“So let all thine enemies perish, O LORD: but let them that love him be as the sun when he goeth forth in his might.”

I made the brief observation in a podcast recently that we give the ’60s too much credit. We act as if all the world’s woes were activated in Woodstock, circa 1969. But this is an utterly simplistic way of looking at history. While there were unique features like the introduction of the pill and other sexual shifts, the ’60s were merely a dot in the historical development which had its roots many centuries prior. It is sheer Americanism to assert that a particular era of American history catapulted the sexual revolution and other Western shenanigans to a babelic spotlight.

At the root of such sexual revolutions is the individual with its propensity towards self-creation and a social imaginary that lays bare its convictions about the normalization of sexual acts. Rousseau long ago already articulated that the inner voice establishes an identity. Outside voices and influences do not/should not play a role in our distinct flavor of life. The individual forms and reforms his personhood according to his own image.

Of course, we can go back further to the Edenic scene where bliss and cool air flowed through its Garden bushes and caressed the tender skin of the first creations. The first man and woman argued within themselves that assuming a unique identity outside the Triune God would bring harmony and happiness. Excommunication from that identity followed.

Individualism is essentially an early church thing; a church that began in a garden and continues through sanctuaries to this very day. The ’60s are categories we use to dismantle the biblical rationale or to justify cultural trends. But the reality is that the 60’s A.D. or the 1260’s were already scenes ripe for depraved acts, and indeed history attests to these things.

Our desire to localize tendencies causes us to miss the larger theological picture and to scapegoat our present situation by blaming “those guys” instead of the progressive tendency that human nature has had since its inception to be identity-factories.

And speaking of Rachel Levine, the picture speaks for itself. It is not polite to speak ungraciously about a woman’s posture or picture, but since Rachel is a dude, let us assert that his mother was a hamster and his father smells of elderberries. But that suffices for the insult department.

We should not be shocked when someone who claims to not be who God defined him to be, received the accolades of institutions who assert what God has not given her the right to assert. To each his own, and to each transgender his/her/zen own. God gives them over to a reprobate mind so they can distort everything that rhymes with reality.

This entire endeavor is merely the overflow of a sociology of identity framed in the dark caves of Mordor and given prime time due to our technological lords. But in God’s gracious dispensation, it has an expiration date and when that time comes, God will give his people a new song. Incidentally, that song will have nothing to do with the ’60s, but with the eternality of a God who does not allow his enemies to rule over us, but who brings all of them, Levine and all, under his feet.

Read more

Carl Trueman, whose crankiness is unparalleled, but whose book “The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self” has shaped my understanding of the current social imaginary in a way few other books have, offers his opening essay at WORLD—Al Mohler’s new online magazine. And while this previous sentence is rather long, like something Alistair Roberts would write, I still find it somewhat compulsively helpful as a book recommendation. But enough about me, as a self, rising and triumphing over stuff.

The real purpose of this short monologue is to summarize Trueman’s good work in his essay, which echoed some of the themes from his excellent book (I have taken some themes in his book to develop two upcoming essays on individualism, which should find publication fairly soon). Trueman focuses his attention on the real threat of the tech revolution. Though the article was written a few days ago, it has become even more pertinent as a synopsis of things since yesterday’s Facebook apocalypse. The good thing is that while the world burned for a few hours, I had the chance to read some C.S. Lewis and was reminded that he would never have survived this age. He would have ridiculed us for being so puny in our thoughts and so trivial in our interests.

I have tried to navigate this season with lots of thoughts and words, attempting to build a framework for thinking about Church and family life and our engagement with the g’ubament. Still, that relationship is so intertwined that sometimes I believe Trueman’s pessimism is warranted. Technology is the assistant to the regional manager, and we are all Michael Scotts trying to rationalize how to do life with an obnoxious servant who is always on our case. And speaking of amillennial pessimists, Trueman summarizes quite well the purpose of technology in our universe:

“It mediates reality to us, and in doing so, it reshapes how we imagine the world and our place within it.”

We must be in some myopic state if we can’t see how these things shape our children and even our own lives. If COVID taught us anything is that we were ripe to abandon bodily community, bodily worship, and bodily health. We were re-shaped by the nature of technology while we argued that technology is neutral. We pornographied ourselves to death, and we failed to love our basic commitments.

I agree with Trueman that this monologue is not some “Luddite polemic against technological change” and that the question of technology is ultimately one of stewardship. But since that’s the case, can we all agree that we are terrible stewards? We have allowed technology to rule over us, and we have complied with “simplistic soundbites” to fuel its thirst for power.

