Praying in Worship // Social Media // Controversy

Mark Dever, on public prayer in worship:

“We have an amazing opportunity… it’s just such a privilege to turn around and as it were have all the other kids behind us, and then look up to our heavenly Father on behalf of all of us, and talk to Him, and put our words in everybody else’s mouth, so we all are helping them to say what they all want to say.”

At 23:30

Scrolling social media is a little like browsing an antique mall:
a lot of people's ordinary stuff and thoughts all there to see.  Occasionally you find a diamond in the rough.
Jonathan Leeman:
"The fact that every one of us now has the ability to comment publicly on our political leaders’ job performance, government policy, environmental science, the finer points of Trinitarian theology, the demands of pastoring, the complexities of race, the inequities of the marketplace, the innocence or guilt of the accused, and so much more doesn’t mean we have the wisdom and competence to do so."

Excellent article.

Kevin DeYoung writes about pastors and controversy.  When to fight, and when to stay out of it?
Lots of wisdom here, not just for pastors.

Recovering FROM Biblical Manhood and Womanhood??

Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: How the Church Needs to Rediscover Her Purpose by Aimee Byrd

My rating: 2 of 5 stars


A poorly argued book, with a few valid points.

This review is a little late – seems this controversy has already blown over. But I wanted to actually read the book, before commenting.


SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF THE BOOK
Byrd has her systematic theology straight, when it comes to the Trinity and the church. But she misfires when reacting to patriarchy and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (hereafter CBMW. John Piper and Wayne Grudem wrote and edited “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” in 1991, and co-founded CBMW around the same time.)

I do not know Byrd’s personal story, but from reading this book, and listening to her on the Mortification of Spin podcast for a few years, she obviously has a chip on her shoulder against the self-conscious assertion of male headship in overly patriarchal, conservative churches. I have not read Byrd’s book about men and women being friends, in which she rejects the Billy Graham, now Mike Pence rule of a man never meeting alone with a woman not your wife.

Byrd shows she can read the Bible Christo-centrically, but melds her reading with a feminine (-ist?) reading that is sometimes insightful, but usually stretches the text to make a point. She quotes mainline egalitarians like Richard Bauckham liberally – an intended pun, as they are liberal indeed – as her intellectual ammunition against complementarianism (the view that the Bible lays out distinct and different roles for men and women). Byrd even tries to refute the use of “role” as a modern invention, which is bizarre.

Byrd equates the Eternal Subordination of the Son Trinitarian error with the CBMW movement. This is unfair. What about John Piper? Her critique that CBMW is allowing erroneous teaching is a fair point, but misses the role of parachurch organizations.
Byrd does not allow a parachurch group to organize itself around a second order doctrinal issue. CBMW must repudiate ESS (pages 120-121). But there are many such groups out there (Promise Keepers, Right to Life, etc.) that do good work and rightly include “co-belligerents.” Why does Byrd not inveigh as strongly against Right to Life for working with Roman Catholics? Because she is really opposed to CBMW’s goal: recovering biblical manhood and womanhood. Thus her title.

Byrd thinks CBMW calls for Christians to pursue gender-specific virtues, not specified in the Bible. She affirms there are 2 gendered ways of being human, but insists we should not force it. This ignores Ephesians 5, which she never deals with. She has to twist the plain meaning of Titus 2 to make this point. And it loses the Pauline perspective: “you are justified, now act like it. God made you a man, now act like one.” This is not inherently legalistic, as her theological friend Michael Horton would tell her. She is right, though, to instinctively react against legalistic tendencies in the patriarchal movement. There are real problems there, but Byrd does not have the right solution.

Byrd sees CBMW’s view as reducing men and women to single roles: authority and submission, which is “THE creation distinction between man and woman” (emphasis Byrd’s). I’m not sure this is fair – CBMW is seeking to recover that aspect, which the larger culture now rejects. Not to claim it is THE distinction. It seems Byrd actually rejects it herself, or is tempted to, in reaction against CBMW.

It IS a fair criticism of Byrd’s to say that marriages have suffered where the wife needed to share her wisdom, and the husband needed to listen to her. But instead they follow patriarchal counsel and artificially act in ONLY authority and submission roles. I’ve seen that personally several times. But Byrd doesn’t argue this point well at all. If someone can point me to a source that does, I’d be grateful.

