Hinge of Fate: Book Review of Winston Churchill

 

The Hinge of Fate by Winston S. Churchill
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

I picked this up after a 10 year hiatus (!). It makes for great change-of-pace reading.

Dear Winston includes every detail he has, every main policy paper and telegram, leading Britain through the war.
This volume starts with America entering the war, and ends with the Allies routing Rommel from North Africa. “We turn from almost uninterrupted disaster to almost unbroken success” (vi).

“We were no longer alone. At our side stood two mighty Allies. Russia and the United States were, though for different reasons, irrevocably engaged to fight to the death in the closest concert with the British Empire” (3).

I found Stalin’s telegrams to Churchill, and Churchill’s visits to FDR, to be the most entrancing. Stalin was generally grumping and compmlaining about how the West wasn’t doing anything to draw Hitler off from him. It’s Russia taking all the casualties, not you! He had a point. We took our sweet time getting D-Day going, but it takes time to produce weapons, train men, and move it all into position. Here is Churchill to FDR, March 5, 1942:

“When I reflect how I have longed and prayed for the entry of the United States into the war, I find it difficult to realise how gravely our British affairs have deteriorated by what has happened since December 7. We have suffered the greatest disaster in our history at Singapore, and other misfortunes will come thick and fast upon us. Your great power will only become effective gradually because of the vast distances and the shortage of ships.”

Churchill, in typical egocentric fashion, shows that he was the main force urging everyone to get off their duffs and get moving. He saw too much holding back, waiting to attack until everything was perfect. He wanted every Ally force employed in attacking the enemy as much as possible, to wear them down.

But with Germany’s massive defeats in Russia and Africa, the tide turned:
“Henceforward the danger was not Destruction but Stalemate…. Soon the German nation was to be alone in Europe, surrounded by an infuriated world in arms.”


For some video and visuals, try these.
We shall fight…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdAD0...

Churchill funeral: When will we ever again see a nation so sincerely grateful for a great statesman like Churchill? The lowering of the cranes over the Thames gets me every time…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87Xkr...

Speech: Their Finest Hour

This gets good at about 3:30...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jjhx...

Speech to US Congress, one month after Pearl Harbor

Lots of zingers in here!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYDLTDL-YD8

View all my reviews

Is Tithing for Today?

In this short article, I will:

explain what the Old Testament tithe was,
explain what it was used for,
argue that it remains in effect for the New Testament Christian,
apply this to church budgeting and pastor’s salaries today,
and consider how to shepherd the church regarding giving.
 
 
What is a tithe?
Tithe is simply an old English word for tenth.  The concept was simple.  Give 10 percent of all your increase to God.  God also specified that it needs to be the first tenth.  In our modern day, this simply means, putting it at the top of your budget.  It’s the first thing to come out, not the last if there is anything left over (there never is!)
 
 
Use of the tithe
The Old Testament tithe was given for three main things:
1. The priest and Levite’s living and temple administration.  Numbers 18:21-32.
2. Charity to the poor.  Deuteronomy 14:28-29
3. Feasting before the Lord.  Deut 12:6
 
 
This Old Testament pattern holds for the church today.
The majority of evangelicals believe the tithe requirement has been abrogated in the New Testament, because of 2 Corinthians 9:7.  Give not out of obligation, but what you feel led to give, it says.  They mistakenly think that all obligations are abolished, but that is a misreading of the text.  The point is the heart attitude in your giving.  Just as God says rhetorically He hasn’t required sacrifices and offerings of us, if we are going to bring them hypocritically (Isaiah 1), so He doesn’t want 10% given grudgingly.  But that doesn’t mean God is okay with 3% given cheerfully, either!  The New Testament posture is not, “Do whatever, as long as your heart is in the right place!”  No, it should be, “Do what God says, and make sure your heart is also in the right place doing it.”
 
More importantly, this view does not take account of 1 Cor. 9:13-14, which appeals to the Old Testament tithing principle to say that those preaching the gospel should have their livelihood from it.  Just as the priests lived off the tithe, so should pastors today.
 
