On Fascism, the New Right, and the Decline of the Liberal Order

There seems to be a seismic shift happening politically.  Away from the classical liberal, internationalist order of the last 80 years or so, to either a soft communism on the left, or soft fascism on the right.

Let me explain!

After World War II, the world was firmly set against the evils of nationalism, seeing what it did when left unchecked in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.  The geopolitical consensus was: let’s work together as nations, and not pursue our own national ambitions aggressively and/or belligerently, or we’ll have to go through all that again.  (The formation of the United Nations was a part of this intent, though its structural and functional flaws run deep, to the point of being of little use.)  Still, the functional relationship especially among Western nations became substantially more cordial.  “We want to basically be friends, and not provoke or get mad at each other, so we don’t wind up in another world war.”

 

This was the intangible foundation of the classical liberal internationalist order, and it was assumed as bedrock, until about 10 minutes ago.

 

But the younger political generation, from AOC to JD Vance and their followers, do NOT think this way.  They are much more willing to use political force to advance their communist or nationalist agenda, with less concern for how it provokes others.

 

I’d rather have a national political agenda that collaborates with friendly nations, instead of seeking to get all we can out of them, America first, style.  I oppose Trump in this, but don’t think he’s about to provoke WWIII anywhere, either.

 

The extreme polarization of society in the last 10-15 years has led to a greater willingness, especially among the young, to exert political force on the other side, rather than resort to persuasion.

 

Fascism needs further comment.  The right is exasperated that the left constantly accuses them of fascism just for not agreeing with them.  I share that frustration, but also see signs that the new right IS adopting some elements of fascism, just as the left is adopting communism.  This usually gets inflammatory in heated discussion, but let’s try being rational a moment.

 

The first definition of fascism is, “A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator.”  Now, Trump is no dictator.  The overreach of executive power has been going on for decades, from GW Bush’s national security after 9/11, to Obama’s “I have a phone and a pen,” and on.  Trump is merely continuing what they and Biden have continued and expanded.  But I don’t like it – it’s very Imperial Rome.  The Republic is dying.  We need a limited government conservative in office, again.  We don’t have it, and I don’t see it in the foreseeable future.

 

The second definition of fascism is, “a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls.”

I’m seeing this more and more, in Trump’s insistence with private businesses that they do business a certain way in a certain place, for the national interest.  There is a case to be made for protecting the American economy, here, but it comes at the price of liberty.  I’m not sure where to draw the line, honestly.  But I do know we are moving more toward subjecting the private market to government control, whether from the left or from the right.  The recent 10% stake in Intel by the Federal government is a clear example.  Not good.

 

The third definition of fascism: “violent suppression of the opposition.”  This one has the least credibility as an accusation from the left against the right.  The only violent suppression happening is against criminals and illegals in our country, which should be done.  The extreme opposition to law and order on the left makes me most willing to accept the right-wing conspiracies that the left WANTS more crime and illegals, to destabilize the country and give them more power.

 

The last definition of fascism: “a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”  I’m seeing belligerent nationalism, definitely.  Take our allies for all the tariff taxes they’re worth.  Who cares about Ukrainians being assaulted when we’ve got our own borders and people to deal with?  Sometimes this comes with a tinge of racism: we want an ethnically cohesive culture (Stephen Wolfe).  The goal is to foster Western culture and American identity, which I appreciate.  But to force companies to hire Americans at twice the labor cost as Indians doesn’t seem right to me, either.  And as a country we don’t know who we are anymore, so instilling an American identity in immigrants, or sussing out if they own it on a case by case basis before letting them into the USA, isn’t feasible.  This gives some credence to the new right’s argument that we should just stop all immigration until we’ve got that sorted out.  But in the meantime, if it ever happens, there are real, persecuted asylum seekers who are getting booted back to their countries where they’ll be tortured and maybe killed when we send them home.  To do that to people in the name of nationalism, to abandon Ukraine to Russia’s invasion, is an ethical failure on our part.

