Our sixteenth wedding anniversary

Cathy and I celebrate our sixteenth wedding anniversary today. How long is sixteen years?

Sixteen years is longer than:

- Alexander the Great was a king

- the regency period of English history (the historical context for my wife's favorite novels)

- the Beatles were together

- the marriages of some friends who are very good people

- the marriage of Michael Jordan (okay, he made 17 years--but next year I will have done something better than him)

Sixteen years is not long enough for:

- my friends to stop telling me how lucky I am that Cathy married me

- me to stop agreeing with them

- her to throw away all her books with titles like "Smart Women and Foolish Choices" ;-)

- me to forget the tough years or to stop being thankful for God's grace in carrying us through them

- me not to smile when I roll over in the morning and see her

- us to stop holding hands whenever we drive somewhere

- me not to want a seventeenth year

Happy anniversary

Gallows humor

What better way to celebrate the holidays than gallows humor? In my last post, I used gallows humor in discussing my sons' accident. Chris Uggen referred to it when talking about his son's wrestling match.

Two questions:

1) Why do we do it?

2) What's your best gallows-humor story?

I'll give you my favorite... About a month ago I spoke with a young man who is a member of a NCAA hockey team who told me this story. During practice, one player skated over the hand of another player, cutting through the glove and severing the finger so that it was hanging downward from just a fold of skin. The trainer came over, looked at the injured player's dangling finger, and pronounced that it was just a sprain and that he would tape it up so that the player should be able to finish practice. (Of course the player was rushed to the hospital).

(I suppose a third question would regard the moral deficiencies of those who laugh hard at gallows humor, but to protect the guilty, I'll not ask it.)

A painful example of spurious correlation

Part of teaching is keeping an eye out for good illustrations. I'm teach methods, and this Christmas season has given me a great example of spurious correlation (at least I hope that it is spurious).

I started cooking dinner on Tuesday night at about 5:30. Before the meal was done, not one, not two, but three family members were in the emergency room!

Correlation? Absolutely--my cooking is highly correlated with rushing people to the hospital.

Temporal ordering? Yes--cooking came before hospital.

Plausible mechanism? Not sure. I didn't think I was *that* bad of a cook, but I could be wrong.

Here's what happened: Grandpa had chest/back pains (that ended up being a severely pulled muscle). My two sons had a trampoline accident. One lost half his front tooth, the other got a 13-stitch gash in his forehead. (Why they were jumping on the trampoline, in the dark, in the middle of winter is another story--being the sensitive father that I am, I now call them "chip" and "stitch").

This all happened in a 15-minute span, and we spent boxing day evening down as a family at the emergency room.

Everyone should heal up okay, but I warn you, I'm cooking again tonight.

How to present statistics with irony

Good statistical presentation makes a point clearly, accurately, and sometimes even memorably. Here's a story from The Onion that illustrates all of these.

Failed Attempt At Hyperbole Yields Dead-On Statistic
December 13, 2006 Issue 42•50

TOANO, VA—In an unsuccessful attempt Wednesday to illustrate a point through exaggeration, high-school senior Abby Hollard accurately informed classmates that someone "probably dies from AIDS every 10 seconds," the exact figure reported by the Joint United Nations Program on AIDS in 2006. "I bet, like, 40 million people have AIDS," said Hollard, failing again to embellish on the international agency's findings. "It's practically a pandemic." UN representatives said Hollard showed an impressive understanding of the crisis, although her estimate of the amount the U.S. spends combating the disease was off by about $99 billion.

Thanks to Carson

A sociology blog aggregator

In keeping with my rule of thirds, here are the three things I want for the new year: World peace, an end to global warming, and a sociology blog aggregator.

Blogs seem like they’ll soon be a big deal in sociology (analyzing everyday life and all that). (See Jeremy Freese's interview about them). So, it’s only a matter of time before someone has an aggregating site—that takes feeds from various sociologist’s blogs.

Sometimes these edit the feeds, producing a "greatest hits" of the day/week. E.g., http://www.mondaymorninginsight.com/index.php?

Sometimes they just take whatever is posted by their authors.

Something like this seems like good, easy PR for a sociology department. Whoever sets up the first one will probably be the best known one, and it would bring a lot of traffic to the website + name recognition. (Could also have department advertising for grad students/ jobs/ etc...).

