Chris Rufo nails the need of the hour, in the latest Imprimis.
A thought-provoking read on Trinitarian theology. Are we getting off track, talking so much about the relationship of the Three Persons, to the detriment of divine simplicity?
Why are kids "self-identifying" so much today? Tabletalk has a good answer: we're telling them THEY are God.
A brief rebuttal to Bret McAtee’s critique of my Kinism post:
1. I’m not sure why CREC “minister” is in scare quotes. I am a pastor in good standing in the
CREC. Seems snarky, right from the get-go.
2. The book I
reviewed is not a sustained argument over 650 pages, but a self-professed
“encyclopedia.” I read all the original
arguments from the authors – roughly a dozen pages – and dipped into the
quotes. This took an hour. I don't see anything wrong with this.
3. Bret equivocates: “Here
the man says the book is just common sense.”
Of course, I meant most of the quotes, and the first premise in the
introduction, that people ought to care for those closest to them, before those
far away. Bret finds it inconsistent to
hold that, and that there are times to favor and help those not of our kind,
which does not follow at all.
4. Bret makes a distinction.
I said (summarizing the Kinist view): “to favor those not of your kind is impiety.”
Bret corrected me, that “to favor those not of your
kind above those who are of your kind is impiety.”
This is a distinction without much difference. When Boaz chose to pursue Rahab over the
other Israelite woman gleaners, or David promoted Uriah the Hittite instead of an
ambitious ethnic Israelite, David favored “those not of your kind, above those
who are of your kind.” This was obviously
okay with the Lord. Kinists can easily
argue that any kind of help or favor shown to others could have been given to
their own kind.
I assert that there IS “impiety in [Bret’s] statement in
bold [above].” It is not biblical. The Good Samaritan is the most obvious example.
I mean by this, in part, that it is permissible, both
- for believers to
marry believing spouses of pagan backgrounds, or of other races; and
- for God’s people to
love and help the alien and stranger among them, even when it is a sacrifice of
resources that could otherwise go to building up their own family’s (race’s?) estate
(Ruth 2:8-19).
To be frank, the physical lineage of Jesus Christ (the blood
He carries in His veins right now, sitting at the right hand of God) is mixed
with Canaanite blood. God has no problem
with that, and neither should we. God favored
those not of His kind, extending mercy to foreigners at great cost to
Himself. Gentiles are brought into the
body of Christ as no less than Jews, regardless of their race.
5. Next, on
segregation and freedom of assembly:
I have no problem with a club for Dutch historians, or
Zimbabwean hunters, but to form a club based on skin pigmentation is repugnant
to most, and I think rightly so. Why? It celebrates a physical trait, instead of a
hobby or ethnic heritage. It indicates
a crass racism that society ought not tolerate.
Is there a legal right to freely associate today as “whites-only”? I don’t think under current law there is, and
that’s fine with me. Questioning the
compatibility and wisdom of inter-racial marriages, like that between a
Ukrainian and South African, is legitimate.
But ruling out absolutely an inter-racial marriage because it involves
people of very different skin pigmentation, is wrong-headed.
6. I do not believe it is biblical or wise for a Bible-based
institution to allow segregation based on skin color. No.
7. Bret’s responses (and the articles he cites) on Ruth and Rahab are ridiculous. They were probably Hebrews? Kinist arguments like this are why I won’t invest
(waste) more time studying their arguments.
The text emphasizes in both cases that they were not Israelite, that they were
outside of Israel and brought in. That's the whole point. It's also the Gospel point of the New Testament inclusion of Gentiles in the church. See
Ephesians 2:11ff again.
8. Bret appeals to the Church Fathers, but then quotes two
professors from the 70s and from the South.
I am not a cultural Marxist, as Bret asserts, seeking to force mass amalgamation of races on the populous, because of these views of mine. That’s crazy. To be accused of this makes it clear to me the overly binary and blinkered perspective that Kinists have: you either agree with us, or you're a cultural Marxist. Come on.
I’d commend Carl Trueman’s work in “Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self,” or "Strange New World," in which he satisfyingly critiques and destroys cultural Marxism.
There are a whole lot of zealous, anti-CRT/SJW warriors
out there right now in my circles.
[CoughFightLaughFeastCough]
A lot of zeal to crush woke-ness. I agree with the goal.
But they are tending to believe as true anything that is the total opposite of that error. (Example: “if Stalin or cultural Marxism wanted to mix races, then we must keep them distinct.” Neither is a biblical priority.)
