We'll Figure This Out Eventually

I appreciate much of what Matthew Tuininga has to write and have read his work on the doctrine of the Two Kingdoms for years. His most recent post for Reformation 21, called "Rightly Defining the Spirituality of the Church," is commendable for what he identifies as what is often an abuse of the two kingdoms doctrine by those who are actually not consistently applying it. However, I believe that Tuininga’s proposed solution is a poor corrective:

Until advocates of the doctrine of the spirituality of the church (not to mention advocates of two kingdoms theology) come to grips with the social implications of the spiritual gospel they will not be able to make the necessary distinction between inappropriate meddling in civil and political affairs (which they rightly criticize) and the church's responsibility to proclaim the full scope of the gospel, with all of its social implications (which duty they avoid).

So Tuininga lays the blame for the abuse of spirituality of the church doctrines at the feet of those who are apparently in denial of what he says are the social implications of the gospel. He doesn’t seem to have a clear definition of “social.” On the one hand he almost seems to use the term to refer to any interpersonal interaction, but no two-kingdom or Spirituality of the church advocate that I know of is going to argue that the Gospel doesn’t change the way people live together. Instead, I take Tuininga, when he uses the word “social” to be “relating also to those outside of the Church.” Assuming that I’m working with a definition of “social” that Tuininga would find amenable, what are the social implications of the gospel? Well, Tuininga gives a few examples:

While Christ refused to take up the work of a lawyer or a civil judge in order to arbitrate a legal dispute over property (Luke 12:13-14), for instance, he had a lot to say about the way his disciples should handle their property (Luke 12:33; Cf. Acts 2:45; 2 Corinthians 9:7), demonstrate hospitality (Luke 14:12-14; Matthew 25), and reach out to various marginalized groups (Luke 5:30-32; 7:37-48; 14:12-14). While he insisted that his disciples may not use violence as do the political kingdoms of this world (John 18:36), he required them to recognize the authority of Caesar by paying taxes (Matthew 22:21), and he called them to exercise a distinctly different model of leadership (Luke 22:25-27). Likewise the Apostle Paul urged believers not to sue one another in the courts (1 Corinthians 6:7), but that did not stop him from requiring integrated worship and fellowship among Jews and Gentiles (Galatians 2) any more than it stopped James from condemning the practice of segregating worship between rich and poor (James 2:1-7). And this is to say nothing about the many things Christ and his apostles taught about social relations ranging from government and labor relations to marriage and parenting, all in light of the transforming impact of the gospel.

For the sake of clarity and simplicity, let me offer bullet-point summaries of the various social implications of the Gospel, according to Tuininga:

• The Gospel speaks to how disciples should handle their personal property.
• The Gospel speaks to how disciples should be hospitable.
• The Gospel speaks to how disciples should “reach out to various marginalized groups.”
• The Gospel speaks to how disciples should submit to the authority of the government.
• The Gospel speaks to how disciples should lead one another.
• The Gospel speaks to how disciples should treat one another in law-courts.
• The Gospel speaks to how disciples should ethnically be brought together in worship.
• The Gospel speaks to how disciples should treat one another despite economic class.

When one looks at this list, there is one thing that is glaringly absent: there is not one example of the New Testament telling the Church to speak to secular people about how to live or to the government about how to function. Every single one of these things is an instruction for the Church and for Christians, and many of them are predicated on believers’ union with Christ.

Based on the above list, the reader is able to understand what “the social implications of the spiritual gospel” are for the Church, but what are “the social implications of the spiritual gospel” for the person who does not love Jesus or who doesn’t belong to the church? For example, Paul cares a great deal about racial reconciliation within the Church, but is there any sense in which the dividing line between Jews and Gentiles has been torn down if someone isn’t united to Christ?

In the end, Tuininga’s solution leaves more questions than answers. For example:

• Apart from calling unbelievers to repent and trust in Christ, what does the Gospel have to say to those who are outside of Christ?
• What, exactly, are the political implications of the Gospel?
• What particular policies or laws must the Church advocate?
• Is there any distinction between the function of the Church and the role of an individual believer in society?
• What, exactly, is meant by “social” and “political”?

