Dear Reader,
I’m on vacation, so forgive the slightly later publishing deadline today. Plenty of feedback on last week’s post about Simone Biles, so much so that I’m only able to include excerpts here (for more, visit my Facebook page). I’ll start with this from a dad and entrepreneur:
“I always enjoy your newsletter, popular opinion or not. For the sake of our country and people in general, I hope your opinions are more popular than you might think. There are a lot of us who don't have your courage in putting a potentially unpopular opinion out into the ether and dealing with the blow-back as eloquently as you do. Thank you for your courage, conviction, and leadership.”
Here’s an email from a former student and high school gymnast:
“I appreciate you writing this after the last post regarding Simone’s decision.
I think this next generation is realizing more and more that one cannot always act as Paul describes in the verse you shared in this post. It’s not feasible. Jesus took time to rest. He took time to fast, pray, and maybe even focus on himself before he started his ministry at 30. I think there is a time to fight and persevere, but there also has to be times of rest, there has to be times where you take care of yourself.
Personally, I think her decision was selfless: if she had kept going, there was a risk of the US not getting any medals. But I am also glad that she is not risking injury to herself.
Not every athlete’s story has to be all wins. As a matter of fact, there are often more losses, more tough times (I speak from personal experience on this). That doesn’t mean that they won’t come back stronger. I think her decision helps put that in perspective for all athletes.”
Here’s an email from a former Division I athlete:
“I appreciated your thoughts on Simone Biles’ decision to sit out the games. As a former Division I athlete, I simply cannot make sense of her choice, which leaves me also ‘trying to understand and come to grips with just how out of touch I must be and seem with the world around me,’ as you wrote. What about the other Team USA girls, who suddenly had pressure through the roof to compete without her? What about those athletes who would have made the team if Biles had stepped down a month ago?
Of course, she is an amazing gymnast and has earned every bit of what she’s accomplished, but I simply can’t fathom that any athlete would make such a choice. The very best part of every competition I took part in was the privilege of competing for my teammates, for my school, for my coaches, for my state. I loved competing because I was able to bring my best to something that was so much bigger than myself. I was a part of it, and yet it wasn’t all about me. It just leaves me sad that the next generation of athletes may not experience that selfless joy.”
Here’s a note from a mom:
“I share your views on what I am seeing surrounding the aftermath of her (Biles’) decision. I’m quite disheartened to see it being praised and lauded and every single person seems to feel they have to talk about how she is paving the way for all these athletes to find reasons to step away in the heat of the moment.
We’re parents with a bunch of kids. I know we understand the importance of mental health in peoples’ lives. But I’ve also seen the need for resilience in my children’s lives. I know life is very hard and it’s never going to be easy. If our kids aren’t resilient and they can’t persevere through difficult things athletic or otherwise, I would be very concerned for them.”
And here’s a comment and question from a friend:
“I just wanted to commend you again for your writing in this edition regarding the Simone Biles situation. I admit, I wasn't completely on board with your original FB post that you referenced (although I didn't pile on, and also didn't call you an ass!), and while I perhaps don't agree unilaterally, I thought the reflection shared was fair, measured, and appreciated.
I'd be curious on your thoughts on this one - would you (or society at large) view it differently if the coach of the team said, ‘Due to concerns I have about Simone’s current state, I am replacing her for the competition. I do not want to see her experience a serious injury, plus I think Jordan Chiles gives us a better chance to win at this particular moment in time’? Should we view it differently just because Simone had the maturity to come to that realization on her own?”
Decision aside, Biles’ coaches should have been the ones making the public call and handling the press so she didn't have to (or didn't have to as much). This would have been especially helpful for thinking through what was communicated: the first report talked vaguely of “mental health” (which is a meaningless phrase) and the competition not being “fun” for Biles, which coming directly from her, made it sound pretty self-centered; it then metastasized through the “twisties,” the discussion of being off her Adderall due to Japan's law (an exemption was made for Olympic athletes), to videos on Instagram of her trying to demonstrate how she's out of sync on the parallel bars, which from a layman’s view, just came across as if she wasn’t trying (I’m not saying she wasn’t; I’m just addressing how it looked).
In summary, Biles shouldn't have had to run her own media campaign on this; her coaches should have protected her more and drawn tighter lines of privacy with the media regardless of her celebrity (of course, she would have had to stay off of or limit her social media as well).
Those are my thoughts. Thanks for the feedback, everyone. And as always, thanks for reading.
Craig
P.S.: As a reminder, you’re welcome and encouraged to email me directly with feedback, ideas, links, etc. at cmdunham [at] gmail [dot] com. Just know that, unless you specifically tell me not to, I may quote you here (though it will always be anonymously).
Engage!