Anyone interested in doing this?

Anyone, anyone

Christmas tidbits

Okay, I admit to having a rather bah-humbug attitude toward Christmas, but compared to Susette Kelo, I'm Santa Claus. She was a homeowner involved in a property rights dispute here in Connecticut. This year, she sent out a Christmas card, showing her house, to various government officials with the following inscription:

"Your houses, your homes, your family, your friends. May they live in misery that never ends. I curse you all. May you rot in hell. To each of you I send this spell."

Ouch...

Funniest moment of the holidays: At Christmas eve service, my six-year old-son Floyd decided he was too warm, so he rolled his pant legs into shorts, his sleeves into short sleeves, and his shirt up into like an ab-shirt. (To get the full effect, imagine him also in dark socks and dress shoes). I didn't notice till we went to communion, and I heard people chuckling).

Apparently, the way to be smart is to be tall and salty.

A video that exemplifies one of my core values in parenting.

Sociological rules of Christmas gift giving II

Here are the remaining rules for gift giving. Make sure not to violate them!

5) Money is an appropriate gift from senior to junior family members, but an inappropriate gift from junior to senior kin, regardless of the relative affluence of the the parties.

6) Family gatherings at which gifts are distributed include a "traditional Christmas dinner."

7) The Gift Selection Rules. A Christmas gift should :
a) demonstrate the giver's familiarity with the receiver's preferences
b) surprise the receiver, either by expressing more affection--measured by the aesthetic or practical value of the gift--than the receiver might reasonably anticipate or more knowledge than the giver might reasonably be expected to have
c) be scaled in economic value to the emotional value of the relationship

8) The Scaling Rules. In terms of the value of gifts:
a) A spousal relationship should be more valuable than any other for both husband and wife, but the husband may set a higher value on it than the wife.
b) The parent-child relationship should be less valuable than a spousal relationship but more valuable than any other relationship. The parent may set a higher value on it than the child does.
c) The spouse of a married close relative should be valued as much as the linking relative
d) Parents with several children should value them equally

9) The Reciprocity Rule. Participants in this gift system should give at least one Christmas gift every year to their mothers, fathers, sons, daughters; to the current spouses of these persons; and to their own spouses.

There you go, how did you do?

Citation: The American Journal of Sociology, 89(6), May 1984.

Sociological rules of Christmas gift giving

Sociologists will an analyze anything people do, no matter how taken-for-granted the activity. ( I suppose that's why I like it so much--always trying to look at things a new way). For the season, here is an except about from the famous "Middletown" study. Theodore Caplow, and a team of researchers, interviewed s in Muncie, Indiana (1979) about gift giving, and they came up with eight unwritten rules for gift giving.
Here are the first four:

1) The Tree Rule. Married couples with children of any age should put up Christmas trees in their home. Unmarried persons with no living children should not put up Christmas trees. Unmarried parents (widowed, divorced or adoptive) may put up trees but are not required to do so.

2) The Wrapping Rule. Christmas gifts must be wrapped before they are presented.

3) The Decoration Rule. Any room where Christmas gifts are distributed should be decorated by affixing Christmas emblems to the walls, the ceiling, or the furniture.

4) The Gathering Rule. Christmas gifts should be distributed at gatherings where every person gives and receives gifts.

Do you think that these still hold today? Are there other rules you can think of?

Christmas time by Larry Norman

It's a sad fact of life that song lyrics are only meaningful if you know the tune. (This is never learned until *after* the teenage years). Still, here's my favorite Christmas song. Sing along!

CHRISTMAS TIME - Larry Norman

Santa Claus is coming and the kids are getting greedy

They know what's in the stores ´cause they seen it on the TV

You go into the forest and you cut down all the trees

I know you got a power saw, but who plants the seeds

I gotta buy a present, can´t remember who it´s for

I´ll see you in a hour when I get back from the store

It used to be the birthday of The Man who saved our necks

Now it stands for Santa Claus, they spell it with an "X"!

It´s Christmas time...

Global rich list

If you only do one thing this Christmas season, buy me a present. (E-mail me if you need ideas).

But... if you do a second thing, go to this website: globalrichlist.com. You type in your income, and in seconds it gives you your wealth relative to the rest of the world.