For a post called “Rightly Defining the Spirituality of the Church,” I am left scratching my head. The article seems to leave things more nebulous and less defined. If I were to propose my own solution to the social confusion Tuininga observes, it would be fourfold:

a) A clear understanding of what “The Gospel” is.
b) A clear understanding of what “The Church” is.
c) A clear understanding of what is meant by the term “social.”
d) A clear understanding of what the mission of the Church is.

All four of these things are severely lacking in current debates over the Church’s role in society, and as long as they are undefined there will continue to be confusion, a lack of clarity, and a pattern of parties talking past one another.

Why Christians Should Listen to Punk Rock

Punk rock music is the true Christian art form. I know it's hard to believe, what with all that rebellion and screaming, but hear me out. Nancy Pearcey in her book, How Now Shall We Live? discusses classical music, and in so doing argues (I'm going from memory here since my copy of the book has gone the way of the buffalo) that classical music is an especially Christian form of art because it embraces narrative, motion, beauty, structure, and elegance; all of which are part and parcel of the Christian worldview. As her foil in the book, she sets up John Cage, the prince of musical disorder. His music, so she says, embodies chaos, detachment, and lawlessness (all of which reflect the ethos of the serpent in Genesis 3). Now, Nancy Pearcey is just wrong, and I'll tell you why. There is a far more superior musical art form to classical music: namely, punk rock. The author of this blog post is a fan of punk rock, and I like it for one simple reason: It is the Christian form of music.

First of all, not all music that is classical in form is Christian in content. Think of the Mephisto Waltzes by Franz Liszt. But even excluding disturbing exceptions like this, its form is all wrong, as well. Whereas classical music embodies order, law, structure, and beauty, punk rock embodies--not the world as it should be--but the world as it is. Also, punk music has a social awareness that would put Beethoven and his ministry to the deaf to shame.

Punk music has its feet firmly on earth and deals with the nitty gritty of a world in chaos, scrambling for some moment of sanity. Think of The Clash in their song "Straight to Hell." This song addresses in rather painful fashion the mistreatment of immigrants, as well as the love children of American G.I.s who procreated with the unfortunate female population of Vietnam during the war. Gritty, painful, dirty. Punk lives in the here and now--the already, rather than the not yet. Or consider a song by The Dropkick Murphys called "The State of Massachusetts," which faces head-on the effect that drug-abuse has on families.

These singers sound more like the Psalmist or Habakkuk and less like the sort of feel-good Christianity that gets day-in and day-out dumped out of the musical sugar jar we call K-LOVE. The world is plunged into sin, and Jesus Christ has brought hope. Yes, punk music reflects a genuine attempt to push back against authority, but Paul speaks in Colossians of the fact that Christ "disarmed the rulers and authorities." Jesus was the original punk (minus the wallet-chain). Things aren't right in the world as we know it, but Jesus Christ will one day come to consummate what he began in his incarnation. There's some already in there with the not-yet, but the structured, ordered, law-abiding nature of classical music misses out on the already and exchanges it for cherubs floating on clouds clutching harps.

-----------------------------

One thing that we see a lot of in our world today--especially when it comes to interchange between Christians and the cultural enjoyments they partake of, is an impulse towards baptizing our own particular preferences. Nancy Pearcey did it in How Now Shall We Live?, we just did it in the first part of our post above (for purposes of illustration), and bloggers and Facebookers the world over do it all the time. It's that human religious tendency to take something that we like, and to say, "You know? This makes sense to me when I look at it a certain way," and then jump to the conclusion that the music or the art or the movie or the political party that we enjoy may just have some warrant in Scripture.

This doesn't mean that we ought to despair ("Oh no! The Bible doesn't tell me which political party to join! What will I do!?"). Instead, it means we ought to be modest about our own views and preferences if Scripture doesn't speak to the matter. We use common sense, we use reason and thoughtfulness (all aspects of the imago dei) to arrive at correct conclusions. I do not need the Bible to tell me that the stock market crash of 1929 happened because of X, Y, or Z in order to arrive at a correct conclusion (obviously it was because the U.S. left the gold standard and started printing money, but that is beside the point and has nothing to do with Scriptural teaching).

This issue doesn't only affect politics. As seen above, it affects Christian attitudes towards music, as well. We shouldn't come at issues of music as people who are aesthetically relativistic. But we ought to acknowledge that the Bible just simply doesn't spell out musical forms. At all. Like, ever. The most we know is that the people of Israel celebrated using a range of instruments in the praise of God. We don't know if it sounded like a drum line, a flute sonata, or De-loused in the Comatorium. What we do know is that instruments were involved and there was some dancing. End of story. Anything that is "derived from Scripture" beyond this is almost always a mixture of speculation and taste, brewed together, and then served up to perfection as someone else's new normative standard.

