C.S. Hayden

My brother just helped me long into this site again. I have been updating cshayden.blogspot.com regularly, including posts about our exciting trip to Jamestown last month.

I’m not sure if I will start using this site again on a regular basis. My plan had been to post essays on this site and shorter updates/pics etc. on the other site. Maybe I’ll resume this plan, or maybe not. With me, you never really quite know.

It should be obvious that I have not been updating this site regularly. Therefore, I would encourage you to visit my other blog: www.cshayden.blogspot.com. I update it slightly more often.

NPR had an interesting segment this morning with David Wessel of The Wall Street Journal. The topic was the trade deficit—not exactly the most exciting conversation piece or headline these days but an important statistic, nonetheless. Though very few people understand economics and far fewer wish to apply economic analysis and principles to their lives, we cannot escape economic impacts to our lives and fortunes. At best, we can shield ourselves from worst-case scenarios as we allocate wealth to its most productive ends for God’s glory and the advancement of His Kingdom.

The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis released a report on Tuesday that points to an “uncomfortably possible” scenario, to borrow from Wessel. Our trade deficit was $59 billion, meaning simply that we bought (paid) much more than we earned (sold). Undoubtedly, Americans will continue their relentless binge of consumption without giving a second thought to the specter of a worldwide recession. Wessel traces the root of this concern to our spend-happy populous; unlike those in many other wealthy countries, Americans have a big appetite for more stuff. Furthermore, other countries want our currency. They are willing to take our dollars, lend them to our government and businesses for low interest rates, and give us lots of stuff in return. We are “lucky,” as Wessel puts it.

Reality will set in as we continue, month after month, to spend more than we earn. The economic principle holds true for a national economy no less than for an individual or household: if you keep borrowing, you stretch yourself thinner and thinner. Lenders are less willing to subsidize your appetite for stuff because they are concerned about your ability to repay. Furthermore, inflationary pressures diminish the value of money, so we repay with dollars of less value or purchasing power (i.e., they fetch less in the free market than they did when they were originally loaned.) We are all familiar with this phenomenon, as we hear stories about people in past generations purchasing nice homes for under $5,000.

Equity and debt are the two means of financing any purchase or operation. Americans have come to increasingly rely on debt. God pronounces the curse of bondage in Deuteronomy 28:43-44, and debt is the means by which disobedient people are enslaved. We might be tempted to think we are blessed in our abundance, but macroeconomic statistics tell a different story. When other nations no longer have the ability or desire to finance our profligate spending, we must pay the piper.

How did we arrive at this position? Murray Rothbard presents an interesting historical analysis in What Has Government Done to Our Money. Other countries trusted the United States and its monetary promises because of our stability and willingness to live within our means. We had a good name because we had integrity. As Gary North points out in Honest Money, debasing money flows in line with debasing morality. We took advantage of other nation’s trust and abused our privilege of being the world’s economic powerhouse; this happened as our nation was revolting from God’s standards for law and morality.

The result of our economic and moral rebellion has been slavery. We are the world’s largest debtor nation, even though we are also the richest country. We are very rich slaves that lack the discipline and moral fortitude to spend within our means. Wessel thinks that an economic crash is unlikely, but he still acknowledges this scenario as “uncomfortably possible.” No one can predict the future, but it is safe to assume that God will not always allow us to be slaves without realizing the effects and conditions of our rebellion. We will someday suffer for our greed and laziness—our desire to consume now and our refusal to forgo present satisfaction for the benefit of future gain. When a people adopts a present orientation, the future becomes increasingly dim.

We can stem the tide in our own lives, if not for the nation at large. Do you spend more than you earn? Do you sacrifice future gains for present consumption? Are you in debt? God blesses obedience, and this is manifested economically when people save, exercise thrift, delay consumption and gratification, and lend (exercising rule) instead of borrowing (being enslaved).

[You are welcome and encouraged to comment on this post. Please share any thoughts that come to mind on our discussion site.]

Boys brought up in the truth are particularly prone to know-it-all chatter. Truth is rigid and unyielding and is almost as good as a baseball bat for hitting people with. I have seen this happen so frequently with Christian young men that I have decided to name the phenomenon—they should be called “thunder puppies.” Jesus once rebuked His disciples because they wanted to declare a celestial war, calling down fire from heaven, but yet, they did not know what spirit they were of. In the same way today, many young men preach beyond their wisdom and pronounce dogmatically beyond their years.

