John Stott, in his book, The Cross of Christ, briefly mentions the role of the image of a fish in early Christianity:
Only the initiated would know, and nobody else could guess, that icthys ('fish') was an acronym for Iesus Christos Theou Huios Sotēr ('Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour'). But it did not remain the Christian sign, doubtless because the association between Jesus and a fish was purely acronymic (a fortuitous arrangement of letters) and had no visual significance.
Shortly after we moved to Orlando, I remember there being a report on the news about speed limits on Interstate 4, the main highway that runs through the city. The police had gone on a blitz writing up speeding tickets because they were concerned about the number of people regularly traveling at 70mph or more on the interstate. When one of the local news teams did an investigation, however, it was discovered that few people actually knew the speed limit of the highway, largely due to poor signage. Adjustable speed limit signs had been installed, but there was one stretch of I-4, something like eight miles long, where none of them were operational.
To their credit, the authorities remedied the problem immediately. However, they proceeded to make a particularly unintelligent decision by going forward with their adjustable speed limit idea. If you have ever driven on I-4, you know how busy it always is and how bad of a drive it can be. And it is precisely these conditions – frequent congestion – that make adjustable speed limits absolutely absurd.
When the signs were originally installed, a guy named Steve Homan, of the Department of Transportation, said, "We want them to drive slower so they can move faster... The idea is to have traffic moving slowly but steadily through a congested area. This will help drivers get through the area quicker."
Apparently, Homan never took a physics class. If he did, he would know that this is what will actually happen: traffic will be heavy, but moving along at a steady 50mph (the actual limit of I-4 through Orlando). But suddenly the speed limit sign up ahead changes to 40mph, and there will be that one guy in the centre lane who will see it and hit the brakes to match the new speed limit. Needless to say, this requires all the cars behind him to brake, and the sudden flurry of brakelights will cause the drivers in the outside lanes to react by braking suddenly as well. This will not simply slow the flow of traffic down to 40mph, but instead will ensure that a half-mile behind the guy who braked first, traffic will come to a grinding halt. It's just like throwing a big rock in the middle of a river. It disrupts the flow and creates a dam-like effect.
By using the adjustable speed limits, it is clear the authorities wanted to do two things: first, they wanted to make traffic flow better by having everyone drive the same speed. As I have already demonstrated (and as anyone who regularly drives I-4 will tell you), they failed miserably. To be fair, though, it's not entirely their fault. There is a lot of traffic on I-4, and the flow problems are not going to be solved by adjusting the speed limits.
Second, and related, they put their faith in a bunch of signs to fix everything. I read an article some time ago arguing that Americans spend so much time watching the ridiculous amount of signage along their roads that they don't focus on what's going on in front of them. This problem only grows when you install signs that do not read the same thing every time you drive by them. I drive a lot of the same roads every day, and I don't need to look at the speed limit signs because I know them all by heart. But when the speed limit is constantly in flux, you can't help but drive along checking every sign to ensure you're not driving at double the speed limit.
But what's more, this is just another way of taking responsibility away from the driver under the guise of improving safety. I am not suggesting that there should be no speed limits, of course, but only that drivers need to be responsible for what they do in varying conditions, such as occasions when traffic is heavy. Changing the speed limit when the interstate gets congested takes their focus off what they need to be focused on and actually makes conditions less safe. We, as a culture – both individuals and government – need to stop thinking that the way to get people to act more responsibily is to impose more external regulations.
What is the solution, then? Well, the only way I-4 is ever going to flow properly is if there are more lanes available and if a number of the major on- and off-ramps are reconstructed (such as the nightmare that is the I-4/408 interchange). Of course, this really cannot be done because shutting I-4 down for any length of time would cause chaos beyond what we can even imagine.