Byrd argues that God made Adam first, then Eve, which means she is his telos (Greek for goal, or end) (127). But that turns 1 Timothy 2:12-15 on its head, a passage Byrd never even addresses. Woman was made for man, not man for the woman, that passage says clearly, while also clearly asserting that this is not some culturally relative custom, but built into the order of creation.

Is 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 just about refraining from uninspired speech that disrupts the prophecy going on? Why single out the women, then?

Byrd’s point about the parachurch world in chapter 6 is fairly helpful. Often the parachurch tail wags the church dog, when it should be the other way around. This chapter helped my own self-awareness as a pastor: what are the parachurch voices to which I listen, and why? Do they matter more to me than biblical orthodoxy, my pastoral work and calling, and the voices of my pastoral colleagues?


RESPONSE TO THE BOOK
The controversy around this book represents a discouraging low point in the ongoing discussion of the roles of men and women over the last 30 years.

It is revealing that Zondervan published this book, not Crossway or P&R. Byrd self-identifies as a staunchly orthodox and confessional (OPC!) church-person. But the publishers associated with that orbit did not take her book on. With good reason. Who she quotes and the argument she makes fits much better in the Eerdman’s/Baker/Zondervan orbit (less interested in conforming to confessional and complementarian lines).

I’ve been extremely disappointed in the response to Byrd’s book from “my side.” (I agree with the Danvers Statement, CBMW’s main statement.) Shane Anderson, previously unknown to me, appears just unhinged. The Genevan Commons Facebook group behaved immaturely and meanly toward Byrd, at the least, and won’t apologize, it seems. They seem to adopt Trumpian tactics that the best way to refute your ideological opponent is to ridicule them. Even our more mature voices have partially justified their behavior: “If she wants to enter the arena of theological debate, she’s gotta take criticism like a man.” This only proves Byrd’s point that complementarian advocates tend to wrongly marginalize or exclude women from theological conversation, and put them down to keep them “in their place.” Maybe the “man’s world” of theological discourse could benefit from including women. It’s no blow to true Christian masculinity when someone points out a real biblical violation in a group of Christian men behaving badly toward a woman. The church needs to behave better than this in our disagreements.

We should have places in our churches to foster healthy biblical masculinity, and places of co-ed discipleship and theological discussion. We shouldn’t have to polarize between those pursuing masculinity (Fight, Laugh, Feast!), and the milder PCA version of complementarianism (Mortification of Spin!). Let Christians come to their own convictions and practices on the details between these, instead of setting up camps and lobbing water ballons at each other, when the affects of Bostock loom upon us all. But Aimee Byrd seems to be leaving the complementarian orbit altogether.

Much better criticism of the book has come from the current CBMW president, Denny Burk. 
https://equip.sbts.edu/article/way-st...

Mark Jones' review is also very good.
https://calvinistinternational.com/2020/05/11/review-of-aimee-byrds-recovering-from-biblical-manhood-and-womanhood/

And John Piper still advocates a sane view of the biblical roles of men and women, it seems to me. My read is that he has integrated Byrd's best criticisms, here for example:

July 13, 2020
https://www.desiringgod.org/interview...

“Biblical manhood and womanhood in the relationship of marriage does not consist in a mere list of things you may or may not say, things you may or may not do, but rather in a biblically informed, Spirit-shaped disposition and demeanor that reflects a man’s unique calling to be the head of the home, and a woman’s unique calling to gladly support that calling of the man by coming alongside him with her unique, indispensable womanly gifts.”

I honestly don’t know after reading Byrd’s book if she would agree with Piper or not. My read is that she is objecting a reasonable and biblical complementarian view because of patriarchal abuses of it which she has suffered or observed personally.



View all my reviews

Romans 13 and COVID-19

COVID is a concern that calls for some minor adjustments in life, but not drastic and draconian orders from civic leaders.  It may have 3-5 months ago, but not now.

Keith Mathison, a Ligonier affiliated author I respect, has written on COVID here.

It’s worth the read.

https://www.keithmathison.org/post/covid-christians-the-civil-magistrate

Matheson’s main point is that masking and refraining from singing is a small, non-Gospel issue that will preserve life, a la the Westminster Catechism’s interpretation of the sixth commandment.  So we should not flout Romans 13 and civil authority for our own convenience. 

I respect this view, but disagree.  Masking isn’t about my convenience and comfort, pitted against love for God and neighbor, as most seem to think.

