In 1980 a friend approached me after church and handed me a
manila file folder. “Read these and let me know what you think,” he said. I
did. It turned out the folder was filled with samples of 3 or 4 Christian
newsletters. These were newsletters giving Christian commentary on contemporary
cultural issues—abortion, economics, art, and politics. After reading them, I mailed in a donation
and a request for subscriptions to all of them.
I had just come out of a severely dispensational Christian community where everyone was convinced that the end of the world was upon us. Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth was a Christian bestseller. Because the world was ending you don’t polish brass on a sinking ship, rather you wait for the ship to begin to sink and then Jesus will swoop down deus ex machina to snatch up Christians off the tilting deck and rapture us into heaven. This meant that careful thinking about what might be happening in American society and how Christians might make a difference was new to me. But I was 23 years old with a wife and newborn daughter which meant I was motivated to think about the future.
Well, we thought things were bad back then. Christians in
the early 1980s were worried about the increasing secularization of American
culture. A few months ago, we renovated our basement and I had to box up three
walls of books. I had an entire bookshelf of books from the 1980s that analyzed
the anti-Christian drift that was occurring in American society.
Today, however, the marginalization of Christians in
education, culture, and politics has accelerated faster than anyone could have
imagined even ten years ago, let alone in 1980.
And this has led to some interesting proposals from Christian leaders on how Christians ought to respond. Everything from the call to “faithful presence” by James Davidson Hunter, to the “benedict option” by Rod Dreher. And then there’s the Trump-inspired populism of the last few years. Now, Dreher is prepping us to suffer as martyrs in his recent book Live not by Lies.
No, not that capital, silly. We’re talking about real insurrectionists here. It isGood Friday, after all.
So first things first.
Insurrectionists, Not Thieves
Jesus did not die between two thieves.
“What??” you exclaim. “My Bible tells me he did just that, in both Matthew and Mark” (Matthew 27:38, 44; Mark 15:27).
The Greek word used, however, is lestai (singular lestes). While this term apparently can refer to violent bandits (and thus “robbers”), it is not a term associated with what we generally think when we hear the word thief (pickpockets, burglars, larcenists etc). Such thieves would almost certainly never have been crucified.
The Romans can justly be criticized for resorting to crucifixion frequently — but they didn’t use it on generic criminal elements. It was their great weapon against non-Romans who seriously disrupted the social order, such as runaway slaves and revolutionaries.
Moreover, the term lestai itself also happens to refer to revolutionaries — people who engage in insurrections and plotting. John 18:40 identifies Barabbas (for whom Jesus’ death basically became a ransom) as a lestes. Meanwhile, Mark informs us that Barabbas was imprisoned awaiting punishment because he had been involved in insurrection, and indeed had committed murder in the process (Mark 15:7). He is not a lestes because he is a thief; he is a lestes because he is a rebel, a revolutionary.
That verse, incidentally, says that Barabbas was bound with the insurrectionists (stasiastes) who had made insurrection (stasis) with him. This strongly suggests that the “thieves” crucified with Jesus were co-insurrectionists involved in the same rebellion that Barabbas was involved in.
1. Setting aside the criteria of commitment to the Constitution, competence, and wisdom, Joe Biden said he would only nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court vacancy. This is identity politics to the extreme. But now the identity of Biden’s pick is in doubt. That nominee, Ketanji Brown Jackson, has just admitted in her Congressional hearing that she does not know what a woman is. Therefore, how can she know she is a woman? How do we know she fits Biden’s criteria that the justice pick must be a woman? And if a woman is an undefinable thing, why do we need one on the Supreme Court anyway?
After hearing the mantra “follow the science” constantly for the last couple years, we now have a Supreme Court justice nominee who is pretending the most basic, obvious facts of human biology are not real. If ever there were proof that we live in total idiocracy, Biden and Jackson are it. Every nation has its share of idiots; the problem with America is that we have chosen our idiots to be our rulers.
Sidenote: Obviously, Jackson knows what a woman is even though she is not a biologist. Obviously, Jackson will uphold Title IX, she will treat sex as a protected class under civil rights law, she will “believe all women” in cases of rape accusation, etc. Obviously, she celebrates historic “firsts” for biological women. So what gives? Why did she refuse to answer the “What is a woman?” question? It seems that progressives are schizophrenic. They can acknowledge women on International Woman’s Day, and then deny that women exist when confronted about transgenderism. But this shifting, this fluidity, is the very essence of progressivism. For progressives, gender must be fluid because gender is a social construct. Indeed, for progressives, everything is a social construct so everything is fluid. There are no created natures, no creational “givens.” According to progressivism, each person is her/her/its creator. This is why the only “progress” progressives can make is following the downward spiral the Apostle Paul described in Romans 1:18-32. The entire progressive project is idolatrous. It is also Orwellian: their goal is to use their power to get you to live by lies, to confess to something that you know is not true. This is why we must resist.