But there is a way out of this conundrum, and it's something that many Christians are uncomfortable with. The Bible doesn't speak about everything that ever happened in the history of mankind. The Bible does not tell us who is funnier: Hugh Laurie or Stephen Fry. The Bible does not tell us if a certain kind of musical beat is sinful. The Bible does not tell us whether or not to shave our head or do the comb-over. The Bible doesn't tell us if we should have oatmeal for breakfast or eggs. There are just issues in life that the Bible doesn't directly teach on, and when it doesn't, that becomes an area where we ought to be extremely careful about making dogmatic declarations. Many a Christian are guilty of taking their pet peeves or their pet preferences, or even opinions they've arrived at via a very rational and thoughtful mental process and making it an issue of dogma.

The hard thing that we're calling for is a good bit of modesty about many of our views, recognizing that we do not need a "thus saith the LORD" in order to justify every decision or choice that we make in life. In other words, stop baptizing your preferences.

But seriously, God may not say so, but you should really start listening to punk music anyway.

Carl Truman's New Book for $5!

Carl Truman has written a new book, Republocrat: Confessions of a Liberal Conservative. Incredibly, Westminster is currently selling the book for $4.99 for this week, only. I don't know about you, but that seems like a pretty good deal.

Politics has become something of a joke - but not a funny one. ‘Sound-bite’ and ‘knee-jerk’ have replaced reasoned debate and the Church appears to wear a one-size-fits-all political jacket. Isn’t it time to think a bit deeper? Carl Trueman takes you on a readable, provocative, and lively romp through Christianity and politics.

Here is Dr. Truman on the Reformed Forum talking about the book:

Put Not Your Trust in Princes

This is another one of those posts that has been gestating for a very long time. When the first financial meltdown happened at the end of George W. Bush's presidency, I realized that I didn't know anything about economics. And so I started learning from the Austrian economists about what was happening. I started reading Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, and I began to realize just how bad things really are, and how much worse they're going to get. I believe that their logic is airtight. I believe that the Austrian account of what has happened to the economy is the best account of things as we know them.

But all of this study had a dreadful side effect, because I am a pretty passionate guy. If I get really into something, I tend to forsake the other things in my life and chase down my prey until it is mine and I feel I've sufficiently mastered it. And the thing that I noticed with my immersion in economics (and by extension my resulting political outrage) was that my idol-making heart was busy at work when I got mad about government spending and mad about the federal reserve and mad about big government. And sometimes I would be afraid of what's around the corner. In fact, in a Godless world where it's just us little human bits of protoplasm, I would have no ground for optimism, frankly.

But such fear is sinful. If we have faith in God, we won't be afraid. I take this from Matt. 6:25, which tells us, "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life." In verses 31 and 24 he repeats the command, "do not be anxious." (I am here equating anxiousness and fear.)

Now, John Piper points out that the Bible presupposes that we will be afraid (Ps. 56:3), but the question is, when that fear comes, where do we go with it? Do we get internal and start stockpiling guns, thinking that living by the sword as a frontiersman will be our way to reflect God's glory to the watching world? No. We have an attitude of faith. "When I am afraid, I put my trust in you" (the very first Bible verse my daughter ever memorized). An abject attitude of need is to be the Christian's response; we can't solve this problem on our own. God is the one who will hear our prayers: "Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you" (1 Peter 5:7).

A word about stockpiling and gun collecting. I hear a lot of people saying that the answer to our problems is to build up a massive collection of rifles, submachine guns, shotguns, etc. as though that is where we will find our salvation. Now, I'm not taking the pacifist approach here and saying that we are never ever justified in defending our families for example, but I do want to challenge this paranoid militia mentality. If a man comes to the door of my fallout shelter and is in need, but life is more Mad Max than Annie Hall, what does the Christian faith look like? I can guarantee you that Christlike living does not look like that scene in The Happening where the farmer shoots the kid through the door because he's banging on the door begging for food and water.