 

I would prefer a return to a classically liberal order, where freedom for all is respected, but I fear it is gone.  Such freedom has been too much abused, and people are sick of the results.  As Chuck Colson liked to say, if we won’t rule ourselves, we will be ruled by others.  Now we’re just fighting over who will rule us with an iron fist, and that fight will get more and more desperate, as we realize it WILL be an iron fist, either way.  I don’t want Christian morality imposed in all its details on the entire populace, but neither do I want to see more abortion carnage and LGBT perversion celebrated.  People are just looking for basic sanity these days, but most political actors don’t seem very interested in that.

The Wizard of Oz - book review

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

With my wife trying out for a part in this play soon, I got interested, and read the book and watched the movie at the same time. The book was published in 1900 and the movie in 1939.

A positive take: the movie was a hit during the depression, encouraging people to face the reality of a hard life. You can escape to fantasyland, Oz, for a while, but there’s no place like home – black and white Kansas - and you should want to be there, even if it’s hard. The movie’s premiere of technicolor was a dramatic demonstration of this. Going from black and white Kansas to technicolor Oz was a striking cinematic first. But Dorothy longed for black-and-white Kansas in the end.

A more cynical, and I think realistic take: this is an insidious story. The plot is an inversion of Pilgrim’s Progress. Instead of Christian’s hopeful journey to the Celestial City, where all hopes are fulfilled, Dorothy finds her hopes in the Wizard at the Emerald City dashed. Her faith winds up in her companions, not in the God who inhabits the city she journeys toward. He is an illusion, a sheister, a conman. The scarecrow wanted brains from the Wizard, but always had them. The Tinman wanted a heart, but had one all along. The lion sought courage from the wizard, but had it himself all along. We don’t need God to give us these things – we can find it within ourselves.

In the movie, the same good witch who sends Dorothy on her journey knew from the beginning how she could get home. But without the journey she wouldn’t have helped her companions discover their own inner strengths. The trek to the Emerald City wasn’t for any value in the destination, but to discover what they could learn about how they themselves were strong. This is the exact opposite of the Christian message of Pilgrim’s Progress, where we learn our weakness, and God’s power to give us strength for the journey beyond ourselves. The modern cliché that the journey is the thing, not the destination, comes from this, and it is WRONG. The destination in God’s Celestial City is the main thing, though He certainly teaches us much along the journey.

In the book, the good witch at the end serves as a sort of just and merciful God, sending Dorothy home, and sending each of her companions to their lands to rule. There is a subtle hint of dominion: as the lion, scarecrow, and tinman will rule their lands, Dorothy is sent home to her beloved Kansas, to take dominion there by loving and being content in it.

But the message in the end is a strong rebuke of escapism. Don’t long for a fantasy land like Oz – hoping in a Wizard to give you what you want is pointless. You need to look within to meet your hopes, not somewhere over the rainbow. This became the gold standard of 20th century pop psychology, and is a perversion of the Christian message.

View all my reviews

Planet Narnia - a review

Planet Narnia: The Seven Heavens in the Imagination of C.S. Lewis by Michael Ward
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I’ve been immersed in Narnia for the past few months.

Finally got around to Michael Ward’s “Planet Narnia” which is a richly rewarding read. Halfway through the first chapter, I decided to reread each book he covered, chapter by chapter, and that turned out to be a GREAT idea.

Ward’s thesis is that each of the 7 Narnia books is under one of the 7 medieval planets, taking up all the mythology with it. Since Lewis was such a Medieval scholar, and reading Ward and Narnia again, I’m convinced he is right.

For instance, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is under Jupiter, the god Jove. Peter, the eldest, says “By Jove” a lot. Jupiter is the god of turning winter to spring, sorrow to joy, death to life. Aslan does this throughout the story in multiple ways.

Prince Caspian is under Mars, the god of war. There is lots of martial imagery. Mars is god of the trees, and weapons and both play a significant role in the book.

Ward’s book is less accessible to the normal reader at points, but it’s still worth it. He brings in Lewis’ other writings – the Space Trilogy, Miracles, etc. – to reinforce his points, but there’s a lot of Latin and French I didn’t understand. His argument is quite sound, though.

