Social Engineering

Listen to it here.

So, the Romeike family is facing deportation. They don’t want to be deported but, hey, that’s where we are. And unfortunately, this is sending us a very clear message about the kind of nation that our entrenched overlords wish to create. Because here’s the thing, smart people, I’m not saying WISE people, but smart people who control immigration policy always and only use their discretion to permit people to immigrate who will assimilate into the culture they want.

Please note well, I didn’t say people who will assimilate into the culture they HAVE. I said assimilate into the culture they want. Immigration is social engineering and anyone who says different is either stupid, or selling you something…or both.

Let’s see an example, shall we.

1 Kings 16:

29 In the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah, Ahab son of Omri became king of Israel, and he reigned in Samaria over Israel twenty-two years. 30 Ahab son of Omri did more evil in the eyes of the Lord than any of those before him. 31 He not only considered it trivial to commit the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, but he also married Jezebel daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and began to serve Baal and worship him. 32 He set up an altar for Baal in the temple of Baal that he built in Samaria. 33 Ahab also made an Asherah pole and did more to arouse the anger of the Lord, the God of Israel, than did all the kings of Israel before him.

34 In Ahab’s time, Hiel of Bethel rebuilt Jericho. He laid its foundations at the cost of his firstborn son Abiram, and he set up its gates at the cost of his youngest son Segub, in accordance with the word of the Lord spoken by Joshua son of Nun.

Skipping ahead a little bit we read this in chapters 18 and 19:

1 After a long time, in the third year, the word of the LORD came to Elijah: “Go and present yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain on the land.” 2 So Elijah went to present himself to Ahab.

Now the famine was severe in Samaria, 3 and Ahab had summoned Obadiah, his palace administrator. (Obadiah was a devout believer in the LORD. 4 While Jezebel was killing off the LORD’s prophets, Obadiah had taken a hundred prophets and hidden them in two caves, fifty in each, and had supplied them with food and water.) 5 Ahab had said to Obadiah, “Go through the land to all the springs and valleys. Maybe we can find some grass to keep the horses and mules alive so we will not have to kill any of our animals.” 6 So they divided the land they were to cover, Ahab going in one direction and Obadiah in another.

7 As Obadiah was walking along, Elijah met him. Obadiah recognized him, bowed down to the ground, and said, “Is it really you, my lord Elijah?”

8 “Yes,” he replied. “Go tell your master, ‘Elijah is here.’ ”

And skipping ahead to when Elijah and Ahab meet we read this:

16 So Obadiah went to meet Ahab and told him, and Ahab went to meet Elijah. 17 When he saw Elijah, he said to him, “Is that you, you troubler of Israel?”

18 “I have not made trouble for Israel,” Elijah replied. “But you and your father’s family have. You have abandoned the LORD’s commands and have followed the Baals. 19 Now summon the people from all over Israel to meet me on Mount Carmel. And bring the four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal and the four hundred prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel’s table.”

What we see in these passages over and over again is that Jezebel brought Baal and Asherah worship back to Israel. In fact, the ONLY times in the bible the terms “Prophet(s) of Baal” is in relation to the actions of Jezebel. And we never see the term “Priest(s) of Baal” before Jezebel arrives, but the formal worship of Baal is dealt with by Josiah later.

Jezebel is widely viewed by commentators and theologians as the person who introduced, or perhaps reintroduced Baal worship to Israel, and it is generally accepted that she imported the prophets and priests of Baal and Asherah who ate at her table and served her and her gods.

Jezebel was the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians who was the high priest of Baal, as in most of the ancient world the king and high priest were one in the same role—that’s why Roman Caesars were called Pontifex Maximus. Israel was if not unique, certainly the rarity of the ancient Mediterranean world, by not having their kings be the high priests.

So to Jezebel, it was obvious and clear that one of the first things she should do when she became Queen of Israel was bring in nearly 1,000 prophets and priests from home who would worship Baal and Asherah. But not only that, she needed to thoroughly and ruthlessly exterminate all the prophets of the LORD who were in the Northern Kingdom.

Why?

Because she wanted to transform Israel from a henotheistic, idol-worshipping, Yahwist society into a polytheistic Baalist society. Which is a fancy technical way of saying she wanted to change the Gods of Israel. And Jezebel, whatever else you could say about her, she was shrewd. She understood that social engineering takes planning, effort, and execution—not just the head-cutting-off kind of execution, but the carrying-out-of-plans kinds of execution…but you get the point.

And it isn’t really all that hard to engineer society if you have huge amounts of money and can murder people who oppose you and can grant favors to those who serve you. And you might be thinking, “Sure Lukey, you’re right, you can change the institutions but that doesn’t change how people think. Yeah, there were a lot of sycophants and hangers-on who just went along with Jezebel because it brought them power and wealth but it didn’t really change hearts and minds.”

To this I say: things take time.

No. You’re right, imaginary objector, just importing pagans and killing God’s servants doesn’t change the minds of people whose minds are already made up. But you’re creating the conditions to bring up future generations in a world where Baal worship is the dominant form of religion and the worship of the LORD is nowhere to be found. How long do you think that the silent, powerless majority of Yahweh worshippers will be able to remain the majority when their children and grandchildren and greatgrandchildren are growing up in a world surrounded by Baal worship, where all social reinforcement mechanisms like power, punishment, and politics favor Baal and Yahweh worshippers are executed?

Now, you might say, “Ahhhh, but Lukey-poo, God always preserves a remnant.” OK. Sure. But is that all we want? Do we only want a remnant? Because Elijah didn’t just want a remnant. He wanted Israel to stop wavering between two opinions and make up their minds once for all whether to worship Yahweh or Baal—and clearly he wanted them to worship Yahweh. Christians shouldn’t be satisfied with “a remnant.”

Now, perhaps you want to push harder and say, “But Luke, that’s not in our hands, if God is pleased to preserve a remnant then who do we think we are to talk back to God.” OK, and by the way, friends, I’ve HEARD these arguments. If you think that nothing is in our hands that our nation is entirely in God’s hands, then you need to read your Bible. Revelation speaks about Jesus as walking among the lampstands, and he’ll snuff out a lampstand that keeps guttering and sputtering. You don’t want your lampstand removed. And, also, God has not promised to keep a remnant in America. I don’t remember reading that in the Bible anywhere. There’s no single place where the words normally translated as remnant refer to a group of Gentiles saved by Grace to persist through all generations—and the only two uses of the word remnant in the New Testament are in Romans where Paul is quoting the Old Testament and is referring to Jews saved by grace.

So, there is no promise that there will always be a remnant. But even if, for sake of argument, let’s just say I missed a verse and there is some hyper-obscure passage that I missed and there’s ONE place where you could read that God promises that he will preserve a remnant of believers in all the Gentile nations where Christianity has taken root. Let’s say I missed a verse or two and you can make that case—it’s possible. I’ve made mistakes. Even IF that’s the case why should we want that!? Shouldn’t we want as many of our friends, family, neighbors, and coworkers to be saved as possible? Don’t we want as many people worshipping and serving God as possible? If we’re just gonna sit on our hunkers and say, “Well, God’ll preserve a remnant!” how do you think He’s gonna do that? And if your answer is that God doesn’t need you to spread the gospel then you might as well be dead, because you’re no earthly good!

But all this is both deeply relevant to the conversation, and also beside the point. The point is that the Godless entrenched bureaucrats in our country have been weaponizing immigration policy to create America as they desire it to be by transforming it. They wish to destroy the America that is and make a new America in their image. Now, we sadly, do not have time to go into all the details, or even most of the relevant details of what immigration policies are and why.

But here’s what I want you to pay attention to. Law abiding German immigrants who have been here paying taxes for 15 years, LEGALLY, who have assimilated into American society, who love Christ and want to utilize America’s freedoms to raise their children as Christians in a nation that the Supreme Court said was a Christian Nation, these Germans are being kicked out while Border Patrol fist-bumps illegal immigrants.

We are witnessing social engineering—and all social engineering is theological engineering, but that’s another story for another day—we are witnessing our government actively attempting to use its authority in immigration to change this country from what it was into something else. Again, it’s not entirely clear what that something else is, but if I had to guess by what I see, not just in immigration, but in all policy decisions, they wish to transform this nation into a land of godless criminals who are wage-slave serfs, addicted to pills to stop us from feeling feelings, sterilizing ourselves and murdering whatever children might drag the compliant wage-slave women away from the drudgery of being a strong, independent, powerful woman at the office, they want a nation beholden to their corporate overlords, living in some kind of educational-administrative-technocratic-governmental complex, and they wish to make this permanent by eliminating the middle class and the values intrinsic to a thriving middle-class, and most importantly by eliminating a godly middle class, because godly people have higher allegiances than to the party and to the state and to THE IDEOLOGY.

We are witnessing the change, we are witnessing the policies being enacted to transform this nation into a progressive utopia…….God help us!

Long story short, pray for your country, because we are living in interesting times.

Canadian Clowns

Listen to it here.

So, most of you by now have heard that the Canadian Parliament, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the visiting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy gave a standing ovation to Jarislav Hunka. Hunka was described as a Ukrainian hero and a Canadian hero because he is, and I’m quoting, “a war veteran from the Second World War who fought [for] the Ukrainian Independence against the Russians, and continues to support the troops today.” At which point the entire parliament gave him a standing ovation.

Now, if you’re not a history buff, let me explain this a little bit for context. If you asked 1,000 history buffs, either academics or armchairs, and you say, “Hey, who fought against the Russians in WWII,” their first answer is going to be, ‘Germany,’ or, ‘Nazi Germany,’ or, ‘the Third Reich,’ or ‘Hitler,’ or, something to that effect. And people who paid attention in high school history should know that too. But, sticking with real history buffs, those buffs would know that the Nazis had a lot of support from people in the Soviet Republics who hated Stalin and Russia enough to side with the Nazis. And this was a bit of a devil’s bargain because there really wasn’t a “good guy” that you could side with. Do you side with Stalin or with Hitler? I mean, Hitler was trying to exterminate the Jews which was bad, but Stalin was in charge of the Holodomor, which best estimates suggest starved 4 million Ukrainians to death, and that’s just one source of murder, pillage, rape, starvation, torture, extortion, and cruelty that the Ukrainians suffered under Stalin. So, if you’re a Ukrainian, your hatred for Stalin is pretty intense.

And I’ll be honest, if I’m a young Jarislav Hunka living in Ukraine and someone shows up who’s going to give me a gun and kick out the Red Army, I’m probably going to join up. And I think that everyone who’s on their high horse about how Trudeau applauded a Nazi needs to remember that it’s not as though there was a good side to pick if you’re a Ukrainian living in that era. Who’re you going to choose, the Austrian murderer or the Georgian murderer? If I were in Hunka’s shoes I probably would have joined up with the Waffen SS, too. And so would most people. That doesn’t make Hunka good, but it does help us understand his actions.

And, as I’ve talked about a lot, this is what happens when people with little to no knowledge of history start blabbering AND when foolish people foolishly believe that history is full of white-hats and black-hats. As I have said MANY times, history does not present us with heroes and villains, but with people who have motivations and have to make choices. AND as I’ve said, our ability to sympathize with people and put ourselves in their shoes does not mean that all historical figures made the right choices and that moral evil isn’t a thing. The point is that reading history and trying to figure out who “the good guys” are is a lot harder than people think—or at least harder than people have convinced themselves it is.

So, am I saying that people dunking on the Liberal Party of Canada should stop? Nah, it’s pretty hilarious. I’m just here for the memes, baby! Because as much as I want to have a serious conversation about historical complexity and the nuances of geopolitics and the hard moral choices that that entails, this is just all so deliciously ironic.

Let me take you back in time to February of 2022 to a debate on the Canadian Parliament floor. Justin Trudeau, said this:

"Conservative Party members can stand with people who wave swastikas. They can stand with people who wave the Confederate flag," he said, defending the government's decision to invoke the Emergencies Act to quell unrest in the nation's capital.

"We will choose to stand with Canadians who deserve to be able to get to their jobs, to be able to get their lives back. These illegal protests need to stop, and they will."

So, to get this straight, the Canadian Truckers were essentially called Nazis and a Jewish Conservative Woman MP was called a Nazi sympathizer. She demanded an apology that never came, by the way. So, Trudeau, who basically called the Truckers Nazis gave a standing ovation to a guy who literally fought for the Nazis in the Waffen SS in WWII, whose unit some have accused of being involved in anti-Jewish and anti-polish genocide.

Yeah, so the guy who calls people Nazis because they don’t want to simply obey the whims of a tyrannical government actually gives a standing-O to a guy who fought for the Nazis.

It’s too funny.

Again, I would love to give Trudeau and the Canadian Parliament a pass on this one and simply say that, “History’s hard, and that there are ZERO Ukrainian WWII vets who weren’t associated with somebody terrible, and that MAYBE this is a sign that we ought to chill on the hero-worship of war veterans.” I want to say that. I REALLY do. Because I believe that.

But Trudeau called people who didn’t want to force others to take an experimental drug Nazis. And this is his comeuppance—and a rather paltry comeuppance it is. But it makes him look ridiculous. And that’s worse than just about anything in politics.

It has become apparent to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention that Trudeau and the Canadian government are a pack of clowns and worse than clowns. Because clowns may be ridiculous, but generally, they’re harmless. But Trudeau and the Canadian Parliament have done actual harm—like criminalizing Christianity and bodily autonomy and wrecking the Canadian economy and turning down unfathomable amounts of money that could have flowed to the Alberta oil fields in the name of saving the planet. That’s not to mention the new suicide squads that Canada has legalized, because as all good Northerners know, if you’re sad you have a duty to just kill yourself so you can ease the burden of an already overburdened health-care system…I mean, exercise your rights. Canada is a proud and glorious country with a rich history and fine people, and it’s being torn down by a pack of petulant puritanical puerile posturing clowns.

Canada is a great nation—as their national anthem proclaims, Canada should be “the True North, strong and free!” But more and more its freedoms are eroded, and its future endangered by people who are too ignorant or idealistic to know better and celebrated in true seal-clap fashion by those who know even less, or frighteningly, by those who in fact do know better and are getting what they want.

A Canada that calls truckers Nazis, and a Jewish MP a Nazi sympathizer, and gives two standing ovations in parliament to a Waffen SS veteran, ON YOM KIPPUR, is a Canada that has lost its way.

