MENU

Author

On October 21, 2020 By In Politics, Pro-Life

A Plea to Evangelicals Voting for Biden

Pro-Life Evangelicals for Biden is a group formed recently by notable leaders such as Pastor Joel Hunter. For the record, Joel’s massive congregation was less than two miles from my home when I lived in Central Florida. I had friends who sang in the praise band. Their congregation was so large that they had worship services six times a week. Their music was very professional and on special occasions, we attended his congregation at least five or six times on a Friday/Saturday night. I also had the opportunity to meet Joel and speak with him on a few occasions. He was and still appears to be a very kind fellow, though I suggest largely deceived.

In those days, Joel had a close relationship with Condi Rice and he was not timid about mentioning some of those conversations from the pulpit. I had a distant high regard for his interest on social issues and kept a fairly close eye on his evolution in the last few years. In 2016, he voted for Donald Trump, but as he recently stated, it was not long after that where he began to doubt Trump’s ability to unite the country. He found it particularly distasteful when Trump began to demean illegal immigrants.

He even now agrees with some of Trump’s policies but believes that Biden is a more unifying figure and that is what the country needs at this stage. When pressed recently by an NPR journalist about all of Trump’s accomplishments with a conservative flavor, Joel acknowledged them but still feels that Biden has the characteristics of someone who can build coalitions and provide the framework for what Joel calls a “whole life” view or a “consistent ethic of life.” A quick tour through those who signed on to the movement and one can easily dissect a very clear trajectory.

The argument made, which I have heard many times, is that we are to be pro-life from the womb to the tomb, and that those who suffer throughout life, especially the poor and needy, the marginalized, and those most affected by immigration policies, and women tortured by abusers, contemplating an abortion due to harships, are all just as important as those who are still in the womb. Therefore, we are to be concerned with more than just the unborn, but all those born who for a variety of circumstances find themselves in dire places in life.

I find Joel’s argument utterly uncompelling. Interestingly, missing from Joel’s argument is that Donald Trump has avoided the neo-conservative trap and has consistently been an anti-war voice in the last four years. Contra Obama and Biden and Hillary, it is the cantankerous Donald Trump who has argued in favor of bringing troops home and ending what he calls “stupid wars.” My inner Ron Paul is happy! Yet, we would think that a consistently pro-life view would consider the vast implications of an anti-war president. But, no! Not once.

I find this entire combination of Pro-Life Evangelicals and a support for Biden to be completely unfounded, inconsistent, and frankly, infantile. It lacks the gravitas of a thorough social and political analysis. Is it pro-life for Joel Hunter to support Biden when he espouses transgender rights for 8 year old children? As Robert A. J. Gagnon observed, this means that “if you as a parent of such a child don’t buy into the self-dishonoring, Creator-denying delusion, state social services can take your child away from you.” Is that pro-life?

Is it pro-life to support a president who believes that Amy Coney Barrett is not fit to serve on the Court because Biden’s colleague says that Barrett’s catholic dogma lives loudly within her? Is it pro-life to support economic policies that have been tried and found wanting in every conceivable nation? Is it pro-life to support a candidate whose VP is considered one of the most pro-abortion and LGBTQ supporters in the Senate? is it pro-life to embrace a candidate who will undoubtedly seek to infringe upon religious rights and who will re-consider the tax-exempt status of churches? Who admittedly will impose a COVID lock-down which has already led to more suicides, addiction, and spiritual damage than anything I’ve seen in my lifetime?

Joel is mistaken and anyone else who falls for this is mistaken. I plead with you to not allow your animosity for Trump’s style to keep you from considering his actual policies. And of course, we should never forget that the infant in the womb never had a chance to experience life, because the taking of life was decided on his behalf. Evangelicals for Biden is a fallacious pursuit for nobility in a fallen world; an attempt to mix the good with evil in a profoundly eschewed way.

Read more

On October 20, 2020 By In Politics

A Brief Case for Voting

I just cast my vote for the second time in a presidential election. The event was rather mundane up to the front door and then indubitably thrilling as I walked in to hand my ID. No one harassed me; there were no police guards looking at me with threatening eyes and everyone around me acted and enjoyed their 30-minute walk to the front of the line with enthusiasm and enjoyment. We are unbearably unique in this respect.

