Building Your House - Hebrews 3

Hebrews 3:2-6

Moses also was faithful in all God's house. For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.) Now Moses was faithful in all God's house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ is faithful over God's house as a son. And we are his house, if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.


We are all trying to build a house. Increase our income, raise our children, prosper our family, expand our borders.

Interesting that God in Hebrews takes up this metaphor and says Jesus does this faithfully, as God’s Son for His Father (verse 6). And that WE are the house He is building. Husbands all try to live out Christ to their bride, but fail in some way. Jesus doesn’t. Pastors all try to live out Christ as shepherd to their sheep, but fail in some way. Jesus doesn’t. Magistrates fail to build a nation, “a single sword to Thee,” but fail. Our earthly rulers falter. But Jesus doesn’t.

In my circles we put a lot of emphasis on earthly authority of fathers, church elders, and civil magistrates. And rightly so. But they will all fail in some way. Jesus is building the Great House. The houses we’re all trying to build are incomplete, imperfect. But He will establish them by His GRACE. By our faith in Him, and not by our own works.

So as we build our houses, He is building His, with us as His stones (1 Peter 2:5). Remember that when your house falters a bit, God knows how to rebuild, reshape, refashion your stones into his glorious house. Trust Him to do it. Then you won’t get desperate, grasping after particular methods, turning from His power and Spirit to your own paltry efforts. Jesus may do it another way.

Trust Him.

Quick Thoughts from John (3)

John 16:5
none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’

I find this verse fascinating. Peter had asked Jesus exactly this just hours before, in John 13:36! 

So what does Jesus mean?

I think He means, you’re focused on your own pain at losing Me, at what God’s people (the Sanhedrin) are about to do to Me (see John 16:6), not on God’s plan, to glorify Himself. Peter asks “Where are you going?” because he doesn’t want bad things to happen. He should have been happy Jesus was going to the Father, but all he/we can think about is our own pain at feeling the absence of His presence when we are mistreated or just wounded (John 14:28). 

That is a hard lesson to learn in affliction, but an important one. Jesus feels distant in our hard times, but He is not.

Quick thoughts from John (2)

John 11:48-50

If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and the Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.” 49 But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all. 50 Nor do you understand that it is better for you that one man should die for the people, not that the whole nation should perish.”

This one struck me differently in this election season.

Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin believe that preserving the nation in its present state is absolutely essential, and that they have to get it done.

It’s deep irony: “to preserve God’s people, Jesus must die.”
Deeply true, theologically.
Caiaphas got it completely wrong, politically.
(Can’t resist, but this was Denethor the steward opposing Aragorn the King…)

If you are prone to believe during this election that one candidate must be kept from the highest office to preserve the nation (or that another must be elected), you may want to give this a closer look.

God shakes the nations all the time. Not monthly, or even in our lifetime, but regularly throughout history. If He has the right to reconstitute His chosen people Israel into a church, which He does and did, surely He has the right to let a nation like ours fall due to its continued unbelief and rebellion. We don’t HAVE to make America great again, though we may want and work for that. America is dispensable in God’s plan, as the Sanhedrin also was.

By all means, love your country, and back your preferred candidate (coughcoughnotharriscoughcough), but don’t lose sight of God’s sovereignty. He often brings about a great catastrophe, like the cross, that brings a phoenix out of the fires. Trust and hope in Him alone.

Quick Thoughts from John (1)

John 13:34-36
“A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, where are you going…”

One thing usually pointed out here in the upper room is that Jesus will be leaving them soon, and they’ll need one another in the coming days of His absence. But for the first time today, I connected Peter’s response to a deeper possibility. Peter basically ignores this new command to love those around him, and stays focused completely on Jesus. Even though Jesus just told him to focus on the other disciples!

