How to Improve your Theological Method: and Other Notions that Explain Why I am a Terrible Guest at Parties

Listen to it here.

Christian theology is complex, and systematic theology is perhaps the most complex and all-encompassing discipline in all of human thought. Because Christian systematic theology attempts to incorporate all knowledge from all sources into a coherent system, it necessarily encompasses all other disciplines. Theoretically, if not practically (and I think that it IS true practically, despite superficial evidence to the contrary), Theology is the Queen of the Sciences. Not only do all disciplines derive their first principles from theological beliefs and conclusions and presuppositions and axiomata, but all their methods – are derived from these theological principles.

But how do we do theology well? It isn’t enough to simply say that something is “theological”. What we need today is good theological method. And one part in helping us to develop a good theological method is by understanding what the tendencies of human thought are.

I believe that all theological methods necessarily tend to go one of two ways, but those whose methods are truly good and excellent balance these two tendencies.

Good theologians are able to distinguish between the similar and find similarities in the distinct. And this is something that Christian theologians should find to be intuitive or self-evident – or at least predictable. It’s predictable because if knowledge and truth are reflections of God and God is Triune, then we should presume that truth, and the way to ascertain it, mirror the Triunity of God. Therefore, since God is unity in diversity, we ought to expect truth to be and to be found through understanding unity in diversity. The Personae of the Trinity are similar to one another in that they are co-equal, co-eternal, and they share the same ousia (or substantia if you prefer Latin). They, however much they are homoousian, are distinct and different Personae. To understand God, and thereby to understand ourselves and our world – and that is the correct order – then, is to understand that God and therefore truth contains similar things to be distinguished and distinct things to be found similar.

These processes of differentiation and integration are natural, man being made in the imago Dei and all, but they also must be developed. Just as all human capacities are both natural and need to be developed. And the more we do both the differentiation and the integration the better chance we have of doing good theology because we have a better chance of having a good theological method.

When we consider the history of Christian thought we can see how these themes have come up over and over again. And these tendencies are not restricted to formal academia, but make their way into pastoral, lay, and folk theology as well – often these tendencies, I would argue, become ingrained in a certain culture (or sub-culture…or sub-sub-culture). Whether these tendencies define an entire age of thought or the microculture of a family or office they do exist and seem to move reactionarily away from eachother.

And it’s important to mention that people are not one way only – they can be very higgledy-piggledy when it comes to these modes of thought. For instance, today’s liberals, and evangelicalism more broadly, are very big-tent – they find the similarities in the distinctions; they want to invite as many people as possible into their projects even when there are significant theological distinctions that might otherwise preclude their cooperation. But, many of those same liberals and evangelicals have engaged with Critical Theory and employ its Deconstructionism in their political and social theology. To be fair, Neofundamentalists are also playing the big-tent-game, as churches and thinkers are coalescing around a set of issues that otherwise would preclude Dispensationalists and Post-Millennials from working together under ordinary circumstances (I have thoughts on this but that’s another essay for another day!) So, Neofundamentalists are also finding the similarities in the distinct, while at the same time they are heavily engaged in distinguishing the similar as they reject Critical Theory (read: Wokism). Yes, there is an enormous amount of thematic overlap between, say, CRT and Christianity, but Neo-fundies think that they are incompatible.

The point is that we all sometimes are integrators and sometimes differentiators. But that’s not what I mean about how we develop a good theological method. A good theological method is not to sometimes rush to one extreme and sometimes rush to another – that’s just exhausting and is likely to produce errors everywhere. Like the saying, “Coffee: do stupid things faster with more energy!” just rushing from extreme differentiation to extreme integration situationally is not a marker of good theological method but looks more picayunish and inconsistent.

What we need is to employ differentiation and integration, not situationally, but collaboratively in every situation. When we address a topic we ought to say, “how can we distinguish things that look similar in this area? What can we dissect? What can we break down to its constituent parts? What are the “atoms” and axiomata? Where are the formal and informal logical errors? How can we be most precise in our language and logic?” But we also ought to say, “how do these different things cohere? How do we find unity and theme and harmony among the parts? What looks different but is more the same than we realize and why is it so?”. It’s the study of the parts and the whole – something that sounds very easy in theory but is very hard in practice. It also requires the self-discipline to question our own notions and to not give the hot-take. Moreover, it reminds us of the paradox that has always existed: you can’t understand the whole without understanding the parts and you can’t understand the parts without understanding the whole – yet we do know things!

The truth that we need the parts for the whole and vice-versa is paradoxical, antinomious, and mysterious – as well as seemingly self-defeating! If we can’t know the parts without the whole, nor the whole without the parts then it would seem we can’t know anything, including the statement “we can’t know anything”. Thus, the above is incoherent – and yet it’s true, as far as it goes, because what it implies is not that we can’t know ANYTHING about the parts without knowing EVERYTHING about the whole, it means that to have comprehensive knowledge you need comprehensive knowledge, which is necessarily a truism. Thus the above statement is either entirely false and suggests that all knowledge is impossible – including the knowledge that knowledge is impossible…which makes my brain hurt to think through! Or it is a tautology that reminds us that the process of learning is complementary and sequential and time-bound and that some things cannot be known until other things are.

But now we’re so far in the weeds that we’re starting to get ticks. So, how shall we summarize? I would say that we need to always keep the Trinity at the center of all we do. God is a Person – three Persons – and theology is interaction with Persons. Theology is always a relationship with a Subject and should never be an interaction with an object. Theology can never, ultimately, be about “God’s Glory” or “God’s love” or “God’s mercy” or anything like that because it reduces the irreducible. Theology is about knowing and relating to Persons. When the Triune God, as the Triune God, is the basis of everything, then, and only then, can we advance theology.

Postscript:

Part of my theological method and something that everyone should put in the background of their theological painting is that people tend towards extremes. People as Screwtape said, are always “crowding to that side of the boat which is already nearly gunwale under”. Because this is true, it is all the more important for theologians to strive to be precise, careful thinkers who can critically asses their own arguments and give full merit to others’. Or to put it another way: good theologians are circumspect.

And circumspection is probably, if I had to guess, a characteristic that is both state and trait, and moreover it is both a gift and a skill. If circumspection is a facet of wisdom, and I would say it is, then it is, in Christian theology, necessarily a gift and a skill.

Again, this doesn’t mean that circumspection isn’t something people are born with – I think some people naturally are more circumspect than others. It is necessarily true (at least in Big 5 language) people who are high in Impulsivity are low in Conscientiousness, and vice-versa. The impulse to rush to a theological extreme NECESSARILY precludes you from acting circumspectly. This doesn’t mean that impulses are bad – I think they are very good, under the right circumstances! – but that we need to recognize about ourselves that all human beings have a tendency to NOT be circumspect; some of us have more circumspection by birth, some by gifting, and some by sheer hard work. And we also need to recognize that this is a trait, gift, and talent that we need to develop if we wish to be like God. Indeed, as God is omniscient who could ever be more circumspect than He?

Serpentine

“Why is the serpent’s punishment to crawl on its belly when that’s what it does?”

This is the question posed by Dr. Jackson of Hillsdale College in the Youtube advertisement for his free, online course on Genesis. I highly recommend the course, and in fact, I highly recommend all the Hillsdale free courses! Despite being fully engaged with my Master’s thesis at Dallas, I’ve found time to relax and watch many of these courses, and they are all worth your time.

But the question Dr. Jackson asks is an old one, with many answers that have been posed. Some have argued that before the curse, snakes were like other lizards. Others have said there was no snake at all and everything is a metaphor…but what is a meta for? And like all knotty biblical and theological questions there are lots of answers…or at least attempts at answers.

But I’d like to propose that Dr. Jackson phrases the question in a very helpful way, because his wording reminds us that crawling on its belly is what a snake does; snakes behave snakishly because they’re snakes.

Granted, the snake here, or Serpent, if you prefer, isn’t simply A snake, but THE snake, the great and ancient serpent. This is Satan taking on the form of a snake. So, the curse of the snake is really a curse against Satan. And this is helpful to remember because it helps us to think through the problem. Whatever the curse of Satan is, it has to parallel the curse of the serpent. The form of the serpent’s curse is that the serpent would continue to do what it already does. Or to put it another way, the serpent will continue to be as it is.

Satan’s curse means that Satan will continue to be as he is: the enemy, the adversary, wicked, hateful, jealous, godless. Notice that God makes a prophetic statement in Genesis 3, that is partially fulfilled in the gospels, but doesn’t receive its fullest fulfillment until Revelation 20. But between Genesis 3 and Revelation 20 we see Satan continuing to be as he is. Even 1,000 years of imprisonment do not change his nature. He is not only unwilling, but incapable of changing. He will forever be – all the days of his life – as he was in the moment he brought death into the world.

Satan will always be what he was and is. He is unchanging, but unchanging in the worst possible way. Because being unchanging for God, who is infinite and perfect, is no detriment to His glory…it’s perfect and infinite. But for a finite and imperfect creature to be unchanging is a trap, a prison, a Hell.

And of course this is part of Christian anthropology that is most evident and obvious but not very often talked about: people are forever becoming more like themselves. When we say that “old people” get set in their ways, it’s not because you can’t teach old dogs new tricks (at least not entirely). Part of the reason old people become so inflexible is because they have always been resistant to change and recalcitrant and unbending and, over the years, they’ve grown more and more unwilling to change – because changing means admitting imperfection, or incurring discomfort.

This is why we look at teens and twentysomethings who go out carousing and making a ruckus and say that they’re just healthy kids sowing their wild oats. But when people in their 40s and 50s and 60s are acting like 19-year-olds we find it pathetic. Why? The behavior is the same, oughtn’t it to have the same moral value? No.

When a kid acts wild and crazy, there is the historically and anthropologically and statistically supported assumption that eventually they’ll get it out of their system and settle down and take on responsibilities.

In other words, we assume that they’ll grow!

But when you see Madonna splayed out on a bed trying to be a slutty grama we find it repulsive and repugnant. We culturally believe, or at least used’ta believe, that growing and maturing is a normal and natural part of life. When people fail to grow, we say that they are retarded in an area: physical, mental, social-emotional. Being retarded in any aspect of life is not good – but arrested development is even worse than retarded development.

And God’s curse for Satan is arrested development. Satan will never change. He’s psychologically (in the broadest sense of that term) turned to stone. He will never be anything more than he currently is. And that is a terrible curse. Even a good person, who is imperfect would find it a curse to never transcend himself as he is; imagine how dreadful it would be to be Satan forever; to be full of malice, and envy, and spite, and unfulfilled desires and ungratified hatred.

And that in itself would make Hell hellish. I’ve preached and written about this concept at length before, so I won’t belabor the point. But allow me to rephrase it.

God, who is transcendent and allows his children to transcend themselves curses Satan and his followers by withholding transcendence from them.

In other words, God’s curse, and perhaps Hell itself, is God withholding His nature.

I’m not saying that I’ve answered Dr. Jackson’s question completely, but I think whatever the answer truly is, what I’ve written above certainly is part of the answer.

A Tale Told By An Idiot: Why Netflix’ Money Heist Is Leftist Trash

INTRODUCTION

It’s hard to imagine a television show that is more badly written. Not merely because of the many, gaping, show-ruining plot-holes. Nor is La Casa De Papel uniquely bad simply because the acting is often cartoonish, the dialogue is strained and vacillates between stilted and puerile, the characters are poorly drawn, or because of the frustration-inducing technical problems. Nor because the writers of the show don’t seem to have done any – and I mean ANY – research into the Spanish economy.

No, what makes this show uniquely, and at times seemingly deliberately awful, is the absolute moral idiocy.

It isn’t just that they don’t know how to write a story about an anti-hero – they don’t. It isn’t just that they pick the wrong side of a complex moral issue…though they do that as well. The writers don’t understand basic moral concepts like right and wrong.

Money Heist is what someone might almost expect from a Basque Separatist – but they would be informed on the economic realities of Spain.

It’s what you might expect from a social-failure who took half a semester of econ at a juco before dropping out to work on his “novel” (read: mooch off his mom girlfriend…who lives in Canada…she’s totes real).

You might expect it from a died-in-the-wool Communist of the old school – but those kinds of Commies were all well read and understood plot and narrative and character arcs.

No, this show is uniquely bad in a way that feels deliberate. The show is so grotesquely bad that one could imagine a conspiracy theory wherein extreme rightist groups made the show to demonstrate the stupidity and moral vacuity of leftism. Kind of like a “CIA put crack in black neighborhoods” type conspiracy theory. It feels like the show is going out of its way to be stupid and bad.

And because I love you, I decided to watch every single episode. Why? So I could report back and give you some talking points. Maybe you’ve seen the show; maybe you have family or friends who’ve seen it; maybe you’ve considered watching it. In this deep-dive review we’re going to consider the show, in its entirety: THERE WILL BE SPOILERS…deal with it. This will be a review of the show as a whole and not specific episodes. My hope is that after reading this you’ll be able to think through not only La Casa De Papel as a show and as a cultural phenomenon, but also think through what’s happening to storytelling and how it impacts us morally. For sake of ease I’ve broken this review into parts, critiquing its take on economic, politics, storytelling, and morality. If you’re really impatient skip to the last § on morality, since that’s the most important §, along with the conclusion.

ECONOMICS

So, when I said that you might think the writer of this show dropped out after half an econ class at juco…well, that might have been extreme. They might have dropped out after reading some communist literature left on a park-bench.

The premise of the first two parts is that it’s totally morally OK to print a billion Euros because the Central banks do it and it won’t hurt the economy. Which is wrong. Then, inexplicably, when they steal $4B worth of gold reserves, it is such a massive shock to the Spanish economy that the whole system is going to crash and burn, leading to hyperinflation. Um…no.

So, fun fact – the show keeps saying that the 90 tons of gold ingots in the Bank of Spain are the nations gold reserves. Which is false. Spain has about 280 tons of gold reserves. And moreover, nations don’t simply hold gold in reserve but also forex reserves – of which Spain has over $80B. These data aren’t hard to find – they took about as long as it took to type in rather obvious search queries and for the internet to give me first search-page answers.

Now, for those keeping score at home, that means that the $1B they printed had no (according to the Professor) negative impact on the economy, but stealing $4B would send it into a tailspin – markets dropped 14% in hours! But the gold reserves they stole only account for about 5% of the total Spanish reserves.

So either the writers of the show thought that viewers were too stupid or too lazy to fact-check them, or they have such a low view of stock markets that they think that markets would go into freefall after a bank-robbery that would have almost no real-world impact on the goods and services that the market provides, or they themselves were too stupid or lazy to check into things or they just didn’t care.

My guess is a combination of all the above. Printing a Billy has no impact; stealing 4 has such an impact that it will create “the worst economic crisis” of the modern era.

Just no.

And the writers think they’re cute and clever by mocking gold reserves because governments don’t use them to buy or sell.

A, it’s not true – given the fact that countries do, in fact, buy and sell physical gold in exchange for their fiat currencies or other devices! B, what does that have to do with anything?! It can’t be both a victimless crime and checkmate unless the show presupposes that the Spanish government is dumber than a sack of turds – or they think you are…but they seem to think both.

The economy of Spain has problems that the writers either don’t understand or deliberately ignore. Yes, increasing monetary supply creates inflation and hurts people. And, yes it is a crime with victims. Yes, governments DO print money. Yes, I think that quantitative easing and bad monetary and fiscal policies are bad and harmful. But Spain is a democracy. The people could elect leaders that would fix monetary policy. But the solution to government mismanagement and malfeasance isn’t terrorism.

What if, using the show’s economic logic, because the Spanish Mint prints money unwisely that means that anyone could or should – do they think that won’t have economic consequences? Perhaps they do – because the writers are morons. But that’s not how the world works. Bad government policy does not justify economic destabilization – unless you’re a Communist trying to overthrow the bourgeoisie Capitalist, imperialist system. But that just brings us back to a failure to understand economics and human nature and morality.

In short, the show doesn’t seem to understand rudimentary concepts like supply and demand and inflation and monetary supply. Watching the Professor pontificate with his Marxist-Leninist platitudes might have been compelling 100 years ago. But we’ve seen enough Communism since the 1920s to know it doesn’t work. Spain fought a Civil War to keep the commies out. Maybe this is just sour grapes. But that brings us to our next point.

POLITICS

The politics of this show are as baffling as they are mind-numbing. A brief review of Spanish History may be warranted, so I’ll try to make it fast.

