|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 24, 2024 15:50:27 GMT -5
BLOG & MABLOG
Theology That Bites Back
AUDIO
The Plodcast
Blog & Mablog Podcast
VIDEO
Sermons
Ask Doug
Video Gallery
ABOUT
The Proprietor
Blog Post Scripture Index
Critical Questions
Controversy Library
Find me on Twitter
Find me on Facebook
STORE
The Great Gospel-Centered Crack-Up
Posted on Wednesday, January 24, 2024 by Douglas Wilson
Audio Reading of Post
Introduction
Yesterday I was discussing with some friends the nature of the Reformed collapse in the face of all our crazytoon times. Reformed guys are supposed to be the heady ones, the keepers of the Big Thinks, and they went down before the most transparent lies—they went down like dry August grass before a freshly sharpened scythe. And when I reference what I am calling the most transparent lies, I am referring to white fragility, third-way-ism, lockdowns, BLM stuff, climate change, Ferguson, the vaccine jive, St. George of Minneapolis, masks, that whole convoluted bundle. Why did we fall for all that? And, as I hasten to add, how come?
The Sin of Gospel-Centeredness
I speak of the sin of gospel-centeredness, but of course I hasten to qualify. There is a sense in which every faithful Christian is to be gospel-centered. We preach nothing but Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor. 2:2Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). Yes, as far as that goes, and amen. But the real issue is not whether the gospel is central, but rather what it is central to. This is because there is another sense in which the devil himself is gospel-centered. He wants the gospel to be centrally-located—in the epistemic cage that he has constructed for it. So when we are dealing with his machinations, the question is not what is at the center, but rather where the center is, and where the circumference is. If the gospel is not central to all of life, then it is the devil’s version of gospel-centeredness. The devil wants the gospel bound, and he does not mind at all if we tie it up at the center. But Paul’s gospel, the one we are supposed to be preaching, is not bound (2 Tim. 2:9Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). This means, if you catch my drift, that it goes everywhere.
You may think this a harsh condemnation, but I dispute that. It is a hard word, I will give you that, but it is not harsh at all. It is the only truth that keeps the way of repentance open. The man who hears the word and does not do it is in fact doing something. What is he doing? He is deceiving himself (Jas. 1:22Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). In the same way, and for exactly the same reason, theological movements that emphasize hearing the truth without also emphasizing living out the truth in genuine application are movements that are trying to get spiritual delusion to scale somehow. Once they get it to scale, then they can start hosting conferences and invite one another to speak at them.
For various reasons, mostly having to do with laziness and sin, the modern Reformed world developed an allergic reaction to anything like specific applications of the doctrines taught. Application of the truth was thought of as legalistic. If you made specific applications from the pulpit, it was felt that you were “binding consciences.” Words like obedience made people think of works-righteousness, and that made them feel like something hot and sticky was crawling up their spine. For the most part, the Young, Restless and Reformed movement shared in this terrible aversion, and helped to promote it. The gospel-centered movement sounded really good, as it declared the good news of forgiveness in Christ, but was truly unprepared for the follow up question. Now what?
But Application of Some Sort Is Inescapable
Because men and women must live out their lives, day after day, this means that application is an inescapable concept. Remember that the inescapable concept is summed up by the phrase not whether, but which. It is not whether we will impose morality through the law, but rather which morality we will impose through the law. It is not whether we will have a theocracy, but rather which God will be the god of the system in that theocracy. That is how the inescapable concept works. Not whether, but which.
So it is not whether there will be application, but rather which application there will be.
If we are being taught the gospel, the natural thing to apply in your life would be that gospel. This is after all what Jesus instructed us to do. We were to disciple the nations, baptizing them, which is the proclamation of the gospel part. But then, after that, we were to teach the nations to do everything that Jesus had commanded us to do (Matt. 29:18-20Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). “Teach them to obey all” is how I think He put it. In what has to be considered a form of straight up disobedience, the executive directors of all our Reformed thinkeries determined that such obedience was not essential to their version of gospel-centeredness, and was in fact inimical to it. The calling of discipleship supposedly threatened the primacy of grace.
Now if you are living in circles that are suspicious of any application, especially applications that are taught from the pulpit, then the people will become extremely wary of trying anything like that. But we must still live our lives, which means that we are going to have to apply something. And if it is not the truth of the gospel, then it will be the holiness code of some other religion. Nature abhors a vacuum, and this includes the space where all the application needs to be going on.
If Bible teachers consistently warn Christians away from specific biblical applications “as legalism,” or as “not preaching Christ and Him crucified,” then this does not mean that Christians under such teaching will succeed in applying nothing. What it means is that they will wind up applying the tenets of some alien religion, and they will do this without any awareness at all that this is what they are doing.
If you preach a thundering sermon on the importance of ethnic harmony, and say it is a really good sermon, but you don’t make specific follow-up applications from the Word, then you can rest assured that some Sunday School teacher is going to start channeling Robin DiAngelo. Applications are inescapable, and if you don’t insist on good ones, you are actually insisting on bad ones. If you preach on the vile sin of child abuse, and you make the crucial point most clearly that child abuse is really, really bad, but you don’t teach the biblical principles of actual due process, then you are inviting the Boz in to chase all the ambulances he wants. If you preach on marital harmony, you can say lots of great things, but if you don’t make specific applications in the area of male/female roles, you are turning your entire women’s ministry over to the feminists.
And this is exactly what happened to us.
An Application Sampler
Christian kids should receive a Christian education. Married women should be keepers at home. Christian voters must vote against politicians who promote abortion. Christians should not be entertained by raunchy sex comedies. Women must be kept out of combat roles in the military.
The previous paragraph contained just a small sampling of the kind of necessary applications that we should be making all the time. But if your mind rushed immediately to the difficult cases that would make such application difficult or impossible (“she has a quadriplegic husband, and three kids, and so she can’t be a keeper at home”), then this just demonstrates how thoroughly you have been trained by the current Reformed allergies.
The Fundamental Choice
The Puritan preachers were no slouches when it came to unpacking the doctrine. After they had done this, for an hour or so, they would then loosen their piccadill, spit on their hands, and move on to the applications. There would be seventeen of them.
These Puritan men have had the tombs of the prophets erected over their graves, and their collected works are sold in the little bookshop you need to go through to exit the museum. And we know we have reached the zenith of our folly when a man can get in trouble with the museum authorities for teaching something that he actually learned in that book they made him buy and read because he said he wanted to go to seminary.
Like the constables in Penzance, we constantly say, “We go, we go, we go!” Yes . . . but you don’t go.Appliqué Applications
Application is obedience. Application is starting up the car and taking it out for a spin. Application is giving as much weight to Ephesians 4-6 as you do to Ephesian 1-3, and making sure to center the former on the base of the latter. Application leads to a sanctification that sweats, and even that sweat is a gift of God—lest any man should boast. Application is like plowing a field, running a race, fighting a war. We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared beforehand for us to do. It is okay to quote that verse because it is found in chapter two. But be careful, your mentor warns.
We have opted instead for appliqué, that which is decorative needlework. You have an ecclesiastical enterprise that is dedicated to honoring the memory of the Puritans, but you have to leave out a bunch of the stuff that they did. And said. And wrote. And disciplined for. If any of their downstream heirs ask leave to do anything similar in our day, they are shushed and silenced and run out of town.
But you still have to look like a Puritan, and so little appliqué applications are allowed. This would include things like buying an expensive humidor, reading books that weigh twelve pounds, and becoming a craft beer snob. If in any of those books you read about the Puritans’ exploits in application, this is permissible just so long as you follow the exhortation of James, which is to be a hearer of the Word, and not a doer of it. Something like that. Something something.
The whole thing would be hilarious if it weren’t so funny.
Our Reformed forefathers, and the Puritans in the Angloworld, built a great civilization. But we live in a time when the purported Reformed of today would have trouble building a shaved ice stand in Atlantic City in August. This is because building things out there in the world requires applications. The only thing we know how to build would be our own nests—so that we might have something to feather.
And so returning to the earlier point about inescapable concepts, the modern Reformed guy builds. Oh, yes, he builds. He builds diversity offices. He builds third way political excuses. He builds pathways towards women’s ordination. He builds Sunday School curricula to further climate change awareness . He builds a ramshackle cardboard shantytown in the place where his forefathers once built glorious churches and vibrant towns.