Is it possible that we can get so wrapped up in the grief of losing a close loved one, or the pain of personal trauma, that we can’t remember our call to love others? Absolutely it is. It’s a very natural response, which is why Jesus brings it up. The consequences of sin and heart wounds isolate us and send us within ourselves. We need to work against that and… “love one another.”

Now, this isn’t a heartless demand to them not to feel pain at His departure, or to you not to grieve when it is time. But we should seek to dig out from under our grief and be at least functional again, over time. We may even find that reaching out to others in compassion and service can be a key way we DO overcome our personal hurts and wounds. After all, God “comforts us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to comfort those who are in any affliction, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God” (2 Cor. 1:4).

The Only Plane in the Sky - a review

The Only Plane in the Sky: An Oral History of 9/11 by Garrett M. Graff
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A gripping, detailed account of 9/11, from the survivors on the ground.

I never read a book so fast. A real page-turner, because it was real, not some Tom Clancy novel.
The whole thing is only transcripts of interviews of survivors of 9/11.

I was turned off at first by the format. Each paragraph of only 1-4 sentences flipped from one person to another – I got ADD real fast. But I soon realized this was purposeful. It helped the reader get in the mindset on the ground: what’s happening? The lack of knowledge is a key part of the story, and just getting little blips of information is how it happened, and conveys the confusion of the day.

One striking thing is that after the last plane went down in PA, everyone assumed more was coming, even though it was “over.”

Garrett Graff the editor does a masterful job interweaving normal office people in the Pentagon or the World Trade Center with senior leaders like NY Gov. Pataki, VP Dick Cheney in the bunker, President George W. Bush on Air Force One, and senior staff to congressional leaders. He sticks with a cluster of related people for a while then moves to another cluster.

EVERYONE should read this. People under 30 should read it to understand the terror they’ve only heard of second hand, and to grasp the “boomer” politics that ensued. People over 30 should read it to recall and learn anew what all actually happened that day, beyond what they saw on the TV.

It isn’t for the faint of heart. There are a few expletives, and brief descriptions of body parts. But the way it conveys the reality on the ground is unbelievably well done. The fire departments of New York and Arlington are not lauded for merely sentimental reasons – they lost hundreds as they went up into the flames of buildings that were about to collapse, and rescued many. Rudy Giuliani and Don Rumsfeld stuck out to me as quite heroic on the ground, but even more so were the emergency workers and office co-workers who wouldn’t leave without rescuing people from the rubble, often at the cost of their own lives.

Should we be pursuing enemies of the USA beyond our borders as vigorously as we do, when we have so many domestic problems? Don’t answer that question until you read this book.

May God bless America, in His mercy.

View all my reviews

Dance with Dragons - a review

A Dance with Dragons by George R.R. Martin
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

This is a wicked, horrible book. Do not read this series.

I don’t know why I finished it. Can’t resist plots of political intrigue, I suppose.
And I wanted to see what the culture was in such a tizzy about. But looking into this cesspool is indeed nauseating.

The last in his Game of Thrones 5 volume series, yet still unfinished, Martin satisfies only salaciously. He cannot finish a story, or convey meaning with his world building, because his worldview is nihilistic. The only thing that really matters is power. “Words are wind” is a repeated theme, though better minds know that the world was MADE with words.

Soaked with crass vulgarity on nearly every page, Martin seeks to shock, and it’s closer to X than R rated, on the movie scale. This isn’t just sexual innuendo – it’s in your face gratuitous violence and sex, meant to make you think that life is just meat and flesh, and then it’s done. Materialistic despair, run amok, seeking to soothe it with whatever power and pleasure you can get.

Interestingly, Martin is deliberately non-egalitarian. Jaime is a better knight than others. Tyrion has more wits than most around him, and so survives and advances though he is a dwarf. Rulers who are humble like Jon Snow, and less arrogant or cock-sure like Cersei Lannister get on better.

This nausea-inducing series paradoxically gives me hope. I see more clearly now how despairing people are, apart from Christ. They are desperate for hope, though most Martin readers are probably like the dwarves in The Last Battle, who will refuse to believe in the opposite good, true Story, even when it’s shown to them clearly in the face.

