Kuyperian, Author at Kuyperian Commentary

On January 2, 2023 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Movie Review: Stephen King’s “The Mist” (2007)

By Austin Brown

Rarely has a film confounded my movie sensibilities so powerfully as Frank Darabont’s “The Mist.” Somehow and in some way it is simultaneously terrible yet entertaining, ridiculous yet strangely compelling, pedestrian yet brilliant.

No, scratch that last contrast.

It isn’t a brilliant movie. It flirts with brilliancy—plays footsie with it—like a pair of middle-schoolers who cannot truly reach the heights of love but mimic its form, perhaps even feeling like they’re swimming in love’s deeper currents.

And yet! I couldn’t stop watching it.

And yet! The ending is so shockingly poignant—so shockingly unexpected (at least for me)—that the last five minutes of the film very nearly absolved all the overwrought and bewilderingly unrealistic moments.

The film was released in 2007. So I’m quite late to the party. Were it not for the personal recommendation from Pastor Brito, the movie likely would have remained forever lost in the endless tunnels of Netflix. But there I was the other night, remote control in hand, the red ribbon of Netflix booting up on my TV, ready to be lost in a horror pick.

In many ways, it was the best of situations. I was sick with a lingering cold and knew next to nothing about the movie. All I had was the vague recollection of flappy, bat creatures terrorizing people in a grocery store from the trailer I had seen years earlier.

My faded memory proved accurate enough. In the aftermath of a nasty storm, a father and son go to a grocery store to restock various food items. Once there, a strange mist envelops the building leaving those trapped inside to decide their next play. Naturally, a little fog never hurt anyone, but various horrors are lurking about in the mist, just waiting to eviscerate the next hapless victim attempting to escape.

There are hints as to why all this is happening, but all that is tangential. The movie is fundamentally concerned with the interaction of (mostly) strangers from diverse backgrounds and worldviews trying to navigate a harrowing situation. In the same way that Signs wasn’t ultimately concerned about the visitation of aliens, this isn’t ultimately about flappy, bat creatures—deadly as they and their fellow minions prove to be.

This is precisely where the movie shines and very nearly flops. On the one hand, the acting and interactions are so questionable and poorly executed at times one should feel a strong urge to move on to better and brighter flicks. But then again, if you view it more as a theater play—one designed to be over-the-top—almost in a Job-esk dialogue kind of way (though not nearly so poetic)—I trust it can be forgiven, even appreciated.

Stated simply, it is intentionally grandiose and blunt.

The characters are not nuanced. The creatures are not nuanced. The setting is not nuanced. Everything is chiseled from the black and white ore of stark contrasts.

And yet, to stress the point again, somehow it works surprisingly well.

Some would no doubt want to pontificate upon the social and political undercurrents running through the film, but I’m not so inclined. They exist, but I think it would be a mistake to take it too seriously. The frame of the script cannot sustain the weight of such symbolism. Or perhaps it would be better to say that the effort of pontification should be reserved for more richly praiseworthy films.

This isn’t snobbery. It’s honesty and practicality. One dare not cheapen the enterprise of unearthing layered meaning and symbolism by hoisting “The Mist” up next to Lewis, Melville, or McCarthy. Popcorn is fine, but it isn’t especially nutritious.

In the end, the ending is what provides a beacon of bold light in an otherwise moderately entertaining fog. I truly love Darabont’s choice of conclusion. And from what I have gathered, even Stephen King said that had he thought of it, he would have done it.