What I found most fascinating is that each of the books displays a different perspective of Aslan as the Lord Jesus Christ. He brings joy (LWW), He is a military victor (Prince Caspian), He is the creator (Magician’s Nephew), etc. Reading Narnia and Ward together gave me a richer picture of Jesus Himself and it’s glorious.

View all my reviews

Saving Leonardo - a Review

Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning by Nancy R. Pearcey
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I’ve long had a soft spot in my heart for the arts. My wife is a painter and art historian. I love literature and novels. So any book merging Christian worldview with the arts, in the way Francis Schaeffer did in “How Now Shall We Live?” gets high marks in my book.

Pearcey walks us through the philosophical history that led to the art and literature movements of the past 2000 years. The secular/sacred dichotomy, fact/value divide is insidious and deeply unbiblical. Her take on the last 150 years of modern art history is particularly insightful, and not always negative.

Her conclusion is excellent. The church needs to support Christian artists, not only denounce the ungodly secular ones, and certainly not support the pop Christian kitsch. If the church is to incarnate the Gospel, it needs to do so in its communal life together, but also in story and picture.

This is more a college textbook than a popular read, but I commend it to every thinking Christian. 4 stars.

View all my reviews

Watership Down - a Review

 

Watership Down by Richard Adams
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

I’ve had this book for years. My kids read it way before I did. I finally got around to it.

Adams is a GREAT storyteller. He knows how to slow the pace for dramatic effect at the cliffhanger points. He can tell a story within a story, even 3 or 4 layers down.

The rabbit warren of Efrafa was clearly modeled after totalitarian states, while Hazel’s community was free and open. (He wrote in the early 1970s). No one was allowed to leave Efrafa and the feedings were strictly regimented. Fertility was almost nonexistent as a result. Hazel’s band, on the other hand, left a warren about to be destroyed by human development (a common 1970s theme). They have a sort of exodus, crossing a river, and a desert, and finding their way to a new promised land on Watership Down.

But the Egyptians pursue. And Adams keeps it suspenseful till the end who was going to win. Would it be Orwell’s 1984 at the end, where the jackboot is successfully applied to the protagonist, who is forced to submit to the dictator’s regime? Or would freedom win out? I’m not going to say – you should read it yourself.

I don’t know anything about Adams, but he seemed to be a naturalist – he keeps up the rabbit psychology throughout to stunning effect. Anxiety. Fear. Sensitivity to danger. But he also depicts the various human personae in them. The dictatorial based on pure strength (Woundwort). The prophetic keen on insight (Fiver). The leader who can decide what to do (Hazel). The strategic and loyal soldiers (Dandelion and Holly).

The need for does to carry on the community is particularly intriguing. They only realize this halfway through, and it is a shock to the system. Without women, we cannot carry on. In their own animal way, Adams shows us this human need. Yes they are weaker, they need protection and guidance through terrible trials. But they carry us forward in ways the bucks cannot on their own. Definitely not politically correct in our day.

This is a good book, a great story. I commend it to you. 3 stars.

View all my reviews

Saint Patrick's Breastplate - a Defense

I've had church people tell me that the hymn Saint Patrick's Breastplate is wicked, pagan, and superstitious.  Thankfully that doesn't seem to be the case in my current church, where we sang it the last 3 Sundays in the lead up to St. Patrick's Day, today.

Here's a verse by verse defense of this hymn.

1.  I bind unto myself to-day The strong Name of the Trinity,

By invocation of the same,  The Three in One and One in Three. 

2.  I bind this day to me for ever, By pow’r of faith, Christ’s Incarnation; 

His baptism in Jordan river; His death on Cross for my salvation; 

His bursting from the spicèd tomb; His riding up the Heav’nly way; 

His coming at the day of doom; I bind unto myself to-day. 

3.  I bind unto myself the power Of the great love of Cherubim;  

The sweet “Well done” in judgment hour;  The service of the Seraphim,  

Confessors’ faith, Apostles’ word,  The Patriarchs’ prayers, the Prophets’ scrolls, 

All good deeds done unto the Lord, And purity of virgin souls.

There's nothing much controversial in these first three verses, though the third starts to get at the issue.  Is there power in the service of the Seraphim, or the Patriach's prayers for us?  Yes, there is.  Not automatic divine power, but encouragement for us as we consider them, which is spiritual power and strength.

