MENU

Culture
Category

On November 15, 2020 By In Culture, Politics, Theology, Wisdom

Taxes

The issue of taxes can be a volatile subject. A political party’s position on taxes is one of the great dividing lines that emerges in many political campaigns. Taxes don’t merely concern issues of dollars and cents (though we are all happier to keep as much money as we possibly can). Taxes speak to issues of authority, the size and scope of government, charity, private property, civic responsibility, and many other issues.

Let’s look at one particular tax for illustrative purposes: property taxes. We pay property taxes to provide a number of different services for the local area. Whether you agree with those services and the place of government in providing them is not my concern at this point. The tax itself is the issue. What does the property tax say about private property? Quite frankly, it tells the citizenry that there is no such thing as private property. You have the privilege of spending money on a piece of land and building a house on it, but the land is owned by the local government. If you don’t believe me, don’t pay your property tax. You will see who owns the land within a few months. You will be evicted from the land and house you thought you purchased.

(more…)

Read more

On November 12, 2020 By In Culture, Men, Wisdom

Letters To Young Men: Hypergamy

Dear Young Man,

In our continuing journey into masculinity and, in particular, intersexual dynamics, I will now address the subject of hypergamy (hī-pûr′gə-mē). To give credit where credit is due, Rollo Tomassi has developed this theory more than anyone else that I know of in the area of intersexual dynamics. Old PUAs (“Pick-Up Artists”) worked off of the principle of hypergamy in what they called “game.” Understanding hypergamy helps you understand why some of those cheesy game techniques worked (more or less). They hit upon some creational realities that they twisted.

Hypergamy basically means “marrying up.” It is understood in places like India to speak of women who marry into a higher caste. The story of Cinderella is something of a story of hypergamy; the poor girl catches the attention of the prince who then marries her. In the social and psychological sciences, hypergamy deals with “mating preferences.” It can refer to men marrying up, but the word primarily refers to a woman’s desire to marry someone who is superior to her in a number of areas such as physical strength, earning potential, height, humor, and other things. The woman desires a man who is of high value relative to her.

(more…)

Read more

On November 1, 2020 By In Church, Culture, Politics, Theology

The Politics of All Saints Day

From the earliest days of history, there has been a war going on; sometimes with more visible intensity and sometimes with less, but it is always there, churning underneath friendships, marriages, and geopolitical relationships. This war is the war between the woman and the serpent, between her seed and his seed established by God just after the fall, declared plainly to us in Genesis 3.15. From the beginning, it has been a bloody battle. Cain, the seed of the serpent, killed his righteous brother, Abel, the seed of the woman, because Abel’s deeds were righteous and Cain’s were wicked (1Jn 3.12).

The battle has continued through the ages, both before and after the coming of Christ Jesus. Those opposed to God and his way of ordering life have sought to eradicate the righteous, whether they were the prophets of the old creation, Jesus himself, or his apostles. The war continues even after that first generation after Jesus’ resurrection. The early church tells us of men such as Polycarp and Justin, women such as Perpetua and Blandina along with many others. The cruel ways in which all of these died cannot be matched, but the numbers of modern-day martyrs far exceed the numbers of our early church. One author says that 2019 was one of the bloodiest years in church history. We hear of eleven Christians beheaded in Nigeria in December of 2019, and this is followed up by over 1,200 being killed in Nigeria in the first six months of 2020. Then there is the Middle East where there is what some are saying is coming close to Christian genocide. North Korea, China, Sri Lanka, and many other countries are targeting Christians for persecution and death.

The war has never stopped. While we know that there is a war, the question must be asked, What are we fighting for? Is this war merely the fact that these individuals over here don’t like the individuals on the other side of the line? No. This is a political war, and the feast of All Saints is all about politics.

The feast of All Saints began in some form or fashion early in the church. Though it is celebrated at different times in different branches of the church, there is a time in churches all around the world that the church commemorates the lives of all of the unnamed martyrs along with those loved ones we have personally known who have borne faithful witness to Christ throughout their lives and have now, having fought a good fight, have gone to their rest. Many saints’ lives are celebrated by name throughout the year. All Saints is the day for the millions of others who have no special day, giving the church a time to reflect upon those unsung heroes, as we might say, or those whom we knew personally, who encouraged us and left us an example to follow. This follows the pattern of Hebrews 11 of remembering and being encouraged by the departed faithful.

When we think about the martyrs and celebrating their lives, we probably recall the courage of a Polycarp or Thomas Cranmer who faced the flames, or Ignatius, who was torn to pieces by lions in a Roman arena. Their courage rooted in faith was exemplary and is to be emulated by all of us in our daily lives. But their deaths witnessed to more than just personal courage rooted in their own convictions. Their deaths were a proclamation to the world, and particularly their persecutors, that the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ.

In Jesus’ death and subsequent resurrection, the nature of his kingdom was revealed as one that had power over death itself. Being that this was the greatest power of any government over its people, a power that kept people subservient through fear of death, Jesus Christ and his people declared through their willingness to die that all political systems, all governments, were ultimately subservient to Jesus’ lordship and would, eventually, be subjugated by him. The Christian faith threatened to undo all of the political systems based on the fear of death. Martyrs were and are the ultimate witness to the principalities and powers that their time is short.