So, the solution I propose is that the adjustable speed limit signs be removed, and static signs be installed. Additionally, the new speed limits need to be higher. You see, the majority of people already travel between 65-70mph, and efforts to slow them down have not worked. To be sure, you have drivers doing the posted speed limit, but that raises the problem I mentioned above of obstructing the flow. I-4 does not need to be 50mph – that is absurdly slow for a major interstate – but would work much better if the limit was higher, say 60mph. Since most people already travel within the acceptable bounds of this limit, you would just be bringing the slower drivers up to speed so that they no longer disrupt the flow. If the police wanted to, they could increase their efforts to enforce a raised limit, but I don't think they would have to since very few travel over 70mph anyway. And when the interstate becomes congested, people will react to what is going on in front of them instead of watching the speed limit signs.
The Department of Transportation needs to stop making decisions based on uninformed hypotheses and take the time to engage with those who drive stretches of road like I-4 everyday. I am sure they feel the need to regulate things like this because they are concerned that are too many people who drive irresponsibly – and there's certainly an element of truth to that – but the way to teach people to be more responsible is not to take the responsibility away from them. They need to learn to react to the road, to the conditions, and to other drivers around them, and this is not done by focusing on speed limit signs. Adjustable speed limits are simply absurd, and they need to go.
I noticed on Facebook yesterday that a number of my friends had posted this as their status:
A boy writes a letter to God: 'Dear God, why do you let bad things happen in our schools?' God replies, 'Dear Son, I'm not allowed in your schools.'
The line of argument is clear – since God is no longer 'allowed' in the public school system, a judgement of some sort has been pronounced upon the public school system such that 'bad things' continue to happen.
A few things should stand out immediately here. In the first place, there are two major theological errors at work. It is implied, for one, that the bad things that are happening in the schools are outside of God's control. The bad things happen because God is no longer present in the schools. The second error, then, is related to the first – God is no longer present in the schools since he is not acknowledged or welcomed. So, there is a denial of God's sovereignty in directing history, and his omnipresence.
In the second place, this is classic American civil religion at work. The widespread belief among evangelicals in the United States is that God is judging their nation because the broader culture no longer acknowledges and worships him. This is a big deal particularly because of the pervasive belief that in some sense, America is a sort of promised land entrusted with a mission from God to be a light to the rest of the world. For years now, especially since the infamous Scopes Trial of 1925, Christians in the US have felt that the schools have been a prime battleground for what James Davison Hunter has coined the 'culture wars'. Years of fighting over all kinds of issues – prayer in the schools, teaching evolution versus creationism – have created a strong perception of victimisation. Broader culture and liberal social elites are on a mission to suppress Christianity. And so the 'bad things' happening in the schools is judgement finally being rendered on those who have opposed the presence of Christianity in cultural institutions like schools.
One of the things that continues to confuse me most about this country is the expectation that Christianity should be given a prominent place in American culture. In a nation where freedom of religion and separation of church and state are constantly heralded as good things, why should anyone expect that public schools be of one particular religious tradition? Public schools function as educational institutions for everyone in society at large. To be sure, the schools are not irreligious – after all, all of life is religion – but unless this was a Christian theocracy of sorts, the public schools are under no obligation to be overtly Christian (or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Taoist, for that matter).
For reasons I cannot understand, there continues to be a widespread confidence among American Christians that the political process can solve all of their problems. Civil religion maintains that so long as people will acknowledge God, the country will be a better place – increased prosperity, more churches on street corners, stores closed on Sundays, less R-rated movies coming out of Hollywood, and so on. And the primary way for this to be achieved is by systematically legislating morality, such as demanding that each school day open with prayer and that evolution be stricken from the science curriculum.
It should be obvious that, in the end, this would achieve hardly anything in terms of 're-Christianising' America. Imposing laws on people will not change their hearts. Old Testament Israel bound all of its citizens to the laws of God, but a quick read through the prophets reveals that despite following these laws, their hearts remained bound to idols. The idea of re-Christianising America is in and of itself a misguided notion, but for the sake of argument, the point at which this begins is in the hearts of its people as they hear the gospel and respond to it in faith. Jesus did not entrust the Great Commission to public school teachers or to the government, but to his people. He gave us the task of making the known the good news of the Kingdom of God.