I have a friend (recently retired) who was a well-respected medical doctor, CEO of a Medicare risk adjustment service company, university professor of medicine, as well as an elder at the church we attended in St. Louis. Needless to say, he was busy.
Despite the schedule that he kept, one of his cultivated habits that I admired (there were several) was his practice of writing at least one elected government official (federal, state, regional, local) each week to share a succinct, measured perspective on something. He did this not always as a function of his various professional roles, but more often as a private citizen who took seriously what he believed his duty to be in the Republic.
I always appreciated this about him, particularly because (unlike some of us), he just did it quietly every week and never made a big deal about doing so. I have no idea if or how any of what he did actually swayed votes or shaped policy, but I imagine after a few years of this practice - how long he had been doing it, I have no clue - someone had to begin recognizing his name, his excellence of thought, and perhaps started paying a little more attention and thinking more honestly about what he wrote.
Drafting Women
A few weeks ago, I read this article in Politico on the renewed discussion among U.S. Senate Democrats to rewrite national military draft laws to include women:
“The changes to Selective Service could be attached to the National Defense Authorization Act, a defense policy bill that’s one of the few pieces of legislation considered a ‘must-pass’ by Congress. The move would reignite a contentious debate over whether women should be required to register for the draft, a move the House and Senate have each considered in recent years, though the change has never become law.”
While I recognize that it would (literally) take an act of Congress to restart the draft, I still have four daughters of draft age, as well as a few cultural convictions that give me a vested interest in the matter. So, I wrote a letter to the editor on Monday, July 19, to our local Bozeman Daily Chronicle as well as Montana’s two U.S. Senators, Steve Daines and Jon Tester. (I heard back from Senator Daines’ office the next day; I still have heard nothing back from Senator Tester’s.)
Four days after writing the letter, the Senate Democrats followed through with their plans, as reported in this July 23 article from The Business Insider:
“The Senate Armed Services Committee’s proposed defense policy bill mandates that women register for the Selective Service System, commonly known as the draft.
A summary of the Senate panel's version of the 2022 National Defense Authorization Act released Thursday calls for amending ‘the Military Selective Service Act to require the registration of women for Selective Service.’
The summary of the bill confirms earlier reporting from Politico that Senate Democrats are pushing for big changes to the military draft laws. The requirement for women to register is several steps from being a reality: the bill would have to pass the Senate and also the House, and be signed into law by President Joe Biden.”
As the Chronicle had not even run an article on the debate, I wasn’t expecting them to publish my letter. But last Thursday, July 29, they did (almost - more on that later):
“We just recently learned of U.S. Senate Democrats proposing a revisiting of the idea of requiring young women to register for military draft. This has not been the first time this has been discussed, but it should be the last.
As parents of four daughters (ages 17, 19, 20, 22), we exhort Sens. Tester and Daines to push back against this proposal. If women want to voluntarily join the military, fine; however, if legislation passes so that the military may draft our daughters, it will be just one more step diminishing the worth, beauty, and glory of childbirth, motherhood, and homemaking in the name of ‘progress.’
For the love of what’s left saving of our nation, can we at least agree that mandatory conscription of women is absolutely off limits?
War is hell. If it has to be fought, men should fight it because men are the ones making it. Let’s not make our daughters clean up our messes.”
Then, earlier this week on Wednesday, the Chronicle published in response to mine this letter to the editor from Sara Rushing, an associate professor of political, democratic, and feminist theory at Montana State University. She wrote:
“Craig Dunham claims that a defense of womanhood and maternalism necessitates excluding women from the draft. I’ve met Craig (ex-Head of Petra Academy), and had the pleasure of inviting him to attend one of my seminar sessions at MSU a few years back. He made interesting contributions to the class discussion, and he and I steered clear of topics likely to expose our deeper disagreements. In my capacity as the professor and discussion leader, such tact and restraint are entirely appropriate. As a private citizen, however, I’m compelled to respond to his letter.
There are many problems with the draft, but greater inclusion is not among them. As conscription has not occurred since Vietnam, and is unlikely anytime soon, Dunham’s letter reads like an opportunistic diatribe about the destruction of the patriarchal gender norms he holds dear. War is hell, and does tear families apart. For that reason, and others, the real discussion isn’t about the draft, but about American militarism. If we do examine the draft, though, the most pressing issue is that it won’t be invoked because that would put wealthy white men (and women) equally at risk as their poorer, more rural, often brown and black compatriots. Those are many of the people fighting our forever war.
But women, including mothers, do face many challenges today, particularly as workers. Why not write about fair pay, universal preschool, access to affordable child care, or workplace sexual harassment? Dunham argues that women are often left to clean up the messes men make, and the workplace is no exception. Dismantling patriarchy would go a long way to remedying that reality. I welcome hearing Dunham’s opinion on that matter. Until then, I must voice opposition to his imposing a religious perspective on women’s nature, purpose, and value on the rest of us.”