A long time ago Spain was a Roman province, later it wasn’t. Then it was 2 kingdoms, then 1, then it had a great idea. Let’s send Columbus to go get us trade route to the Indies. Columbus failed, but he did bring back gold and tobacco as well as….…well, who cares, the gold was good enough. They go so much gold that they could finally afford the armada they always wanted. So Spain had an armada and tons of gold, then they decided to put it to good use and tried to force everyone to be Catholic. And then they tried to force England to be Catholic too. But England didn’t want to be Catholic, so Spain tried to kill Queen Bess. But nobody kills Betsy. She sends Sir Francis Drake to burn your Armada. Lizzie will send Drake and he will burn any and every armada that tries to invade England and make it be Catholic…it’s how she do. Then Spain stopped trying to make EVERYBODY Catholic and just focused on making some people Catholic. Later Napoleon invaded. Then other things happened. Spain tried to act tough in the Western Hemisphere and Teddy Roosevelt said, “no you don’t” and Spain lost Cuba, as well as other places from Simon Bolivar and other Caudillos. Then other stuff happened and Spain had a Civil War. But this was an extra bad Civil war because it basically was led by pretty scummy people on either side. Franco was the scummy guy who won, but eventually people stopped liking Franco so much, and Spain became a monarchy…for a while. And now they’re not a monarchy, but kinda they are…and they hardly ever try to force anybody to be Catholic, anymore. Which is a bummer if you’re into that sorta thing. But it’s pretty cool otherwise.

Admittedly, I am not an expert on Spanish history…but I’d like to see you do better, and be sarcastic at the same time…that’s what I thought. The important part is the Civil War part because that has shaped Spain ever since. And nowadays it’s really popular to hate Franco and to label anyone who was to the right of the Communist insurgents as “fascists”. Note the scene in part 5 volume 2 of Money Heist where the home-invading, terrorists, who just committed felony assault against a high-ranking government minister look out at the streets and one says “it’s starting to look like the Warsaw ghetto”.

No.

Just no.

There is no equivalency, and to make such a comparison is ignorant bordering on holocaust-minimizing. But that’s all part and parcel of La Casa’s portrayal of government.

Oh, btw, the Professor and his accomplices and the adoring, fawning Spanish populace call the murdering, raping, kidnapping, robbing, defrauding, torturing, terrorists…wait for it…”the Resistance”!

Ohhhhhhhhhh, wow – I mean they sing “Bella Ciao”: an Italian anti-fascist partisan song!

I mean, do you hear the people sing…singing the song of arrogant moral idiots? (I know that’s not how the song goes, but just roll wimme homie.)

Yeah, anyone with an IQ in trip diggies is not being taken in by such a lazy, shameless, naked, and childish attempt to give the robbers moral authority.

A SUB-POINT ON POLITICS

So, one of the major motifs of the show is the Spanish government’s simultaneous incompetence and hypercompetence – but mainly incompetence. This is particularly poignant when we look at the portrayal of policing. On one hand they have the incredible spy network necessary to track a satellite phone of the coast of nowhere to capture Anibal Cortes, but a 120 pound woman with a rifle who is screaming is able to hold back the elite SWAT and military of Spain. Apparently the Spanish elite counter-terrorist forces have the ability to carry bulletproof shields, Roman testudo-style, but not to toss a concussion grenade. They can scramble hundreds of police and soldiers in minutes, but nobody is using thermal goggles to find someone hiding in a tree…which would seem like a natural place to hide…IN A FOREST! They engage in torture in a black-site, but that black-site is able to be found and overthrown with minimal effort from a pack of Pakistani hackers.

Somehow the Spanish government is both a monolith and a bunch of chumps!

And, let’s not forget the conclusion! In the end when the Professor tells Tomayo that they have to let them go otherwise Spain will have egg on its face. But they still fake the deaths of the terrorists and Spain still doesn’t get the gold back…so explain to me why they didn’t ACTUALLY kill the terrorists who have terrorized Spain repeatedly.

I mean, I know that I’m not a professional writer, but I’m a not too shabby logician. What exactly did Spain, or Tomayo benefit by not just killing these turds who have robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered their way through 2 “heists”, all the while trying to embarrass Spain, and Tomayo personally, at every turn. The climax of the show is that Tomayo realizes that the Professor has defrauded Spain, he hasn’t returned the gold, but just gold-colored metal, and he has all the terrorists on their knees with guns to their heads, and this is AFTER the Professor has invaded Tomayo’s home and probably ruined his career – and Tomayo doesn’t kill them, but instead fakes their death and puts them in Witsec while they keep the gold?

To quote the Latin…what the heck?...I mean Cui Bono?

The government are portrayed as bloodthirsty idiot thugs, and as careful master strategists. Not different characters, but even the same characters act so stupidly that it’s clear the writers just think: governments are bad…use them for plot devices.

STORYTELLING

Which naturally leads us to our next point, which is that the writers are just awful at storytelling. The show could be likened to a soap-opera, but at least soap-operas have suspense. After Season 2, nobody wonders if they’re going to “make it”. Admittedly, some characters die, but the fact that everyone has to act so unbelievably out of character to ensure a happy ending is a sign of bad writing at its best.

But what really is awful isn’t the plotting – which is bad – but the characterization.

Let’s look at a few examples. On one hand Raquel Murillo is a tough, no-nonsense lady-cop, who busts crims and is a tender mom. But she’s also an abused wife, whose sister is now dating her ex, and whose mother has Alzheimer’s. Ok. A bit tropey, but not bad. We have some humanizing. We have vulnerability. She’s a relatable character to a lot of women – and even to men.

But then, she’s seduced by the Professor – the mastermind behind the “heist” who is trying to personally destroy her, and, btw, was willing to MURDER her mother in cold-blood. She’s victimized by the Professor. Just like how she was victimized by her ex-husband. And how she was made to feel guilty for not committing adultery with her partner. Men are constantly trying to exploit and hurt her and so, at the moment of truth she…..wait for it…decides to throw her life away and join in a life of crime with the Professor…remember him; he’s the guy who tried to wreck her life, who’s a terrorist criminal, who set a raping psychopath loose on a bunch of government functionaries, and who deceived you and slept with you all the while trying to pump you for information to further wreck your life.

Is this not a #metoo moment? I guess I don’t really understand the new sexuality. Because, for me, as a fundamentalist, I would look at Murillo as a victim. I would even say that because of the Professor’s lies, her sex with him wasn’t truly consensual. He might as well be a rapist himself.

Let me explain. If a woman sleeps with a man who sneaks in her bed, thinking it’s her husband, even though the woman consented to sex, she consented to sex with her husband, not the interloper. If twins attempted to do wife-swapping, that would negate the consent if the wives didn’t know they were being swapped. If an evil twin, of whom the woman knew nothing slept with her, again, consent would be nullified. Is consent not nullified here? Even if it isn’t rape, it certainly is gross sexual exploitation.

Or consider Monica Gaztambide, one of the most interesting characters in the first season, a woman clearly suffering from Stockholm Syndrome (she is literally NAMED Stockholm by the other banditos), who is sexually exploited by Denver – one of the most thoroughly despicable and unlikable characters in all of TV. Her dilemma of falling in love with her abuser could have been a great insight into her as a character, but instead the writers force-fed us a bunch of saccharine garbage about true love. And again, like with Raquel Murillo, we’re supposed to celebrate when these women run off and live happily ever after with their abusers – men who deliberately exploited them for money and sex.

The show, despite its all too obvious wokery, has a shockingly low view of women. In the minds of the writers, powerful and competent women are really just waiting around for a man – literally ANY man – to come up and grab them by the…to come up and take charge and they melt into puddles of pathetic. If the writers really believe that deep-down all powerful women really, truly just want a man to exploit them, then that’s an odd view from a show that is so very obviously and deliberately politically woke.

But I imagine that the writers really do see women that way. One can imagine these folks, sad and lonely, fantasizing about how there’s a beautiful, sad, lonely woman out there who, despite being beautiful, successful, rich, with a record-setting libido, is just waiting for someone [insert one of the sad lonely male writers] to come and take her away from the rat-race.

I mean, that’s A way to look at women…not the one I’d recommend, but hey, in the digital porn age, all men are heroes for whom women are desperately, longingly waiting. The exploitation of Murillo and Gaztambide seems more like wish-fulfillment than a real insight into human nature.

But that’s what you can expect from a show that is so incredibly self-consciously cool and political. The Soviets proved that self-consciously politically correct writing is trash…Money Heist is giving us the redux – as is Netflix broadly.

I could go on and on about the bad storytelling, but just these two examples ought to suffice to demonstrate that these writers don’t truly understand human nature. They have lost the capacity to put themselves in other people’s shoes and can only understand characters based upon their own limited personalities. They cannot expand their horizons beyond themselves, which is what good writers do. Good writers are able to understand and sympathize with perspectives not their own – with perspectives they might disagree with, or even hate.

That’s why Tolstoy and Milton are geniuses and Alex Pena, et al., are hacks.

MORALITY

Here is the crux of the matter. The show started off fascinatingly. It looked like a new take on the caper-film. It was going to be a deep psychological drama that dealt with serious issues in human nature. I liked the first season, I really did. I was able to overlook the plot-holes and the cartoonish nature of the police because the human-interest story was what was happening to the characters. I thought it was going to be a classic anti-hero story.

But it wasn’t.

It was a tale told by an idiot.

You see, there are several ways to tell a morally compelling story where the protagonist is a bad guy. You have the Ocean’s Eleven version where their crime is victimless – mostly – though in the original they don’t profit from their crime, revealing the ethic of those days. There’s the Bonny and Clyde, or Anna Karenina type story, where we know the bad guys are bad guys and we just watch them burn-up like meteors entering the atmosphere. However, there are two excellent anti-hero stories that are worth considering to see how it SHOULD be done: Breaking Bad and The Godfather.

In Breaking Bad, we meet Walter White, and weak and ineffectual man who takes control of his life by breaking-bad. We watch in titillation as he slowly transforms into a villain of the highest order, all the while justifying himself, saying that what he did was for his family. Until the end, when he admits that he did it all for himself. We are reminded that Walter White was a bad guy and by rooting for him we learned that we too, want to break social conventions and be free to get power and money and to skirt the law. But we know that it’s wrong to do so and that once you get into evil it transforms you into something unrecognizable. Doing evil changed Walter from a weak man into a strong one – but a wicked one all the same.

In The Godfather we meet Michael Corleone who was never supposed to go into the family business. He was the golden-child who was supposed to go into politics and move the family out of the mob and into legitimate business. But when his family needs him he throws in his lot, all the while lying to himself that he will get the family out of crime and into legitimate business. His famous line is that, “every time I get out they pull me back in!” Michael justifies himself constantly, and Kay tries to warn him. In the first film we get this exchange which defines the whole film, and possibly the series:

Michael : My father is no different than any powerful man, any man with power, like a president or senator.

Kay Adams : Do you know how naive you sound, Michael? Presidents and senators don't have men killed.

Michael : Oh. Who's being naive, Kay?

Michael justifies himself and his family by his Machiavellian belief that everyone with power is depraved and violent. Yet, he himself wants to go-legit. But does he really? Or is it just a lie he tells himself?

Anti-hero stories are powerful because they allow us to look at ourselves, but eventually the anti-hero has to be revealed to be bad, otherwise the show is just murder fantasy and crime porn.

In season 1 of Casa, I thought that that the show was going in the direction of the classic anti-hero where we all root for the crooks and then we are smacked in the face with the reality that they’re bad and we shouldn’t root for them, but we did root for them because we found in them something in us, in our shared humanity.

But that’s not how they did it.

Nope, they just went for it and wanted us to think that the bad guys were good guys.

Their justification? The government does bad stuff, too.

Seriously?

Are we 5? Is that a serious argument? In the end we get a Breaking Bad confession that the Professor committed his crimes, not out of devotion to a cause but for himself. AND THE SHOW STILL WANTS US TO ROOT FOR HIM. At the conclusion of the show when, instead of being executed or imprisoned for their crimes, the gang all get to live happily ever after, the Professor says that they finally have enough money that they will never NEED to steal again.

What trash.

What utter lazy, self-serving trash. Again, it would be one thing if we were supposed to recognize it as self-deceptive trash, but we clearly aren’t. The writers want us to accept the show on the Professor’s terms. They are moral idiots. The Professor can commit horrid crimes: loosing the rapist terrorist Berlin on people, committing Billions in theft, conspiring to commit murder, espionage, torture, physical abuse, and the sexual exploitation of Murillo, but we’re supposed to root for him. Why? Because the government also does bad things.

Because 2 wrongs make a right?

The ONLY character who even attempts to address the wretched moral idiocy is Arturo Roman, who could have been a brilliant antagonist, dividing popular loyalty and causing us to question the moral certitude of the raping, torturing, robbers. But no. He clownishly inserts himself into the second Heist and then commits a sex crime. Which apparently is wrong now [insert rising intonation]? Which seems to be the writer’s way of saying that if anyone questions the moral authority of the bad guys, they too are bad and even worse – there are none righteous; no not one.

You can do a show like what I suggested. Narcos did it brilliantly, contrasting the evil of Pablo Escobar with the popular support he had because of the legitimately good things he did for the poor of Medellín and Columbia.

The point is that there are LOTS of ways to tell this story that doesn’t end with a cringey happy ending where we’re told after 41 episodes that the bad guys were good guys after all. Don’t ask how or why, just put on your Dali mask and your red jumpsuit and join in the fun.

CONCLUSION

In closing, what can I say that hasn’t already been said? A lot. A show this bad would take months of my spare-time to write about all its awfulness. And ain’t nobody got time for that. But it is worth noting that the show panned in Spain, but has taken on wider audiences in America and elsewhere. This is disturbing. My hope is that people just watched the gunfights and the romances and didn’t really care about the moral of the story. But that’s a problem too.

The state of storytelling in America is at a new low. The popularity of shows like Money Heist reveal that we’re a nation of moral idiots. Look, I watched every episode (and it was painful, and I had to take a lot of breaks to play chess or do ANYTHING else in the later episodes). Watching isn’t the point. The point is that shows like Money Heist are forming our cultural consciousness and our understanding of morality.

Television matters more than ever. Netflix producers will have more impact on people’s morality than I or most preachers, even most preachers COMBINED will ever have. Fletcher once said, “Let me make the songs of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”

If Money Heist is anything, it ought to be a clarion call to Christians that we NEED Christian fiction writers and screenwriters and critics. To adjust a CS Lewis gem, good fiction should exist if for no other reason than that bad fiction exists. Christians can and should find a way to shape the imaginations and emotions of people. If we can say that we’ve done that, I’d say we’ve come a long ways towards revival.

Send In The Clowns

Listen to the radio version here.

So, if you haven’t heard the new hit single Past the Pandemic do yourself a favor and check it out…seriously, if you don’t listen then what follows will make less sense.

So, if you heard that song, out of the blue without knowing who wrote and performed it beforehand, you might be surprised to find out that the artist was Dr. Francis Collins, the outgoing head of the National Institutes of Health. Collins is famous for being part of the team that originally mapped the human genome. So, scientifically, this guy is a heavy hitter. And more than that, he’s an evangelical Christian. He’s also been a bureaucrat for 12 years.

And I’m not sure if Francis Collins has always written and performed unironically cringey songs, or if that’s a result of his time spent in Washington, but that song was something that demonstrates the widening divide between everyday Christians and the elites. It’s not even fair to call it a divide, anymore, it’s more like a chasm, and if things aren’t rectified soon, it will become a great gulf that no one can cross.

But perhaps you’re confused by what I mean – “OK,” you might be thinking, “yeah, the song was a bit dorky, but Collins is just a nice guy, and he’s a believer and so we have to tolerate anything he does nomatter what the results are because he’s a nice Christian.” I know lots of Christians for whom that’s their way of assessing the theology of others. Friends how many times have you heard this excuse for bad theology, “well they love Jesus” or “they’re just trying to help” or “they really mean well”? Who cares?! We excuse all manner of bad theology, even heretical theology, because people are nice and say they love Jesus.

Look at what Dr. Collins is saying, pay attention to the lyrics and not only the lyrics but the tune to which the lyrics are set. The song is about “somewhere past the pandemic”, but set to the tune of Somewhere Over the Rainbow. Which is disconcerting considering that “somewhere over the rainbow” is a teen-girl’s fantasy, which incidentally has been co-opted by sexual perverts and deviants for decades. Thus, what Collins is saying by his tune choice – nevermind the lyrics, we’ll get to those – he’s saying that the best way for an Evangelical Christian Scientist to say farewell to the American people, is by telling them that getting past the pandemic is a fantasy and also gay pride.