Sweet mother of pearl, I'M RICH!

Our considerable material privilege, and the injustice that it perhaps implies, might be a good thing to think about this and any season.

(Thanks Ben)

Statistics about christian divorce rates

(This summarizes a series on Christian divorce rates that starts here)

Many people believe that Christian marriages end in divorce just as often as non-Christian, but it turns out, using the best data available, that this is not true.

To illustrate, here are the divorce rates among ever-married respondents in the General Social Survey (GSS, 2000-2004)—one of the best known sources of sociological data. “Frequent” is attending church about once a week or more.

58%, non-frequent Black Protestants
54%, non-frequent Evangelicals
51%, no religion (e.g., atheists & agnostics)
48%, ALL NON-CHRISTIANS
48%, non-frequent, other religions
47%, frequent Black Protestants
42%, non-frequent, mainline Protestants
41%, ALL CHRISTIANS
41%, non-frequent Catholics
39%, Jews
38%, frequent other religions
34%, frequent Evangelicals
32%, ALL FREQUENT CHRISTIANS
32%, frequent mainline Protestants
23%, frequent Catholics

I also analyzed data from previous years of the GSS and from five other national surveys, and they showed the same pattern: Christians, especially those who frequently attend church, have relatively low divorce rates.

This raises an interesting question: Why do so many people believe otherwise? It appears to stem from the work of George Barna. In well-publicized studies, he has compared divorce rates of “born again” Christians against non-Christians, and he finds little difference. Here’s the catch: his type of analysis labels as “non-Christian” many mainline Protestants, such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Episcopalians, and most Catholics. As such, he is comparing Christians against Christians. Ron Sider has publicized Barna’s statistics in his award winning Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience.

Some qualifications: The real question here is whether being Christian lessens divorce, and while the data above suggest “yes,” they can be interpreted otherwise. Perhaps people who get divorced also stop attending church. Perhaps those who attend church are also those who would stay married anyway. In addition, members of other religions also have low divorce rates. This should not be surprising since these other religions, such as Judaism, Mormonism, and Christian Science, have similar moral teachings about divorce.

What does this mean for Christians, especially pastors and other Christian leaders? The message is good news: Church efforts to keep marriages together appear to be effective. Also, perhaps the best thing for marriages is frequent church attendance.

Statistics and the validity of Christianity

(Post 14 of a 14-part series on Christian divorce rates)

How much, if at all, can statistics tell us about the validity of Christianity? I have some ideas, but I would be interested in hearing your thoughts.

My own answer to this depends on what is meant by the question.

Christianity rests on a set of philosophical beliefs such as God sending his only Son into the world to give us eternal life. If, then, the question above refers to testing if these beliefs are “true,” then the answer would “no”--statistics can not test the central tenets of our faith; in fact, I can’t even think of how one would begin to do so? Maybe in our prayers ask God to fill out Likert scales?

If instead the question above refers to evaluating the behaviors and characteristics of the Church and its members, then the answer would be mostly yes because much of what we would expect from the church can be translated into empirical propositions. This is the logic of Ron Sider’s book, The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience,” and while in previous posts I suggest that he got his numbers wrong, I do not quibble with the use fo numbers to evaluate the Church. In fact, I applaud it (just want it done correctly).

I would offer one significant caveat: Evaluating Christian distinctness encompasses complex social processes such that simple statistics, while informative, are far from definitive. To illustrate, let’s take the case of divorce rates. In this series I have presented various data that make a strong case that Christians, especially those who frequently attend church have relatively low divorce rates. Does this mean that the Church is effective in promoting marital values into its members? Maybe, but maybe not. Here are some of the complexities involved in answering this question:

Reverse causation. It could be that other causal processes produce this correlation. Maybe Christians leave the church when they get divorced.

Spurious correlation. It could be a spurious finding, such that conventional people both become Christians and stay married.

Methodological artifact. It could be a methodological artifact, such that Christians answer surveys differently—wanting to present themselves in a positive light. (Thanks Ashley).

Moral selection. Perhaps Christianity naturally attracts more moral people, though who readily agree with its principles, so observed differences between Christians and others are not attributable to the effect of Christianity.