Perhaps it takes a perspective from an outsider to appreciate the validity of voting in the United States. A quick drive in most roads in South America and voting booths across the world will give you a sense of the vast chasm between order and chaos when it comes to this American social practice.

But I have addressed this too often before, and now I am here only to state what a profound joy it is to vote in this country; to be able to live a life where religion is practiced freely without hindrance and where the inferno of idiocy is not always at the door as it is in Chile, Venezuela, and other nations.

In the early days of Puritan Massachusetts, voting was a fairly restrictive right. It was reserved for those considered “freemen.” The freemen were those who were invested in the financial well-being of the colonies. Eventually, the only voting members were those who possessed membership in a local church. You could have a general agreement with Christian principles, but yet not join a local church because one feared the commitments of a local body. In short, voting was a process left to those who treasured the local church and membership provided one the right to have a voice in the local decisions affecting everyone. If one was lucid enough to be joined to the local body of Christ, and assume those responsibilities, he had the right to speak into civic matters as well with his vote.

In our own day, voting is often mocked as if it is the new sacrament of the polis. In reality, it is merely an extension of the humanity of every being who is placed in a particular place (Acts 17:26) to live by God. The position that voting is too imposing is rather extreme seeing that even advocates of two-kingdom theology perceive an ordinary secular (saecularia) function for voting as legitimate. The farthest from Puritan political theory find voting compelling. Politics may not be within the sphere of the holy for them, but it is still a function of ordinary pilgrims in a pagan and disposable world.

Thus, to turn voting into a waste or an inadequate principle for citizens is to be contra those who spiritualize the church and those who see the Church as the pre-requisite of orderly citizenry. To refuse to vote is by all accounts an easy way out of the complexity of life. By Puritan standards, it would be to despise the citizenship of redeemed humanity placed within a sphere and called to express that dominion in the most local and tangible way.

But finally, it is also to despise the benefits of living in a free country. How many around the world would cherish a glimpse into an overall orderly structure (few exceptions aside) where voting is counted and where free citizens participate–in however a small fashion–in the process of seeing trajectories change both locally and nationally.

We must have a healthy realism about the fallen world we live in, but we should not assume that because of flawed candidates we are called to simply give up voting and pursue something more noble. We have been called to express our authority over all things, and if relinquish voting to a lesser and unnecessary sphere, we are abdicating our authority.

Read more

On October 14, 2020 By In Film

Magnificent Obsession (1954): A Movie Review

In one of the sweetest love stories I’ve seen in quite some time, “Magnificent Obsession (1954),” starring Rock Hudson as Bob Merrick, offers a glimpse into a romance that does not undress or sexualize, but cherishes and self-gives.

The movie begins with the playboy socialite (Hudson) who enjoys speed-boating and treasures the vices of selfishness. While pushing the limits of his speed-boat, he suffers a serious accident. The town–like most small towns in the 50’s–does not have an abundance of respirators but the emergency crew have one that is used in extreme cases. Merrick is brought back to life through the respirator but the emergency crew receive a phone call of another emergency in town. They rush with the respirator to attend to a man who had a stroke, but by the time they arrive it’s too late. The well-known city doctor has died from the stroke, and he could have been saved if Merrick, the narcissist, had not used it.

The contrast is quite clear: Merrick the selfish entrepreneur lives and the selfless doctor dies. Once Merrick discovers that his life was spared, he enters into a phase of self-reflection and introspection where he discovers that the only true obsession is not that of worldly gain, but the magnificent obsession of service to one another.

The story unfolds as Merrick seeks to embrace his new role as philanthropist, but quickly realizes that to serve is to lose everything, perhaps even the one you love. In Merrick’s excellent exchange seeking to unfold this premise, and embrace his new mission as giver and servant and renounce his old pursuits of self-gain, he says:

(Bob Merrick) “Well, if it’s as simple as all that, why, I’ll certainly give it a chance.”

(Reply) “Now wait, Merrick. Don’t try to use this unless you’re ready for it. You can’t just try this out for a week like a new car, you know. And if you think you can feather your own nest with it, just forget it. Besides, this is dangerous stuff. One of the first men who used it went to the Cross at the age of thirty-three –“

That exchange was worth the price of the popcorn! But it also further unearthed the need to think carefully about the Christian faith at its most basic level of service. The ancient Christian hymn sung by Paul came to light in the first century when the Apostle speaking of the Messianic descent to earth sung:

…rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant…

The earthly endeavors of man are defined not by his academic achievements or riches, but by his orientation to serve; it is the pursuit of true obedience. In the service of Another, we breathed again. In the death of Another, we were made alive again.