The tithe does NOT go to para-church ministries, but to a body of believers supporting the worship of God (Deut 12:17-19).  This is a tough one for many, who believe they are getting more or better teaching or help for their families from a para-church group, than they are from their church.  But do you see the catch-22, there?  If believers were to give a full 10% to the church, it would have the resources to at least oversee, if not do better, what other groups are currently doing.  Many judge that the church cannot do the job as well.  And that is true, in part, because they are not giving what they should be giving to the church.  They also argue that there were NO such ministries in the OT, but now there are many to use and support.  This often prompts me to concede that such ministries might receive a small part of one’s tithe, but the local church should still receive the lion’s share of it.
 
 
Church budgets!
Not only does the 10% requirement hold, but the church should also follow the Old Testament pattern of how it is used.  Translating the three uses above, church budgets today should prioritize:

1. A pastor’s salary and facility usage.  

It’s ideal to pay the pastor the average of what people in the church and community around are making.

2. Benevolence and missions.  

If you really want to get into the weeds, this was commanded the 3^rd year of every seven.  So one-seventh of a church’s budget, roughly, should go to missions and benevolence.

3. Supplies for sacraments and for the fellowship of the church
Feasting before the Lord was a once (or a few times) a year event, so it would be a small percentage of a church’s yearly budget.  Church balls, parties, meals, campouts, etc. should be sponsored from this fund.

Pastors 
The New Testament does not require pastors to take a full-time salary.  Paul forewent this, to not burden the new churches.  And he could make another living at the same time (1 Cor. 9:12b).  But a church should seek to provide itself with a full-time pastor, as far as possible (1 Cor. 9:9-14) .  Too many churches underpay their pastors, appealing to this passage, when it is really about the pastor’s discretion, not the church’s obligation.  The pastor has a right to a decent living from his pastoral labors, and he also has the freedom to NOT receive it, or to give some or all of it back, for the church’s sake.  A church of 16-20 tithing families should be able to support a pastor and cover the other budget items above, as well.
 
 
Shepherding people regarding the tithe
While I believe the church should teach this full throttle, I do not believe leadership should “police” individual members’ giving very much.  Many churches will have overzealous deacons who pressure the pastor to preach on giving, or to visit family x and talk to them, because they aren’t giving.  Restraint and teaching is the need of the hour.  When people first come to the church, a membership interview should include a brief mention of tithing as part of what is expected of members.  If there is a long pattern of a member giving little to nothing, when it is apparent that they could give, a deacon should inquire as to why.  Concern and criticism are warranted.
 
Beyond that, I treat this issue much like the Sabbath.  When a church member goes out to eat on a Sunday when they don’t have to, it grieves me because of my conviction and Lord’s Day practice.  But I am not going to treat it like a sin issue, because of varying, plausible convictions on the matter. 

Review: The Case for Christian Nationalism

Conservative Christians today are sorely tempted to overreact to the leftist craziness out there.  Stephen Wolfe’s first book, The Case for Christian Nationalism, seems to me to be the most recent example.  Aware of a globalist push by “no borders” George Soros, or Klaus at the World Economic Forum, those on the right are lately making an over-wrought case for nationalism as a good thing.

 

Others have reviewed the whole book more ably than me, especially Kevin DeYoung and Brian Matteson.  Upon reading the introduction of this book, in which Wolfe summarizes his conclusions with some supporting arguments, I decided not to inflict over 400 more pages of it upon myself.  

 

Here are some reasons why.

 

1. Wolfe’s definition of nationalism is an odd tautology: it’s just what a nation does in its laws and customs (pgs. 9, 11).  This is a far cry from the common understanding of the term, which he says he won’t waste time addressing (26).