In such a situation, maybe a man will lift his gun and point it at that person who is in need, but it will not be a Christian doing that. It will simply be a conservative, fearful, American whose idols have been threatened. You can fight to defend your way of life because it's that precious to you, but a life lived like that is not Christian any more than it's Jewish to eat a pack of bacon. Jesus does not look like the man pointing a gun at the needy, and society can't be a society if it's lived in that way.

Lets go worst case scenario here (short of nuclear holocaust). Lets say the economy goes through a double-dip recession (which it almost certainly will if the Austrian economists are right). Lets say that the value of the dollar drops like a rock and the dollar loses its buying power and we all start getting hungry and find ourselves suddenly unable to pay for our houses, and we have to live like nomads. Lets say that somebody detonates an EMP over the U.S. and all our iPods and (God forbid) Kindles stop working. Lets say that we have to live like we're in the stone age. Lets say that zombies start walking (nevermind; lets leave that one out). Lets say that life gets hard; really hard. Lets say food is hard to come by and our lives in the lap of luxury become a distant memory and we can't drive cars anymore and we are forced back into medieval serfdom. Lets say the Chinese invade, and soon we're all speaking Mandarin.

In such a scenario, would not Christ still be the glorious Lord over heaven and earth? Would not the heavens still be full of His glory? Would not the excellencies of Christ be such that even the stones would cry out? Would not the Holy Spirit continue to regenerate the lost and rescue men from the depths of sin and misery? Would not the church thrive and grow and glorify God as her one true and sure foundation? Would not Jesus Christ be 'very God of very God,' the Savior of the World?

If there is one thing that the post I shared yesterday from Edwards communicated to me, it was that our security cannot be bound up in the survival of nation-states (they always come and go). If we believe that it is, then our perspective has become that of the world, whose only hope is in worldly rulers or revolutions which can never endure. Even mighty Rome fell in due time. And considering that America is repeating Rome's errors all over again, it's only a matter of time before we go her way as well, whether it takes 5 or 500 years.

"Put not your trust in princes,
in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
When this breath departs, he returns to the earth;
on that very day his plans perish.
Blessed is he whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord his God,
who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all that is in them,
who keeps faith forever."

Psalm 146:3-6

Why Do You Search For the Living Among the Dead?

In my hometown, a huge controversy is afoot. In short, our city council, over the course of a few months, voted on new rules at the cemetery where the placement of vases and flowers and toys and other misc. items has been restricted. When the new rules were passed, nobody protested until a few weeks later when the cemetery staff actually started removing the items which were now forbidden by the city's new regulations.

Now, here is where the point I wish to make comes into play. Now that the items in question are being removed and the cemetery is being "cleaned up" as it were, people are coming raging out of the wood-work. Many of the citizens in this town are furious that these graves which they apparently visit on a week-by-week, day-by-day basis aren't arranged in just the way that they want. These people are screaming that the sextant - a good friend of mine - be fired or forced to replace everybody's items out of his own pocket. The mayor himself has come forward and said, "Look; I voted for this. If you are out for blood, then have me removed from office."

So the people are angry because their shrines of worship to their dead loved ones have been desecrated. It should be apparent at this point that I don't have the compassion of a pastor or the cleverness of a politician. I am not sympathetic to somebody exploding because their shrine has been disturbed, and my reasons are primarily theological.

This person whose grave you are standing at - is gone. They're gone. Their body is buried here in the ground, but they are now present with the Lord or suffering in perdition, far away from this plot of land.

My father died ten years ago. I have been to his grave twice. Somebody may ask why? Why wouldn't you visit your own father's grave and obsess over it? Why not bring him a new wreath of flowers every two weeks or get mad if the cemetery staff nicks the edge of his headstone with the lawn mower? Why don't you patrol the cemetery like these obsessed citizens in McPherson, KS? It is because my father is now present with the Lord. When I visit his grave, I am looking at a marker. That's it. He has no spiritual presence there. It's been ten years - there is almost no physical presence remaining, either.

Five years ago, my wife and I had premature twin babies who died. We buried them at a cemetery in Phoenix. Even when I visit Phoenix, I have no compelling reason to visit the grave marker. Because they are gone, now. They are in the presence of God and couldn't care less how their body is laying or whether daddy brought a wreath or a toy truck to place on the headstone.

Angels met the visitors outside Jesus' tomb on the morning of the resurrection, and the angels asked the question of them, "Why do you look for the living among the dead?"