We have a hard time in America understanding martyrdom because we view religion as a private commitment that is not to interfere with politics. As Amy Coney Barrett proudly proclaimed, her personal religious beliefs would not interfere with judgments about the law. And that’s the way it ought to be. Don’t bring religion into politics. There should be a wall of separation between the church and the state, right?

When we think like this, we yield the field, forsake our mission, and are poor stewards of the inheritance left to us by the martyrs. The Christian mission has always been political because the purpose of man is political; that is, we were created to take dominion, build a kingdom, build the city, the polis, of God so that every area of life images the life of God’s heaven. There is no “secular” space in this sense; some sort of neutral space where God does not claim absolute rule. Through his death and resurrection, Jesus was granted all authority in heaven and on earth by the Father (Matt 28.18; cf. also Phil 2.5-11). Through the blood of his cross, Jesus reconciled the world to himself, putting everything under his lordship, visible or invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions, principalities or powers (Col 1.15-20).

The word gospel itself, as it was used in the first century, was a political announcement. It was used to speak of the birthday or the conquest of a king. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the announcement that Jesus is Lord; that he reigns, having received the nations as his inheritance, just as the Father promised. All kings must come and bow and kiss the Son lest he be angry (cf. Pss 2; 72). As we proclaim the gospel, the church is a threat to the political systems in rebellion against the Christ of God.

As we worship, offering up our prayers, God shakes up the geopolitical landscape (cf. Revelation, esp. 8.1-4). Worship is a political action.

The martyrs did not give their lives because they had personal disputes about private, interior religion. They were killed because the church’s existence and her proclamation that Jesus is Lord threatened to undo all of the kingdoms of the world–the political systems. They could courageously give their lives because death had been conquered, stripping every satanic kingdom of its greatest weapon: fear of death (Heb 2.14-15).

We may not give our lives as many of our fathers and mothers did or as many of our brothers and sisters are doing even now. But we must live with the bold faith of the martyrs, pressing the crown rights of King Jesus through every square inch of the world.

Read more

On October 30, 2020 By In Culture, Politics, Wisdom

Our Founding Father

 For he [Abraham] was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God.

Hebrews 11:10 ESV

Much has already been said about this upcoming presidential election, probably too much. All sides of the political carousel assert the importance, urgency, and historic consequences of choosing the right man for such a time as this. There will undoubtedly be more to say in the coming week as the results come in and we know, or think we know, the direction of our nation for the next four years. Even in a society inundated with words, public discourse is still a crucial element for growth and health as a people. I am thankful for the free exchange of ideas. But the ideas themselves are not free. They are always rooted to something that gives those ideas veracity and potency. As we consider the next president of the United States, we must maintain a clear vision of the nature of the presidency itself and the true foundation of a just and good society if we are to speak and respond appropriately to this election. 

The founders, at least as much as I understand them, never intended the presidency to ascend to such great heights of power and influence. They were very aware of the dangers, as well as the blessings, of monarchical rule. A good king can do much more good for his people than a good president. But that same principle applies to bad kings as well. Therefore, these men set in place certain restraints and protections. There were really two dangers through which they had to navigate. They had the danger of overt tyranny on the one hand and mob rule on the other. The tyrant says that the king is law. The mob says that the majority is king. The Christian must say that there is a King of all kings and a Law of all laws; and They cannot be disregarded or reinterpreted without consequences. Or as the Scottish presbyterian, Samuel Rutherford, argued so beautifully in his great work, Lex Rex, “the Law is King.” Once you separate justice or lawfulness from a Divine Lawgiver, you will always be drifting toward tyranny- either a tyranny of the few or the many. 

One of the reasons, though certainly not the only one, that we have a 200 year history of a transfer of power through free elections without violent revolution or the shedding of blood is because of the relatively limited power which transfers hands every two or four years. Things tend to go badly in the end for royal lines and dictators. Elections should not generally be the catalyst for broad change. The right and privilege to vote should rarely become the urgency to vote. Rather, elections ought to be smooth transitions without the need for much anxiety from either side because most of the power would rest at the local levels. Most of the reform would have to happen from the bottom up not the top down.

We have experienced something much different in recent history. The power at the top is great. The President is considered by many as “the most powerful man in the world.” The Supreme Court just may be even more powerful behind the scenes. Recent headlines provide examples of both. First, listen to the questions and concerns directed at Amy Coney Barrett during her confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court. The underlying expectation driving all of the objections is judicial legislation. They fully expect her to use her authority as judge to legislate from the bench. They almost seem not to have a category for a judge who would do otherwise- despite Judge Barrett’s words or record to the contrary. In their minds it is not a question of if but how.

Second, listen to the criticisms leveled at the president concerning his handling of Covid-19. Implied within their comments is the expectation that the president should exercise a tremendous amount of authority. It’s not the overuse of power that they lament but its restraint. One would be tempted to think that there are no such things as duly elected governors to make decisions for their own states or duly elected mayors to make decisions for their own cities. To permit such diversity of rule concerning the pandemic is inexcusable in their eyes. One ring to rule them all. 