Read more

On October 13, 2020 By In Worship

The Absurdity of Leviticus

I was trying to do the impossible this morning listening to Leviticus. I attempted to listen to it through the eyes of an atheist–to see laws about priestly purity, eye defects, dwarfs, damaged private parts, and other bodily oddities that needed to come into conformity to the holiness code. As a supposed atheist I imagined mocking such texts and the grotesque descriptions and the absurd necessity to conform to such laws simply because of our humanity. Why should purity laws apply to menstruating women when it is merely the natural function of a female body? Why make her unclean for something she has no control over? How barbaric to apply standards to the regularity of life!

But the more you read into Leviticus the more impossible it is to remove the Christian eye from its intended goal. If Leviticus borrows heavily from the strange it is because the Bible carries with it a seal of authenticity in every book, and especially Leviticus. There is an inherent “deep weird” to the Bible that Christian must embrace. We don’t embrace it because we delight in the oddity, but because for the world to be coherent, it must have elements of the strange within it. Bodily discharges—though unbearably odd to mention—is so common that only a truly Spirit-inspired book could deal with it so bluntly.

The Christian faith must be embraced as a Levitical faith; one that is not shy of rituals and impurity and rituals for purity. It must also be embraced to reveal the vast contrast between the care God has for the well-being of his people and just how uncaring the gods of this world are about our well-being. Only a true God provides a system of symbols, rituals, death, and resurrection for his people. Indeed, Leviticus provides the route to holiness and our need for a Holy God.

As Paul says in Romans, the unbeliever cannot see the truth because he is blind. Perhaps Leviticus serves as a test for ordinary Christians on whether we embrace the raw language of Scripture as God’s reality or whether we prefer to sanitize the faith to fit our preconceived notions of reality. The Leviticus code is a pointer to the cleansing of the nations. There is no life without blood and there is no atonement without holiness. Leviticus is the pathway to the cross where the Holy One absorbs all our impurities, and simultaneously it is the aroma that draws true Israelites to the house of Yahweh. For the atheist it is sheer absurdity, but for the Christian it is the way of life and holiness and truth.

Read more

On October 9, 2020 By In Discipleship

How to Rebel by Opening a Door

I don’t seek out to provoke unbelievers, but when I do, I am strategic about it. Sometimes they show up in your front door in the form of tweets or juicy media statements cooked rare just like I like it. But this one came right at a time I was seeking to instill some manly and godly habits to my boys. In short, it was a beautiful thing.

I was about to walk into the bank when unprovoked (unprovoked!) I did that chauvinistic thing of opening the door for the young lady coming behind me. What was an act of simple compliance to southern social norms became an act of rebellion against the human being behind me. And these were her exact words: “You don’t need to open the door for me. I can do it myself.” Fair enough. Now, for the record, I do have some sense about the capabilities of sentient beings to use force to open and close things. So, I thought quickly and acknowledged that brute fact. But I couldn’t simply remain silent and allow that philosophical world to run over me like a Jonny Cash train-song.

I told her with all the gentility I could muster: “Ma’am (as a way of emphasizing my patriarchal fanaticism), I opened the door to express my respect for women.” It sounded as weirdly sophisticated as it is written. She looked at me and gave me some variation of a millennial “boo” sign. This entire incident would have been forgotten, except that a fine outstanding citizen with a significant following opined recently that, “Men opening doors for women is a symbol of aggressive patriarchy. Men are saying, ‘You may enter or leave this place but only on my say so.’” She goes on to say that when men open doors, they are subconsciously reminding women that all men are in control of a woman’s choice.

Now, I must confess that thought never entered my mind, but thanks to this fine person, now it has. It also reminded me that the topsy-turvy nature of male-female relationship stems from a fundamental failure to grasp our roles. Men protect, which does not mean women do not protect, but that men have an intrinsic sense that the weaker vessel must be protected. He operates under the assumption that he is to be in the front lines taking the bullet before his wife, sister, or daughter. But the habits that lead men to that fine point of taking bullets and ideological arrows don’t begin in the war lines, it begins at a bank door when you habituate yourself in the art of door-opening for women. Subconsciously, what you are doing is inculcating the idea that men lead by little rituals of grace at home and at the bank.