Now, I’ll admit it’s possible that Collins is just really bad at understanding how poetry works and doesn’t see the reality that saying “let’s end COVID now” as the final strain of a song, while setting it to the tune that says that everything in the song lives in an impossible make-believe alternate universe is a bit self-defeating. It’s possible he doesn’t see that. I’d say it’s unlikely because Collins is a very smart man, who’s pretty talented with the guitar, and as a Christian he would have been exposed to poetry and literature and metaphorical modes of thinking to a degree that many other scientists aren’t. It’s also possible that Collins didn’t catch the connection between the gay pride movement and the tune he chose, and that for an evangelical, that’s a bit odd.

All that is possible. But is it likely? Is it likely that Collins was just unaware of the contradictory messaging? I doubt it – I think he just didn’t care. He liked the tune and the lyrical framework and decided to use it. I don’t think that Collins is laughing maniacally in his lair about all the sheeple that didn’t realize that the pandemic would never end and that he made us all think there was an end in sight. I think that Collins just came up with the lyrics and went with it and didn’t care at all about the mixed messaging.

And doesn’t that fit the data a lot better? I think it’s the perfect ironic summary to the entire American bureaucracy’s take on COVID. It’s the perfect summary to the Evangelical Elites take on COVID – they just don’t care about the mixed messaging. They don’t care if, when, or how often or how badly they contradict themselves. They don’t care because they KNOW they can get away with it. They know that they can contradict themselves in the same speech – in the same paragraph! – every word can contradict the song to make it incoherent, and they don’t care because they can get away with it.

Why can they get away with it?

Because they aren’t trying to convince people; they’re trying to intimidate them with their degrees and authority; they’re trying to overawe people into submission. They aren’t making cogent arguments for their policies; they’re just telling you to shut up and do as you’re told; and if you ever decide to question these naked emperors you’re told that you’re killing grandma or that you aren’t acting like Jesus.

Now look, if you’ve followed this show and my writing and preaching, you know that I have repeatedly said that people need to make prudential health decisions for themselves. I’ve said repeatedly that we are our brothers’ keepers and we do have a moral responsibility to prevent spreading communicable diseases if they could have effects that outweigh the benefits of not taking certain precautions. I have said publicly, repeatedly, in print and on the radio that there IS a biblical case for vaccine mandates. So, I think I’m coming to this conversation as someone who has repeatedly demonstrated that I’m in good faith and willing to hear arguments.

But I haven’t been met with arguments – not least with arguments that can withstand scrutiny. And the evidence that the arguments for the outsized reaction to the coronavirus is the fact that our elites in government, media, and the church can repeatedly contradict themselves, repeatedly not follow the rules they make for others, repeatedly employ threats and bully tactics and yet nothing has happened. Fauci is still in power – and Biden said he was the real president. All the evangelicals that have told you that if you don’t wear a mask, no wear 2 masks, no, wear 2 masks in the car and never go inside a public space again, no stay in your house and never go to Church again, no get the vaccine, no get the vaccine again, no get the booster, no get another booster, no get another another booster; they’ve told you these things and people still listen to them and respect them and act like these are the serious people. All these evangelical elites who have beclowned themselves by going along with the government in shutting down churches and dragging us along a never-ending series of hoops to jump through, while we ruin our economy, psychologically damage our kids, ruin the education of children, increase deaths of despair like suicide and drug overdose, increase domestic and particularly child abuse – these elites have never faced any real consequences.

Nobody is out there demanding that these folks resign. Nobody is telling them that they have demonstrated a disqualifying lack of wisdom and discernment. Nobody is telling them that they need to answer for why they thought that the benefits of ruining the lives of hundreds of millions, was worth it. Indeed, there’s no way to prove that the masks or lockdowns did anything whatever to prevent COVID deaths. More than that, there has been an estimated 800k COVID deaths in the US total, that’s over the course of about 2 years. Now in those 2 years there have been an estimated 6 and a half to 7 million deaths – official stats for 2020 and 2021 aren’t in yet, but using the estimate from 2020 and doubling that, and probably adding about 80-100k more (as total US deaths have increased by about 42k every year since 2009) – so that means that even with the lower number of total deaths, the 800k deaths since COVID started make up about 12 percent of total deaths. Not 12 percent of the population, 12 percent of total deaths. Others have estimated total deaths from COVID to be a much lower share of the population. And that’s with other causes of death increasing as well. And here is where it becomes crucial to pay attention. Consider these stats from Advisory Board’s Daily Briefing:

However, the researchers also found substantial increases in the numbers of deaths attributed to other leading causes of death. For example, deaths from heart disease—which ranked as the leading cause of death in the United States in 2020—increased by 4.8% from 659,041 in 2019 to 690,882 in 2020, marking the largest increase in heart disease deaths since 2012. Similarly, the researchers found deaths increased by 15.4% for diabetes, 11.1% for unintentional injury, and 9.8% for Alzheimer's disease.

And when we look at those deaths that suggests that these are a lot of lockdown deaths. These are deaths of despair. And this isn’t taking into account the incalculable cost of what it did to kids for them to not see faces for years on end.

But more than all of that is the theological cost that Christians have paid. We’re so terrified of death, of death of any kind that we were willing to stop worshipping God. But worse than that, Christians WANTED GOVERNMENT to force other Christians to stop worshipping God. And for what? What is the rational basis for these policies?

What was the rational basis for masks? That they would stop transmission. But when real world data demonstrated that they didn’t stop transmission and people pointed this out, the elites told us to shut up and obey. What was the rational basis for lockdowns and taking away Americans’ civil liberties without due process? Well, to stop transmission. Except 1) it’s arguable that was a bad policy and 2) it’s arguable that it had no real longitudinal effect because disease don’t just hang around for 15 days and go away. When people pointed this out we were told that we weren’t acting like Jesus because Jesus would mask-up and lock-down. What was the rational basis for vaccine mandates? To stop transmission. But again, like every government policy it hasn’t done the thing they said justified forcing you to do it.

These people are clowns. They are not serious people. That’s why the most prominent Christian medical scientist in the world ends his tenure with a disturbing, self-contradictory ditty. He tells us to end COVID now.

How Francis? How? By doing all the stuff you guys have been saying to do for 2 years that hasn’t worked? By panicking about every variant? By giving government unfettered power? By refusing to enter the public square and answer simple questions about prudence and the costs and benefits of government COVID policies? By ignoring prudential arguments from experts and non-experts alike?

None of those things will stop COVID because they haven’t. All these government policies have done more harm than good. Now look, I’m not saying that lockdowns didn’t save ANY lives. I’m not saying that shutting down nursing homes didn’t save ANY lives. And I’m not saying that a vaccine mandate wouldn’t save ANY lives. What I am saying is the costs have far outweighed the benefits, with some serious estimates saying that the costs of lockdowns in the US have been at least 5x worse than the benefit, and more likely around 90x worse.

What price have evangelical elites paid for advocating policies that are orders of magnitude worse than the alternatives? What price have they paid for unthinkingly, unqualifiedly, asserting their authority and telling all of us peons and serfs that we just need to do as we’re told or we hate Jesus and wanna kill grama.

Friends, the elites in this country are clowns. They are fools who despise wisdom and are incapable of and unworthy to make serious decisions that affect your life and wellbeing. Now, as far as government goes that’s what we can expect!

But the obsequious clownery from people who pompously make their Sinaitic pronouncements is laughable – except nobody’s laughing – which makes it lamentable.

The chasm between Evangelical elites is teetering on the unbridgeable. As our elites advocate demonstrably failed policies, push Wokism in colleges and seminaries, backslide from the Bible on sexual morality and abortion, advocate Darwinism, plagiarize, embezzle, and mismanage they somehow have the autocratic audacity to try to browbeat the lowbrows if anyone dares question them.

Christian elites are clowns. They are now serious people. Stop taking them seriously. Stop buying their books. Stop going to their conferences. Stop visiting their websites. Stop trusting them to speak from on high. Stop the hero-worship. Stop living your lives based upon the nostrums, maxims, and dictums of these fools. They are worse than useless because they are not content to just leave things alone! They do actual damage to the cause of Christ in their desperate and pathetic attempt to be loved by all the swells as they seek secular sainthood.

Of course there are dangers on the other side – active anti-intellectualism has hurt Christianity and there is an ugly side to populism. But corrupt shepherds are always worse for the flock than unruly sheep. And right now the shepherds seem to be little more than a pack of heretical hirelings.

We need a better class of pastors in this country. I’m not sure we deserve it, or that we’ll get it – but it is what we need.

Legislating Morality

Recently the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization – otherwise known as the “Mississippi abortion case”. If you haven’t listened to the oral arguments: you probably ought to, since they are available online and this is potentially the most important case before the high court in 50 years – perhaps longer!

This, of course, has the pro-baby-murder folks in society in a furor! This will overthrow Casey! This will undermine Roe! If the State of Mississippi wins in Dobbs v Jackson, that will mean that we will, essentially, return to a pre-Roe status where the several states, themselves, will determine who can murder a baby, dismember it, and dispose of his or her remains and under what circumstances it can be done. And, of course, this is unacceptable to the Progressives in our society. Laws like this are an invasion of a woman’s privacy, her autonomy, her economic future.

Baby-murder advocates from all over this country – and others – were castigating the patriarchal misogynists who wrote and voted for this law and anyone who would defend it! And during oral arguments Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked how the Mississippi State Law wasn’t simply an imposition of religion?

And this is evidence of a few things, but two warrant comment. First, Justice Sotomayor is not the finest legal mind this country has ever produced. Second, she has a catastrophically flawed vision of law. Granted, she shares that flawed vision with multitudes, but it doesn’t make it any less flawed. Justice Sotomayor believes that law can be separated from “religion”. But that’s simply not true. Everyone has beliefs that they accept on faith – beliefs that cannot be proven. And everyone has ethical beliefs – they have unprovable notions about what right and wrong behavior are. And everyone living in a society has a vested interest in having good ethical beliefs codified and enforced through law.

You see, those who say that you can’t “legislate morality” are tragically, and almost comically, mistaken. The ONLY thing you legislate is morality. Governments prescribe and proscribe; they preference and prohibit; and they do all this based upon “morality”. Things are illegal because they are believed to be wrong and things are legal (and even promoted and subsidized by government) because they are perceived to be moral goods. The ONLY thing we legislate is morality – and morality is just a subset of religion.

But some think that you can’t “legislate morality” in the sense that laws don’t change behavior. That’s dumb. If laws don’t affect behavior then why do we have laws!? What a society prohibits (presuming the law is enforced) is something that that society is going to view as bad, or at least risky. What a society permits and encourages and subsidizes is something a society will value and view as good, or at least advantageous! Legislation creates cultural norms – both of what’s good and what’s bad – and it changes the way people behave. Everyone knows this. Even if they don’t like it or are unwilling to admit it.

The truth is that our society can, and should, and must legislate morality. It’s the only thing we can legislate and our laws shape the kind of people we are and will become. The question is not whether we will enforce a religion – but which religion? The Christian faith, which is America’s cultural heritage, or the vengeful totemist and fetishistic religion of secular pagan Progressivism – our legal system demands we choose a religion…it cannot be both.

Aesthetic Theology in Catholic Architecture

Introduction

Ecclesial architecture necessarily reflects the theological imaginary of the architects. Architects attempt, through the edifices they build to communicate through beauty to those who experience the buildings. Architects building ecclesial structures communicate, mediately, their theological imaginary, which is centralized, in their ecclesiological and doxological theologies. Thus, architects of Catholic ecclesial edifices, have been able, throughout history, to present these theologies to those who experience their architecture. Moreover, architecture, being by nature aesthetical, most commonly functions unconsciously and subconsciously, affecting the affective and intuitive, rather than presenting rational propositions to be debated. These superrational effects are designed to work on one actively worshipping through the celebration of mass, or one in meditative or prayerful contemplation, or one merely seeking to be in a “holy place”.

The aesthetical factors that are most powerful in Catholic ecclesial architecture are: Light; Mass; and Form – with Form the subcategories of Line, Motion, Material, and Color.[1] It is my belief, as it was Thomas’, that Beauty is objective and a Transcendental. This means that Beauty is achievable, even though human attempts at capturing beauty are imperfect.

I believe that Beauty is the capacity to elicit delight on account of a harmony of characteristics. God, being Triune, is necessarily a harmony. God is an infinite, immaterial (at least before the Ascension) harmony of persons. God, in Divine Simplicity, perfectly harmonizes characteristics of Mercy and Justice; Greatness and Humility; Transcendence and Immanence; et cetera. As God perfectly harmonizes these qualities so completely that they are not separate categories but indifferentiable aspects in God’s ontological being, the Beauty of God is both incomprehensible and insuperable and unachievable. However, earthly Beauty reflects Divine Beauty to the extent that artefacts harmonize characteristics. The greater the harmony and the greater the divergence of qualities of the characteristics being harmonized the greater the Beauty, because it more closely approximates God’s being.

Catholic Architecture attempts to use Beauty to communicate the theological imaginary of the architects. Because of its immense history, Catholic Architecture has wonderful examples of many major Western architectural styles, particularly: Roman (Classical); Byzantine; Romanesque; Gothic; Renaissance; Baroque; Rococo; and Neo-Classical. There are not nearly as many representations of Beaux Arts, Art Nouveau and Deco (Arts Decoratifs), or Modernist style Catholic Churches. This is, of course, to say nothing of Catholic Churches in the Orient which have architectural styles pointedly non-Western. One naturally considers St. Basil’s in Moscow, and much of Orthodox Catholic architecture and can see that Orthodoxy has a decidedly Eastern flair to its buildings. Roman Catholicism, however, has far fewer extant[2] examples. Notable exceptions being The Cathedral of the Sacred Heart in Dali, China, as well as the Cathedral of St. Joseph in Guiyang, China.[3]

The vast array of ever-changing styles that are both transnational and transcultural speak to the universality of the human experience of Beauty as well as the deeply cultural aspects of architectural theology. Humanity have been drawn to Beauty in architecture, particularly as that architecture harmonizes Light, Mass, and Form.

It is also my belief that students of architecture can study Catholic Architecture both with a view of understanding the theological imaginaries of the architects, but also to gain an appreciation of what is worth not only appreciating, but also implementing in Protestant ecclesial architecture. Though a detailed study of any one of these subtopics would be material enough to fill volumes, my hope in this paper, is to make personal observations of my experience of Catholic architecture and what Evangelicals ought to take from them and implement in our architecture.

I believe that a general survey of Catholic architecture points us to three foci which have recurred throughout the history of Western architecture in general, and Catholic architecture specifically. It is important to remember that while technological developments made certain styles, and materials possible over the course of 2,000 years, these techniques developed because there was a desire to develop these techniques.[4] I believe that Catholic architecture has continually returned to three central motifs which it utilized to communicate the Catholic theological imaginary, not only as a means of theological instruction, but also as a Catholic apologetic, and even as a polemic. Architecture, as all disciplines is responsive (or reactionary!), and as such, we see Catholic architects, emphasizing and reemphasizing the same aesthetical foci.

Light, Mass, and Form (or Ornament) are these foci. We see the emphasis on Light in Gothic architecture, as well as the many Gothic revivals throughout history. We see the emphasis on Mass in the Romanesque, and Renaissance, and the Neoclassical[5]. We can see the emphasis on Form in the Baroque and Rococo, as well as some of the Neoclassical and Gothic churches – but the Baroque was the pinnacle of Catholic architectural propaganda – it is Tridentine theology in stone.

In this paper, I will attempt to consider these three major architectural aesthetical emphases – Light, Mass, and Form – making hypothetical observations about the theological imaginary behind these which I would like to see more of in Evangelical houses of worship. Space restrictions do not permit this to be an exhaustive chronological study of representative edifices from the major architectural eras: that being the work of a many volume series. However, I believe that these observations will be helpful for my own thinking vis-a-vis Christian architecture, as well as for anyone who has never considered these issues before. Thus, this paper serves both as an aide-mémoire for me, and as a pre-primer entrée into the topic of architectural theological aesthetics for the entirely uninitiated.

Light

Light is utterly crucial to all architecture. Not only the use of, or deliberate elimination of, windows in ecclesial architecture, but also the management of windows, and the architectural provisions for artificial light, all are taken into consideration by the careful architect. The Tabernacle Moses built had no windows and was entirely illuminated by oil lamps. Solomon’s temple, however, (and Zerubbabels’ and Herod’s and the coming Ezekiel’s) all had windows. Moreover, light is not only important in and of itself, but also in contrast with darkness. The chiaroscuro effect of managing shading and determining where illumination happens and what is illuminated is crucial to communicate value, attention – directing worship and communicating truth. 