At least I know a little better now, how to speak to them the Gospel of hope, the antidote to this nihilism.

View all my reviews

The Bible - a review

 

ESV Study Bible by Anonymous
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

I just finished reading through the Bible, and it hit me that I might do a “review.”
[This isn't a review of the ESV Study Bible, just the text of the Bible itself.]

Of course, you don’t review a book that GOD wrote the same way you do books that humans write.
But still. I thought it would be a helpful exercise.

Made up of 66 books written over centuries by many different human authors, the Spirit inspired each of them to contribute to one grand narrative. The creation, fall, and reclamation of humanity for the glory of God. The Bible makes sense of life, telling us how we should be living, what we were made for, and why things are as miserable as we are because we don’t live up to God’s purpose for us.

A diversity of genres make up the Bible. History in the first third or so, mixed in with statutory laws on how to live and worship. Poetry in the middle, on how to speak and relate to God in various circumstances, as well as practical wisdom in how to live well. Prophecy completes the middle third, which we ought to pair with the history of the kings more than we think to do. The prophets clearly spell out why God’s judgment comes on His people, and on other nations. The Gospels beginning the new testament are a unique genre that narrate the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The epistles mostly explain the meaning of the person and work of Christ further, and teach the church how to live, believing in Him as their Lord and Savior. The last book shows that God is at work, even when horrible things happen around us and to us.

A key point: God’s purpose is potent. He will bring His people to Himself throughout history, and see His will done, regardless how horrific things are in the present. He means to sanctify us by His Spirit, as He has redeemed us at the cross of Christ. Nothing will stop this.

Take up your Bible, and read. Be encouraged. Reconnect with your Creator. Re-center yourself on the Christ who is the center, and who holds it all together.

The only book that will ever receive 6 out of 5 stars, not that my rating matters…

View all my reviews

Criminalizing Post-Abortive Women Doesn’t Work – Now

A guest post by my daughter, Grace, contra abortion abolitionists.

 

Abortion abolitionists claim that because abortion is murder, the law ought to reflect this by criminalizing post-abortive mothers, and therefore establishing justice for the unborn. Abolitionists are correct in their moral ideology. Elective abortion is murder, not because a law calls it murder, but because the procedure, whether performed medically by pill or surgically, intentionally destroys a human life which is made in the image of God. This should be obvious to any Bible believing Christian. Any society which holds founding principles derived from Christianity should recognize this and implement laws which reflect the murderous nature of abortion.

Abolitionists are wrong to ignore the mechanics of politics and the legislative process. The insistence that abolitionist bills are the only morally acceptable type of bill by which justice can be established against abortion creates a black and white moral framework rarely fits into the mucky grey of politics.

First, the briefest of practical political application: It's not practically obvious that a pregnant mother can be criminalized, depending on the culture of the state in which an abolitionist bill would be proposed. Within supermajority or very strong Republican states where the culture already accepts abortion as murder and post-abortive mothers as murderers, abolition bills would help solidify the Christian mores which that state’s constituency and culture desires. However, federally, and in most states, a legislator (who is elected by a public which does not view post-abortive mothers as infanticidal criminals) who carries an abolitionist bill in the current culture puts a shotgun to their own knee. Depending on how bad the PR fallout is, their constituents will fire them next election and replace them with a legislator more moderate on abortion, causing the prolife or abolitionist legislator to lose their job without effecting change, and causing the prolife or abolitionist lobby to lose an ally by which they could have proposed further bills. In many states, it may very well be bad stewardship of our prolife allies and representatives to strong arm them into carrying an abolitionist bill to committee if the odds of the bill dying are high and the odds of a different prolife bill passing are high. Some wars are won through a blitz. Some wars are won through an island-hopping attrition campaign. Wisdom is knowing what kind of war you are in. The battle in Arkansas is not the same as the battle in New York.