4.  I bind unto myself to-day The virtues of the star-lit heaven, 

The glorious sun’s life-giving ray, The whiteness of the moon at even,

The flashing of the lightning free, The whirling wind’s tempestuous shocks, 

The stable earth, the deep salt sea, Around the old enduring rocks.

This is the most controverted verse.  Do the sun and moon have inherent powers to move us?  This is not really the point.  It's a poetic reference to Psalm 19 - the heavens declare the glory of God!  All creation sings His praise, and this points us to God's creation as a pointer to Him.  We can take encouragement from His sun, moon, lightning, ocean, and rocks as a sign of His limitless power to take us by the hand and guide us to His course.  Those who lack a poetic sense most object to this verse.  The point isn't that the stars have virtues in themselves, but that God has made them as pointers to Himself.  We look to creation as a source of strength to hold on to God's power in our lives.

5.  I bind unto myself to-day The pow’r of God to hold, and lead, 

His eye to watch, His might to stay, His ear to hearken to my need. 

The wisdom of my God to teach, His hand to guide, His shield to ward; 

The word of God to give me speech, His heavenly host to be my guard.

Wonderful verse - nothing objectionable here - much like "Be Thou My Vision."

6.  Against the demon snares of sin, The vice that gives temptation force, 

The natural lusts that war within, The hostile men that mar my course; 

Or few or many, far or nigh, In every place, and in all hours, 

Against their fierce hostility, I bind to me these holy powers. 

7.  Against all Satan’s spells and wiles, Against false words of heresy,

Against the knowledge that defiles, Against the heart’s idolatry, 

Against the wizard’s evil craft, Against the death-wound and the burning, 

The choking wave, the poison’d shaft, Protect me, Christ, till Thy returning.

These verses articulate what few other hymns do.  We have enemies within and without that are seeking to do us in.  Our own temptations, and those hostile to the faith that are trying to take us out - spiritually and physically.  The last two lines of verse 7 refer to various methods of killing Christians, in martyrdom.  We seek protection from Christ against these acts.

8.  Christ be with me, Christ within me, Christ behind me, Christ before me,  

Christ beside me, Christ to win me, Christ to comfort and restore me, 

Christ beneath me, Christ above me, Christ in quiet, Christ in danger, 

Christ in hearts of all that love me, Christ in mouth of friend and stranger. 

9.  I bind unto myself the Name, The strong Name of the Trinity; 

By invocation of the same, The Three in One, and One in Three. 

Of Whom all nature hath creation: Eternal Father, Spirit, Word:  

Praise to the Lord of my salvation, Salvation is of Christ the Lord. 

8-9 are a wonderful paean of praise to our Savior who is with us, and also the eternal Trinity.

Pride and Prejudice

I recently rewatched the BBC/A&E version of Pride and Prejudice with Colin Firth.

It is a real case study and illustration of George Gilder's Men and Marriage.  Men are civilized by women when they seek to marry.  Darcy is a jerk when he first meets Elizabeth.  But as he seeks to pursue her, his jerkiness subsides, as he knows it must.  She's a jerk, too, at the beginning.  Love tempers both men's and women's rough edges.

It's a very Victorian-etiquette setting, Pride and Prejudice.  Maybe they were overly sensitive to things.  But we've been so desensitized to proper relations between the sexes, we could learn a lot from this story.  Men should be more accommodating to the feelings of sensible women like Jane and Elizabeth.  But less so to foolish women like Mrs. Bennett (her nerves!), and Lydia and Kitty.  Mr. Bennett was too accommodating to the latter three, and it cost him dearly.  The story illustrates in stark contrast the recent interest in distinguishing empathy from sympathy (Joe Rigney).

Something new I found on this rewatch was how the social prejudice against Mr Darcy hardened, even as Elizabeth discovered his true, good character.  At first it was the reverse.  Everyone thought him handsome and wonderful because he was so rich, but Elizabeth despised him for his gruff and prideful manner.  Proverbs 18:17 came to mind.  "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."  Elizabeth believed Wickham's accusations against Darcy too quickly, without hearing the other side.  When she learned the truth, she was ashamed and repented of her prejudice, just as Darcy came to repent of his pride before her.