I realize COVID is wide-scale, and life-threatening for some, and thus a legitimate and serious concern.  But COVID-19 pales in comparison to other epidemics like the Bubonic plague or Spanish flu, which would truly warrant such governmental emergency measures, calling for wide-scale quarantines, mask-wearing, and alteration to religious services.

Several aspects inform this view:

1. The experts

Matheson is rather inconsistent to assert that he should “stay in his lane,” which is not epidemiology but theology, but then seems to adopt the media hysteria and over-inflated fears over this pandemic.  He might say he is trusting the experts, but free citizens ought not be required to adopt their risk tolerance level of this disease.  For many, like me, the relatively low recent number of cases and deaths does not warrant their restrictive measures.

2. Political agendas

The Leftist media wants the population fearful, anxious, and discontent with the state of things going into this election.  We are enabling an agenda that is opposed to our convictions.

3. View of government’s role

We have high expectations for the state to provide for us cradle to grave (Medicare for all!), and keeping us completely safe from disease.  Too high.

And we are too willing to accept orders from the state, as free and innocent citizens.  During the Spanish Flu of 1919, which saw far more death and contagion, governments were careful only to ASK churches not to meet.

4. Medical analysis

The data is not all that strong that masks make a huge difference, though it seems they help some.  Masking and not singing does not make an evident and huge difference to preserve life.  It’s an “abundance of caution” thing.  I do mask when going into a store where I’ll be close to others for a while.  I'm not totally against them - I think it's weird to argue they are BAD for you, as some do.

5. The raw and local data.

The death rate, scientific consensus tells us, is below 1%.

I encourage everyone to look up the stats for their own county.  Here are mine, as of a few days ago:

(total means cumulative since the beginning of the pandemic)

47,382 population

710 total cases, confirmed and probable

551 total cases confirmed

88 total hospitalized

28 total deaths

50 new cases in the last week

This means a: 

1.2% case per population rate (551/47.382)

.19% hospitalization rate (88/47.382)

.059% death rate (28/47,382)

Media coverage gives us the false and vague sense that a quarter to a third of the whole population have COVID.  Nowhere nearly true.  Why is the church (and whole economy) to shut down or radically change its practice, to protect .19% of us from serious harm, when those few can self-quarantine and watch a service provided online?  Those more at risk can act on an abundance of caution, and the rest of us should be free NOT to.  Is my "basic caution" setting allowed?

6. The Romans 13 angle

The government is grossly over-stepping its authority in issuing draconian orders, given how low-risk this is for the general populace, statistically.  For certain cities and states where COVID is more prevalent, sure, call for more measures, but to lock everyone in the state/nation down and order masks and/or no singing in all public spaces is a severe overstepping of civil authority.  That protests are exempt while church services are not reveals that this is not as important to THEM as they claim it is.  

Also, governors in several instances issue unconstitutional orders, without the advice or even against the consent (the case in my state) of their legislatures.  

Such orders should be resisted, not complied with out of “love for neighbor.”  Love for neighbor today would go forth, interact, and worship with our neighbor, albeit safely.  (“Safely” doesn’t always mean masking and no singing – it depends on a variety of factors.)  

When Paul called the Roman Christians to comply with Nero’s authority, he did not mean for them to acquiesce to Nero’s restrictions forbidding or tampering with Christian worship.  Every earthly authority has a limit it may not cross.

Conclusion - charity

Several churches in my denomination are calling for masks in worship, either because the virus is more prevalent near them, or out of a sensitivity to the Romans 13 argument, agreeing with Matheson.  I bear no ill will toward them.  Nor do I assume they are dupes to a liberal agenda, or overly fearful.  My local paper ran a big feature titled “Mask Rage,” implying that the refusal to wear masks is motivated by anger.  This is a calumny, to smear all those with whom they disagree.  Justice Kennedy did the same in Obergefell, when he assumed that disagreement with homosexual behavior must stem from “animus” against homosexual persons.

COVID is a concern that calls for some minor adjustments in life, but not drastic and draconian orders from civic leaders.  It may have 3-5 months ago, but not now.

How Do You Get Your News?

Here's a letter I wrote in response to an inquiry from an old friend.

"We need to start getting more news into our home... World Magazine is a no-brainer but as far as "newspaper" news?  Wall Street Journal?  Local?  Unintended consequences we haven't thought of?"

Dear Christie*,      (home-schooling mom of 6, ages 2-12, name changed to protect the innocent!)