I think, however, that the entire abolition vs. prolife debate misses the point and sounds too much like asking, “Where was Gondor when the Westfold fell?” The debate strikes me as a marked failure of Christians (abolitionist or prolife or otherwise) to understand the pro-abortion strategy. The battle is not being fought at the level of the state laws, it is being fought at the level of the culture and the level of state constitutions. As state after state caves to a popular pro-abortion constitutional amendment, we ought to recognize that without cultural change, even if our legislators passed abolitionist laws in every state, we would still lose this war via popular votes on state constitutions. A primary example is Ohio, a supermajority Republican state with a Republican governor, which still voted popularly for a constitutional right to unlimited abortion up to and including the moment of birth. No abolitionist law could have saved them, and even if one had passed, it would now be considered an unconstitutional law in Ohio and would be struck from the books in short order, likely with great pomp and circumstance by the pro-abortion lobby.

One of the main arguments of the abolitionists is to say that the law is a tutor, and with an abolitionist law, many women would be deterred from procuring abortions. To say that the law is a tutor is true, but it’s an oversimplification.

The culture for the last 100+ years has learned that the emotional and intellectual self is the highest moral authority, and if that selfish moral authority requires the death of unborn children, so be it (see Carl Trueman’s Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self ). An abolitionist law passed and enforced tomorrow will not undo the last 100+ years of cultural self-worship. It will only spit in the eye of a much stronger cultural power, a power which has no problems exerting itself on millions of unborn children. Expect disastrous reprisal. Many abolitionists criticize Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization as a legal prolife victory resulting in sweeping cultural pro-abortion victories worsening the situation in many states. How would an abolitionist law be any different? While we shouldn’t modify our language or message in order to make the leading class of the pro-abortion movement like us (they never will), we would be wise to take some cues from their winning strategy. They didn’t need the law to teach culture, they simply captured the institutions until their cultural power increased to critical mass. By the time Roe v. Wade came before the Supreme Court, it was already too late, the pro-abortion wing had won.

I’ll cite the Comstock Act as a law originally written in 1873, in a more Christian and principled America. The Comstock Act is currently on the books, currently in effect, which legally prevents people from mailing obscene material, including abortion pills. Abolitionists might think that this law is currently acting as a tutor, teaching the culture about the moral wrong of shipping abortion pills from state to state. Unfortunately, the Comstock Act is not enforced because our judicial system and society at large no longer holds the moral principles of 1873. Federally, we lack the moral framework even to desire to enforce the Comstock Act.

Equal protection and justice for the unborn is a good, moral, and righteous idea, if the law is a good, moral, and righteous law, and if the judicial system applies the law in a good, moral, and righteous way by good, moral, and righteous people. Despite the blessing of our judicial system, we should recognize its brokenness, the current brokenness of our culture, and the depravity of any human being, whether they be judge, juror, lawyer, or police officer. If tomorrow you passed an abolitionist law, and the day after you brought a woman to trial for getting an elective abortion with full knowledge of the personhood of the baby and the process of an abortion, not a single person on that jury would find her guilty of first-degree homicide, no matter how strong the evidence. Judeo-Christian morality lacks the cultural strength it held in 1873, and unfortunately, this means that many laws which work within a Christian moral framework, such as the Comstock Act, are culturally rejected, and therefore left unenforced.

That’s a sad state of affairs, but it’s the current state of affairs, and a legal change will have little effect on the culture. The only way the culture will truly change is through the spread of the Gospel. This is where our efforts should be focused. God will grant the cultural change as He sees fit, but let us not be caught slacking in our commission.

  

The Road to Serfdom - a review

The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

A tour de force of conservatism, which I’ve been meaning to read for many years, Hayek does NOT disappoint.