This is a true classic everyone should read or watch.  Peter Leithart has a great saying, "Real men read Jane Austen," and I agree.  To dismiss this great work because it's overly feminine and is just a bunch of letter writing between overly-wrought women is foolish.  Making good matches in marriages is foundational to society and it is taken seriously by Austen, as it should be by all of us.

Take up and read.

A Defense of Lent

What to do about Lent?

The kneejerk reaction in most of my circles is to mock the "what are you giving up" practice.

I disagree with that reaction and mockery, and we'll get to that, but first we have to clear the haze of centuries.

The reason we seek to do more with the church year is to avoid a rationalistic Gnosticism.  This view assumes that knowledge is the key, thinking about theological things, while physical action means little to nothing.  But we need to tune our physical lives to true theology.

Preaching that ignores the seasons is one form of this.  Many churches pride themselves on continuing to preach through Leviticus or Galatians, straight through Advent and Christmas, or through Lent and Easter.  It's more helpful when the Word preached fits with the season.  The 33 part sermon through Galatians can always be paused for a few weeks for the church year.

Another form of this Gnosticism is assuming Lent is inherently superstitious.  The reformers like Calvin understandably thought this way, as they saw extreme abuses up close, oppressing the conscience of the faithful, and wiped them away.  Today, we don't want to just react against Rome, making sure to do nothing that looks anything like them.  Instead we want to form a robust Christian life that includes our traditions and actions, without worrying if it "feels Catholic."  The problem isn't feeling Catholic, but burdening the conscience unduly.

The real reason for the church year was to focus on the life and ministry of Jesus, His main redemptive acts for us, and then to incarnate that in specific ways in our lives.  We've been doing well on that score with Christmas and Easter and a couple of other holidays.  We have family gatherings, feasts, presents, etc.

But when we get to Lent (and Advent), most Protestants balk.  If we do anything more than think about it, think about Christmas coming all during Advent, think about Easter coming during Lent, then we're convinced we're headed for Rome.  But Lent is a separate thing and more than just a build up to Easter.  It's for focusing on the ministry, temptation, suffering, self-denial, and obedience of Jesus, not just looking forward to His resurrection.  It's for remembering that God catches up all of OUR suffering, obedience, self-denial, etc in our lives into His redemptive plan for us, as He did with Jesus.  We're forgetting our union with Christ in His redemptive work.  Not that we're doing anything redemptive ourselves of course, but we are to follow in His steps.

We are inconsistent in shedding the penitential seasons while embracing the festive holidays.  We cling to this inconsistency because we think our church forefathers abused Lent more than they did Christmas.  But that isn't the case.  Christmas had as much bawdy revelry as Lent did meritorious self-flagellation.  Both were abused.  Both should be reclaimed.

It's true the New Covenant is grace upon grace.  Grace should be the emphasis, more than depriving ourselves.  Doug Wilson is right to point out that there was only ONE day in the Old Covenant to afflict our souls (Leviticus 16:31).  But the point of Lent isn't to afflict our souls for 40 days.  It's to remember Jesus' affliction, and take some small physical actions to enter into that affliction.  Not that we have to, or that it merits us anything.  But "it is good that I was afflicted" (Ps 119:71).

What good is it to set up a tree, and give your son a nerf gun at Christmas, to reflect the gift of Christ to us for our salvation?  Why even do it?  We shouldn't do it, many argue, because it's so paltry.  But we do it because it's what we CAN do as weak and frail humans to honor Christ's gift to us.  What good is it to give up fast food for Lent, to reflect the suffering and crucifixion of our Lord?  Why even do it?  Because it's what we can do as weak and frail humans to honor Christ's sacrifice for us.  Neither need be meritorious or self-focused.  We are incarnating Christ's actions to us as best we can.

So remove the Gnosticism from Lent, like you have from Christmas and Easter.  Do something tangible to remind yourself of Christ's self-denial, and that you His servant are not above your master.  It could be family devotions reading through hymns about our Lord's passion.  It could be giving up certain foods (bad for you anyway), or alcohol.  It could be praying for the persecuted church more intensely than usual.  The options are endless if you think about it.