He does this because as a man, he must have application. As a modern Reformed man, he must not have Christian application. So what we get is pagan applications. Everybody is acting worried about the Reformed installing a Theodosius, when what they ought to be worried about is our contemporary Reformed johnnies installing a Diocletian. They are whipped up that the Reformed are going to give us a Protestant Franco when the more likely scenario is a Stalin who actually finished his seminary studies.
And we would breathlessly await a NYT piece from David French. “Why Diocletian is No Trump . . . And That’s a Good Thing.”
Application is Risky
Someone is going to protest that all such applications really are risky. They really can be legalistic. Some people really do bind consciences. The application can be biblical enough, like giving away everything to the poor, but because it is done without love, it is still nothing. And the applications urged by some believers can be well intentioned, and still be flat wrong.
All of this is quite true. Applications are risky. But the servants who took their risks are the ones praised in the parable. And the one who took his talent and buried it in a napkin was the one who took the sane, conservative approach (Luke 19:20Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). He was the worthless servant.
But at least he was a worthless Reformed servant. And he said he believed in inerrancy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 26, 2024 23:33:29 GMT -5
The Trap of Donatism Lite
Posted onMonday, January 22, 2024 by Douglas Wilson - 25 comments
Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links
Introduction
As the aftermath of the great evangelical leadership meltdown continues apace, we find ourselves in the midst of a very interesting discussion. What do we do about evangelical leaders who flaked, evangelical leaders who wobbled, and evangelical leaders who stood firm—now that some of the smoke has cleared, and some who wobbled are starting to see things more clearly? Or at least they are speaking and writing as though they see things more clearly, but maybe they don’t. Now what?
What I am going to write here includes a number of conservative players, and ostensibly conservative players, and I am going to throw them all into one great big pot. I am including some who were revealed in the event to not have actually been conservative at all. But with everyone included, I am talking about the world that includes Scott Aniol, Tom Ascol, Tim Bayly, Alistair Begg, Josh Buice, Josh Daws, Kevin DeYoung, Jeff Durbin, Michael Foster, David French, Jon Harris, Josh Howerton, Andrew Isker, Jared Longshore, John MacArthur, Al Mohler, Russell Moore, John Piper, Erik Reed, Joe Rigney, A.D. Robles, Colin Smothers, Toby Sumpter, Carl Trueman, Andrew Walker, James White, Stephen Wolfe, William Wolfe, James Wood, and Jeff Wright. And me. And I am sure I left some worthy folks out, and my apologies. If you were to mention them to me, I would say oh, yeah, and put them in.
The stress test that we all went through over the last few years included, but was not limited to the issues of lock downs, church closures, masks, pronoun hospitality, vaccines, drag queen story hours, homosexual wedding receptions, failure to include any women in a long list of men (gotcha), and so on.
What the stress test accomplished is that it sorted out the aforementioned men into three distinct groups. There were the stalwart bros, who withstood all the nonsense—and who took a beating for it. And that beating was often administered by men in the other two groups. At the other end were the men who were far more progressive in their thinking than anyone had ever believed them to be, and they took the opportunity presented by the crisis to reveal that what they were was basically pro-life Democrats. While they could sign conservative commitments on paper, their reflex move was always to blame the right and steer left. And there in the middle were the men who went along with this second group, at least for a time. But now that the follies of those most sciency of times are becoming more and more manifest by the day, this third group is coming back around to a more genuinely conservative position, and that’s all to the good. But how are they to be received? Ah. That’s why we have these little blog post meetings, you and I.
A Brief History of the Donatist Controversy
In the later persecutions of the church by Rome (e.g. the time of Diocletian), some church leaders capitulated, and handed over copies of the Scriptures to the persecutors. This is where we get the word traitor, incidentally. The Latin word tradere means to deliver, or hand over. When the persecutions had passed, some Christians in North Africa believed that men who had disgraced their office by capitulating instead of accepting martyrdom were no longer qualified to hold church office. One of these men, a man named Felix, appointed a new bishop of Carthage, a man named Caecilian. But there were those who believed that Felix no longer had any authority, moral or otherwise, to appoint anyone to an office like that, and so they elected their very own bishop, a man named Donatus. You can see where this was going.
The Donatists were more sectarian than they were heretical, and it has to be remembered that there were lots of issues in play. And there were reasonable Donatists, and there were crazy hard line Donatists. So does the validity of an ordination (or baptism) depend on the moral qualifications of the one administering it? What distinctions do we make between receiving back a member who buckled under persecution and a pastor who did? What do we allow, and what should we insist on?
And we do all this remembering that our current situation is just a little baby version of the Donatist controversy. But there is enough of a resemblance that there are likely some lessons for us there.
My Potpourri Bowl of Observations, and Every Bit as Aromatic
My observations below are not disjointed. It only seems that way. Think of them as different leaves in a potpourri bowl, each one distinct from the others, but each one contributing its own unique scent. Yeah, almost exactly like that.
As we discuss and debate who should be allowed to be recognized as a leader in the conservative Reformed resistance now, we need to remember that the desire to be seen as greatest in the kingdom is a perennial temptation. This does not dictate what we must do, and it is not something that alters another man’s qualifications, but it certainly means that we must double check our own motives before we denounce anybody. My motives may have nothing to do with his qualifications for ministry, but they most certainly have something to do with my qualifications for ministry. And that is where Christ requires us to start our internal discussion. Imagine a Christian leader who appeared to have flaked real bad during this time of upheaval, and his failure opened up a space for you and your ministry. And then imagine that as all the stories were coming out, and the truth about that time was being revealed, it turns out that the whole time he was actually hiding fifty prophets from Jezebel in a cave. And so now he is a hero, not a chump. If you receive this news with real joy, and no internal heart dismay, then good on you. You have cleared the first hurdle.
Remember the apostle Peter. Out of the twelve, the only one who didn’t scatter when the shepherd was struck was the apostle John. John stayed with Him to the end (John 19:26Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). Judas betrayed the Lord (Matt. 26:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), and Peter denied Him three times (Matt. 26:74Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). It is not often remembered that the other disciples had loudly echoed Peter’s boast that they would die with Him (Matt. 26:35Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), but 11 out of 12 disgraced themselves at various levels and in varying degrees (Matt. 26:31Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). And this was the band of losers that just a few weeks later was God’s chosen instrument to oversee the greatest outpouring of the Spirit in the history of the world. God is perfect, which means He is not a perfectionist. If God can restore one to ministry who had, with curses, claimed not to have known Christ, He can certainly restore someone who made his congregation wear a stupid mask.
But with that said, Peter acknowledged his fault. He went out and wept bitterly (Matt. 26:75Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). In other words, Peter knew that he did not deserve to remain in the leadership of the Lord”s disciples, and this is why it was such a marvelous display of the Lord’s grace when Peter was reinstated (John 21:17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). He had discredited himself, but was forgiven. But even then, remembering our first point, there was still an element of crackle between Peter and John (John 21: 20-22Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).
There is a difference between wanting to see an acknowledgement of error and wanting to make someone crawl. Acknowledgement of error is all about restoration of relationship, making things right, and making someone crawl is all about domineering and trying to become great in the kingdom by carnal means. Wanting to see such an acknowledgement is not too much to ask, and it is spiritually healthy to look for such an acknowledgement. We should be eager for that. But neither should we want right wing North Vietnamese struggle sessions.
Always remember that someone can acknowledge error in various ways, and can do so publicly, but that his acknowledgment might not get the same airplay that the original error did. There are exceptions—an example of that would be James Wood’s piece on Tim Keller. But often our failures make a bigger splash than our corrections and retractions do. So don’t assume that someone has not put things right simply because you hadn’t heard about him putting things right.
Time matters in these things. Saying something nice about Russell Moore ten years ago is not the same thing as saying something nice about him ten weeks ago. The way the whole narrative unfolded matters. And having written for TGC once does not indicate undying commitment to all things Big Eva. And having been snowed by Aimee Byrd does not prevent one from writing a world-class book that explains how the whole evangelical world was snowed by assorted and sundry Aimee Byrds. The world is a weird place. Get used to it.
Institutions matter in these things, and turning an institution around can be like trying to turn an aircraft carrier around. The turning radius of a seminary or denomination is not comparable to the turning radius of some Internet rando with a Swift Boat blog. I could publish something erroneous, be set straight, and have a retraction up by that evening. But large institutions have different power centers, and complicated decision making processes, and contracts, and procedures manuals, and complicated board politics, and it turns out that David might not be able to do anything about Joab.
