It's been said that marriage has evolved from being a cornerstone, foundational life event to being a capstone celebration of all one's success in education, career and even romance (never mind if you've waited so long, there may be no children), but these new parties are not only getting rid of the kids, but the spouse as well!! I guess secular society has just about succeeded in deconstructing itself.
Thanks for highlighting the Mitchell piece and Douthat response. I missed this conversation. Will admit Mitchell almost lost me when he spent half the essay on Greek and German philosophy, but I think the core point is sound.
As I see it, if there is any path to restoring a quasi-Mainline Christian national consensus, it will emerge from the “net births civilization” of, presumably, the 22nd century.
Evangelicals, as a people group, will play a significant role in that civilization I think, but maybe I only say that because of the young marriages and vans full of children I continue to see. But agree that the culture and theology will require developments to rise to leadership.
Enough of the publications who push horrible lifestyles and ideologies. The ny times and new yorker are such trash and duplicitous. The fiscal times speaks of a longing for forgiveness. Forgiveness for what and why should that person apologize? Because they get more "extreme:. Extreme compared to what? This horrible neocon and neoliberalism philosophy espoused by nyc, la, and london? Why should anyone on the other side care what they have to say or what they pursue?
I get the sentiment, though I do think there is some value in "monitoring the situation" of the degeneracy being published in the newspaper of record (though I have zero interest in reading the article itself).
I do find the self-celebration party an interesting phenomenon. It seems to me that people usually want their selfish actions to appear other regarding but here there is no pretense of that even though there could be (e.g., look at how generous I am to my friends, throwing a $50,000 party for them). I really wonder whether the person quoted actually believes what they're saying about this being good for one's self-worth, or whatever. It's hard for me to believe that anyone understands this deep down as anything other than what a child with sufficient resources would do. I think part of the problem stems from our society making it taboo to criticize a woman for basically anything she wants to do (besides wanting to be a wife or mother - that is fair game).
At a certain level, the "blowout party at 40" thing seems like more of an elite pathology than a genuine cultural trend. Only someone with waaaaaaay more dollars than sense could and would spend $50k on such an event.
That having been said, the NYT article's unwillingness to call this kind of thing out for the wasteful and self-indulgent narcissism that it is tells you all you need to know about the paper's issues.
It's been said that marriage has evolved from being a cornerstone, foundational life event to being a capstone celebration of all one's success in education, career and even romance (never mind if you've waited so long, there may be no children), but these new parties are not only getting rid of the kids, but the spouse as well!! I guess secular society has just about succeeded in deconstructing itself.
Thanks for highlighting the Mitchell piece and Douthat response. I missed this conversation. Will admit Mitchell almost lost me when he spent half the essay on Greek and German philosophy, but I think the core point is sound.
As I see it, if there is any path to restoring a quasi-Mainline Christian national consensus, it will emerge from the “net births civilization” of, presumably, the 22nd century.
Evangelicals, as a people group, will play a significant role in that civilization I think, but maybe I only say that because of the young marriages and vans full of children I continue to see. But agree that the culture and theology will require developments to rise to leadership.
Enough of the publications who push horrible lifestyles and ideologies. The ny times and new yorker are such trash and duplicitous. The fiscal times speaks of a longing for forgiveness. Forgiveness for what and why should that person apologize? Because they get more "extreme:. Extreme compared to what? This horrible neocon and neoliberalism philosophy espoused by nyc, la, and london? Why should anyone on the other side care what they have to say or what they pursue?
I get the sentiment, though I do think there is some value in "monitoring the situation" of the degeneracy being published in the newspaper of record (though I have zero interest in reading the article itself).
I do find the self-celebration party an interesting phenomenon. It seems to me that people usually want their selfish actions to appear other regarding but here there is no pretense of that even though there could be (e.g., look at how generous I am to my friends, throwing a $50,000 party for them). I really wonder whether the person quoted actually believes what they're saying about this being good for one's self-worth, or whatever. It's hard for me to believe that anyone understands this deep down as anything other than what a child with sufficient resources would do. I think part of the problem stems from our society making it taboo to criticize a woman for basically anything she wants to do (besides wanting to be a wife or mother - that is fair game).
At a certain level, the "blowout party at 40" thing seems like more of an elite pathology than a genuine cultural trend. Only someone with waaaaaaay more dollars than sense could and would spend $50k on such an event.
That having been said, the NYT article's unwillingness to call this kind of thing out for the wasteful and self-indulgent narcissism that it is tells you all you need to know about the paper's issues.