World Magazine is good.  They usually just copy leading news for global events, but often have excellent cultural critique.  Marvin Olasky's book reviews and last page articles are worth it - probably old ones are online free.  They do life feature stories I usually find irrelevant and skip, and they sometimes "engage with the culture" in ways that are too open to things I consider an obvious leftist agenda.  Example: today's podcast had on one of the hosts of "Just Thinking" podcast, Darrell Harrison.  He was excellent on racial reconciliation, how critical theory is by nature Marxist and leftist identity politics.  World felt the need to say they were going to balance it with another view in the future.  Grrr.  Also, Olasky seems to publish more interviews with Democrats than Republicans.  Weird.

The magazine is great for OLDER kids to flip through, though articles are occasionally more adult themed - trafficking, etc.  I think they still put out a kids version, or you can preview an issue before showing them.  They also have a 3 minute video with Brian Bashem that I've seen - good for kids, no need to filter.  Online may be a better option than the print magazine, so you can select articles that would be useful for the kids.  If you don't need up to the minute news, you don't have to pay for it, usually.

Local news is important, but hard to come by without the weirdness of local papers.  Often their local stuff is online for free - I'd check that out.  You can then skip the national news there and get it from better places.  Our local paper syndicates with USA Today network, and it is AWFUL.  The local news reporting is usually sub-par, but at least raises local issues.  For example, our paper is running a front page article every day on various state house and senate races.  They often don't tell you much, but at least you have names and offices to google!

One helpful exercise as a home schooling mom of - are they age 12 on down now? - is that you can decide what flavor of news they should get.  And that helps you think more deliberately about it for yourSELF, instead of just scrolling Facebook.  They're a little young for all the political op-eds yet, probably.  

News articles make great case studies for students, regarding logical fallacies, fact or opinion distinctions, and examples of persuasion via bias or selective facts.  Your older kids are probably ready for that.  Yes, you actually want them to argue with you!  Teach them how.  

(I'm reminded of the liberal West Wing episode, where the cool (liberal) policy guy confronted the despised conservative Supreme Court candidate about some issue.  His response: "You don't want to use that argument.  It's too easy to counter and defeat in court.  You want to argue this way on that issue.  But then you have to consider this...")

Start thinking with them, instead of just giving them information - I'm sure you know that transition at which your older ones have arrived!

As my wife told you, we didn't do much with news when our kids were your age.  If I had it to do again, I'd make it a home school mini-class - have them read an article and then talk or write about it.  In the 10-15 age range, to start.

For adult news consumption - I have a hard time.  

Mainly Wall Street Journal for best news, and Ben Shapiro for opinion, these days.  

WSJ is expensive at regular price, but they run sales for $1 a week for a limited time now and then.  Then it's $40/mo. or more!  Once they talked me down when I called to cancel, but it was still around $20/mo, I think.  I just cancelled today, and they didn't offer that but just gave me a refund.  Reading and copying the best articles at your library may be the best option.  Or waiting a week for them to drop the paywall on good articles.  Their Saturday version has a wealth of cultural articles, book reviews, etc.  There is also junk to filter out: features of mansions, high end fashion, etc.  Today they featured Jeffrey Epstein's mansions up for sale - obscene luxury!  WSJ are more friendly to China economically than I am these days, because their main priority is economic growth.  Though they are one of the hardest critics of China on their opinion pages at the same time, so it's complicated.

Ben Shapiro is hard nosed and throws insults too much, but his view/opinion is usually correct, I think.  Free podcast an hour long, skip the ads!  He's part of (owns?) Daily Wire, a network of speakers.  Their business model is pretty aggressive, which is annoying, but viewpoints of folks like Matt Walsh is often enlightening.

I think it's important to read a center/left source on some things, like NYT, NPR, or The Atlantic.  I just don't spend too much time there.  There are times they expose logical flaws in Shapiro or Rush Limbaugh, though, and that's very helpful mentally to stay sharp, and to not drink the FOX/right wing Koolaid completely.  Reading the NYT and WSJ editorials side by side is often enlightening, but time consuming.

Online, I used to read Drudge (headlines too sensational) and Fox (racy ads).  I asked Doug Wilson years ago where he got his news, and he said Politico, but David Bahnsen tells me now that they've gone woke liberal, so you never know.  Bahnsen is on World and is very good for COVID and market info - "Dividend Cafe" and "Off the Cufflink" are his good podcasts.  I believe he is the son of renowned apologist Greg Bahnsen.