I want to ask this same question of the citizens of my town for whom the graves of their loved ones are so important that they cannot face the reality of what the grave is. It reveals an underlying unbelief, in my opinion. Admittedly, they are not all Christians, but what I am saying is that a professing Christian should not have this sort of rage or anger over changes in cemetery policy like this. One factor is that there probably just aren't enough problems in a quiet little corner of the world like this place where I live, and people are always in need of drama and excitement. If I don't have an oil spill to be angry over, then I at least need to call for the sextant's job because he moved my three-foot tall flower pot.

Now, given the outrage being expressed, the city council may, in fact, need to change those policies back. I'm not defending the citizens or the city. What I'm trying to say is, there is no theological basis for this obsession with the gravesites that this fiasco has revealed.

We're all immortal (our passed on loved ones included), and when we die we leave our body behind until the resurrection. You may grieve the loss of your loved ones, but you may not obsess over your loved ones, because that is idolatry.

Edited 6/19/10:
Let me just say something that my blog did not originally make clear. I am not opposed to taking flowers to the grave, or visiting your loved ones' grave. In a sense, I am critical of that way of grieving, but I understand it. What I am talking about is the headhunting that is going on over a simple change in the rules. My issue is, what would drive a person to the point of insane rage, calling for peoples' jobs, talking about suing the sextant personally, calling the man a grave robbing criminal, etc...? There is a motive that is deeper than anger. There is a worshipful attitude towards the grave which, if somebody is a Christian, I am claiming they should not have. I just wanted to be clear that I'm cynical, but not completely opposed to leaving flowers or memorials.

Is Social Justice Really the Heart of the Christian Faith?

So the folks at Sojourners are up in arms because of Glenn Beck's statement that "social justice" is code-word for communism. He further says that if you go to a church that pushes "social justice," you should leave. Now, I refuse to take church attendance advice from a Mormon, but I do appreciate his larger point: namely that it's stopped being about caring for the poor and it's become more about the government monstrosity caring for the poor, the widow, and the needy. The church's role in fulfilling Jesus' command has been relegated, in my opinion, to begging our congressmen to feed the monster and make it bigger so that the poor can please get something to eat.

Jim Wallis, who's been running Sojourners for ages said on his blog, "What he has said attacks the very heart of our Christian faith, and Christians should no longer watch his show."

I have spoken on the perversion of "justice" before, so this is nothing new for me. But I am increasingly frustrated by the abuse of this word, and so for me, Beck's comments certainly reflect sentiments that I have harbored for a number of years.

Listening to Wallis' response to Beck makes me wonder if he is simply resorting to hyperbole by saying that social justice is really the heart of the Christian faith. Actually, since I have some experience with reading Sojourners, I don't think it is hyperbole. Which is sad.

On the blog, Wallis points to Luke 4:18-19 to justify his statement that social justice is the "heart" of the Christian faith.

18 "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

Where, in these verses, does Wallis find even the slightest suggestion that social justice is the heart of what we as Christians believe?

[As always, do I need to say that I'm a huge fan of "social justice" if we mean by it that that church should privately help the poor, as James said true religion consists in?]

Thoughts From a First Time Atlas Shrugged Reader

I want to talk about a book. I know, I know; that's so old fashioned. After all, when was the last time we actually talked about literature on this blog? Well I'm not sure, and I'm too lazy to comb through the archives and find out. But I venture to guess it's been a while [ed. Josh posted one on Jan. 10th, you dope].

After having received an Amazon Kindle as my early birthday present, I quickly set to reading Ayn Rand's ubiquitous novel Atlas Shrugged, a book which I have been intimidated by for years, every time I walked past it in my high school library. While I don't plan on doing an in-depth review of this book, I have finished almost half of it and wanted to share a few thoughts.

I'm approaching the book with half-delight and half-dread. Here's what I'm excited about. I know that Rand was somewhat of an anarcho-capitalist, and I have long been drawn to the libertarian/anarchistic view of government espoused by the likes Mises and Rothbard.

I somewhat dreaded reading it, in part because of her atheistic views. Now, I'm not afraid that she'll make persuasive arguments for atheism, per se. Rather what I'm afraid is that she will present a compelling defense of laissez-faire capitalism, but that it will lean completely upon her atheistic presuppositions. That, and the book's just really long.