Writing in England near the end of World War II in 1944, Hayek raises the alarm: many Europeans are adopting the same socialism that Germany did in the buildup to Hitler. Collectivism, whether fascist or communist, is the road to serfdom. Western nations must resist it and insist on the first political principle of individual liberty. State bureaucrats should not plan our economy – the free market is the best instrument for this.

The ad Hitlerum argument is overplayed these days, but for Hayek it packed a powerful punch. The carnage he wreaked had become evident. And Hitler was the one who wanted to organize society and industry under the state, subsuming the family, church, and individual. Now the socialists in the west want to do the same! No. Let the market sort out the best allocation of resources.

At many points, Hayek is prescient in seeing the downsides of the United Nations and the European Union, neither yet formed when he wrote.

There was a strange section I think I disagreed with, where Hayek argues that no society has a comprehensive ethical system. Therefore we cannot have central planners dictate rules for everyone, since not everyone agrees to all the moral priorities. There is some truth to this, in realpolitik, especially surveying our divided society today. But he doesn’t address the Judeo-Christian heritage in Scripture, which certainly DOES provide Western nations of Christian heritage with a comprehensive ethical system. Should Hayek’s libertarianism be moderated by some sort of Christian theonomy? This debate rages today.

Be that as it may, Hayek is a master in exposing the good intentions of socialist planners as totalitarians at heart. Even today, especially today, subsidizing various industries in many areas of the economy (green energy comes to mind), these socialists continue today to chip away at freedom, seeking to plan and direct the free economy to their own ends. Even the right has gotten on board lately, with their tariffs and nationalism.

Hayek is a helpful political compass to bring us back to what government is FOR. Not directing a society to the state’s “ethical” ends, but enforcing established rule of law so individuals can plan effectively how to use their resources to the fullest.

Hayek was an academic, and is not very easy to read. His average sentence length is probably double that of popular writing today. But it is well worth the effort. A rare 5 stars!

View all my reviews

Don Juan - a review

Don Juan by Lord Byron
My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This book was a TRIP.
Knowing little about Lord Byron, except he was a Romantic poet (“She walks in beauty like the night…”), and that Don Juan was a profligate womanizer, I wasn’t sure what to expect. Here’s what I learned.

Byron structures and writes his epic like Dante. The chapters are Cantos. He often refers to contemporary figures, criticizing or praising them, while telling a different story with a different point. Following a strict meter and rhyme (mostly), each stanza also has 8 lines. There over 100 stanzas in each of the 16 complete Cantos! The modern reader finds this tiresome, and I did at times. But there is also a freedom to the structure that lets you focus on other things he’s doing.

Unlike Dante, Byron is EXTREMELY self-conscious, referring to his Muse, reputation, giftedness, and humility (!) constantly. He compares himself to all the great epic poets, seeing himself as one of them, or striving to be. Juan is shipwrecked like Odysseus. The book is PACKED with literary references like Dante. You need good footnotes to make sense of much of it. But with Byron you get more the sense that he is showing off his knowledge. He says he is moralizing, but seldom does the way a preacher would (he likes to make fun of moralizing preachers). His long digressions on politics, women, society, religion, etc. are actually the point of the book, I think. Juan’s plot is just a device to hold it together and flip back and forth between.

Juan is set up as Byron’s hero, the paragon of what a virtuous man should be, and it is no Christian vision. Handsome, courtly, facing hardship head on as serenely as pleasure like a good Stoic. He goes from one beautiful woman’s arms to another, and there’s a fair bit of sexual innuendo, especially at the beginning. Byron does not criticize this at all, but comments on (and criticizes) women of high society, assuming it’s fine to pursue them outside of marriage. Juan is a hero for having women desire him. He has a fair number of chauvinistic lines about the capricious changeableness of women. He several times criticizes the institution of marriage outright, as the other Romantics did.

But Byron was a genius writer and not totally wicked. He was an apt social critic, with plenty of clever lines. Here is a sampling of some of his best.