But this is not just folly that came from nowhere! This was not unforeseeable. It is not just a gaffe! These kinds of incoherencies are built into a godless political ideology. And make no mistake, for as much of a clown as Trudeau is, he has an ideology. He said, before becoming PM that Canada was “the first post-national state.” He stated, “There is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada…”

Whether he truly believed that it didn’t exist or not is impossible to tell, but what is clear is that Canada being post-national and lacking a core identity is not a status quo Trudeau intended to leave be. No. He and his ilk have been busily engaged in creating a core-identity for Canada. And it is, essentially, the identity of woke metropolitan elites. Trudeau may not think that the Maple-Leaf stands for much of anything—so he’ll wave the Rainbow, or better yet, the Pride Progress Flag. Because that represents the core-identity that Trudeau et al. wish to inculcate into our neighbors to the North. And sure, a lot of Canadians aren’t particularly interested in that kind of identity. Quebecers want to retain their French heritage and their own way of life—too bad. Albertans and other Western rural Canadians are socially conservative and want to exploit the seemingly endless natural resources of Canada to bring prosperity to their province and nation. Too bad. Newfies and Nova Scotians have distinct cultures and Irish and Scottish heritages that they take pride in. Too bad. Canada is creating a core-identity; or rather, Trudeau and the Canadian progressives are busily asserting their political might to force Canadians to get on-board with the social agenda that is being foisted upon them while younger cohorts are brought up in this new image and will internalize these beliefs.

Which is, of course, the only way to have durable social change is to get ‘em while they’re young. The business of changing a culture and society is generational work—it takes decades. Rudi Deutschke coined the term, “the long march through the institutions” to describe the process that Marxists would need to engage in to create the conditions necessary for the success of Socialism in the West for a reason! And this is consonant with what all the leading lights of post-war Marxism were saying. Herbert Marcuse, Antonio Gramsci, the whole lot of them realized that they needed to capture the institutions, especially the academy, and bureaucracy. So, I guess check that off the list.

And here’s where there’s a temptation. There’s a temptation for conservative Christians to look at the Marxists and Progressives and Trudeau and all the wokesters and say, “Whoa! Those guys are the villains of the piece. These guys ruined America and Canada and the West. These are the bad guys.”

Sure.

Fine.

But why were they successful?

Why were the Progressives successful? Trudeau is wildly unpopular in Canada. The ONLY group in which he has a >40% approval rating is with women, as a whole, and the highest approval by age cohort is in the +55y.o. age-range.

Joe Biden is wildly unpopular.

And out there there are all kinds of conservative Christians who are licking their lips. They see the utter folly of the secular-progressive program and they keep telling themselves: “it’s so obvious; people have to become conservative! Biden wrecked the economy, embarrassed us in Afghanistan, ruined the border, is corrupt as the day is long, and his DOJ is engaged in political vengeance—people have to see it and become conservative! People have to wake up and join our side. They have to see that the transgenderism stuff is nonsense! They have to see it. They have to.”

Except no. No, they don’t.

American Christians have played the fool for decades thinking that they were going to win the argument on abortion and family values and all other political issue because it was self-evident that we were right and all we had to do was continue to do the hard work of debating policy positions and that the attrition of leftist failures would lead to people becoming conservative and the nation would be saved.

And that’s stupid.

It’s stupid because, A) we have lot of evidence that that’s not how it works. It’s also stupid because B) it ignores that the left has slowly eroded the capacity for people to engage in critical thinking through the abysmal failures known as the public school system. And C) it ignores the simple fact that the Bible says that’s not how it works.

Read the Bible friends. When the Israelites chased after new leaders did things ever get better? Did things ever improve when they assassinated and overthrew king after king after king seeking someone to fix the problems left by the last guy? Did it ever help?

Nope.

Not once.

But when did things get better? They got better when the Israelites came to their senses and turned to God, repented, and asked Him to forgive them and save them. That’s when God sent a deliverer. That’s when God saved His people.

And there are two simple reasons for this. First, the reason why changing politicians without crying out to God in repentance for forgiveness and deliverance doesn’t solve anything is because all political problems are theological problems. Because all politics is is theology with a gun…or a sword depending on your place in history…but you get the point. Politics is theology. All political problems are theological problems. And so trying to fix a corrupt nation by changing the leaders is like trying to get rid of poison ivy by chopping off vines but leaving the root. Sure you get rid of the problem, but you may, in fact, make it worse because unless you kill the root, you’re going to get a bunch of suckers and you might end up instead of one big vine you might have 20 small ones that will all become big ones.

The second reason is that bad government, being ruled by clowns, is the wrath of God being revealed. God hands us over to our sinful desires as a punishment for suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness.

Friends, the wrath of God is not Sodom and Gomorrah levels of destruction for having a Pride Parade! The Pride Parade IS THE WRATH OF GOD! The parade, the celebration of perversion and debauchery, with the support of the government is the wrath of God—this is what God is handing us over to. And when God hands you over to your sinful lusts there is no escaping it. You say, “Lukey, that sounds like a vicious circle!?” Yep. It sure is.

And that’s why trying to own the libs doesn’t change anything. We’re not going to solve this with new leaders. We’re going to solve this with prayer, fasting, confession, humiliation, and a deep and prolonged pursuit of holiness. Solving the political problem will also not happen for its own sake! We need to seek God and repent so that souls can be saved—not so that we can “get our country back!” I want my country back because get my country back means that people can flourish and become like God and more people can hear the gospel and more people can support missionaries and so that more people can glorify God and experience his goodness.

We live in clown world because Christians got worldly.

There I said it.

The solution is what it always has been: repent.

Pretty simple. Sure.

And thank God for it. We don’t have to come up with a perfect policy position and vet every candidate. We couldn’t do that even if we wanted to. No. We need to simply repent. And Ask God to save us.

Prioritizing Priorities and Valuing Values

Listen to it here.

OK, so if you’re new to the constitutional crisis on the Texas-Mexico border, then there’s probably some fill-in that’s necessary. Texas put Operation Lone Star into effect back in March 2021. Its purpose is to utilize Texas Guardsman and police to arrest illegal immigrants and repel border crossers before they cross the border. Along with that OLS is responsible for bussing migrants to the sanctuary city of their choice—which we’ll talk about momentarily.

Part of OLS was putting razor-wire barriers on and near the river. The Biden Administration allegedly instructed Border Patrol to cut holes in the wire—and there is video evidence of Border Patrol cutting the fence from back in July. Lately the Biden Administration sued Texas to force them to remove the floating barrier on the Rio Grande because the state of Texas did not get the proper permits from the Army Corps of Engineers to obstruct a navigable waterway. A Federal Judge ordered Texas to remove the barriers, but an appeals court has allowed Texas to keep up the barriers in a temporary stay, and this case will likely go to higher courts.

The reality is that Texas probably did violate the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899.

However, as Abbott and others argue, while the Constitution DOES reserve the authority to protect and govern borders to the Federal government, Article 1, §10, clause 3 states:

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit delay.”

Abbott claims that they ARE being invaded. And it’s hard not to agree, when you look at the sheer unfathomable volume of people illegally crossing the border who are felons, human traffickers, drug smugglers, mafioso, and, by the way, they are ALL criminals as they are ALL engaged in a crime.

Texas deals with almost 2 million illegal immigrants in their state. In New York they are unable to handle 110,000 asylum seekers! Texas has hundreds and thousands per day.

And what happened to New York? Well, Mayor Adams and Governor Hochul now want to make the city not be a sanctuary city anymore. Now, Hochul is a liar saying that their Right-to-a-Bed law was about homeless men and families in distress. She’s pretending that the city hasn’t been virtue signaling for literally decades. And when I say decades, I mean since I was in Kindergarten!

So, no, New York does not get a free pass on this. New York is not more sinned against than sinning. New York has aided and abetted illegal immigration, its congressmen and senators have voted to keep the illegals coming for decades, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. They are now getting a taste of their own medicine and they have decided they don’t like it! And New Yorkers, in particular don’t like it. As 82% of New Yorkers say that it’s a serious problem and 58% want to stop the influx of new migrants!

It would appear that virtue signaling, like so many things in life, is only fun when it’s free!

But now we have a problem.

And it’s a problem that anyone with eyes can see. And that’s that states are now in conflict with the federal government—and this is nothing new. States and the feds sue each other all the time. There is a never-ending power struggle between them. And whether your default is to the federal government or to the states, or your state, is largely indicative of your overall political philosophy. But that’s another story for another day.

What interests me, and what has PROFOUND theological implications is the justification that Abbott uses, and which Hochul and Adams in New York are attempting to use. And that is that you behave differently in an emergency than you do in normal times.

Or more specifically, our values and principles change in an emergency. Or, perhaps our values and principles remain the same but we prioritize different values and principles depending on the needs of the day.

Because here’s the thing, in both the Texas and the New York issue we have either values changing or priorities changing. In Texas, we see that the normal priority to defer to the federal government in issues dealing with the border is not being subordinated to the value or preventing what Texas Governor Abbott calls an invasion. In New York the value of being loving and welcoming to illegal immigrants is becoming subservient to the basic financial realities of the city and state. In New York City, Mayor Adams predicts that the illegal immigrants will cost the city $12B!

And if you were wondering, yes, $12B is a lot of money. According to one site, using 2014 and 2015 city budgets, the $12B NYC will spend on illegal immigrants is more money than any other city’s total budget in the entire United States! To put that cost in perspective, in 2014/15 the NYC budget for illegal immigrants will cost more than the budget of 5 states! Or, in 2014/15 the four biggest-budget cities in Ohio, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo had a combined budget of $3.3.

New Yorkers have had enough. And I’m not certain whether it’s their values changing or merely their priorities, but the sheer cost of reality has forced Gothamites to desire a change.

And, again, this tendency for emergencies to change how we act and how we think and how we believe is extremely relevant to Christianity. Because it is certainly true that emergencies change how people think and act and what they believe. And this is not always for the better.

There’s an old saying that I’m sure you’re familiar with—before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes. And there’s certainly a lot of wisdom to this adage. What it means is that before you can assess someone’s character you not only need to consider his perspective but ask yourself how you would behave if you were in his position. However, our broader culture tends to ignore the crucial first part which is: before you judge a man. It’s not saying never judge a man. The expression is not to just say all behavior is OK. It’s to simply point out that before you can weigh in on someone you ought to consider his perspective. And this is the logic that we see in the Bible. Proverbs 6:30–31 say:

30 People do not despise a thief if he steals

    to satisfy his hunger when he is starving.

31 Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold,

    though it costs him all the wealth of his house.

And when we consider this, we see that there is empathy—people are able to sympathize and understand the perspective of the hungry man. But that doesn’t mean that we condone thievery. Solomon is saying that nobody will look at the starving thief and say, “oh, what a scumbag!” No. People have a basic compassion and comprehension that being very hungry tends to outweigh our morals. But that still doesn’t make stealing right.

And this principle of understanding perspectives and being willing to change your beliefs when you experience new things has both positive and negative effects. On one hand, I’m sure that any Christian could tell you story after story of men and women who were merrily rolling along through life living without God and without hope in the world until some emergency came and changed the way they viewed life and the world. People realized that their godless life left them cold and unsatisfied and they sought after God and found Him—because He’s never far from any of us!

And yet, we also have scores of Christians saying that they used to be against the homosexual lifestyle and homosexual marriage until they learned that one of their children was a homosexual and now their whole perspective has changed. And I’m here to tell you that that’s not all that different from the person who finds Christ in the gutter. It’s the same mechanism. It’s the same effect. A crisis event forces people to confront their own beliefs and leads to a paradigm shift. Which is a fancy way of saying that everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.

And the reality is that all of us believe wrong things. All of us do. Including me. The problem is that I don’t know what things I believe are wrong!

But life has a way of challenging what we believe. And the truly wise are able to allow the circumstances of life to be the prod whereby the Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. Or, again, to put it more simply—we’re able to learn from our mistakes. We’re able to change our minds.

Now, don’t get me wrong. There are things we should never change our minds about. I’m not saying anything goes. I’m not saying it’s all up in the air. I’m not saying that we should be radical skeptics. No. We have the faith once for all delivered to the saints. We have the Bible. We have the apostolic faith preserved in the Creeds of the Church. We have church tradition that helps guide us. We have the revelation of God’s truth in nature that is so complete that men are without excuse.

We can and should have certainty about a whole lot of very important things.

But a wise man or a wise woman knows the difference between something that is certain and something that is uncertain.

But wise people know more than that. Wise people know that life is full of challenges to our moral vision. And if you want a Biblical example of this then Jesus gives us two very obvious examples.

When being accused of violating the Sabbath Jesus points out that the priests offer sacrifices on the Sabbath and that a child is circumcised on the Sabbath and that animals are rescued on the Sabbath. He points out that people have enough common sense to know when one law supersedes another. Jesus points out that the law of the Sabbath is subordinate to the law of circumcision. He points out that values and ethics have a priority. And Jesus gives us a rule of thumb about this which is that it is lawful to do good and save life on the Sabbath.

Jesus’ point is that the Pharisees who wanted to obey God and keep the Sabbath were right to do so because that was God’s law. But they were missing the weightier portions of the law. Indeed, and I probably quote this passage too much, but Jesus tells the Pharisees that giving a tithe of their garden herbs is good! Yes, it’s exacting. Yes, it’s minutiae. Yes, it seems silly to come to the temple with a little handful of dill. But Jesus doesn’t despise their desire to obey God. He celebrates it! His point is that they neglected the weightier matters of the law. Which is more than just a pun about weighing out herbs and spices.

Jesus is saying that some parts of the Law were more important than others. There were some parts of the law that you obeyed even if it meant violating other parts of the Law. And this is what I would call changing priorities. Those who have a homosexual child and go from opposing same-sex “marriage” to celebrating it have had a change in values. Those who recognize that sometimes we have to violate a lesser value to hold to a greater value is a change in priority.

In normal times Texas obeys all the Waterways acts and gets permitted by the Army Corps of Engineers. In normal times Texas recognizes subsidiarity. But these aren’t normal times and when the federal government is derelict in its duty Texas attempts to fulfill what it views as its higher duty. Abbott believes that he has an obligation for Texas to be subsidiary to the federal government, but a higher duty is to the safety of the citizens of his state.