My suspicion is that when women react to virtuous etiquette in such a vicious way they are reacting to some form of past abuse. But the answer is not to cater to their past, but to lead them to a future green pasture when the normal becomes the expected. Men don’t change cultures by abdicating to the wants of the anti-mannerism party, but they form parties of virtue that embody rituals of every variety. And that is precisely what separates men from boys.

Read more

On October 6, 2020 By In Politics

“No Mas!” Thoughts on the Church’s Response to COVID

There was a great debate in the year of our Lord, Twenty-twenty. Many of you may not remember, but the esteemed John F. MacArthur stood tall among detractors for wishing to worship the Lord unhindered by meticulous pharisaical regulations seeking to strain out a gnat but swallowing camels in the process.

As of now, MacArthur’s congregation continues to meet despite the infelicities of Los Angeles County’s attempt for a restraining order against Grace Community Church. The city lost to an evangelical church not historically known for its Kuyperian zeal. But as I have said many times now, evangelicals can no longer remain luke-warm in these times. They either capitulate to distinct forms of weak pietism or they take to the halls and the streets to exercise that violent form of protest called singing. And while we are at it, we commend the saints in Moscow, ID for setting a healthy standard of the “NO MAS” rule. I am not talking about a “NO MASK” rule, but a “NO MAS” rule as a way of thinking. No more will we take the shenanigans and sophistry of local rulers who are generally barely more intellectual than my pipe tobacco. No more will the church think she cannot speak, even in places that mirror the Lower Abyss (L.A.). I pray we have learned enough lessons to stimulate our inner theonomist to action.

One of the encouraging signs also is to see churches that were adamantly closed during this season and whose voices said nothing in defense of the MacArthurs’ of this world, now saying, “Wait, what happened to civility, common sense, and the city’s cooperation with the church?” Even as Mark Dever realized, D.C. is on a selective war against churches banning even outdoor religious gatherings of more than a 100 people. The answer, of course, is to say that the city is being an equal opportunity offender. They are also not allowing other businesses to stay open. True enough, but according to an ancient prophet, the only true essential business is that holy city, Zion city of our God. Grateful to see Dever and others put the “No Mas” sign out!

What this has done is to force local pastors to consider whether permanently living in a state of purgatory is essential or not. If it is, we can live in this limbo happily and clappily, but if it isn’t, then we need to do something about it. Let’s sue the city, shall we? And behold, they did! Remember that these are the most lenient and patient of the evangelical class who eventually also said, “No mas.” We are not talking rabid postmillennialists who put vodka in their morning coffee; these are run-of-the-mill Calvinists and they are moving happily in our direction and we give thanks to God for their witness.

We should also pause our local broadcast to give thanks for all the local pastors who don’t have the luxury of a nation-wide platform to share their stories of blessings and faithfulness through this season. They have been steadfast, and I, as a fellow small-church pastor, have heard from many of them. God has blessed their flocks with growth and energy to persevere in this season. They are not seeking rebellious causes to pursue, but were simply early on (whether they closed down or not) ready to turn their “No Mas” signs on at the first sign of governmental disorientation. And boy, their signs blink 24 hours a day now.

If this blessed year of our Lord, twenty-twenty, has not taught us thankfulness for the local church, you have had blinders and powerful ear coverings for the last eight months. You are missing the revival of worship taking place in our day; you are missing the longing that children have to sing and play with one another; you are missing the holiness of saints telling jokes and stories and sitting around one another enjoying the freeing breeze. If you have not increased in gratitude in this year, pray that your misery increases so you can join in the “No Mas” choir mighty soon.

Read more

On October 2, 2020 By In Discipleship

Commit, man! Commit!

At the end of the stunningly intelligent 1965 movie, “Mirage,” David Stillwell (played by Gregory Peck) has a climactic encounter with the man behind the curtain. The scene reaches the point where men must make life or death decisions. But there is one neutral figure in the scene who still has the potential of changing the entire predicament in one or the other direction. At that moment, David Stillwell looks at this neutral character named Josephson, and he says with indignation:

“Dammit, Josephson, commit! If you’re not committed to anything, you’re just taking up space!”