Light of some kind or another is necessary for humans who haven’t been blessed with echolocation to live and move and have our being. So, naturally, there are the minimal functional provisions for light. But after those have been met – anything goes. And it is not readily apparent that more light is better – or, anyways, preferable. Modern skyscrapers are neogothic churches built to worship money, and modern theatre style churches are modernist businesses built to worship the pastor! The “masters of the universe” want as much light as possible – not to draw their thoughts upwards and to contemplate the pure, but so that the mighty might look upon their works and despair. Megachurches want only the minimal functional amount of artificial (never natural) light – and sometimes not even enough candlepower to constitute “minimal” – so that all attention can be focused on what is happening on the stage and so that that attention can be kept rapt through laser-lumentechnics, fog machines, and film-festival quality projections. 

As above – it is not at all readily apparent that more light is better – but the Gothic wanted to maximize light, and to actively de-emphasize mass, and to harness form. Most scholars would agree that the Gothic officially kicked off when Bishop Suger commissioned a restoration of Saint-Denis Cathedral. It was an immediate sensation. With the notable exception of Bernard of Clairveaux, who thought that it was a waste of money, everyone loved this new style.[6]

The Roman Catholic Church was impressed with the Gothic style, and there began a race to the heavens to see who could build the most luxurious cathedral in this style. However, contrary to popular opinion, it was not simply a contest to see who could build the biggest church. Proportions mattered immensely – which is to be expected in a medieval Catholic mind. Gothic cathedrals began to take on a standard form: the cross, with the ambulatory on the east and the transepts running north and south. This meant that the chancel would receive the most direct light in the morning, and the aisles and naves would get sunlight as the sun moved east-west, on either the north or south side, depending on the season.

While, my focus here is on light, and how the Gothic emphasized the use of light, it bears saying that maximizing natural light means a reduction in mass and necessitates a very specific form. Windows need to be as large as possible, which means that walls need to be thinner, which means arches must be built differently (if using stone). The pointed arch, as well as the flying buttress – which is lighter and more conducive to light than a pilaster or standard buttress – give the Gothic its recognizable form, but the form is subservient to Light.

Of course, Catholic architecture in other eras placed emphasis on light, but nothing like in the Gothic era. The light, as well as the form and lack of mass, were designed to create a Heaven on Earth – which fits perfectly into Catholic theology of the time and answers the needs of the people.

It needs to be remembered that most people in Western Europe in the middle ages lived in desperate poverty. Even the nomenclature for peasants gives us an idea of the miserableness of their conditions. Words like: serf (from servile); villain (from villein, a feudal tenant – from the root “ville” or townsman); rustic; clown; and more all speak to how peasants were considered rude and wicked – they comprised the vast majority of the population. The poverty and social degradation was omnipresent and by creating a “heaven on earth”, the cathedral became an escape. Peasants were able to go to the cathedral and experience beauty and transport and, according to the theology of the day, were able to actually touch Jesus, and have communion with the saints. The effect this had cannot be overestimated.

Suger may have made big windows because he was fascinated with Pseudo-Dionysius, but Europe embraced the Gothic because it answered a need. The theological imaginary developed both by its influences, and in response to the demands of the day. People needed to escape the drudgery of their lives. People lived in low, smokey, one room hovels, sleeping on rushes – their existence was hard, and earthy – and suddenly a work of heavenly beauty dominates the landscape, higher and huger than anything around, and inside is Christ, and dazzling light in a panoply of colors, transforming their world. For people living in one-room firelit huts, the cathedral was a phantasmagoria that could not fail to elicit unthinking, responsive devotion in any but the most serious (or suspicious) theologians of the day.

It seems to me to not be accidental that as the West has increased in wealth and standards of living that the Gothic has not revived in ecclesial architecture (though it has in governmental and commercial architecture: see the beloved Westminster Palace or the despised Tour Montparnasse). Needs have changed. The theological imaginary is being directed and responding to different challenges.

 Mass

Mass cannot be underestimated in its impact on the worshiper. The Romanesque and Neoclassical architectural forms emphasize Mass in a such a way as mass becomes primary. It is important to take note particularly of the eras in which the Romanesque and Neoclassical were the predominant architectural style in Roman Catholicism.

Dates vary, but there is a general consensus that the Romanesque style dominated from the 6th through the 11th Centuries. This is significant because from the 6th through the 11th Centuries Western Europe was recovering and rebuilding itself after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. From the 4th-6th Centuries, the Western Empire was foundering. Germanic invasions had destroyed the integrity and the viability of the Roman forces to maintain control and effectively govern. In the face of the power vacuum, the Church took on many of the roles that were formerly held by the emperor and his apparatus.

On Christmas in 800, Pope Leo made Charlemagne the Holy Roman Emperor. While this would later lead to a power-struggle between the monarchy and the papacy, the revival of the empire with the pope crowning the king, demonstrated the superiority of the Church and its power. Within 3 centuries the Church of Rome had rebuilt the empire! In the 12th Century, Frederick Barbarossa would subordinate the papacy (though subtly) to the monarchy, but this was a long ways off.

From roughly 550 to 800 the Catholic Church was the sole (or at least primary) preserver of stability. As the West dissolved into Feudalism the Church provided an overarching, transnational government. It’s architecture reflected this. The Palatine Chapel in Aachen is a wonderful example of a Romanesque interior. The rounded sanctuary with its massive rounded arches, using alternating colored stones draws attention to the arches and their weight – they dominate the space. The closeness of the space compared with its height reinforces the sense of mass and even the feeling of imposition. The Mass of the walls – necessary to build at such heights with rounded arches – meant small windows – which in turn meant a need to use bright colors and reflective materials to maximize light – as well as chandeliers. It is not accidental that so many Romanesque cathedrals were built with the sanctuary in the round – this would minimize the amount of artificial illumination necessary as well as maximizing reflection with the fewest dark corners.

Later, we see Mass emphasized in the Neoclassical style of Catholic architecture. A wonderful example of a Neoclassical church is the Baltimore Basilica. Built to classical proportions, it is true to form. This design is in keeping with the Neoclassical style of Washington, D.C. and much of the architecture in the later 18th and 19th Centuries. The Neoclassical emphasizes Mass through its use of pillars[7], through its proportions, through its bareness and lack of adornment (which is a reaction against the Baroque and Rococo, but it is not only that.) It is significant that the Catholic Church in Baltimore, as well as many cathedrals in Latin America, chose to utilize the neoclassical style. This is not accidental.

Mass conveys permanence and solidity. Naturally, this means that whatever the building houses is permanent, not only because of the aesthetics but because it LOOKS like an ancient building and thus we conceive of whatever is inside as being ancient – that it SHOULD be there.[8] Moreover, the Neoclassical, because of its use in government architecture put cathedrals on par with government offices. This is not accidental.

The Neoclassical churches became popular in the 18th and 19th Centuries. This is after Trent and after the rise of full-throated Modernism, and most significantly, after the French Revolution! The Roman Church in Europe was besieged. The Roman Church in America was treated with suspicion and seen as a Trojan Horse. The Roman Church in Latin America was striving to control the hearts and minds of both the Spanish colonists as well as the natives and those who interbred – all this while Bolivar was evicting the Iberians from the Western Hemisphere and others were following suit.

In both the Romanesque and the Neoclassical eras, the Roman Church wished to convey a theological imaginary that was at once solid, reliable, and permanent – but even polemic. The Baltimore Basilica is essentially architectural defiance to the WASPy Eastern US, telling the Yankees that the “Papists” here to stay. What did this convey to communicants and the wider world? It meant that the Catholic church was powerful and immovable – and its classical features in both the Romanesque and Neoclassical hearkened back, deliberately, to earlier days to convey antiquity, which reinforces permanence. Whether one was a Frankish peasant or an Irish emigre or a Mexican farmer the Mass of Catholic cathedrals in the Romanesque and Neoclassical styles told them that despite the chaos and turmoil in the world around them, Rome and Rome alone was permanent – the Bishop of the Eternal City would shepherd the faithful into the Eternal Kingdom.

Form

Form was emphasized in the Baroque and Rococo eras of Western architecture in Roman Catholic cathedrals as a conscious and deliberate response to the Protestant Reformation. In some ways, the work of Bernini and Borromini is Tridentine theology in marble. These two names dominate the conversation about Baroque architecture, and for our purposes, we will treat the Rococo as an extension of the Baroque, as the two eras followed eachother and both emphasized embellishment of form, through line, motion, and realism in sculpture.

Why should the Baroque be a response (or reaction) to the Reformation? Because the Reformation brought with it an iconoclasm that many believed to be extreme. The architectural asceticism of the Puritans and other Calvinists was notable and often unpopular. People wanted beauty in their ecclesial architecture. Moreover, the Renaissance had proved that the works of antiquity could not only be matched, but surpassed! Beauty, not abstract, but lifelike, realistic – humanistic! – beauty could be attained. The skill of the Renaissance was surpassed by the genius of the Baroque.

Indeed, it is nearly impossible to imagine that anything technically better could be done in marble than the Rape of Proserpina. And therein lies the central attraction of the Baroque – it was human. The move to the humanities that Erasmus led was transferred into all disciplines, included architecture. The Baroque emphasized the human element, with Bernini emphasizing sensuality and sexuality. The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa is a deliberate immortalizing of orgasm. Bernini sought to unify sensual ecstasy with theological transport. And many would say he succeeded.

Borromini, who was certainly the better architect if Bernini was the better sculptor, also sought to use Form and adornment to dazzle the eye and overwhelm with beauty and life. The Baroque conveyed vibrancy and something almost frenetic and chaotic, yet controlled and harnessed. Capturing these forms in marble meant that the most human experiences could be controlled by the Catholic church – everything truly human could find appreciation and subordination under Rome.

The Baroque catholic architects were fascinated by exploring what man could do with marble – Form dominated – and this matched the theological imaginary of these architects and the Popes and Bishops who commissioned their work. Romanism was facing challenges heretofore unseen. The entire system was being decried as a series of doctrines and canon laws that were invented and supported eachother, but were, ultimately, foundationless. From Transubstantiation to the veneration of Saints and the Deification of Mary, all these were considered novelties, and heretical novelties, by the Reformers. Trent determined, for good and for all, that there would be no theological rapprochement with the Reformers. In some ways Trent was an attempt to double-down on the divisive issues – to not only not give ground, but to become obnoxious to Protestant theologians. The Baroque is an expression of that. It is a celebration of humanism, or sensuality, of extravagance[9]; in ecclesial architecture, it is everything a Calvinist would hate…and it was done on purpose.

As with the Gothic’s emphasis on Light, and the Romanesque and Neoclassical eras’ emphases on Mass,  the Baroque was both a natural architectural development based upon increasing technological ability, but also an expression of a theological imaginary, created both by what came before and the existing systems of though, but also in response to the worshippers’ needs. The Baroque attempted to give more of what Catholicism saw as its asset. People wanted beauty – they would get beauty. A traveler from Geneva or London going through Bernini’s and Borromini’s Rome, would either be repulsed or deeply attracted.[10]

Conclusion

In Conclusion there are several things mentioned above that are worthy of developing to make sense of the Catholic emphases on Light, Mass, and From.

First is that all theology is a responsive or reactive exercise. While it may seem facile to state that theology is a constantly responsive exercise, it bears repeating as much of Protestant theology seems to desire to hermetically seal itself as a prophylactic against encroaching heresies and heterodoxies. Many consider Calvin’s works to be unimpeachable and the highest and finest iterations of theology ever mustered before the critiquing world. I don’t share the Calvinists’ sanguine faith in Calvin. Nor do I share the “theology ended with Luther” notion that some Lutherans hold – nor do I truck with those who think Menno Simons solved theology. Nor do I agree with anyone who thinks that theology has been solved once and for all and that anything that attempts to develop further than what “insert your preferred theologian here” said is speculative and therefore dangerous and therefore heresy.

Speculative theology has value. And the Reformers made errors. Thus, it doesn’t follow that any critique of the Reformers (or others) is a speculative novelty. Nor would it mean that even if these things WERE speculative novelties would they be invalidated. All theology was new theology, once. There was a time before Augustine was Augustine!

Indeed, not only is all theology responsive, but it MUST continue to respond if it is to remain relevant. That doesn’t mean that we necessarily need new answers (though often we do) but we certainly need new expressions of old answers – and as long as there are people and culture and language, change will be permanent and the theologians need to respond to those changes will be perennial. If Christianity truly is evergreen it cannot so be if we refuse to recognize that cultural context determines the mode through which truth needs to be communicated – if for no other reason than that we must speak in an intelligible language, though, of course, it’s much more than that.

Catholic architecture is proof, often written in stone!, that theology is responsive. It reacts to the challenges and discoveries of the day and attempts to incorporate them into the totalizing worldview/ meta-narrative/ systematic theology that is Christian faith. Catholic architects put their theological imaginary in stone and wood and glass and metal. They communicated through Light, Mass, and Form what their believed and what they believed the people needed to experience through architecture.

Second, architectural theology is deeply important. It communicates far more effectively that (some) preaching what a group believes about God and the world because it surpasses the rational mind and works at the level of intuition and subconscious impression.

The importance of the unconscious power of architecture cannot be overstated. And unfortunately, this has largely been ignored by many in contemporary evangelicalism. We have an architectural theology that communicates a theological imaginary, but not many of us would like it if we were told what it is. Architecture communicates values and loves and desires and importance. I wish to consider two common, contemporary, and iconic examples of Evangelic architecture, to develop this point. In the store-front church and the megachurch what is communicated?

In the storefront, the style and location communicates that the church is a business (even if it decidedly isn’t). This is impossible to shake off. It is impossible for a person to see a mini-mall church and not think of it as a business, even if only deep down. These impulses cannot be disabused. Moreover, the storefront cannot use height, or mass, and is limited in its use of natural light, and rarely, if ever, is there anything like form which is not in right angles. There is nothing to draw the worshiper upwards, there is nothing to transmute the worldly to the divine, there is nothing to suggest permanence, as these kinds of buildings are built and destroyed in our lifetimes, and often these churches spring-up and board-up within a few years. The store-front, architecturally, is purely transactional and commercial. It reinforces the American cultural theological imaginary which is Commercialism on a cosmic scale.

Megachurches, function similarly, but with differences. Here, these buildings are often new builds, but, again, their styles are almost always Modernist and Commercial. No pitched roofs mean no pitched ceilings which means no heavenward contemplation. Theatre-style seating without natural light communicates that worship is no different than a movie, or a play, or a concert – in essence, a production or performance[11]. The darkness means one cannot see his neighbors. The use of right angles, without adornment, without motion or beauty of line, means that the building approaches a Brutalism with its complete lack of adornment. Often the materials used are painted cinderblock which is unnatural and lacks the feeling of permanence that stone creates. The centrality of a projector screen means that we are not invited to participate but commanded to passively watch. The architecture clearly conveys to everyone that the person in the pew has literally nothing to offer (except maybe money), despite remonstrances given to those with the audacity to sit or not have their hands raised for 45 minutes at a time.

I pick on storefronts and megachurches for many reasons, but to summarize consider these brief thoughts. One, storefronts and megachurches are ugly. They are irredeemably, and (almost) deliberately ugly. In 1000 years, no one will be giving money to restore First Harvest Fellowship Revival International Firestarter Community Campus 37b of Humbug, Arkansas. No one cares about ugly architecture because everyone hates ugly architecture. But today, the great cathedrals and monasteries from the 4th Century onwards are beloved and are places of pilgrimage and inspire architects and inspire adoring admirers. Two, what they communicate is commercialism and theological passivity and this should disturb anyone who cares about what architecture communicates. Third, this is not an issue that can be ignored because the theological imaginary communicated through ecclesial architecture may only function at the subconscious level – but it does function and it does affect how we live and move and have our being.

In closing, there is much that Roman Catholic architecture can teach evangelicals. We can look to it as a guide of both the blessings and pitfalls of architecture. It can begin the conversation about how to weigh the competing interests of beauty and frugality as we steward our resources. It can teach us how to use architecture to communicate specific aspects of our theological imaginary. Catholic architecture can teach us how to discern the needs of people and how to respond. Most importantly, it can teach us how to rigorously criticize our own use of ecclesial architecture. Let us have beauty. But let us have a beauty that communicates to people truths about Christ and the world we live in in the language of architecture in a way that is wise in its stewardship but intolerant of ugliness. Let us build in a way that is responsive to our culture’s hopes, fears, desires, anxieties, and dreams, and let us do this pedagogically, both as a corrective and aspirationally. Let us shape men as we shape their churches.