Yet, for all that, I would not recommend the movie unless, of course, you have already seen most of the greats. If you have partaken of Forrest Gump, Whiplash, Band of Brothers, and Children of Men, for example, then please indulge in this fun horror romp on a foggy Friday night once the kids have gone to bed.

~~~~

Austin Brown is a mailman with a hunger for theology and writing. He had the good providence of marrying his high school sweetheart, Rebekah, is the father of three, and is an ordained ruling elder in the PCA. He’s also a nerdy gamer, a movie lover, and the author of various theological works and novels, including Walking with the Mailman. It’s true; there is scant fondness for canines in his heart.

On December 20, 2022 By Kuyperian In Theology, Worship 2

The Biblical Case for Emotions

Guest Post by Charles Jacobi

“We Protestants get nervous when talking about water and works,” penned Pastor Bill Smith in a piece for Kuyperian Commentary months back. We, Protestants of the Reformed tradition, have a robust history of rich systematization of the scriptures. But in our systematizing, we can lose the granular resolution and diversity of the holy text, resulting in our quease when someone quotes a verse seemingly contrary to our system. This isn’t to say our doctrinal formulations are incorrect—essential doctrine has been abstracted in the history of systematic theology—or that systematics is inappropriate. However, our posture must point to a need for semper reformanda.

We’ve done this with water and works like Pastor Smith points out. Also, with the rise of the modern New Apostolic Reformation types and Postmodernists, we’ve done the same with emotions. Surely much of the Reformed response to the growing hyper-charismatic movement(s) and subjectivists of the early 2010s was right and good as one need deny that experientialism and emotionalism are the standards of truth in themselves—or knowing biblical truths—but we’ve overcompensated. We’re hesitant to talk about emotion like the scriptures do for fear of coming off as experiential.

Take the emotion of joy, for example. Joy is one of the most mentioned emotions in all of scripture. The Psalmist is fond of using the term to express himself and describes a deep emotion-God relationship. He calls on Yahweh to “Make me to hear joy and gladness, Let the bones which you have crushed rejoice” (Ps. 51:8) and “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation and sustain me with a willing spirit.” (51:12) According to these words, the psalmist seems to think God can generate the feeling of joy within his heart; that the nature of the joy-God relationship can be causal. He claims God can do this to inanimate objects even, “They who inhabit the ends of the earth are in fear on account of Your signs; You make the dawn and the sunset shout for joy” (65:8). Paul, too, pleads with God to “fill” the Christians in Rome with joy (Rm. 15:13) and reminds the Galatians that joy is a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Moses says Yahweh will “cause His people to shout for joy;” (Deut 32:43). There are other references in scripture that describe this emotion-God relationship as causal, but rarely do Reformed protestants speak about their emotion in such a way.

Cessationists, like myself, have created a boogeyman about subjective states. When a friend says something about their emotions contrary to the cessationist air, like, “I felt the joy of The Lord at worship today” or, “I was anxious, but The Spirit made me feel joy at that moment. Praise God!” our charismatic antenna perks up. We caution our brother his emotions are leading him and that he should steer clear from emotionalism and experientialism, yet this is all the while he’s nearly quoting David, “When my anxious thoughts multiply within me, Your comfort delights my soul” (Ps. 94:19). Moreover, we do this while enjoying our own feelings of joy, awe, and reverence in our immediate experience while critiquing another’s. We likely perceive the same subjective phenomena. Yet, we speak and interpret those phenomena in different ways. Feelings of joy are described as both reactionary and Spirit-caused in scripture. So coupled with a rational temperament, what’s the issue with speaking about our joy as Spirit caused if one faithfully deduces that during worship? If we’re consistent, we ought not to let our emotions determine how we deduce the nature of emotion from scripture.

“Veering off into making the subjective-objective” is a likely response to my inquiry. But scripture describes a God that does generate emotion within us; when we’re downtrodden, fearful, or burdened. This is described objectively in scripture, speaking to something subjectively real: like the assurance of salvation, binding of the conscience, or holy guilt of sin. We’re open to voicing those subjective states as Spirit-caused, but we’re fast to skip over joy and other emotional states like comfort (Ps 71:21), peace (Rm. 15:13), satisfaction (Jer. 31:14), spiritual stirring (Haggai 1:14) and other good things (Ps. 107). If Yahweh gave (and gives) unbelievers a spirit of stupor (Rm 11:8) or drunkenness (Jer 14:14) as he pleased, and we’re fine with using causal language accordingly for those parties, it’s tenable to use language about our own subjective state when it’s warranted as well. It’s not experiential or mystical to speak like scripture does.

(more…)

On November 12, 2022 By Kuyperian In Culture, Worship 1

A Quick Primer on What It Means to Be Ecclesiocentric

By Rich Lusk

Ecclesiocentrism is incredibly simple to understand and absolutely ubiquitous in Scripture.

The church is the central and most important thing in the world and in history.

That’s it — that’s the fundamental claim.

Ecclesiocentrism can be found on almost every page of the Bible. Some examples:
– nations are blessed/cursed according to how they treat the church (Gen. 12)