It is important to distinguish between guys you wouldn’t hire to run the strategy of your ministry, and someone who has apparently turned around, and has done so while continuing to hold onto his base of followers and supporters. You might wonder how he has managed to hold on to them, but let’s suppose that he has. That means he is still a player, whether you like it or not. When the conflict comes, and he shows up for the fight with his divisions, are you going to act like the Philistine captains who told Achish that there was no way they were going to let David go into battle alongside them (1 Sam. 29:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))? Okay, let’s leave out of my illustration the fact that they were certainly being wise in ways that Achish was not being. Let’s pretend for a moment that Achish was the one being wise. You don’t want to be like the Philistine captains, do you? Okay, seriously, forget that illustration. Scratch that. If you don’t trust someone yet, then don’t rely on him. But at the same time, if he is having an impact that you can use . . . then use it. The fact that there were some really bad personnel decisions made at Southern, and there were, does not mean that Al Mohler can’t be really helping a number of people through The Briefing. You don’t have to explain it.
There are ministry leaders out there (that I know of) who used to be ministering in squish-world, but have red-pilled hard, and are situated in the middle of a large network of men who have not yet had that radicalization happen to them, but who could be brought along. And perhaps they could be brought along for two cents. These situated men are biding their time, waiting for the right moment to hoist the Jolly Roger. Give them a minute.
Not everyone who takes a hard line against compromise is free of compromise himself. It is true that participation in MLK50 was terrible compromise, but I can find men on the right today who would condemn that as horrendous compromise while they themselves are compromising hard with Rashida Tlaib’s take on the Jews. I am equally wary of both, and can be grateful for the contributions of either. John Piper and E. Michael Jones have both written marvelous books, and both of them have some really pronounced blind spots.
It is important to distinguish between things that might look the same from a distance. One person actually wrote and promulgated woke stuff, and that needs to be addressed and corrected. Someone else participated in some things, going along, and doing so because of friendships and ministry partnerships. Critics from a distance need to recognize that friendships and ministry partnerships cannot exist without trust, and when that trust is being betrayed, it takes some people longer to see that. And yet another kind of person saw the errors, and saw the play that was being run, but simply had a more courteous and cautious approach to fellow Christians in error. And, as I said above, there is a real failure to recognize how much men like Russell Moore and David French have shifted. Listening to them now puts you in a different category than listening to them years ago.
In sum, if you were among those who wobbled, it is not enough to show back up with a cheery “Hey, guys!” Nothing would be hurt if you simply said, “you all were right, and I was wrong. Please accept my apology.” And the stalwart bros would stay out of the Donatist trap by saying, “Thank you. Apology accepted.” If you were among those who stood firm, then continue to hold fast to your convictions because that is one of the reasons why you were able to stand firm in the first place. But recognize that holding fast to your convictions does not require you to view every course correction that others make with suspicion and a jaundiced eye.
And if you were among those who wobbled, do not resent the fact that it will take awhile for you to regain any kind of moral authority with the troops. Things can be put right formally, but it still might take some time before full trust is regained. That’s just the way the world is. Ligon Duncan’s foreword to Eric Mason’s Woke Church did not age well, and there is no retroactive way to make it age well.
Thomas Cranmer was a great hero of the faith, and a martyr. He was also a man who buckled under pressure at the end of life, and signed a paper recanting his biblical position. But he was also a man who courageously recanted his recantation, and was immediately hustled off to be burned. He then put his offending hand, the one that had signed his earlier denial of the truth, into the fire so that it might be the first to burn. So do not despise the coward/heroes. God uses them.
Gideon was a great hero of the faith (Heb. 11:32Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). But let us also remember that he had to be coaxed into his heroics by a sarcastic angel who found his “mighty man of valor” threshing grain in a wine vat, hiding from the Midianites (Judg. 6:12Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). He also had to be brought along by various signs and portents (Judg. 6:36-40Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), and by a bad dream that some Midianite had (Judg. 7:13ffOpen in Logos Bible Software (if available)). But he nevertheless rose to a great triumph by faith, doing better than any of us. And also remember that after Gideon had been used to accomplish this great victory with just 300 men, and the men of Ephraim showed up late to help out and were chafed about that, Gideon answered them quite diplomatically, praising their contribution (Judg. 8:1-3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). So we are still dealing with a lot of Midianites yet, and we have better things to do than to get into a chiding-fest with late-arriving Ephraimites.
Edmund was a poisonous little beast, and so one of the things Aslan did was die for him in order to make him a king.
This is something that needs to be discussed, and so comments are open. As always, behave.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 29, 2024 20:45:00 GMT -5
Alistair Beggs the Question
Posted onMonday, January 29, 2024 by Douglas Wilson
Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links
Introduction
Let us begin by acknowledging that it is not good or appropriate to take decades of faithful ministry and gospel preaching in order to wad it up and throw it away, and to do this over a few unfortunate (albeit erroneous) comments. It is important to maintain perspective. You should never throw out a good man’s entire ministry just because he wants to say that under certain conditions it would be appropriate to attend a tranny-wedding.
And so that is why Alistair Begg shouldn’t have done that.
The people who have appreciated his ministry for years, and who have expressed dismay over this incident are not the ones doing that. This was an unforced error on Alistair’s part, and not the result of a bunch of carping Christians. There may be a handful who are rejoicing in this event as a proof of whatever it is they have been maintaining, but they are people who have their own issues. But, however, truth be told, those folks always did have their own issues.
In case you are wondering, I am not going to use this space in order to yell at Alistair. I do, however, want to explain the difference between what he thinks he is doing and what he is actually doing. There is a subtlety here, but it is not the kind of subtlety that justifies anything. “Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made” (Genesis 3:1Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). But mark this. I am not saying that Alistair is a serpent. I am saying that the serpent dunked on him here.
To Recap
If you are just now joining us, in a recent interview Alistair Begg recounted a conversation he had with a grandma who was wondering if she should attend her grandson’s wedding, in which he was getting married to a transgender person. A fuller account of all that is here. After controversy blew up over that comment, some days later, Alistair refused to walk anything back. He stood by his comments, and so here we are.
From the accounts I have seen, we are not exactly sure what we are dealing with, but it is bent however you look at it. Either the grandson was marrying a woman who pretends to be a man, in which case the marriage itself is an actual marriage, and the homosexual delusion (pretending you are marrying a man) is still a sick delusion, or he is marrying a man who thinks he is a woman, and so you have both actual sodomy and quite a different delusion, just as broken. But for our purposes here, it doesn’t really matter. The issue is the lawfulness of a Christian’s celebratory participation at an event that is truly dark.
What Alistair Thought He Was Doing
Now when many evangelicals read Alistair’s defense of his advice to the grandmother, it initially can seem quite reasonable. His questions for her show that he thinks that registering your dissent from the trans-lifestyle in a formal way is both necessary and sufficient. “‘Does your grandson understand that your belief in Jesus makes it such that you can’t countenance in any affirming way the choices that he has made in life?’ ‘Yes.'”
But what does it mean not to countenance “in any affirming way” a choice to marry someone who is transgender? If your absence from the wedding registers your censorious disapproval, which Alistair argued it would, and you are taking steps to avoid that, then what you are doing in actual fact is countenancing a transgender wedding in an affirming way. If absenting an event proves something, then so does attending. Attending shows the opposite, and does not demonstrate a studied neutrality. Approval or acceptance is what your attendance means. If it didn’t mean that, there would be no difficulty if you didn’t show. So the advice given by Alistair amounts to “do not countenance in any affirming way—except for just this once—the lifestyle choice.”
Alistair thinks he is simply being nice, and so he is advising the grandmother to show Christian kindness. But nobody is against loving the grandson. Suppose this grandmother had asked me something like, “For years I have taken my grandson out to lunch on his birthday. Is it still all right to do that after he has married his whatsit?” My reply would have been “certainly, take him out to lunch.” And if the grandson had asked if he could bring his whatsit, I would encourage her to say certainly yet again. She needs Christ also. “Grandma, you will need to start saying he needs Christ.” Sorry. No can do.
So the issue is not kindness, but rather approval. The issue is going along with a serious delusion. It is not a sin for a screwed up person to have a birthday, and it is no sin to help them celebrate it. Jesus ate with tax-collectors and sinners (Mark 2:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), and so may we. But I seriously doubt if Jesus would have been willing to be the after dinner speaker for the Annual Judean Shakedown Banquet. Levi’s birthday, fine. Levi’s celebration of how he squeezed that poor widow woman until she cried over losing her house, not so fine.