I agree with my Lent-averse brothers that no such practice should be a conscience thing: if you don't do anything for Lent, don't feel guilty before the Lord.  Or a legalism thing: don't feel like you're meriting something with God for doing it.

But it's a season to do something tangible to acknowledge Christ's suffering for you, and that you are willing to suffer for Him, as He predicts we will (2 Timothy 3:12).

Lake Wobegon Summer 1956 - Review

Lake Wobegon Summer 1956 by Garrison Keillor
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

Garrison Keillor is an excellent storyteller and writer. He knows how to compellingly paint a scene and depict a person or a community with all their foibles and qualities.

Sadly, he also has an anti-Christian perspective. He makes you feel so good about rejecting basic truths. He weaves in some deep truth with lots of lies.

Here's what he gets right. He vividly describes temptations to sin. Pious Christians can learn something from this, as we tend to avoid admitting the reality of it. And he shows how people can respond to sinners graciously. Pious Christians often want to condemn and reject scandalous sin, getting as far away from it as possible, when we need to find our way to communal forgiveness and acceptance of outsiders and sinners, as they take a better and more godly path.

Here's what he gets wrong. His conclusion is that sin is normal and we shouldn't be so revulsed by it. Shame and a guilty conscience is always a bad thing. The church and its leadership are misguided in how to handle sin. The solution to sin isn't the cross of Jesus, but people who accept and love you for who you are.

Keillor gets all this across without ever being preachy, just telling a compelling story that is deeply true to life. This makes it all the more insidious. He appeals to common experience to argue for the truth of his assertions. A cranky, fundamentalist father. A sexual temptation. A first job that launches you into the world. An out of wedlock pregnancy leading to a marriage. "This is my life, my family," thinks the reader. But in the end, his solution is not God's grace in Jesus, but other people who won't condemn you.

I cried at some points, the story was so good. I read a lot out loud to my wife and kids. But I had to edit out the R-rated sentences. (Don't give this book to your kids. Ironically, one of my kids gave it to me for Christmas, without having read it all!) Keillor knows what it is to be human, and he's been influenced by Christianity, but he misses the main point of life: to pursue righteousness according to God's Word. He understands grace on a horizontal level - person to person and within a community. But he doesn't seem to think God has any grace or relevance for us in this life.

5 stars for writing. 1 star for message.

View all my reviews

Genuine Christian Fellowship

Genuine Christian fellowship takes trust and courage.

You have to sort out over time if someone is really for you, or just fighting the latest internet controversy and you are their stand in adversary.  Are they just sounding off their own opinions, or are they truly concerned for your welfare?

Some are always keen to offer "faithful wounds from a friend."  Yet we need to offer positive and encouraging words to our Christian brothers and sisters.  Genuine fellowship isn't there with the mere presence of critique or rebuke.

But it should be present sometimes.  If you feel you can NEVER offer a word of concern or warning or disagreement to a church member, you haven't yet reached genuine fellowship.  (This is true in marriage, too, especially from wife to husband.)

The Spirit of Christ is bigger than the current "issue."  If you can't remain Christian brothers, and disagree about Ukraine, or eating out on Sundays, or whether homeschooling or a Christian school is preferable, then something is dreadfully wrong.

In our fellowship time at church today, I received and gave a mild criticism or two, and I noted there was a total lack of offense on my part and theirs.  It was wonderful to note a sense of trust and respect to be willing to say and hear such things without freaking out about it.

If you don't have that sense in your church and with your Christian friends, seek it out.  It is a deep blessing from the Lord.

An Author for Women (and Men) to Read

I'm not thoroughly versed in books recently published for women, but just rediscovered Elizabeth Elliot.

Open to correction, but I think she's the best author for Christian women in the last 50 years.

She is straightforward, doesn't pander to sentimentality, and gives sound doctrine and exhortation for the anxious, distressed, or suffering soul.

This is an excellent introduction to her if you haven't read her before.  Short devotions that quickly give you the main message of her life to the world.