Open to hearing your take on the best sources for news and opinion!

An Anatomy of Media Bias

I've seen a lot of media bias over the years, but something has changed, or intensified.

The Chris Wallace interview of President Trump recently is an example.  A Presidential interviewer in the past would never directly contradict a sitting president and tell him his facts are wrong to his face, but Wallace feels free to do so.  He would not do this if it were a Democrat.  Just contrast the media's behavior to Trump's COVID pressers with their behavior toward Cuomo's pressers, to get the idea.

In the same way, news articles today are routinely doing things that just a few years ago would have been called journalistic malpractice.

Here are some examples, all from my local paper in the last couple of days.


1. Misleading implications

This is a local mid-sized manufacturing business.  Notice how the sub-head implies wrong-doing on the part of the company in telling employees to continue to work.  The article itself details, though, that they did everything right: sending people home they were in the same room with, contact tracing, etc.

But that's not enough for the paper.  The Left's agenda is to reduce and disrupt the economy as much as possible ahead of the election, to give Trump the maximum disadvantage.  So the paper wanted the company featured to shut down completely, or some similar drastic measure, "out of an abundance of caution."

They won't come out and say that, of course.  But their agenda is revealed when they imply wrongdoing where there was none.  Why would the paper throw shade that way?  Because Thai Summit isn't acting as the paper thinks it should, to fit the editors' political agenda.  This is libelous journalistic malpractice.



2. Comments of support or negation within news reporting pieces

This whopper from today is a prime example on injecting opinion into news.  The first sentence is both a reporting of what Trump has said he may do, and an immediate argument against it!

In case it's too hard to read: "President Donald Trump said Monday he is considering sending federal officers into several American cities, including Detroit, despite mostly peaceful protests there in recent weeks."

3. Visual cues in the pictures
Body language, posture, and facial expression in pictures say a lot.
Trump above is in an apologetic and defensive position with his hands.  It's like the question from the first sentence has been asked ("but Detroit is mostly peaceful"), and this is his non-response.

Contrast that with this very positive feature on my Democratic Congresswoman, where her hands and face show fervency and poise, making an important point we should hear.  (And she's holding a mask.)  This feature took up most of the front page today.

4.  Omissions, technicalities, and contradictions "In other News"
The Trump piece was page three.  Remember the article saying in the first sentence that Trump's action would be irrational because Detroit's protests have been "mostly peaceful"?

Here's page 5, bottom right, less than a quarter of the page, no picture:

Detroit's police chief, three-fourths of the way through this article, "reiterated his concerns Monday that there has been an increase in violent crime in Detroit.... During the weekend, he said, there were 33 shooting incidents, in which 26 people were injured and 7 killed."

But Detroit is "mostly peaceful" one page back, with the Trump pic!  Maybe the protests have been, technically.  During the day.

Why was this uptick in violent crime not mentioned in the article on Trump considering sending Federal agents to Detroit?  (It's from the same USA Today news network, on the same day.)  Because they are asserting their own argument while they are reporting "news."

It should be said that conservative news sources use these same tactics too often, sadly.  I hate the uncomplimentary pictures of Democrats they constantly put up.  It's a cheap shot meant to induce us to ridicule people, instead of rationally oppose policies.

But newspapers like the one I've featured above do not identify as a liberal news source when they clearly are.  The conservative ones mostly tell you who they are.  The latter is more transparent.  The former hides its agenda.  Articles like these are thinly veiled arguments against our President.  We have publications that claim to be giving us straight news, when in actuality they are advocating (usually subtly to keep up the pretense) for liberal/progressive policies and candidates, and against conservative ones.

Prayer // White Fragility Summary // Race and God's Image

It's always good to get back to basics on prayer.
Don Whitney helps.


Tim Challies helpfully summarizes a popular book on race.
It's really awful, so not worth buying or reading, but knowing it's assertions is important, as many are being persuaded of them.


Kevin DeYoung is consistently good.  This article on race is a biblically sound rejoinder to diAngelo's White Fragility.  (I don't know if he meant it as such.)  It suffers from being too abstract at points, but by doing so, he deftly applies the same biblical truth to opposite sides in our current debates regarding how we view other races, the police, protesters, etc.

"... a feeling shared by almost everyone: Why are you judging me based on the worst examples of my skin color, my ethnicity, or my profession?"