– God rules all things for the sake of his church (Eph. 1)
– Grace restores nature, but where is that grace found? In the means given to the church (e.g., in Psalm 128 the blessed man’s blessing comes from Zion, which is the church according to Hebrews 12)
– As the church goes, so the world goes (e.g., in Matthew 5 the church is salt and light)
– Ecclesiastical reformation drives cultural transformation (the lesson of Haggai 1)
– Judgment and reformation begin with the household of God (1 Peter 4)
– The discipleship of the nations and of every sphere of life begins in the church (Matt. 28)
– The church is the leading institution in society and church history is the core of world history (this is evident from the prophets, Acts, etc.)
– The Lord’s service on the Lord’s Day with the Lord’s people in the Lord’s sanctuary is the most important thing we do (the fall took place with a forbidden meal in the sanctuary; restoration is manifested through a meal in the sanctuary)
– God created the world for the sake of the church (as Luther said) so that his Son might have a bride (as Edwards said)
– The storyline of the Bible is basically the storyline of the church (e.g., when the prophets and Acts deal with history, they present the church as central to world events)

These paragraphs from Doug Wilson’s post this week is a good example of ecclesiocentric thinking:

“If we want unbelievers to repent of their sin, the first thing believers should do is show them how. Judgment should begin with the household of God (1 Pet. 4:17). How can we expect them to let go of their sins when we refuse to let go of ours? And more to the pinch point, evangelicals need to learn how to repent of things that we have serenely assumed to be our virtues.

We must repent of our etiolated gospel-centeredness. We need to repent of calling ourselves Jesus-followers instead of Christians. We need to repent of Instagraming our devotional times. We have to repent of our “Jesus is our girl friend” worship songs. We must repent of all our Jesus junk stores. We have to repent of our R2K schizophrenia. We need to repent of the anemic condition of our deracinated seminaries. We need to repent of still caring what Christianity Today prints. We must repent of caring more about our own reputations and turf concerns than we do about the condition of the kingdom at large—we sin like Hezekiah did . . . “peace and safety in my time.” We must repent of all our inverse John the Baptist moves—”they might decrease so that I might increase.” We must repent of caring more about not being publicly associated with worldview thinkers who make us feel extreme than we care about actually understanding the truth as the Word reveals it.”

His basic point: the world won’t change til the church changes. The church leads the way.

Ecclesiocentrists strongly resist dualisms that would marginalize or privatize the church. We believe the church has a public, even political character, as God’s holy nation. So, for example, in many “two kingdom” approaches (e.g., those of WS-CAL and Stephen Wolfe), it is claimed that the church should only deal with “heavenly” or “spiritual things.” The church helps people reach their heavenly telos, but has little to do with man’s earthly telos. So Wolfe says that Christians do not learn about earthly citizenship in the church. Presumably, the magistrate does not learn how to be a Christian magistrate from the church. The church should not teach on manhood/womanhood because those are earthly, not heavenly, concerns.

The problem with that is that the Bible teaches about all of those things and the church is entrusted with teaching the Bible. That does not mean the church’s teaching is exhaustive in these areas or that church is the only place that people learn about these things. But the church does have responsibility to disciple the other spheres.

(more…)

On September 15, 2022 By Kuyperian In Politics Like

Prayer at NATCON 2022 in Miami, Fl

When I was invited to offer an invocation at #NatCon2022, I knew that I would be preceded by an opening prayer by a Jewish Rabbi and a prayer on day two by a Roman Catholic priest, and I was to conclude.

I was concerned about the amorphous nature of these events, especially in light of the presence of political and media figures–especially hostile ones–in the audience. But the host gave me a green light to pray as a Protestant, and I did. I was extremely honored to do so. My gratitude to Dr. Yoram Hazony and Dr. Clifford Humphrey for the invitation. P.S. The line of my prayer quoted in the media had a larger context, which, as you can see below, was fairly Christian in orientation.

Prayer for #NatCon2022:

Almighty God, Father, Son and Spirit, we give you thanks for your goodness and faithfulness; for the cup of creation, which overflows with praise and adoration to the Triune God in every square inch of this world. We come before you wholly dependent on your care. We give thanks to your holy name for sins forgiven, redemption displayed, love shown, and justification that comes through the resurrection of Messiah Jesus. We bring ourselves–hearts, minds, souls, and strength–to the great God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

We pray boldly that our nation would be uncompromising in her convictions concerning life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. May she preserve life that comes only from the poetic words of a Creator who uttered, “Let us make man in our image and likeness.” May she preserve liberty that comes only from the Gospel-filled language that the truth will set you free; may she find happiness not in the unrestrained sexual revolution but in the marriage between a man and a woman, the bringing up of a godly offspring, the fellowship of the saints, and the love of country.

