America’s high crime rate is the consequence of single-parent families in the black “ghettos” of our inner cities, we are told. And this in turn is the result of the increased “femininization” of American society. Really? Let’s take another look.

          To begin with, African-Americans comprise a bare 12% of the population of this country. Whatever flaws there may be in America – and there are obvious flaws – they cannot be traced solely or even primarily to single-parent families among African-Americans. Nor can they be traced primarily to an alleged femininization of society exemplified in black “ghettos.” Surely the remaining 88% of the population, mostly white, bears equal or greater responsibility for the femininization. And as I mentioned yesterday, that’s not necessarily bad.

          Two-parent families are obviously important. However, the divorce rate in white America, even in the Bible Belt, hovers around 50%, which is roughly the same percentage as single-parent families among African-Americans. So two-parent white families are clearly not the solution to America’s problems. And we must not overlook the fact that half of America’s black families boast two parents, dedicated and hard working. I know scores of such families in Paterson, New Jersey.

          Some level of femininization among African-Americans is a reality, but it is a totally different phenomenon than the alleged femininization of white America. Furthermore, it is no recent phenomenon. It began with America’s founding fathers, who determined that black men counted as only three-fifths of a vote, and when enslaved black men were routinely separated from their spouses and children in order to ensure the white community’s domination of the labor force.

          Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, black men were routinely discriminated against by the majority white landowners in the south and the northern employers who preferred to hire the millions of new white immigrants from Europe. And in more recent years – say since World War II – it is common knowledge that black women find employment much easier and better paying than black men.

          America still has a racial bias and it is mostly directed against black men. As a consequence, strong African-American women by necessity have assumed responsibility for their families. By and large they have done so magnificently. The number of black delinquent youths in America remains a small percentage of our total population, even though they comprise a large percentage of the prison population.

          So the solution to the single-parent black family challenge does not lay in mere moralizing – black men should marry and be good fathers – but in leveling the economic playing field so that African-American men can, with dignity and hope, confidently enter into the marriage commitment. Leveling that playing field is largely the responsibility of the white majority in America, however, for the majority not only makes the rules, but  umpires the game.           

    



          A friend has pointed me to a rather long article by Heather MacDonald (photo) entitled “Chicago’s Real Crime Story.” I finally got around to reading in yesterday and feel I ought to comment on it, on her, and on the issues she raises in her article.

          Her main point seems to be that crime rates in Chicago have not been lowered significantly by the federally funded flock of social workers, therapists, and community organizers that flood the city. She is particularly critical of the methods of the famed community organizer, Saul Alinsky, one of the young Barack Obama’s mentors. The root of criminal activity in Chicago, she insists, can be traced to the single-family parenting in black neighborhoods on the Southside, caused in turn by the absence of black fathers. Other critics have associated the latter with the increasing femininization of American society.

          Like many academic commentators, as far back as Daniel Moynihan, MacDonald has a paucity of personal inner city experience. She is a researcher at the conservative Manhattan Institute in New York City, working from an armchair with phone and computer at hand (not unlike myself in retirement). So it is not surprising that, after her diagnosis of the problem (questionable itself) she has no practical solution to offer. More two-parent black families are needed, she says, but suggests no way to achieve such a worthy goal. Since MacDonald is an atheist, her non-solution has no religious component.

          By contrast to MacDonald, I have had a quarter-century of first hand experience (following 30 years of cross-cultural life overseas) in one of America’s inner cities, and I have a different analysis of both the problem and the solution. See tomorrow’s blog.                        