Immoral selection. Conversely, perhaps Christianity attracts less moral people, those most in need of the grace and forgiveness offered in Christianity. If so, then any observed difference would actually understate the effect of Christianity. (Thanks Corey & Michael).

Wrong question. It could be that this statistic asks the wrong questions. Maybe Christians stay in marriages, but they are bad marriages. So, maybe the question should be rates of “good” marriages rather than “any” marriages. (Thanks Corey again.)

Social mechanisms of faith. It could be that Christians have low rates but so do members of other religions, so this does not speak to the uniqueness of Christianity. As a counterargument to this last point, though, many of the “other” religions in the U.S. (such as Judaism, Mormonism, Christian Science) have similar moral beliefs as Christianity.

Furthermore, what if the Holy Spirit, in its literally infinite wisdom, set up a primarily social mechanism to promote marriage in the church, say teaching and social support. If this same social mechanism is replicated elsewhere, say in other religions or in other settings, such as counseling, and it proves to be effective, does that in anyway invalidate the work of the Spirit? Though I certainly believe, and have experienced, the supernatural, trans-rational work of God, not all things in our faith have to be such. Put differently, knowing how something was done does not preclude that someone did it.

Where does this leave us? Knowing that Christians have relatively low divorce rates is meaningful information, but we should be mindful that it raises more questions than it answers.

******

This concludes this extended series on Christian divorce rates. I would like to thank the various people who commented on previous posts, for they have clarified the issues and sharpened my thinking on them. I appreciate your time and insight.

As a convenience to new readers, I will post a much-shorter summary of the series tomorrow.

Intergenerational mobility in the arts

One of the many joys of parenthood is watching your children do things that you can not.

Having spent the weekend attending my sons' various Christmas performances, I've decided that artistic ability has no genetic basis.

My oldest son "Gus" plays the violin with remarkable proficiency. To the left is a picture of him playing with his chamber strings group at a local mall as part of Christmas entertainment.

My youngest son "Floyd" loves to dance and peform in front of others. Beelow is a a picture of him in today's Nutcracker performance.

Me? As a kid I was in one dance performance--part of kindergarten graduation--and I left my partner to pick up a worm out of the grass. (It was a pretty big one, so I thought worth examining). In fourth-grade choir, they gave me a musical triangle to bang at a key point during the performance, but I was told that I should not sing otherwise, to give my total concentration to waiting for the right cue.

Week end tidbits

We're coming up to one of the most important days of the year for me: December 23rd. No, I'm not mixed up about Christmas, rather that's the first day after the winter solstice, when the days start getting longer. I actually can't notice the light difference until early January, but just knowing that days are getting longer improves my morale. (Conversely, I'm a little sad on June 23rd).

Several poor googlers have found my website by searching for information on how cockroaches reproduce. (Something I actually mentioned in an earlier post). I'm thinking of changing my masthead to "Sociology, Christianity, and Insect Reproduction". Catchy, huh?

A clear voice in blogland belongs to Jeremy Freese. His posts convey an energy and interest level that I can only aspire to. From Jeremy's website, check out this visually entrancing punk-rock video.

Another clear voice, this one very quiet, is One House, "an exploration of contemplative life." In the midst of power surfing, I hit that site and pause, reflect, and wonder. I sometimes have to wait for a new post, so I'm thinking of writing them to "hurry up and contemplate faster."

I went for a walk Wednesday in my short sleeves. This weekend, in the 50s. If global warming is wrong, I don't want to be right.

My brother John has a talent for narrative. Here is his description of our first day hang gliding. BTW, he just bought a hang glider, the Falcon 3, making me green with envy but also red with joy for him. (One of my few seasonally-appropriate comments).

A critique of Ron Sider's "Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience" II

(Post 13 of a series on Christian Divorce Rates)

In a previous post, I critiqued Ron Sider’s use of statistics in his acclaimed book, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience.” Here I would like to address the rest of the book. I appreciate Sider’s emphases of holiness and the whole gospel, but based on the divorce data presented in this series, I would restate Sider’s argument somewhat.

Instead of the “church needing to be the church,” I would say that the “church is the church” and we need to bring people to it.

Here’s what I mean. Extrapolating from his statistical presentation, Sider argues that the Christian church itself is the problem—responsible for its members’ immorality (or, at least, not preventing it). He writes “the church itself [has] lost its holiness and righteousness (p. 57).” Also, “few things are more urgent today than a recovery of the New Testament understanding and practice of the church (p. 93).”