Many young Christian men will go on and on about what they will require their (hypothetical) wives to do in this or that situation, and how they will homeschool, and what they will demand of anyone who dares interfere with their sacrosanct household. And compare this to how often they spend time talking about what they will require of themselves. In short, “thunder puppies” are too ready to boast about nonexistent accomplishments and to bring others down in the process.

. . . Of course the world is a sinful place, and we want our young men taught and equipped to enable them to rise up to battle when the situation calls for it. As we have seen, the Bible teaches us that the glory of young men is their strength. But a careful contrast reveals the beauty of the old man, which is the wisdom of a gray head (Prov. 20:29). That wisdom sees that boasting is never profitable, unless it is in the Lord. (Douglas Wilson, Future Men. Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001, p 40-41).

As a young man, I have fallen prey at various times to this “thunder puppy” tendency that Wilson describes. It is much easier to boast about “nonexistent accomplishments,” in order to build up myself, than to actually accomplish anything significant. This is because “talk is cheap,” as the saying goes. It takes discipline, determination, and self-sacrifice for a young man to bridle his natural strength from God and demonstrate worthiness in his actions, not merely his words.

It is certainly not wrong to state the truth. It is wonderful for young men to think properly and to accurately expound their thoughts verbally and in writing. However, young men—myself, first and foremost—must avoid the tendency to “preach beyond their wisdom and pronounce dogmatically beyond their years.” There is a fine line here. Wilson references home education and “requirements” for wives. I believe it is appropriate and necessary for a young man to consider, even before marriage, God’s requirements for husbands and fathers. This includes such things as education and leadership for his family, including his wife. However, Wilson’s point is well-taken—instead of expounding on these things with prideful vigor, we must humbly and soberly assess our abilities and qualifications to be leaders. Our task is not to wax eloquent about the “requirements” we will place on our wives; rather, unmarried young men should consider requirements to place upon themselves in order to properly lead their homes. This, above anything else, will prepare them to be humble, sacrificial leaders who their wives will delight to reverence and obey, as Scripture commands.

Scripture says that a young man’s strength is his glory. He is known for his boldness, might, and power. However, he lacks wisdom and experience. His task is to prove himself—to use his strength and God-given abilities to accomplish much for the Kingdom as he soberly and humbly serves those around him. Paul tells Titus, “Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded” (2:6). We get in trouble when we allow pride to cloud our assessment of ourselves. Our zeal quickly becomes arrogance when we discard modesty of mind.

Young men, let us endeavor to discipline ourselves in humility and sobriety. Instead of focusing on our highfalutin ideas and nonexistent accomplishments, let us learn to use our strength to serve God and our fellow man. This will entitle us to more genuine respect than we could gain by exercising our natural tendency of arrogant bragging.

[You are welcome and encouraged to comment on this post. Please share any thoughts that come to mind on our discussion site.]

Think about the assembly line worker who is lowest on the corporate ladder. Is he accountable to anyone, or does he operate autonomously—setting his own hours and doing his own projects at his own pace? We all know that he has a supervisor, some sort of manager who is, in turn, accountable to yet another manager above him. We call this arrangement a hierarchy.

Economists, sociologists, and other social scientists theororize about the nature and role of hierarchies. Some believe that they are rational and efficient. Others see them as inherently wasteful and depersonalizing. Whether proper or wrong, effective or inefficient, all of us can agree that hierarchies illustrate authority and jurisdictions. Like it or not, they are the ultimate example of delegation in our industrialist, corporate economy.

What is authority? It is simply the right to authorize, approve, or command. A person with authority has a jurisdiction—the scope in which he may exercise his authority. God has ultimate authority and jurisdiction. Because He is sovereign, He has the right to command; we cannot set our own standards above His. Furthermore, His authority is not limited; He is not merely Lord of our hearts and His church. Rather, He governs all men, actions, thoughts, and institutions. As Abraham Kuyper said, “There is not one square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign, does not cry out, ‘Mine!’” Christ has ultimate authority and absolute jurisdiction no matter whether we acknowledge this.

Like the manager in our illustration, Christ delegates authority to His people. We must exercise dominion in His name, for His glory, and according to His Law. If we fail in our mission, He is always there to chastise us and to mercifully place us back on the proper course. Earthly delegation is different than Christ’s delegation of authority. A manager may delegate authority, but he cannot delegate responsibility. Unlike Christ, the manager is fallible; he is not sovereign. He might make a bad decision about the authority he delegates and to whom he delegates. He does not control the outcome, so those under him might fail and make him look bad. The manager has to answer to his boss above him because the principle of accountability applies no less in their relationship. The manager is responsible for the decision to delegate and for his failure to properly oversee those under him.