          This is a blog, not a full-fledged essay. So let me cut straight to the chase. I think my social critic friend Jack has it backwards. If we can't keep them perfectly balanced, the femininist ethos should be primary and the masculinist ethos secondary in our time, in my opinion.
          We have reached a point in human evolution where Western societies, at least, are highly developed materially, and the masculinist ethos of domination of nature, elimination of external threats, provision of food and security – all of which I associate with a Darwinian pattern of survival of the fittest, originating at the hunter-gathering stage of human history – are well in hand. America no longer needs to prioritize the masculinist ethos as the primary shaper of culture. 
          (Parenthetically, I note that in Genesis 1:26 domination [stewardship?] of nature, presumably part of the masculine ethos, is actually ceded to "humans," both male and female.)  
          To return to my argument, I suggest that with basic food and security issues (those at the foundation of the Maslow pyramid) secured in materially developed nations such as America, the femininist ethos of maintenance of family and community, softening of the home environment,and emphasis on the proper ‘processes’ of life in law and relationships might reasonably receive greater attention. No longer need they be considered secondary. In fact, they are  more important to human welfare and quality of life in American culture than ever before.
          While some may perceive as “evil” the proliferation of social workers, therapists, and community organizers, seeing them as the direct consequence of femininization, surely no one can deny that equal or worse evils have long been  associated with the masculine ethos. Thus raising the profile of the feminist ethos values is most welcome. 
          Both the masculinist and femininist ethos[es? -- what is the plural of ethos?] are necessary, my friend acknowledges, but insists that one must be primary and the other secondary, and fears the baleful effects of femininization on our society and in our churces. I question this, but if I have to choose, in this age of unparalleled violence, I would choose an extra dose of femininnization. (Note that the feminist "softening of the home environment" is necessary precisely because of the prevailing masculine ethos.)
          Finally, critics of the femininization of society invariably point to America’s inner cities. I may or may not respond to this in tomorrow’s blog.

            


          My Facebook friend, Jack, a scholarly outdoorsman who lives in the state of Washington, is troubled about the increasing “femininization” of American society. He began blogging about this in the aftermath of the recent Super Bowl, where a variety of commercial ads presented men in unflattering or compromised positions. But he sees further evidence of it in virtually every area of American life.

          As a consequence of this femininization of life, he says, America is becoming a “wasteland, an androgynous society where social workers, therapists, and community organizers proliferate.” This deterioration, as he sees it, is especially evident in America’s inner cities, where fatherless black families are the norm.

          What does Jack mean by femininization and its counterpart, masculinization? He associates “the masculine ethos” with “the primary impulses of life” – domination of nature, elimination of external threats, provision of food and security, and providing role models for younger males.

          By contrast, he identifies femininization with the secondary impulses of life – maintenance of family and community, softening of the home environment, emphasis on the proper ‘processes’ of life in law and relationships.

          Each of us views life through specific lenses acquired from our genetic and family heritage, our education and work, and our life experiences. So this is Jack’s view and I respect it; he is a serious, if pessimistic, brother. But my life experience and background are much different. I’ll share my own views on this matter tomorrow.         

          We have a busy weekend ahead of us:St. Valentine's Day, the new Chinese year of the Tiger, the Winter Olympics, a major battle in Afghanistan. Of all these, I am most interested in the Olympics. In modern times there is no other event that brings all the diverse peoples of the world -- God loves divesity -- together in peaceful, spirited competition. The only other regular world gathering that can compare is the United Nations general assembly, but there's really no comparison.
          The major theme of the Christian gospel is reconciliation -- uniting people with God, with their own inner selves, with the near and far neighbors, and with nature. The Olympic Games can't do all of this, to be sure, but it does a great job of uniting people with each other and with nature. And in the process some will conquer their inner demons and some may even draw closer to God.
          Some of my friends shrink from the vision of one world. They fear a possible dictatorship, an oppressive regime on the order of Orwell's 1984. Some believe the Antichrist is part and parcel of any global unity. But as a Chrisgtian I look forward to the biblical vision of a New Jerusalem where all the peoples of the world will live together in peace and fruitful productivity. That reality may be a long time coming, but in the meantime, as I see it, the Spirit of God works ceasely in the world toward this end. And the Olympics are a kind of first-fruits, a promise of what can be.