Now there will be some Christians who object to my use above of whatsit. They want to go back to that and discuss my calloused disregard for others for a minute. They will say it is demeaning and disrespectful to write anything like that. They will continue to maintain this position until the next stage of the sexual revolution, when the bi-pedal carbon unit in question goes a step beyond her furry stage, and demands now to be addressed as a mechanical sex bot. Her pronouns are now whatsit/weirdo. You are somewhat relieved because you had gotten tired of serving her just a saucer of milk at Thanksgiving. You are also relieved that it now apparently okay, according to all your soupy Christian friends, to use words like whatsit.
In other words, these accommodating Christians would in fact be willing to use a demeaning reference like whatsit—provided an unstable, untrammeled, and mentally disturbed ego demanded it. And yet, at the same time, they are unwilling to use it when a holy God, His righteous Scriptures, and the whole created order demand it. All must offer a pinch of incense to the Emperor of Ego, and as long as you have registered your dissent “off-budget” somewhere, as it were, you can still observe all the external pagan formalities that are being demanded of you.
So despite the fact that Alistair thought that his advice was risk-taking for the sake of building bridges to those who don’t understand that Jesus “is a King,” what he was really doing was avoiding the risk of angering the cool kids and the power brokers behind them. If Jesus is a King, and He is, then we must do what He says, and we must not care about or respond to the censures of those who will sneer and say we are being “judgmental, critical, unprepared to countenance anything.”
What Peter Thought He Was Doing
Alister Begg has been a faithful minister for many years, just as the apostle Peter was a devoted follower of Christ. But even though Peter was a great man, and a great apostle, he was still notably impetuous. He was far more influenced by the immediate circumstances than was his counterpart, the apostle Paul. Paul was able to maintain the big picture at all times, and Peter could get carried away by his immediate circumstances more easily.
When Jesus said that He was going to go to Jerusalem, and there be crucified, it was Peter who stepped in impetuously, and expressed two distinct sentiments that don’t really go together. “No, Lord.” Jesus then rebuked him as a satan because his mindset was that of men, and not of God (Matt. 16:23Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). And Peter famously and impetuously vowed that he would be with Jesus to the death (Matt. 26:35Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). Peter was the one who impetuously cut off the ear of Malchus (John 18:10Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). He was, he thought, backing up his words with deeds. And Peter, still in pursuit of what he had declared he would do, followed the arrested Jesus into the belly of the beast (John 18:16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). But once there, trapped in the moment, he impetuously denied the Lord—three times he denied him (Matt. 26:74Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). The Lord in His grace restored him as an apostle by the Sea of Galilee (John 22:17Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), after asking him three times if he loved Him—one question for each denial. Peter was restored, but Peter was still Peter. Later on, he says no to the Lord three times when he was instructed in a vision to “rise, kill and eat” (Acts 10: 16Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).
And so this was the man who pulled away from the Gentile Christians at Antioch when certain “men from James” arrived. Now Paul saw, in a way that Peter and Barnabas did not, that the gospel was actually at stake in the seating arrangements at the Antioch potluck. That being the case, he charged both Peter and Barnabas with hypocrisy (Gal. 2:13Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).
But what did they think they were doing before Paul’s rebuke? We are told that the motivation for the hypocrisy was fear (Gal. 2:12Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), but how would they have justified it to themselves before they received Paul’s rebuke (which they thankfully did)? We do know Peter took the rebuke to heart because of how he later argued at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:7ffOpen in Logos Bible Software (if available)).
So how would they have justified it in their own minds before Paul’s rebuke? They could easily have followed Alistair’s playbook. Everyone here knows that Peter is good with Gentiles becoming Christians. He was the man who preached to Cornelius, after all. That is a given. “Everybody knows where I stand.” In the meantime, we need to accommodate the weaker brethren, and if they are not comfortable sitting near the Gentile tables, then we need to work with them. Does not Paul himself teach that we should become as under to the law to those under the law (1 Cor. 9:20Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))? They won’t care how much we know until they know how much we care. But to placate these men from James like this—and incidentally, we must remember they were not actually good representatives of James (Acts 15:24Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))—meant relegating the Gentile believers to the back of the bus. Paul saw the implications and Peter did not.
So what they thought they were doing is not the same thing as what they were doing. Fearing what the men from James would say put them in a position of not fearing what God would say. This is the way it always goes. The temptation is always to fear those who will pitch a fit if they don’t get their way. The temptation is to fear those who will make a scene. The men from James were the kind of men who would make a scene. And the transgender mafia certainly knows how to make a scene. Evangelical grandmothers who have followed Alistair’s ministry for decades won’t make a scene. They might be a little surprised, as this woman was, but they are decent Christians, and know how to stay polite. And the bad guys know this about us, come to think of it.
Fortunately Paul was there to stand up and introduce the Awkward Moment. Well, here we are, right spang in the middle of another one.
Swap Out the Sin
All the issues become completely transparent if we try to see if this approach to “winning a sinner” is an approach that can transfer to other sins. After all, all sinners need Christ, right?
Say that your brother-in-law, married to your sister for thirty years, decides to leave her for his mistress, a much younger woman who has just moved to the area six months ago. He decides to host a reception in order to introduce people to his girlfriend, who doesn’t know many people yet, being new to the area. Does the metric outlined by Alistair work? You had several earnest conversations with your brother-in-law, explaining to him exactly why the divorce was wrong and unjustified. So he knows where you stand. Does that mean you go to the reception? Are you kidding me? The issue is not whether your brother-in-law knows where you stand. The question is whether or not you know where you stand.
Or say that your nephew started an alt-right web site that really caught fire and took off. It grew such that the traffic was really significant, and so he is now running a politically inflammatory merch warehouse, with a set of offices next to it. Their organization has decided to launch a print magazine, one that would supplement the articles on the web site with more in-depth reporting. The editorial policy they are seeking to advance consists of a blend of white nationalism, health and fitness advice, and they occasionally like to dabble in various hints of Holocaust-denial. You have expressed your dissent, your strong dissent, in several conversations with your nephew. He knows where you stand. But they are hosting a barbecue in order to celebrate the launch of the magazine, and you receive an invitation. Do you go? Again, are you kidding me?
Now why do these examples seem so ludicrous? Why does it seem like I am coming up with outrageous scenarios in order jigger my point? I would simply point out in reply that out of all three of these sins (and they are all three of them big sins), the most demented one is the tranny-wedding. By far.
The reason it doesn’t seem that way is because the sins in my two made-up examples do not currently have a culture-wide full court press on their behalf, insisting that we all celebrate them. The adulterous man is accepted and tolerated, but Society is not demanding that we celebrate him. We do not yet have a federally-recognized cheat-on-your-spouse month, you know, with a flag and everything. And while the alt-right nephew does have to deal with a full-court press, it is one aimed at him, targeted against him, and is not being conducted in support of his sin. He is sinning but he has to swim upstream to do it.
Saying that Christians may attend wedding receptions in honor of perverse events is not swimming upstream. It is floating downstream face down.
And so it appears that the Alistair strategy is only effective in showing kindness to those sinners who have the full-throated support of the current kultursmog. It would never be employed on behalf of those sinners who need Jesus every bit as much, but whose sins are not currently being promoted, celebrated, or advanced.
“who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”
Romans 1:32 (NKJV)
It is not just the doing of vile deeds that are a concern here. It is also the approval of them. And the devil, master of deception, is prepared to be pretty devious in how he gets Christians to believe that capitulation to the spirit of the age is somehow an exercise in risk-taking. He gets them to approve of such things in a way that provides them with some level of deniability, even to themselves. Especially to themselves.
Alistair Beggs the Question
Begging the question occurs when you assume what you need to prove. Alistair is assuming that attending a wedding like this would be a kind and thoughtful Christian act, because he had kind sentiments when he suggested it. And yet we are obviously at a stage of cultural disintegration where it would have to be demonstrated that this could ever be a kind thing to do. It has been somewhat heartening that so many Christians saw this problem with Alistair’s advice almost immediately.
The battle is actually over creational joy, and what what kind of environment would be conducive to such joy. The creation ordinance that God gave us allows us to raise a glass to a man and woman, and it enables all of us to toast and drink and laugh together. A ceremony with two men is just lame. With two women it is simply sad. And when the trans thing is going on, everything about it is just broken. Moreover the people involved know this down in their bones, and so they demand approval from the heteros that they so deeply despise and simultaneously envy. Some Christians have been gullible enough to believe that if we just gave them what they are demanding, that this will somehow make the ache in their throat go away. But how could it?