Sara and I went a few rounds three years ago on a guest editorial about school choice that I was invited to write (here was her negative take in response). As I did with the other critics who wrote responses (all similarly opposed), I invited Sara to coffee to discuss our differing views. She graciously accepted, after which she invited me to attend one of her classes, which I happily did and enjoyed doing so.
After reading her new letter to the editor on Wednesday, I dropped Sara a quick email:
“I read your letter to the editor this morning in the Chronicle and wanted to say thanks for engaging with mine from last week. I also wanted to say thanks for not throwing me under the bus personally (though I wish you'd left out the "ex-Head of Petra Academy" - subtle but effective there), as I, too, very much enjoyed our interactions and your class last time around.
I'm not sure if the Chronicle will print a second letter in response, but I'll contact them and will be glad to take you up on your invitation if so. Perhaps we can model civil engagement as it should be done (a lost art these days), or at least gain an excuse to have coffee again (I enjoyed that as well).
Megan and I are heading out this afternoon for a quick 5-day trip to Colorado Springs and back to pick up our two youngest daughters from the camp we used to help run there back in the day. I'll do my best to squeeze in some writing somewhere along the way and we'll see what the Chronicle says.
Hope you're having a good summer and trust you're gearing up for classes starting soon. My oldest graduates from MSU in June, and my third is starting courses there this fall. Not sure if either of them will cross your path, but if they do, look out for them even as you give them a hard time (though they're always up for a civil conversation as well - I think you'd all get along).
Let's see where this goes! Hope to talk soon.”
Yesterday morning, Sara wrote me back:
“Nice to hear from you! I would never throw anyone under the bus, and certainly not you. And I sincerely did not mean the Petra reference as a dig – I’m so sorry if for whatever reason it landed that way.
I’m curious whether the Chronicle will print a reply letter. If so, I look forward to reading it.
In the meantime, I hope your summer has been good, and the trip down to Colorado affords you views of clearer skies. And I do hope I cross paths with your kids at MSU at some point. They are always welcome to drop by my office and say hi, and I would certainly welcome them in any of my classes.
All my best.”
Though we’d not “kept up” since last interacting, neither had we burned any bridges. I appreciated her recent letter and invitation to respond to it. We'll see if the Chronicle does as well (I emailed them about the possibility of printing a second letter, but have not heard anything back), particularly when I mention that my point would have seemed less veiled had the paper not redacted three words from my original letter (here’s their confirmation email; I’ve highlighted the redacted section for comparison):
Provoked & Persevering
I don’t know when in the midst of our weekend travels I’ll get around to submitting a well-written and cogent follow-up letter to the editor; it may be early next week due to time and driving constraints. But I’m committed to do it because it’s an opportunity to engage the culture, which is what cultural engagement requires.
A classic Scriptural passage on engaging the culture is Acts 17 (Acts 13 is also helpful in the context of a more churched culture). Entire sermon series are rightfully preached about Paul’s cultural engagement (particularly with the Athenians), but for the sake of brevity, two simple verses inspire me on the topic. The first is Acts 17:16:
“Now while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols.”
In a word, Paul saw need - the need that people have to try to figure out life, as well as what happens when we try to do so apart from God. His love for God and people (so evident through his New Testament writing) provoked him to do much more than merely observe; it led him to care, and as a result of his care, it says in Acts 17:17 that,
“…he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the market place every day with those who happened to be there.”
Paul didn’t engage for engagement’s sake; he did so because he cared for those with whom he engaged. He sought to persuade out of love, which, according to Aristotle (often known as the father of rhetoric), is what good rhetoric always requires.
But Paul also persevered. The Scriptures say in Acts 17:32 that,
“…when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, ‘We will hear you again about this.”
Paul definitely took his licks, but it never seemed to take much for him to keep at it. While he experienced discouragement from people’s response to his message at times, him hearing, “We will hear you again about this,” was all he needed to keep going.
A Responsibility & Willingness
Here’s an email I received from a friend in Kansas City this week that was both encouraging and summed up the challenges of public online engagement well:
“I’ve been struck the last couple days with how you managed to respond to so many folks online. And you do so respectfully, but not always gently; you give these things the attention they deserve. That’s a skill I am trying to cultivate and I appreciate your example.
I imagine it can be really frustrating a lot of the time. Especially when you’re not taken for what you say but what others read into your position.