          Both Georgia and I have strong connections with Nigeria – I visited Nigeria frequently during my years with the World Evangelical Alliance, and one of Georgia's daughters is married to a Nigerian, so Georgia has spent time in Nigeria as well. So let me tell you something about the country.          
          Nigeria is the largest nation in Africa, population-wise, with 150 million people, roughly twice the population of the second-largest, Egypt. It is destined, no doubt, to become the most important nation in Africa. Meanwhile, since its independence from Britain in 1960, it has had continuous growing-problems.
          Right now its president, Umara Yar’Adua, is incommunicado in Saudi Arabia, being treated for serious health issues and may even be dead. Consequently parliament this week decided to install Goodluck Jonathan (photo) as acting president. This action may not be constitutional.

          Nigeria is big – more than twice the size of California. It’s not only large, but complex. It has two great regions, north and south. Its new capital, Abuja, is located near the center of the country. The north is mainly Muslim, the south mainly Christian. Muslims comprise 50% of the total population, Christians 40%, and indigenous religions 10%.
          Over the past few years riots have broken out in Jos, Zaria and other cities of the north between Muslim and Christians. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, have been killed.

          Amazingly, half of the population of Nigeria is younger than 19 years. And nearly half, surprisingly, is urban. Nigeria has 36 states and one territory. It has 250 different ethnic groups, but the major ones are the Hausa and the Fulani (Muslim) in the north, and the Yoruba and Ibo (Christian) in the south.
          There are major oil resources in the southeast of the country. This propels its wealth and is a constant source of tension within Nigeria, for the oil-producing region does not believe the central government shares the wealth equitably.

Indira Gandhi (left) and Sirimavo Bandaranaike

           
            Do you know that more women have reached the pinnacle of power in Asia in recent years than in any other part of the world?
          Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka became the world’s first female elected head of state in 1960 (see photo). Sri Lanka is a predominantly Buddhist country. So it is surprising that, as the German Science Foundation reports, women lead, or have led, government or opposition groups in all predominantly Islamic countries in the region – Afghanistan and Brunei being the only exceptions.

          The United States, of course, still awaits its first female president. Would a woman president make a difference in the U.S.? Many think so, citing the fact that women have different perspectives from men on a number of issues, not least in the areas of war and women’s rights. But if Asia offers any guidance we would have to conclude that the answer must be No.

          Looking at the record, you don’t see a huge difference in Asia, says Paula Newberg of Georgetown University. In Asian countries women leaders have pursued war as agressively as men. The rise of female leaders has not effected significant change in the patriarchal nature of Asian societies, for example. And. Asia’s women leaders have done little to advance the causes usually associated with women’s rights. Generally they have not governed differently than men.                   

          For 25 years Tamrat Layne (left) lived in the mountains as a guerilla fighter. In 1991 his army defeated the forces of Ethiopian dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam. Layne became Prime Minister from 1991 – 1995, but then was imprisoned on corruption charges.

          Five years into his 12-year sentence a nurse gave Layne a pocket New Testament. Perhaps out of boredom, he read it avidly and there, in solitary confinement, “Jesus found me,” he says. He wrote his wife in Kenya, telling her the story, only to find that she had become a disciple of Jesus on that very same day.

          Layne was released in 2008 after serving his full sentence. He publicly confessed his sins of violence. He received a visa to the USA where he now lives with his wife and two children. He says he hopes to return to East African to help transform society by the power of the gospel.

          (Reported by Richard Sytsma, dean of students and international student adviser at Calvin Theological Seminary, in The Banner, house organ of the Christian Reformed Church.)

          This past week Americans have been preoccupied with the Super Bowl, the Tea Party  convention, and the plight of ten missionaries arrested and incarcerated on kidnapping charges. Even CNN’s Anderson Cooper (photo), came back in the States to cover these and other stories.

          So I have to give Cooper credit for returning yesterday to Port-au-Prince to resume reporting on the terrible situation there. It seems urgent to me that attention on Haiti be sustained, for there is a long road ahead for the government and people, and they need on the support that the world, and the United States in particular, can give them. Copper is doing this.

          Three things especially cry out for out attention: medical help, the need for shelter, and the provision of food and water. As Cooper’s partner, Dr. Sanjay Gupta reports, most of the severely wounded have received emergency treatment, and many lives have been saved. But the potentially disastrous question now is – how are those who are recovering going to be taken care of? How will the hundreds of amputees get the follow up medicines and rehabilitation they need?