We pray that you would save and defend your Church universal, which you purchased with the blood of our Lord. Do not allow the Church to be seduced by false messages of prosperity, power, perversion, and self-preservation, but let us be rooted in your love, law, and life. We pray for the proclamation of your Word in this land that it might pierce our hearts and renew our longing to be disciples of the Son of Man who gave his life for us on a tree.

May we not grow weary in well doing, but rather let your Church proclaim the full Gospel that calls kings and nations to acknowledge and serve the king of nations. And therefore, to abandon hope that America might become Christian is to abandon the promise that the nations will be Christianized.

In your infinite wisdom, O God of glory, you have bound us together as allies and co-belligerents seeking the good of the city, the county, and the country. And so, as we pursue the renewal of this nation, remind us that our goal is not ultimately to find refuge in good policies but to find the favor of the good and holy God who made us for his good pleasure.

Bless the labors of Yoram Hazony and NatCon this year and the years to come and prosper this work so that our beloved nation might taste the kind benefits of a society rooted in biblical truth and law.

And so, Father, Son, and Spirit, we pray as Chesterton did, that you may not take thy thunder from us, but indeed take away our pride; the pride that keeps us longing for a new ethic, and ultimately, a new god. Keep us humbled before your truth that it may shine deeply in this dark land; keep us steadfast in thy word that we may always build on the sure promises that are yes and amen, the assurance of a God who does all things well, and on Zion, holy city of our God.

We thank you for your promises in the Psalter that the nations would be your footstool. And so we implore that you would exercise your dominion, O Lord, over this nation. May every valley be exalted and may your throne be established on all the earth.

Enrich us this day with learning that we may grow in wisdom and in knowledge and so find that all wisdom and knowledge is ultimately found in the greater Solomon, Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh, Amen!

On September 3, 2022 By Kuyperian In Culture, Family and Children 1

Dispelling Hospitality Excuses

Guest Post by Randy Booth

“Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. ¹⁰Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another; ¹¹not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord; ¹²rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer; ¹³distributing to the needs of the saints, GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY.”
―Romans 12:9-13

It’s a common trait of humanity (even redeemed humanity) to sit in judgment of God’s word. It all started in the Garden of Eden, where our first parents wanted to decide what was and was not good for them. God has some pretty good suggestions, some of which we’re willing to follow, but in other matters, we’ll need to think about it a bit more. We do need to be pragmatic. God’s word might work out for a lot of people, but sometimes, my extenuating circumstances lead me to conclude that it’s not going to work for me. There are exceptions to the rules which can exempt me.

Now hospitality isn’t the only area where we’re tempted to think like this, but it is one of the common topics where excuses for not following the clear and simple command of Scripture are frequent. Like Adam and Eve, we think we know better than God what is good for us. Below are several commonplace excuses why we can’t be “GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY.” I hope to challenge them all.

1. I’m Not Good at It.

We’re seldom good at the things we never do. Practice makes perfect. One of the reasons God wants us to be given to hospitality is so that we will get good at it. Less-than-perfect hospitality is still hospitality, and it is still obedience to God. Read a book (e.g., Face to Face, Steve Wilkins). Get some advice. Watch others who are good at it. Ask some questions. You can learn to do this. You can get better at it. But you can’t get better at it if you don’t do it. You know what to do (i.e., be “GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY”), now set out to learn how to do it. If needed, get some help doing it. If you do these things, the only reason left for not doing it is, “I don’t want to do it.” That would be a sin.

2. My House is Too Small.

Your house can’t be that small. It might be crowded, but I’m pretty sure that many saints from the past, who were GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY, had houses smaller than yours. If you’re an American, your house is probably bigger than the houses of most Christians in the world. Moreover, you don’t even have to have a house to be hospitable; have a picnic!

3. My House is Too Dirty.

If your house is dirty, there are two options: 1) clean your house; 2) swallow your pride and have people over to your dirty house. The command to be GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY is not a conditional command. God doesn’t say, “Be GIVEN TO HOSPITALITY if your house is clean.” Cleaning your house is an option; showing hospitality is not an option.

(more…)

On August 20, 2022 By Kuyperian In Podcast 1

Kc Podcast: Ep.103, The Sabbath and the Lord’s Day

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 33:45 — 21.5MB)

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | RSS

The Lord’s Day carries remarkable continuity with the Sabbath. Consider it this way: the Sabbath was a creation ordinance to indicate the rest God had when he completed his labors. When God made man and woman, he said it was very good. So he brought to life new flesh, bearing his image.

When the Lord’s Day, or the first day of the week, comes to life in the New Covenant, it also carries the promise of rest. There, God raised Jesus from the dead promising rest for all humanity. The new humanity will find rest in the true Sabbath.