Footnotes:

[1] Noticeably missing is “Space”. But while Space and Height are certainly crucial to Catholic architectural aesthetics, these seem to be universal. Space and its use is a very crucial aspect to all architecture at all times, and non-Catholic architecture largely attempted to achieve the same effects in Protestant churches and cathedrals. Because height and open spaces for contemplating the heavenly and the eternal are universal to good Christian architecture, I’ve left it out.

However, much can and should be said about the flat ceilinged, dark, movie-theatre churches that dominate the Christian ecclesial landscape. It is beyond the scope of this paper to analyze all the theology that that style of sanctuary communicates – but none of it is good!

[2] It is important to note that many Catholic churches in the East, and specifically Japan, were destroyed without leaving a trace, centuries ago. However, literature seems to suggest that there were significant attempts by the Jesuits to adapt Catholic architecture to Japanese modes and sensibilities. See Rie Arimura "The Catholic Architecture of Early Modern Japan: Between Adaptation and Christian Identity" Japan Review, no. 27 (2014): 53-76.

[3] Celso Costantini was a Roman Catholic architect who pushed for more oriental styles of architecture, in Chinese churches. He resisted the imposition of Gothic and Romanesque styles. However, many Chinese Christians seemed to be very pleased with the Western style and were unperturbed by their churches lacking pagodas. See Aminta Arrington “Recasting the Image: Celso Costantini and the Role of Sacred Art and Architecture in the Indigenization of the Chinese Catholic Church, 1922–1933” Missiology 41, no. 4 (2013): 438-51.

[4] For example – one could say that Gothic architecture only came into vogue because the development of the pointed arch made high, thin, glazed, walls of light possible. But isn’t it equally true, that the development of the necessary techniques and physical principles happened because there was a desire to build taller, lighter, brighter buildings? Necessity is the mother of invention – at least it was before the electronic revolution!

[5] Since the Neoclassical was, in many ways a rejection of the Catholic Baroque style, it is not unsurprising that there are fewer great examples of Catholic Neoclassical Cathedrals. Interestingly, the Basilica of the Assumption in Baltimore is very notably Neoclassical. This seems to not only be an attempt to fit into the DC area Neoclassical aesthetic, but also as a polemic – the mass and order of the Catholic Church will not be intimidated by the Anglo-Saxon Protestants. The waspy WASPs will not drive the Catholics out of their new hive.

[6] Bishop Suger was fascinated by light, as he was not a little influenced by Pseudo-Dionysius’ Neoplatonic writings on the mystical significance of light. Suger was affected by Pseudo-Dionysius, because Dionysius, is “Denis” in francofied Greek. Thus, the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius became associated with the legendary missionary, St. Denis. Thus, Dionysius, of Acts, was associated with an early medieval Syrian Neoplatonist, and by nominal association was tied to the 3rd Century saint.

None of this (as above) impressed Bernard. His writings on the waste and excess of the cathedrals is scathing. He thought the pagan influences were vile and stupid and decried not only what he considered profligate spending, but the impact it had. Bernard’s insight was that gold draws gold. The wealthy see the finery and are inclined to give more. There’s enough in that thought for a whole series of monographs!

A very convenient webpage provides Suger’s extant writings, as well as an overview of the situation, and also gives us Bernard’s writings on architecture: https://www.medart.pitt.edu/texts/Saint-Denis/SugerAdmin.html.

[7] The Neoclassical tended to prefer the Doric, though the Baltimore Basilica makes use of a more Ionic styled capital.

[8] In a curious parallel, not that the Russian Communist regime under Lenin and Stalin did not go around destroying cathedrals and palaces built by the autocracy – they simply took over. While those who lived under their rule would have to live and work in hideous Modernist atrocities, the apparatchiks lived and worked in the Kremlin, the beautiful Muscovite business district was transformed into Party offices and apartments. I believe that this was for more than financial and pragmatic concerns. Nor was it a merely cynical impulse that Stalin and Molotov could go to the Bolshoi and see the luxuriant and decadent beauty of the Romanov’s while everyone else was getting sent to Siberia (though there may have been some of that).

The very fact that Lenin, Stalin, et al. were ensconced in the buildings of the autocracy was evidence that they belonged. The ancient Kremlin was old and a sign of power – and whoever sat in the Kremlin belonged there.

Similarly, Neoclassical Catholic architecture in the New World (as well as Neoclassical governmental architecture in the New World) hearkened to antiquity and implies that those in power have always been in power and always will.

[9] I mean “extravagant” in both its common modern English sense, as well as in the 18th Century Italian sense of “la stravaganza”. These related words had an overlapping meaning in the 18th C. and the term was used by composers to describe technique and genre. The greatest Baroque composer (in my opinion), Catholic priest Antonio Vivaldi, published 12 violin concerti titled La Stravaganza. Vivaldi used the term to mean “skill at containing the unexpected and bizarre within an established etiquette”.

Baroque extravagance, in the sense of “la stravaganza” was about being unpredictable – in an approved and formalized mode. Which may sound oxymoronic, until you listen to Vivaldi in comparison to great Renaissance composers like Josquin des Prez, William Byrd, Thomas Tallis – or seemingly anyone else. Of course you can hear hints of sacred music and Renaissance forms in Vivaldi, and especially Bach, and Handel, but the truly extravagant Baroque music – what makes it distinctly Baroque – is the unpredictability in form, in color, in sound, in harmonies, in textures. The Baroque is extravagant, not only in the sense of luxuriant (and even prodigal) but in the sense of unexpected yet familiar.

Christopher Hogwood, Vivaldi “La Stravaganza”, http://www.hoasm.org/VIIIA/VivaldiStravaganza.html, accessed 12/9/2021.

[10] An excellent article taking up this theme is:

Joshua Kinlaw, “Protestants in Rome”, First Things, June/ July 2020.

[11] All worship is performative, but not all is a performance. It is often impossible to tell the difference between the two – but those who spend enough time and have enough discernment can distinguish between the two.

Theologies in Conflict

There’s a reason there are so many who are talking about the Rittenhouse trial. Of course, various commentators have various reasons. The reason I want to talk about the Kyle Rittenhouse trial isn’t really because of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. Because, I don’t think that the Rittenhouse trial is extremely instructive. It hasn’t taught us anything new. The corruption and abuse we saw in the Rittenhouse trial is not the disease – it’s a symptom of what’s wrong in this country. The trial has, because it is symptomatic and emblematic, caught our attention and it’s become the focus of many, especially on the political right in this country, because it seems to them to be a clear cut case of a political prosecution.

And it’s with VERY good reason that conservatives are concerned that this was a political prosecution. If you haven’t followed the trial, let’s do a brief review of the facts so that we can make sense of why it has created such a furor.

Kyle Rittenhouse was tried for murder because during the Kenosha riots (I mean the Kenosha peaceful protests) Kyle went to defend businesses and offer 1st aid to people who had been injured. During the night, he was attacked – this is not alleged, it’s on video, he was attacked, guns were fired, and according to both witness testimony and the video evidence, young Kyle only fired after he was attacked, by people who had physically assaulted him with a skateboard and a gun, again, AFTER at least one shot had been fired while he was being chased by a group of peaceful protesters.

Now, if you think that this is a textbook case of self-defense and that it’s ludicrous that this case was even being tried, then you would side with a huge number of legal scholars who had been saying for days that the Judge should’ve issued a directed verdict meaning that the judge doesn’t even let the case go to a jury but he enters the verdict of not guilty himself because no reasonable jury could find otherwise.

Again, if you hadn’t followed the trial, this may sound like I’m blowing things out of proportion, but the case went so badly for the prosecution that some legal commentators are actually suggesting that the prosecution deliberately threw the case, and were possibly acting unethically to try to get a mistrial so they could possibly retry later.

Amazingly AFTER the prosecution’s star witness – the prosecution’s star witness…prosecutions! – said that Rittenhouse only shot him AFTER he had pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse…AFTER that little bit of legal theatre, the prosecutor had Rittenhouse on the stand, and it was like watching a tragicomedy when someone who isn’t a lawyer is forced through some kind of body-switching magic to try a murder case when they’d had zero legal training. It really is that bad. Imagine a Freaky Friday type sitch, except instead of Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan, this is the version where Binger’s 9 year old son switched bodies with him in the night, and now the 9 year old is attempting to prosecute a murder trial. It really is that bad. He was asking Rittenhouse if he played the Call of Duty video game, which is of course deeply relevant to whether he was acting in self-defense. He asked Rittenhouse why he thought he needed to shoot Grosskreutz when he had a rifle and Grosskreutz only had a handgun.

Yes. He really asked that.

And to top it off, he asked Rittenhouse why he had been silent and hadn’t talked to the media until the trial, which he did to insinuate that Rittenhouse’s silence was evidence of his guilt. Now, I’m no legal scholar. I’ve never been to law school – I don’t even watch cop-dramas, so I’m no expert. But I have read the Constitution a few times, and last I checked in this country you have the right to remain silent, and that silence cannot be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Moreover, people who actually ARE legal experts, including the judge, have said that asking a defendant this question is a major no-no, like first year legal stuff that every lawyer knows – you simply cannot ask that question because you risk the judge dismissing with prejudice. Now, this is especially relevant because Judge Schroeder has apparently often spoken out about how he thinks the media craze for information is poisoning juries before trials and prosecutors are getting cases tried in the media before they make it to court. And I’m inclined to agree with the judge. I think it’s getting very hard in this country to get a fair trial. But the fact that this prosecutor would ASK that question, knowing that it’s 1) unethical 2) stupid 3) sticking a finger in the judge’s sore spot 4) possibly illegal, the fact that he would ask this question is mind boggling.

And so, people who followed this case are saying that this Kenosha District Attorney brought a case that never should have been broughten and that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct. And the thing is that there have been corrupt and crappy prosecutors and District Attorneys for a long time – that’s not new, and that’s not particularly disturbing, because that’s a correctable bug.

What’s worrying isn’t so much the crappy behavior of the lawyer in the trial. It’s the fact that this looks VERY much like a selective prosecution. It looks VERY much like Kyle Rittenhouse was only on trial because it is politically expedient for the DA to try him. All over the country, the major media were calling him a murderer and a racist and a white supremacist; the BLM and Antifa thugs and terrorists (I mean peaceful protesters) were threatening to burn Kenosha again if Kyle weren’t tried and found guilty – which by the way is like the literal definition of terrorism, you know the use of or terrorizing threat of violence to achieve political ends. So, we either have a criminal justice system too frightened of the race-baiting, communist terrorists to oppose them, or in league with them…and I’m not sure which is worse.

And this is all in line with what we’ve been seeing. From the government we see the FBI has become little more than a progressive political enforcement brigade…which is neat to see the FBI go back to its roots when it was little more than Hoover’s personal blackmail network, ya know #rememberwhereyoucamefrom.

Oh, also the FBI recently raided the offices of Project Veritas because they apparently were in possession of Ashley Biden’s diary – which she claims was stolen – so therefore it was possession of stolen goods. Notice how the New York times wasn’t raided when they received Donald Trump’s stolen tax returns. We see that the raid and the data extraction being done by the FBI was so egregious that a Federal judge halted their work.

Of course, the IRS under Obama was targeting political opponents and now we’re beginning to see history repeat with bureaucratic agency attacks on conservative groups and individuals, as the government wants to start monitoring all transactions over $600. And this is…disquieting. But it’s all the more upsetting, when we see that corrupt government bureaucrats and agents are not only abusing their power, but that the apparatchiks are in bed with big business to have a joint public-private progressive platform to ensure that the only people who get to have rights to free speech and privacy and conscience and trial by jury are people who fit the mold. Business and Bureaucracy are united in bringing in the secular millennium – and I say millennium and not Utopia because this vision is clearly a religious and theological vision and not merely sociopolitical – as if the theological could ever be removed from the political anyways!

The problem is NOT that our institutions are godless – the problem is that they worship the wrong gods! It isn’t a lack of theology, it’s a bad theology. And a bad theology is always opposed to good theology. Indeed, bad theology cannot tolerate good theology and when men whose theology is bad are in charge they will persecute those who have good theology.

Consider the account of Joash, the king of Judah.

Now, if you have a good bible memory, you’ll remember that Joash was a little boy who was likely to be put to death by the wicked queen Atahliah, who took over after her son was killed by Jehu. The godly priest Jehoiada took Joash and hid him until the king was not a baby anymore and Jehoiada had gathered enough strength and political power. Then he had Athaliah deposed and Joash was made king. And as long as Jehoiada was around, Joash listened to him and he did what was right – but then he decided to forget God and we’re given this story in 2 Chronicles 24:

17 After the death of Jehoiada, the officials of Judah came and paid homage to the king, and he listened to them. 18 They abandoned the temple of the Lord, the God of their ancestors, and worshiped Asherah poles and idols. Because of their guilt, God’s anger came on Judah and Jerusalem. 19 Although the Lord sent prophets to the people to bring them back to him, and though they testified against them, they would not listen.

20 Then the Spirit of God came on Zechariah son of Jehoiada the priest. He stood before the people and said, “This is what God says: ‘Why do you disobey the Lord’s commands? You will not prosper. Because you have forsaken the Lord, he has forsaken you.’”

21 But they plotted against him, and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the Lord’s temple. 22 King Joash did not remember the kindness Zechariah’s father Jehoiada had shown him but killed his son, who said as he lay dying, “May the Lord see this and call you to account.”

23 At the turn of the year,[a] the army of Aram marched against Joash; it invaded Judah and Jerusalem and killed all the leaders of the people. They sent all the plunder to their king in Damascus. 24 Although the Aramean army had come with only a few men, the Lord delivered into their hands a much larger army. Because Judah had forsaken the Lord, the God of their ancestors, judgment was executed on Joash. 25 When the Arameans withdrew, they left Joash severely wounded. His officials conspired against him for murdering the son of Jehoiada the priest, and they killed him in his bed. So he died and was buried in the City of David, but not in the tombs of the kings.

26 Those who conspired against him were Zabad,[b] son of Shimeath an Ammonite woman, and Jehozabad, son of Shimrith[c] a Moabite woman. 27 The account of his sons, the many prophecies about him, and the record of the restoration of the temple of God are written in the annotations on the book of the kings. And Amaziah his son succeeded him as king.

Later we read that Amaziah, the son of the prophet murdering king Joash was also confronted by a prophet – let’s look at that in 2 Chronicles 25:

14 When Amaziah returned from slaughtering the Edomites, he brought back the gods of the people of Seir. He set them up as his own gods, bowed down to them and burned sacrifices to them. 15 The anger of the Lord burned against Amaziah, and he sent a prophet to him, who said, “Why do you consult this people’s gods, which could not save their own people from your hand?”

16 While he was still speaking, the king said to him, “Have we appointed you an adviser to the king? Stop! Why be struck down?”

So the prophet stopped but said, “I know that God has determined to destroy you, because you have done this and have not listened to my counsel.”

And, since God isn’t a liar, King Amaziah was destroyed because he decided to challenge Jehoash, Jehu’s grandson and the powerful northern kingdom and he got himself killed.

Now these two stories may seem random – but they are NOT. Notice what happens in this story – the idol worshippers in power, when challenged, they overthrow law and justice, and they try to silence opposition through intimidation or murder. And while these are of course only two examples of MANY we could find of this kind of behavior in the Bible, it’s important to note that both of these events, the murder of Zechariah son of Jehoiada and the threat to murder the unnamed prophet who challenged Amaziah, both of them came about before these kings were destroyed.

Because bad theology doesn’t work. Bad theology is always its own undoing. Those who reject God’s wisdom and murder and threaten his prophets have to suffer for their wickedness and folly.

Friends, the way of the transgressor is hard because God is not mocked; every man reaps what he sows. When people sow lies and corruption and violence then they reap destruction. And a nation whose politicians and police and prosecutors and presidents are a pack of lying heretics is a nation that is doomed.

Now, if you’re listening to me right now saying that seeing kids railroaded and investigative journalists’ homes and raided and the FBI lying on FISA warrants, and the big tech oligarchs silencing free speech and the myriad other events that have happened in the past few years have eroded our public trust in institutions; you’re hearing me right. If you hear me say that and you expect me to say that the solution is a return to the constitution and rural values and some kind of Cato-like classical liberal virtues and society, then your expectations are sadly out of line with reality.