          Second, 500,000 or more homeless victims are still living and sleeping on the streets – hard to imagine, but true. Cooper reports that they exist in “mundane misery.” They are surviving now, but the rainy season will soon burst upon them – what then? With sanitary facilities virtually non-existent, epidemics are likely to kill thousands more in the months ahead.

          And third, despite the massive relief efforts – better coordinated now than in the early weeks – hundreds of thousands are eating but one meal a day, and some are going without food and water for two or three days at a stretch. All these people need our continued prayers and all the relief agencies need our steady donations. If you have been giving, don’t let up now.  

          Friends who are aware of my globe-trotting years sometimes ask me where I would most like to live. Usually I say Malaysia because of its ethnic/religious variety, its combination of sea and mountains, and its climate. But sometimes I reply Sri Lanka, for it has a similar combination of climate, geography and ethnic/religious mix.          
          Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) is a pearl-shaped island just off the coast of southern India. It's population is overwhelmingly Sinhalese and Buddhist. Up at the northern tip of the island, however, is a fairly large population of Tamil-speaking people, Hindu of course, who, pressed by overpopulation, migrated to Sri Lanka generations ago from India. 
          Ever since Sri Lanka won its independence from Britain, these Tamils have been agitating for a measure of autonomy and self-rule. The Sri Lankan government refused and a civil war ensued. It lasted 26 years before a government assault last May defeated the Tamil Tigers decisively. Since then, as Lydia Polgreen reports in the New York Times, the Tigers' main city, Jaffna, remains in ruins; the buildings of the University of Jaffna, formerly one of Asia's best, are crumbling, and at least 100,000 Tamils live miserably in refugee camps (see photo above). 
          A political settlement to what is known as "the Tamil problem" is as elusive as ever. The Tamil population is not in a position to make demands, and the ruling powers are in no mood to grant favors. I would think that an arrangement such as exists between French- and English-speaking peoples in Canada would seem to be ideal, but as of now is most unlikely.          
         

            Most Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the name Nat Turner, a slave who led a short-lived but violent uprising against slave owners here in Virginia in the 19th century. Few Americans are familiar with John Chilembe, whose story has intriguing parallels.
          John Chilembe was a native of Malawi, the East African state known as Nyasaland during colonial days. I have no photo of Chilembe, although his image appears on Malawi currency. Chilembe was befriended by a Baptist missionary in Malawi who brought him to the U.S. to help in a fundraising effort. This was toward the end of the 19th century. While in the U.S. the president of Virginia Seminary here in Lynchburg (which is why I am writing this blog), offered him a scholarship. In due time Chilembe was ordained a Baptist minister and returned to his homeland.
          There he was appalled by the horrific way slaves in his congregation suffered at the hands of their colonial masters. After publicly protesting for years, and finally despairing of any change of heart, Chilembe called for rebellion and led a small armed uprising, during the course of which he, like Nat Turner, was killed. This was in 1915. When Malawi finally achieved its independence in 1964, John Chilembe Day became a national holiday. It is celebrated annually in January, just a few days before Martin Luther King, Jr. Day here in the United States.

Tombs of Hussein and Ali

            At least 40 people were killed yesterday by a bombing in Karbala, Iraq. The perpetrators were Sunni Muslims; the victims Shi’ite Muslims. Sunni means adherent of the [true] tradition; Shi’a is a contraction meaning followers of Ali, son of Hussein (see next paragraph). The history behind the pilgrimage is not well known to Westerners.

          Briefly: a generation after the death of Muhammad there was an ongoing leadership struggle within the Muslim community. At Karbala in the year 61 on the Muslim calendar (680 A.D. on the Gregorian) Muhammad’s grandson Husayn, who claimed to be ruler of the Muslim community, was killed in battle by a small army led by the secular governor of Syria, who was making the same claim. Hussein had an infant son, Ali, who survived the battle. This was the beginning of the great split between the Shi’ite and Sunni parties in Islam. It continues to this day.