The Sabbath indicated God’s rest when he made the first man. The Lord’s Day indicates God’s rest in raising the true Man. “The Sabbath is made for man not man for the Sabbath” is God’s way of saying, “We are united to the true man when we gather to worship him.”

That bit of theologizing may seem fine and dandy in the manual, but what about the nature of the Lord’s Day? How do we assume that the Sabbath has been transformed into the Lord’s Day? What about Jewish festivals? What role does the condemnation of “delight” in Isaiah 58 play in modern discussions of the Lord’s Day?

Our guest is Stuart Bryan:

Stuart Bryan and his wife, Paige, have seven children, four homegrown and three adopted internationally, as well as seven grandchildren. Stuart earned his B.A. in Religion from Whitworth College and his M.A. in Theological and Historical Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. Stuart has been the pastor of Trinity Church in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, since 2007. Before moving to Coeur d’Alene, he taught at The Oaks, a Classical Christian school in Spokane, Washington. He has written several articles for the Veritas Press Omnibus curriculum and is the author of The Taste of Sabbath: How to Delight in God’s Rest. He’s also been known to enjoy a fine glass of port or a pint of porter and to cheer on the Zags.

Purchase The Taste of Sabbath

On August 19, 2022 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Contemporary Worship and the Performer’s Burden

Guest Post by Charles Jacobi

The contemporary worship so widespread today is often accompanied by lights, screens, and other strobes that all form the stage into the epicenter of attention. By design, the congregation is led to follow a select few from a distance—the performers—in lieu of the intimate, participatory nature of regulated worship. A chasm splits the observing congregation and performers in this contemporary scene.

Among Christians who enjoy its regulated counterpart, there is consensus contemporary worship is detrimental to the congregation facing the stage for the aforementioned reasons. Such is rightly agreed on. But, we should consider how contemporary worship affects the performers as well. The members on stage may suffer the most, albeit gone unnoticed by many. Their burden might be concealed on the surface though the observant eye will notice the performers never fail to be emotive. They have few bleak moments, less during dramatic songs demanding sentimental mannerisms. The pressure to manufacture expressions with the repeated choruses and mood-setting strobes must be great under the crowd’s gaze. Everything points to the stage.

This is not to say some performers could be sincere in their expression throughout the entire service, as some are surely capable, but to suppose every gleaming mannerism on stage is backed by genuine emotion is untenable. Here is where the contemporary culprit lies.

The performers do not bear the brunt of the error, and, indeed, church members should stray from ingenuine expression during worship, but the contemporary environment’s design pressures the performers into doing so. Individuals in the crowd may not reserve explicit expectations for the performers. But the performers will feel implicit expectations, then pressured to generate an outward passion to satisfy the crowd lest they appear unspiritual. The architecture of the worship is to blame. It can be exhausting, at times heart-wrenching, to watch the members on stage satisfy their demands.

(more…)

On June 25, 2022 By Kuyperian In Culture, Pro-Life Like

God’s Mercy and the Spirit of the Age

Guest Post by Samuel Parkison

As I write this, it is mid-morning in the Middle East. I am looking over a balcony at the ocean, with the Arabian Gulf just a two-minute walk across the street, getting used to the sights and smells and tastes (and heat) of my family’s new home. Some of you know that for the better part of the past year, we have been working to move here for a career transition of sorts. I have come here to be a professor of theology at the first ever evangelical seminary in the Arabian Peninsula. There will be other occasions for me to share more about this particular venture; I’m simply pointing out that this is my new home. I am, geographically speaking, about the furthest away from the United States as I can be. And yet, never have I felt more of a bond with my “kinsmen according to the flesh” (cf., Rom 9:1-2), my fellow Americans, than last night while walking around a giant mall in the UAE when I received a notification on my phone that the Supreme Court ruled to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Gratitude for God’s Mercy

The news stopped me dead in my tracks. My knees got weak, I felt woozy and had to sit down to concentrate just to keep the tears from coming out. So much gratitude. I never thought I would see this day. Of course, I have prayed for it. Hoped for it. Spoken and written about the need for it. But even when the now infamous draft-leak of Justice Alito’s opinion filled me with great hope, I confess it was difficult to keep my cynicism at bay. I have learned to brace myself for disappointment. But last night was real. So, while I am settling into my new home in the Middle East, I continue to rejoice with my countrymen.

No matter how you cut it, yesterday was a win for justice, which means it was a win for America, a people who have been incurring a mind-boggling amount of blood-guilt since 1973. We have been polluting the land with our wickedness and have been begging for the wrath of God Almighty. Think I’m exaggerating? Listen to how Psalm 106 describes child-sacrifice:

[Israel] served [pagan nations’] idols,

which became a snare to them.

They sacrificed their sons

and their daughters to the demons;

