Touchstone Nov/Dec 2012 Article by Hunter Baker
Monday, October 29, 2012, 10:06 AM

cover 25 062 233x300 Touchstone Nov/Dec 2012 Article by Hunter BakerMoynihan’s Family Arc

On the Missing Element in a Government Jobs Strategy

Daniel Patrick Moynihan (the longtime Democratic senator from New York) once suggested instituting twice-daily mail service as a way of providing good government jobs for African-American males. Moynihan’s notion demonstrates that modern liberals do not always build up the number of government jobs because more employees are needed to accomplish some mission, but because they are trying to provide a quality lifestyle for large numbers of people. In other words, the job itself (the entry on the payroll) is the mission.

In his response to President Obama’s 2012 State of the Union address, Indiana governor Mitch Daniels commented that the president appears to sincerely believe that a middle class can be created with government jobs paid for by government dollars. Perhaps such a position would not be so fantastic if there were a different spiritual core at the heart of modern left-liberalism.

continue reading . . .

Touchstone Nov/Dec 2012 Article by Leon J. Podles
Friday, October 26, 2012, 9:25 AM

cover 25 061 233x300 Touchstone Nov/Dec 2012 Article by Leon J. PodlesCatechism’s Ostracism

Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics by Ross Douthat reviewed by Leon J. Podles

. . .

Ross Douthat has observed the decline of Christian orthodoxy in America, and his thesis in Bad Religion is simple: although the United States remains a religious nation, the religions that are flourishing are Christian heresies. Douthat uses Alister McGrath’s definition of heresy, which is “best seen as a form of Christian belief that, more by accident than design, ultimately ends up subverting, destabilizing or even destroying the core of Christian faith” (Bad Religion, 9). Douthat also largely concurs with Chesterton’s view of heretics as simplifiers who want to resolve the paradoxes and tensions of Christianity by discarding or distorting a key element in the Christian synthesis.

. . .

Touchstone Nov/Dec 2012 Article by Russell D. Moore
Thursday, October 25, 2012, 9:30 AM

cover 25 06 233x300 Touchstone Nov/Dec 2012 Article by Russell D. Moore

Death of a Wild Thing

On Maurice Sendak & the Horror of a Domesticated Gospel

Maurice Sendak was, by all accounts, a lonely, misanthropic, cynical, homosexual atheist. But he managed, with his dozens of children’s books, to unite a generation around a sense of wonder and creativity. When I heard, a few days ago as I write this, that he died, I lamented not only his passing, but all that he has to teach a church he never embraced.

Sendak’s most famous work, of course, is his children’s book Where the Wild Things Are. It’s about a boy named Max, who is sent to his room for telling his mother he’ll eat her up. My sons love this story. Whenever I read it, they start shifting around in their seats as they hear about his room becoming a forest, and about his encountering scary, teeth-baring “wild things.”

My boys aren’t unusual. I loved that story as much as they do, when I was their age. And when I talk to people about my age, I find that this book has struck, and strikes, a particular resonance with at least two generations of American children, no matter what their racial, social, economic, or religious backgrounds. The root of that lies, I think, in the fact that Sendak had a more realistic view of evil than many Christians do, at least when it comes to our children.

Touchstone Nov/Dec 2012 Editorial by James Hitchcock
Wednesday, October 24, 2012, 11:23 AM

cover 25 06 233x300 Touchstone Nov/Dec 2012 Editorial by James HitchcockSquare None

Pious Public Silence Is Dereliction of Duty

From time to time, some orthodox Christians wonder aloud whether the pro-life movement, the struggle to defend the integrity of marriage, and other “social issues” implicate believers in an overly political activity that is a distortion of their faith. It would be best, they argue, for Christians simply to bear witness to their beliefs—even more in their lives than in their words—and not to politicize religion.

The dangers in such politicization are real enough. Christians can indeed become so involved in causes as to define their faith exclusively in those terms, to lose sight of why they are involved, and to push into the background everything that does not relate directly to those causes—a mirror image of what liberal religion has become.

Believers are also routinely condemned by secularists for “intruding” their beliefs into the public square, a charge that assumes something uniquely sinister about religion; citizens may form their principles in any way they choose (astrology, throwing dice) except religion. The obvious response is that Christians have as much right to be in the public square as anyone else, but it is a response that is less than satisfactory. Is Christian morality to enjoy only the formal tolerance accorded all other schools of thought?

Existential Reasons for Belief in God: A Defense of Desires and Emotions for Faith by Clifford Williams
Wednesday, May 9, 2012, 10:44 AM

Now available at, a book review from the March/April 2012 issue of Touchstone:

hand heart Existential Reasons for Belief in God: A Defense of Desires and Emotions for Faith by Clifford Williams

Highways of the Heart

Existential Reasons for Belief in God: A Defense of Desires and Emotions for Faith
by Clifford Williams
IVP Academic, 2011
(188 pages, $22.00, paperback)

reviewed by Louis Markos

It has been two decades now since such writers as Alasdair McIntyre, Mark Noll, and Lesslie Newbigin (and, before them, Francis Schaeffer) alerted us to the fact that we are still living in the Enlightenment. Starting in the eighteenth century, and picking up speed in the nineteenth, Western thinkers began to drive a wedge between reason and emotion, logic and intuition, history and myth, science and religion. For each pair (or binary), the first word was privileged over the second as the proper vehicle for seeking truth. The upshot of this Enlightenment split between empirical facts and spiritual values was to slowly edge Christianity out of the universities and the public square and into a tight, private, self-referential box cut off from the concerns of analysis, research, debate, and “real” life.