What happens when we reach the top of the corporate hierarchy? Does the highest rung of the ladder, the CEO or the chairman of the board, have accountability? Has anyone delegated authority to these positions? In our economy, the shareholders, the owners of the corporation, have jurisdiction over them. More and more, the civil government is assuming oversight and authority so that corporate boards and executives give account to state agencies. One way or another, at least in theory, each member of the corporation is accountable to someone.

A person with authority and jurisdiction is a governor. Government is simply that which governs. Thus, the business manager governs his subordinates. In terms of Scripture, the father governs the family; his wife and children submit to him, as God commands, and he sacrificially and lovingly exercises his authority. The civil leaders who God appoints govern the civil sphere. Elders govern the church. Everyone is under authority or exercises governance, or both, within each of these spheres. A representative might govern in the civil sphere and also be under its authority.

Biblically, these concepts of authority, jurisdictions, delegation, responsibility, and government are crucial. We must understand our roles in each sphere, the amount of authority we have, the scope of our jurisdictions, to whom we are accountable, the importance of wise delegation, and the multiplicity of governments that God has ordained. Otherwise, we will tend to overstep our bounds or shirk our duties. We will fail in our mission to oversee those below us and to wisely steward the authority placed in our hands by those above us.

Whether we are in the position of an assembly line worker or a corporate CEO, each of us is accountable. We must not lose sight of this and fancy ourselves to be autonomous. Judgment and retribution lie in wait for the man who shirks his responsibility or oversteps his bounds.

[You are welcome and encouraged to comment on this post. Please share any thoughts that come to mind on our discussion site.]

In one of his many tapes, R.J. Rushdoony references Dabney’s opposition to modern corporations. As quoted by Rushdoony, Dabney stated that “corporations have no soul to damn or backside to kick.” I have for some time wanted to study the origin and nature of corporations, and I still have much to learn. Having purchased a 5 volume set* of Dabney’s writings last year, I opened Volume III today in search of Dabney’s article about corporations. At the time, I did not even know that this set contained an article about corporations, but I was not disappointed to find that he did indeed write an article called The Philosophy Regulating Private Corporations.

Dabney says, “A corporation is an artificial person, created by the law, usually of many individuals, and clothed by its charter with certain rights of personality, and with a continuity of existence outlasting the natural life of each of its members. . . . A ‘private corporation’ is organized by the law, perhaps of many individuals, and yet mainly to pursue some end of personal gain belonging immediately to the members alone” (Discussions, p 331). Pertaining to the “prime motive for seeking corporate powers,” Dabney states the following (p 333):

Business men contemplating any industrial enterprise do not desire to bear the responsibilities of business copartnerships. According to the good old law of copartnerships, the partners were not only jointly, but severally, bound for all the debts of the firm. The creditors of the firm could not only exhaust the definite sums contributed to the firm by the partners, but could pursue the separate private estate of each partner until their debts were satisfied. Either partner, in signing the firm-name to an obligation, bound the firm and its other members. It is precisely these responsibilities which the petitioners for private corporations seek to evade.

Very clearly, the chief object of the incorporator is to avoid responsibility. The modern corporation is, in the words of Dabney, “wholly unsound, at least for existing American society” (p 333). He goes on to give the alternative (p 335):

As to all the known and approved lines of industry, men ought to be able to know the reasonable expectations of risk and gain; and, if they attempt them, to do so with as good knowledge of the prospect of gain, as their other fellow-citizens have in their industries. If a man is personally ignorant of such established and known industry, what right has he to migrate to it? What right to demand that he shall be empowered to indulge his impertinence in assuming a business he does not understand, and has not fitted himself for, at his neighbor’s expense?

. . .

If this ill-advised species of legislation [giving existence to private corporations] were reformed, and all men who wished to adventure their riches in the hope of acquiring other riches, were made to do so under the responsibilities of the old copartnership, we should see this change: men would much more regularly stick to the callings in which they had been reared, and in which they were qualified and entitled to succeed.