they poured out innocent blood,

the blood of their sons and daughters,

whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan,

and the land was polluted with blood.

Thus they became unclean by their acts,

and played the whore in their deeds. (Psalm 106:36-39)

The blood of innocent children idolatrously sacrificed in demon-worship (which, I would remind you, does not require the conscious awareness of its worshipers for it to qualify as demon-worship, per 1 Cor. 10:20), pollutes the land. My beloved nation has been doing this very thing on a nation-wide scale since 1973, with the body count of some 67 million deaths. The blood of our innocent has been crying out from the earth, calling for the just wrath of God which makes yesterday so great a mercy I can hardly bear it. What do we deserve? We deserve for God’s holiness to be vindicated by a swift and decisive judgment. We deserve to be destroyed like Sodom and Gomorrah. We deserve to be decimated like Egypt was when God delivered Israel from captivity. We deserve for our walls to crumble like Jericho. And yet, what did we receive yesterday? Mercy. An invitation to repent.

Reactions from the Opposition

Now, as a reminder, we should keep in mind how modest of a ruling came down yesterday. This is important because I have seen a lot of curious reactions. There are two general reactions I want to call attention to here.

Reaction One: “You Aren’t Really Pro-Life Because You Don’t Care for the Vulnerable”

This reaction is represented in the memes and tweets that effectively deride pro-lifers like myself for not really caring about the babies, because if we did we would put our money where our mouths are, stop being so fiscally conservative, and get on board with big government policies that support women in need with medical care, adoption, foster care, etc. My favorite taunt along these lines is, “If you really care about the babies, would you support mandatory child-support for the fathers in every situation? Huh?” To which I reply with a hearty, “Yes! Absolutely! I am pro-expecting fathers to take responsibility for their offspring!”

To the challenge for pro-lifers to support the care of those in our society who are in desperate need of help, I simply agree. The question is, what is the best method for taking care of those in need in our society? My skepticism that big-government policies are the solution for taking care of the needy and vulnerable in our society does not come from my penny-pinching conservativism, it comes from the conviction that the government is intrinsically incompetent to do that work. I say “intrinsically” to emphasize that this is not a deficiency on the government’s part. That’s not what the government is supposed to do, and so it should not be surprising that it’s bad at it.

But even if you disagree with that position, we should point out that it is not as if pro-lifers have been neglecting care for the needy and vulnerable in our society. We have been accepting the challenge to care “holistically” with our dollars and time for decades. On every meaningful metric, it is the religious and pro-life demographics that are the most generous with their time and resources to non-profit organizations that do the work of caring for the orphan and widow without compulsion from their neighbors or government. This is the demographic overwhelmingly represented in foster care and adoption. This is the demographic that starts and funds and operates crisis pregnancy centers whose agenda are not simply to “end abortion,” but rather to care for families in general and needy and vulnerable mothers in particular. However, even if that were not the case, this reaction is a poor argument in favor of abortion. In my recent book, Thinking Christianly: Bringing Sundry Thoughts Captive to Christ, I interact briefly with this line of thinking. Here’s an excerpt from that section:

Let it be known that there is no necessary social prerequisite for getting to speak out against abortion. We should decisively put to death that foolish notion that says before objecting to murdering babies under the banner of “pro-life,” one must satisfactorily establish “pro-life” status by being on the forefront of orphan care, adoption, refugee ministries, homeless ministries, etc. These things are clearly consistent with being “pro-life,” but the increasingly common dichotomy of “pro-life” vs. “pro-birth” should be laughed out of the room. How, pray tell, is it possible to be “pro-life” without first being “pro-birth?”

This is a smokescreen, and to put the matter plainly, Christians who play along are suckers. The goal-post will always change for what constitutes as caring for enough issues to get to care about abortion. Hating “baby-hacking” requires no credentials, especially if those credentials are handed out by those who have no objection to “baby-hacking.” Frankly, I’m quite sure I do not want the approval of such individuals anyway. They can keep it.[1]

Reaction Two: “The Government Has No Right to Control the Bodies of Women“

This reaction seems to assume that what happened on June 24 is the making of a law to illegalize all abortion. But the Supreme Court did not outlaw abortion. All they did was deny that it was a “constitutional right,” which means that if a state chooses to enact legislation that prohibits abortion, that state is not being unconstitutional in doing so. States are not infringing on constitutionally recognized rights by enacting pro-life legislation.

Now, I actually do think abortion should be nationally prohibited, and not only for moral and theological reasons. There is a strong legal argument for the abolition of all abortion on the grounds of, at least, the 14th amendment (this has bearing on the “my body, my choice” argument. Abortion is not merely about a pregnant woman’s body, but also the body of her infant). But the point is that yesterday’s ruling did not force any state to stop performing abortions.