Christians, we are not living in normal times and our values and our priorities are being challenged. And whether you agree with Texas or not, you must recognize that Jesus himself teaches us that we need to prioritize values and sometimes even change them. That requires wisdom. And wisdom comes from God. We need to ask for it.

The Center for Kids Who Can't Read Good and Who Wanna Learn to Do Other Stuff Good Too

Listen to it here!

So, if you didn’t catch it, back on September 8, the Governor of New Mexico, Lujan Grishom, basically outlawed firearms with the exception of hunting and sport-shooting in most of New Mexico’s major cities. And, again, if you didn’t catch it, this ban, which was to run for 30 days, was issued, not by the Governor herself, nor by the duly appointed legislature of New Mexico, nor by the mayors or city councils of the several cities. No. If you’d been paying attention over the past several years you might have been able to guess what agency or department was the actual issuing agency of the constitutional rights violation.

Did you guess?

It was, of course, the NM Department of Health. Because being shot by bullets affects your health. Therefore, all the Secretary of Health has to say is that there’s a public health emergency and then he has a justification—even if it be the thinnest and weakest and most transparently vacuous, impotent, dishonest, and illegal justification—to abridge your constitutional rights.

Does a public health emergency constitute due process? Who knows? Well, I guess a Federal Judge knew…and he said that, no. No, a public health emergency does not constitute the due process necessary to violate someone’s constitutional rights. And so Judge Urias issued a temporary restraining order.

Now, it would be easy to look at this story as yet one more example of Liberal Constitutional Violations. It would be easy because it, on its face, is a violation of the Constitution, both of the United States—if you’re into that whole 14th Amendment stuff—and more relevantly, I feel, the New Mexico Constitution which is more robust than the US Constitution when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.

This little piece of news is a phenomenal example of the brazen contempt that Progressives have for the Constitution and how cynical they are in their use of it. They will raise a hue and cry about the non-existent constitutional right to murder your baby in utero; but they will come up with any and every justification imaginable to violate your First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights—and the Sixth Amendment has been ignored for a very long time as having a speedy trial seems to not be in the interests of people who get paid by the hour…but I’m sure that has nothing to do with it!

Anyways, it is also an example of a much more sinister and newfangled means of violating civil rights and that is using public health as the pretext, and a pretext it is, to do things that would be patently unconstitutional otherwise…incidentally they are still patently unconstitutional, but the public health pretext gives the patina of due process.

And by the way, prepare yourselves because the Covid restrictions are and will return. You know how I know they’re returning? Because our vaunted fact-checkers have stopped fact checking this. Back at the end of August the fact-checking was tut-tutting those who said that mask mandates were coming back; then it turned out that they were and are coming back. I mean, not that fact-checkers have any shame whatever. I mean they’re continuing to trot out the “no evidence of Biden corruption” line. I mean, at least 61% of the American public as of September 7 thought that there was evidence. And in a country where trials are done on the basis of a jury of your peers that I think says something…not sure what it says, but it says something.

So, yes. Prepare yourselves for a bunch of jumped-up petty bureaucrats to try to claim that the sniffles mean you can’t have your civil rights. And when I say the sniffles, I’m not trying to say that Covid isn’t deadly for people who die from it. What I’m saying is that according to the Washington Post over a 28-day global study 3,100 people died of Covid but over a million people contracted it. Which means that the mortality rate of infected people is .31%. I mean, that’s not nothing. But, according to people this is a bad time for Covid and there 8.1 Billion people in this world. And 3,100 died over a month. Which means that, by global statistics you have a 38 in 100,000,000 chance of dying of Covid this month—which isn’t nothing. But it means it’s pretty unlikely. By the same measure, there are approximately 1.3M deaths per year in car-wrecks. Which means that you have a global chance of dying in a car crash of 1,337 per 100 million. Which means globally you are 35 times more likely to die in a car accident than of this new strain of Covid.

Do I think that these data are particularly relevant? Not really, global averages don’t mean much—but it’s the only data I can find! Nobody seems to have published US Covid mortality rates since March. So, again, I’m not minimizing Covid. I AM saying that by the data I’m able to find, comparing global apples to apples you are 35 times less likely to die of the new Covid variant than a car wreck. But considering our roads are safer and while our healthcare is better, human bodies are more or less the same, let’s compare global Covid deaths to US car-safety.

According the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, annually in the US there are about 42,939 deaths in car crashes. Or 12.9 per 100,000—which would work out to 12,900 per 100 million. Now, divide that number by 12 since we have a month’s worth of data on the new Covid strain, and you get about 1,000 per hundred million. Since the global Covid mortality rate is 38 per 100,000,000 you are, according to WAPO and IIHS numbers, about 26 times more likely to die in a traffic fatality as you are from this current strain of Covid.

I’m not saying this to say that Covid isn’t serious. I’m not saying you shouldn’t use prudence to protect your health and safety. What I AM saying is that if we’re going to abridge and abrogate civil rights then we ought to think about a 30 day moratorium on driving cars and not a mask mandate. Getting rid of cars would certainly reduce traffic fatalities! I mean, it would cause an enormous host of other problems, like starvation and impoverishment, but hey—you have to do something.

And if you think I’m being ridiculous when I say, “hey you have to do something”—I mean, I am being ridiculous—but that’s the logic that Governor Gresham used in an interview with CNN’s Poppy Harlow.

Poppy, and credit to her, asked her hard questions and the Governor’s response was, and I am paraphrasing, well gun violence is bad so I had to do something. So, like anything? You can just do anything you want? One bad thing that’s hard to solve gives you carte blanche to employ any response you feel like it? The governor ADMITTED that this was not well calibrated to actually stop criminals from carrying weapons. And it’s unconstitutional on its face. But she felt like doing it. So she did it…or at least tried.

And this is the logic that has been employed over and over and over again by power-hungry politicians. They see a problem that is, indeed, a legitimate problem and then they assume that the badness of the problem justifies the illegality of their remedies!

Covid is bad—that doesn’t mean that the solution is a violation of civil rights. Gun violence is bad—that doesn’t mean that trampling 2A rights is a solution. And this habit of people just doing whatever they want and twisting and manipulating the constitution has actual real implications on theology. Because this tendency for leaders to use weasel-words and try to massage arguments to give pretexts to do and teach whatever they want is an old trick in the bad theology playbook. And it’s one that Christians need to be aware of. Christians need to know that there are theologians and pastors and Christian leaders who will massage a Biblical text to say whatever they want it to say to give the justification to do whatever they want to do!

And there are, in the same way, theologians and pastors and Christian leaders who will just say whatever they want and then find a verse that they think will say what they want it to say.

Let me give you an example. My kids just started a Bible Quiz program. And it’s a good program and the book of knowledge for them to learn is good. I’m not bashing it or saying it’s trash. But there are problems. I noticed as I read through it that towards the back there’s a Question that asks what verse of the Bible forbids drinking alcohol. And of course, my instinct was to say—none…none verses of the Bible forbid alcohol consumption. But the Q and A book listed Proverbs 20:1 “Wine is a mocker and beer a brawler; whoever is led astray by them is not wise.”

Now, if you don’t want to drink alcohol, that is entirely OK. God lets all of us make all kinds of decisions. But let’s not for one second pretend that this passage of the Bible forbids drinking alcohol. If it did, Jesus would have been a sinner because Jesus drank alcohol. Shock, gasp, if you have pearls clutch them now. Yes, Jesus drank alcohol. He didn’t just make it at Cana in Galilee for people who were already drunk—though he did do that, too. But Jesus drank alcohol and He promises that He will drink alcohol again.

Matthew 26:29, at the Last Supper, when Jesus passes around the cup of wine he tells His disciples, and I’m quoting God, here: “I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”

This is incontrovertible. If words and grammar are things, then this means, conclusively and irrefutably that Jesus drank wine. Which means Jesus drank alcohol. And you can pretend that the Greek word for wine meant grape juice, just like I can pretend that I’m 6’4” 180 pounds and lithe like a panther. Neither thing is true, but if we’re gonna live in fantasy worlds, I’m gonna make the most out of this.

Now, here’s the deal. NOBODY disagrees with Solomon. EVERYONE agrees that alcoholism is bad. EVERYONE. EVEN ALCOHOLICS agree that abusing booze is bad! But the statement, that being led astray by wine and beer is unwise is not the same as forbidding alcohol consumption. And here’s the thing. The Bible actually commands people to drink alcohol! Timothy is commanded to add wine to his water for his tummy, and we are commanded to eat the bread and drink the wine when we celebrate communion.

So, this one Q and A in an otherwise very helpful book makes a lot of claims. This claim twists the plain meaning of one verse, ignores several others, and makes Jesus a sinner. And if you think that kids don’t pick up on the hypocrisy you’re fooling yourself.

Now, if you make a personal choice to not drink—cool, great, good for you! And honestly, I will do my very best if I’m around you to not wound your conscience! I will not imbibe if I’m with you. And if you want to do grape juice at communion, I think that makes some HUGE errors in the symbolism, but in the end it isn’t something I’m going to be contentious about.

And I know that this is simply a brief example, but I thought it was a pretty appropriate example. Because as a pastor and theologian I constantly read bad and manipulative arguments and claims about what the Bible teaches and what Christians should and shouldn’t do. A very good pastor friend of mine showed me a message he received the other day. It was a message from some random stranger who said that his church was a false church because it didn’t use the King James Version and because they, he assumed, were also a registered 501c3 that my friend, Pastor Carter and his church, Bridging the Gap was a compromised Church.

Friends, Pastor Carter is a good man and his Church is doing good work, serving Christ and serving the community. But some coward—and he is a coward because he sent this letter through his child’s facebook account!—this coward attacks my friend and says that he’s a false Christian and his church, again, a church I KNOW is doing good work is a false church, it makes me angry.

It makes me angry that there are so many Christian who don’t know the difference between God’s Word and my interpretation of God’s Word. It makes me angry that there are so many Christians who think that their way is the only way and that everyone is stupid but them. So many see everything as black and white and that they and they alone –or at least their clique—have eyes that see clearly and are here to help all the rest of us fools see the light.

Well, if you are one of those people, why don’t you do us all a favor and shut up. You don’t have all the answers. There have been other smarter, godlier people who have disagreed with you and there are better, smarter, godlier people who disagree with me, too!

Now you might say, but Lukey, don’t you have strong opinions. Sure I do. I can be pretty hard core on things. And of course I think I’m right about everything I believe—but I don’t think everything I believe is right.

I don’t know of a single belief I hold that’s wrong. But I certainly know that some beliefs I hold are wrong. The problem is that I just don’t know what beliefs I hold are wrong. I wish I did know. If I knew, I’d change what I believe. But I don’t. So I strive to be wise, always praying for wisdom so that I might have insight into the Word and have prudence to know how to interpret God’s Word. Because the simple, painful truth is that the Bible does not interpret itself. People have to do that. And people disagree. Sure, Christians agree on all the major stuff—but there’s a LOT of stuff that isn’t major.

Friends, we need to learn how to read, and how to read rightly, and how to read what’s actually in God’s Word and not just what we want it to say. We need to learn to interpret the world God made, and culture, and art, and humanity, and science, and stories, and all sources of truth. We need the wisdom to integrate all truth so that we might live wisely and prudentially and most importantly godlily.

Burning Man

Listen to it here:

So, if you’re at all interested in pop-culture, then you probably have a general awareness of the “art festival” in the Nevada desert known as Burning Man. The festival has gone on for decades and grown in popularity from a few dozen people in San Francisco to 80,000 folks in recent years. The camp-out has generated a subculture of a subculture, with its own governing body, and dozens of books dedicated to the cultural phenomenon that are all positive enough for said governing body to promote them on its website!

However, given the very high cost of the event, and the fact that it has been viewed as a bacchanal for yuppies, this means that it’s been either below or above the radar of normies. As at many events considered “art festivals” sexual perversion is high on the to-do list of attendees. There is, in fact, a large air-conditioned building known as the orgy-dome. No research needed, it is what it sounds like.

While Burning Man itself, as an event, has rules and regulations and is governed by the US Bureau of Land Management, it attempts to govern itself with its 10 guiding principles that were created by the Burning Man founder Larry Harvey in 2014:

Radical Inclusion

Anyone may be a part of Burning Man. We welcome and respect the stranger. No prerequisites exist for participation in our community.

Gifting

Burning Man is devoted to acts of gift giving. The value of a gift is unconditional. Gifting does not contemplate a return or an exchange for something of equal value.

Decommodification

In order to preserve the spirit of gifting, our community seeks to create social environments that are unmediated by commercial sponsorships, transactions, or advertising. We stand ready to protect our culture from such exploitation. We resist the substitution of consumption for participatory experience.

Radical Self-reliance

Burning Man encourages the individual to discover, exercise and rely on their inner resources.

Radical Self-expression

Radical self-expression arises from the unique gifts of the individual. No one other than the individual or a collaborating group can determine its content. It is offered as a gift to others. In this spirit, the giver should respect the rights and liberties of the recipient.

Communal Effort

Our community values creative cooperation and collaboration. We strive to produce, promote and protect social networks, public spaces, works of art, and methods of communication that support such interaction.

Civic Responsibility

We value civil society. Community members who organize events should assume responsibility for public welfare and endeavor to communicate civic responsibilities to participants. They must also assume responsibility for conducting events in accordance with local, state and federal laws.

Leaving No Trace

Our community respects the environment. We are committed to leaving no physical trace of our activities wherever we gather. We clean up after ourselves and endeavor, whenever possible, to leave such places in a better state than when we found them.

Participation

Our community is committed to a radically participatory ethic. We believe that transformative change, whether in the individual or in society, can occur only through the medium of deeply personal participation. We achieve being through doing. Everyone is invited to work. Everyone is invited to play. We make the world real through actions that open the heart.

Immediacy

Immediate experience is, in many ways, the most important touchstone of value in our culture. We seek to overcome barriers that stand between us and a recognition of our inner selves, the reality of those around us, participation in society, and contact with a natural world exceeding human powers. No idea can substitute for this experience.

Now, I could go through this list of principles and point out the hypocrisy rife in much of it. I mean, turnabout is fair-play, right? If pagans can attack the church for the hypocrisy of Christians, can’t Christians point out the hypocrisy of pagans? It’s interesting that there are guiding principles of gifting and decommodification. But you have to buy tickets, right? And you have to buy ice and coffee, right? Like with money, not as a present. And as the Reno Gazette Journal points out:

Burning Man may not be about money on-playa, but it deals with a lot of it off-playa.

