Bible represents no new effort at grappling with scriptural texts in their original languages. Finally, James did not create a Bible translation for personal fundraising or gain, but in an attempt to create a better tool for scriptural study (and it’s probably worth noting here that there wasn’t much profit from the 1611 version- in fact, its first printer, Robert Barker, went bankrupt!)
***
Switching gears to marriage and family topics. First, Ivana Greco and Amber Lapp offer some thoughts this week based on their research on marriage and motherhood: “Marriage Should Not Be the Elephant in the Room.” A taste:
Unfortunately, the topic of marriage is politically coded in our current dysfunctional “Left vs. Right” dynamic, and in academic or policy conversations talking about marriage can feel taboo. But there are some signs that this is changing, as those in the center of the ideological spectrum are becoming more vocal about the downsides of single parenting. Last year, Melissa Kearney, an economics professor at the University of Maryland, published The Two-Parent Privilege. This well-researched, compassionate book—without criticizing or faulting single moms—provides extensive evidence of the benefits of marriage for low-income single moms, including: offering a good shot at escaping poverty; providing more stability for young children; and giving parents a better chance at successfully guiding teens into adulthood.
Given this, instead of acting as if marriage is neutral, we should talk about the good of marriage and follow the implications. Just as we craft social policy and cultural narratives around the assumption that connecting less-resourced people to jobs and education is good and helpful, so, too, can social service programs, religious organizations, and communities encourage and support struggling moms and dads to get married if possible. Too often, incentives in public programs and cultural messaging nudge people in the other direction.
Housing policy provides a clear example of how a “marriage-neutral” approach—one that treats marriage as one “lifestyle choice” among many instead of the public good that it is—penalizes poor and working-class people who marry or want to marry. A single mom working in the service industry, for example, may qualify for “Section 8,” the federal government’s housing voucher program. But what happens if she decides to get married? Her income will now be combined with her husband’s income for purposes of determining eligibility. This may mean they lose eligibility. This married couple then has to search for housing—often without the benefits of good credit and stable income that are critical for getting a market-rate rental. The same dynamics apply for Medicaid, and a whole host of other social welfare programs.
***
Christopher J. Lane brings his historical expertise to an important theological matter this week to write about “Counsels vs. Commands in Vocational Discernments.” A taste, before you go read it in full:
In turning vocation into a command — or even in attaching grave consequences to it as a counsel — we assume premises that have never been taught by the Church and are themselves theologically inelegant.
Ultimately, any choice in this life among particular goods—any choice among particular loves—requires tradeoffs. We need to teach the young that tradeoffs among goods (even supernatural goods) are normal. Any truly Christian choice among loves is an expression of the gift of divine love. For love, in the words of St. Thérèse, is our vocation.
***
Jon D. Schaff’s review of Jonathan Haidt’s newest book this week at Front Porch Republic is excellent and necessary! A taste:
Haidt argues that kids between the ages of 9 and 15 are particularly susceptible to the harmful effects of social media.
Time spent staring at screens harms young people by taking kids away from healthier uses of their time. Haidt draws upon the economic concept of opportunity costs. It isn’t just the direct harm caused by social media and other screen-based activities; it is what young people aren’t doing, such as being outside, interacting with friends face-to-face, engaging in unstructured play. Time on screen distracts from forming deep friendships. Teens may have many online “friends,” but these are low quality friendships that do not help forge healthy character or contribute to happiness.
In addition, screen use is linked to sleep deprivation. The urge to always be online often leads kids to stay up late at night, sneaking a device into the bedroom in ways previous generations might have snuck in a book or a portable television. In addition, the blue light from the screen tells the body that it is daytime, inhibiting the production of melatonin that informs the body it is time to sleep. Sleep deprivation is particularly harmful to teens, whose rapidly changing brains require more sleep.
***
On a related note, I have a piece in Mere Orthodoxy this week on tech-free schooling, especially homeschooling: “Homeschooling, Luddite Style.” A taste from my argument:
The big lie of the modern industrial complex is that we can transfer the same shortcuts that we employ for the creation of cheap goods to the formation of persons and to the cultivation of families. But what the sharp contrast between the tech-reliant schools and the luddite approach of my homeschooling (and the similarly labor-intensive approaches of the most expensive private schools) shows is that the shortcuts that technology affords do not create a comparable product—because people are not products. This has implications for our society as a whole that extend beyond educational outcomes—although, alas, those speak for themselves.
How do we form persons as persons, in an age where in some schools, at least, a child who needs more help with reading is referred for yet more online tutoring? Education takes root in relationships, not in automated processes. True, not every family can do what my husband and I have been able to do right now, keeping one spouse at home and out of the labor force. But even if you cannot homeschool or spend hours on end with your children, you can still delight in them as persons and cultivate your relationship in joy, even at the end of a long day spent apart.
***
One of the topics I’ve been following with alarm in the news over the past couple of years is the rise in euthanasia access and the general post-Christian disregard for human life and dignity that this development displays. Here is a story about a young woman who has scheduled her euthanasia death for this May.