There is a reason why the battle lines have frequently involved cake bakers, photographers, florists, videographers, and wedding planners. These are the glorifying professions. These are the professions that are supposed to make an event look good. And what is being demanded is impossible, even when someone capitulates and agrees to try. It is like assigning the best make-up artist in the world to a chimpanzee.
So the intoleristas are not out in force making hardware store owners sell hammers to homosexuals. They don’t need to. We are more than willing to participate in the same economy with people who don’t know Christ, and whose lives reflect the fact that they don’t know Christ. I am willing to advise any Christian in the world to be willing to sell a lesbian couple any of the following: a roast beef sandwich, a car, a book, an end table, a light bulb, or a tablecloth. Evangelical bakers would be delighted to sell a homosexual couple a birthday cake. Having a birthday is fine. What we cannot give them, or sell to them, is our applause, or approval, or glorifying expertise, or supportive presence.
And so why is it that everything is so muddled and confused? The answer, unlike the tangles that attend the question, is straightforward.
“They have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah: Therefore he will remember their iniquity, he will visit their sins.”
Hosea 9:9 (KJV)
Just A Couple of Poems
If you will indulge me just a few moments more, I want to share with you a couple of poems that I wrote, taken from this book here.
I do not say that these are very good poems, but I am maintaining that they are the kind of poems that those who are in flat rebellion against what they call heteronormativity cannot even aspire to write. The heart of the sexual revolution is transgressive revolt, and the one thing you can’t do with transgressive revolt is mainstream it. However you try to prove your point, the round squares you try to draw for us will just wobble all over the board.
That said, here they are.
Propriety
Everyone knows what will happen tonight,
But all politely avert the gaze,
Talking of all the beautiful sights—
The gown and veil, how the minister prays;
But later, when the couple has gone
And all the trappings have been removed,
Man and woman will welcome the dawn
With eros embraced, and eros proved.
And here is the second one.
Vineyard of En Gedi
When he gives to her, and she receives it
With passive and gentle ferocity,
He thanks his God who made their bodies fit
Within these laws of reciprocity.
So then, what appears as carnal pleasure
Is really far more—it is sacrifice,
Holy and sacred, an earth bound treasure,
Reflecting glory. I render thanks twice,
For here is the woman, and her is her head
Gathered in this, their tumultuous bed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 11, 2024 15:35:25 GMT -5
Smashmouth Incrementalism at the Polls
Posted onWednesday, April 10, 2024 by Douglas Wilson
Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links
Introduction
So a couple of days ago, Donald Trump announced his stance on abortion. He declined to go for a national abortion ban, saying that the issue should be left to the individual states. In addition, he also affirmed the standard-issue “safe-for-politicians” pro-life stance, which includes room for abortion in cases of “rape, incest, and the life of the mother.”
On top of that, the Arizona Supreme Court just decided that an 1864 law, which constitutes a near-total ban on abortion, is enforceable. This is sure to inflame the left, and is likely to juice turnout for Biden. Trump’s vacillation on abortion is sure to inflame the right, and is likely to juice absolutely nothing because the right has nowhere to go. We glance to the right of Trump, eager to cast our vote for the Pure Candidate over there, and it turns out that he’s not running. Again.
And this is why we should be able to see how the times are crying out for more detailed discussion of the absolute need for smashmouth incrementalism. The time is ripe for the kind of clarity that only smashmouth incremental thinking can provide. Interested? Stick with me.
Quick Definition
On the abortion issue, an abolitionist is someone who does not want to “chip away” at our ungodly abortion laws. He wants simply to outlaw the practice, pure and simple. An establishment pro-lifer is someone who wants to discourage abortion by whatever means are currently expedient—and a lot rides on what the cool kids tell us “expedient” means. And a smashmouth incrementalist is someone who wants to implement whatever restrictions we can successfully place on abortion now, with the stated goal of coming back for more in the very next round, and with all of us understanding that the final goal is the entire eradication of human abortion. This was something I wrote about a couple years ago, and you can get up to speed if you would like—here, here, here, here, and here. That’s a bit of reading, but if you want to be ready for this coming presidential election, it appears you do need to get current.
You are going to need to make decisions, and you will need a standard to make them by, and you should not wait until October when the pressure will be on to wing it.
The Issue and Not the Issue
We need to begin with the obvious. Whether or not Trump’s announced position is politically expedient or not, it is most certainly incoherent.
Politicians who adopt the “rape, incest, and life of the mother” exceptions are showing us all one of two things. There are two, and only two possibilities. Either they don’t know that the position they have adopted is incoherent, or they do know. Those are the only options, and certain things follow from each.
The issue in the abortion debate is whether or not the child is a person, created in the image of God. If a person, then that child should have the protections that God’s law secures for persons. The law should recognize the personhood of the unborn child. If not a person, then we need not bother. So that is the issue, and that is the only issue.
The politician who does not know that his exceptions are incoherent is wanting to adopt a different position—he wants a third way—which is that the unborn child is a person for purposes of pro-life fundraising and campaigning, but that persons need not have the protections that are guaranteed to persons in God’s law. “Yes, you are a person,” the politician says, “but your life is still forfeit if your father did something bad” (rape), or “your life is forfeit if your father and mother did something bad” (incest).
When a child is conceived in rape, there are three parties. The father is the criminal, the mother is the victim, and the child is a bystander. The respectable Republican pro-life politicians want to remain respectable (and electable) by advocating for the execution of the bystander for the crime of the father. Let that sink in. The moderate position, the respectable position, the tolerable position, is the one that says that an innocent party should be executed for the crime of his father. A real vote-getter, that one.
And so people who argue this way while angling for the pro-life vote are demonstrating that they don’t have the first bit of a clue regarding what the abortion issue even is. It is the ungodly taking of a human life . . . murder. If it is not murder, then it is not anything. But this leads to the second kind of politician.
So there are other politicians who know that this position is incoherent, but who also know that it is a message that can be passed off on a gullible electorate. In other words, they are cynical, but not confused, and their cynicism preys on confused voters. Those confused voters want to do something “pro-lifey” and so they cast vague sentimental votes in that general direction.
So when people ignore the issue—is the child a person?—and move on to demonstrate their compassion by advocating for the termination of one of the victims, they are by their actions telling us one of two things. First, they might be telling us that they are stupid. That’s one option. Or second, they might be telling us that they are cynical and are making a play to include stupid voters in their coalition. That is the other option.
Smashmouth Sumo Wrestling
A presidential election in a nation like ours is like two great globs of people, tens of millions of them in each glob, in a gigantic sumo wresting match. We run at each other, trying to push the other group out of the ring. In the very nature of the case, even if we succeed in pushing them out of the ring, thus winning the match, it is highly unlikely that we will have been able to push them out in a straight line. There is going to be a goodish bit of wobbling, and teetering, and quivering, and staggering, and trembling, and swaying. It is a difficult process for a purist ideologue to understand.
The smashmouth incrementalist knows where he is going, and he is willing to get there by means of incremental gains. So the abolitionist has a dilemma. The former president has just made it crystal clear that he is not an abolitionist. Can an abolitionist vote for him? He is not a pure presidential candidate. But is purity the standard, or is actual progress the standard? All-or-nothing purity is likely to wind up with nothing. But the only way to measure actual progress is by increments.
Even though Trump is not an abolitionist, he has stated a policy that makes room for abolitionists to work at the state level. “Leave it up to the states” means that abolitionists could actually succeed at the state level. And for Trump, these are not just words. Because he appointed the three SCOTUS justices that he did, Roe, which was a federal straight jacket on all the states, was reversed in Dobbs. And because of Dobbs, abolitionism at the state level is now a possibility. Abolitionism is not on the rise because incrementalism is a dead end. Just the reverse. Abolitionism is a real option now because of the success of incrementalism.
So here is another definition. Smashmouth incrementalism is simply realistic abolitionism. Incremental progress is going to happen whether or not it meets with the approval of all the ideological abolitionists. The realistic abolitionists who are working to outlaw abortion at the state level are standing on the shoulders of Dobbs, an incrementalist victory.