I am left as Trueman with few answers, except that “…being aware of the problem is a start” and giving my teenage daughter an Instagram account is stupid and allowing them to navigate these technological waters when the vast amount of experienced Christians can’t get through one day without some techy convulsion after an hour or two of delay is to expect the obvious.

Trueman agrees that government intervention on big tech is not the answer, and I go a step further–as usual–to assert that government intervention is the problem if we think that Biden can flirt with Zuckerburg without producing some catastrophic byproduct of their union. We can’t articulate a technological philosophy via statist intervention. We need to work these things out like a sweet family, which is to say we will have some tough conversations in the days and weeks ahead about what this whole endeavor has done to our imagination.

But the last piece of wisdom from Captain Cranky Cranks is a real fine one which I have articulated but never so eloquently:

“To be human is to be present with and for others—as anyone who has ever been at the bedside of a dying loved one knows. No app is adequate in that context.”

Perhaps the first Christian answer to tech’s triumph over the self is to kiss your kids and drink your coffee black, to love to your wife and turn off the cell after dinner.

Read more

The COVID death rate for humans from 0-17 years is .001%, according to the CDC. There have been about 400 COVID-related deaths in that age group in the entirety of this era. Unfortunately, the majority of these cases happened with children with various underlying medical conditions. Nevertheless, that number is so minuscule in relation to other diseases, that any comparison is therefore laughable.

Now that we are all agreed, let’s make another salient point: children are used as tools for any nefarious system that wishes to institute fear as a national currency. Whether the numbers are on their side is irrelevant. The point is that no crisis can be wasted when the potential gain is significant. And there are no better prime candidates than an age group that presents themselves as innocent bystanders. They become icons for a greater cause, even though the cause is filled with apocalyptic footnotes. But enough about Greta Thunberg.

Let’s move to a greater point still. The point is that if you consolidate all your worries into one big virus, then every other worry can dissipate. In short, if the entire ecosystem of individual attention can be summarized in COVIDom, then any system can use that data to communicate whatever ideology, philosophy, and rhetoric (Col. 2:8).

The strategy is to put away distracting items and convey a message through one medium rather than a thousand fragments. Therefore, we don’t illuminate the world on Global Warming as an isolated issue, or statist overreach, or LGBTQ agendas–nay; instead, we communicate all these ideas through the lens of COVID. We use suffering children as means to portray a vision that is grander for society.

The idea from now on will be to make the COVID conversation through its many re-creations and variations more and more central to the economic, political, and sociological discourses. After all, if we believe COVID mutations are subtle, contagious, and pernicious, we can begin to use it as a presupposition for all monologues on the world stage.

When we talk about epistemic questions, we–Van Tilian aficionados–talk about the significance of starting with the right presupposition. Everyone has it, whether it be reason or the Koran. We all have a way of looking at the world. What I am arguing is that COVID has become the lens of expectation and conversation. It has become the opening scene of life in Shakespearean proportion. To COVID or not to COVID is more than a question, but the answer to many disputes.

My proposal is we overturn this desire for ultimacy in worldview thinking. We must change the conversation into other ultimate starting points: Scriptures, Feasts, Hymns, and more Scriptures. Forsake the temptation to derive courage and strength from the attempt at starting life again from a separate worldview, even if little children are manipulatively used as memes for their cause.

Read more

Guest Post by Gary Demar

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.

Read more

Back in the blessed year of our Lord Twenty-twenty, when the orange man led the mutiny against leftism one tweet at a time, life was quite tolerable for Christians who gave a dram about ethical currency. Back then, I wrote:

“If we cannot get our act together during COVID under a relatively pro-liberty, pro-church president, how many jumping jacks will we be willing to do under a Biden presidency if the next tempest rises? How much longer will we be willing to keep our churches closed? How much more will we be willing to subscribe to government mailing lists? How much more will we be willing to spread fear as a virtue? How much more will we be willing to concede?”

As Yoda would say, “Concede we have.” But we have conceded ground quicker than even I expected and evangelical Christians are so eager to taste the Kool-Aid of concession that they drank it straight. And drinking anything straight is quite a challenge for the Charles Finney generation.

So, as we move on we must get the house in order. And by house, I mean the literal oikos, and not some metaphysical one, which we will touch on in a later post. But for now, let’s begin our focus on the living room rules that should guide our revolution:

If Jesus is Lord, then the coffee table is under his domain. I have talked so much about hospitality over the years that if you poke me I’d bleed mash potatoes. That is because the entire endeavor has eternal consequences and hospitable people will one day rule the world. But my point is a bit more nuanced, if I may.

Read more