You know, for decades in the evangelical church, conservatives were told by liberals to stop trying to be the Holy Spirit, convicting the culture overly much of sins like abortion and sodomy.  Interesting how now that the Revolution is trying to convict the whole nation of the sin of racism, we never hear that protest anymore.

Thoughts on 2 Samuel 13-19

2 Samuel 13-15

David does nothing when his son rapes his daughter, so another son kills him and flees.

When justice is not done by the rulers, the people get restless.  They’ll usually find a figurehead, like Absalom, to take up their cause, promising rough, substitute justice, replacing the ruler’s plan.  This is the mafia dynamic.

This is also America, 2020.  Our president has not led well through the pandemic and the George Floyd incident.  The response is an Absalom: BLM, riots, and autonomous zones.

Chapter 18 – Absalom’s downfall was also his prior pride: his thick and beautiful hair.  Our strengths have a way of becoming our liabilities if we aren’t careful to balance them with other important virtues we are weaker in.

Chapter 19 – David could never really confront Joab directly.  Was it that Joab was too strong politically?  Too close to David in age and family?  Joab’s insight was often needed, as at the beginning of this chapter, but his solution was too often violence, when it was unnecessary.

I found this Joab/David relationship a keen insight into actual leadership - how the leader is often forced to adopt a policy he wouldn't adopt himself, by a powerful actor behind the scenes (be it a donor, leader of a faction, etc.).  The leader tries ways to resist it, but often cannot.

Advocacy Journalism (aka "Bias") Arrives at Christianity Today

Not that I've read Christianity Today much lately, but they have historically been the flagship publication of conservative evangelicalism.

No more.
https://www.christianitytoday.com/news/2020/july/andy-stanley-north-point-church-reopening-2021.html

They are now using the same advocacy tactics as the New York Times.
A misleading headline, meant to shape your view, has no corroboration to the actual facts in the article.

Here's the deets.

Headline: "More Pastors Agree with Andy Stanley: No Worship Services until 2021"
In the article: "In a Barna Group survey conducted over the past week, 5 percent of pastors said they didn’t expect to reopen this year. Just two months ago, none of the respondents were thinking it would be long."

Analysis: Okay.  I guess going from 0% to 5% is "more," technically.  But it's a bit obvious that CT with its headline is seeking to boost that number higher than 5%, or they wouldn't make a headline out of going from 0 to 5%.

This is grossly misguided, both to
- set up Stanley as a leader and figurehead of conservative pastors, which he is NOT
- and to seek to peer pressure (or "cool-shame") pastors into following a popular "pastor" to close out of fear of the virus.

And they quote Stanley as saying that focusing on getting back to in-person worship is "insider-focused."  That's weird.  It matters to God, the Bible says, that church leaders provide their people an in-person worship experience (Hebrews 10:24-25), for their own souls.  It's the on-line option that tends more to the consumer and insider in us all.

I'm in thorough agreement with a Facebook acquaintance, that Christianity Today is now "Christianity Astray."  Still some important news reported there, but their editorial choices are highly questionable.

Church Dividing // Pastoring Well // Church Connoisseurs or Contributors?

Marvin Olasky details the divisive enmity among the Jews beseiged by Rome around 70AD.
A lot of lessons here for conservatives who feel beseiged in our current culture wars, tempted to turn on each other.
And we ARE turning on each other...
https://world.wng.org/2020/06/spilled_blood


Uri Brito talks about pastoral ministry here.
Highlights:
1:30 - disturbing how fast pastors burn out
5:30 - three practices to fight it


This theme cannot be brought up too often for American Christians today.
Treating a church service as a consumption item is bad discipleship - it keeps you from following Jesus as you should.
The twist is that it isn't just the overly programmed churches that fall prey to this.
So does the theological nitpicker.

Temptations of the Beseiged

Many conservatives thrive on conflict and being attacked in the culture war.  They get excited that protesters may come knocking on their homes or churches, and they can be ready with their guns.  I don’t refute the culture war is heating up, or the prudence of being ready with guns (I side with the McCloskeys in MO).  But I’m concerned at the excitement over being even potentially targeted, much less actually, mildly, harassed as some in my circles are now being.  This excitement is often self-righteousness that mirrors and reacts to the left’s own self-righteousness.  Or more benignly, maybe it’s a misguided “I get to fight for Jesus,” overly done, “Christian masculinity.”