If Trump is elected again, the White House is going to have all kinds of personnel running around in there—conventional pro-lifers, smashmouth incrementalists, and abolitionists. Trump is going to start appointing judges again, and they too will be a mix. The spectrum on life issues in a Trump administration will be a real spectrum. But that spectrum will include a good many hardliners for life. If Biden is reelected—or re-preselected, whatever—how many pro-lifers of any stripe are going to be anywhere around? You guessed that correctly. The Democratic Party is the party of murder, and no Christian who is right with God can have anything to do with them. There is only one thing I would like Evangelicals for Biden to remember, and that is this:
“Now consider this, ye that forget God, lest I tear you in pieces, and there be none to deliver.”
Psalm 50:22 (KJV)
If they respond by saying that this “tear you in pieces” business is kind of harsh for political discourse, and I ought not to have brought it up, I would respond by saying that they made their peace with tearing people in pieces a long time ago. That is what abortion does.
So Trump Uses Us, We Use Him
As Donald Trump has just demonstrated, he is either really confused on the abortion issue, or he is being really cynical on the abortion issue. But in doing this, he has actually joined up with the evangelical cool kids, and they do not appear to appreciate it. Donald Trump now has more in common on this issue with Russell Moore’s ERLC than he does with the Christian nationalists. He is moving into a mainstream “pro-lifer” position, and there will be people who attack him . . . for adopting their own position. Hypocrisy is a many-splendored thing. But their disdain for Trump is so deep, you should look for a number of them to move farther left on abortion, not out of any principle, but just so that they can keep daylight between themselves and Trump.
In the meantime, we have an election coming up, and a lot of us have a decision to make. There are multiple issues in play—like the border, and Ukraine, and Israel, and regulations, and so on—and I am not trying to reduce the election to a single issue. But if it were this single issue of abortion, that would be sufficient. If you think the life issue is important, if you are pro-life, or a smashmouth incrementalist, or an abolitionist, you need to vote for Trump.
Here is a categorization to help you understand what is going on. I would look at the people who are going to vote for Trump, and I would divide them into two broad categories.
First there is the group that is going to vote for Trump the man. This type of voter is the kind of person who fills up arenas at his rallies. They are invested in him. I am talking about an out-of-work coal miner from West Virginia, or any number of out-of-work factory workers from the Rust Belt. They see Trump as an advocate for them, someone who is loyal to them, and so they are loyal to him in return. Their investment in Trump is emotional, and it is personal. They are Trumpkins, and this is where all the populist energy is coming from. And on this abortion question, they are likely to adopt his position as theirs because they are all in for him. They will follow him in this, as Kari Lake immediately did. In such instances, Trump is leading people astray, causing them to embrace nonsense on the abortion issue. Nevertheless, they are a big part of why he has the momentum that he does. While I am not going to sign up for this Trump Cavalcade, I am willing to be entertained by it.
But the second group is not voting for Trump the man. They are voting for what they have good reason to believe will be the likely outcomes if he is elected, compared to the certain outcomes if Biden is reelected. They are voting for a probable state of affairs, going on the basis of an established track record for each candidate. We can look at what was happening between 2016 and 2020, and then look at what has been happening from 2020 to the present. And remember, I am speaking only of the life issue. If Trump is elected, will our ability to fight for life be enhanced or retarded? The question answers itself. If Biden is elected, will our ability to fight for life be enhanced or retarded? This one answers itself also.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 11, 2024 15:37:45 GMT -5
Letters Continue to Arrive, as They Are Wont to Do
Posted onTuesday, April 9, 2024 by Douglas Wilson - 42 comments
Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links
This and That
Regarding the psalm 147 sermon,
Is it possible to ask Pastor Wilson who is the Watts he is referring to about the “cistern in the sky” comment? Also, he has some commentary about everything holding together in Jesus and he used a word like “archai”, what is the spelling of that word?
We are blessed by the ministry of the Moscow Mood!
Sara
Sara, the word is arche, at least in English. And Isaac Watts was the great hymn writer who gave us “cisterns in the sky.”
A Full Preterism Complaint
I was extremely disappointed when I read your outline for your Resurrection Sunday message. In that outline you attacked Full Preterism in a way that you would not face-to-face in your interview with G. Ward Fenley. Either you think it is “heretical” or not. (That is it goes against the creeds and confessions, not necessarily Scripture). Either you received some pushback from friends for your the position you took (dual fulfillment of the new heavens and new earth and resurrection and judgement) or you were being disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. It has been the dishonesty that has turned me off throughout this whole debate. Why will nobody seriously get into the text. Everything falls back to a philosophical argument or the implications of FP. Are there not mysteries about God and His creation that we might never know? Yet you and others say they have cracked the code about the very end of history. What if that was never the intention of the Scriptures in the first place? What if we are not supposed to know how it all ends. I know for sure that every person will be judged. I know for sure that all who trust in Christ for salvation will live with Him forever. I don’t understand the need to know every detail about the future and then condemning others if they don’t see things through the same exact crystal ball you do. Sorry for the rant. I really still do appreciate you and your ministry. I have learned a lot and continue to. May God continue to bless your work
Jeremy
Jeremy, I think you have misunderstood things. Here are just a few (rapid fire) responses. The things I included in the sermon were things I thought of and said during the interview with Fenley. Dual fulfillment doesn’t hurt the partial preterist case and doesn’t help the full preterist case. The main thing I realized is that the rejection of the orthodox position by the full preterists needs to be just as robust (e.g. heretical) as vice versa, but the full preterists want it to be a mere “denominational” difference. That is not consistent. And you are right that full preterism is either heretical or it is not, but I said that it was in both the interview and in the sermon. There is disagreement still, but no inconsistency.
Martial Arts Question
What do you think about putting kids in martial arts classes of any kind or doing it as an adult? The problem is that I’m not aware of any boys-only classes anywhere. That means that if I put my son in a class he will practice hitting and/or wrestling with girls as if they are the same as boys. But if I keep him out of it then I’m depriving him of the ability to develop the skill of fighting, which is important for a man. Or course, spiritual fighting is way more important, but I would argue that training in physical combat is also of some value.
Mitch
Mitch, I agree. You cannot put him in a class where he would be fighting girls. The thing I would suggest is that you try to round up enough other Christian parents who would be interested in going in together to hire an instructor willing to teach a boys’ only class.
A Practical KJV Question
I recently read “Today’s Christian and the Church’s Bible” (I think it was at your recommendation?). Through that read, and though I’m not at all caught up on the textual criticism discussions, the practical reasons for the KJV convinced me to switch back to it. In my own reading of Scripture, I’ve greatly enjoyed and benefited from the switch.
I was ordained yesterday! I’m serving as Youth Pastor at my church and I have a question about how these play together. When I’ve taught from the KJV, I’ve heard the ole, “This language is confusing!” several times. Should I consider how my little flock is young and this could stumble them to the point that I don’t teach from the KJV? How would you handle this situation?
Chaz
Chaz, if the complaint is genuine, and not just a fuss that can be bypassed, I would use the NKJV when teaching the kids. As you prepare the lesson, read through the passage beforehand for any stumpers. If there are none, use the KJV, and if there are, use the NKJV.
Christian Nationalism Not Going Away
Thank you for your response several weeks ago to my 3 concerns about CN as stated, primarily in the statement on CN (which to be fair, I do not believe you have endorsed).
To restate briefly, those were 1. no agreement on a definition 2. unconstitutional and 3. US is not a nation
In your response I wanted to further clarify and get your thoughts.
1. agree and I hope that a consensus arrives sooner rather than later
2. I do wonder why the Founders didn’t more explicitly put Christianity into the Constitution. Aside from that, I guess the deeper matter is if the fed formally recognizes Christianity in a creedal way, I would think they would have to define what is Christianity and what isn’t, which seems the same as blasphemy laws, which I believe you said in Mere Christendom is not a good thing. Is my logic off?
3. For the sake of argument, I will grant that we may have once had a unifying culture in America that gave us nation status, but I think you would agree it has not been that way since at least the War between the States, and I am skeptical that a country as large (both geographically and populationally) as ours could now have a single culture across the entire populace, especially as diverse as we are. I guess I would think a nation at the state level would be more possible. And that could bring us back to being a nation of nations, these United States, which seems better anyways.
God Bless!
Matt
Matt, thanks. On #1, we will see how the definitions shake out. Could be good, bad, or indifferent. On #2, if the nation defines itself as Christian in a basic Apostles’ Creed sense, it does not follow that they would have to persecute. There are any number of things that could be done that would not be enforcing blasphemy laws on unbelievers—such as no immigration from Muslim countries, religious tests for office, no representative of the government being allowed to attend a non-Christian worship service in a representative capacity, no building permits for minarets, etc. On #3, we were a diverse but still cohesive nation down into my lifetime. But this cannot be sustained apart from a common and shared faith. And it wasn’t.