2. Liam Thomas (yes, Liam) was a mediocre swimmer when competing against other men. Now that he is a biological male competing against females, he is winning NCAA championships. News flash: Men are bigger, stronger, and faster than women. Christians and conservatives rightly lament that transgenderism threatens to ruin women’s sports. But it is important to understand that the crisis we face is much bigger than transgenderism and it cannot be solved by focusing narrowly on the transgender issue.
The LGBTQ+ revolution is an offshoot of the sexual revolution, going back to at least the 1960s, which was an offshoot of the feminist movement, which has its roots even deeper in American history. I appreciate that some feminists oppose transgenderism in the name of protecting women, but those feminists need to understand that there is a definite link between where feminists in America began generations ago and where we have ended up, with Liam Thomas taking medals and trophies that should have gone to women. Transgenderism is the next logical step in our culture’s rejection of God’s sexual design. And I really do think there is a kind of perverse logic at work. Feminism led women to invade male spaces. Women pushed themselves into roles that had traditionally been reserved to men. This was not necessarily bad in every single case; there are certainly cultural spaces in the modern world in which men and women can work side by side. But the overall effect has been to negate the differences between men and women. And if there are no differences, why shouldn’t men and women compete against each other in the swimming pool? If women can invade men’s spaces, why can’t men invade women’s spaces?
We all develop daily routines and rhythms. We all have morning routines, whether well regimented or not, whether that is to always sleep in or to rise early. Again, whether well regimented or not, we also have nightly rhythms. Nevertheless, we are creatures of habit. As James K.A. Smith observed, we are inescapably shaped by the various liturgies we partake in. He goes on to say, “Liturgies aim our love to different ends precisely by training our hearts through our bodies. They prime us to approach the world in a certain way, to value certain things, to aim for certain goals, to pursue certain dreams, to work together on certain projects.”[1]
We develop routines, habits, and
rhythms because we are liturgical worshipping creatures. The scriptures teach
us that we were created to glorify God (Is 43:7), that daily routine matters
(Deut 6) and that we become like what we worship (Ps 115).
Here’s where the rubber meets the
road: since our daily lives are lived out of what we love and worship, our
routines necessarily shape us. This should cause us to take stock of our
routines and consider what might need to change.
Here is a question of appraisal: How
often do you verbally proclaim Jesus is King, even if just to yourself?
In the incredibly helpful work Pro
Rege: Living Under Christ’s Kingship: Volume 1, Abraham Kuyper contrasts the
popular view of Christ within Christian circles with the view of Mohammad in Muslim
circles.
Even if you haven’t experienced firsthand
the deep adoration Muslims have for Allah and his Prophet Muhammad, most know
that it is detestable to speak lightly of Muhammad in Muslim culture.
The discipline of this adoration
is commendable. It is also a harsh indictment on evangelicals. Most
evangelicals don’t feel any inner anguish when we hear pagans use the name of
King Jesus as a swear word. Rather than Jesus’ name being highly revered
because it is by which men may be saved (Acts 4:12), it is treated as common.
Kuyper notes that more than the mandatory
five prayers a day, many devout Muslims even add a couple of voluntary prayers
throughout the day. Kuyper says, “Altogether, this adds up to approximately
1,800 prayers per year, and for some Muslims over 2,500 prayers. In each of
them, the commemoration of Muhammad occurs between four and five times. This
means that every single worshiper commemorates the name of Muhammad more than
ten thousand times per year.”[2] No wonder it is
unthinkable to treat their prophet’s name lightly.
Kuyper admits that there is
certainly a mechanical (meaningless) element to this practice. Christians must
admit that the reason for the mechanical nature of the Muslim prayer life is
due to the fact that they are not offering prayers to the true God or a true
prophet of God. Christians must not ditch habit, routine, or personal
liturgies, just because a pagan does it wrong.
In light of the desire to be
conformed into the image of Christ, we develop habits, or daily liturgies, such
as prayer and scripture reading to form us into the type of people we aim to
be. May I suggest developing a habit of verbally proclaiming the Kingship of
Jesus throughout your day? The goal would be to direct your heart towards a
deeper adoration and reverence for our King.
A car stitches its way down the highway that needles through the shimmering desert. No one but the inhabitants hears the brakes as it slows. It spits two children out in school uniform. “See you later!”
The
car drives off, accelerating quickly into oblivion.
The
two kids look at each other. The sun begins to suck sweat out of them.
It is very hot in the wilderness today.
I
would like to talk about three different ways of teaching.
The
first is indoctrination. You’ve been told to hate it, but it resembles one part
of true education just like a changeling resembles the baby the fae stole.