The nonprofit organization last year raked in about $3.7 million in revenue minus expenses, according to the organization's 2017 federal tax documents posted Wednesday evening.

It goes on to list the salaries of the top 10 earners from Burning Man:

Nearly 40 percent of Burning Man's money, more than $15 million, was spent on salaries and other employee benefits, an increase of about $2 million from the year before, according to the 2017 tax documents. The top 10 salaries from 2017 are:

Marian Goodell, CEO: $261,000

Larry Harvey, President: $211,000

Theresa Duncan, Director of philanthropic engagement: $187,000

Harley K. Dubois, Director: $176,000

Ray Allen, General counsel: $174,000

Doug Robertson, Director of finance: $161,000

Heather White, managing director: $160,000

Kim Cook, Director of art and civic engagement: $156,000

Charlie Dolman, event operations director: $151,000

Crimson Rose, secretary: $145,000

I mean, these people are all earning significant amounts of money…not gifts…and the fact that they have a CEO and President and lawyers and all these other people involved in business seems to make the “decommodification” principle seem like a rule-for-thee-but-not-for-me kinda thing.

Again, I could go through the list and point out the hypocrisy—and that would be fun. But I’m not sure how helpful it would be after the first few laughs we had.

Similarly, we could all laugh and mock the dirty hippies getting stuck in the rain and having a harrowing ordeal this year. We could say that it was the vengeance of God—or if not the vengeance of God, the delightful sense of humor of God. Other people have done this and it’s funny—but again, I’m not sure that it actually helps us to understand the culture we’re in and how Christians can live victoriously in it.

The purpose of this broadcast is to apply the Word of God to current events. Burning Man is certainly a current-event and a social phenomenon, and it is also a social phenomenon that is indicative of much larger phenomena: rising paganism and the corporatization of paganism as well as the paganism of our social-elites.

Because while there is the tendency of normal people to look at a bunch of naked, stoned, hippies in the desert doing yoga at an orgy bonfire and think that it’s just a bunch of perverts letting off steam before they have to go back to designing webpages or being college DEI administrators or whatever these people do—that would be to miss the point.

In fact, the hypocrisy of Burning Man is kinda the point. Burning Man offers people not a real community or a real society but a simulated society. And this is obvious. The Burning Man ethos is about radical self-reliance, but the attendees this year couldn’t radically self-rely on themselves to deal with less than an inch of rain! They can’t radically self-rely to deal with a lack of coffee or ice or air-conditioned orgies. There are no gardens or farms—or potable water—everything needs to be trucked in. This isn’t a society. It's a camp-out posing as a society.

Which is what a religious ceremony is. It’s a simulation of a lifestyle that can’t be perpetuated, but is intended to be inculcated. Or, let me put that another way. A religious festival is a gathering that cannot go on indefinitely because it’s an interruption, and a deliberate one, of the normal patterns of life. However, in religions like Christianity, while the festival cannot go on, the message of the festival is to be carried out in real life.

For example, think about Christmas. Getting together in the snowy cold to sing and have plays and overeat sweets and ham and give lots of expensive presents isn’t something we can do all day every day. But the message of Christmas—that God became man and that we should live with hope, and trust that God reaches out to us and seeks us by coming to us, and that likewise we should show love and compassion and kindness to others: this is an ethos we can live out every day.

The Ancient Jewish Festivals, take Tabernacles—people can’t live in poorly constructed tents and not work all day, every day, forever. But you can recognize your radical dependance on God.

But Burning Man doesn’t work that way.

What Christianity does in our celebrations is takes the kind of life we need to live and gives us an amped-up version of it. We need to love one another, we need to be of one mind, we need to share eachother’s burdens, and so our religious ceremonies allow us to do those things in an intensified way.

But Burning Man doesn’t work that way.

Rather, Burning Man takes a lifestyle that doesn’t work and cannot work in the real world and then amps it up and intensifies it at the religious ceremony. Burning Man is supposed to be about radical self-expression and immediacy…but it’s also about civic responsibility? Which is another way of saying that Larry Harvey has discovered that both the individual and the collective exist but he isn’t sure how to balance the needs of them both.

And normally I wouldn’t criticize that. All societies who wish to recognize the individual as an individual live in this tension.

The problem is that Burning Man is all about transgression and subverting the norms and expectations of civil society—which they call “default world.” You can’t be about transgressing civil society and also try to have rules that will make your society civil. You can be a reformer who transgresses—sure. But you can’t be a true transgressive who reforms. Indeed, in the irony of ironies someone a few years ago burnt the burning man, a giant wooden effigy from which the event gets its name, 4 days early.

I mean, sounds like radical self-expression and immediacy and participation and decommodification to me…but he was arrested and charged with a felony! He went on to serve two years in prison for arson!

The reality is that Burning Man is a religious festival. But it’s a religious festival that doesn’t worship the living and true God and it doesn’t function like Christian worship does. It has many of the trappings of a pilgrimage and a retreat and a feast—and it is those things—but it doesn’t bring people to a knowledge of the truth and its principles can’t work in the real world: they don’t even work in the fantasy world they created! But it’s powerful nonetheless because what Burning Man offers is a Sacrifice of a Scapegoat. It’s no accident that the man burns on the penultimate day. It is standard practice that you have rising tension, climax, and a denouement. Everything about Burning Man when examining the rituals is textbook. And this is obvious to anyone who’s read Rene Girard and Joseph Campbell. You spend 9 days building, abusing drugs, being hot, dirty, naked, engaged in orgies, and all that energy, as well as all that shame, all that guilt, all that knowledge that you’re transgressing that you’re undermining society, that you’re destroying and degrading that which is good—all that energy has to go somewhere. And because there are so many negative emotions, frustrations, hurts, anger, violations—so many wrongs that need righted—a crowd like this needs a substitute to transfer all this power and negative emotion and just plain violence onto. And it also is no accident that they burn the man they build!

What Burning Man has tapped into, and then come up with, frankly, a lot of horsecrap to explain, is the need of fallen humanity to seek revenge and the scapegoat ritual that allows us to take collective revenge without society disintegrating. Fallen people need scapegoats or else society becomes full of vendettas and blood feuds and chaotic violence.

In fact, you almost certainly know about this phenomenon, even if you don’t realize it. Obviously the Bible talks about a scape-goat which is a goat sent off from the community; but just in recent culture there are a lot of versions of the scapegoat idea. There is, of course, Prokofiev’s Rite of Spring which is a ballet about ancient Russian spring rituals that culminates in the sacrificial killing of a virgin girl. More than that there’s Shirley Jackson’s seminal short story The Lottery—which is the basis of a South Park episode, as well as the basis of the Hunger Games stories.

Destroying what you build over the course of an experientially, emotionally, physically, and socially exhausting period of time, given all the other rituals of Burning Man make it clear that the burning man is nothing other than a Scapegoat Sacrifice. He’s an effigy—sure. But effigial violence is still violence and still cathartic.

Now maybe you don’t understand what I’m saying because this doesn’t make sense to you because you don’t have an impulse to commit acts of violence against statues or commit ritual murder in a lottery format…I hope you don’t. And Western Society has been able to repress and satisfy the urge for sacrificial violence, to a pretty large degree, because Western Society, by and large, has accepted the solution to the need for group violence: which is in fact group violence. God’s answer to the needs that individuals and societies have for a sacrificial victim to alleviate the stress and need for vengeance was for God to actually become the victim: the perfect victim who could perfectly restore all broken relationships.

A bunch of dirty perverts get together for a romp and an effigial sacrifice in the desert because they are full of shameful, vengeful, broken, hurt and hurting impulses and guilts and they look to the Burning Man to take on that guilt and shame and pain for them. The burning man becomes their sacrificial lamb—the sacrificial virgin—the scapegoat—Christ.

The problem is that the burning man is not Christ. And he cannot take away sin, and he cannot reconcile victims and oppressors, and he cannot take shame and guilt, he cannot heal hurts, he cannot take away pain, he cannot end the cycle of vengeance and violence. The burning man is the latest, if not last, desperate attempt by Western paganism to get all the benefits of Christ without Christ himself.

Burning Man evidences our need for Christ, and our desire for Christ, and yet our simultaneous rejection of Christ as a society. Christians can mock it and deride it—and frankly, it deserves mockery—but unless there is a turning to God we will simply see more and more of these events. We will see more and more scapegoats.

Because people who reject the lamb always kill the scapegoat.

People are hungry for a greater than the burning man; people are longing for Christ. Let’s share the good news with them.

P.S. There are far too many excellent articles dealing with all the topics addressed here. But here are a few I recommend to function both in helping you navigate some of the ideas I’ve addressed here as well as functioning as a primer for the deeper concepts.

Useful articles about the religion of Burning Man:

https://www.honest-broker.com/p/why-do-they-burn-a-man-at-burning?fbclid=IwAR2iuKordCgQVT1-pY7KG0i8fn1Ahu8fBFo-AdTpfXbeHCmnuM1NyUIV5tA

https://today.uconn.edu/2022/09/burning-man-highlights-the-primordial-human-need-for-ritual/#:~:text=The%20weeklong%20event%20culminates%20with,the%20burning%20of%20the%20temple.

https://journal.burningman.org/2014/11/global-network/rhymes-with-burning-man/tyler-durden-invented-burning-man/

https://soundideas.pugetsound.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1739&context=summer_research

Primer on Girard:

https://mimetictheory.com/who-is-rene-girard/

https://iep.utm.edu/girard/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNkSBy5wWDk

Primer on Campbell:

https://jcf.org/about-joseph-campbell/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pE8ciMkayVM

An Atheist Church

Listen to it here.

So, this week on TIJ I’m not going to read an article to begin, as is my wont, but rather just dive into the subject itself. I was inspired by a Washington Post article by Perry Bacon Jr. who is a professional journalist, who wrote an article entitled: I left the church — and now long for a ‘church for the nones’…but there seem to be other titles including I’m no longer religious. But I still want Church and I used to be a Christian. Now I miss Church.

The article is quite long—pushing 2,400 words—so, as I said, we’re not going to read it. But I will give a very brief summary. This man who claims to have been a Christian—though he admits he never actually believed in God or the Resurrection of Jesus—has lost whatever faith he had because Trump et cetera. But now he realizes how much he misses what a church provides.

Now, there is much to criticize in this man’s article. He makes ludicrous claims and demonstrates a failure to understand rudimentary theological truths. But the article is extremely useful because he’s honest enough to admit two things.

First, he states that churches provide encouragement, fellowship, moral instruction, and more.

Second, he laments that despite many American youths having a “church-shaped hole,” and his desire for there to be a secular church neither he nor anyone else is willing to put forth the effort to create one—and even though he thinks it would meet the needs of many that it wouldn’t succeed.

Let me read an excerpt from the conclusion:

 Kids need places to learn values like forgiveness, while schools focus on math and reading. Young adults need places to meet a potential spouse. Adults with children need places to meet with other parents and some free babysitting on weekends. Retirees need places to build new relationships, as their friends and spouses pass away.

Our society needs places that integrate people across class and racial lines. Newly woke Americans need places to get practical, weekly advice about how to live out the inclusive, anti-racist values that they committed to during the Trump years. The anti-Trump majority in the United States needs institutions that are separate from the official Democratic Party, which is unsurprisingly more focused on winning elections than in creating a sense of community for left-leaning people.

There are lots of organizations trying to address those needs. But strong churches could address them all. That isn’t some fantasy or nostalgia. Many Americans, including me, were once part of churches that were essential parts of our lives. It’s strange to me that America, particularly its left-leaning cohort, is abandoning this institution, as opposed to reinventing to align with our 2023 values.

I can easily imagine a “church for the nones.” (It would need a more appealing name.) Start the service with songs with positive messages. Have children do a reading to the entire congregation and then go to a separate kids’ service. Reserve time when church members can tell the congregation about their highs and lows from the previous week. Listen as the pastor gives a sermon on tolerance or some other universal value, while briefly touching on whatever issues are in the news that week. A few more songs. The end. An occasional post-church brunch.

During the week, there would be activities, particularly ones in which parents can take their kids and civic-minded members can volunteer for good causes in the community.

I don’t expect the church of the nones to emerge. It’s not clear who would start it, fund it or decide its beliefs. But it should.

And personally, I really, really want it to. Theologically, I’m comfortable being a none. But socially, I feel a bit lost.

As I’ve already said, I could take a very ungenerous and uncharitable read of this article, and I could just dunk on it. But I don’t think that would be helpful. And I don’t think that it would be of any benefit to Christians. Because the purpose of this broadcast is to apply the word of God to current events. This means helping believers (and curious unbelievers) to understand how the Bible relates to what’s going on in the world. This article very much addresses things going on in the world. There are, he’s correct, many people not going to church who are experiencing appreciable social, moral, and personal deficits. Or to put it another way: the author is right that people need church and they aren’t getting enough of it.

And he’s also right that the idea of a Godless church is a bit of a lead balloon. There are certainly lots of people who want the benefits of church without all the fusty and politically-incorrect theology and dogmatism. He mentions the Universalist Unitarians, a denomination of hyper-liberals that started in the 1960s. But this denomination has always been small—never having total membership over 300,000 people.

Moreover, the Universalist Unitarians aren’t exactly the same thing—they at least pretend to be Christian—what Mr. Bacon is talking about is a church that wouldn’t have any pretense of being Christian. Of course, it will borrow an awful lot from Christian morality and ethics and just call it universal or self-evident…and that’s one of his biggest theological failings…but he wants to go further.

But, again, as he laments: there is little to no significant interest in such a project.

And then he accidentally reaches the most important truth (or at least he comes dangerously close to addressing it). He recognizes that it is unclear who, and I’m quoting directly, “Would start it, fund it or decide its beliefs.” Once more, I must say, that it would be very easy to dunk on him claiming that directing the beliefs of the church of universal values would be a challenge. I could do that, and I must admit I want to. But I’m not going to, because I think deep-down, his use of the term “universal values” is more wishful thinking than an actual anthropological assessment.

He's dangerously close to stumbling on an earth-shaking and atheism shattering truth here. So close, methinks, he may have written this to distract himself. You see, friends, he says that he can’t imagine who would lead, fund, guide, and direct an atheist church. He can’t imagine it because he can’t see how a significant number of people who have a “why.”