Re: A Quick Christian Nationalism Walk Through
I agree with much your article. I agree that whomever we, by default, regard as the absolute authority is our de facto god. I agree that the state, especially the ‘deep state’ may seek to hold this position. I also agree that we—that is, as the church—must confess “the true God as the sovereign over all human society, and over every form of human society” and that “all moral agents are answerable to the God who created them.”
Nevertheless, I disagree with your foundational presupposition that “every society, of necessity, must have a final locus of authority.” This, in turn, implies the opposite of your conclusion, namely, the necessity of Christian Nationalism.
Given the topic of your article, it seems fitting that by society you mean nationality or people group codified together in an identifiable political and civil order. Now, since no man is an island, everyone, of necessity, belongs to a society either by birth or by ‘adoption’ (i.e., immigration), what society do you belong to? America, right? But, according to your assessment, what would you say is America’s ‘final locus of authority?’ (What metrics one should use to make this assessment is another question, but that is besides my point.) My point is this: since you say that America is in a state of idolatry and apostasy and since you are a moral agent that makes up part of this society, does that mean that your final locus of authority is the same as America’s?
If it is different, then how does every society have a final locus of authority if its moral agents who make up the society can have various and conflicting final loci of authority? Perhaps, one might argue that the majority or most powerful culture within a society determines the final locus of authority for the society, and, therefore, why we need Christian Nationalism to rise to power. Nevertheless, it still stands that societies, since they are made up of moral agents, consist of people who can and do have divergent views on final authority.
Therefore, though it seems self-evident that ‘every person, of necessity, must have a final locus of authority,’ is it correct to presuppose that “every society, of necessity, must have a final locus of authority?” Though nations are made up of individuals and though, yes, God will judge the nations, it is ultimately individuals who will stand before God, not wholesale nations with all its members regardless one’s actual allegiance to final authority. Indeed, will the judge of whole earth destroy the righteous with the wicked?
Therefore, it seems much more fitting to say that every person, of necessity, must have a final locus of authority, but not every society. Though all societies have an authority structure, why must all societies have a final locus of authority? Although totalitarian societies make such a claim and impose it on the people, must all societies do this? If all authority is from God and if God alone has all authority and if God has given authority to the government, then the authority of a society, of a nation, by nature, must be limited. Thus, could a society not function within its limited sphere of authority according to nature (and also informed by God’s word if God so graciously allows) and not claim, mandate, or otherwise impose or imply a final locus of authority for the society as a whole but leave that to one’s soul’s liberty?
Now, should the king, the emperor, the president, and all the magistrates of every nation of all the earth acknowledge and worship and serve the true God of heaven and earth and his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ? Absolutely! I mean, shouldn’t we all? He is God, right? He is worthy. Is God’s law supreme over all? Indeed, it is. Should societies and civil laws be consistent with God’s law? Of course. God is God. His word is truth; his law, final and absolute. But does this mean that the civil government should silence heretics by death or imprisonment, or should the church do this through denouement, theological refutation, and excommunication?
Moreover, should Christians speak the truth in love in politics and take political action? Absolutely! Should Christians name the name of Christ in the public sphere? Should they stand against evil in every form with the truth of God’s word and with the reality of the lordship of Christ. Yes, Christ is lord over all. But does that mean that Christians should use violence to oppose evil? No, but the state should but only within its limited sphere of authority. Indeed, for the state to bear the sword in spiritual matters is no different than for a father to usurp authority in the church because he has the authority to lead his family. Each sphere must keep to its own sphere, yet every sphere ought to function in accordance with God’s word.
Thus, when it comes to Christian Nationalism or to Two Kingdom Theology, the question shouldn’t be is God’s law supreme but how does God’s law and word apply to the nations—to the Gentiles—concerning civil government and laws. Though Christians may be true Israel in Christ, none of the nations are theocratic, old covenant Israel.
So, what should we do as Christians in a nation that is progressively becoming more sinful and hostile to Christianity? Gather the troops, load our guns, and march on the capital? Or should we stay on mission and make disciples? Indeed, we must seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Moreover, we must keep the faith and endure to the end despite the cost. We must renounce all, die to self, and pick up our cross daily and follow Christ, or we cannot be his disciple. We should speak the truth in love. We should have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness but rather expose them. We should submit to the civil authorities regardless of who they are or who they worship as long as it is consistent with God’s law, and we should pray for godly government. We should love the church and our families and our neighbors as ourselves, being salt and light in his world, naming Christ as Lord of all, calling all to repentance and faith. This is not Christian Nationalism. This is Christianity.
Thanks,
P.S. My main concern with Christian Nationalism is that it seems, in most forms, to conflate these two spheres of church and state to a degree, mixing forms of rule, authority, and actives that belong to the church with the state. It would be helpful to know what you think is the defining feature of Christian Nationalism and how religious freedom relates to Christian Nationalism since I would contend that a nation truly informed by God’s word would uphold religious freedom because these matters do not properly belong to the state per God’s authority.
Pip
Pip, here is how I would respond to this line of argument. Societies make decisions (to go to war, to make treaties, to legalize things, to outlaw things). And when they make decisions, they do so appealing to a certain standard. What is that standard? The final locus of authority.
Regarding ‘A Quick Christian Nationalism Walk Through’
I’m confident you will be familiar with C. S. Lewis’s article entitled ‘First and Second Things’. In that article he lays out the principle (he calls it ‘a universal law’) that when we make secondary things into primary things we actually lose BOTH the primary and secondary thing.
Is not this a danger with Christian Nationalism? If we seek political influence as a primary thing, don’t we risk losing both that AND the gospel?
Richard
Richard, yes, certainly. It is a danger with CN, but it is also a danger with “staying out of all things CN.” We must always watch our step.
I am currently a Baptist but trying to better understand biblical covenants. Through my studies I have begun to wonder if some of the confusion in the Christian Nationalism debate stem from misunderstandings of biblical covenants? I may have this wrong, but it seems as if your part of your argument for Christian Nationalism 1. Our Founders made a covenant with God to honor Jesus Christ as Lord of all during the founding.
2. We, as Americans, are covenantally obligated to remain faithful to that covenant. We are bound by that covenant being born into it.
3. This seems similar to how you view covenant children being born into the faith having an obligation to remain in the covenant.
I wonder if some of the pushback to Christian Nationalism is driven by En(darkenment) thought of individualism.
P.S. Do you have any book recommendations for understanding biblical covenants?
Ryan
Ryan, I would start here.
Yes; well put. Add this as preface or postscript to next edition of Mere Christendom. But what actual problems, and what reputational problems, hinder Christian nationalism?
One actual is Christians in power taking for granted whatever the culture takes for granted about politics, instead of checking the Bible to see what triune Jehovah might have to say. The Bible is not a textbook of politics, or economics, or science, but it does have things to say about them.
But when Constantine gets saved, he takes Caesar’s job description for granted, and just tries to be a Christian Caesar. He’s pretty good at it, and he takes some Christian input (Leithart, Defending Constantine), but he’s not giving it the amount of thought some Christians are giving Biblical politics these days.
And . . .
Andrew
Andrew, yes. Thanks.
Figures
The article written about Josh Howerton by the Baptist News Global that you linked to. The author’s bio states, “He is a stay-at-home father of five children and produces music under the artist name Provoke Wonder.”
Sounds about right.
Thanks,
Roger
Roger, thanks. I hadn’t seen that.
Sorry to Disappoint
I’ll get straight to the point. There’s a girl I like and I want your advice. She is dedicated to Christ. Her father has been a mentor of mine in the faith for years, and he almost feels like a second dad. Her mother is a model of the Christian wife.
Here’s the thing, she and I are only in high school. Out of the six or so people I consider best friends, she is the only female. We see each other a lot. In school, in Bible study and youth group (she goes to a different church), and in group hangouts. (Just in case you’re wondering, I take your advice about odd numbers of guys and girls. Generally three guys and two girls.)
This is all fine and dandy, but it leaves me with a couple questions. First, a question of self-doubt. Am I too young to be considering this? After all, I do plan to go to a Christian college, so it feels slightly as though I’m worrying about buying coal while on my way to Newcastle. In other words, need I worry about finding a wife at all? I trust that the Lord will provide, I am not yet 18, and the world is big.