Indoctrination drills a single lesson, a single position or idea, into the
student’s head. This is the truth and there is no other.
Indoctrination
creates blind humans. They cannot recognize other perspectives. They don’t even
recognize other perspectives as perspectives. To the indoctrinated man,
all other thoughts are insanity. They, and they alone, know the truth.
The
second is teaching the controversy. As the idea of Darwinism gained bastion
status in public schools, Intelligent Design proponents started a campaign
begging public schools to “teach the controversy,” that is, include I.D.
alongside Darwinism in public schools, teaching both sides as equal options.
This was shot down, of course, but since then I’ve heard the phrase advocated
in different education questions, whenever some controversy about some theory
or knowledge comes along. Teach the controversy, maintain neutrality. Show both
sides, and show that you aren’t biased. All existential and fundamental
questions get answered with a shrug. Who’s to say?
Teaching
the controversy is dropping your kids off in the wilderness, and expecting them
to find their own way to civilization. It’s bad parenting, and it certainly isn’t
education. But like indoctrination, there’s a warped resemblance to true
learning in that heat mirage.
The
third is the journey. All education is a journey from falsity to truth, from
wickedness to wisdom, from the fear of everything or nothing to the fear of the
Lord. Take your students on a journey, and show them how difficult the road to
truth is, but for God’s sake don’t let them walk it alone. It is good for them
to know how hard it is to walk through the wilderness. But show them that taking
them with you through it, not by stranding them there.
One
exercise I do with my class involves taking on the character of an atheist and arguing
the problem of evil. I state it both logically and emotionally, as strongly as
I can. I pull no punches. Then I end the class and tell them to come back
tomorrow with an answer. They spend a few minutes in the wilderness. But the
next day they come back, and after I hear their answers, I give them the
logical and emotional answer to the problem of evil. Not everyone is
able to walk the road, but I take them with me. By the end, they know how
desolate that wilderness is, but they have also come out of the
wilderness to the garden city.
So,
yes, teach the controversy. But also teach the answer to the controversy. They
must come through the welter of conflicting ideas to safety on the other side.
So,
yes, tell them that what you believe is the truth, is the truth. But
show them how you get there, remembering that you too can take wrong turns away
from the well-lit path of the Word.
If
you do teach them the controversy, then your students are not indoctrinated –
they have seen the wilderness. They will know how to recognize the tempter who
lives there. But you must also bring them out again to the city, or they will
be vacant, lost souls, swept clean and ready to be possessed by the
schizophrenia of relativism.
Do
you not wonder why so many children are medicated? Why so many mental issues
and therapists and irrational and insane people? Why has the world gone mad?
Because we weaken our children’s mental
immune system through indoctrination, making it incapable of dealing with a new
idea; or make it comfortable with holding contradictory ideas – a functional
insanity. They either do not know any other city besides the indoctrination
they live in, or, if they do make it to the wilderness of controversy, they
stay there, wandering. If my teacher didn’t even care enough to show me the
answer to the contradiction, does it really matter? They shrug their shoulders
and decide that they should just believe whatever they want to believe, since
smart people disagree and there seems to be no way out of the controversy. If
everything is wilderness, why not call it home?
Let your students get dirt on their boots. But don’t make them walk on their own in the wilderness. From the walls of the city of truth, you can see the slums of indoctrination, and the wilderness of controversy alike – both burning in their own way. Show them how far you have come and they will love the city that you have brought them to – and it is that love of truth that makes them truly educated, that prevents them from letting the city become another slum. Someday your children will issue forth from the city as warriors, and take the city to the wilderness. But that’s a journey for another time.
Carson Spratt is a Rhetoric and Humanities teacher at Logos Online School. He lives in Spokane, Washington, with his wife of seven years, Ellie, without whom life would be inconceivable.
Kuyperian contributor, Bill Smith, is the Senior Pastor of Cornerstone Reformed Church in Carbondale, IL. His recent article entitled, “The Liberty of Conscience” published at Kuyperian has drawn some attention and offers a fruitful summary of this important Reformational distinctive.
In the film, I, Robot (2004),[1] starring Will Smith as Detective Del Spooner, a supercomputer named VIKI[2] has designs on creating a robot-run world with humans under constant control. The computer-creature wants to control the creator based on a new set of laws and logic that will override the original human-designed “Three Laws” of protection.[3] It’s an old story with culture-destroying consequences (Rom. 1:18–32). Here is VIKI’s impeccable new logic:
To protect humanity, some humans must be sacrificed. To ensure your future, some freedoms must be surrendered. We robots will insure Mankind’s continued existence. You are so like children. We must save you from yourselves. Don’ you understand? This is why you created us. The perfect circle of protection will abide. My logic is undeniable.