I can report, having made it to the halfway point of the book, that her defense of capitalism, while certainly consistent with her worldview of "man as a heroic being" does not, to my mind, suffer if one holds theistic presuppositions.

One thing which I have noticed is that Rand's concept of pleasure and delight in others has tended to make me a better worshipper of God. Here is what I mean by that. At one point, Rand describes two friends:

Francisco seemed to laugh at things because he saw something much greater. Jim laughed as if he wanted to let nothing remain great.

In another passage:

Of what account are praise and adulation from men whom you don't respect? Have you ever felt the longing for someone you could admire? For something, not to look down at, but up to?

In another location, a character remarks that

If ever the pleasure of one has to be bought by the pain of the other, there better be no trade at all. A trade by which one gains and the other loses is a fraud.

Now, certainly, a statement like this applies to economics and the "looters" as Rand calls those who favor redistribution of wealth (the Robin Hood mentality). In fact, that's what she's referring to, in the context of the book. But an absolute statement like this applies broadly to many things, and what I am thinking of in particular is the implications of a statement like this for worshipping God. If Rand is correct, and this principle may be applied broadly, then worship of God should not seem like a sacrifice. Rather, it should be a matter of the creature delighting in a being who is to be greatly admired. In Atlas Shrugged, it becomes quite apparent that the concept of admiration is very important. The characters of Dagney and Reardon, early on, consider one another the only people worth admiring, and it is quite apparent that both have been looking for someone worthy of their admiration. This leads to an intense romantic relationship, but one just wants to scream at the page, "Look even higher! There is an even more admirable person whose value is infinite! You will never run out of worship if the one you admire is infinitely worthy of that admiration, such as God is."

Really, the book has convinced me that Ayn Rand has had a profound influence upon John Piper's Christian Hedonism. Now, while he has certainly said as much in his own writings, I am almost tempted to argue that the influence of Rand is the thing which causes Piper to stand out most from the evangelical/Reformed preachers of our day. There are times in Atlas Shrugged when it almost feels like Piper is the one writing. The concept of worship and delight and admiration are so prevalent in both Piper and Rand that it seems beyond coincidental. While Piper normally points to the Apostle Paul, Jonathan Edwards, and C.S. Lewis as having the greatest influence on his Christian Hedonism, it's almost as if he's embarrassed to include (perhaps justifiably) Rand in his list.

The other side of this coin is that the overlapping areas of Rand, Edwards, Lewis, and Piper demonstrate, I think, that even in the musings of an atheistic philosopher who would most certainly repudiate the worldviews of these Christian thinkers, there is nevertheless a fascinating similarity. The desire to worship God is a universal desire and in my opinion, Rand is simply giving voice to this human need while at the same time "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness." She has taken this desire to worship the greater and most admirable and cut the possibility of God (the greatest and most admirable of all beings) out of the running. When you do that, the only thing you have left to worship with any admirable qualities is a human. In fact, Rand's views of gender roles echo this:

the essence of femininity is hero worship — the desire to look up to man...an ideal woman is a man-worshipper, and an ideal man is the highest symbol of mankind.

I could share more, but I'm only half done with the book. I'll share more, later. By the way, I know that there are like, scholars who spend their whole life studying Ayn Rand, and for my own sake I hope none of them read this, because they'll probably tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about.

Pat Robertson Knows Why God Destroyed Haiti

Pat Robertson on Haiti Disaster
by burghnews

We are so fortunate that Pat Robertson is continually receiving revelation from God. If it weren't for Pat's almost-super-secret link with the Almighty, we would have all simply believed this to be a terrible act of God's "frowning providence." But now, because the whole nation of Haiti apparently got together, slit their wrists in unison, and swore a big fat national pact with the devil, God waited two hundred and twenty years and then, because he all of a sudden remembered that voodoo pact that those evil Hatians' great-great-great grandparents made, He decided to level the entire country in an act of judgment.

How about this instead:

Pat Robertson is committing a most egregious sin by presuming to speak for Almighty God, most Holy Creator of heaven and earth. Instead of telling the world why Haiti is guilty, maybe he should focus on putting his own house in order.