Don’t swing from woke-ism to Kinism.
Error is seldom diametrically opposite to the truth, but usually a
half-lie, mixed in with truth.
Such is the case with Kinism.
Doug Wilson really nails it here, on Roe v. Wade:
Highlights (there's a lot more - read the whole thing!):
1. Brush up on your pro-life arguments. Angry questions are coming.
2. His advice on how to vote is exactly mine:
"In [a] primary, vote against anyone who is a RINO, or who might be a RINO, or who is friends with someone who used to be a RINO. In the general election, vote for the candidate most likely to displace a Democrat—even if that candidate is a RINO."
For about 15 years now, I’ve had one foot in the a-millennial world I grew up in, and another foot in the post-millennial camp, a la Douglas Wilson.
I just read an article in Tabletalk (decidedly a-mil)
describing this present earthly life as an appetizer to the main meal of
heaven. It invokes Calvin, and Psalm
102:3, 11, to assert that “this life is but smoke and shadow.”
[An aside: Psalm 102 speaks of life as fleeting. It is a false inference to assert from this,
that earthly life is less real or important, as the Gnostic impulse does.]
It occurred to me as I read this, that this whole debate
simply regurgitates the competing priorities of Plato and Aristotle.
Is heaven more real, and this earth is shadows of
heaven? (Plato/A-mil)
Or is the earth foundationally real, and to be focused upon? (Aristotle/Post-mil)
When I enjoy a tasty meal, do I need to downplay it (Platonic, a-mil
style) by remembering that heaven’s delights will be greater?
Or do I need to say (Aristotelian, post-mil style), that due to the resurrection
of the body, we know that this IS what the blessing of the new earth will be like?
Can’t I claim both?
The blessings of the new heaven and earth will be greater.
But that doesn’t lessen the earthly blessings that God gives
us.
The article gets one thing right, as CS Lewis wrote about:
This world whets our appetite for something more to come.
That shouldn’t lead us to denigrate earthly joys.
But neither should we measure blessings to come completely
by them.
Lewis also said that if we focus on earth, we will miss
heaven. But if we focus on heaven, we’ll
get earth thrown in with the deal.
Post-mils seem to want to focus on earth, and never mind
heaven.
A-mils seems to want to focus on heaven, and never mind
earth.
It reminds me of Chesterton: if you look at the sun and the
moon, I suppose some fool will talk about which is better.
I don't doubt the blessings of heaven will surpass those here on earth.
But neither will earthly blessings pass away, nor be spurned in the Regeneration.
Today eight brothers and sisters of ours in Christ will be baptized.
The church often struggles to give baptism its due weight. I would like to offer two ways you can remember your baptism.
First, we're getting back in the practice of giving out certificates of baptism. The Kirkpatricks get one today, and if you or your child were baptized recently, you'll get one soon. In one sense, it's just a piece of paper. It isn't an indulgence or anything silly like that. The baptism is the real thing, and your living relationship with Christ. True, but that's like saying a wedding ring is just a chunk of metal. The ring won't save your marriage, but it does remind you of it. So I'd encourage you to cherish the memory and proof of your baptism: keep it with your birth certificates and other legal documents. Or frame it on the bedroom wall to see every day.
Second, make the date important, like we do for birthdays. Almost no one knows the date of their baptism, but everyone knows their birthday. Put it on your calendars. When it comes around, have a special treat at dinner and tell your children: "this is the day that your mother was baptized." It's a great time to tell them about how you came to the Lord, the church you were raised or baptized in. Instill a sense of family and church heritage in this way. Kids, there was a group of believers like this one that baptized your parents 15 or 30 or 50 years ago. This is a way to give God thanks for the faith of our fathers.
Doing these things doesn't mean we are trusting our baptism or our heritage to save us - we shouldn't do that. But we should celebrate God washing us clean, bringing us into His church, as much as we celebrate God bringing us into the world at our birth. Because the church IS the new world, the new creation, chartered by the Word, constituted by baptismal water, and by bread and wine.
This kind of debate sponsored by the Gospel Coalition, is why that organization is dying or dead.
I only just now discovered Christ Church of Moscow's letter to anyone thinking of moving there. It's quite good, and dispels some misconceptions about the church.
Kevin DeYoung has good thoughts on the decline of the mainline Protestant church in the last few decades.