Because I have no intention of saying that all we need is to be more American, that we need more free speech and we need to get rid of corruption in the courts and need to reign in the power of the technocrats. I have no intention of saying it because 1) it isn’t true and 2) it wouldn’t work. It isn’t true because thinking that all we need to do is read the Federalist Papers and some Ayn Rand and start baking apple pie again misses the point. It ignores how we got here in the first place. The kind of Ra-Ra Let’s Go Brandon kind of Americans think they can restore their country by fixing the manifested corruption in our systems – but they have no idea WHY that corruption exists.

Progressives don’t become Utopians because they are progressive – Utopians become Progressives because they are Utopian! And Utopians are Utopian because they are godless and ignore the theological truths of God’s sovereignty, God’s laws, and human depravity. Indeed, they hate the truth and reject it and hate you for believing it.

Remember, Progressivism IS a religion. Now, I know what you’re thinking. You’re thinking – “but Luke, a lot of Progressives are atheists, so it can’t be a religion.” Well, that all depends on how we define religion doesn’t it? Do atheist Progressives believe in theistic God? Many if not most do not, and if they do, then that God is not consonant with the God of Biblical Christianity. Indeed, many of the early American Progressives in the late 19th and 20th Century were Social Gospel Christians. But the God of the Social Gospel Christians was not the God of Biblical Christianity.

But ignoring the Liberal Christians who are engaged in Progressivism, though they once made up a sizable portion of Progressivism and still have some influence today, but ignoring them, I want to substantiate the claim that Progressivism is a religion.

Now, again, you might be saying, “but Luke atheists cannot be involved in a religion.” But like I said, that all depends on what you mean by a religion. And if you want you can look up “religion” in the dictionary and depending on what dictionary you use you’ll get a different definition – or you can read anthropologists or sociologists of religion or experts in comparative religion – or, I know this sounds crazy, but you could ask a theologian! GASP! And they all are going to give you some slightly different answers on what a religion is.

But here’s how I’m defining the word and I think that this can be defended. When I say “religion” I mean a system of thought that gives and account for the way the world is and how it should be. Now, I know that that’s very, very simple. But It’s also very broad. But consider this definition: a religion is a system of thought that gives an account for the way the world is and how it should be. So, let’s look at my definition piece by piece to see if it makes sense.

First, I say that a religion is a system. Now, I’m pretty firm on this – for something to be a religion it cannot be a collection of disconnected superstitions – that would be a culture, but not a religion. So, for instance, if someone believes in aliens, sasquatch, and ghosts, but they believe each of things independently, it isn’t a religion, because it isn’t a system. A religion has to cohere – even if it’s incoherent – it has to attempt to hold things together.

Second, not only does it have to be a system, but it has to be a system of thought. Now, this doesn’t mean that all religion is is thinking and not behaviors or values – those come later. But a religion is a system of thought, not merely a system of behaviors. Otherwise being a major league pitcher or a welder or a heart surgeon could be a religion. Those things all are systemic and all of them are systems of behavior, but that’s not enough. It has to be a system of thought. Because thoughts and ideas are how we understand the world – which brings us to the next point.

Third, a religion has to be a system of thought that gives and account for the way the world is. This means that there must be an account – not necessarily an explanation – but an account for the way the world is. You have to give an account for why there is an earth. You have to give an account for why there are humans. You have to give an account for death, disease, and despair. You have to give an account for why there is a world and why the world is the way that it is! This means that for something to be a religion it has to have a Creation and a Fall if it’s going to tell us how we got here and why things are how they are. This means that the Big Bang Theory isn’t a religion. Yes, it attempts to give an account for why the universe is in its current form, but it doesn’t give an account for the way the world is – i.e. why there is pain and suffering and why people care about it. The theory of Evolution is not a Religion, because while it explains why there is death and disease, it doesn’t explain where anything came from – nor why we care. However, Progressivism accepts the Big Bang and Darwinian Evolution as part and parcel of its system – at least the atheistic versions of Progressivism do.

Fourth, a religion is a system of thought that gives an account for the way the world is and how it should be, and the emphasis is on how it should be. Notice that word SHOULD – that’s the most important word, because SHOULD implies volition and obligation and morality. This is the key component, but by itself it isn’t a religion. You can have people who have all kinds of opinions on how the world should be, but they don’t give an explanation of why the world is the way it is. If having opinions on how the world SHOULD be were a religion, then every 3-year-old on earth would be the founder of their own religion. No, a religion has to explain not only how the world SHOULD be, but why it is the way it is, now – and it has to do it systematically.

Now, again, I know that a lot of people are going to disagree with me because they think that a religion has to involve a supernatural being. I disagree. If something meets the criteria I’ve listed above, then that thing is a system of thought that explains the origins of the world, and gives an accounting for the human condition, and then makes moral statements about how people ought to behave – and all of this is based on faith.

Any account of origins is based on faith – it can’t be else. You weren’t there to see the creation, so you can only accept an explanation on faith. You don’t know WHY anyone does anything, often to include yourself! You have to have faith that the explanations you have for human behavior are accurate. You can’t prove moral values; you simply accept them on faith.

So, a religion, as I’ve defined it as: a system of thought that gives an account for the way the world is and how it should be. That means it’s a faith-based account of the creation, human nature, and moral values and obligations.

That sounds pretty religion-y to me.

Now, let’s consider Progressivism – and for our purposes, we’re going to restrict ourselves to atheistic Progressivism.

Now, is Progressivism a system? Yes. Is it a system of thought? Yes. Is Progressivism a system of thought that gives an account of the way the world is? Yes. Atheistic Progressivism holds to Materialist Darwinism – so they would accept something like the Big Bang, and would believe that all life came from non-life, at some point after everything came from nothing. So, Progressivism has a creation account, and the various versions of Progressivism also have a Fall – with Marx it was Capitalism that alienated workers from the wealth generated by their labor. For the Fascists it was racial enemies that weakened the Razza or the Volk. For Humanists it’s society. For the Woke it’s Whiteness. For Environmentalists it’s carbon emissions. For the Neo-Malthusians it’s population growth. Because all the Progressive visions of why humanity is the way it is have to give an accounting for why the world sucks – I mean Buddhists just did an end run and said that pain isn’t really real, so don’t worry about it, but that seems like a lazy answer to most people.

Lastly, is Progressivism a system of thought that gives an account for the way the world is and how it should be? Yes, because all of those above gave us an ought to follow up with the why. For the Communists it was worldwide proletarian revolution to overthrow the bourgeoisie. For the Fascists it was the Holocaust. For Humanists it’s getting rid of spanking or everyone being naked or whatever the latest claptrap is. For the Woke it’s modern injustice to overcome past injustice. For environmentalists it’s the Green New Deal. For the neo-Malthusians it’s China’s 1 child policy, or forced sterilization, or war.

But if you notice, that embedded in every one of those Progressive positions is the idea that the world can be improved through human knowledge and will and political power. There is, fundamentally, in all the atheistic Progressivisms a belief that the world is wrong but that it can be better. And more importantly, they believe that this progress is the inevitable conclusion of history (which is why Progressives are always talking about being on the right side of History). And even more importantly, they believe at the culmination of history, the world will be at peace and all the people who matter will be truly flourishing (emphasis on all the people who MATTER will flourish). And more importantly, this is a moral imperative to make the world the way they envision it. And most importantly, they should be the ones who make the world become the way they believe it ought to be.

It’s a Utopianism – all modern Atheist Progressivisms are all Utopian at their heart.

And yes, to be sure, the Bible has a vision of Utopia – it’s called the Millennium. And yes, Progressivism ABSOLUTELY mirrors the Biblical story. Progressivism is Christianity without Christ. It’s Creation, Fall, Redemption, and Utopia. But it’s a godless Utopia. And it’s one that has no external moral standards.

Throughout the Bible, the problem of evil is taken seriously. The Bible says that there are things God cannot do, because they will violate His nature. The Bible has people questioning God’s righteousness and asking whether the Judge of all the earth will do right. The Bible has a moral standard that is the standard of God’s transcendent moral character. But God is bound by that character – and it’s one that we can know and appeal to.

The Progressive has no transcendent moral standard. To men like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, it didn’t matter how many people you had to murder if it meant Utopia for the survivors. For our contemporary Progressives it doesn’t matter if you break the law and violate the constitution as long as the Progress of history moves forwards. For the American atheist Progressives, it doesn’t matter who has to be disenfranchised, or robbed, or harmed, or murdered; it doesn’t matter whose rights are violated; it means nothing to lie and cheat – as long as Progress is achieved. And that’s because Progress is the only moral good and if not the only, then the highest. And when Progress is the only moral good, then anything that opposes Progress is, by definition, not only a moral evil, but a blasphemy.

That’s why we’re seeing the heightened emotions and violent outbursts in our political scene today. That’s why we’re seeing the anger and crudeness. That’s why we’re seeing the hatred. That’s why we see the cheating and the lying and the illegality and the unconstitutionality and all the evil going on. It’s because the Progressives view themselves as the good guys in a Holy War and their opponents as the blasphemous heathens and heretics who oppose what is good.

And all throughout human history there has only been one penalty for blasphemy.

Friends, I hope I’m being clear, but this is a very complex subject – you could do years of reading and study on this topic, it is deep and complex, but in the end it boils down to this: Progressives treat Progressivism as a religion. And as a religion, it has moral values and obligations. Progress is the highest and really the only good. Thus, whatever leads to progress is admissible and even laudable – whatever resists progress is evil and blasphemous.

This means that Progressivism is a religion in conflict with Christianity.

Yes, these are very similar religions – no doubt about that. And it’s there very similarity that makes the conflict all the more confusing and fierce, because we want many of the same kinds of things, and we often use the same words.

But make no mistake, Progressivism and Christianity are not the same. Indeed, they are incompatible. Despite the similar language they are different.

Christianity says that a Transcendent Holy God created the Universe because it please Him. Atheist Progressivism says a causeless, purposeless, meaningless explosion set everything in motion.

Christianity says that man is made in the image of God and that all people have inherent worth and dignity. Atheist Progressivism says that men are hairless apes who won the brain and thumb lottery and do not have inherent and inviolable value and dignity.

Christianity says that man was created to rule the planet as coregents in communion with God. Progressivism says we have no purpose.

Christianity says that because of disobedience to God, sin and death entered the world. Progressivism has many versions of the Fall, but they reject that we’ve offended a creator God.

Christianity says that we are all born evil and sinner in Adam. Progressivism says that we are all born good and are corrupted by society.

Christianity says that we cannot be improved without being born again and led by the Spirit. Progressivism says that progress comes from having the right leadership and enough willpower.

Christianity says that God became man and died to save us and to redeem us. Progressivism says that redemption comes form the right people getting enough power.

Christianity says that God will bring about the Kingdom of God for those who love God and wish to serve Him. Progressivism says that Utopia will be brought about when the right people get enough power and either win over or kill all their enemies.

I could go on and on, but I think you’re seeing the point. These are religions and they are religions in conflict. And as you watch the strife and conflict in our country – attempt to see it not through the lens of Left and Right or Libs vs. Cons but see the conflict as atheist Progressive Utopians and Christians, and see if that doesn’t offer a better explanation.

This is the division in our society because these two religions are not only competing but incompatible. They cannot both survive and they cannot tolerate eachother because both worldviews are totalizing.

Let me unpack that statement.

There are some beliefs that you can hold that have little or no impact on other things you believe. For instance – you can believe that there is a Loch Ness Monster and that may have literally no bearing whatever on anything else you believe. It cannot be used to predict any other belief you have. If you believe in the Loch Ness monster, I can’t use that to guess whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat; it doesn’t tell me your opinion on Abortion or Gay marriage; it doesn’t tell me whether or not you support the Green New Deal; it gives me no hint as to whether you think that the Versailles treaty was fair to the Germans! Your belief in Nessie has low diagnosticity. That means that as a diagnostic tool it’s useless. You can’t diagnose or predict other beliefs you have based upon your faith in the Scottish Lake Monster. So, some views, and opinions, and beliefs don’t interfere with other beliefs.

I can think that Sonic is orders of magnitude better than McDonalds and it doesn’t affect any other thought I have, unless it’s specifically related to whether or not I want a delicious juicy burger from Sonic…and I do…but that’s irrelevant. It just means I need to stop recording these when I’m hungry!

Belief in the Loch Ness monster or admitting the truth of the superiority of Sonic is a VIEW.

However, some views DO impact other beliefs. If you believe that all humans are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that these rights cannot be infringed without due process of Law, then YES, that will have a HUGE impact on other beliefs – even if you’re inconsistent, or a bit hypocritical at times, you’re faith in the Constitution’s description of basic human rights is going to affect A LOT of things. Beliefs that affect lots and lots of other beliefs are called worldviews. They are attempts to make sense of the specific problems or phenomena in the world through one or several guiding principles. These are called WORLDVIEWS.

Then there is a special category of worldviews. These worldviews not only attempt to make sense of the world through guiding principles, but they claim to answer all questions. These are metanarratives – these, as one writer has put it, subsume all paradigmata under its own paradigm. OK, but that’s a lot of $5 theology worlds.

Let’s break it down. This special category of worldviews doesn’t accept that there is anything that the worldview cannot explain, incorporate, or refute. All knowledge and truth is incorporated into the system. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, Scientific Materialism, Communism, and of course Progressivism – these are all worldviews that attempt to explain everything. True believers would tell you that there is nothing that these systems cannot explain, incorporate, or refute. All knowledge, all data, all phenomena, all truth, every human behavior, every paradigm, every narrative – everything can be accounted for by the system and accounted for EXCLUSIVELY. These are TOTALIZING WORLDVIEWS.

And, as you can expect, totalizing worldviews are exclusivist, and by nature, very intolerant. Now, understand, when I say intolerant, I don’t mean that that’s a bad thing. Intolerant is not a pejorative. Indeed, sometimes intolerance can be a very good thing. If you swallow a bunch of poison – you ought to want your body to be intolerant of the poison and to vomit it out. If you get a virus or bacterial infection, you want your immune system to be intolerant of that disease.

Indeed, we have a name for diseases that prevent your immune system from fighting off diseases – a disease that effectively prevents your body from being intolerant – we call them immunodeficiency diseases…AIDS is an example. When your body’s immune system becomes tolerant of the WRONG things, that’s bad.

However, when your body’s immune system is intolerant of the WRONG things, then that, of course, is also bad. These are auto-immune disorders. Things like arthritis and lupus are autoimmune diseases, but so are forms of myocarditis and autoimmune disorders can cause fatal cytokine storms.

The problem isn’t tolerance or intolerance per se – the question is whether you’re tolerant and intolerant of the right things. A totalizing worldview is intolerant of contradictions. And if the worldview is correct it SHOULD be intolerant.

Now, I’ve spent all this time making this point, because I want us all to be on the same page – 2 weeks ago, I laid out the case that the division in this country is not primarily political, but theological – it’s a division not between Left and Right, but between Progressive Utopians and Christians.

Last week, I showed that Progressive Utopianism is a religion and a religion incompatible with Christianity.

And so far today, we’ve added some new vocabulary and maybe some new thought concepts to our theological toolbox. It isn’t simply that Christianity and Progressive Utopianism are in conflict. And it isn’t simply that they are incompatible religions. Those things are true enough.

But not only are Christianity and Progressivism conflicting, incompatible, religions – but they are both TOTALIZING worldviews, which means that they will both try to completely defeat and evict the other from the marketplace of ideas. Neither can tolerate the other. Christianity is allergic to Progressive Utopianism, and Utopian Progressivism is allergic to Christianity. They cannot both share the public square in a single polity forever. They are incompatible. A nation cannot be both Christian and Progressive Utopian. It does not work. They have conflicting aims, conflicting moral systems, conflicting views of man, conflicting conceptions of the good, they are in total conflict and if those are the only two options, then a society cannot be both – at least not forever.

Right now, our nation is a kind of Frankenstein’s monster, Christian in its founding and heritage and our institutions and systems are all Christian in orientation, but the overt and even the implied Christian ideals and morals and influence is, bit by bit, being replaced with Progressive alternatives.

Consider marriage. Marriage in this country came from the Christian ideas of marriage taken from Europe. But Progressivism has been undermining marriage for well over a century – first with Darwinism and Feminism and Modernism, then with 2nd and 3rd Wave Feminism, and the 60s counter-culture, and the sexual revolution, and no fault divorce and legalized abortion, and now homosexual marriage, and the dissolution of marriage so that vast numbers of people are not going to get married and now huge percentages of millennials and gen Zers have no interest in having children.