He makes another interesting point later pertaining to the family: “. . . the forms of industry promoted by the powerful corporations tend to undermine the domestic and personal independence of the yeomanry. The associated means of production supplant the individual, the products of the older and more independent forms of industry retreat before those of the corporations” (p 342). In short, Dabney says that “the centralization of capital leads at once to the centralization and degradation of the population” (p 343).

Are these simply the words of an outdated 19th century crank who had too much time on his hands? Can we accept Dabney’s analysis of the corporation, and if so, what bearing does this have on Christians today? I believe that Dabney hits the nail on the head and pinpoints the problems of “limited liability” thinking. With a universe of culpability and responsibility in which every man will give an account before God on the day of reckoning, how can Christians approve business forms that shove responsibility onto others? Many would answer that in our litigious society, we cannot help but limit our liability. This seems to put the effect before the cause.

I wonder if someone more knowledgeable than yours truly could explain whether consumer and government litigation, insider trading laws, new and increasing accounting standards such as Sarbanes-Oxley, antitrust endeavors, and a host of other statist interferences which conservatives criticize, can be traced to the problems of limited liability business forms? Many conservatives will blindly defend corporations simply because the liberals rail against ever present abuses and call for increasing statist involvement. Conservatives would be better served to attack both liberal statism and the modern distaste for responsibility on the part of many “limited liability” advocates.

Should we establish limited liability companies and invest our money in corporations, given that this is reality in the society in which we live? Should we totally and completely break from the modern limited liability corporation and have no involvement even in purchasing the goods supplied by such? Christians will come down on different sides of these issues; to be sure, these questions do not have simple answers. The issue that no Christian—indeed, no person—can escape is that God will hold us responsible for our actions and that liability is an inherent part of risk and business ventures.

If we are unwilling to take responsibility and liability upon ourselves, who will take it? The state? If so, please do not complain about increasing statist regulations and losses of freedom. If men will not responsibly govern themselves, they can expect the state to step in to assume responsibility. Instead of free market benevolence and goodwill, the state will rule with an iron fist. Great will be our sorrow for having shirked responsibility, leaving it instead to this inherently coercive institution.

*Discussions by R.L. Dabney D.D. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, 1996.

[Originally posted at C.S. Hayden’s Blog: Dabney vs. the Modern Limited Liability Corporation, 8 June 2005.]

Robert H. Bremner, editor of Children and Youth in America: A Documentary History, writes the following:

Eliot (1604-1690), famous apostle to the New England Indians and translator of the Bible, reached Boston in 1631. He took time from his missionary labors to prepare a work on Christian doctrine, containing some words of advice to parents (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Press, vol. I, 1970, p 33).

In his Harmony of the Gospels, written in 1678, John Eliot states,

It is a very false and pernicious principle that many people and parents are tainted with, viz., that youth must be suffered awhile to take their swing, and sow their wild oats, to travail in the world, to follow the fashions, company, and manners of the times, hoping they will be wise hereafter. Oh false principles; God speaks fully to the contrary. Prov. 19:18. Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying. Prov. 13:24. He that spareth the rod, hateth his son, but he that loveth him, chasteneth him betimes. The gentle rod of the mother is a very soft and gentle thing; it will break neither bone nor skin; yet by the blessing of God with it, and upon the wise application of it, it would break the bond that bindeth up corruption in the heart. Prov. 22:15. Yea, greater is the power of this gentle thing. Prov. 23:13-14. Withhold not correction from the child, for if thou beatest him with the rod he shall not die; thou shalt beat him with the rod and shalt deliver his soul from Hell.

Eliot asserts several important Scriptural truths in the above statement. First, he assumes the total depravity of man from conception. He references several Scripture verses dealing with parental chastisement for young people. These clearly teach that folly is bound in the heart of a child. Second, Eliot says that parents must drive this folly from their children. Third, young people must heed parental instruction and chastisement early in life. Just as parents are to nurture and expect maturity and obedience in their children, so should children desire this for themselves. The ungodly will expect young people to rebel at a certain age—what we call “adolescence” in our day. But Eliot asserted that parents should have already driven the folly from their children’s hearts by this time. Fourth, Eliot repudiates the notion that we must be exposed to the world and its evils in order to gain wisdom and a desire to abstain from sin. Rather, young people should be nurtured and encouraged in righteousness. They will be exposed to plenty of sin throughout their lives; as they develop godly maturity, they should be rooted in righteousness and truth before they are exposed to sin and folly.

