Here is the sentence’s argument, as I read it: Butler argues that scholars need to abandon the old Marxist conception of economics that places the Market above all social or cultural relations. In traditional Marxism, human relations are economically-determined class relations, and other factors, like religion, for example, are merely illusory and draw people away from what’s really important. This is where you get Marx’s argument that religion is the “opiate of the masses.” In contrast, Butler (who remains friendly to Marxist critiques of Capitalism) argues that scholars should accept that human relations are multi-faceted and situated in particular times and places. Rather than seeing the Economy as the universal determinant of everything, which can only be “fixed” with a radical revolution of the kind Marx described (and figures like Lenin and Trotsky sought to make reality), Butler argues that local resistance and democratic politics have value. While this is not a particularly radical shift in current “Leftist” scholarship, it is a very big step away from Marx.

Butler is easy to poke fun at. She’s not a good writer (a really horrible one in fact), and her writing often obscures her arguments. On the other hand, there is some value in these kind of frustratingly, maddeningly written sentences. Although they often, as in this case, make people turn away—convinced that, because the words seem meaningless, they have no meaning—they can also have the effect of making thoughtful people slow down. Sometimes we jump too quickly on apparently simple sentences, turning them into sound-bytes and trampling all over the complexity of the message. Think of all the times you’ve seen someone quoted, usually disparagingly, and thought to yourself: “But there’s so much more to it than that!” Butler’s sentence is easy to mock, but it’s impossible to make it into a sound-byte.

You may disagree with Butler’s politics, but she’s not trying to teach students here. She’s writing to scholars in her field, familiar with the theories that inform her arguments. If Butler or any other professor assigned a text like this and failed to explain it, or tried to use the heavy vocabulary as a weapon to intimidate students into adopting a particular perspective, we would be perfectly justified in denouncing them as bad teachers. But a text like this can also provide increasing opportunities for valuable instruction about contemporary social and political debates that continue across the global landscape.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Things eternal? Like made up stuff, the supernatural and spook stuff?
Creepy.

Report comment to moderator

Of course, back on the topic of this thread, public universities today teach students to love the things of the world. The world’s values, however, do not line up with those of the Lord, and for that reason the world seeks to “cast Christians out” — out of politics, out of government, out of teaching in the public school setting, out of the arts, etc.

Report comment to moderator

You make an excellent point.

There are statistically significant differences between Christians who attend church and those who don’t.

These differences are based on a term known as religiosity. This is not unique to christianity however. Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and Buddhists show similar differences. Those who attend church are healthier, happier, and live longer.

It is not Christianity therefore but religious attendance that is correlated with the protective effect. Some even point to the fact that while people who are healthy and happy attend church, the health might be the cause of the attendance rather than the attendance be the cause of the health. Those who are sick and depressed may not attend church because they simply don’t feel well enough to. Divorced people might not attend church because in some instances they are shunned or even forbidden to participate.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

If you think there is not a statistically significant difference between Christians and non-Christians, Theo, then I think your are misinformed. There are significant differences between Christians and non-Christians, and they are often statistically confirmed.

Humans often do statistics very badly. George Barna dide a study that allegedly found little difference between the divorce rate among those who claim to be “born again” and the reast of the population. A better researcher did a more reliable study that found that there was a profound difference in the divorce rate of people who actually regularly attended church, and those who did not. Those who regularly attended had a much lower divorce rate.

More good news: God is neither fooled or led by statistics.

But what other differences were you expecting true repentance to create? And if you truly believe what you wrote, are you willing to sincerely repent of your sins? Perhaps you have, but I am just asking for the sake of the point, not meaning to judge you either way. Besides, only God can judge if repentance is real.

Report comment to moderator

Huckabee hears you loud and clear, Theo. For a change of pace, check this out:

[T]he former Arkansas governor told a Myrtle Beach crowd on January 17, referring to the Confederate flag. “If somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we’d tell them what to do with the pole. That’s what we’d do.”

Sorta supports my theory that evangelicals have their affections set on things below the belt.

Report comment to moderator