It’s encouraging for me, too, because you articulate well some questions or responses that I am trying to communicate. But I find it so exhausting being challenged at every single comment that I tend to not post much myself in any capacity, and I take so stinking long to write the words I want to put out there that it takes a significant amount of time. Not to mention the headspace.
Being well aware of the cultural inclination of the moment and my own inclination against that, I suspect a time is coming when I don’t have the luxury to be so quiet. So this is a time in which I am practicing these things in somewhat low risk environments (face-to-face at home, work, and church).
All that to say I appreciate your ability and willingness to engage in the way that you do. Thanks for doing that.”
The two things I most appreciated about this reader’s perspective are 1) the realization of responsibility concerning engagement; and 2) a willingness to want to get better at it (from the way it sounds, the intention to “practice” has found its way into action). If all of us could simply embrace these two realities and respond accordingly, think of the influence possible!
While it’s something to be taken seriously, cultural engagement doesn’t always have to be serious…or even verbal. I think of one of my favorite scenes from the 1991 movie Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, in which Friar Tuck (a Christian man of the cloth who is also quite fond of God’s bounty of beer) says to Azeem (who is Muslim),
Friar Tuck: “Come, Azeem, let us open a bottle and do our best to save each other’s souls.”
Azeem: “Alas, I am not permitted.”
Friar Tuck: “Fine then, you talk, I'll drink.”
Listening goes a long way in cultural engagement; indeed, it can be that simple.
Like Paul, ask yourself what and whom you care about and determine now to persevere in doing something about it. Maybe, like my friend in St. Louis, it’s caring for the state of our nation and writing a letter to our leaders this weekend. Maybe, like my friend in Kansas City, it’s caring about what is true, good, and beautiful and practicing conversations in preparation for taking a future risk. Or maybe, like Friar Tuck, it’s just caring for others enough to schedule some time, order a brew, and listen.
Whichever, when it comes to cultural engagement, let’s follow the randomly-included and yet completely apropos lead of Captain Jean-Luc Picard of the U.S.S. Enterprise:
Post(erity): “American Pantheon of Gods”
Each week, I choose a post from the past that seems apropos of something (of course, you’re always welcome to search the archives yourself whenever you like).
This week’s post, “American Pantheon of Gods,” is from October 11, 2007. An excerpt:
“This week in Biblical Ethics, we've been studying the First Commandment - considering God's Person and right in calling us to faithfulness as part of his covenant with us, as well as studying a few of the many gods (Asherah, Baal(s), Chemosh, Dagon, Marduk, Molech) that Old Testament cultures (including Israel) created instead.
After the Old Testament study, I then had my students get in groups and spend some time naming our gods today, coming up with a little history (as they understood it) of where the god came from, and listing a few requirements for each god's followers. I asked them to have fun with it (which they did), but they also made some insightful observations in the process.”
Peaches’ Picks: Dune
Out of a desire to read the book before Denis Villenueve’s film interpretation coming out in October, Peaches and I picked up Frank Herbert’s sci-fi classic, Dune. However, after 75 pages in, we needed some encouragement and counsel to continue, so we reached out via Facebook and heard back from several readers. You did not disappoint:
“It is a hard read which I remember having to slog through. I enjoyed the religious undertones, though Islamic in nature. The characters build slowly but by the end what were strange episodes become clear with the interconnected nature of the individual, creatures and what was believed to be lifeless mass. The way that 'all things' are interconnected has greatly inspired my thinking about my theology of creation and my research into scientific discovery and evolving theories.”
And…
“Very worth it for the world he builds, the political intrigue, and especially watching a character realize that (and how) he has been formed according to centuries-old grand narratives and schemes. Also, cool tech ideas and weird ‘trans-humanist’ imaginings based in the material, naturally-occurring world (i.e. the effect of spice over time).”
And…
“One of my favorite reads - actually the audiobook is quite good also. The Messiah narrative surrounding Maud'dib is particularly interesting with centuries old narratives. There is a ton of threads to follow - it does take time to build the full storyline.”
And…
“One aspect in particular that I find fascinating is the concept? doctrine? of the ‘Missionaria Protectiva,’ a sort of theological propaganda/self-fulfilling metanarrative that the Bene Gesserit order spins through the universe. While obviously, the author seems to take a rather skeptical/naturalist view of it, I find the thread that it weaves through the narrative to be an inadvertent stroke of genius.
To wit: we are all seeking something messianic in our lives and civilizations. While our deities and values certainly diverge, the seeking of this ‘big story’ is intrinsic to the sentient experience.”
So, we’re persevering and it’s improving. Thanks to all who shared your thoughts.
Why Subscribe?
Why not? Second Drafts is a once-a-week newsletter delivered to your inbox (you can also read it online or through your RSS reader) and it’s totally free.
Keep Connected
You’re welcome to follow me on Twitter.