‘Twas for a voyage that the young man was meant,
As if a Spanish ship were Noah’s ark,
To wean him from the wickedness of earth
And send him like a dove of promise forth.
II:8

Our hero (and I trust, kind reader, yours)
Was left upon his way to the chief city
Of the immortal Peter’s polished boors, [Rome]
Who still have shown themselves more brave than witty.
I know its mighty empire now allures
Much flattery, even Voltaire’s, and that’s a pity.
For me, I deem an absolute autocrat
Not a barbarian, but much worse than that.

And I will war at least in words (and should)
My chance so happen – deeds) with all who war
With thought; and of thought’s foes by far most rude,
Tyrants and sycophants have been are are.
I know not who may conquer. If I could
Have such a prescience, it should be no bar
To this my plain, sworn, downright detestation
Of every despotism in every nation.

It is not that I adulate the people.
Without me, there are demagogues enough
And infidels to pull down every steeple
And set up in their stead some proper stuff.
Whether they may sow scepticism to reap hell,
As is the Christian dogma rather rough,
I do not know. I wish men to be free
As much from mobs as kings – from you as me.
IX:23-25

It were much better to be wed or dead
Than wear a heart a woman loves to rend.
XIV:64

But more or less the whole’s a syncope
Or a singultus, emblems of emotion,
The grand antithesis to great ennui,
Wherewith we break our bubbles on the ocean
XV:2
[Here, like a good Romantic, Byron asserts that feeling/emotion is the best antidote to ennui / boredom / nihilism.]


But what’s reality? Who has its clue?
Philosophy? No, she too much rejects.
Religion? Yes, but which of all her sects?

Some millions must be wrong, that’s pretty clear;
Perhaps it may turn out that all were right.
XV:89-90


View all my reviews

Fellowship of the Ring - a review

The Fellowship of the Ring by J.R.R. Tolkien
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Fellowship of the Ring

5 stars!

The usual critique of this trilogy is that it is too long on landscape. Sitting outside reading it during the late summer / early autumn, I disagree. Part of the point is to awaken a love for the outdoors again, and it worked for me, this time through.

Besides that, I heavily notated all the theologically laden comments Tolkien makes:
- Evil [the ring] can only be used for evil
- We need companions on the journey for good and against evil
- We are tempted to use power for good when that is not in God’s design
- Things are not always as they seem: Strider appears suspicious at first; Boromir seems kindly but seeks to take the ring. Discernment is needed.
- Do not assume those in charge and assumed to have great knowledge (Saruman) are to be trusted.
- Come together for counsel against evil and share your knowledge [Elrond’s council].
- Be aware of evil set against you, when you are at peace and unaware [Frodo before leaving the Shire]
- Understand the bigger picture, and don’t just stay in your little Shire bubble, so you can act properly.

Much more could be said in a preachy way, but the story is compelling in itself.
Tolle lege.


View all my reviews

That Distant Land - a Review

 

That Distant Land: The Collected Stories by Wendell Berry
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Berry is a gifted writer. He preferences the land, the world, and its value over all else. People are meant to belong to the land. The price of crops means less than value of work. A dying ancestor means more to his community than modern medicine’s care for him.

A collection of 2 dozen short stories, most of which can be read in an evening, I reread this after 15 years or so, and found it valuable.
It’s a good introduction to the Port William world, or a great way to fill in the story after reading Jayber Crow or Hannah Coulter.

Many points brought me to tears out of nostalgia, which critics declaim. Maybe they’re right. Berry longs for a world that has passed away. But the values of that world can reorient our moral compass in very helpful ways.

View all my reviews

Should we give the middle finger to idolatry, Doug?

A breakdown of Doug Wilson's defense of the recent NSA ad with the middle finger to idolatry.

Prologue

I remain a friend of Moscow and all its ventures to build Christian culture and to fight against the rising secular and pagan worldview.  I liked 98% of the NSA ad, and would recommend the school to friends.