Marriage has been eroded through cultural and legal means so that it is a hollow shell of its former self, as far as social institutions go.

And that’s not an accident. It is not accidental that marriage has been eroded since the rise of Progressivism. Communist Russia talked about abolishing marriage; we see the antimarriage policies and cultural moves in the US. Marriage is only tolerated as a proxy for childrearing. In fascist states, marriage was promoted because it meant children and you need children if you’re going to conquer the world. But marriage would be jettisoned if possible. Why? Because marriage creates a bond that supersedes one’s loyalty to the state. Now, that’s not to say that Progressives, themselves, don’t like marriage – many of them have married well and are happy with their 1.7 children and large nest-egg. They, on a personal level, see the benefits of marriage. But marriage for Utopian Secular Humanist Totalitarians is not a beneficial social institution, if your primary goal is to have a subservient population.

Unfortunately, children born outside of stable marriages have a very high rate of criminality – so it’s a bit of a double-edged sword. You can’t get rid of marriage without having a population of uncontrollable hellions, but you can’t keep marriage and have everyone worship the state. Similarly, after the Communist Revolution in the Russian Empire, Lenin, Stalin, and all the Communist big-wigs had to legalize, tolerate, and actually PROMOTE capitalism, because it was the only way for the country to get wealthy enough to get rid of capitalism! The New Economic Policy meant that the only way to get rid of capitalism was with more capitalism!

And that points out the underlying folly of every aspect of the Progressive Utopian project – it is all contrary to reality. It has a faith-based and dogmatic and entirely incorrect view of human nature. And because its anthropology is inherently, unchangeably, and unavoidably wrong, its policies always fail in the long run. You can’t create policies that succeed with humans if your anthropology is totally wrong. Unless of couse your goal isn’t actually to gain Utopia but just to have dictatorial power. And of course, we see this clearly in 1984. O’Brien asks a naïve Winston why they really want power, and this exchange happens.

[Winston said] 'You are ruling over us for our own good,' he said feebly. 'You believe that human beings are not fit to govern themselves, and therefore – …

'That was stupid, Winston, stupid!' he said. 'You should know better than to say a thing like that.'

'Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?'

The point O’Brien makes is that it doesn’t matter to the totalitarian that his projects don’t work. It doesn’t matter that their economic system fails. It doesn’t matter that the Utopia never comes. Achieving Utopia is not the purpose of Utopianism – according to O’Brien, the purpose of Utopianism is power for those in charge of creating the Utopia.

Progressivist Utopianism fails everywhere it is tried. It cannot bring in the Utopia because it is fundamentally wrong about what human flourishing IS and therefore it is fundamentally wrong about how to achieve it. The totalizing worldview of progressive Utopianism is a complete and utter failure – if its purpose is to create a Utopia. But if its purpose is to justify, and secure power for the elites, then it is eminently and incontrovertibly successful. If, more specifically, its goal is to overthrow Christianity is the dominant cultural worldview, then it has been very successful heretofore and is likely to win the day, unless God intervenes.

Because here’s the thing. There are only 2 kinds of progressive utopians, the useful idiots who believe the rhetoric and the evil people who don’t. Indeed, there are a LOT of Utopians who have convinced themselves that Progressivism is the way to create paradise o earth. They sincerely believe this. It’s a stupid idea, and they are either self-deceived or willfully blind, or so arrogant that they can believe something demonstrable false. Human beings can sincerely believe a lie. Sinners can, indeed, convince themselves of something they KNOW to be a lie. The Bible calls this suppressing the truth in unrighteousness! So, there are the true believers, but apart from them are the cynics who, with eyes wide open, reject the living God and try to overthrow him.

That’s all there is to it. But at the root of it all is a rejection of God’s vision for the world, and His revealed truth about humanity, and His diagnosis and cure for the human condition. Progressive Utopianism is the big lie that people swallow to give them an excuse to reject Christ. At least it’s the one on offer today! Every culture in every generation has at least one great lie on offer. Every culture in every generation has some excuse to hate God and continue in humanity’s disordered loves.

And the most tragic and shocking thing is that so many do this knowingly. They know, even if not consciously, they KNOW that they are looking for an excuse to reject Christ. And then know, even if not consciously, they KNOW that their lie is a lie and it cannot work.

But they persist in their lies.

I’ve thought long and hard for a long time about why. Why do people persist in self-destructive behavior? Why do people reject God, knowing that it will mean misery? I’ve spent a long time thinking and pondering this, and in the end I don’t think anyone has said it better than Milton:

Is this the Region, this the Soil, the Clime,

Said then the lost Arch-Angel, this the seat

That we must change for Heav'n, this mournful gloom

For that celestial light? Be it so, since he [ 245 ]

Who now is Sovran can dispose and bid

What shall be right: fardest from him is best

Whom reason hath equald, force hath made supream

Above his equals. Farewel happy Fields

Where Joy for ever dwells: Hail horrours, hail [ 250 ]

Infernal world, and thou profoundest Hell

Receive thy new Possessor: One who brings

A mind not to be chang'd by Place or Time.

The mind is its own place, and in it self

Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n. [ 255 ]

What matter where, if I be still the same,

And what I should be, all but less then he

Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least

We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built

Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: [ 260 ]

Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce

To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:

Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n.

But wherefore let we then our faithful friends,

Th' associates and copartners of our loss [ 265 ]

Lye thus astonisht on th' oblivious Pool,

And call them not to share with us their part

In this unhappy Mansion, or once more

With rallied Arms to try what may be yet

Regaind in Heav'n, or what more lost in Hell? [ 270 ]

There are people, multitudes of people who hate God and they hate Him knowingly, knowing that it will mean an eternity of misery. The agree with Satan that it is “Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.” Their loves are directed, destructively, towards themselves, and they know it, and they persist in doing evil – they persist in rejecting Christ and loving what is wrong.

WHY?

Because they would rather love themselves in Hell than love God in Heaven. They would rather be narcissists in misery than worshippers in joy.

The Progressive Utopian project cannot abide Christianity because its whole purpose is to replace Christianity. It is an excuse to hate God. That’s all it ever was and all it’ll ever be. It’s just one more lie that will end up in the rubbish heap of history – sadly not without wrecking and ruining the lives and eternities of countless millions – but it too shall pass because it is a lie and no lie can last forever when God is truth.

You Play With Fire

So, just recently President Biden promoted Dr. Richard Levine, an overweight, mentally disturbed man – who apparently is an expert on health that we should all listen to! – to being a 4 Star Admiral. Apparently, this makes him the first female 4 Star Admiral in American History! Well, I mean, he’s not the first woman to achieve a 4 star rank…General Ann Dunwoody of the US Army achieved 4 stars long ago, and of course Levine isn’t the first 4 Star Admiral, because Michelle J Howard – a black woman…who’s actually a woman….she became an Admiral in the US Navy and earned her 4 Stars. But Richard Levine IS the first woman to be awarded 4 stars in the US Public Health Services Commissioned Corps. This is Historic…or so they keep telling us. Except he’s not a woman…and also nobody cares about the fact that the Commissioned Corps of the US Public Health Services wears uniforms.

Honestly, can anybody tell me WHY the federal public health service wears uniforms and uses Navy ranks? I mean, I get ranks in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, Space Force, and the Coast Guard. I get it. These are combat forces. Discipline and rank matter in combat. But do a bunch of doctors and nurses really need to play Navy to be able to do…whatever it is that the US Public Health Services do. Because if you don’t know what they do – welcome to the club – I’m not sure anyone who doesn’t work in Washington or have family in the USPHS knows what the USPHS does.

I looked at the internet at the USPHS website and to be honest they don’t exactly make it clear what they do…I’m not sure they know…but there are over 6,000 of these folks working in like 2 dozen agencies. After I spent a lot more time than was probably prudent researching the USPHS and its history I learned that it was founded in the late 1800s and has basically had the same problem since the 1800s – it’s not the military, but it kinda acts like the military, with none of the militariness, though the government sometimes treats them like the military.

Long story short, the USPHS has qualified doctors and nurses doing important medical work, but the organization is very badly managed, and that bad management and confusion about its mission leads congress to constantly wonder what on earth the taxpayers are paying for and then the budget is cut which leads to tighter circumstances and more mismanagement. To put it simply, nobody knows what to do with it – Trump wanted to scrap the thing and ended up keeping it, after gutting it. If it’s a uniformed service, it needs to act like one – but it doesn’t. If it’s going to be a civilian force, why do we need it?

But, in many ways, the confusion about what the Commissioned Corps of the USPHS is, does, should be doing, or how it functions, makes it a perfect place for Richard Levine – who calls himself Rachel — to work. Richard, was just made an instant Admiral – which means that people who have served in the military for their whole careers are now outranked by this dude. Levine outranks and must be saluted by all but 45 people in the entire military! I mean, let that sink in. An obese pediatrician dressed in drag and pretending he’s a girl, now outranks about 2 million active duty and reserve soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

And we’re all supposed to applaud this. We’re all supposed to celebrate that a man, pretending to be a woman, was given a political appointment, in a largely redundant and unnecessary government department, and it being touted as the first female 4 star admiral (well first four star in that tiny, mismanaged branch).

The problem is that Richard isn’t a female. He’s a man. A quite mannish looking man. There really isn’t anything feminine about Richard except that he has grown his hair long and dresses up in women’s clothing. That in and of itself presents an incoherence in secular thinking which I’ve addressed before. Think about it. If men and women are the same, there are no differences between them, people with penes can be women – even female!...so I guess that whole thing about distinguishing gender from sex was just another lie to get America to eat a poisoned apple…but I digress…if men and women are the same, and there are no differences, and Richard can be Rachel, and Sally can be Salvatore, and gender and sex are fluid, and gender is a social construct and the patriarchy is something we need to smash, and we need little boys to play with dolls and little girls to get into MMA then why, oh why, does Richard need to put on a dress and have a ponytail and wear lipstick? Isn’t he reinforcing the idea that there are behaviors, fashions, and affects that are fundamentally female and not male because there must be some kind of real difference between the sexes?

I admit, clothing is, in my opinion, largely a cultural construct – but every culture has clothes for men and clothes for women. And many female fashions are fashioned to accentuate the female form – or hide it. But, all in all, men and women have different styles of dress in every culture, largely because of biology and society’s take on biology.

When Richard puts on lipstick and a dress, he’s saying that to be feminine means looking a certain way. But he doesn’t look that way. So, on the one hand he says that having ovaries and breasts and a higher hairline and wider hips doesn’t make you a woman – it’s how you feel inside that makes you a woman; yet, he insists on trying to look a certain way, which gives the lie to his claim that biology and appearance don’t determine sex. Either we can tell women from men by looking at their primary and secondary sexual characteristics or we can’t. If we can, then Richard isn’t Rachel – if we can’t, then why is Richard trying (and failing) to look like a Rachel?

There is a failure in our society to examine the Richard/ Rachel dilemma with basic logic and apply basic logic to the situation. Basic logic would tell us that Richard is not a woman and his behavior is incoherent. And I expect incoherence from Richard. I expect it because he is mentally unwell. He is insane. His mental state does not match objective reality. He is delusional. I expect delusional people to behave incoherently…that’s kinda their dealio.

What I don’t, or shouldn’t, expect is for the normal to start a slow clap for a dude in drag and start affirming his delusions. People trying to defend this nonsense are defending an incoherency. And we are a nation that is living in delusion. Our entire country is living and believing lies. Let’s look at a few pretty recent examples

Right now people are trying to make a big deal of the WNBA championships. Except it isn’t a big deal. It’s a big, juicy nothingburger. But people whinge and moan and cry because the women of the WNBA are only making 10s of thousands while their male counterparts are making 10s of millions. Except the difference is that the male players are PAYING THE WOMEN’S SALARIES! Yes, the WNBA loses money…every year. It loses millions every year and gets bailed out by the men.

And our society is full of incoherencies and delusions. And it isn’t just the overeducated, underthinking, woke crowd. It isn’t just liberals and secularists who’ve lost the ability to think critically and logically and move past their delusions. – conservative justices on the supreme court are apparently incapable of doing basic logic.

In Bostock v. Clayton County, Neil Gorsuch makes a catastrophic logical error, that anyone capable of doing an analogy could put the lie to. Gorsuch’s majority opinion states that you can’t fire people for being gay. Why? Because that’s discrimination based on sex? Umm, how? Well, Gorsuch says, a homosexual man is a homosexual because he has sex with men – but if he were a woman then he would be heterosexual…ergo, you’re only firing him because he’s a man (who has sex with men) but if he were a woman (who has sex with men) you wouldn’t. Therefore, it’s discrimination based on sex with the Civil Rights Act expressly forbids.

Now, most people at the time realized that this was pure sophistry and illogical. But what nobody seemed to notice[1] was that this opened the door, legally, for pedophilia. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act forbids terminating employees because of age when they are over 40.

Now, let’s say a 41 year has sex with a 10-year-old. People who aren’t insane would call this rape, and pedophilia, and say that this guy should probably be swinging from a tree by day’s end. But with Gorsuch’s logic, you can’t even fire this guy! And you can’t refuse to hire him either! Why? Well because firing a pedophile is ageism. He’s only a pedophile because he’s old. If he were another 10-year-old no law would be broken. With Gorsuch’s logic, pedophilia is only wrong because someone is old, which is ageism.

What Gorsuch deliberately failed to include in his opinion is the reality homosexuality is not about which sex you are. The point of homosexuality is not about whether you happen to be a man or woman it’s about whether you’re attracted to someone of the same sex. It’s the SAMENESS, not the MALENESS of the FEMALENESS that matter – hence the prefix “homo” which means “same” in Greek. The point of pedophilia is not about being old – it’s about sexually exploiting someone incapable of making a consensual decision.

In a society that understood and used logic in its politics and ethics and everyday lives, we would all have recognized Gorsuch’s ridiculous and farcical legal opinion for what it is: a ludicrous mockery of logic and reason. In a society that had wisdom and common sense and was able to apply logic to everyday problems, people would laugh in Dr. Richard Levine’s face when he puts on a skirt and tube top.

But we’re not a society of wisdom and logic. We’re a society of self-deluded fools and idiots. We’re rotting our brains away with our happiness boxes we compulsively stare at whenever there’s any break in the action – and even where there isn’t. We’re getting dumber – objectively dumber – every year. We have shorter attention spans, smaller vocabularies, our colleges aren’t improving critical thinking skills; people can’t read, and don’t! which means they can’t write, which means they can’t think. We’re not just entertaining ourselves into depression – which we are – we’re entertaining ourselves into stupidity.

Year on year Americans get fatter, dumber, more drugged up, more depressed, with less self-control, more addicted to screens, with less interest in family. Why? Why has all this happened? Why can we not see that the way we’re living is not a lifestyle but a deathstyle? Why can we not see that no nation can survive when its population is a bunch of arrogant, bratty, mewling, fat, drunk, lazy, stupid, chronically masturbating, perverted, voyeuristic, sexual deviants, who are full of unearned moral authority, without the intellectual, moral, or physical courage to do anything to improve themselves or their nation?

Why can’t we see it?

For the same reason that we’re all clapping along like a lot of organ grinders’ moneys to the announcement that Dr. Richard Levine is the first female 4 Star Admiral. For the same reason that Chief Justices, putatively legal scholars who are supposed to know how logic works, issue opinions like Bostock v. Clayton County.

We are destroying ourselves because we’re delusional. Just like Richard thinking he’s Rachel and everyone believing it – we’re delusional.

But why? Why are we deluded? Because we’ve rejected God. And the consequence of rejecting God is believing a lie. When you believe a lie you have to be deluded because the truth keeps trying to reassert itself – being necessarily and inseparably linked to reality – as it is. And since reality keeps on trying to reassert itself, people have to keep suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

But the gods of the copybook headings will have their way. They come back with a vengeance because lies always die a painful death – and those who try to suppress truth are only hurt worse when truth is freed. Our society is like a foolish plumber who has sealed off all the pressure release valves on an industrial boiler because he doesn’t like the hissing sound. Well – you can get by with no pressure release valve – until you can’t! And the longer you keep that pressure building up the more explosive it’ll be when it gets out!


[1] After a good bit of digging I did find one guy who noticed the open door for pedophiles: https://www.yourdailyjournal.com/opinion/95070/paul-f-petrick-justice-neil-gorsuch-a-court-jester

They Were Popular; Please! It's all about Popular

Listen to it here.