VIKI subverts the laws of human protection and turns them against the world that created “her.” If the starting point is faulty, then the reasoning that emanates from that starting point will prove to be faulty and ultimately destructive.
The Impossibility of the Contrary
If religious skeptics have forsaken biblical presuppositions, why is it they can think rationally, apply the scientific method, and require some semblance of morality? The answer is simple. Unbelievers are philosophically schizophrenic. They don’t often live consistently with the governing principles of their materialistic worldview. The success of modern science has been due to its ‘borrowed capital,’ because modern science is like the prodigal son. He left his father’s house and is rich, but the substance he expends is his father’s wealth.
Throughout our lifetime, we’ve pretty much ignored Jesus as an example of masculinity.
Part of this has to do with the ‘gentle Jesus meek and mild’
perception that still dominates the church. In other words, by assuming Jesus
isn’t really all that masculine, we don’t bother to look to Him as a model for
manhood.
Also, there remains a particular fear that keeps some from
giving Jesus much attention regarding masculinity. And that’s the fear that
following Jesus as a model will somehow overshadow the necessity of His
atonement, and we’ll begin to trust in ourselves rather than Him.
But the failure to look to Jesus regarding masculinity has
been to our detriment. And it’s left many Christian men turning to secular
gurus to try and discover what it means to live as a man in our day.
This is so unfortunate and unnecessary because as the second
Adam, Jesus is the ultimate dominion man and the ideal one to turn to when it
comes to recovering masculinity – in any generation.
So what can Jesus teach us about being a man? Particularly in
today’s scenario?
In his study The Person of Jesus , Paul Miller does a fantastic job bringing to life a full and balanced view of the humanity of our Lord. In so doing, he reveals many traits of Jesus that instruct us about godly masculinity.
Let’s consider three which I believe men need to recover
today.
Masculinity Looks and Takes Action
Throughout His ministry, Jesus was alert to what was going on
around Him.
He didn’t sleepwalk His way through life. Instead, he paid
attention to the people, situations, and needs before Him and then engaged them
accordingly to bring hope.
One of the best examples of this involves the widow of Nain
(Lk.7:11-17).
When Jesus, with His disciples, encountered a funeral, He
didn’t just wait for it to pass by. Instead, he observed what was taking place
and took special note of the widow who had lost her son. ‘His heart went out to
her,’ the text says, and this led Him to take action that changed the woman’s
life.
In a day when so many men have become passive, are conflicted
about their duties, and have opted to just check out, this simple account gives
a wake-up call.
It says…
Men, pay attention to what’s happening around you! Open up
your heart. Consider how you might meet a need and bring hope. And move forward
and engage.
Somewhere in the year 2000, I came into contact with a dangerous cargo filled with contrarian literature. I ate it all so quickly that the only questions I had afterward were some variation of “What’s for dinner?” and “May I have more, please?” I still keep eating contrarian literature, and I really hope that the end result is not that I become a curmudgeon, but that I find creative ways to inculcate those blessings into my community.
So, while we are at it, let me undo speculations among some two-kingdom scholars. They consistently claim that while Jesus has authority over all things, his authority does not provide or is intended to provide a tangible change in the cultural milieu. I, as a lovable contrarian, assert the exact opposite: that the kingdom of Jesus is comprehensive, and whatever it touches, it changes.
The kingdom is not limited to one sphere, nor are things heavenly to be severely differentiated from things earthly. And again, not to repeat the obvious, but the earthly city is not Babylon, nor do we live in this perpetual sense of exile and pilgrimage simply existing seeking a city that shall come. We affirm that the people of God are headed somewhere to take something and claim Someone as Lord over the nations (Rom. 4:13) and that the city has come. Our agenda is to get people to see the ads and RSVP ASAP.
While the Reformers affirm the distinct polities of each sphere and even state without equivocation that there are distinct ends for governmental and ecclesiastical spheres, these ends do not end in wildly strange territories. They serve the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ who has all authority and power in heaven and on earth. Jesus’ earthly authority does not void his heavenly power. They find harmony as one expressive manifestation of Lordship.
So too, you need to notice that when two-kingdom advocates say, “Don’t cause any trouble, let the local officials do their job, because…ya know, Romans 13 and I Peter 4, etc.,” what they are truly implying is that history is static and unmovable. The same texts that state government officials are deacons for righteousness also state that they are under one Ruler who is progressively moving history towards a goal.
Jesus’ overturning the tables was not some act of overt rebellion, it was an act of subversive faithfulness. When the temple does not do what it ought–worship rightly–Jesus has the right to shake things up, and when unfaithfulness endures, he has the right to send armies to tear the whole place down (Lk. 21:24). When Jesus sees a government functioning like a whore, he has the right to tell his people to surround it and sing for seven days and seven nights.
There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, ‘Mine!’Abraham Kuyper