These lessons serve as both a rebuke and an encouragement for today’s parents and young people. The notion of youthful rebellion is not new; it has been with us since the fall. Contrary to being a normal stage of development for everyone in all eras and nations, the “adolescent” pattern coincides with the error of human autonomy—that man can be like God, determining standards for right and wrong on his own. Let us be reminded of our need to ground our thoughts and actions on God’s Word, not on the expectations and patterns of ungodly men and cultures.

[You are welcome and encouraged to comment on this post. Please share any thoughts that come to mind on our discussion site.]

The recent hurricane has produced a renewed interest in “end times” and “prophecy” within many theological circles. The word theologians use for such discussions is eschatology, meaning “doctrine of last things.” Within Christian theology this branch encompasses, among other things, Christ’s return, the millennium, and the final judgment. It is important to note that every philosophy, whether Christian or non-Christian, has an eschatology that ties in with its philosophy of history. Have you ever pondered the following questions:

Who governs the past and the future? Does history have a purpose and direction? Whose law will hold sway over man in our day? How should we live in light of our expectations for the future? How do we interpret current events in light of the past and future?

Eschatology is concerned with these things, and this is why we must not minimize its importance. Some say that eschatology is unimportant and that we really cannot determine what will occur in the future. Why bother with it? they ask. While we agree that Christians have taken a variety of views, and that it may be difficult to rightly interpret many passages dealing with eschatology, we must assert that eschatology is inescapable within a coherent worldview. We cannot deal with the questions above apart from eschatology.

Having said this, most people are unaware of their eschatological assumptions. They might think that eschatology does not matter, that it is the ridiculous and arcane stuff of uptight theologians, or that it has no bearing on rational, modern man. Within Christian circles many simple-minded believers simply listen to the pastor, week after week, and assume that his teachings come directly from Scripture apart from any assumptions. Modern evangelical fundamentalism is in dire need of eschatological enlightenment, and this begins by understanding the assumptions that theologians bring to the text.

Steve Gregg has written a worthwhile commentary entitled Revelation: Four Views (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997). His purpose was to expose the four predominant views of eschatology throughout church history. I recently heard him on a popular national radio program describe his previously held belief that dispensationalism was the only viable approach to eschatology. He later learned of alternatives, including the partial preterist view to which he now adheres, and he wrote his commentary to educate others who had been misled into his old way of thinking.

Four Views of Interpretation

Here are the four views he describes: preterist, historicist, futurist, and spiritual. He defines them, as follows:

Preterist: most prophecies were fulfilled during the time of the Roman empire. (Partial preterists believe that most were fulfilled, while full preterists believe that all were fulfilled. Many theologians have rightly described full preterism as heterodoxy.)
Historicist: the prophecies have been fulfilled throughout history and are still being fulfilled today.
Futurist: most prophecies are yet to be fulfilled.
Spiritual (or symbolic or idealist): most prophecies portray ongoing cosmic conflicts of spiritual realities and may have many fulfillments throughout history.

Interestingly, each of these have held sway at various times and in different circles throughout church history. Today, the two predominant views—from what I am aware—are futurism and preterism, though some highly respected scholars such as F. Nigel Lee hold to historicism. (He asserts that the reformers believed in historicism, not the preterism of many modern reformed believers. His analysis, along with his many other articles and books, are worth reading.)

Four Views of the Millennium

We must also mention the four views of the millennium: dispensational premillennialism (d-pre), historic premillennialism (h-pre), amillennialism (a-mil), and postmillennialism (post-mil). Once again, each of these have held sway at various times. D-pre is predominant in most fundamentalist circles, and a-mil has held been popular in reformed circles. R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, and other reconstructionist authors have contributed to a resurgence of post-mil; in addition, many reformed, non-reconstructionists hold to post-mil. Spurgeon believed in h-pre, along with Francis Schaeffer and George Eldon Ladd.

Some people might disagree with me on this, but here is how I understand the four views, what they have in common, and how they differ:

Dispensational premillennialism: Christ will reign for a literal 1,000 years on Earth after the rapture of the church, the tribulation, the antichrist’s rise and fall, and the establishment of Israel as a world power. The physical nation of Israel plays an important part in d-pre theology, and d-pres affirm the necessity of unflinching support for Israel against its modern enemies such as Islam and Arab powers. D-pre is optimistic about the eventual rise of Christ’s Kingdom on Earth, but it is pessimistic about the present “church age” in which our efforts will be greeted only with continued decline and depravity.