Sociologist Peter Berger has written of 'plausibility structures,' the idea being that people will embrace a system of actions and beliefs, an understanding of reality, that seems plausible to them. As Christians, our responsibility is to embody a biblical worldview such that it becomes a credible and alternative plausibility structure. If you want to talk about cultural change, it doesn't begin with legislating prayer in schools. It begins with Christians faithfully embodying the story of Scripture.
Parents, if you want your children to receive a Christian education, that is your responsibility. You cannot expect to send your children off to school and have them return as mature and faithful disciples of Christ, even under the best of circumstances. The Bible gives clear mandate for the primary role of parents in the education and formation of their children; Deuteronomy 6:6-9, which has been called the great charter of Christian education, serves as a clear example of this:
And these words that I command to you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, an they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.
Although I have expressed my disagreement with the line of argument above and the understanding that presupposes it, I do readily agree that, by and large, the public school system is an environment that makes the task of raising children to love and serve the Lord a great challenge. For this reason, I am a proponent of Christian education by means of institutional Christian schools or homeschooling (although I certainly recognise both that Christians schools are not wholly immune to the problems of the public school system, and that not all parents are of the means to be able to take advantage of these alternatives).
Whatever form it takes, the important thing is that parents actively take a primary role in educating their children. Because children go through the educational system in their most formative years, it is so very crucial that parents are wholly conscious of the responsibility they have toward their children and are intentional and deliberate in their efforts to counter the worldview their children will come into contact with on a daily basis with the narrative of Scripture. And we as the church must ensure that we do not leave them alone in this task. We all have a responsibility for the children in our churches, and must give parents our wholehearted support in raising their children to love and fear the Lord, whether it be praying for them, teaching them in the context of the church's educational program, or mentoring and discipling them.
In the end, it really makes no difference whether or not God is 'allowed' in the public schools. While it might be nice if the environment in which many children are educated were less hostile to our faith, the burden of responsibility to raise and educate children rests on the parents regardless of circumstances. What makes a difference is parents who seize hold of their calling to educate their children. If you want your children to receive an education that honours God and teaches them to be disciples of Christ, it begins with you.
Soong-Chan Rah is a professor at North Park Seminary in Chicago. He's recently written a book called The Next Evangelicalism: Freeing the Church from Western Cultural Captivity. This video touches on the themes of his book, as he discusses American evangelicalism and the way it has become captive to the culture around it. There is lots of good stuff in here, and instead of trying to summarise it all, I'd encourage you to watch the video. If you've read Andy Crouch's excellent book, Culture Making, you'll hear some similar things from Rah. Likewise, if you've read Jamie Smith's also excellent book, Desiring the Kindgom, you'll appreciate a lot of what Rah has to say as well, particularly his reference to the mall as the centre of American religion. Additionally, Rah's emphasis on the need for the church to recognise the changing demographic's of America is important to understand.
Foppe Ten Hoor was a Dutch immigrant to America, arriving in 1896 and within a few years assuming the role of professor of systematic theology at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids, Michigan. There had been a large influx of Dutch immigrants to America between roughly 1850-1900 (successive waves of immigrants would arrive in the following decades as well), many of whom came out of Reformed churches in the Netherlands. New immigrants found establishing themselves in America to be a challenge—not only did many of the battles that divided the Reformed churches back in the motherland carry over to America, but the Dutch were forced to wage an entirely different (and formidable) battle against the encroaches of American culture into their churches and their lives.