It was one of the most striking explorations into manhood I’ve come across in a long time. Paul Maxwell in his fascinating article over at Theopolis Institute argues that man’s greatest challenges today are “suicide, alcohol, drugs, and obesity.” There is much merit to these and I can second his profound philosophical analysis that under-girds his premise, but I cannot think of something as profoundly needful in modern evangelical men than the ability to commit to ideas and principles.

An uncommitted man buries his convictions for fear of the consequences. He prefers to play along in the game of “you-go-first,” which generally means that by the end, he will find his commitment to anything unworthy of committing wholeheartedly. We have all seen the young man who is zealous (perhaps over-zealous) about everything and our first reaction is to criticize his zeal. “How dare he commit so youthfully!” But we should encourage his zeal and praise him for his commitment to his principles and then seek to moderate his commitments to Scripture first, tradition second, and experience third.

The uncommitted Josephsons’ carry with them an enormous guilt for looking back and saying, “I should have said something,” or “Why didn’t I speak up?” I should mention that I am not speaking of sharing your opinion about everything under the sun, because then you’d be a committed nuisance. But I am stressing the need to find a committed dogma that allows you to think about the world carefully.

Commitment is not the same as tyranny. Commitment in its biblical context is leading with wisdom and determination. Perhaps there was a time where commitment was not as necessary, but we can no longer afford to make mild assertions about life. Theological neutrality is as possible as kale ice cream.

If the crop of men in churches today cannot commit steadily and consistently to ideologies that formed the Church of old and gives hope for the modern church, we will see weak men following the wind to whatever ideologies and trends come their way. In the end, they will just take up space!

Read more

On September 30, 2020 By In Politics

The Greatest Debate Analysis of Last Night

My area of focus is theology and to be even more precise, pastoral theology, which makes my assessment of political debates infinitely less interesting. But since there are at least two witnesses eager to hear my thoughts, here it goes with all the zeal I can muster:

As far as the debate, it was a hopeless display of testicular dis-fortitude. And that’s all I have to say about it. Thanks for listening.

Now, what I really wish to communicate since I have you captive is that we are functioning in a priestly phase of history. While I don’t subscribe to the particularities of all Dreher’s proposals, I do subscribe and have for a long time to the idea that postmillennially speaking, we are young in our history, and somewhere between 5-10,000 years from the age of wisdom of history where Christendom will enfold civilization into one happy kumbaya experience. Until then, we will function in a priestly format with glimpses of prophets and kings around us, but by and large we will breathe priestly air for a long time.

And by the priestly phase of history, I mean the phase of history where we inculcate biblical grammar into the programming system of every little child. Adults also carry this task of reading big books, familiarizing oneself with big ideas of historical tradition, and seeing the Bible through new eyes. But it’s not the economy, it’s the children, stupid! It seems crazy to think about this, but the finest thing your children can aim for is the task of a loyal churchman: one faithful to his vocation and tribe. That’s it. If he is not a faithful church member, his ambitions are filthy rags.

So, to begin this indoctrination, we really need to think deeply about the education of our children and what worship they will subscribe to in coming years. Big people need to think about ours as well, but some of us are already forming and reforming our strategies and depending how old we are, we are having either a hell of a time doing it, or struggling our way to the throne each Lord’s Day. If you don’t want your children and their conversations to remind you of last night’s episode of “Dumb and Dumber,” choose the nobler things; or as the ancients would say, “the permanent things.”

Practically, every time your son writes some jumbled sentence on a text message, tell him that he knows better. If your 16-year old daughter puts a picture of herself on Instagram showing over 70% of her body, tell her that her body belongs to Jesus and not to the overly energized teens staring at her skin on-line. If your college son decides to sleep-in on a Sunday because he had a late night at a friend’s house, teach him the lesson of the gods who thought they could get away with murder. Just don’t let these things happen. While they may appear minor, these are habits that endanger the soul of future priests.