We need to take Jesus’ words to heart with all humility, and without a hint of a persecution complex:

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.  Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.” (Matthew 5)

We face all kinds of new spiritual temptations when we are (or perceive ourselves to be) newly the minority in a largely secular culture.  Instead of being in the majority tempted by presumption, apathy or inertia, we are now tempted to see ourselves as martyrs well before we've actually testified of our Lord at all.  We also may be prone to a bunker mentality, and closing ourselves off from people who need to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Time to re-orient, and let the Word of God Himself speak to our political moment, before other voices.

What Does the Silent Majority Really Think?

It’s hard to tell these days which of these two statements is true.

1.      Conservative Christians have become the minority in the culture.  Leftists have captured and permeated institutions such as the media, higher education, and bureaucracies to such an extent that the mere assertion of a conservative thought is liable to get one harassed or fired.

2.      The main stream media has shifted from a liberally biased institution, to one of intense advocacy of the radical left.  Thus, while the headlines give us the perception that the country is shifting left, this is a misperception.  The advocates/editors writing the headlines decide what the major story of the day will be, and what the bumper sticker headline will be.  Meanwhile, most Americans haven’t really changed their basic outlook, and are more and more disturbed by the “news.”

I think only the November election will give us a clear indicator which is more true.  Polls can be rigged by the slant of the question.  Headlines do not represent what people are thinking, though they try to SHAPE what people think.

Alternate conservative news sites like Daily Wire want to convince you of the first statement above, so you will listen to them.  My gut instinct is that the second one is true, even though I like what the conservative news outlets say and assume to be true.

On Masks, around the Web

A quick summary of my thoughts:

Don’t be socially irresponsible just to assert your freedom to NOT wear a mask.

Don’t demand mask-wearing more than it makes sense, just to signal your virtue.

This is a solid article arguing that quarantining and requiring masks of everyone is beyond the proper limits of civil government.  It ends with a helpful reminder to treat kindly those caught in the middle, like store owners or managers.

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/masks-and-a-lesson-in-narnian-civics.html

I’ve heard the argument from several places recently:

Large scale mask-wearing worked in Japan, so we should do it, too.

The New York Times has an article on this, which I won’t link to.  Out of principle.  To not promote a mainstream media source that claims to report news, but is actually an advocacy arm for the Left.

But the National Review agrees!

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/03/coronavirus-pandemic-japan-shows-masks-help-slow-spread-covid-19/

My rejoinder to this is simple: it’s all about population density.  When everyone is all on top of each other, as they are in Tokyo, masks ARE more needed and effective to slow the spread.  It made sense for President Trump to wear a mask, visiting a hospital!  BUT 85% OF AMERICA, GEOGRAPHICALLY SPEAKING, IS NOT IN THIS SITUATION.

The NYT links to a scientific study that concludes:

“The evidence is not sufficiently strong to support widespread use of facemasks as a protective measure against COVID-19. However, there is enough evidence to support the use of facemasks for short periods of time by particularly vulnerable individuals when in transient higher risk situations.”

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.01.20049528v1?ijkey=c8f1c4638a57e4d8c56214ea2b0c8dd6afaf33d5&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Another article, sadly published by an evangelical Christian site, is laughable in its conclusion that America isn’t Christian because we won’t wear masks.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/jaysondbradley/2020/05/how-a-plague-exposed-the-christian-nation-myth/

I grant that it IS selfish and irresponsible IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS not to wear one.  But we should also resist the bullying and intimidation we are getting from the media and my own state governor, to wear one all the time anywhere in public.

Why should we resist?  Learning to resist now is a good warmup for when more important demands come from on high, for which we will also be intimidated.

How is that, you ask?  It’ll go like this:

“You may not say homosexual or transgender behavior is immoral.  That is speech that makes me feel not safe, so the government can forbid you from saying it.”  And suddenly, Biblical truth is criminal, because it makes someone, anyone, feel unsafe.  This is coming, and it already exists in Canada.

Will we resist THAT?

This is the same logic as mask-wearing: if anyone feels unsafe because you aren’t wearing a mask, then you are a criminal, subject to misdemeanor fines.  Conservative ideas are no different than a COVID-19 virus, it turns out.  Both are dangerous and call for radical steps to eradicate them from society.

The Left is using the same tactic to promote totalitarianism regarding masks as they have been doing in opposing Biblical values for decades.  This is why conservatives are suspicious and up in arms, even if they don’t always know why.