 

2. Wolfe argues that a nation’s totality of action for itself is what makes nationalism a good thing (12-13).  ALL actions in the nation are directed to the good of the nation.  The mother nurses her child for the nation.  This is both ominous and closer to the popular understanding of nationalism.  Not to be incendiary, but it frankly sounds like some of Hitler’s rhetoric.  For Christians, national loyalty takes a back seat – we are raising our children for Christ before we do so for the nation.

 

3. Wolfe asserts that his theological assumptions are “widely shared among Christians” (18), and cites “Who Is My Neighbor?” by Dow/Achord.  I have reviewed this book and believe its inferred assertion of isolationism and quasi-kinism is widely REJECTED by Christians.  Separately, Wolfe also asserts natural law from a Thomistic understanding, linking it with Reformed thought, which is highly controversial and not assumed truth at all today (17).

 

4. Speaking of Thomas Aquinas, Wolfe follows him in asserting that grace perfects or restores nature.  While this is partly true, it is also true in important ways that grace goes against fallen nature.  Galatians 3:28-29 tell us there is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, we are one in Christ.  Grace transcends nature.  We don’t just go back to what feels natural (natural affections is the term, now), and assume that is God’s moral law.  Nature needs sanctifying and fixing; it is not a reliable guide for our moral compass.

 

5.  Wolfe takes this quite far, asserting that grace does not “critique” the natural desire to dwell among a similar people.  “The natural inclination to dwell among a similar people is good and necessary” (24).  This is again an overreaction to leftist insistence on diversity.  The development of the NT church in Acts radically contravenes Wolfe's thesis, showing a godly, new diversity which God’s people needed to welcome.  Think of the church in Philippi, with the Roman jailor and devout Jewish Lydia, in the same congregation.  Lest you think I’m just “mixing categories” of church and state, realize that the Gospel should have an effect on nations, such that people don’t insist on mixing only with their kind politically, because of the Gospel and verses like Galatians 3:28-29, Ephesians 2:14, and Colossians 3:11.

 

6.  Another overreaction regards Gnosticism.  The Gnostic impulse would urge that physical particularities, like language, custom and place make NO difference – the identifying marker is the spiritual principles to which one holds, only.  Wolfe and many on the right today are overreacting against that, giving physical characteristics TOO MUCH weight.  Being a man, as we experience that naturally, instead of a woman, comes to define your Christianity.  No, Scripture and the Spirit need to supernaturally shape a man’s unique make-up and desires.  With Wolfe’s nationalism, forming the nation according to its particularities defines Christian culture.  Take this too far, and it results in Roman Catholic syncretism with various cultures: "This is how Americans, or South Americans, ARE, so the church needs to adapt to that.  Respect their culture."  Sometimes, but the Gospel disciples (shapes) the nations to its mold.  We don't insist on keeping the physical particularities of our national identity, if they are hindering the Gospel.

 

7.  Finally, Wolfe advocates for a “Christian prince,” a magistrate with the power to correct the church’s errors.  His argument is poor: “The Christian prince can, in principle, remove error and reform the visible church, because no error is actually in the visible church in itself, for no error can exist in the Kingdom of God” (32).  And the conclusion is patently false or Quixotic.  Who wants Joe Biden or Ron DeSantis telling the church what their errors are?  At what point will we have a governor or president we would trust to set the councils, cardinals, priests and pastors all straight?  This is building castles in the sky.

 

 

Wolfe does say some good things.  Here is a highlight: “Governmental and societal ‘neutrality’ are impossible and… secularism is pervasive and relentless.  It has evolved into a sort of pagan nationalism, in which bizarre moralities and rites are imposed upon all areas of life” (36).  This is an accurate diagnosis, but the book’s prognosis is riddled with problems.  He is on to something with his call back to the political order of early America, I think. 

 

What the church needs right now is not a greater focus on local place, nation, or physical characteristics.  We need a richer understanding of the Gospel that permeates all of life.  That will lead to some focus on place, nation and the physical.  But it will be transformative of nature, not hidebound to it.  It will lead us to love the stranger among us, and to transform our civic and physical lives, rather than reverting to our natural desires.