There is no doubt that this election is a crucial point in our country’s history. One of the things I hope will continue to change after the dust settles is a move back to the center of what a good federal government should look like. It is the rule of law subservient to its Foundations that makes a just society. Untethered from this authority, government inevitably becomes a rule of the few, a rule of the majority, or a rule of the oppressed and marginalized. America indeed has a King and no amount of campaigning or voting or court rulings can change that.  As He himself definitively proclaimed, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me…” a

All this leads me back to the issue of public discourse. The Church must lead the way if there is any hope of true liberty and justice for all. During such times, Christians would do well to take an internal poll of their own motives and desires. How do our opinions and concerns line up against the clear and indisputable authority of Scripture to govern all of life? Do our visions of justice, mercy, authority, and submission have their roots in the deep, rich soil of Truth or the shallow, hard dirt of modernity? One vision will sprout up quickly and look impressive for the Instagram post; the other will bear fruit for generations to come. A sense of urgency will always invite compromise.

This election is important. There are real implications in the choice we make for our next president. But the president is not our savior; he is not our sovereign. We must venture clear-minded and patient-hearted into the public square. Whatever the outcome of this election, we know that “when the tempest passes, the wicked is no more, but the righteous is established forever.” b

There lies within us a divine longing to see goodness flourish and love abound in society, but we must advocate for these things as Christians. The good of society cannot grow apart from the Supreme Good of the universe. A common weal c is built most surely upon the summum bonum. d Whether that means preserving certain founding principles or progressing beyond others, our Founding Father must be the beginning and end of it all. His supreme Good rightly orders our common good, starting with self-government and working outward. Christians who desire social justice must first seek to rightly order their own lives. e Again Augustine is helpful here. He argued that a true love for someone is the desire for their greatest good and fullest happiness. Since God alone is the source and object of this goodness and joy, then to truly love your neighbor is to speak and act in a way that seeks to bring them closer in conformity and communion with God. Anything less is not love. Period. Only with this truth firmly in view should a brother or sister venture into the realm of politics. Social media would never be the same. And neither would we the people.  

  1. Matthew 28:18  (back)
  2. Proverbs 10:25 ESV  (back)
  3. Lit. “the common good that binds a multitude of people by a mutual recognition of rights. Famously put forth by Cicero and later taken up with great insight by Augustine, the question becomes, “What is the common good that builds a society from a crowd or mob into a just society of men?”  (back)
  4. Lit. “the supreme good.” Augustine argued that Rome was never a just society because the “will”of the people is never a sufficient foundation for the “weal” of the people.  (back)
  5. “If a man who takes away a farm from its purchaser and delivers it to another man who has no claim upon it is unjust, how can a man who removes himself from the overlordship of the God who made him and goes into the service of wicked spirits be just?” – Augustine, City of God, XIX. 21  (back)

Read more

On October 29, 2020 By In Books, Culture

A New Cry Against the Nihilists

“‘Are these the Nazis, Walter?’ ‘No, Donnie, these men are nihilists. There’s nothing to be afraid of.'” Moments before Donnie’s tragic death,a Walter assures Donnie that the nihilists won’t hurt them: “No, Donnie, these men are cowards.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky, on the other hand, took the threat of nihilism more seriously than The Big Lebowski’s Walter. Perhaps that was, in part, because he was once a nihilist himself. Before his exile in Siberia, Dostoevsky was part of a group of young radicals. His activity with the progressive Petrashevsky Circle led to their arrest and a death sentence that was commuted at the last moment. His time in exile proved transformative. Enduring suffering with his copy of the New Testament as his only comfort, he emerged from exile a devout Orthodox Christian and Russian conservative.

Since this past Summer, the United States has witnessed nihilism run amok on our streets. Literal mobs bent on destruction have been allowed to have their way with American cities. Of course this didn’t come out of nowhere; this movement has been fomenting and picking up steam for some time now, but this year it seems to have maintained energy in a new way.

Our Dostoevskian Moment

Back in July, Rod Dreher, drawing from an article by Daniel Mahoney, described what we are seeing now as “America’s Dostoevskian Moment”. We are facing in our day the same kind of destructive fervor, the same kind of nihilism, that Dostoevsky predicted in his novel Demons would lead to the death of 100 million Russians if the revolutionaries come to power. History has proved that he knew what he was talking about.

Mahoney makes a compelling argument, and I encourage the reader to visit his article. We face an election coming on Tuesday, the results of which are sure to be hotly contested, in an already heated political climate. Whichever way the election goes, our contemporary nihilists are set on violence and destruction. We have learned that we cannot count on civic leaders to protect property or lives. What are we to do?

That this is the case seems beyond dispute. My purpose in writing is to consider Dostoevsky’s alternative to nihilism in the narrative of Demons, and how that might inform us as we face similar forces in our day.

A New Cry

In his typical style, Dostoevsky does not mount a formal argument against nihilism. Rather he embeds his argument in the narrative. One of my favorite passages in Dosoevsky centers on Shatov, a character in Demons who has turned away from his former revolutionary ideals and embraced Christ. He accepts suffering as he is singled out to be a scapegoat by his former associates. In this passage, his estranged wife, Marie, returns to him, pregnant by another man, ready to give birth. Shatov fetches Arina Prokhorovna, a local midwife. Waiting outside the room while Marie labors, he then hears “a new cry”:

And then, finally, there came a cry, a new cry, at which Shatov gave a start and jumped up from his knees, the cry of an infant, weak, cracked. He crossed himself and rushed into the room. In Arina Prokhorovna’s hands a small, red, wrinkled being was crying and waving its tiny arms and legs, a terribly helpless being, like a speck of dust at the mercy of the first puff of wind, yet crying and proclaiming itself, as if it, too, somehow had the fullest right to life…

‘Pah, what a look!’ the triumphant Arina Prokhorovna laughed merrily, peeking into Shatov’s face. ‘Just see the face on him!’…

‘What’s this great joy of yours?’ Arina Prokhorovna was amusing herself, while bustling about, tidying up, and working like a galley slave.