          Hussein’s tomb, and that of his half brother, Abbas (see the two edifices in the photo above) are revered among Shi’ites, hence the annual pilgrimage and the source of the city’s wealth. Many older people come to Karbala to await death, since the tomb sites are considered one of the gates to Paradise.

          The annual National Prayer Breakfast gathered yesterday amidst unusual rancor: widely published accusations that The Fellowship (also known as The Family), the organizer of the Breakfast, has ties to proposed legislation in Uganda calling for the imprisonment and execution of homosexuals. Understandably, gay and lesbian rights groups organized alternative prayer breakfasts and asked President Obama to stay away from the Breakfast. I have some personal background on this story which may be of interest to readers of this Blog.
          The present leader of The Fellowship, which in its earliest days was known as ICL (International Christian Leadership), is Doug Coe (photo), like myself 80 years old now. We have been friends for 55 years. The actual founder of ICL was Abraham Vereide, a Norwegian immigrant to America who was both an exemplary Christian and a patriot. I went to Washington, DC in 1956 to serve as his assistant and to help organize the very first Breakfast, attended by President Eisenhower..         
          When Vereide died, Dick Halverson (who later became chaplain to the U. S. Senate) took over, and when Halverson, after only a few years with ICL, returned to his pastoral ministry, Doug Coe emerged as the éminence griese, renamng the organization and putting his unique stamp on it. More recently the group has become known as The Family (with unfortunate mafia connotations) by virtue of a book by that title written by Jeff Sharlet.         
          Doug, as I have known him, is a charismatic, loving fellow. Though friends, we never got along very well, for I’m a type-A personality and Doug is the opposite: ambitious, but very laid back, intent not on achieving any specific objective, but on building relationships between Christians and non-Christians. He does not have an anti-gay bone in his body. His only vice is his determination to evangelize quietly behind the scenes – which inevitably causes some to believe that The Family must be engaged in sinister plots. (There are people today who are too quick to believe anything.)        
          I believe Doug when he says that he opposes the legislation introduced in Uganda by David Bahati, a member of the Family, and that about 30 members of The Family, all active in Africa, have conveyed their dismay. Whatever flaws The Family may have, plotting the execution of gay people in Uganda is not one of them.          

          The First Amendment obviously is basic to the American way of life. And it is indeed difficult – some say impossible – to prioritize the consequentialist and libertarian ways of interpreting it. “Christian” thinking doesn’t help a whole lot, in my judgment. “For freedom Christ has made us free,” St. Paul says, so chalk one up for the libertarian view. But “you reap what you sow,” he says in another place, so the consequentialists have a case.

          Overall, I think the consequentialists have the better case. Consequences do matter. The famed Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. opined that "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater.” And he was right.

          But in the Supreme Court decision we are discussing now, the consequences work both ways. The door to corruption in the political arena is thrown wide open. At the same time, as my friend Lewis points out, one consequence of dissenting from the Court’s majority opinion is that the right of small associations of neighbors to make donations to a politician supporting their efforts would also be banned. Do we want to squelch the little voices along with the big ones?

          The purposes of the First Amendment include, inter alia, facilitating the search for truth, keeping open the free flow of ideas, encouraging dissent, and providing the materials necessary for informed choice. In my opinion, these purposes can be distorted and even frustrated by certain forms of free speech fueled by exorbitant amounts of money in the treasuries of big businesses and big unions. So I finally come down on the side of Justice Stevens and the Court’s minority opinions.         

            From all over the world people emigrate to the U.S.A. because they expect to have a better life here. Often that better life is envisioned in material terms, but for many it includes the deeper non-material idea of freedom, which embraces not only freedom from want but also freedom from fear and freedom of religion and freedom of speech. “In America you can say whatever you like whenever and wherever you like, and the government cannot hinder you. The Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees this.”

          So Supreme Court decisions pertaining to the First Amendment come up regularly on the Court’s agenda, as happened about two weeks ago. Reversing a previous decision, the Court invalidated a statue the prohibited corporations and labor unions from using general treasury funds to either support or defeat a political candidate in the month leading up to an election. Corporations and unions must not be hindered in any way from exercising free speech, the Court decided (speech in the form of advertising being what the money is spent on in the particular case the Court was considereing).