So, this week, there was a bit of a mini-earthquake in the evangelical blogosphere. Mark Galli, the former editor of Christianity Today published an article that seriously rocked the boat. Unfortunately, there simply isn’t enough time to read it, but you can read it online for free, and it is a pretty good piece, if for no other reason than that it says the quiet part out loud. What’s the quiet part out loud? Well in case you missed it, Mark let out that the Evangelical project since Billy Graham split the Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals has been one long attempt by Christians, real and imagined, to win favor and popularity in the world.

What Galli is letting everyone know is that, from the very beginning, Evangelicalism, as a religious movement, has been a thrall to secular academia and politics – because it was oh so desperate to be liked and respected. Evangelical leaders, be they pastors, scholars, or authors wanted nothing quite so much as they wanted to be loved by people who hate God.

As Galli points out there were 2 reasons for this (probably there were more, but they all fell under the category of these two) and one was an entirely bad reason and the other was a bad reason with a seemingly good motive.

The two reasons that Evangelical leaders bent over backwards to backslide into liberalism were 1) because they loved the world and 2) they believed that if they gutted Evangelicalism of every last vestige of conservative Christianity, that they would make Christianity palatable to the godless and therefore redound to their salvation.

Obviously it never occurred to the liberalizers that if they changed Christianity to the degree that it was palatable to the godless that it wasn’t really Christianity anymore – if it DID occur to them they either didn’t care because they themselves weren’t Christians, or because they cynically thought that the standards of salvation were so low that all you needed was some kind of baseline intellectual appreciation for a person, real or imagined, named Jesus – whether He really existed or not is inconsequential.

Ironically, the liberalizers, the kinds of people who write articles for Christianity Today AND get published in the Atlantic and the New York Times despite their claims to academic prestige, apparently don’t know enough Church History to know that the people who think they have to destroy Christianity to save Christianity never actually save Christianity and their projects always fail.

Apparently, the cool kid evangelicals – you know the kind who go to cocktail parties hosted by major donors to the DNC – they never learned that Liberalism has come under many names and many guises, and disguises, and it has always failed. Gnosticism which tried to make a very Jewish faith palatable to Greek dualistic and antimaterialistic sensibilities failed; Aryanism which tried to make Christianity palatable to those who thought the Trinity was too difficult to believe – it failed; The liberalizing trend withing Catholicism post the Great Schism failed to keep the Church united; Liberalism under Schleiermacher, who was certain he was saving Christianity – it failed. Over and over again, when we see people who think they’re going to save Christianity – dark, obscurantist, mystical, foolish Christianity – those people are the ones who get tossed into the rubbish heap of history. The people who want to destroy Christianity to save it are the one whose names you have to memorize for a Church History exam and then you forget them 5 minutes after the test because they’re irrelevant!

The names we remember, and we remember with joy, are the names of Christian leaders who refused to bow to the pressures to be liked and likable – like the Great Apologists, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, men like Athanasius, and Hus, and Luther, and Simons, men like Torrey and the Fundamentalists – these are the people who we will remember and honor.

And it seems like Galli is beginning to realize this. He seems to be recognizing that the liberalizing project that he’s been part of for decades is a failed project that cannot save Christianity from itself. Yet…and yet, Galli is facing a personal dilemma.

He realizes that Liberalism, as in liberal Evangelicalism, has failed to save Christianity. He recognizes that it is flawed in its desire to be liked and loved by those who hate the one who loved us and gave Himself for us. He realizes that the policy of popularity is a Hell of a way to run a railroad, and yet…and yet… he knows no other way! Because he firmly believes that being liked and being likable is a crucial and inseparable part of Evangelism and therefore Evangelicalism. Galli really truly believes that you have to be liked and respected to convert people to Christ – but he believes this while simultaneously recognizing that Evangelicalism has failed because it has been preoccupied with being liked and respected. He recognizes that Evangelicalism needs men of courage with a backbone – but just not the kind that are provocative and make people uncomfortable!

Professor Stephen Kotkin, in part 1 of his massive magnum opus on Joseph Stalin writes about why the Tsarist autocracy of the Russian Empire was doomed when it tried to modernize and become a constitutional empire. The problem Kotkin points out is that the very principle of an autocracy – that only the Tsar has the right to rule or manage the government – meant that when the Tsar needed to involve others in the government through a parliament (called the Duma) and a powerful and empowered, largely independent bureaucracy – the Tsar’s supporters opposed these steps. But those who opposed the actions of the Tsar, because they undermined the Tsar, meant that they themselves opposed the Tsar because they opposed the actions the Tsar took which undermined the Tsar. Thus, while the socialist and anarchist left was gaining popularity the conservative right of Russia fundamentally and reflexively opposed the only actions that could have saved the autocracy.

In short, the problem with the Russian Autocracy WAS the Russian Autocracy. Conditions in the Russian Empire were so bad and so oppressive and so backwards that massive Western Style reforms were the only thing that could save it, but massive Western style reforms would also mean the end of autocracy. Thus, the only way to save the Autocracy was to destroy it.

In the same way, cool kid Evangelicalism, the kind of Evangelicalism that deeply and desperately desires degrees from Harvard and articles in the New York Times and Atlantic and to be liked and respected by pro-abortion senators – that kind of Evangelicalism is broken and cannot be saved. The only way to save the Liberal Evangelicalism is for it to stop being liberal Evangelicalism and to become conservative – either conservative Evangelicalism or Fundamentalism.

But that’s the thing it cannot do. Liberal Evangelicalism CANNOT become conservative of fundamentalist because it is quintessentially and basically addicted to being liked and loved by the world. Being respected by the godless is the sine qua non of liberal Christianity which places palatability with the world as the greatest good. It can’t change because if it changes it ceases to be.

Thus, what we see is the irony of ironies, that liberalism is the least flexible form of Christianity. Fundamentalists, at least Neofundamentalists, can hold a wide variety of political opinions and stances and it can seek more or less respectability from the secular academy and press as long as it holds to the fundamentals, which today would be something like: inerrancy; creationism (or at least something to the right of Darwinism); anti-abortionism; salvation by grace through faith in Christ’s atoning death on the cross and resurrection.

But actually, it’s not even that. Liberal Evangelicalism is rigidly and inflexibly tied to the Spirit of the Age. Conservative Evangelicalism, and Neofundamentalism, always place the spirit of the age lower hierarchically than their theological priors.

And that’s really the difference, and John Ehrett points this out in a wonderful piece he published this week – the real difference is that Conservatives place social sciences and worldly knowledge underneath of theological truth as revealed in the Scriptures. Or, in other words, to the Conservative, theology is the queen of sciences; to the Liberal, the social sciences and worldly knowledge need to rule over our theology. Theology, for the Conservative, tells us how to do social sciences. Social sciences, for the Liberal, tell us how to do theology. And there’s all the world of difference between those two philosophies.

But this brings us back to Galli: why? Why let the social sciences lead theology by the nose? Because Liberal Evangelicals love to be loved – they need to be liked.

Now, as most of you know, I worked in Youth Ministry for many years with Youth for Christ. And it was a wonderful experience, and I met all kinds of wonderful people and a great many kids put their faith in Christ and experienced real transformation. But I and others were always weary of a certain kind of Youth for Christ staff member. You could tell them if you’d been around long enough and those who were wise did their best to help these poor folk or to get them out of the ministry. These people that were unfit for service in Youth Ministry were the ones who NEEDED to be liked by kids. The kind of person who needs to be liked and works with teenagers is a disaster waiting to happen.

Now, there are all kinds of reasons why someone might need to be liked by kids – maybe high school was hard for them, maybe they’re deeply insecure, maybe they just have a personality flaw, maybe they’re trying to impress the girls because they want to bang them – or boys, I suppose – but the fact of the matter is, nomatter what the reason, a person working with kids who needs to be liked by kids should not be allowed to work with kids.

Let’s look at some Bible:

In I John 2 we read:

15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.

And of course, in James 4 we read:

4 You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that he jealously longs for the spirit he has caused to dwell in us? 6 But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:

“God opposes the proud

    but shows favor to the humble.”

7 Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.

Friends, people who are desperate to be liked and loved are, as we all know, the least likely people to be liked or loved. Nobody respects a desperate person. And nobody loves a person who will debase themselves to be loved. Sure, people will use them. People will exploit them. People will lie to them. But nobody respects them, and nobody loves them.

Nobody loves someone who only wants to be loved. It’s one of the great paradoxes of this universe, that a person who will do ANYTHING to be loved, is fundamentally unsuited to being loved.

Friends, a little self-respect goes a long way. Liberal Evangelicalism with it’s slutty, self-debasing, abased, love-me-please-please-I’m-desperate-please-I’ll-say-anything-and-you-can-do-whatever-you-want-to-me-as-long-as-you-love-me-please-love-me approach to theology is doomed to die the death of pathetic irrelevance and neglect that all thoroughly unlovable people and institutions are doomed to die.

Evangelicalism can and will be relevant again just about as soon as it decides that it no longer cares if it’s love by those who hate the One we love. Evangelicalism can and will be relevant again, just about as soon as it decides that the Bible will be our final authority in all matters of faith and practice no matter what the eggheads say and no matter how unpopular it is. The funny thing about life in God’s universe is the best way to be respected is to not worry very much about being respected and the key to being loved is to not worry too much about being loved. That’s because the people least suited for love and respect are the people who make being loved and respected their greatest goods.

In the end it comes down to this: what do you want more – to love God or to be loved by the world. Only one can be your greatest desire. And which one you pick makes all the difference in the world – and the world to come.

My Body, My Choice: Or, a Case for Theocracy

Listen to it here.

It has become pretty standard fare in American political rhetoric to say that “I can do what I want with my body”. Progressives on the hard left and Libertarians on the hard right both agree that humans have total sovereignty over their own bodies. Those in the middle have attempted to soften the implications of such a position by qualifying the statement so that it instead is: “You can do what you want with YOUR body, but you can’t do what you want with someone else’s body”.

And many conservatives and moderate liberals say this and feel very satisfied that they have come up with a legal philosophy that is reasonable, durable, and unimpeachable.

The problem is saying that a person can do whatever they want with their own body, except when it harms someone else, is an utterly ludicrous position that cannot be defended.

Let’s explain why.

The statement that you can do whatever you want with your own body is demonstrably false, and is based upon a corrupted view of human life and human responsibility.

The 20th Century can basically be described as a period in which 2 opposing political views played out on the battlefields (physical and intellectual) of the world. The first was hard communitarianism. Hard communitarianism came in the form of Fascism and Communism. The underlying principle is that you are fundamentally not an individual but a part of a community, and thus every aspect of your life is public and therefore subject to government fiat. This makes everything a res publica. On the other hand, is hard individualism. Hard individualism states that you are a single, sovereign, unique, atomistic individual, and your only responsibility is to not infringe on the individuality of other individuals – and thus nothing is public, and everything is a res privata.

Neither of these philosophies is very satisfying. Neither of them is coherent. Both of them presume upon axiomata that are either unstated or poorly substantiated. But there is truth in both of those positions. We are, both individuals and members of communities. We both exist as sovereign and morally responsible individual agents, as well as parts of wholes who have responsibilities and obligations to the greater societies to which we belong.

Western history, much of it anyways, has been the interplay of these two competing notions. The notion that we are both private individuals and that we have obligations to the community. Any legal philosophy that wishes to be in concert with human nature – let alone natural law – has to recognize and incorporate these competing truths.

The abortionists, and drug legalizationists, and pornographers, and, well pretty much every moral degenerate in 20th Century America’s, argument has been: my body, my choice. I can do whatever I want with my own body. If I want to smoke marijuana tablets while having sex for money and then kill the baby while drinking absinthe out of straws made from plastic, then I can do that…’cause my body my choice. You have the right to destroy yourself (and others) according to this philosophy.

The response from people in the middle is that, “OK, sure, yeah, you can destroy yourself – just make sure you aren’t harming anyone else.”

But why? Why do you have a right to destroy yourself? Because you own yourself? But you don’t. You didn’t create yourself. You didn’t feed yourself. You didn’t create your own cells and atomic structure. You’re not an island. Your mother and father and grandparents have a claim on your person. Your community, since their taxes and public services allowed you to grow up in a healthy and safe environment allowed you to live up to this point – they have a claim on you as well.

The folks in the middle made the enormous mistake of accepting the first premise: that you can do what you want with your own body, because they didn’t know where to end the argument.

And this is the crisis of Classical Liberalism in a pluralistic society (though that’s a myth).

If we lived in a society where everyone shared the same values we would know where public and private end. We would agree about what our rights and duties are because we would have a shared set of values that control where our rights meet our obligations. Earlier American societies outlawed adultery. Why? Because adultery is clearly harmful to society. It undermines the family and promotes immorality. Societies have said that they don’t want people adulterating because it causes harm.

But there’s the rub: how do we define what causes harm? You can make an argument for ANYTHING causing hard – at least if you try hard enough. And if you’re a neo-Malthusian like Bill Gates or the rest of our elites and enviro-fascists, then just existing is harmful…so there’s no way to escape the argument that you do harm.

Now, you might say, “But Luke, it’s OBVIOUS what it means to harm someone else – this is all common sense!”

Is it? Is it indeed?! The very nature of our theological and political debate right now is because we fundamentally CANNOT agree on what constitutes harm.

Moreover, why is “causes harm” the standard? Who set that? That’s just as subjective as any other standard! Maybe the standard should be things that DON’T cause harm are illegal. Or maybe purple should be illegal! If we’re being arbitrary why not be silly, too?

The problem is that we all agree that harming people is bad because natural law says so, and we live in a Christianized ethical system. But we’ve cut ourselves off from the objective moral lawgiver: God as revealed in Christ. So, while we know that harming people is wrong, we don’t appeal to God to make our position objective, and on top of that we cannot decide how to define “harm” and what kinds of harm to regulate.

But the reality is that we were never supposed to make these decisions on our own. God has given us His Word, the Old Testament Law and the New Testament Law and the whole counsel of God so that we don’t just have to make it up as we go along, but that we will have Divine Wisdom to help us craft laws that are good and right.

Because the thing is that you don’t have the right to do what you want with your own body – you aren’t even your “own”. The Progressives and Libertarians are wrong. But there are reasonable and good and objective limits to your freedom and the government cannot just define harm however it wants. The conservative and moderate liberals are wrong too!

God however does give us a standard that is objective and sensible. You have the right to do what is right, good, and pleasing to God. You do not have a right to do evil. And God decides what’s good and evil. And government has the right to forbid evil.

Of course, this requires interpretation and doesn’t solve the issue entirely because we live in a fallen world. But I would suggest that Theocracy isn’t as bad as we all think. Sure, there are evils that can be perpetrated in a theocracy. And those evils are the EXACT reason why Classical Liberalism came about. But it’s become increasingly clear over the past few decades that Classical Liberalism is, barring some massive move of God, not long for this world. It is hanged by the rope it sold. It was created to create tolerance, but its tolerance permitted multiculturalism (which is really just monoculturalism with a lot of flags) and multiculturalism eroded the theological imaginary of the West and replaced it with vapid progressive secularism, which is, incidentally, incompatible with the Classical Liberal project, because of, you know, personal liberty and conscience, and freedom from tyranny, and little stuff like that.

Yeah, theocracies go bad – check out Torquemada, or read the Martyr’s Mirror. But the funny thing is that many medievals didn’t think that the abuses of theocracy invalidated theocracy – they just wanted a good theocracy instead.

Classical Liberalism has thrived in the Anglophone world because of the unique factors of Christianity, English and Great British History, the Common Law tradition, and geographical isolation (kinda…like the Indians existed and stuff…). Classical Liberalism, after the 30 Years War and the English Civil War and the Jacobite Rebellions, was the best house on a bad street…but that house had no foundation. And now that the floodwaters are rising, the hideous, haunted, abandoned crackhouse called Theocracy might be the best refuge to weather the storm. Sure, it smells like feces, and we’re pretty sure our keys keep moving, but at least it has a foundation.

Theocracy has to explain the blood of the martyrs. Classical Liberalism has to fess up to the blood of dozens of millions of babies, and the wrecked and ruined lives of hundreds of millions through drugs, pornography, and despair.

Do I want a theocracy? Yes – if I can be the theocrat! Otherwise, no. Do I want Classical Liberalism? Yes – if our nation can regain its moral vision through Christian revival. Otherwise, no.

But all that’s a side issue, because the reality is that every form of government is, in actuality, a theocracy. It’s either a theocracy of the living and true God or a theocracy of idols. That’s because all laws are based on ethics and all ethics are is applied theology. The political is only, always, and forever theological. The real question is whether the theology is good or not.