‘The mystery of the appearance of a new being, a great mystery and an inexplicable one, Arina Prokhorovna, and what a shame you don’t understand it!’…

‘There were two, and suddenly there’s a third human being, a new spirit, whole, finished, such as doesn’t come from human hands; a new thought and a new love, it’s even frightening… And there’s nothing higher in the world!'” b

This new cry of life, Shatov’s exuberance over this new being, is Dostoevsky’s contrast to the destructive ideals of the nihilists. This new life is the light in the darkness of the narrative of Demons. And new life, New Creation, must be the light we shine in the face of our nihilistic mob, in what feel like dark days in our own culture.

On one level, the way we do this is simply by valuing precisely what Shatov rejoices over: the new life of the most weak and vulnerable, infant life crying out, proclaiming itself. Simply opposing the slaughter of the unborn incites the mobs against us, as is clearly being played out in Poland now.

The Risen Christ is the light that breaks the darkness, new life liberating those held captive under the bonds of death. As St. Paul says in His “Christ Hymn” to the Colossians,

And He is the head of the body, the Church.

He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,

That in everything He might be preeminent…c

He is the firstborn, and we, the Church, follow in His new creation life. We bring the reality of Christ’s reign, of His new creation, to bear on the world. Dostoevsky believed we best do this by joyfully suffering in Christ. St. Paul would agree: just as Christ “humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on the Cross,” so we are to follow Him, taking up our cross, participating in Christ’s suffering, so that we may “shine as lights” in the midst of our “crooked and twisted generation.”d Suffering with joy, living lives of gratitude, of feasting, of abundant hospitality: this abundant resurrection life is how we confront our culture’s nihilistic love for death and destruction. So stop wringing your hands about the plight of our nation, and start get to work forming deeply joyful communities in your church life, family, and neighborhood.

Try to vote in the guy you think will do the most to defend life, preserve peace, punish the wicked, defend freedom. Work for God-honoring public policy. Engage in debates, make the case for the Faith. But our ultimate “strategy” must be the way of the Cross. Christ and Him crucified is the light that breaks the darkness, shining through the lives of His saints. That is how the Church turns the world upside down.

  1. It’s been 22 years since The Big Lebowski came out. The time for spoiler alerts is over.  (back)
  2. Dostoesky, Fyodor. Deomons. New York, Everyman’s Library, 1994. p. 592-3  (back)
  3. Col. 1:18  (back)
  4. Phil. 2  (back)

Read more

On October 26, 2020 By In Culture

John MacArthur Resigns After COVID Outbreak

satire-piece

The Tubalcain Times reports the COVID outbreak at Grace Community Church in California. According to the CDM (Center for Disease Miscontrol) 3 members out of the 7,000-member church inherited the obliterating force of the Los Angeles Virus (also known as the L.A. Virus). Though the County suggests that there is a 99.98% survival rate, Grace Community could no longer remain open.

Upon hearing the news, Grace’s pastor for the last 50 years, John MacArthur, affirmed dogmatically, “And now the end is near and so I face the final curtain.” Listeners applauded the pastor’s poetic declaration and overwhelmingly accepted his letter of resignation. As MacArthur exited the building for the last time, the crowds–duly masked–applauded the octogenarian man with shouts of “Time to Say Good-Bye,” a chant popularized by Italian theologian, Andreanis Bocelli.

Local officials gleaming with delight warned the remaining 6,997 non-affected members of doom. They emphatically declared that as a result of their civil disobedience, Thanksgiving is also called off. The L.A. County anticipated their follow-up question and declared that there was no time for Christmas this year either. The stakes are too high and all children should know in advance that there is no such thing as Santa. “The sooner they know the better,” said L.A. official, Ricardo Grinchitis.

We reached out to the elderly John MacArthur for an update. His response was brief: “According to my calculations, exegetically-speaking, Grace Community inadvertently opened the first seal prophesied in Daniel 12.” Delirious after 33 days of quarantine, MacArthur seemed disheveled and keeps to himself these days. Neighbors testify that the disgraced former Grace pastor has even abandoned his distaste and antagonism for wine and picked up a local bottle of his new favorite fermented grape juice called Manischewitz. He appears content to sip on it regularly while sun-bathing in his backyard.

Read more

On October 25, 2020 By In Culture, Discipleship, Politics, Theology

Authorized

What if your pastor and elders mandated that every person attending worship must wear a toga? They have concluded that this will be good for the spiritual health of the church by promoting unity among the members as well as warding off evil spirits and those who aren’t serious about worshiping Jesus. After you finished laughing because you thought it was a joke, realizing that your church leadership was serious, you would rightly question whether or not the command was legitimate. Do they really have the authority to do that? If they insisted they did, quoting Hebrews 13.17, then you would probably leave because you realized that this was outside of the boundaries of what they can require. And you would be right.