So, think about the mindset that lies behind, for example, protestors in California marching the streets with signs demanding the right to abortion. What exactly are they mad about? What are they protesting? They are mad about the fact that not every state must make abortion legal. That the citizens of a state like Oklahoma maintains the right to elect the representatives they want to reflect their values, which includes a high value for the unborn, is intolerable for these protestors. They do not want Oklahomans to have the ability to establish representatives who will establish and elect those laws. Protestors in California have lost literally nothing by way of “ability.” Their state has enshrined abortion with legislation in anticipation of the reversal of Roe v. Wade. But they are so passionate about mothers having the “right” to kill their pre-born babies that they are protesting other states having the ability to prohibit pre-born-baby-killing. Their own state protecting their ability to kill their babies isn’t enough: they demand that every state everywhere be obligated to do the same. Such a response, frankly, is madness.

Behind the Veil: What’s Really Going On

As a Christian theologian, I have to also point out that this is not only irrational, it is demonic. I’m not calling people on the other side of this issue demons, mind you. No, they are not demons or sub-humans, they are image-bearers of God himself, having more dignity and worth, and value than they themselves could possibly imagine. I am saying, rather, that the spirit that possesses a group to take to the streets in angry opposition to the verdict, “baby-killing is not a constitutional right,” is not a spirit of love and goodness and justice, but rather a spirit that arises from the domain of darkness (cf., Col 1:13). I am quite certain that most of the individuals vehemently opposed to yesterday’s ruling “do not know what spirit they are of,” but that does not make their clamor for abortion any less demonic. The crowd that boils over with rage over the prospect of mothers losing the ability to kill their children is possessed by a dark mindset indeed. What we see (and will continue to see in the coming days) with violent threats and attacks on churches and crisis pregnancy centers is the removing of the veil. The veneer of love and gentleness and justice is being peeled back and the darkness of the culture of death is showing its true colors. It is losing all motivation to be seen as loving and is perfectly content with showing its rage.

Still, I can’t help but suspect that many of the most passionate men and women clamoring for more death are driven by shame and guilt. They shout for abortion as an effort to shout down their own consciences. They have the blood of abortion on their own hands, they know it deep down, and they wish to silence that part of them that accuses. So they stop their ears and cry out that the evil they participated in is “good,” and the good that would have protected their children from execution is “evil.” Rather than applying the balm of grace to their sinful self-inflicted wound, they ignore the wound and try to convince themselves that there is no sin to repent of. They may be throwing rocks at the windows of crisis pregnancy centers, but they are aiming at that part of their souls that knows what evil they have committed. To those, I would simply say, “Give up trying to silence your conscience. It won’t work. You know what you have done. So go ahead and let your conscience speak. Let it call the sin, sin. Then, and only then, will you be in a position to hear a better word, spoken by the blood of Christ. He does not silence the accusation by pretending like it’s not there, he silences the accusation by answering it with his own blood. He does not invite you to ignore your sin. He invites you to let him deal with it in a decisive way. You are not beyond redemption and forgiveness and healing. But it is only those who know themselves to be sick who will seek out a Doctor. So, seek him out; he is not far.”

Concluding Prayers

What now? Well for starters, we should unflinchingly celebrate this surprising mercy that God has shown us. We should praise God that at least some states in this country will slow down on racking up the unfathomable debt of blood-guilt they have been incurring since 1973. We should praise God for the lives that this will save. We should thank God for the gift of sacrificial saints who have worked tirelessly for decades to see this ground made (while many of us cynically doubted that their efforts would succeed). We should thank them for their faithful endurance, and say, “You were right; God bless you and your longsuffering work!” We should thank God for the common grace of a justice system that does some good (even if it is imperfect).

And we should pray for revival. We should pray that our culture of death would disintegrate and that righteousness be established. We should pray that the hearts of those possessed by the spirit of rage and bloodthirstiness would be turned. We should pray that such individuals would have ears to hear their cries for death afresh, and that they would be shocked by the revelation of what their own voice sounds like; shocked into repentance. We should pray that they receive the cleansing blood of Christ for the forgiveness of their sins (both the sin of abortion and the sin of celebrating abortion). We should pray that God would hallow his name, and make his Kingdom come and his will be done here on earth as it is in heaven.

He could do it, you know.

Don’t forget that Nineveh was converted with a five-word sermon. I can’t think of a better invitation to pray for big things like this than the (previously) unthinkable reversal of Roe v. Wade.

[1] Samuel G. Parkison, Thinking Christianly: Bringing Sundry Thoughts Captive to Christ (H&E Publishing, 2022), 105.