Jeff Meyers has important cautions for Christians who want to change the world. "We want to spin out grand theories about why things are going wrong and what needs to be changed, and we want to inspire others to action for the sake of the kingdom. . . but then we ourselves will ignore the more common, ordinary acts of charity and obedience..."
Proverbs 9:1-6 - Wisdom has built her house; she has hewn her seven pillars. She has slaughtered her beasts; she has mixed her wine; she has also set her table. She has sent out her young women to call from the highest places in the town, “Whoever is simple, let him turn in here!” To him who lacks sense she says, “Come, eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. Leave your simple ways, and live, and walk in the way of insight.”
One of the things about Mothers is that they set tables. The church is a mother of sorts, designed to feed God’s children with His bread and wine, to call out in the streets for the simple to enter God’s house and find wisdom.
Now, moms aren’t perfect, and neither is the church. On a Tuesday noon, you might find mom
whipping out the plates, slapping the PBJ on the bread hurriedly, being a
little short with the kids. But we are
called to honor her as best we can. Is
she giving you nutrition and not poison?
Then stay and eat what you are served.
We can have very particular palates when it comes to our theological
taste on the menu at church, and mom might serve something else. Jesus sees to it at this Table, that whatever
the faults of the server or the receiver, it is He Himself that you receive. So do not shrink back.
5/8/22
Deut 5:16 - "Honor your father and your mother, as the LORD your God commanded you, that your days may be long, and that it may go well with you in the land that the LORD your God is giving you."
Today is Mother’s Day, and a happy Mother’s Day to all the moms out there. Three things:
1. Scripture tells us straight up to honor our mothers. Our culture parades before us ungrateful children who blame all their problems on their parents. There is a better way, even if your parents were monsters. Jim Wilson on Bitterness. Relationship with Parents. So confess any resentment or bitterness that arises when you think of your parents. Some of us struggle mightily with this.
2. “That your days may be long, and that it may go well with you.” This reminds me of a favorite line of mine from an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie: "come with me, if you want to live." Honor your parents, if you want to live! There is a definite connection between a long, happy life, and a good relationship with your parents. As Romans says, “as far as it depends on you, live at peace with all men.” This includes our parents.
3. And to be a faithful pastor, I need to say, mothers sin in particular ways, too.
There are
more, but I’m already on thin ice!
This is a
day to commend mothers, and we should.
Let us also renew our commitment to God’s intent for moms, and reorient
our lives accordingly.
5/8/22
Through several experiences of counseling, and Facebook arguments in the last month or three, it's come to my attention:
Texting and messaging (T&M) is a REALLY bad way to carry on a meaningful relationship. Let me explain.
T&M emphasizes your say, and de-emphasizes what the other person is saying.
- you can read much quicker than you can text. So you tend to give much less time and attention to what the other person is saying.
- you have time to think through what you are going to say - go back and delete/edit. So you tend to give much MORE time and attention to what YOU are saying.
- you can say/text what you want at any time, regardless of what the other person is doing. WE GET USED TO THIS, and take it into our in-person conversations. I say what I want, when I want, instead of deferring to the other person.
This is a bad rodeo. In-person conversation forces you to listen more to the other person.
Not interrupt impatiently.
Not prioritize what you want to say.
T&M is great for quick, low-resolution relaying of basic information.
But if you need to
- forge a friendship, or a marriage with your spouse, or
- work through a disagreement, or
- shape your worldview with a mentor,
then set up a time to meet and talk in person.
Jordan Peterson recently interviewed Douglas Murray, on the release of his new book, The War on the West. This was the best articulation of a not-quite Christian cultural conservatism I've heard in a LONG time. Murray may be the next Bill Buckley. Peterson tends to interrupt and talk more than his guest on these podcasts, but not this time! Murray steals the show. [I couldn't find an online link. It is dated April 25 and is on the podcast.]
This sermon by Douglas Wilson on Palm Sunday is excellent. Sadly, he is too friendly to the zealots, who he never mentions by name, probably because he and his audience are becoming increasingly zealot-like in their outlook. Jesus refuted the Zealots, He didn't encourage them in any way. Besides that, Wilson's survey of the history of the time and how it relates to us is dynamite.
Toby Sumpter has a short exhortation to hospitality in the church that is much needed in our post-Covid moment. Get over your germophobia, or clinging to your personal time and space, and share your home and table with others. As another online friend has said well, the best way to prepare for any looming cultural crisis is to build high-trust communities NOW.
"Worry is not believing God will get it right, and bitterness is believing God got it wrong" - Tim Keller