Human behavior needs a “why.” People do things for “why”s and when the “why” is lacking so is the behavior.

Atheists lack a why. And this is true in MANY domains. But it is especially important here.

Now, don’t get me wrong; atheists and agnostics have motivations. I don’t find their motivations to be particularly compelling or philosophically consistent. But they have them. But if you look at what motivates the atheist or agnostic to organize it’s often a utopian political gambit. Republicanism in France, Marxism/ Leninism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, Fascism in Italy, Progressivism in America—these atheist/ agnostic organizations often mirror the church with ceremony, rites and rituals, ecclesiastical vestments, et cetera. But the motivating factor, the why is political and social change. There’s something to do. There’s a reason to show up. There’s a call to action.

That’s why Socialism continues to be such a powerful force in world politics. It’s not because Marx was on to something. Communism is one of the most thoroughly busted theories out there. People don’t become communists or socialists because the supporting arguments are rigorous and there’s meaningful experimental data. Just the opposite. People become communists because they want to be part of a movement that will change the world. It’s an ethical claim. Heeding the call, and becoming a communist is like taking the first step in the hero’s journey, answering the “call to adventure” to borrow Joseph Campbell’s monomyth language. Communism has a “why.” I think it’s a bad why—but it’s a why.

There’s a reason people join utopian political movements. It’s because there’s a motivating factor.

But despite the gigantic cohorts of people in this country who are, in Bacon’s own words, “woke” and who are atheist/ agnostic and who realize that they would gain from the social and personal benefits of a church, he doesn’t believe that an atheist/ agnostic woke church that is divorced from the Democrat party is feasible.

What he wants is quite literally an organization that he knows he wants but which has no reason for existing. Sure, there are philosophy clubs, and debating organization, and choirs, and political organizations, et cetera. But what’s to bring all these groups together? And why should they sing songs? And why should they have potlucks? And why should they avoid ties to a political party? And how can they determine their guiding values? He speaks of children doing “readings.” Whence come these readings?! Martin Luther King? Ghandi? MLK is being problematized and will be cancelled soon and very soon and Ghandi has been problematic for a long time!

What he wants can’t happen. Or at least not on any great scale, because it lacks a motivating principle. Why should atheists and agnostics join together to do church things? Because it will benefit them?! So will a brisk walk.

What I think that Mr. Bacon is dangerously close to realizing, and what he may have already realized, is that the motivating principle for Christian churches is being in Christ. That’s what makes sense. If you’re in Christ you will desire to be with the rest of you. Christians, real Christians, real Christians who are walking in the Spirit desire to be with other Christians. You can’t help it. If you’re a real believer walking with the Lord you’re going to desire to be with other believers. Magnets attract. You want to be with yourself. And like the phantom pains of a truncated limb or finger, to be separated from other believers is painful. We desire to be one. We long to be together.

We don’t sing because we wish to experience the psychological magic that comes when we put our faith into rhythmic and rhyming poetry—though that’s true and a benefit—we sing because we cannot keep from singing! We sing because we’re in Christ. Because we have something—Someone—to sing about. We sing because we want to be one with the rest of our-self making something beautiful.

We share meals because when we share a meal with other believers we’re sharing with our own self because we’re all one in Christ. Just as the man and wife are one flesh so believers are all one in Christ. We long to be together because only together are we complete.

We read the scriptures because they’re about Christ—in Whom we are and Who’s in us. We preach sermons because we desire to become more of what we already are, to reach maturity. We’re in Christ and we desire to be like Christ and to experience Christ in us all the more.

We celebrate the sacraments because we wish to experience oneness with Christ and unity with eachother.

The church service exists because of a desire for believers to be together and to experience God and to worship Him.

What would an atheist/ agnostic service exist for? Make no mistake, I know that there are all sorts of atheists and agnostics who go to churches and whole denominations that are practical atheists and people experience encouragement and fellowship. But this is mimicry. And the evidence seems to suggest that that mimicry matters to people who grew up in a Chrisitanized society, but that people who have never had it struggle to fake it. Liberalism has had a good long run, running on the fumes of people who were part of groups that had a why. Liberalism has come out of a tradition that had a why—being in Christ—and that’s been enough to keep it going, as erroneous or half-hearted as it may be. But they were able to sing a song from memory. Liberal boomers kept going to churches that abandoned orthodoxy because they were used to it, and many of them, genuinely believed that they were getting to the TRUTH of Christianity and still believed that they were experiencing God. Their motive was the same motive as the orthodox. They may have believed that God was just like them, but they believed that there was one and that He had something to say and something for them to experience.

I think they’re wrong about who God is—but God is their why.

But the atheist/ agnostic doesn’t have that why. Their church wouldn’t be about anything. Sure they could make it about utopianism and make it a political organization. Sure. But then it would be a party and not a church. I think Mr. Bacon realizes that the only way for church to work is through faith. Church needs faith. It doesn’t work without it. Again, I think that a lot of, ahem, “churches” have a heretical and false faith—but it’s faith all the same. And heretical movements have a way of dying off over time. But the orthodox faith survives. If the Lord tarries Progressivism and Wokism will come and go and if he tarries longer they will come and go again in another form. But the true faith will remain.

And in closing that’s the encouragement and the instruction I hope to bring. Everyone in Christianity is trying to find the silver bullet to regrow our churches and to win the world. People ask—why are people abandoning church? It’s simple. Either they don’t have Christ in them—or they have been trained to believe that they won’t find Christ in Church.

The answer to our present woes is simple. We have to give people Christ. That’s what churches must do is present Christ. Give people Jesus in our words, in our readings, in our songs, in our sermons, in our sacraments, in our meals, and service, and in how we love. Christ is the answer. Not leadership. Not transformation. Not marketing or outreach or visions or missions or growth strategies or focus groups or committees or gurus or consultants. And it isn’t getting in touch with the young people or knowing the latest slang. And it’s not in trying to be relevant.

It's Christ.

It’s only Christ.

It’s always been Christ.

Christ is the answer.

Christ is the why.

We need to give people Christ. That’s not just they why for church, as a Sunday gathering. That’s the why for the Church as the body of Christ and our existence on this earth as individuals.

We need Christ.

The world needs Christ.

Let’s seek Him and seek to share Him.

All Over Oliver

Listen to it here!

So, I came across a curious Christianity Today article because of a Not the Bee article that juxtaposed a CT article talking about how Taylor Swift and the Barbie movie were bringing us all together, and the next day they published this piece about Oliver Anthony. I would say you could read the comments section, yourself. But honestly, don’t read the comments section. Ever.

Now, I, unlike many of my conservative Christian brethren actually read the CT article by Hannah Anderson. And I’d like to lay out a few observations about the article and then move on to the main point.

The first thing I want to say is that her article makes several good points. She on at least 3 occasions seeks common ground with Anthony. She gives him the benefit of the doubt, assuming that he and she share core value concerns. The body of the article is not ungracious.

And as to the content of her concern, her concern that Christians often make assumptions about people on food subsidies, SNAP, food-stamps, welfare—call it what you will. Christians make the assumption that anyone on government food assistance is lazy and that it’s shameful. And that’s not always the case.

And let me let you in on a little secret. There are many, many, many pastors of small churches whose families are on government medical insurance like Medicare or Medicaid, and there are many pastors with young children whose wives receive WIC food benefits.

My point is that when Hannah talks about the assumptions that we make compared to the realities that exist Christians can and should be thoughtful in how we speak.

However, Hannah’s article has problems. And these problems are not small. In fact, these problems are so significant that it kinda invalidates the article, in my opinion.

Let me lay out why. And I AM paraphrasing her so read her full article to check up and make sure I’m not misrepresenting her arguments. But she says that she was excited about the song, being an Appalachian herself who likes folk music and cares about social justice. However, there are 4 lines that she finds morally objectionable.

And the reason she finds them objectionable is that stigmatizing welfare recipients causes them to feel shame. That’s her argument. She says that Christians not on welfare should extend the same freedom to choose what food to buy to people on welfare. Basically, her argument is that whatever your political theory on food subsidies, you shouldn’t criticize people buying fudge rounds if they’re on welfare, if you yourself reserve the right to buy fudge rounds.

Now, I don’t actually agree with her argument. I don’t at all. And the medical statistics would suggest that her argument is busted. The Poverty-Obesity Paradox is a well-documented sociological phenomenon. Poverty and obesity are especially correlated for women—interestingly, among men, the rates of obesity are relatively stable (about 1/3) and in fact men with higher incomes tend to have a slightly higher rate of obesity.

Statistically there are a lot of people at or below the poverty level who are obese and who also have other significant behavioral health issues. And when the government is giving out food, they ought not to give out fudge rounds and other unhealthy food. I’m certain that Oliver Anthony knows a LOT of people who are poor and who receive food assistance. I’m certain that he has friends and family who receive government assistance. I’m certain that he doesn’t hate people who are receiving assistance who genuinely need it, nor would he say that there isn’t a need for that assistance (I mean, maybe he would, but I don’t think so).

If you actually listen to his song he says MULTIPLE TIMES that what concerns him is the plight of poor people, and particularly issues prevalent among poor whites—despair, drug and alcohol abuse, and being forgotten by the rest of the nation. And since Anthony cares about the poor he neither wants to see them alcoholics nor chocoholics. Obesity kills more people than booze or even drugs and tobacco in this country. If he actually cares about the poor—which I think he does—then he ought to care about the fat poor. He doesn’t want to see people be 5’3” and 300 pounds because that will just put ‘em 6’ in the ground.

So, Mrs. Anderson’s point is a fair one—but it’s what we call in the logic business a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow. She admits that Anthony doesn’t hate poor people and actually cares about them and then she chooses to ignore the context of the song to attack one of the lyrics. Now, look, she can point to the lyrics about fudge rounds and say that is shames and humiliates the obese poor or those on welfare generally. And we can debate her political points, but she’s missing his point which is that people DO IN FACT abuse welfare and there are people who are poor and are killing themselves with junkfood.

I think she owes him the assumption of nuance commensurate with the good will she presumes for him. Or to put that another way, if she’s being careful to assume good intentions then why does she take a few lines out of the context of the song and then analyze them in a decontextualized fashion. That’s not nuance. Nuance, would be to say that her interpretation of those lines is a possible one, but then to list other possibilities. And, in fact, she doesn’t even have to go that far. She can admit that she’s taking a decontextualized look at the lyrics because she believes that those words reflect an ungenerous attitude among conservative Christians. But she has to admit that she’s decontextualizing to do that in good faith.

So either she’s deliberately decontextualizing his words because she just wants to make a point and she doesn’t care if it’s a non sequitur or not, OR she doesn’t realize that she’s decontextualizing because she A) believes that despite Anthony’s otherwise good intentions, he’s wrong on this issue OR B) because she’s not trying to say anything about Anthony but about an attitude that mirrors the lyrics in the song OR C) she just wasn’t paying all that close of attention. Of course there’s another option, and that is that I’m wrong and she’s entirely correctly interpreted Anthony and his song and she isn’t taking his lyrics out of context and I’m wrong.

But I do think that she’s wrong, that she’s taking him out of context, and is making a non sequitur argument.

But that brings us back to the biggest problem—the title. Now, I’ve said repeatedly that Mrs. Anderson has presumed good faith on Anthony’s part, and she, in fact, concludes her article with a statement that she thinks that Anthony agrees with her compassion and care for the poor. Well then why the title? Remember what she called it? “Oliver Anthony’s Viral Hit Doesn’t Love Its Neighbors ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ is disdainful towards people on welfare. Christians shouldn’t be.”

The funny thing is that I don’t read that in the lyrics of the song—especially in context, and oddly enough Mrs. Anderson doesn’t really believe that of the author, and she tells us as much. So why the title? Does she believe that despite Anthony’s being compassionate, his song came out as unloving and disdainful? I mean, she can make that argument—but she doesn’t really defend it or explain how that could be; she simply seems to presume it. And I’m afraid that for me that’s not good enough. If she had titled the article something like Does Oliver Anthony’s Viral Hit Love its Neighbors? ‘Rich Men North of Richmond’ reflects unconscious attitudes that Christians need to reconsider—would be a perfectly reasonable title. It would reflect that there are unknowns about authorial intention and that there can be a gap between what we say and what we mean and that the way Anthony intends his words may differ from how people hear them. All that’s true—and that may indeed be what Mrs. Anderson meant. But that’s not what she said and, to me, the title writes a check that the content can’t cash—and kinda doesn’t even try. It comes off as clickbait. It makes a relatively thoughtful article come off as a hot take. Titles matter…they matter an awful lot. And Christianity Today which is all about nuance should know this.

But here’s the thing, and this is my main point for today. Nobody really is all that upset that somebody came out with a “Well, actually” criticism of Rich Men North of Richmond. Christians miss the point and pull that kind of crap all the time. Far too many Christians just don’t know how to take a win. And more’s the pity. The problem is that CT ran a pro Barbie article talking about how this extremely politically and religiously divisive film is bringing us together and how a song that’s a genuine bluegrass grassroots reflection of conservative and Christian feeling is divisive. The editorial point-missing and tone-deafness is so egregious one presupposes it’s on purpose.

And this is the general take about Christianity Today among normal evangelicals and especially conservative evangelicals. People hear that CT defends Barbie and attacks Rich Men North of Richmond and their response is, “of course they did.”

CT loves to stand on its tippy toes trying to be intellectual and nuanced and self-critical, but that all only goes one way. The CT default take is simultaneously, “ugh, gross, average conservative Christians like a thing—they’re stupid, let’s tell them it’s trash.” And “wow, average conservative Christians hate a thing—they’re stupid, let’s tell them it’s a blessing from the Lord.” It’s this smug, “well actually,” condescension that people hate. And the irony is that CT is defending a movie that is made by and for the smug, condescending, “well actually” crowd and attacking a song whose very intention is to unmask and vilify the smug, condescending, “well actually” crowd. Anthony Oliver is lamenting and protesting the power of those who gaslight you and lie to you and manipulate you and pat you on the head and tell you to shut up and eat your fudge-rounds fatty! Eat the bugs and wear your masks, Poors. That’s why RMNoR is a phenomenon—it’s tapped into the anger and despair and resentment. And it’s growing and it is dangerous. Anthony’s song protests the smuggery and corruption.