The same is true with civil governments, a reality that has smacked us in the face in 2020. Governors and local officials have been issuing mandates that tell us what we must wear, how we shop, with how many people we can gather, and in what manner we may or may not worship.  While there are questions concerning the effectiveness and consistency of the enforcement of these mandates, there is a more fundamental question that underlies everything: do they have Constitutional authority to make and enforce these mandates under penalty of law? Being a Constitutional Republic means that this is the issue that goes beyond masks and mass gatherings. The law of our land is (theoretically) king, not the officials. They are elected to protect our Constitutional liberties and are subject to them as well. They cannot make laws that contradict the Constitution (again, theoretically). When they try, it is appropriate to call them on it through the means provided to us.

(As a side note, if you are quick to question and challenge your church authorities but not so quick to question and challenge your civil authorities, that should be a troubling revelation about yourself.)

Israel faced something of a Constitutional crisis, you might say, when Jesus rode into Jerusalem, was proclaimed king by the crowds, and then proceeded to take over the Temple. Can he do that? What right does he have to do that? Those are not improper questions. However, if you ask those questions, you had better be ready for answers that might not be so comfortable to accept.

The present leadership in Israel likes the way things are, and they don’t want to be challenged. They are the ones who will do the questioning, thank you very much. Jesus has upset their political applecart. But they can’t just lynch Jesus. They must put him on trial and find him guilty, putting him to death under the authority of the law.

But of what can they accuse him? In Luke 20.1-8 we find their first attempts to discover legal reasons, the authority, to accuse Jesus. They ask him by what authority he is doing these things (that is, all those actions he took at the temple). If they discover that he doesn’t have the proper authority, they can condemn him for not being properly authorized. He could be condemned as one who is impersonating a king and, thus, rebelling against proper authority.

As Jesus does throughout Luke 20, he turns the tables on his inquisitors here. Jesus will answer their question if they answer his. Jesus isn’t afraid to answer their question. Recently, he bravely stopped the center of the life of Jerusalem in the Temple. That was quite the public display; hardly the actions of someone who would be afraid of answering, “In what authority are you doing these things?”

No, Jesus is leading them somewhere without ever answering their question directly when he asks, “The baptism of John: was it from heaven or from men?” The only reason the officials seemed stumped is that no answer was expedient for their present power. They can’t say that his baptism was from heaven because they didn’t follow him. That would put them as rebels against heaven. They can’t say it was from men because they feared the people who believed John to be a prophet. The people would turn against them. So, they don’t answer the question. Neither will Jesus answer their question … at least not directly.

John was a priest and prophet in Israel. His father, Zechariah, was serving his priestly duty in the Temple when he learned about the promise of John’s conception and birth (Lk 1). Being in the priestly line of Israel makes John a priest. He is a servant in God’s house, authorized to baptize. Being a prophet also meant that John was authorized to anoint kings as Samuel and Elisha did before him. When John baptized Jesus, Jesus was lawfully being anointed as king of Israel. The Father and Spirit witnessed to this when the heavens tore open and the Father said, “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased,” and the Spirit descended upon Jesus like a dove. John’s baptism was from heaven. Since it was from heaven, Jesus is their king. Since Jesus is their king, he has the authority to do what he is doing.

Jesus was baptized with a baptism from heaven. Were you? Who authorized your baptism? Does its authority rest in men or in God? Since our baptism is a baptism into Christ (Rom 6.1ff.) and in it we put on Christ (Gal 3.27), the baptism that Jesus receives is the baptism that we receive. We participate in his baptism. Our baptism is authorized by heaven. This means, at least, that our baptism means what God says it means and is not dependent upon our “authorization” through feeling or even what we think it means.

When we are baptized into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that baptism comes from heaven and says about us that we have authority; authority to be called “sons of God.” Being baptized means that we have been authorized by heaven to be God’s representatives in the world. When we speak, we speak for heaven. When we act, we act on behalf of heaven. All of our words and deeds are done as those who have been baptized. When the world comes to test us like they did Jesus, seeking to find fault with us, we must be careful to speak with the authority of heaven, saying what God would say about the matters. When our cultural leaders say, “How can you be so intolerant of this sexual lifestyle,” or “How can you be so narrow in your views to think that the Christian faith is the only way,” we must speak as those under authority and authorized to speak only what God has commissioned us to say. We condemn only what God condemns. We commend only what God commends. When we do so, we do so with the full weight of the authority of heaven. When we commend what God condemns or vice versa, we have stepped outside of what we have been authorized to say and are misrepresenting God himself. Let us then be careful in our words and deeds to reflect faithfully God’s own attitudes and actions.

Read more

On October 13, 2020 By In Culture, Theology

Patriarchy & the Masculinity of the Passion: A Response to Peter Leithart

Recently, I was involved in the Conversation at Theopolis Institute concerning the Manosphere. My long-time friend, Peter Leithart, a man to whom I am indebted for much of what I know of biblical theology, wrote one of the essays for the Conversation in which he addressed five different yet interrelated topics. The format did not allow me to engage a few of the topics Leithart addressed, so I would like to continue the conversation.

Two areas of Leithart’s essay that are of particular interest to me are 1) the patriarchy and 2) the masculinity of Jesus, particularly as it is expressed in his Passion.

