One of the challenges for us in the future will be perception. We observe the world with linear perception, but we live in exponential times. Exponential growth is very different from arithmetic growth. We live our lives in a linear way. We live day-to-day, week-to-week, month-to-month. But the changes taking place around us are increasing not in a linear way but in an exponential way.

Exponential growth is not something that we would consider intuitive. Scott Armstrong demonstrated that when he asked a graduate class of business students the following question. If you folded a piece of paper in half forty times, how thick would it be? Most of the students guessed it would be less than a foot. A few guessed it would be greater than a foot but less than a mile. Two students guessed it would be greater than a mile but less than two thousand miles. The correct answer is that the paper would be thick enough to reach from here to the moon.

This is the challenge of living in exponential times that are affecting everything from economics to the environment. If the trend on a graph is linear, we have a fairly good grasp of what that will mean for us in the future. When the graph curves upward exponentially, we have a difficult time comprehending its impact.

Another challenge is trying to integrate all the various trends (many growing exponentially). This makes it difficult to accurately predict the future. We might know the individual trends, but trying to integrate hundreds of trends into a comprehensive picture is difficult, if not impossible.

That is why I believe we need godly wisdom and biblical discernment like never before. The future is coming at us at unprecedented speed. We need to search the Scriptures and depend upon the Lord like never before.

When I was growing up, there was lots of talk about the new morality. And while it is true that the 1960s and 1970s ushered in a new morality, there is growing evidence that the most significant shift in moral attitudes is taking place right now.

A study by the Barna Group confirms what I have been seeing among young people. Put simply, the younger you are the more likely you are to have engaged in immoral behavior. The survey looks at the behavior of four age groups. Elders are those over the age of 62. Boomers are 44 to 62 years of age. Busters are 25-43, and Mosaics are 18-24.

If you look at any immoral or questionable behavior, the percentage of those participating in those behaviors increases as you move from old to young. This would include such behaviors as watching pornography, using profanity in public, gambling, illicit sexual encounters, and getting drunk.

George Barna says: “We are witnessing the development and acceptance of a new moral code in America.” He explains: “Mosaics have had little exposure to traditional moral teaching and limited accountability for such behavior. The moral code began to disintegrate when the generation before them—the Baby Busters—pushed the limits that had been challenged by their parents—the Baby Boomers.”

For years I have been saying that these two major shifts in morality took place for different reasons. When many baby boomers rejected traditional morality in the 1960s and 1970s they were doing it consciously. They knew they were crossing a line. But when the current generation engages in these behaviors, often they are not even aware they are crossing a line. Most of them don’t even know where the lines for traditional morality are.

This survey should be an encouragement to both parents and youth leaders to take the time to instruct the current generation in biblical morality.

Christians have been called to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ and make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:18-20). Unfortunately, three powerful social forces in society undermine the effectiveness of the gospel in this country and around the world. Writers such as Peter Berger and Os Guinness have documented and described these forces. They are secularization, pluralization, and privatization.

The first is secularization. It is the process by which sectors of society and culture are removed from the influence of religious institutions and symbols. A biblical description of secularization can be found in Romans 12:2 – “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” Today the forces of darkness raise up arguments against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:3-5) which blunt the effectiveness of the gospel.

A second social force is pluralization, which is the process that has increased the number of choices in the world. With so many choices, we do not know what is true. Ultimately all truth and values become relative (postmodernism, moral relativism). People are being taken captive by worldviews that are contrary to Bible teaching (Colossians 2:8).

Privatization is a third force. It occurs as a response to the previous two forces. It is withdrawal from religious institutions and a retreat inward with an emphasis on self. It is what Christopher Lasch called an attempt at “psychic survival.”

The combined impact of these three forces on Christianity has been to make it irrelevant, at least to the cultural and social aspects of society. Theodore Roszak once said that American Christianity is “privately engaging but socially irrelevant.”

If Christians are to be effective in the 21st century, they must understand and counter these powerful forces.

Arthur Brooks reminds us in a New York Times column that “We Need Optimists.” It is actually better for you to be an optimist rather than a pessimist. Psychologists have found that optimists enjoy better physical health and have a great ability to cope with setbacks.

In this coming election year, however, we need to ask whether we want an optimist or a pessimist in the White House. In the past we have had presidents who were true optimists in both parties. President Ronald Reagan was a Republican; President Bill Clinton is a Democrat. But lately the two parties have been producing a number of pessimists who insist that the country is going down the tubes.

Arthur Brooks asks a good question: “Why on earth would a politician choose pessimism?” The answer is simple. It is easier to connect with people who are concerned about the future of the country. No doubt you have seen the same surveys I have seen. They show that most Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. They are concerned that their children’s life won’t be as good as theirs. No wonder politicians are willing to tap into the dark side.

But Arthur Brooks reminds us that we pay a price for this. Most Americans also say that the last election was too negative. They complain about the destructive, ad hominem discourse that dominates politics today.

I believe that what the American people are looking for in a leader is someone who understands the challenges we face but also has a positive vision for the future. When Arthur Brooks was on my radio program recently, I quoted from his book his analysis of Ronald Reagan’s speech at the Republican National Convention. In his speech the word most frequently repeated was the word “people.” If you add in all the specific people he was fighting for (families, children, needy) the number more than doubles.

All of this is a reminder that we are looking for a leader with optimism and vision for turning America around.