And Christianity Today has either missed the point and are too focused on trying to teach the foolish fundy rubes to be nuanced, or they got the point, and are just on the other side.

I’m not sure which is worse. I’m not saying RMNoR is the song of a generation that Christians need to make our anthem. What I am saying is that it’s a cultural bellwether. The times are coming and now are here when our society is going to be shaken and there may be a great realignment. And we will need good journalism to help sort out the hard questions. Journalists are in many ways preachers and prophets. We need good ones. We need godly ones. We should honor, respect, and listen carefully to those who are. But CT, if it ever was that voice in the wilderness, it no longer is. We need new voices. I pray to God we’ll find them.

Power and Personality

Listen to it here.

Well friends, things are happening now. What kinds of things are happening? Well, that remains to be seen. It remains to be seen for several reasons. Let me lay out a few of them:

1, David Weiss is who has been made Special Counsel was the US Attorney who was in charge of investigating and prosecuting Hunter Biden over a long period of time—this investigation has been ongoing for 5 years.

2, Under David Weiss’s lead, Hunter was charged with misdemeanor tax crimes and a felony gun charge—so, presumably Biden will face at least one felony charge when this all shuffles out.

3, Under Weiss the Government offered Biden a sweetheart deal that was rejected by a judge and was so bad and so obviously corrupt that AG Merrick Garland had to do something.

4, Weiss has said that the Government never interfered with his work.

5, Weiss said that there were other people who made charging decisions.

6, Despite some of Weiss’ protestations at least one whistleblower has claimed that Weiss’ investigation was hampered and that there was political pressure.

And those are just questions about Weiss—this doesn’t even begin to consider whether this is part of an internal Democrat coup to get rid of President Biden and replace him with pretty much anyone before the 2024 election. Because that’s the thing about politics. When you see someone like Merrick Garland doing something like this it’s obviously because a) the pressure has gotten so high that he had to give in or b) this is a way of placating the right while simultaneously getting rid of a demonstrably AWFUL candidate in Biden. Garland is a political animal, make no mistake. He is arguably the most partisan Attorney General in my lifetime—and Ted Cruz argues the most partisan AG in history. Garland is not going to do something that looks like it hurts his own side out of the goodness of his heart or some kind of noble loyalty to duty. If Merrick Garland is doing something that hurts his own side it’s because he’s either being forced to do it or because it’s a red herring or a coup that will actually make the party stronger.

Merrick Garland is loyal to his party. He’s loyal to the Progressive Agenda. And he’s loyal to the liberal-left Federal bureaucratic apparatus. Indeed, listen to this comment from Garland:

“I certainly understand that some have chosen to attack the integrity of the Justice Department and its components and its employees by claiming that we do not treat like cases alike…This constitutes an attack on an institution that is essential to American democracy, and essential to the safety of the American people.”

Garland is basically pulling a Fauci saying that an attack on Garland is an attack on Justice. And this shouldn’t come as a surprise. America has been moving this direction for quite some time. We no longer view politicians as officers who hold offices and are entrusted with the powers of that office and who have power by virtue of the office to which they have duties and obligations and which they will have to surrender when someone else is appointed.

This is of course the danger of a permanent bureaucracy. This is the danger of a single-party-government technocracy. People gain offices and positions and after a certain length of time they come to view their office and their power and authority not as something lent to them by we the people, but as their own personal fiefdom that they hold by virtue of birth or personal excellence.

The permanent bureaucracy sees itself not as a collection of private individuals who have been given temporary extraordinary power to act for the people with power given of the people and by the people. No. They are a class. They are the specials. This is the power that they should have—that they deserve. Unlike the great unwashed, these people have Harvard degrees and know the latest politically correct speech and have the right opinions and it is their right and duty to hold power and to exercise it as they see fit—whether how they see fit conforms to the constitution, the will of the people, and truth, justice, and the American way, or not. Indeed, often it is their duty—a duty they owe to their own personal excellence to act in ways that would be unconstitutional and corrupt and illegal in lesser men.

As E.Y. Harburg wrote for the musical Finian’s Rainbow:

When a rich man doesn't want to work,

He's a bon vivant, yes, he's a bon vivant,

But when a poor man doesn't want to work,

He's a loafer, he's a lounger, he's a lazy good for nothing, he's a jerk.

When a rich man loses on a horse, isn't he the sport?

Oh isn't he the sport?

But when a poor man loses on a horse,

He's a gambler, he's a spender, he's a lowlife, he's a reason for divorce.

When a rich man chases after dames,

He's a man about town, oh, he's a man about town,

But when a poor man chases after dames,

He's a bounder, he's a rounder, he's a rotter and a lotta dirty names.

The preferential treatment that Hunter Biden has received and very well may continue to receive is nothing that should surprise anyone. And Merrick Garland’s attempts to drag his feet and slow-walk the prosecutions and restrict investigators and all the other corrupt things he’s done are bad. And they should be recognized as bad. And his Faucian notion, his Luis XIV notion, that Garland is the personification of justice is gross and bad. I don’t want to minimize it.

But it’s not new and it shouldn’t surprise anyone who knows anything about history and human nature. What Garland is espousing is not some historically aberrant view—it’s the norm of history.

Now, I must admit, I’m not a political theorist and the theories about power are extremely complicated and there are an awful lot of them. Indeed, I considered doing an elective for my Master of Theology about just defining power and the professor who was going to supervise it, who had previously been the Chair of Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, who was nearly 80 years old and had founded seminaries in India and was highly respected in the field told me that it would be a wonderful topic and that he would be interested because he too wondered about what power was!

Power is complicated and there are a lot of theories about it. But what isn’t really debatable is the reality and generally speaking, throughout history, the norm is to view the office and the officer as inseparable. You can’t differentiate the king from the kingdom or the duke from the duchy or the count from the county—this is part of the reason why kings were killed in the ancient world rather than merely deposed. The concept of kings living in exile after being overthrown is a rarity. Typically the king or prince of chief had to be killed. This isn’t ONLY because of fear that the deposed ruler would try to take back power—though that was part of it—but because the ideas of political power and personality were inseparable. This is similar to the notion of the “cult of personality.”

In America, VERY classical Greco-Roman, democratic and republican ideal that power is bestowed upon an individual by the people for a short time period so they may serve the state is a rarity. The Roman Republic had an enormously complex system to keep powerful individuals from becoming kings in all but name—or kings in name, for that matter!

But as Athens and Rome prove, the desire to separate offices and officers, to keep the cult of personality at bay is a never-ending battle. And there are many reasons for this—no doubt. And there are many bad reasons for this that are rooted in our own sinful nature.

But there’s actually a very good reason that we want a king and a kingdom that are co-extensive: Christ.

Born into all of us is the belief that the king and the kingdom, the might and the man, the lord and the lordship are the same thing. Inherent in human nature is the presupposition that political power and personality are inseparable. This is because our nature has been designed to desire Christ. God has made us to desire Jesus and so political history demonstrates how societies anticipate our God-King.

Ancient pagans—and modern pagans for that matter—worshipped kings as gods on earth or descendants of the gods. Now, part of that was effective propaganda to be certain. Part of that was our anthropological urge to worship what we conceive of as the greatest. Part of that was the fact that many of the heroes of antiquity were the offspring of human women and demons which gave birth to giants—to Nephilim who were heroes of old and men of renown.

Sure. But this worship of god-kings has often been used as a way of undermining Christianity. The critic will say, “Oh Luke, you fundy rube, don’t you see that your Jesus is just a Second Temple Jewish manifestation of the god-king phenomenon, and this is proof that Jesus is not divine but just some Johnny-Come-Lately.”

To which I reply, “No, rather it proves that all mythology anticipates Christ because God has made humans to desire Jesus. Our very nature cries out for a God-king!”

We want a king to rule us—or at least we have been made to desire such a king. Unfortunately because of sin we either reject God as our king or we want to be the king ourselves. Human beings have a bad habit of thinking that we have it in ourselves to rule over our fellows by dint of our own personal goodness or greatness.

Not only has God made us to desire a god-king but sin causes us to reject the real king and for us to seek to be that king ourselves. But we’re not fit for rule. None of us is so good, or so great that by virtue of holiness or wisdom or insight or strength or competence that we’re truly capable of ruling over others. All of us are frail. All of us will fail if called upon to rule. We’re not good enough, plain and simple.

And neither is anyone else. Only Christ is good enough. No human is able to rule others. Unfortunately because men will not be governed by God we must be ruled by men. I would it were otherwise—but it isn’t. Until the kingdom of the world is become the Kingdom of our God and of His Christ and Jesus takes His place on David’s throne, we will all be ruled by men who are at worst themselves ruled by base passions and at best subject to them.

The founders of our system of government were all frail men with their own sins and failings. But they left us a legacy that recognizes and safeguards against the reality that men are not Christ and only Christ is capable and worthy of rule. They recognized that man needed to be governed by men but that men were incapable. They gave us the best form of government the world has ever seen, insofar as it protects against abuses. But that legacy, that system, those rules, and this legacy is just a paper tiger unless we have a society capable of producing men who will surrender power, subdue their passions, and submit to Christ.

If we want a better government we must make better men.

Wiser, Sadder, and Happier

Listen to it here!

Friends, Brothers, Sisters, let’s me frank—trying to cover theologically significant news-stories every week can get a bit depressing. It’s very easy when scouring the news to feel that everything is going off the rails. Change and decay in all around I see. Look around and nomatter where you look you’ll see corruption and crookery. The world, this nation, it’s full of horrendous and monstrous and ghoulish evil. The rich oppress the poor, the poor are corrupt and self-destruct, and the rich devour their own souls. Those who rule over us are fools and cowards and corrupticos and those who speak up and speak out are silenced. The Devil runs riot. Black is white; up is down; good is evil; wrong is right—everything’s the way it oughtn’t to be.

It's easy to view things that way. It’s easy to get depressed by the news. It’s easy to see what’s happening in the world and grow despondent and discouraged and to fall into despair. It is. I won’t sugar-coat it, friends, if you pay attention to what’s going on in the world you won’t find a very pretty picture.

And so, because of this there are many well meaning folk who will tell you “stop watching the news; stop listening to the news. Why, when I quit paying attention to politics I became much happier.”

No doubt, brother!

I’m utterly certain that if you stop paying attention to the evil in the world and only focus on happy things that you’ll be happier.

But that’s foolish. That’s playing the ostrich. And like it or not, no citizen of a republic has the moral right to just ignore their civic duty, and part of that civic duty is to be reasonably informed as to the state of the republic. When you have the right to vote and elect representatives then you have a moral duty to do so, and to choose those who will be most pleasing—or at least least displeasing—to God. One may protest, that they don’t like politics because it’s just so depressing, it’s all a bit of a downer. Yeah. It is. Because politics is where men are asked to govern their own nature. Will people actually subdue and restrain their base and wicked appetites or will they surrender to them? Will humanity love righteousness and hate wickedness and will God’s deacons bear the sword to please Him or will they abuse their power for their own perverse ends?

Read a bit of history, it shouldn’t take much, and you’ll not find a lot to celebrate. People are an unpleasant lot, and politicians are just people with the power of many people at their disposal. And everyone who has studied history has realized this. They’ve come to the conclusion that humans have largely done a pretty poor job of not oppressing and exploiting and violating eachother.

Yes, I get it; I get the temptation to ignore politics. And I want to qualify what I’m saying with a big caveat. Not all news and commentary is edifying for the soul. And, it is possible to overdo it. I believe we have a moral obligation as citizens of a republic to be reasonably informed on the issues. But this doesn’t mean you need to watch Fox News 24/7. I would strongly discourage that. And it certainly doesn’t mean that ANY news source is equally good as any other news source. There are indeed fear and outrage mongers, and they should be avoided. I’m not saying our lives should revolve around the news and politics—far from it. There are a lot of important things in life. And that includes silence and prayer and meditation.

What I’m NOT saying is that to be a good Christian you need to be a news junkie. I would actually caution against that. In fact, I would strongly caution against that. But I would equally caution against sticking your head in the sand. I get it, ignorance is bliss. There’s a reason that at the end of his poem, The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Coleridge speaks of a man who became “sadder and wiser” from hearing the harrowing tale. Wisdom is known to bring sadness and sorrow.

12 I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I applied my mind to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under the heavens. What a heavy burden God has laid on mankind! 14 I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

15 What is crooked cannot be straightened;

    what is lacking cannot be counted.

16 I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

18 For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;

    the more knowledge, the more grief.

Ecclesiastes 1:12–18

In fact, Solomon, the wisest man who ever lived was so certain that wisdom brought sorrow that his advice for the godless was for them to ignore wisdom and higher things and to just eat-drink-and be merry.

And yet Solomon tells us that wisdom is better than folly. And the proverbs tells us to get wisdom, even though it costs us everything. And, my goodness, look at Solomon’s own words in the proverbs, as he describes wisdom!

13 Blessed are those who find wisdom,

    those who gain understanding,

14 for she is more profitable than silver

    and yields better returns than gold.

15 She is more precious than rubies;

    nothing you desire can compare with her.

16 Long life is in her right hand;

    in her left hand are riches and honor.

17 Her ways are pleasant ways,

    and all her paths are peace.

18 She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her;

    those who hold her fast will be blessed.

19 By wisdom the Lord laid the earth’s foundations,

    by understanding he set the heavens in place;

20 by his knowledge the watery depths were divided,

    and the clouds let drop the dew.

21 My son, do not let wisdom and understanding out of your sight,

    preserve sound judgment and discretion;

22 they will be life for you,

    an ornament to grace your neck.

23 Then you will go on your way in safety,

    and your foot will not stumble.

24 When you lie down, you will not be afraid;

    when you lie down, your sleep will be sweet.

25 Have no fear of sudden disaster

    or of the ruin that overtakes the wicked,

26 for the Lord will be at your side

    and will keep your foot from being snared.

Proverbs 3:13–26

So, consider this dilemma. On one hand wisdom brings sadness and grief. But at the same time wisdom is the key to all good things. On one hand ignorance is bliss, but folly leads to death and destruction and not only that, but Wisdom will laugh in your face in the day of calamity because you despised her.

This is a tricky one.

And to put it in more contemporary terms it would seem, that if we apply the text to our lives, it’s saying that seeking to know and understand the politics and news of the day so we can be informed citizens who can do our civic duty will make us sadder and bring us to grief, and yet somehow, it will also provide us with blessings that make us happy!