James Bratt writes of this struggle in his excellent book, Dutch Calvinism in Modern America: A History of a Conservative Subculture, highlighting Ten Hoor's concerns in particular regarding the gradual Americanization of both the Dutch immigrants and the Reformed churches they established. It would have been difficult to anticipate the challenges they would face in the new world, and soon the Dutch found themselves in a situation which B.K. Kuiper, a contemporary of Ten Hoor, describes as follows:
The overwhelmingly great majority of our fellow-citizens are indifferent or in part even antagonistic to these principles [of the Reformed]. Almost all educational institutions from the highest to the lowest; almost the entire press, daily newspapers as well as periodicals, not only the secular but the religious as well; our courts, our legislatures, organized politics and social life, the pulpits themselves; and therefore almost all public opinion stands arrayed in battle-order against the small circle that yet holds too and nail to the Reformed world-and-life conception.
Like many immigrants in this period, the Dutch had looked to America as a sort of promised land and had been told that there they would find a genuinely Christian land, one that had been spared the athiestic and revolutionary turmoil that had shaped Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries. What they found upon arrival, however, was a Christianity that was shallow, individualistic, and concerned with consequence rather than principle.
Ten Hoor, with many other Reformed leaders, were not optimistic about the new context they found themselves in nor the influence this new culture would have on the Reformed churches. Ten Hoor noted the salient features of American Christianity:
doctrinal indifference, passion for 'programs,' impulsive innovation. Evangelicals replaced catechism with Sunday School, Bible study with prayer meetings, doctrinal sermons with topical discourses. Having sacrificed the intellectual in Christianity, they had to resort to the emotions of the ignorant—revivals—or to the tastes of the respectable—'sound organization' pleasing the businessman and 'social service' pleasing his wife. In each case they imitated 'the world,' whether or mass entertainment, of big business with its mergers and boards, or of charities with their assorted benevolences.
In his estimation, it all boiled down to subjectivity and "I-sovereignty." Americans had a remarkable disdain for authority, unless it was their own. For Ten Hoor it seemed that especially confessional authority, but even Scriptural authority, played a secondary role to the whims of the individual. The end goal in American Christianity was not God's glory, but human happiness, reflected in what Ten Hoor observed to be the basic question that animated the American spirit—"Does it pay?"
For Ten Hoor and the rest of the Dutch Reformed in America, then, the challenge was to resist the influence of American culture on Reformed spirituality and theology. How to resist that challenge, however, was a source of constant and heated debate.
This is interesting to me for two reasons. First, being the grandson of Dutch immigrants on both sides of my family, the story of the Dutch Reformed immigrants in North America is my own story. Second, having now spent several months studying the history of Christianity in America, I find Ten Hoor to be very perceptive in his assessment of American Christianity. Growing up, I often thought that the struggle of the Dutch to preserve a culture and tradition was borne out of nothing more than a lingering superiority complex (those of you who have had the misfortune of hearing a Dutchman proclaim, "If you ain't Dutch, you ain't much!" will undoubtedly feel the same).I have come to realize and appreciate, however, that this struggle goes far deeper than just culture and tradition.
In the end, this was the struggle to preserve a holistic worldview that confessed the lordship of Christ over all. Granted, no unified answer ever came from the Dutch on how to deal with the challenge of American Christianity—some content to withdraw into secluded enclaves that shut the world out entirely, some taking up in earnest the cause of Abraham Kuyper and the neocalvinists to transform culture, and many in between—but there was broad consensus on the problems and concerted efforts among the different parties to address them. Recognizing that to be a Christian meant not only living as a Christian, but also thinking as one, the Dutch were often known for their intellect and wisdom in cultivating both the mind and the heart (the Christian school movement is one such example of these efforts).
The Dutch were well aware that it was a great struggle to be a Christian in this new land. Because Ten Hoor's apt description of American Christianity remains largely true for today, there is much to glean from the insights of the Dutch and their collective struggle to live in a way that acknowledged the sovereignty of God over every part of life. Be sure to read Bratt's book for a much more detailed look at the Dutch experience in America.
