MENU

Politics
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 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

Photo by Kristen Price from FreeImages

On October 27, 2020 By In Politics

Voting & John Piper

John Piper has written publicly about how he will probably vote. I’ve shared my voting “philosophy” with friends but now Piper’s statement prompts me to make my own on this site.

Of course, whenever you get in a political discussion with others, you find that they don’t just disagree with you on one point, but on a host of points. They are convinced of many things that you “know” are not true. And they think the same of you.

(more…)

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 21, 2020 By In Politics, Pro-Life

A Plea to Evangelicals Voting for Biden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

On October 20, 2020 By In Politics

A Brief Case for Voting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

On October 6, 2020 By In Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more

On October 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 30, 2020 By In Politics

The Greatest Debate Analysis of Last Night

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more