This seems like a contradiction does it not? This seems like it can’t work. It would appear that the Biblical teaching on the affective power of wisdom and knowledge undermines its own arguments.

Yes.

It would appear that way.

At first glance.

But the first glance is rarely the clearest picture and wisdom and folly are mysteries that we must pray to God to reveal to us. Because the truth is that these ideas are not actually contradictory. It is true that ignorance is bliss—but that bliss is ruinous bliss. A fool is a happy fool…until he isn’t.

You see what Solomon in Ecclesiastes and the Proverbs is telling us is something that’s actually extremely helpful. And, obviously, he’s talking about wisdom and folly in a more universal sense than just the news and current events and politics, but he’s not talking about less than that. Remember friends, politics is just theology with a gun. God cares deeply about the politics of this world because politics is how theology is enforced upon a society. Also, Solomon was a king and huge portions of the Bible deal with political wranglings and intrigue. The story of Saul, David, and Solomon, the kings of the United Kingdom is one of the best political thrillers ever written—all the more so since it’s a true story!

The point is that you have to endure a bit of sorrow and sadness to gain enough wisdom to achieve the peace and prosperity required to bring enduring happiness.

In other words, the only way to be happy most of the time is to accept that you’ll always be a little bit sad. Why? Because the only way to bring about peace and prosperity is to understand human nature and how the world actually works. You need anthropology and theology and philosophy. You need wisdom and that wisdom, the kind of wisdom that comes from understanding human nature, is wisdom that brings sadness. Why? Because human nature is wretched and corrupt and totally depraved! When you actually understand the world and our place in it you understand that all of us are born Hell-doomed sinners who need to repent and be saved; you understand that people are corrupt and that humans, even the very best of us, are corrupt and depraved; you understand that all your heroes have feet of clay and that you will be disappointed sooner or later by their frailty; you come to know that you will die and you will almost certainly be forgotten soon after your death having left no real impact in the world that you’ll be remembered for; you come to know that you will be betrayed and hurt and that you’ll betray and hurt; you have to deal with the fact that there is no such thing as security in this world—this is a place where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, where Alexanders conquer the world and are felled by mosquitoes, where nothing is ever safe; you understand that the very best we can do is to fight a losing retreat; you realize that eventually humanity will fall to the Antichrist; you come to grips with the fact that people will let you down; most importantly, you are forced to recognize that you too are a wretch, who at your best are saved by grace, but that you too are a disappointment and a failure and frail and that it’s only by the grace of God that you are what you are.

And that’s enough to make anyone sad.

As Roy Trenneman says on The IT Crowd: People, what a bunch of bastards!

And if that knowledge doesn’t make you sad, then, well, I don’t know what to say. Because Jesus didn’t have enough theology to make the pain of this world not affect Him—he cried when Lazarus died. Jesus didn’t become callous and hard-hearted. This world will break your heart.

But people who know that are the only kinds of people who can make it better! Because if you don’t know that all men are liars and that all are born sinners and that those in power will always be corrupt and corrupted and corrupting, if you don’t know those things then you will be a terrible leader. And the reason you’ll be a terrible leader is because you’re a fool. Fools make bad leaders, if for no other reason than because solving problems requires living in the world of reality and not fantasy.

Now look, I like fantasy as much as or more than the next person. I am quite a dork. But I like my fantasy to remain in the world of fiction not the world of politics.

So, again, only the people with the sadness that comes with wisdom are capable of leading. But that means that the people who then are sad but wise are able to lead well because they can actually solve problems and restrain wickedness and foster righteousness. Those things naturally bring peace and prosperity and happiness. So the only way to achieve happiness through governance is to accept sadness in our anthropology. Those who have a sad view of people are the kinds of leaders who can bring great joy to people.

That of course is the irony of Progressivism. Progressives think that they can overcome human nature and that Utopia is always just over the next hill, and so they justify all kinds of horrors and abuses and murders and violations and rapes and robberies and wars to get to Utopia, but they never get to Utopia, they just get to a poorer, miserabler, rapier, murderier, version of the Dystopia they so fervently hated. Because they refuse to see the problems of human society as endemic to human nature they can never deliver on the progress and prosperity and peace they promise.

Brothers and sisters, friends, my point is that if we’re going to make this world a better place we have to be involved and engaged. You might say, “but Luke, you’re a premillennialist, you’re a dispensationalist, you think the whole world is gonna go rotten and worship the Antichrist, how can you talk about making the world better?” Good question. Here’s what I think is a good answer.

I don’t know when Jesus is coming back. He might come back tomorrow or in a thousand years. But until He returns I want Christ’s gospel and the peace, prosperity, joy, and happiness that comes from His gospel to rule in ever part of human life and human society. I want to stop babies from being murdered today. And if I know that Jesus is going to rapture me out this afternoon, but that I can work to save babies lives in a few hours that I have…I want to use the time I have for good. Improving the world by making it conform to the way God would have it to be is not liberal or secular or even post-Millennial; it’s just Christian. Godly people have a sadness about them—it’s true. We’re sad because we know what human nature truly is. But Godly people bring happiness with them because that sad knowledge of human nature allows us to govern and to build and to preach and to teach and the raise children and run businesses and have friendships and marriages in light of that knowledge and that brings peace and prosperity.

Don’t be discouraged; run the race, fight the fight, and keep the faith.

Religion v Righteousness

Listen to it here!

So, as you know if you’ve been with me on this 624-episode odyssey I like to call Truth in Journalism, you’ve probably noticed that Abortion is a pretty important issue to me. I think it is the greatest moral stain in America’s history. I believe it is a cancer to our national soul. I believe that it upholds and encourages a culture of death. I believe it has heaped an unspeakable and incalculable burden of guilt upon our country. I believe that it is one of the most important causes of mass shootings.

More than what I believe, I know that making mothers murderers is evil. I know that murdering and dismembering babies for profit is evil. I know that any place that tolerates, let alone advocates, such a despicable, ghoulish, demonic evil is a place that is ripe for the judgment of God.

I also see signs that may indicate that there is a Spiritual awakening in this nation. I believe that perhaps God is rousing us out of our Spiritual drunken stupor. Those who have eyes to see cannot unsee what they’ve seen and unlearn what they’ve learned. I believe that God, in His inconceivable mercy, is giving our nation an opportunity to repent. To turn from our wickedness.

Now, many are being awakened to the evils omnipresent in our society. A lot of normals are lookin’ about and see a bunch of psychotics and perverts being given awards by the President; they see mostly peaceful riots that burn down cities; they see the insanity of our society and they realize that something is deeply wrong.

Many see the problem. God is giving them the grace to realize and recognize that something’s wrong.

But not all are rightly diagnosing the problem and not all will come to the correct conclusion.

Because brothers and sisters, we can look at all the problems in our society as individual problems, even breaking them down to individual cases, and of course, we will find manifold causes for these problems. We can look at drug overdoses, and we can look at one person who overdoses and go through her whole biography and see the causes for why she came to such an unhappy end.

But we can also look at large-scale causes—poverty (and yes, poverty can be a contributing factor because drug abuse is primarily caused by despair); physical, emotional, and sexual abuse; absentee fathers; hedonism; lassaiz-faire criminal statues; and we could go on.

And we could compare these causes with the causes of other social and personal evils. And we would find that there was a lot of overlap. Yes, there are a lot of causes for evil in to be enacted in the world. And understanding how to analyze these causes is valuable and is work that needs doing.

I’ve written about this topic before (here and here) and here I’d like to quote me:

To clarify, the Christian position has always been one which tries to recognize the competing realities of Depravity, Enculturation, and Free Will in explaining human behavior. It may be best to recognize that these 3 concepts move from universal to general to individual in their scope. Depravity, of course, affects all of humankind and limits humanity such that sin has corrupted every aspect of personality. How that depravity manifests, however, is determined both environmentally and hereditarily (which I have called Enculturation). A person living in a society that constantly degrades women is more likely to commit acts of violence against women than one raised to treat women with dignity and respect and as the moral equals of men. A person raised in a household where narcotics are constantly abused is more likely to use narcotics than a person raised in an environment without drug abuse. A child of alcoholics is more susceptible to alcoholism than a child of non-alcoholics. A child of people five feet tall is less likely to play NBA basketball than a child of two 7 footers! Nature and Nurture do compound Original Sin and Depravity, by funneling that depravity into specific channels of sinfulness. Lastly, of course, is individual choice, or Free Will. Of course, it must be noted that our Wills can be damaged so that we act in sinful and self-destructive ways absent of any active agency – the stimulus/ response mechanism called addiction or habit. And Christians would agree that addiction and habits can become so strong that only an act of God can restore some kind of volitional Moral Agency. But, on the whole, we do well to recognize that while Depravity and Enculturation both limit us and shape our personality, individuals do make individual choices for which they are individually morally responsible.

Does this mean that people born into poverty are doomed to be drug users or criminals? No. But it does mean that because of how Depravity and Enculturation affect Free Will, that people born into poverty are more likely to engage in violent crime or to abuse illicit drugs. When studying human behavior and systems we must remember a helpful precept: people in groups are highly predictable and people as individuals are highly unpredictable. The statistical predictability of groups is due to Depravity and Enculturation. The statistical unpredictability of individuals is due to Free Will. This concept is fundamental to a Christian Theological Anthropology.

OK, now, I know that that was a mouthful and there was a lot of technical terminology there, but it is important to understand that there are different levels of causation that we can analyze.

But there is one ultimate cause for all evil and that is Sin. Sin is the cause of all evil. If no one sinned then no evil would be done in this world.

Therefore, it is necessarily true that if a society becomes more evil that that society has become more sinful. And it is necessarily true that if a society has become more sinful it is because it has become more godless.

In the end Solzhenitsyn was right! In his Templeton Prize acceptance speech he said this:

Over half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’

Since then I have spent well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: ‘Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.’

The whole speech is well worth reading and I hope you will take the time to read it.

But why, you ask, am I spending time talking about this? Because there was an article published recently about issue 1. And that issue was a lie. was a lie. It was an utter deceit and a fabrication. Sure, the author and those she interviewed said things that as individual statements may have been accurate portrayals of reality—quite a few weren’t, but that’s another story—but as a whole the article is a lie. And it’s not a lie because it’s claiming that religious people are pro-abortion. That’s true enough. It’s a lie because it is subtly attempting to use the word “religious” as an equivalent for “righteous.”

And the reality is that no righteous person is pro-abortion because no righteous person is pro-baby-murder. But yes, there are, indeed, lots of religious people who are pro-baby-murder, because there are lots of people who worship demons—some even do so knowingly.

But again, this article is a lie. It makes the claim that religious people are divided over abortion. OK. And? What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China? It’s an utterly valueless phrase. People from different religious groups have waged war against each other over the content of their teaching. The author knows that, I’m sure. I would guess that the author of this article has heard about Jihad and the Crusades, about Jewish persecution of early Christians about Islamic persecution of Jews.

She knows that Christians have gone to war against Christians and Muslims against Muslims and Jews against Jews. She knows that right?

I would assume that she knows that, and if she doesn’t she’s an idiot not worthy of the noble professional of journalist. Because, as I’ve said many-a-time, journalism is, indeed, a noble and worthy calling.

And if she knows that religious groups have fought wars against other religious groups and within the same religious groups then she would know that saying “religious people are divided” is an empty phrase. That’s like saying, sports fans disagree about what team to root for; or, foodies argue about the best pizza toppings. It’s true…but it’s vacuous. And the reality is that this article is not meant to be vacuous. It’s meant to convince people of a position. The article makes these claims because the author is hoping that if you read that there are Priests and Pastors and Imams and Rabbis who can’t agree about abortion then there really isn’t a correct religious take. Which is dumb.

But then the dumbness intensifies because it’s clear that she wishes to promote abortion and so she favorably quotes the pro-baby-murder side talking about how bodily-autonomy is the necessary God-given right which undergirds and guarantees all other rights.

Which is weird, ‘cause I remember reading about a group of people in the 1800s saying that the right to own and dispose of property howsoever the owner wished was the fundamental right that guaranteed all other rights—but that’s another sermon for another day.

So the article is written to suggest that religion won’t give you an answer about abortion, so you need to just, you know, accept it because women’s rights—as though that weren’t a religious claim.

Of course, invoking bodily autonomy and women’s rights is a religious claim. If a right isn’t God-given it’s a privilege granted by the state, or an action you take upon yourself. But the only real foundational moral basis for rights is that they be God-given. The author wishes to pull a bait and switch.

She attempts to say, look, monotheism can’t sort out this problem so let’s just follow the teachings of Secular Humanism. It’s intellectually dishonest—or shockingly ignorant—but that doesn’t mean it’s ineffective. People are duped by such pedestrian attempts at moral philosophy.

The reality is, tragically, that many, if not most, are convinced by stupid, illogical, and bad arguments because they are either stupid or because they want to be deceived. And it is the duty of Christians to help those who lack the intellectual rigor to see the deceit for themselves, to see it. And it’s the duty of Christians to prophetically proclaim the Word of God to those who choose to believe a lie because they reject Christ.

Religion isn’t righteousness. Religious people ARE divided on Abortion. But the Holy Trinity is not. And righteous people are not. There is only one right side—and that’s God’s side—and that’s the side that sides against killing babies inside, and outside, their mothers.

Let’s stand for righteousness and not let the weak and deceptive lies of the Father of Lies deceive those too weak or too wretched to see the truth for themselves.

For Maths' Sake

Now, I know I’m a dork, but I’ve seldom been made more painfully aware of my own dorkiness than when I asked my congregation, in the introduction to a sermon, who else found the discovery of solutions to mathematical mysteries to be exciting. I know I should’ve known better. My wife knows better. My small children know better. They all know I’m a dork. And I should too.

But still there’s a part of me that, deep down, truly believes that other people will also get excited to see a mathematical mystery solved. I actually think that other people find elegant proofs to fundamental questions to be thrilling. And I actually am convinced that if a person doesn’t find mathematics beautiful that there’s something wrong with them.

There I said it.

Now, allow me to defend it.