Now, I write these next questions based on the assumption that your answer to the one prior was a kind of nuanced “it depends.” First, in what ways can I display biblical manliness, specifically in such a way as to be attractive? The typical church-guy strategy of carrying eight folding-chairs at once doesn’t seem to be doing the job.
Should it bother me if other guys make advances? How can I keep a kind of lack-of-communication when I see her almost every day? Should I try to be around her less? How can I be attractive to her while we are not romantically involved? I think I would do well to avoid being ‘just a friend’ or ‘like a brother’ to her.
I should probably mention, the goal here, as far as I am aware, is to play the long game. I don’t believe in high-school dating, and marriage is a long way off, so I feel like this is a gray-area where most courtship advice is not quite pertinent.
Any and all advice is helpful, even (or perhaps especially) clichés. Illustrations are appreciated.
Yours in Christ,
Jesse
Jesse, yes, you guessed right. This is early yet. You know enough to know that this is the kind of girl you like, and you should live in such a way that, if she is paying attention, she is learning what kind of a guy she would like. But you will do this, not by paying your addresses to her, but by how you interact with the entire group. Don’t ignore her, but don’t single her out either. You can think about her, and pray about her, but don’t go for her until you are in a position to follow through.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 11, 2024 15:39:02 GMT -5
Biblical Child Rearing in an Age of Therapeutic Goo (1)
Posted onSaturday, April 6, 2024 by Douglas Wilson - 3 comments
Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links
Introduction
Over the years I have preached on marriage, and family, and child-rearing any number of times. Seeing as I am about to do it again, I need to begin by noting the way this series will overlap with the others, but also to point out a significant way that it will differ. Some of the basic principles remain constant, of course, and to refresh your thinking concerning those principles, there are a number of our books available, and recordings of previous series. That is part of the background. There are certain foundational principles we will touch on and refer to here, but if you really want to get the basics into your bones, then make sure to do the reading.
But this series of messages is going to be dwelling on biblical child rearing as a profoundly countercultural thing. How does biblical child rearing relate to a world filled with unbelief? How does it connect to the madness we see in our surrounding culture? What does it mean to bring up children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord in a generation that is profoundly hostile to any such endeavor? Remember that this worldly hostility is expressed in countless ways—from overt persecution to surreptitious lying, and from surreptitious lying to online seduction and subversion. And fundamentally, how we keep some of their toxic assumptions from creeping into our thinking?
The Text
“Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; But the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Proverbs 22:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).
“Withhold not correction from the child: For if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell” (Proverbs 23:13–14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)).
Summary of the Text
We have two texts before us, and we see immediately that the biblical view of the world is not going to be all that attractive to buttercups. The first says that folly is intrinsic to the heart of a child, but there is hope. The situation is not irremediable (Prov. 22:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). The folly that is closely bound up there in the heart of the child can be driven far away from him by means of the rod. This is a rod of correction, meaning that there are things there in the child’s heart that must be put right. And of course, this does not mean that “beating your kid” is equivalent to gospel. We are not talking about isolated savagery. The rod must be applied in context, within the framework of everything Scripture teaches us. That means it must occur in a gospel framework—but the world’s assumption is that if it occurs at all, then it is nothing but abuse. And then they add, “abuse is not gospel.”
But on to the second text. Because this is the case, because folly is inborn, a father should make sure not to withhold correction from his child (Prov. 23:15Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). The word there refers to a lad, or boy. If the father uses the rod judiciously, his son will not die, sound effects notwithstanding. If the son is beaten with the rod, he will thereby be delivered from Sheol (Prov. 23:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). This short-term pain is a long-term kindness.
“For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth” (Hebrews 12:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). The word translated scourge there is mastigo’o . . . flog. Whom the Lord loves, He flogs. “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: But he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” (Proverbs 13:24Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). What this means is that you are bringing up your children in a generation that will not agree with us on the meaning of love and hate. This is not an occasion to split the difference.
Root Assumptions
Our first glance at these passages is informative, as far as it goes. We can see that the Scriptures are fully supportive of corporal punishment in child rearing. Those who object to every form of spanking “as abusive by definition” are plainly at variance with the Word of God. So we will see later that “gentle parenting” is anything but. But my interest here is not to parse the passages with a pro-spanking/anti-spanking debate in mind. What we need to look at first is the apparent callused toughness behind what the passages are saying. There is a different world there, and that is what we must get back to first.
Children do not begin at a neutral place, and they do not start out their days from some innocent space. As my father used to say, with great affection, babies are “little bundles of sin.” All that is necessary for the sinning to start is the requisite muscle strength and intelligence. Once they have that, their career in active sinning starts. The apostle Paul tells us that all of us are “by nature” objects of wrath (Eph. 2:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). We are, all of us, sinners by nature.
Is a child in the cradle a walker? Yes, in that he belongs to a race of walkers, but no, in that he has not yet taken his first step. Is the child in the bucket a talker? Yes, in that he is a talker by nature, but no, in that he has not yet spoken his first word. In an analogous way, we are all participants in Adam’s rebellion from the very first moment of our conception. By nature, we are sinners—bad to the bone. And the fact that the parents have not yet seen their sweet baby smoking cigarettes or pounding shots in the crib does not signify anything.
So biblical child rearing begins with answering one question accurately. That question is what is man? The answer is that we were created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), male and female, and that subsequent to that creation we were estranged from our Creator through the rebellion of our first parents (Gen. 3:6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). As a result, we are all of us entailed in Adam’s sin. The task of child rearing is therefore the same as the task of presenting the gospel to an unbeliever. What is that task? It is that of finding our way back. It is turning the world right side up again. We are not okay “the way we are.” The starting point for all of this is “under judgment.”
Now someone is going to say that our children are baptized, are they not? They are being treated as members of the new covenant community, are they not? Yes, of course. They are saints, are they not (1 Cor. 7:14Open in Logos Bible Software (if available))? So we do not treat our covenant children as short heathen. We do not buy the “vipers in diapers” approach.
However . . .
What do we ask parents when we baptize an infant? What is that first question? “Do you acknowledge your children’s need of the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ, and the renewing grace of the Holy Spirit?” There is never a time when any Christian can rest in himself, and stop looking to Christ. The promise to bring children up in the covenant surely includes the need to instruct children in the terms of the covenant. Remember that Romans 1 teaches us that pagans outside the covenant were big fat sinners, Romans 2 teaches us that the Jews inside the covenant were big fat sinners, and Romans 3 teaches us that they were both the same kind of big fat sinners. Your children must therefore be taught the central covenantal duty of looking to Christ.
So this whole thing is a matter of covenant relationship, personal relationship, and not a matter of tricks or techniques. This means always looking to Christ, and never trusting in any externals.
No Need for Sin Lessons
So what does all of this mean? Even assuming genuine love for Christ, when the world and the devil come after your kid, they will find that your child’s flesh still wants to serve as a welcoming committee. We are accustomed to speak of childhood innocence, but we must be careful to define our terms. A child is innocent, in the sense that he is immature and inexperienced in sin, as well as in everything else. But this is merely a relative innocence, not the innocence of an unfallen angel. It is not necessary for you to bring in any tutors to make sure your kids learn how to sin. They have all of that down already. You must have piano lessons, or driving lessons, or cooking lessons, yes. But sin lessons are never needed. There are degrees of corruption that might admit of instruction, the way Jezebel teaches the deep things of Satan (Rev. 2:20Open in Logos Bible Software (if available), 24Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)), but the baseline for all of it is a hardwired given.
Hard Truth, Soft Hearts
So it all comes down to our fundamental assumptions about human nature. Do you believe in innate human goodness? Then in that case, you are a Pelagian, and this is going to skew everything about your child rearing. Such soft, flattering words will result in hard hearts. The sinful heart needs a jack hammer, not a feather duster. One of the results of such a soft and erroneous assumption is that your home will become a place without gospel, without forgiveness, without grace. It will be a savage and cruel place, as well as a place that radically mischaracterizes itself. It will display a goopy and sentimental front, calling it gentle, while at the same time destroying the lives of the children. It will be savage, and the people caught up in it will be bewildered that we think them savage. The approach outlined here looks very hard to them, but it is a sheep in a wolf’s clothing.
But do you believe in human depravity? Then you are living in a world where the good news of the gospel will make some sort of sense. Your home is a collection of sinners, saved by real grace. You all look to Christ because doing so is absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 23, 2024 10:20:04 GMT -5
|
|