This approach to the church overlooks a salient point: Christians who frequently attend church appear to be more moral than those who attend less frequently or those who have no religion. If in fact the church were ineffective in producing morality, as assumed in Sider’s book, then church attendance should make no difference. In fact, church attendance does appear to make a difference, and a big one at that.

As such, the true problem for Christian morality is not the ineffectiveness of the church itself, but rather many members are infrequently, and thus ineffectively, engaged in the church.

Can the church do even better regarding moral teaching and training? Of course, and we should aspire to do so, but the true take-home message from divorce statistics is that the church should redouble its efforts to bring to the center those on the periphery.

Next: Statistics and the validity of Christianity

A radical observation

Our local high school, which is right next to UConn, has a student club: “Students for International Socialization.” (Yes, this is a college town).

I drove by the high school recently in mid-afternoon, about an hour after their school got out, and there they were about six high school students lined up along the main road holding signs deploring Bush, capitalism, and environmental damage. Standing with them were a handful of adults in their fifties or so (perhaps parents) who were also holding signs.

I had been teaching about class conflict and collective behavior, so I was interested in this little demonstration, but in looking at it I started laughing. The signs and the setting spoke of seriousness and anger, but the demonstrators themselves were smiling, talking with each other, and waving to passer-byers that they knew. It had the revolutionary intensity of a PTA bake sale or maybe a Cub Scout informational table.

I suppose that even international revolutionaries have to do emotional work.

It's a small world

I love "small world" moments. Perhaps because my family moved frequently when I was growing up, but anything that makes me feel connected to a larger whole warms my heart.

Recently I was walking to my work (I live six minutes from my office--seven if there is traffic on the one street that I have to cross), and I started chatting with a guy who just moved in a block away (actually we don't have blocks, we have trees, so I should say moved in a few acres of trees away). Well, it turns out that not only was he from Fresno, California, where I lived for awhile growing up, but we attended the same church at the same time. Cool.

Another: At a party in Fresno I met a guy who went to my high school whose daughter attended the same small elementary school out here in Storrs, CT as did my son.

My favorite: A used-book buyer came to my office one afternoon, and we started chatting. I learned that he grew up in Bozeman, Montana, where my parents were from, and his doctor was my (revered) grandfather! He pointed to his leg and said that when he broke it as a kid my grandfather put it back into place. I had a hard time working the rest of the afternoon I was so teary.

A finals farewell

I have just come back from giving a final, and I'm reminded of the cycle of affect that I feel for my students each semester.

The first couple weeks of the semester they all sort of look alike, and I have no feelings toward them one way or another.

Then I get to know them (they are rather likable, and we do spend a fair amount of time talking and joking).

Well, by mid-semester, I really like like them such that when finals come, I'm rather sad to see them go. This makes for a funny emotional disconnection during the final. As they leave, I'm thinking that this is probably the last time I'll see them & I'm saying good-bye to a friend. They, on the other hand, are in a finals funk and sort of trudge off to their next final.

Good-bye.

P.S., the student who was making out with his girlfriend in class asked if he got extra-credit for bringing a date. LOL

A critique of Ron Sider's "Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience" I

(Post 12 of a series on Christian Divorce Rates)

In 2005, well-known Christian author Ron Sider wrote, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience,” in which he rebuked American evangelicals for “living just like the rest of the world.” In support of his argument, Sider presents numerous statistics about moral issues, such as divorce, that portray American evangelicals as immoral as “the world in general.”

This book has received considerable attention, winning the Christianity Today 2006 book award for Christian Living. Christianity today described Sider's book as "a strongly biblical, unflinching, thoughtful assessment of the attitudes and practices of self-identified evangelicals relative to American culture at large."

Though well-intentioned, Sider’s analysis is fundamentally flawed because:

There should be little difference between the average Christian in America and the average American because the average American is Christian.

This statement unravels Sider’s argument like pulling a long thread unravels a knitted sweater, so I will repeat it.

There should be little difference between the average Christian in America and the average American because the average American is Christian.

Data from the American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS), conducted in 2001, found that 77% of Americans define themselves as Christians, about 6% other religions, and 16% of no religion.