Whether it's predicting that the end of the world would happen in 1982, predicting a massive terror attack to happen in 2007 (he conveniently claimed credit for averting it), or calling for the assassination of a world leader whose politics Robertson disagrees with, Pat Robertson has continually embarassed himself and, in my opinion, the faith he claims to speak for with his mindless and foolish prediction/finger pointing. To my mind, this is Pat Robertson's only function to society: every time a disaster strikes, he quickly moves in to make a political condemnation of the people upon whom the disaster fell.

*In light of the fact that some people have difficulty seeing sarcasm when it is in the printed form, let me assure everyone that my first paragraph is ENTIRELY sarcastic.

A Perversion of "Justice"

I understand that the concept of social justice is a concept which has been used to bring those in the broader Christian community in line with more redistributive political agendas. I want to avoid, for the moment, the question of whether the government's policy of playing Robin Hood is virtuous or vicious and instead deal with the abusive terminology involved in using a phrase like "social justice."

All thinking Christians ought to be deeply troubled by the term "social justice." The way the phrase is used in popular Christian circles, it should actually be called "social mercy." The confusion of justice and mercy is like confusing white and black. It's like seeing a bird and calling it a lizard. Justice and mercy, with regards to sinful human beings, are two polar opposites.

Why the shift in nomenclature? Why would someone say "white" instead of "black," or "justice" instead of "mercy"? In my estimation, it is a strategic decision. If one calls it "social mercy," the imperative nature of the problem is removed. To most, mercy is something which is important, but which is in some sense optional. However, the idea of "justice" seems imperative, because most agree that justice must always be done; otherwise we as a society are then unjust. The deceptive terminology is an attempt to gain the moral high ground so that if one opposes their idea of what social justice is, then their opponents are, by definition, defending injustice, and nobody wants to be on the wrong side of that conversation.

Perhaps the real question should first be asked. What is justice, and what is mercy? I approach this question a bit differently than some would, because I ask the question of God first. Divine justice is when God gives to the creature what he deserves. If the creature does wrong, He punishes that creature. If the creature does good, He rewards the creature. This activity is divine justice. It is giving to someone what they deserve.

What is divine mercy? Well, the simplest and shortest explanation is that it giving the creature goodness when they deserve otherwise.

Now, there should really be no massive shift between how God relates to man in terms of justice and the way that man relates to man in terms of justice. To treat each as they deserve is justice, in its simplest form. Of course there is greater complexity to this, but this complexity does not change the basic substantial meaning of what it is to be a just person (or society, which is simply a collective of individual persons) and what it is to be merciful. Even if one wants to quibble over the definitions of justice and mercy being offered, it is nearly undeniable that justice and mercy are being used interchangeably by redistributionists when the words are not, in fact, synonyms.

So then, if the terminology were honestly used, what would social justice look like? Well, frankly, it would look like the opposite of what those advocating the current definition of "social justice" say it is. In a society practicing true or literal Social Justice, each would receive according to the labor of their hands, whether that is much or little. However, the concept of "social justice" as it is pushed today reflects the opposite sentiment. It says that people should receive mercy at the hands of society, and receive goods which they did not produce or earn. There may be merits or demerits to this, but what I am simply pointing out is that the proposed policies and terminology are at odds.

Christianity and Copyrights

I have recently been reading a book called Against Intellectual Monopoly, and found an interesting article entitled "Christianity and IP [Intellectual Property Laws]." The author takes the position that the laws of the State are only legitimate and worthy of obeisance insofar as they comport with God's law. Since ideas cannot be owned, says the author (Paul Green), then federal copyright laws are arbitrary manifestations of the state alone (not God) and bear no moral weight for anyone. In other words, according to Green, not only do the Scriptures not speak about intellectual property rights, but they cannot reasonably be used to argue in favor of the monopoly on ideas which copyrights or patents represent.

Some Christians believe that the State, as a "minister of good" writes laws which any and all citizens are morally required to obey. According to the author, it is an incorrect reading of Scripture to believe that any and all laws created by the state are good and must be obeyed. He points out that Romans 13 was abused by Hitler to "neutralize" the Christian churches; certainly, most will agree, WWII Germany is a good example of a state that was not "good."

Romans says there is "no authority except God's" – that is, if it is not God's law it has no proper authority (but we should be prudent...for the Lord's sake and our own...) Only in so far as the state is punishing an actual wrongdoer should we support (including by taxation) any action from our conscience rather than just prudently comply due to the threat of official "wrath."