Her best known book recounts the missionary effort of a group of young couples, in which her husband and most of the men were martyred.

This led her to produce some excellent teaching on God's providence in suffering.

She also has some very good books on the particular virtues godly men and women.

She had a radio program for years, always opening with this Scripture: "You are loved with an everlasting love, that's what the Bible says, and underneath are the everlasting arms."

Let us not always be caught up with current controversies and social media food fights over the latest issue.  CS Lewis urged us to read old books as often as we read current ones.  We do far better to pick up Elliot from 20 or 40 years ago, instead of the latest Beth Moore offering.  Especially on the issue of men's and women's roles, it is extremely enlightening to read what the previous generation or two thought.

Paul, Provocation, and Persistent Persuasion - Acts 19

There's no doubt about it.  Paul was a provocative figure in the New Testament.  Wherever he went, arguments erupted in synagogues, riots started, and he occasionally got stoned for blasphemy.

None of this was wrong for Paul to do.  Many think that just by being provocative, one is against the Spirit of Christ, who was always gentle and kind.  Wrong.  He knew when to flip tables in the temple, and double down on criticism of religious leaders when they pushed back against Him.

But in Acts 19 we see a different and important side of Saul of Tarsus.  Two things stand out.

One, he wanted to go into a theater of rioting angry Artemis worshipers and persuade them of the Gospel.  But his friends convince him against it.  There are times to hold back, when the audience is so ragingly against you, that it would be no use.  Paul accepts this, and lets others speak for him.

Two, when the town clerk addresses the angry crowd, he says Paul and his group are not blasphemers against Artemis (19:38).  Now, he may have been partially ignorant.  I'm sure Paul asserted at some point that Artemis was not a real goddess.  But the point is that Paul was not KNOWN for blaspheming Artemis.  He provoked by declaring a new God, calling for allegiance to Him, and let people figure out that this meant they shouldn't buy Artemis statues anymore (19:26-27).

There is a time to punch holes in the inconsistent worldview of the ungodly, as Van Tilian apologists love to do.  But Paul doesn't seem to have been emphasizing that, in Ephesus.

Showing people how wrong they are isn't always the best way to provoke them to consider the Gospel.  Sometimes simply proclaiming the truth of Jesus, and letting them sort it out over time is better.

Now, I know I'm overdoing this a bit, given verses 26-27.  Demetrius accuses Paul of saying their idols are nothing, that gods made with hands are useless.  My point is, if Paul had been provoking like this in spades as the hallmark of his ministry, the town clerk would probably have known.

Does Paul make the same point against idols on Mars Hill (Acts 17)?  Yes, he does.  But he first credits them for being religious, and after says God will overlook this ignorance, before coming to the climax of the resurrection of Jesus.

People today in the West don't have idols of gold and silver, usually.  But they do idolize their body, identity, ethnicity, sexuality, etc.  It's right to critique these things, and point out they are worshiping the wrong thing.  But a Christian should keep his main rhetorical focus on Christ Jesus as risen Lord and true Savior.

Giving Sunday Rest

"Six days you shall do your work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; that your ox and your donkey may have rest, and the son of your servant woman, and the alien, maybe refreshed" (Exodus 23:12).

Although I've done it several times in a pinch, the general rule should be that Christians do not go to restaurants or grocery stores on Sundays.  Most think it's a pharisaical and legalistic add-on to the fourth commandment, but there are plenty of Scriptures like Exodus 23:12 that make it clear: don't make others work for you on the Sabbath.  That includes grocery store clerks and waitresses at restaurants.

There are two basic arguments I've heard against this.  First, "God wants ME to rest, so why should I prepare my own meal when someone else can do it who is willing?"  This is just ignorance of our Exodus 23:12 text (also Deuteronomy 5:14).  Sure, your servant will do whatever you pay him to do, whenever.  But the point of the text is to command you not to ask it of him.  You must rest, and you must give others rest.