In light of this fact, if Sider wants to retain his hypothesis that evangelicals are “no different from the rest of the world," he would have to elaborate it in one of four ways. Each of these alternatives, however, is theologically or empirically problematic.

1) Non-evangelicals are not Christians. Sider could make the case that Catholics, main-line Protestants and other non-evangelicals are not “real” Christians. If so, we can expect evangelical, “real” Christians to be morally superior than all others. This approach is implied in the work of George Barna, and Sider draws heavily upon Barna’s data, so perhaps Sider would endorse it. For me this evangel-centric view of Christianity is both troubling and inaccurate.

2) Non-evangelicals are less moral Christians. Sider could acknowledge that Catholics and other Protestants are Christians, but they are not very good ones, so we should expect the “better” evangelicals to be more moral.

My concerns: same as #1.

3) Non-evangelicals are more moral Christians. Sider could define Catholics and other Protestants not only as Christians but as “better” Christians—being more moral. As such, they would challenge us evangelicals to do better ourselves.

This approach would not be well supported by data. One could imagine some areas in which Catholics do better, others in which main-line Protestants do better, and still others in which evangelicals do better. I doubt, however, that one Christian group would prove morally superior to all others.

4) “I meant non-Christians.” Sider could clarify his argument as really being about evangelical Christians versus people who do not claim to be Christians, e.g., members of other religions and people of no religious beliefs.

This seems like a sensible approach, and it should receive empirical support. As I have posted previously, evangelical Christians have lower divorce rates than non-Christians (by virtue of the high divorce rates of those with no religious beliefs). However, this alternative would leave no room for a “hard-hitting” rebuke such as Sider’s book.

Even though these four alternatives are mostly mutually exclusive, Sider’s book uses each one of them. In his discussion of divorce (p. 18), he uses Barna’s data to compare “born-again” Christians against all other “non-Christians.” This is alternative #1.

In his discussion of racism (p. 24), he compares evangelicals versus other, non-evangelical, ostensibly less racist Christians such as Catholics and mainline Protestants.

This is alternative #3. In his discussion of giving to the poor (as a ray of hope—p. 126), he cites statistics comparing evangelical Christians versus people of no religious beliefs. This is alternative #4.

This logical inconsistency undermines Sider's case against evangelicals, and, in my mind, makes it difficult to accept.

Next: A critique of Ron Sider's "Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience" II

An evaluation of Barna's divorce statistics III

(Post eleven of a series on Christian divorce rates)

In examining divorce rates among Christians, George Barna measures “born-again” Christians as

“people who said they have made “a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that is still important in their life today” and who also indicated they believe that when they die they will go to Heaven because they had confessed their sins and had accepted Jesus Christ as their savior”

From my perspective, Barna’s definition of “born-again” is okay—it’s his measure of “non-Christian” that causes problems. (Barna uses “non-born again” and “non-Christian” synonymously). Whom does Barna’s definition exclude from Christianity? Again using the MIDUS dataset, I examined the percentage of respondents described themselves as “born again” by denomination. For major Christian groups in the U.S.:

84% of Baptists described themselves as “born-again”
43% of “inter-denominational” Protestants
42% of Methodists
38% of “non-denominational” Protestants
38% of Presbyterians
29% of Lutherans
23% of Episcopalians
16% of Catholics

As such, Barna’s “non-Christians” includes most Catholics and mainline Protestants.

In addition, his criteria exclude many people who attend church on a weekly basis. Again using MIDUS, 60% of the respondents who attended a Christian church on a weekly basis defined themselves as born-again. This means that a full 40% of weekly Christian church-goers are defined as "non-Christian".

From my perspective, Barna’s analysis of divorce statistics is either theologically or methodologically erroneous.

Theologically, to exclude from Christianity so many bible-believing, God-loving and devout Christians is theologically provincial and unhelpfully sectarian.

Methodologically, if Barna accepts most Catholics and main-line Protestants as Christians, then to place them into a non-Christian comparison group is quite a methodological goof.

It’s fine if Barna wants to focus on “born-again” Christians, but if so, he should compare them against 1) other Christians, 2) people of other religions, and 3) people of no faith. To collapse these last three categories into “non-Christian” is a big problem.

Next: A critique of Ron Sider's "Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience" I