Historic premillennialism: Like d-pre, h-pre holds to the premillennial return of Christ. Jesus will reign on Earth over all nations after the tribulation, anti-Christ, etc. Many h-pres hold to a “post-tribulational rapture,” unlike most d-pres who believe in the “pretrib-rapture.” This refers to the timing in relation to the “tribulation” of God taking His chosen out of the world. Unlike d-pre, h-pre does not see a prominent place for physical Israel but holds to what d-pres call “replacement” theology—the idea that Gentiles are grafted into the covenant as partakers of God’s promises and blessings to Israel in the Old Testament. Similar to d-pre, h-pre is pessimistic about the present era that will culminate in increased depravity, the rise of the anti-christ, and the tribulation—only to be later followed by the glorious millennium.

Amillennialism: Unlike the two pre- positions, a-mil holds that the millennium is a figurative reign of Christ from heaven. A-mils share the pre’s pessimism about the present era, but they do not believe that Christ will return and reign during the millennium. Most believe that we are now in the millennium and that the millennial blessings of righteousness and peace apply to the institutional church; Satan rules the rest of the world, a belief shared by almost all pres about the present age.

Postmillennialism: With the a-mil view, post-mil asserts that Christ will reign from heaven during the millennium. This view is singular for its optimism about the present age and the Christian’s ability to directly effect the rise of Christ’s Kingdom in history. Many post-mils have believed that the millennium is in the future; today, many agree with the a-mil assertion that we are presently in the millennium—in the beginning stages, at least. As an optimistic eschatology, post-mil is rejected by many who look at end time prophecies of tribulation, the anti-Christ, and the “rapture.” However, many post-mils counter with a preteristic approach, as described above. In short, they say, most of these prophecies were already fulfilled. Others like Dr. Lee, referenced above, believe in historicist postmillennialism which views God’s Kingdom progressively conquering the forces of evil throughout history in fulfillment of prophecies in Revelation.

Integrating the Views

You may have already drawn the conclusion that the interpretive views and the millennial views are separate but can be integrated; this is correct. Most premillennialists are futurists, including all dispensationalists. As mentioned, a large portion of postmillennialists are also partial preterists since they believe that most of the prophecies have been fulfilled. Furthermore, one’s interpretive paradigm often influences which millennial view he or she embraces. It is difficult to believe in postmillennialism if one is a futurist. One cannot be a dispensationalist and partial preterist.

What does it all mean?

Why does this all matter? Should we not focus on more important topics rather than debating how to interpret Revelation and other passages, along with how we view the millennium? To put this in perspective, people are inescapably affected by their views of the future. I heard David Jeremiah on the radio today talk about the need for people to trust Christ in order to “escape” (and this was his word) the tribulation when God raptures His people. Eschatology affects our view of history and the progression of God’s Kingdom, as well as our evangelism and ministry. Each of us has an eschatology, no matter whether we realize it. It behooves us to consider eschatology, especially in light of modern events, which indicate to some that the “prophetic clock” is ticking towards the rise of anti-christ, the rapture, etc.

Inevitably, such a view will affect how the believer lives; each of us “plows in hope” with the expectation of profit from our labors; we work for God’s Kingdom rightly hoping that it will triumph in time and eternity—that God rules the world and history no less than heaven and eternity. If Christ is coming back tomorrow and the world will deteriorate from there, our labors apart from the narrow scope of “soul-saving” are vain.

Agree or disagree with the positions above, none of us can escape the category of eschatology in our thinking. Since God rules the world and governs the progress of His Kingdom in history, eschatology is vital for a coherent philosophy of history—an understanding of what God has done, what He will do, and how we must live in light of these realities.

[You are welcome and encouraged to comment on this post. Please share any thoughts that come to mind on our discussion site.]

If you were to walk up to the average man on the street, grab him by the arm and utter the word “adolescence,” it is highly probable—assuming he refrains from punching you in the nose—that his associations to this term will include references to storm-and-stress, tension, rebellion, dependency conflicts, peer-group conformity, black leather jackets, and the like. If you then abandon your informal street corner experiment, and consulted the professional and popular literature on adolescence, you would become quickly impressed with the prevalence of the belief that adolescence is, indeed, a unique and stormy period of development (Bandera, p 16).