A few weeks ago I talked about the new HUD housing rules that will have a negative impact on your neighborhood. Robert Knight has read through these rules and reports that they should concern all Americans. Writing in the Washington Times he says that the HUD rules are “loaded with repetitive rhetoric, bureaucratic gobbledygook, threats for noncompliance and enough acronyms to fill a stadium-sized bowl of alphabet soup.”

But you don’t need to read all these rules in the Federal Register to realize that this is an attempt to apply affirmative actions types of programs to every neighborhood. After all, this president said he wanted to fundamentally transform America. These housing rules will do just that.

Robert Knight writes: “If you, regardless of race or ethnic origin, worked hard to move to a safe neighborhood with good schools and nearby shopping, too bad. If the numbers are not to the government’s liking, your community needs to have subsidized housing projects in the name of fairness and racial quotas.”

It is amusing that the Department of Housing and Urban Development estimates that the cost of compliance will be minimal. And they predict that, “the proposed rule will have relatively limited additional paperwork and planning costs.”

Robert Knight said it took hours just to read through the proposed rules and he wasn’t trying to figure out how to comply with all these regulations. This will take thousands of consultants and new employees. And in the end, your neighborhood will be regulated not by your local homeowners association or by your local government.

In my previous commentary, I answered the objection many might have. After all, you cannot imagine that your local government would allow this to happen. But as I pointed out, if your local government takes one dollar of HUD money, then it comes under the control of federal bureaucrats. This is what the transformation of America looks like under this administration.

This last month we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Back in 1990, President George Bush signed the legislation and predicted that it would make the lives of disabled people much better.

It has done that. Disabled Americans have much better access to public buildings. All you have to do to understand the profound impact the law has had in America is to travel to other countries around the world. You see restaurants, museums, and churches that do not provide any means of access to a disabled person.

Although the Americans With Disabilities Act has been a success, there is one significant concern. Dr. Merrill Matthews in a recent column wonders why we are seeing such a dramatic increase in people receiving disability payments. Shouldn’t the new technologies and greater access to buildings and facilities make it possible for fewer Americans to receive payments? That is not what has happened.

From 1970 to 1990, the number of Americans receiving payments increased a small amount. But after 1990 when the ADA was passed, the number of Americans receiving payments increased four times faster. The ADA was supposed to make it easier for disabled Americans to find a job and keep it. The number should have gone down not shot up almost exponentially.

While many who receive these benefits truly need them, there are sadly too many who are probably gaming the system in order to receive benefits. Investigative reporters have found many stories of how this is done. Of greater concern is the latest report from the Social Security trustees that the disability fund will exhaust its reserves by the end of next year.

Twenty-five years after the passage of the ADA, it is time for Congress to go back and prevent waste and fraud from harming disabled Americans who truly need our help.

A few months ago, I did a Viewpoint on the decision by Dan Price, the founder of Gravity Payments, to pay everyone in his company at least $70,000. You might remember that he did it because he read how some extra money for some people makes a big difference. Therefore, he decided to cut his $1 million salary to $70,000 and make that amount the minimum wage for the company.

At the time, I predicted that it would make it hard for him to attract other managers since people with executive experience can make much more than $70,000. Since then we have found that his decision created some other problems.

Two of his most valued employees quit because they thought it was unfair to double the pay of some new hires while the longest-serving staff members got small or no raises at all. One of them actually helped Dan Price calculate how to raise everyone’s salary to $70,000. But over time she saw how unfair that was given that she was putting in long hours that left little time for her husband and extended family. When she went to talk to Price she said, “He treated me as if I was being selfish and only thinking about myself.”

His payment decision also generated lots of publicity and some new business. Price has to hire new people to handle that unexpected reaction and won’t see the return on that investment for some time.

Less than two weeks after the announcement, Price’s older brother and Gravity co-founder filed a lawsuit that now threatens the company’s existence. With the legal bills piling up and Price’s paycheck being used for salary increases, he says, “We don’t have a margin of error to pay those legal fees.”

Establishing a minimum wage of $70,000 in the company might have seemed like a good idea, but now Dan Price and Gravity Payments are struggling to deal with the consequences of his decision.

Before the summer slips away, I want to talk about summer jobs. If you are older, you can probably remember the work experience you received by working various summer jobs. If you are a bit younger, you may not have had that same experience of working a number of different summer jobs but probably had at least one summer job. If you are a teenager, you may never have had a summer job. That’s a problem.

Working a summer job while you are young is a great learning experience. You learn some skills. You learn a little bit about certain jobs and get a better understanding of what you might want to do as a career. On a summer job, you learn the importance of being punctual, being responsible, and having a good work ethic. You also learn the value of money and how to manage money.

I thought about all of this when I read a piece by Jonah Goldberg on “How to Kill the Summer Job.” It is easy to kill summer jobs for young people. Just continue to raise the minimum wage. That increase makes it harder for employers to justify having an untrained teenager work in the business or factory. They are taking a risk by hiring someone with no work experience. And often the work the teenager performs does not provide enough initial benefit to the manager of the business to justify paying them an ever-increasing minimum wage.

More and more young people are growing up without work experience. Some augment it by doing an unpaid internship. Most lose that important experience of a summer job.

The argument for raising the minimum wage is to provide a “living wage” for people with few job skills. Jonah Goldberg points out that there are other ways to subsidize low-skilled workers. One option might be to expand the earned income credit. That’s a topic for a future Viewpoint.

My point is that we are hurting an entire generation of young people who are growing up without having the learning experience of a summer job. That is not a positive trend. We need to reverse it.