The patriarchy is obviously on Leithart’s mind in the essay. Even though the word “patriarchy” was not used by the previous two authors in the Conversation, Leithart sees it as something of an undercurrent in their writing as well as a topic many of friends have broached. He homes in on the etymology of the word (making linguists everywhere shift in their seats wondering if he is going to build an argument based on strict etymology rather than usage/semantic domain). While Leithart is correct that the etymology of the word speaks of “father-source,” that is not generally how the word is used in normal parlance. Patriarchy is normally understood as “father rule” (arche can speak of a principality or rule as a derivative of being a “source” or “beginning”). Even if Leithart concedes the point that patriarchy refers to father-rule, I can see where the use of the term can be a little muddled in a context in which we are really talking about men, in general, ruling. Maybe it would be appropriate to use the term “androcracy,” man-rule. However, this does not need to devolve into a logomachy. The substance of the conversation concerns whether or not men should be the primary rulers in the home, church, and society and what that means in intersexual relationships in each of these spheres. (I might annoy the reader by using one or the other or both words throughout this response. Not many people up to this time in history have had a real issue with the word “patriarchy,” but I am an irenic guy. I can go with the flow in order to deal with the substance.)

Patriarchy/Androcracy is concerned with cultures–home, church, society–and not so much with interpersonal relationships between individual men and women generally. The questions are: Should these societies be ruled in a hierarchy with men in the primary place of rule? Should they be co-ruled so that men and women share the same type of authority? Should women be the primary rulers? Added to these questions, we must ask, Is the nature of authority and hierarchy from creation fluid so that it changes from one thing in the beginning to something else as creation matures into and throughout the process of new creation?

My position is that God created the man to be the primary ruler of the home, church, and society. The woman’s role includes rule with the man, but that rule is not the same kind and is subordinate to the man. Leithart emphasizes the co-rule of the man and woman, Adam and Eve, Christ and the church, noting that distinctions need to be recognized and the relationship between the two is asymmetrical (under #3 in his essay), but emphasizes that the church, for instance, should have an atmosphere of “neither male nor female” in accordance with Galatians 3:28. He did not have much space to work that out, so I hope this continuing conversation will bring some clarity on the nature of this asymmetrical co-rule.

Both of us ground our positions firmly in the Scriptures, appealing to them as the final authority. However, there are points at which we seem to be viewing the world through the lens of Scripture in different ways. That’s understandable. We all still have blurred vision. That’s why we have these conversations.

God’s authoritative revelation is the Scriptures. But God also speaks without words, a truth that we learn from what God himself says. In Psalm 19 we learn that “the heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork. Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. There is no speech, nor are there words, whose voice is not heard.” (Ps 19:1-3) What God creates speaks wordlessly in the substance of its creation, how it is created, and in what order he creates the various entities. Why did he create this animal this way over against the way he created another animal? Why did God not create all things at once instead of in the revealed sequence? All of these aspects of his creation speak; they are the revelation of God’s glory. We cannot have perfect or even proper understanding apart from special revelation, but looking through the lens of Scripture, we can interpret the creation, hearing what God says wordlessly through it. The Scriptures themselves teach this hermeneutic, particularly in this area of the rule of man.

In 1Timothy 2:9-15 Paul bases the proper order of the church principally on the fact that Adam was created first and then Eve. For this reason, a woman is not to teach or exercise authority over a man within the church. The same hermeneutic is used in 1Corinthians 11.8-9 when Paul says that the man was not made from the woman by the woman from the man. Paul concludes by the way and order of creation that the woman is the glory of the man and made in man’s image. From that point on there is a mutual dependence between the man and the woman because the man is born of the woman. Paul is not only teaching us what to believe, but he is also teaching us how to read the Scriptures as well as creation through the Scriptures. What Paul says about the nature and order of creation are not the limits of the way we are able to use this creational hermeneutic. Like Paul using allegory or parable in Galatians 4 to speak about how two women are two mountains or Matthew using Hosea’s phrase “out of Egypt I have called my son” to refer to Jesus, so in this creational hermeneutic we are given principles of looking at creation through the lens of Scriptural categories, precepts, principles, and patterns to interpret the creation.

For instance, in intersexual relationships, we can start with something obvious: the male and female anatomy. God commanded the man and woman to be fruitful and multiply, but there is no special revelation instruction on how this is to take place or who has what role in procreation. All of that is patently obvious to us now, but it is something that might not have been to the first man and woman (though I am sure they figured it out quickly!). The man and woman had to figure it out, apparently, through anatomy and “doing what comes naturally.” The man is obviously equipped to penetrate and plant seed in the woman because that is the nature of his body. The woman is equipped to receive the man and his seed as well as gestating and giving birth to a baby because that is the nature of her body. The woman’s sexual organs, her bone structure (especially in the pelvic region), and her breasts speak to tell us that she is the one to conceive, carry, give birth, and nurture a child. God speaks through the way he made us.

This is also true about the man’s bone density and muscle structure making him more tolerant of outside physical stresses that come with his revealed duty to work the ground and guard the Garden. God speaks through the structure of the man’s body, and that is interpreted through Scripture.[1]

This truth is also why scientific and socio-scientific evidence of sexual differences can be used to help us understand intersexual dynamics. Leithart does not dispute this but thinks that nothing normative can be drawn from the evidence. I believe that much of the evidence, when viewed through the lens of God’s creative process and the vocations of men and women specifically revealed, is instructive about the nature of reality (i.e., the way God created and sustains the world).