          But the vote was tight, decided by a narrow 5 5o 4 majority. And it outraged a lot of folks, including the President of the United States, who criticized it in his State of the Union Address. With this background in mind, tomorrow’s blog will discuss the pros and cons of the Court's decision, and in Friday’s blog I will share my own point of view.
         

          I can't get used to the hypocrisy of politicians. At this very moment President Obama is being roundly criticized for  his expenditures, and members of the opposition are on every talk show declaiming the need to reduce them. But when the President's office announced yesterday that he was cancelling the back-to-the-moon Constellation program -- a program that is already years behind schedule and replete with cost overruns -- Senator Shelby, Republican from Alabama, and Representative Olson, Republican from Texas, immediately raised panicked voices of protest. It would seem that all politicians want budget cuts -- but "not in my backyard."
          Hypocrisy aside, it's worthwhile to think about space programs from a theological perspective. According to Genesis chapter 2, God in his wisdom, or in one of his humorous moods -- it's hard to know which -- invited the human race to colabor with him in the stewardship of the universe, beginning with earth and the naming of the animals. Very gradually over millennia humans have progressively worked on this project. With the dawn of the scientific era a few hundred years ago, giant leaps forward occurred, perhaps the most dramatic of which was the American landing on the moon several times during the 1970s. 
          But this whole project of colaboring with God is an incremental endeavor, and the tendency of the part of humankind is to overreach. The ancient story of the Tower of Babel conveys this. The huiman race is in its evolutionary infancy and we tend to get ahead of God. Consequently we have not been able to get back to the moon for 30 years. And now it looks to be indefinitely postponed. Why? It's just too expensive, and there are just so many more earth-bound "goodies" we want to spend our money on: wars and national security being the most expensive, followed closely by health care costs, social security, and renewable energy.
          Senator Shelby says the President's proposal "begins the death march for the future of U. S. human space flight." Could be. Americans ought not to worry about it. God has his own timetable. Humans -- not necessarily Americans -- will eventually explore not only on the moon but Mars and planets in other galaxies. Who can predict what work needs to be done there? Quite possibly it will require moral qualities Homo sapiens has not yet acquired. Christians believe that over the long run human beings united with Christ and led by the Spirit will in due course acquire the necessary attributes.
      

          For the past century America has been uterly  dependent on oil, primarily from the Arab world. Global politics makes American access to oil always precarious. America invades countries and fights wars to guarantee access to oil and its by-products. Although the demand for oil is inexhaustible, oil itself is not a renewable resource. Hence the urgent need to discover and exploit alternative renewable sources of power.        
          Writing in the New York Times, Keith Bradsher reports that last year China became the world’s largest maker of wind turbines – ahead of the U. S., Denmark, Germany and Spain – and is prepared to expand every year going forward. China also has leapfrogged the West in the last two years to become the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. China is pushing hard to build nuclear reactors as well.         
          What this implies is that the West may soon trade its dependence on oil from OPEC, the oil consortium, to reliance on wind turbines, solar panels, and other power equipment from China. K. K. Chan, CEO of  a private equity fund in Beijing that focuses on renewable energy, says, “Most of the energy equipment [of the future] will carry a brass plate, ‘Made in China.’”         
          Employment in renewable energy industries in China has reached more than a million and is climbing at a rate of 100,000 per year. Total power generation in China is on track to surpass the U.S. just two years from now (though most of the added capacity will still be in coal, also a nonrenewable resource). China recently announced the creation of a National Energy Commission headed by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao himself.         
          President Obama appears to have awakened to the crisis. In his State of the Union speech last week he sounded the alarm and urged Congress to take action. But it is uncertain that Congress will respond in a timely fashion. It won’t happen in my lifetime, but one can foresee the possibility of America becoming a second-class world power by the end of this century. Too bad for America, perhaps, but not necessarily bad for the rest of the world.