Second and more compelling, Colossians 2:16: "Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath."  But I believe this refers to Judaizers insisting Christians obey the whole Old Testament ceremonial law.  If the seventh day of rest is abolished with the rest of the ceremonial law, why is it in the 10 commandments, and why do you go to church on Sundays?  Why was it established in the first few pages of the Bible (Genesis 2:2-3), way before Moses?  Sabbath rest is a sign of our ultimate rest in glory (Hebrews 4:8-10), and until we have that, we should observe a sabbath.

It's become something of a punchline in the evangelical world that the fourth commandment isn't about whether or not we go out to eat on Sundays.  But that's a cop out.  I beg to differ.  Of course the Sabbath is about more than this.  But it's included.

Saturdays are for house work and preparing for Sundays.  The old school pattern for Saturdays of mowing the lawn, washing the cars, getting groceries, vacuuming, extra cooking, and a Saturday night bath for the kids in preparation for Sunday was a very good one.  It parallels God telling Israel to gather twice as much manna on the sixth day, in preparation for the seventh (Exodus 16:22-30).  The goal should be to help yourself and others to rest the next day.

We shouldn't freak out if plans suddenly change, or someone's "ox is in a ditch," and we have to do some work or go to a store.  God understands (Matthew 12:1-8).  But we should plan for going to worship and fellowship with His people, not going to stores on Sundays.

Jesus Hears John Was Beheaded

 We read Matthew 14 as a family tonight, and it was very compelling.

Jesus hears His cousin John was beheaded, and He goes off to be alone for a while.  He had a foretaste of His own sacrifice that was coming.  He wasn't running away from it, but needed or wanted some time to think it through.  It was a prequel to Gethsemane.

But the people follow Him, and He has compassion on them.  He feeds them.

When we face trials and trauma, we need some time alone to reflect.  But we can't hole up and isolate.  We also need to serve and be with others.  When the sheep are hurting, they tend to wander off.  The shepherd notices, draws closer, and brings them back with tender feeding.  Even when we walk through the shadow of death, He is with us.  Jesus feeding us at His table, our cup running over, is more needed at those times than ever.

When horrible things happen to you, give yourself time to work through it.  But do so with others.  And find ways to give to others.  It feels like you don't have anything to give, and you don't want to.  Like breaking your leg, then doing physical therapy to walk again.  It hurts, and you don't want to.  You just want to crawl into a hole in the fetal position.  But giving is an essential part of working through the trauma.

I was awestruck to realize in Matthew 14 that Jesus went through this, just like we do.  He didn't respond sinfully.  He didn't isolate completely.  He saw the needs of others in His own pain, and reached out in service and compassion.  What a faithful high priest we have, who can sympathize with us in our own weakness!

Against Pro-life Abolitionism - part 1

In politics, the main goal is to propose policy that will pass, that is as close to your worldview as possible.

In theology, the goal is to articulate as biblical a worldview as possible.

Both of these are good stewardship of differing vocations.

But they sometimes don’t play well together.

 

Theonomists want there to be a single goal, same in politics and theology, but that’s absurd.  Do lawyers and doctors have the exact same calling, besides the generic, “to help people”?

 

I’m not advocating for a radical division between the two kingdoms (R2K).  It’s not theonomy or R2K.  There are different spheres of activity with differing specific aims (Kuyper).

 

Say no to pro-life abolitionism.  They are currently fighting against and defeating pro-life bills that would outlaw SOME abortions, just because they don’t outlaw ALL abortions.

Their zeal to call for repentance directly in political life is admirable, but then you have to do the work of making a law with many in the room who do not repent.  Do we just take our ball and go home and leave them to write their ungodly rules for us, or work to get our nation as close to godliness as we can?  Are we anabaptists, now, who drop out of society when they don’t meet God’s standards rigorously enough for us?

 

Should I not go to work tomorrow because I know I’m not going to do my job perfectly?

 

Perfectionism in theological sanctification wreaks all kinds of carnage on people.

Abolitionist perfectionism will do the same.

 

Working for the possible politically is not compromise, but courage.  It’s actual engagement with the culture, instead of demanding all or nothing like a toddler throwing a tantrum.

 

Abolitionists overly confuse the theological and political.  Of course we want to apply God’s truth to the public square.  But we don’t quit and work against people and legislators accepting SOME of it, if they refuse to accept ALL of it.