All of this gets us to the question of the patriarchy or the androcracy itself. Adam was created as the head of humanity. He is the source (patriarch in the way Leithart suggests is a more proper way to think of patriarchy) as well as an authority in whom is invested the destiny of mankind. The initial relationship between the man and the woman is not limited to marriage. James Jordan asserts (and I am certain Leithart agrees), the primary relationship between the first man and woman is as liturgical partners.[2] This first relationship is archetypal of societal structures. Men are given the position of rule. Androcracy structures the world and history. Adam is the head–source and authority–of the first creation humanity. Christ Jesus, the last Adam, is the head–the source and authority–of the new creation (cf. Rom 5.12-21; 1Cor 15:21-22, 45). Reality is structured as a patriarchy or androcracy. If this is true of the meta-structure of the world, how can it not be true of the smaller “worlds” created to reflect and live in harmony with that meta-structure?

The Scriptural declarations and commands, therefore, that men are heads of their wives and that only males may occupy the primary authoritative roles in the church (e.g., pastor) are not arbitrary commands or thin types. They are not merely superficial “roles” assigned to males that could just as well be handled by females, only held back by a bald prohibition by God. Androcracy is reality. Societies at every level are in tune with reality when there is masculine leadership. When women and children lead society, it is a curse (Isa 3:12) because it is a distortion of the created order.

None of this means that women have no sort of rule whatever. They do, but it is of a different sort and is subordinate to men’s rule. Neither does this mean that every woman must submit to every individual man. However, it does mean that where there are organized cultural situations, women should desire and submit to male leadership; they should want male/masculine leadership in society.

Women enjoy their own sort of rule, and they are quite powerful within a well-ordered androcracy, wielding influence with men as husbands and sons. They are co-rulers with man as Leithart points out. But their rule is of a different kind, in different areas, and is under the headship of men. This is not only proven from the creation and its typology into all societal relationships, but it is also proven in the relationship between Christ and his church. 

The church rules with Christ. The Bible is quite clear on this. But the church does not have equal authority with Christ. It is improper, for instance, to say, “The church is Lord” in the same way that we say, “Jesus is Lord.” We recognize that Christ is the head of the church, exercising authority over her. He has given authority to the church to rule with him, but he remains the authority over the church and is responsible for everything done by her. There is a division of labor between the man and the woman that is fixed and non-transferable. One might dare to say that men and women were made for specific purposes, and those purposes include different sorts of rule in relation to one another.

To reiterate, the patriarchy or androcracy is not a matter of choice; that is, it is not an option that God puts out there for us to implement in our homes, churches, or society at large. The androcracy is. It is reality, unalterably. We submit to it and accept our responsibilities to our blessing or fight God’s created order to our curse.

A thin complementarianism will not be able to withstand the assaults from the Feminist movement, especially when they see Scriptural commands as “culturally conditioned” and/or the fact that we have matured past those strictures and structures within the new creation. Jesus and Paul both appealed to the original creation with all of its structures as normative even in and throughout the new creation. The new creation is about restoring the old and taking it to its fullest glory, not growing out of it. Consequently, any appeal to a “neither male nor female” that muddles the hierarchy, first, has Paul contradicting himself because of his insistence on the differences elsewhere, and, second, is in danger of losing male leadership altogether because of the sheer wispiness of the foundations. 

Rejection of the androcracy was one reason for the fall and since then all men and women have fought this order. Men are sloths, not wanting to take their responsibility to love women by leading, protecting, and providing for them. Women are always pushing to rule men. All of this rebellion against androcracy or patriarchy does nothing but bring disorder and disharmony. We must get in line with God’s reality.

There have been many instances throughout history in which the patriarchy has been twisted so that men rule tyrannically, crushing those who have been given to their care. This has happened inside and outside the church. Consequently, when some hear the word “patriarchy,” there is a negative visceral reaction. But as with any other aspect of God’s creation, the abuse of some does not nullify the goodness of creation. Because gluttons abuse food does not negate the fact that food is a blessing from God. Because drunkards abuse alcohol does not mean that alcohol cannot be used to God’s glory.  Because some engage in illicit sexual activity does not mean that sex is to be abjectly rejected. So it is with the patriarchy (or androcracy, if that makes it more palatable). The answer is not to capitulate to a restructuring of God’s created order (the approach of Feminism, for example). Rather, it is for men to take up their responsibilities to be the men God called them to be.[3]

The patriarchy is not the only area of interesting conversation in Leithart’s response. Toward the end of Leithart’s essay, he spoke of Jesus’ manhood or masculinity. Masculinity cannot be defined succinctly, for it involves many things. However, there are some basics about masculinity that we know from Scripture as well as how we read creation with the spectacles of Scripture. God created man to lead, guard, and provide. He has a mission toward the world, and the woman, the feminine, is his helper. He is to act upon the world, changing it (dominion). He is not to be passive toward the creation. He is in submission before God and active toward the world.