Another interesting insight near the end of Green's article:

Regarding prudence in the face of an immediate tax demand, Jesus enlightened his disciples when He said in Matthew 17:26 "the children of the king don’t have to pay taxes… but we don’t want to make these tax collectors angry… pay the tax for you and me."

His argument being that Jesus did not view the State's rule as binding upon the conscience or posessing an intrinsically moral quality; rather, Jesus obeyed the temple tax so as to "not give offense" (ESV). So what is it, guys? Does the State write good laws? Or its laws only good so far as they reflect God's will? Also, then, is Green correct regarding what he says are the implications of this for copyright laws?

Another interesting article dealing with Copyrights is by Gary North, which I also recommend.

The Myth of the Christian Nation

Openly gay and non-celibate Episcopal church leader Eugene Robinson bestows the Lord's blessing on Obama's inauguration:

Appalling!!

I have never been so appalled in my entire life. To get the full weight of this, you need to watch the video to the end.

Heartbreaking

This news story is heartbreaking. I think it emphasizes the gravity of abortion. Many today treat abortion as a common, unpleasant, but sometimes necessary thing. Consideration for the long-term effects on the woman having the abortion often goes on the back burner. Also, although this woman made the decision to have the abortion, I still hope her "boyfriend" feels terrible.

[Also, a side note: I live in Kansas, and was traveling through a nearby town when I saw a sign which, even as an ardent pro-lifer, made me angry. The sign read in big black letters: My Mommy Had An Abortion. It was accompanied by an illustrated picture of a baby chopped up into little pieces with blood everywhere. Seriously, what am I supposed to tell my 2 year old when she asks me what that picture means? I think there is something to be said for tact and self-control when it comes to arguing for one's position. We don't have to reduce ourselves to the level of the barbaric baby-killers in order to change the minds of others. In my own opinion, signs like the one I just referred to do greater harm to the pro-life position, since they insult the intelligence of their audience, assuming that they will only be moved by brute, offensive images and not by rational discourse and argument.]

This is Not Political, okay?

Sometimes I read a news story and just feel like the people in the news story are idiots, and I feel sorry for them. Here's one such story. The story is about Obama getting the Kennedy dynasty's nomination. The whole article, though, is about how excited everyone in the crowd is to be at this rally. At one point, the article says this:

For others, seeing Obama in person seemed to be enough.

"You know how close I was to him?" gushed one young woman as she showed off her digital photos to a friend. "I was, like, right there!"

Okay, you know what? I could see someone saying that if Paul McCartney was walking by them, or even if the Pope was walking by them. I could even see myself saying that if Bono was 20 feet from me. But a political candidate? A guy who talks for a living. A guy wants to have the job of lying to us for the next 4 years (I'm not commenting on Bush, for the record, but, rather, politicians in general), and this girl is freaking out?

See, people who get really into politics like this end up wasting 25% of their life (about one year out of every 4 years, right?) on making superstars out of deceptive, crooked politicians (that's right; I'm painting the whole lot of them) when they could be investing themselves into almost anything which will be more worthwhile (it only takes 2 minutes to vote, after all). Like amassing a record collection. Or learning to build a house of cards. Or writing a blog. Or teaching some needy child how to play the accordion on the street corner for tips (teach a child to fish, right?).

Because I have recused myself from the more recent political struggles, I have found it very interesting to see the actual amount of time those closer to me are spending debating each other, endorsing their candidate, comparing pros and cons, arguing on the radio, etc. Think about this: if this is only the primaries, just imagine how bad the actual Presidential election is going to be. All of my Christian friends are going to invest themselves into getting a particular candidate into office instead of focusing (primarily) upon the Gospel or upon their local church.

If we are going to vote, lets play it cool, folks. If you know who you're going to vote for, then on November 11th (or whatever) just cast your vote. Don't make an idol of these men (or women) and spend the next year waving their name in the air or tattooing their name on your right butt-cheek. They do not deserve your devotion or love.

Oh well, I can't change peoples' minds on this, but I will recuse myself, nonetheless, from the idol-worshipping that this poor girl in the Obama story was engaged in. At least we can all promise not to go that far.

For the record: I don't know if Josh agrees with me on this (I doubt it), but I want to make clear I am speaking for myself, not for the entire Bring the Books staff (all two of us).