*The image for this post is a depiction of Pharaoh demanding the death of Hebrew babies in Exodus 1. It seemed fitting.

Samuel Parkison received his Ph.D. in Systematic Theology from @MBTS). He is the Associate Professor of Theology (Gulf Theological Seminary in the UAE). You can find him on Twitter at https://twitter.com/samuel_parkison

On June 2, 2022 By Kuyperian In Culture, Theology, Worship 2

Holy Priest, Holy Warrior: Reflections on Psalm 110

Reading through Psalm 110, one cannot but help notice that by the end of the psalm, the dead bodies are piling up. In verse 1, Christ’s enemies are made into a footstool for his feet. In verse 2, he rules in the midst of his enemies — and has a scepter to smite them. In verse 5, he shatters kings on the day of his wrath. In verse 6, he executes nations and fills them with corpses.

And yet right in the middle of this “messiah on the warpath” imagery, we have a reference to Christ being an eternal priest after the order of Melchizedek. It is perhaps easier for us to see how the battle imagery of the psalm fits with Jesus’ kingship. After all, we expect kings — especially Davidic kings — to be battlefield heroes. Jesus does not disappoint in that way. He strikes and smashes his enemies from the beginning to the end of this psalm. The psalm paints the portrait of an utterly victorious king.

But since the psalm also pays homage to Jesus’ priesthood, an astute reader might wonder where priestly imagery shows up in the psalm. I would contend that the battlefield imagery fits not only with the motif of Jesus as reigning king but also with him as everlasting priest. In the Bible, priests are warriors just as much as kings. Waging holy war has been a priestly calling from the beginning.

There is a lot of biblical evidence for this truth, and we will only survey a fraction of it here. Start with Adam. Adam was a priest, serving in the sanctuary of Eden. We know this because the verbs used to describe Adam’s task in Eden, “tend and keep,” or “serve and guard” (Gen. 2:15), are used later to describe the tasks of the priests at the tabernacle, e.g., Num. 3:7-8. A priestly vocabulary is used for Adam’s task from the very beginning; he is to guard and keep Eden, just as the later priests would guard and keep the tabernacle. Of course, this also came to mean that he was to guard and keep the woman (the embodiment of Eden) after she was created, just as the priests were to guard and keep the people of Israel (the living tabernacle).

When Adam was told to guard the Garden, he should have deduced that there would be an invader. And sure enough, an intruder shows up. As soon as the serpent started questioning God’s Word to the woman, Adam should have stepped between the serpent and the woman to protect her. He should have silenced the lying serpent by crushing its head. That was his priestly task, and because he failed at that priestly task, he lost both his priesthood and his sanctuary. Adam should have piled up at least one corpse in Eden; he should have made the serpent a footstool for his feet. He should have ruled in the midst of his enemy (the serpent) by shattering and executing the serpent in a show of righteous wrath. Unfortunately, he did none of those things. What should have been the day of his power became a day of weakness and failure. He failed as a priest because he failed to fight. He refused to exercise holy violence and so he lost his holy status and access to the holy place.

(more…)

On June 1, 2022 By Kuyperian In Culture Like

Criminals Laugh at Gun Control Laws

Guest Post by Gary Demar

The House of Representatives and Senate are considering more expansive gun control bills considering the latest school shooting in Texas. These school shootings are horrific and evil. The parents of these children are devastated as I would be. I can’t imagine the anguish they must feel.

Some Republicans joined past gun control bills and some of them are working with the Democrats to enact even more restrictions. Criminals laugh at these laws. Do members of Congress believe that such laws are going to stop criminals from purchasing and using firearms? How well has it worked with drugs? Elected officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution. How many obey that oath? They, too, laugh at the built-in restrictions of the Constitution.

Every day people kill other people with guns, knives, automobiles, and even water by drowning. These are not going to stop with new laws. Murder is already against the law. People are the problem, not guns. Recent surveys have determined that around 40% of adult Americans own a gun or live with someone who does. More than 99+ percent of all gun owners have never shot anyone. Mentally disturbed people are going to do disturbing things. Better to eliminate soft targets like schools. Why this hasn’t been done is insane. Parents need to take control of their schools. Demand physical security for your children!

To show that guns are not the problem, decades ago, many public schools had shooting clubs. According to John Lott:

Until 1969 virtually every public high school—even in New York City—had a shooting club. High school students in New York City carried their guns to school on the subways in the morning, turned them over to their homeroom teacher or the gym coach during the day, and retrieved them after school for target practice. Club members were given their rifles and ammunition by the federal government. Students regularly competed in citywide shooting contests for university scholarships.

Even today there are “more than 2,000 high-school rifle programs across the United States. In 2015, 9,245 students in 317 schools across three states participated in the USA High School Clay Target League. In 2018, participation had increased 138% with 21,917 students from 804 teams in 20 states.”

(more…)