Albert Bandura, a learning theorist and celebrated 20th century psychologist, wrote a study in 1964 called The Stormy Decade: Fact or Fiction (originally published in Psychology in Schools, I. Republished in Grinder, Robert E., ed. Studies in Adolescence: A Book of Readings on Adolescent Development, 2nd ed. Toronto: MacMillan Company, 1969, p 16-24). He discusses parental restrictiveness, dependence-independence conflicts, parent peer-group conflicts, and sources of adolescent mythology. His purpose was to show that, “The foregoing storm-and-stress picture of adolescence receives little support from detailed information that Dr. Walters and I obtained in a study of middle class families” (p 17).

I like what Bandera has to say in many respects, and I will end by citing his conclusion with the heading Self-fulfilling Prophecy:

If a society labels its adolescents as “teen-agers,” and expects them to be rebellious, unpredictable, sloppy, and wild in their behavior, and if this picture is repeatedly reinforced by the mass media, such cultural expectations may very well force adolescents into the role of rebel. In this way, a false expectation may serve to instigate and maintain certain role behaviors, in turn, then reinforce the originally false belief.

In closing, I do not wish to leave you with the impression that adolescence is a stress- or problem-free period of development. No age group is free from stress or adjustment problems. Our findings suggest, however, that behavioral characteristics exhibited by children during the so-called adolescent stage are lawfully related to, and consistent with, pre-adolescent social behavior (p 24).

[You are welcome and encouraged to comment on this post. Please share any thoughts that come to mind on our discussion site.]

One of the more fascinating concepts in my psychology class a few years ago was the matter of nature vs. nurture. Very simply, this pertains to whether thinking and behavior in humans and animals comes from inborn traits or from training. Do genes or the environment matter most?

One manifestation of this debate with which we are all familiar is the question of whether leaders are made or born. Is leadership something that you either have or do not have? Or is it something that can be cultivated and fostered in a person? Monarchial regimes have answered this in favor of nature; their leadership abilities supposedly come from being born in a certain family. Many motivational speakers have embraced the nurture mentality; a person can be trained in leadership.

Biblically, we would say that nature and nurture both play a part. God created man very good, and with his fall, man is now totally depraved in every aspect of his being. Thus, in terms of nature, man is destined to rebel. However, God chooses some for Himself, and He gives them a new nature. He commands them to be nurtured in a godly environment among His people. He instructs parents to nurture their children in His ways. We cannot say that either nature or nurture is ultimate; rather, God and His Word are ultimate, and He affirms the equal importance of both nature and nurture.

When it comes to patterns and expectations in culture, we can often trace behavior and thought to the environment, to the nurturing that society’s members receive. If young people are expected–that is, nurtured in their environment–to be immature, irresponsible, and dishonoring to authorities and older generations, they almost invariably will be. Apart from God’s grace, they will follow the path of depravity that our culture has set.

Norman Kiell, a 20th century psychologist, traces adolescence essentially to nature. In his view, it is inevitable and universal. He begins his preface to The Universal Experience of Adolescence, as follows:

It is my thesis that the great internal turmoil and external disorder of adolescence are universal and only moderately affected by cultural determinants. In spite of many specific differences in content and degree of stress from one culture to another, adolescent development is basically uniform in all societies (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967, p 9).

I have yet to read his entire work, but I understand Kiell to be an important theorist in the field of development and growth. His assertion that adolescence is a universal experience was not original, but it is important in the modern era. Kiell to the contrary, we approach history with the understanding that cultures develop based on their religious assumptions, their presuppositions. In short, as Henry Van Til tells us, culture is religion externalized. This means that expectations spring from foundational ideas about God, man, and the relationship of man to God and His Law-Word. In turn, expectations manifest themselves in behavior and thought patterns.

We would assert that adolescence, as our culture expects and practices it today, is not universal. Rather, it is “a cultural product, a hallmark of a decadent culture, and almost unknown in the history of civilization outside the modern era” (R.J. Rushdoony. The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum. Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1981, p 163). As Dr. David Black points out, “When we assert the ‘fact’ that teenagers are to act like children rather than like adults, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy” (The Myth of Adolescence. Yorba Linda, CA: Davidson Press, 1999, p 17).

By now we have answered the question of whether “adolescence” stems from nature or nurture. Society expects it, nurtures it, and reaps the fruit. Let us look beyond culture, beyond modern decadence, and beyond errant social scientists whose teachings conflict with God’s Word. Instead, let us expect and nurture young people to fulfill the patterns of youthful maturity and lifelong faithfulness to God and His Word.

[You are welcome and encouraged to comment on this post. Please share any thoughts that come to mind on our discussion site.]