However.  

(A critique of each section of Doug's post here.  The ad is here.)

"First, What it Was"

It doesn't help to say it was just a nano-second, and that we'd just be WILLING to go there (use the f-bomb).  If you're willing to go there, and show it, it's as bad as going there.  Showing the picture at all is as good as saying "eff you."

"Where We and Our Critics Disagree"
Doug bifurcates between friends of the college, and those out to get them. Respondents are effeminate wusses, library ladies, and sob sisters; or we are masculine, faithful, fighting friends. Most are in the middle, in neither camp. He is much more sensitive to those out to get them, and I don't discount there are many enemies of his doing that. But there are many like me who don't want to give Nate a pass, and also are not effeminate wusses. This is an ad hominem fallacy on Doug's part. (Any critics are sob sisters.) Also, in this section Doug downplays the gesture: "we didn't actually say the word out loud." This is casuistry. Finally, Doug plays the "who will fight?" card. If you criticize using the f-bomb you aren't willing to fight, in his view. Non sequitur. I've seen this before from him, first hand: if you don't agree with him, you're unwilling to put on your "big boy pants." He quotes Judges 15:11, but Samson and other judges never used the f-bomb, or used the enemy's sinful tactics against them.

"I'll Tell You What's Problematic"
Doug's critique of Strachan falls flat. Just because Strachan positively reviewed a film with several f-bombs in it, doesn't make it inconsistent to critique Christian platforms that PRODUCE it. His reference to "Evangellyfish" also doesn't fly, as Doug didn't use the f-bomb in it. I wouldn't call Doug a grifter, but the ad was definitely made to get attention. To say his critics are out for attention is just to siphon criticism off Moscow onto their critics.

"The Heart of the Difficulty"

This is a decent section, though it depends on inward intent. I believe Doug's intent is sincere and that he is not seeking fame for its own sake. He is seeking attention for a godly purpose. But he assumes his critics are seeking fame in an ungodly manner, which is uncharitable of him. Maybe they actually have a substantial case to consider. Assuming it is not so displays a lack of humility, uncharacteristic of the Doug I know. (I liked his appeal to DeYoung being our next standard bearer.)

Overall, I'd say including the middle finger gesture violates Scripture. We want to renounce idolatry like we saw in the Paris Olympics opening ceremony, but not say "eff you" to it. This tiny portion of the ad was a play to ungodly hatred of wickedness, which we ought to reject.

I urge you: reject both the wickedness itself, and the ungodly, hate-filled response to it.

Judas, Kamala Harris, and God's Providence

 Another great sermon by Doug Wilson, especially the last bit from 40:00 or so, on.

There's also a great passage on what Judas was trying to do, which applies to our political situation today.

https://www.christkirk.com/sermon/acts-of-the-apostles-3/

On the Trinity - Augustine - a review

On the Trinity by Saint Augustine of Hippo by Augustine of Hippo
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Augustine breaks the rule that no one can talk for more than 15 minutes about the Trinity without committing some heresy. He takes 288 fine print pages to cover every aspect of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, with no major error. It is a stunning theological and philosophical accomplishment.

This book also proves CS Lewis’ rule of thumb right: read an old book between every 1-2 contemporary ones you read. The way Augustine writes is nothing like people today. It isn’t that he uses big words too much. His grammar and syntax, and way of argumentation is very different. But once you’re used to it, you see that his arguments are incisive, Scriptural, and compelling. My edition had a summary of every short chapter which helped my feeble brain a ton. It would be easy to skim, by only reading those chapter headings, and dipping in further where you want.

Part of his argument is to use an expected Scripture text, and then infer logically a truth of the Trinity. It’s a master class in going from interpretation of Scripture to systematic theology.

This is a challenging read, essential for seminary students, and very helpful for pastors to connect with “mother church,” and keep their minds sharp in this important area.

A rare 5 out of 5 stars!

View all my reviews