Thus things remained until an Oxford English professor named C. S. Lewis bravely challenged the reigning orthodoxy of the Enlightenment: an orthodoxy so pervasive and invisible that it had come to be taken for granted as “the truth.” In his apologetical writings of the 1940s and 1950s, Lewis dared to suggest that Christianity represented a rational, consistent, and testable worldview that had never been disproven and that deserved a place at the table. In his wake, an ever-growing cadre of Christian thinkers, both inside and outside academia, have similarly wrested their minds free of the Enlightenment split to champion the intellectual integrity and fruitfulness of the Judeo-Christian worldview.

The result has been stunning: a steady stream of carefully constructed, powerfully argued, cutting-edge books that have mounted a logical, systematic defense of Christ, the Creeds, and the Church. From miracles to the problem of pain, the historicity of the Resurrection to the reliability of the Gospels, these books have marshaled the critical tools of the secular university to address issues and answer questions that have long been used by Enlightenment-minded academics to dismiss the truth claims of Christianity. Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, Gary Habermas, Chuck Colson, Alister McGrath, J. P. Moreland, Alvin Plantinga, N. T. Wright, and dozens of others have fought the good fight, using their apologetical arguments to help restore the intellectual reputation of Christianity to its pre-Enlightenment status.

They have done well indeed, but they also have, it could be argued, made a methodological error. In their praiseworthy campaign to champion the rational side of Christianity, many apologists have bought into the very Enlightenment split they set out to rectify. That is to say, they have taken for granted that the truth of Christianity rises or falls on the appeal it makes to reason. “I am not asking anyone to accept Christianity,” Lewis assures us in Book III, Chapter 11 of Mere Christianity, “if his best reasoning tells him that the weight of evidence is against it.” Though there is much more to Lewis than this, the statement embodies well the goal of most modern apologists: to prove that Christianity is not an emotional, feel-good religion but a logically consistent belief system.

Reclaiming Existential Apologetics

Enter Clifford Williams, a professor of philosophy at Trinity College (Deerfield, IL) who specializes in the work of Kierkegaard. In Existential Reasons for Belief in God: A Defense of Desires and Emotions for Faith, Williams, following in the footsteps not only of Kierkegaard but also of Pascal, challenges apologists who would too quickly accept the facts/values split.

read the rest . . .

Touchstone May/June 2012
Tuesday, May 1, 2012, 9:58 AM

smallcover 25 03 Touchstone May/June 2012The May/June 2012 issue of Touchstone is now available online in its entirety to subscribers, and a number of articles are available for reading at Featured on the cover of this issue is The Soul of Liberty by Hunter Baker.

The Soul of Liberty

Calls for Freedom, Democracy & Secularism End Up with None of the Above

by Hunter Baker

You can find a lot of interesting things on Twitter packaged in pithy statements of no more than 140 characters each. Some of you may recall that in the aftermath of the 2009 election in Iran, a number of protesters claimed that the government had tampered with the results to stay in power. Twitter was a key channel they used both to express their outrage and to receive support from sympathetic Westerners, many of whom shaded their profile pictures green as a sign of solidarity. I happened upon a number of short statements from students in Iran who asked for “Freedom, Democracy, and Secularism!”

Having studied the history of the West and paid particular attention to the question of religion and politics, this combination of concepts struck me as odd. But it obviously resonates with many Iranian students, who repeatedly use the Internet to call for this combination of political ideals. I find it again and again. They seem to believe it is the formula.

But do these three concepts belong together?

continue reading . . .

Also online from May/June 2012:

Just Sayin’
Thomas Howard on What We Used to Know vs. What We Know Now

. . .
As I try to form my prayers here, I recall that he is the one who “covereth the heaven with clouds, and prepareth rain for the earth; and maketh the grass to grow upon the mountains, and herb for the use of men: Who giveth fodder unto the cattle: and feedeth the young ravens that call upon him.” If that picture has any rag of validity, as the patriarchs, prophets, and psalmists seemed to suppose, then what can one say but Benedicite, omnia opera Domini Domino—Bless

Herein lies the rub for us who live in the post-Baconian-Cartesian-Kantian epoch. Does God do all that? Surely the works of the Lord don’t in any sense “bless” him. That’s just (“just”) poetry. Primitive Hebrew zeal. The Pathetic Fallacy. All of those things, we say, are merely programmed by “Nature,” which gets on with its own strange agenda.
. . .

A Thousand Words
Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man
by Mary Elizabeth Podles

. . .
Leonardo’s Man is more than just a well-proportioned dude. If God is a mathematician, and man conforms to the symmetries of God’s ideal forms, is man not a reflection of that divine perfection? An image, in small, of the harmonies and symmetries of the universe? A microcosm of the greater cosmos?
. . .

« Newer Posts