Begin young and begin big. Be a happy tyrant when they are little so that you can be a fuzzy-bear libertarian when they grow up. But do not wait to inculcate ideas. Begin the conversations early and often. The priestly stage of history compels us to memorize facts and ideas, which will come in quite handy when we transition to prophetic and kingly phases of history. The priests shall inherit the earth, the prophets shall proclaim the king’s message, and the kings will speak wisdom to the nations. While we are living in this priestly domain, study to show yourself approved. Get up each morning with your prayer book ready to go and a psalm to sing. Priests love heavenly grammar.

Read more

On September 22, 2020 By In Theology

Are you fun at parties?

I have a principle that I apply to people on social media. It’s the “are-you-fun-at-party” principle.” Social media brings the best and worst out of people, with “worst” currently winning the “best” by a 74% margin. It seems these days, the social cue is to go as bombastic as possible on everyone, especially those who are nearest to you in the theological scale.

The end-result of such antagonism MUST play a role in how one lives their personal lives. When someone responds to a post about the weather with “Because you hate Trump” I often have that subtle pastoral feeling that his wife or his kids are under some kind of manipulative environment walking on egg shells. When I read yuppy-millennials or thunder puppies act as if grandpa George has nothing to say or that his history is unimportant in any discourse because after all, “I speak the truth as I see it,” I immediately begin to fear for this individual’s closest family members. Not that anything cruel is taking place, but that the fingers that strike the keyboard are also the lips that speak to kids.

Yes, we may play the bifurcated role of introvert in public and extrovert and intellectual murderer of liberals on-line, but eventually, these things are revealed in a harmonious fashion. Eventually, the guy who stays up into the late hours fussing over the legitimacy of QAnon is the guy who has few acquaintances and whose acquaintances quietly whisper to one another at a party, “There he comes, don’t bring up anything political.”

The goal is for you to become the person on-line that you are in public. If your goal is to rally your Twitter gang into a frenzy at the first smell of political blood, know that these same gang members often make terrible friends and really bad cooks. They will stay with you only to a point and at the point where they think you are not going far enough, they will drop you with haste.

Be respectful? Yes! But be generous in mercy towards your on-line associates for your presentation on-line says a whole lot about who you are. I have no right to dictate how you write and to whom you write, but I do have a right to dictate whether you’d be fun at my party. And I like my parties filled with mercy, parody, and good discussions; all in a spirit of joviality and good manners.

Read more

On September 15, 2020 By In Family and Children, Theology

The Heaven of Hospitality, Part 3

Introduction, Part 1, Part 2

Bonhoeffer spoke of three tables: a) the daily fellowship at the table b) the table of the Lord’s Supper, and c) the final table fellowship at the Last Day. We can say that for Bonhoeffer our daily meals are preparatory for future meals. After all, hospitality is eschatological. There is nothing more fitting for a table of kings and queens than to practice the habits of the eternal kingdom of our Lord.

One begins to see this eschatology in place when the very people you hosted in your home forms their own households and begin to share in that treasure of untold stories and laughter. Remember that your children are watching and they are likely going to imitate your patterns later in life. It happens, but very rarely have I seen inhospitable parents produce hospitable sons. The stories your offspring will tell will be of dreadful loneliness at home growing up or of experiences of joy around a table. Again, it is very rare that an inhospitable family rejoices around a table as a matter of practice. Rather, the hospitality of others produces the joy around the table when there is no one to host.

We can begin somewhere to explore the pleasures of hosting when we see it as a seed planted in the eternal garden of praise. To have someone enter your home and partake of your gifts of food is to allow someone to enter into the place of deepest secrets; we are allowing them to see the transparency of unkept yards, rogue Lego pieces, partly uncooked or overcooked meals, rambunctious children, and the regular messiness of life.

Yes, you should probably do some cleaning, but you should restrain from excessive cleaning lest you treat it as a mechanical showcasing of your home. As one sage puts it, “Your home should look like someone lives in it!” In order to do that, leave open invitations for the single and the widows to come by for a lentil soup or a Sam’s bought pizza on a typical weekday. Then, there will be only time to remove the occasional kids’ clothes lying on the couch.

If hospitality is eschatological, then every experience in hosting is a theological act. If hosting is eschatological, then every piece of pie served, every glass of wine, the spilled peas, the summer watermelon and the awkward pauses around a table is an act of grace. To be hospitable is to embrace heaven in an elaborate party or in a dinner of herbs.

Read more