Leithart notes that there were some aspects about Jesus that people in the Greco-Roman world have recognized as manly; namely, his acts of power. But then, in his death, he “subverts ancient masculinity” (under #4). He uses Aristotle’s model of male-female as active-passive respectively to say that Jesus undermined this understanding by becoming passive in his death.

But did he?

From the perspective of some, possibly. However, to frame even the crucifixion in terms of passivity is problematic. Jesus is far from passive. In his death, onlookers may see passivity, but he makes it clear before and throughout his trial, suffering, and death that he is in complete control. No man takes his life (passive). He gives it (active; cf. John 10:17-18). In laying down his life Jesus is acting upon the world and for his bride. He is being masculine. He is giving his life for a purpose; his purpose, his mission.

I’m not even sure that Jesus’ crucifixion would have redefined masculinity in the ancient world. Leon Podles in his book, Losing the Good Portion: Why Men are Alienated from Christianity, speaks of how Jesus is masculine in terms of Greco-Roman categories.[4] The Roman soldier at the cross certainly believed Jesus was a man and acting manly. He confessed “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39). Saying that the Greco-Roman world would have seen Jesus as other than masculine is questionable.

However, the Greco-Roman world would have understood Jesus’ masculinity is not the fundamental question. Does Jesus act in a masculine way as the last Adam? Is he masculine as God defines masculinity? Of course, the answer is, “Yes.” That masculinity does not show a “feminine side” at the cross. Jesus is masculine all the way through his suffering and death.

First, as stated, Jesus is giving his life, no one is taking it from him. This is his mission in submission to the Father. Jesus avoided death many times before the cross, and he made clear throughout his trial that he was not a helpless victim. Second, viewing the cross in isolation from the rest of Jesus’ acts, especially his resurrection, gives a truncated and distorted picture of what masculinity looks like. Jesus lays down his life and takes it up again. He is not a weak, effeminate, helpless victim, but one who remains in control the entire time doing exactly what he came to do.

The full picture of masculinity is not the crucifix, especially when interpreted as Jesus being passive. The full picture of masculinity is seen from the womb to being seated at the right hand of the Father, riding out on a white horse with King of kings and Lord of lords on his robe and thigh, destroying his enemies (Rev 19:16). Laying down his life was a vital part of his masculine mission, his mission as the Man.

As assaults on masculinity and the patriarchy relentlessly besiege the church, it is helpful to have these conversations and clarify why structures ought to be ordered the way they are and why men need not be cowered by assaults on genuine masculinity. I pray that this furthers the conversation for the health of the church and the glory of God.

[1] The examples could continue. If you are interested in further reflection on this, I highly recommend Werner Neuer’s book Man & Woman in Christian Perspective (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1991).

[2] http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/rite-reasons/no-86-liturgical-man-liturgical-women-part-1/

[3] Discussion of what constitutes a biblical patriarchy/androcracy goes far beyond the scope of this response. That will have to be another conversation at another time.

[4] See pp. 22-42.

Read more

On October 6, 2020 By In Culture, Politics, Worship

God’s Perfect Storm: Reflections on Psalm Sing Arrest in Moscow Idaho

You can’t plan Psalm Sing arrests. It was God at work and we were there to watch it unfold.

Gabe Rench Arrested at Psalm Sing September 23. Photo credit: Kip Mock

I am a member of Christ Church and I was there at Moscow City Hall on Wednesday, September 23. As I reflect on the Psalm Sing arrests, it is clear that God was at work putting all the pieces together so it would add up to a perfect media storm.

That Wednesday afternoon, we weren’t planning on getting arrested. I thought the police would be out issuing a lot of citations. That is what I was preparing for. When we arrived at City Hall, I was surprised to see about ten police were out there already. It was intimidating but I thought even then they would just issue citations.  

I am not sure why the police went up to Gabe Rench. He was near the front of the group but there were others they could have talked to.

(more…)

Read more

On September 21, 2020 By In Culture, Film

The victory of Jesus in ‘Fargo’ Season 3

After watching Fargo Season 3 when it first aired (2017), I remarked that Fargo was “the most Christian show on TV.” If the Christian themes in Seasons 1 and 2 weren’t obvious enough, they are undeniable in Season 3. This doesn’t mean it’s a family-friendly show, mind you (viewer discretion is advised). Nor does it mean it is perfectly orthodox. But as we’ll see, this season displays an overtly biblical worldview.

Warning: Spoilers ahead

Set in Minnesota, during Christmas of 2010, Fargo Season 3 follows the feud between identical-twin-brothers Emmit and Ray Stussy. The brothers are contrasted in almost every respect; ironic for identical twins. Emmit is the older twin, a rich businessman. Ray is the younger twin, a poor parole officer. Emmit owns a luxurious home, Ray rents a dingy apartment. Emmit is clean-shaven and well-dressed, Ray is scruffy and unkempt. Emmit is happily married with children, Ray is romantic with one of his parolees.

The feud centers around the inheritance left to them by their deceased father. Ray claims that Emmit tricked Ray out of an expensive stamp collection. Emmit disputes this, maintaining that Ray preferred to have their father’s Corvette. Readers of the Bible will immediately notice a Jacob and Esau theme in this premise. Jacob and Esau were twin brothers who became enemies over the inheritance given by their father Isaac. Similarities and references to Jacob and Esau will continue throughout the season.

(more…)

Read more