I am no mathematician. But I have studied some advanced calculus and taken my fair share of physics and chemistry courses. I know enough to know I don’t know much, but can appreciate a lot—which is what I’d consider an educated layman. When I have some extra free-time I like to watch informative videos about advanced and theoretical mathematics (dumbed down for popular-level enjoyment). I’m a dork…let us not forget this. I’m not staking my claim to educated-amateur-laity-status to boast—I’m not proud—but simply to say that I actually know something of math and enjoy it.

But, what even is math? I know that that question may sound puerile or abstract—or abstruse—depending on whether or not you like question like “what is math?” But it’s a worthwhile question that will help me to advance my thesis that people should see the beauty in mathematics.

For my money math is nothing more nor less than the description of quantity. Numbers are merely symbolic representations of quantity. There is such a thing as threeness and seveness and fourness. One needn’t fall into some form of mathematical Platonism to avoid the dead-end of Nominalism. No, there is no “form of four” somewhere in the ether, but neither is “fourness” something that is a purely human construct. I grant that there may be some debate here made in good faith by the Nominalists (and the Platonists). But the reality is that while some quantities may seem arbitrary, like looking at 3 trees in a forest and claiming that threeness is therefore an emergent property, that doesn’t mean that ALL quantities are arbitrary and none are self-evident or emergent.

And as a Christian this is a necessary conclusion. Oneness and Threeness are not human constructs, nor are they “economical” in the sense that they only exist because of God’s work in creation. God has always been three in one, therefore quantity has always existed as an ontic category. Or to put it in plain English, because God it triune and was so before He created, no Christian can claim that three or one—or the concept of quantity, in general—is merely an invention. Rather quantity exists as an actual thing…with thingyness.

So, if quantity, and discrete quantity (as in clear-cut quantities possessing clear-cut and self-evident “value”) such as in integrals, has thingyness, then when we use numbers we aren’t JUST playing a game that we’ve made up in our heads. Numbers correspond to real things and real quantities of real things and real concepts of quantity.

And of course, this is true in non-numerical math, too. Geometry was preferred by the ancients because they thought numbers were imperfect, and that the shapes gave more universal proofs. Geometry was considered a fundamental part of theology. And while we may scoff at this, we shouldn’t. Rather, Christians should agree that theology is informed by, enriched by, and emboldened by mathematics.

How?! You ask me. How? I shall endeavor to demonstrate.

So, I just said that when we do math we aren’t JUST playing a game. The “JUST” is important, because we are playing a game. But it’s not a game of pure fantasy. It’s a game because math doesn’t really DO anything. Yes, numbers have a conceptual thingyness—similar to words (more on that later)—but mathematics doesn’t ever give us “new information.” Any mathematical equation that’s solved adds no new data. It may give us a new way of considering a specific quantity, but it doesn’t actually give us a new quantity. The thingyness on the left side of the equals-sign is the same as the thingyness on the right. All math does is say that A is A, but with quantities.

Mathematics is a demonstration of logic. An equation simply says that A is A and that A is not non-A. Indeed one of the great inconsistencies in philosophical history was Kant claiming that mathematics provided predicate statements (that math gives new information).

Now, you might think that I’m crazy. No! you protest, “I do math and I get an answer I didn’t know before.” Sure. You might not have KNOWN that the square-root of 64 was 8, but knowing that doesn’t change anything or give us “new information” because root-64 and 8 are the same thing, they represent the same quantity. They have the same thingyness, but a different description of that thingyness.

Math is a game—it’s a logic puzzle, like Sudoku, or riddles.

But it’s also a very useful game. Because when we solve equations we are able to represent quantity in ways that are useful to us. We are able to observe quantities and changes in quantities and develop theories and formulae that help us describe and predict these changes. Mathematics is an absolutely indispensable tool in human existence—and yet it’s a game that gives us no new information. It is, in a very real sense, just something we’ve invented out of our own heads. Math is elegant and beautiful because it can’t not be. It must be elegant because it always works because it always must. The cleanness and purity of the logic of math is nothing more than the necessary clarity that must come when we say that a thing is what it is! A is A is always elegant because it cannot not be. It must be clean and precise because it cannot be else!

Mathematics is a logical game that humans have invented. Its elegance, precision, clarity, and beauty are all necessary and inescapable. Math is just a man-made game. And yet for all that it’s a profoundly, indispensably, indescribably necessary tool. We could not live in the world we live in without math. And more than that the fact that humans could invent a game that has the power to help us transform the world is a demonstration that we are made in the image of God.

Math only exists in the imagination of Persons. We play a little game with quantity, never changing anything but the way we conceptualize the quantity and yet we can use this fantasy to invent geometry which helps us to build aqueducts, and arches, and cathedrals, and skyscrapers, and computers, and to harness the power of molecules and atoms and particles and save lives and to rule the earth and subdue it. Using the power of imagination we are able to transform the physical world.

This is a testament and testimony to our creation in the image of God. We can create using our imaginary conceptualization of quantity—God creates by speaking.

When we study math we are studying logic at its purest, or nearly purest, form. When we study math we see the breathtaking precision of human thought and its capacity to transform imagination and fantasy into reality. When we study math we encounter mysteries of reality—the reality God created. I pity the person who cannot grow excited to see the Mandelbrot Set or the Prime Number Spiral. I pity the person who cannot discipline their mind to see the beauty of mathematical precision or who cannot find delight in using pure logic to solve a geometric problem. Math helps us to be like God because it allows us to use the immaterial imagination to change the material world.

This is why mathematical education is so theologically important. And this is why homeschool and especially Classical Christian education models must do more than simply put a cross on the cover of the Saxon book or add verses from the Gospels to Euclid’s Geometry. Math for math’s own sake isn’t really math for math’s own sake, but it’s a way to enter into the mind of the Lord—if only in the most frail and paltry way. Math for math’s own sake is about the love of logic and precision and truth. It’s a demonstration of the imago Dei. That’s why we need mathematical education. And not just the kiddies either!

Movies, Morals, and Messages

Listen to it here!

So, you have probably heard about, if you haven’t seen, the movie The Sound of Freedom starring Jim Caviezel. It is a film that is very loosely based on a true story about Tim Ballard a former Homeland Security Agent who has formed an agency attempting to rescue children from human trafficking.

I haven’t had the time to see it…I get to the movies about once a year at most, nowadays…but SOF looks interesting. More than that it’s about a topic that’s important and I’ve always liked Caviezel—though he does tend to play characters a little over-serious, for my taste, but he’s still very good.

Now, I expected a movie with Caviezel, especially about child-trafficking, and with Angel Studios backing to do pretty well. It’s a summer movie and there are a lot of Christians with disposable income, and considering the popularity and success of The Chosen I would have been surprised if this movie didn’t turn out to be very profitable. It only cost $15M to make!

I also expected to hear nasty and unfounded criticism from the Left.

So far no one has disappointed me. The movie has performed very well—being number 3 in the country as of right now, and the critics on the Left have been exceedingly nasty and mean-spirited.

I’ll grant, I haven’t seen the movie. So I won’t weigh in on its quality. My guess, from reading a broad spectrum of reviews is that it’s probably an OK movie, not terrible, not great, that probably gets a little preachy, and probably could have been improved with a bigger budget, and probably takes too many liberties with the whole “based on a true story” thing. But it’s probably a movie that makes people feel good and inspires them to do something and entertains them for a couple hours.

My guess is that it’s an OK movie that could’ve been better and certainly could’ve been worse.

And I won’t weigh in today on the unhinged criticism coming after this movie—other commentators, like Christian Toto, have done a thorough job of that!

Rather, what I want to focus on is a criticism against the film from Nick Allen of Rogerebert.com.

He says this,

The story is true, but it barely comes to life with such a telling. Which is a shame, not just because it’s uncomfortable to be numbed by these themes, but also because director Alejandro Monteverde well-clears the low bar for filmmaking one expects from movies that are message-first (and often come with similar faith-driven backers). Take away the noise surrounding it, and “Sound of Freedom” has distinct cinematic ambitions: a non-graphic horror film with what could be called an art-house sensibility for muted rage and precise, striking shadows derived from an already bleak world. If “Sound of Freedom” were less concerned with being something "important," it could be more than a mood, it could be a movie.

Now, I’m pretty good at reading and that paragraph was admittedly a doozy! But in short what Allen is saying is that SOF could have been a lot better if it hadn’t tried too hard to be an important movie and had tried a lot harder to make sure that its story was more important than the message it was conveying.

Now, this may upset you. You may think that the message against child trafficking is so important that it warrants a message-first approach. You may think that it’s OK for narrative to be message first. That putting the point front and center doesn’t detract from the quality of the storytelling.

But let’s investigate that claim, shall we? Does centering the message lower story-quality? And, indeed, the more important question is whether it’s even possible to write good, or even great, fiction without it having a “message” or a “moral?” Because the reality is that this is a pretty relevant issue for today. We have an awful lot of fiction with a message. In fact, almost everything in media is VERY message-focused. As we know, people at Disney have a “not-at-all-secret-gay-agenda.”

We know that the woke Hollywood and big-tech/ media outlets have been on a blackwashing spree where they have done their level best to erase straight, white, male characters whenever possible—unless they need a villain, an incompetent simp, a goon, or someone to take prat-falls whenever the plot needs them to.

Look at the recent Disney offerings based upon the Lucasfilm content. Disney has gotten rid of strong male protagonists like Luke Skywalker and Indiana Jones and replaced them with Mary-Sue girl-bosses like Rey Palpatine and Helena Shaw—all the while making Luke a frustrated, incompetent, moral-failure and Indiana Jones a useless old codger who is only in his namesake film because the eponymous hero needs to pass the bullwhip to the smarter, tougher, better female version. These are messages. The need for Amazon to invent characters for Rings of Power, and to add black characters was because, as we were told over and over and over again—television needs to reflect the world we live in today…even when the televised world is a high-fantasty fiction with imaginary races set in the ancient past.

I could go on and on about the woke messaging in modern media, but chances are you’ve noticed. Chances are you have already gotten sick of it (if the box-office and streaming stats are anything to base anything on, anyways.) And, of course, it’s possible that you’ve noticed that movies and television have been exceptionally terrible lately, even if you haven’t been able to put your finger on “why?”

The reason is the message. The message comes first and it comes loudly and it comes in many forms. From casting, to plot, to dialogue and just about everything else, there is a message that woke media is presenting and it is in every aspect of just about every media production.

But here’s the thing, from the perspective of the woke media moguls all other material has a message too! For the woman at Disney who talks about her “not-at-all-secret-gay-agenda” all those hundreds and thousands of Disney characters who weren’t gay were presenting a message, too! Every time there’s a movie where the protagonist is part of a traditional family, that movie is promoting the message that traditional families are normal, good, and desirable.

You see, friends, once upon a time a lot of people lived in a world where they presupposed that some things weren’t political. That some things simply…were…and that they didn’t contain an underlying moral message. But as we have entered into Postmodernism that idea has been exploded—and that’s fair enough because it wasn’t true. Whenever a fiction writer writes fiction he creates an invented world. And that world can be whatever he so chooses. And it can have any rules. There is no such thing as a fiction story set in the real world. It’s simply a fictional story set in a world that is extremely similar to our world—but it’s not set in the real world, but in a fictional version of our world. And if you create a world where two parents raise happy children you are sending a message that two parents can raise happy children. And if all you present are images of happy children coming from two parent households, then you are suggesting something about the world—that children need two parents to be happy. You may not even believe that, but that’s the message that’s conveyed.

Fiction presents a world as it is and a world as it should be—because fiction is built on the protagonists’ conflict between the world as it is and the world as it should be! Protagonists make the world, or at least try to make the world, conform to their vision for how the world ought to be. And this “ought” is a moral claim. Fictional stories present a vision of the good, and that is a moral and even a theological vision.

Luke Skywalker wants to create a world without the Empire. Indiana Jones wants to create a world where the Nazi’s don’t get the Holy Grail. Frodo Baggins wants to create a world where the One Ring is destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom.

These are all obvious, and they have obvious moral messages attached. Murderous empires are to be resisted; Nazi’s are bad; tyranny should be stopped.

But these stories, and I’m choosing these because they all are major parts of the American imagination and they are all stories that Hollywood is trying to change, but these stories have subtle messages attached to them. For instance, Luke Skywalker’s relationship to Obi Wan Kenobi communicates the message that heroes need older male mentors who can help them truly becomes heroes. Indiana Jones, similarly, must learn to recognize his father’s wisdom and tread the path his father couldn’t. These are basic to mythology, but they resonate with us today. There is a part of us that accepts as fundamentally true that heroes need older wiser mentors to shape them into heroes. We accept that men must at some point take up their father’s mantle and essentially replace their fathers. On a less serious note, Sam Gamgee in LOTR teaches us that a man needs to pluck-up the courage and ask Rosie Cotton out on a date—a message that Hermione Granger explicitly tells Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

Stories that matter that have formed the Western Canon, stories that resonate with us and that we know and love have presented an awful lot of morality and messaging: heroes fight villains; men should be brave; women should be virtuous; children should be protected; heterosexuality is the norm; friendship is to be cherished; despair is destructive; cowardice is evil; pride comes before a fall; men are to be strong and women are to be kind; the young prince slays the dragon and gets the girl. These are just some of the basic messages that Western society has embedded, and embedded so deeply that we don’t even notice them in our stories.

But the funny thing is that not everyone likes those messages. There are some people who think that rather than making heterosexuality the norm we need to normalize perversion. And Hollywood did. And it was incredibly effective. Will and Grace did more to change public opinion than any amount of preaching, teaching, op-eds or anything else. Because the truth is that the stories we tell, and the stories we believe, shape us in ways that we can’t even comprehend.

And seeing the success of the homosexual agenda the woke are going for broke and trying to change everything! And the thing is that they aren’t wrong. When those who are constantly whinging about representation say that it matters and that shows that only feature straight, white, male heroes are sending a message they aren’t wrong. The problem is that their transgressive message either presents a false anthropology, or is presented in such an incompetent and hamfisted way that nobody believes it.

Look, I love a strong female character. Jane Austen is one of my favorite authors of all time. Lizzie Bennet is one of my favorite characters. But what Jane knew is that you can have a strong female heroine without making all the men look like trash.

But the She-Woman Man-Haters in Hollywood are often guilty of real misandry, and so they portray men as incompetent boobs, OR they are just crappy writers, OR they HAVE to make the men weak and pathetic because they are presenting a false anthropology and they only way to make it work is for the men to be awful.

Case in point, Cate Blanchet does a world-class job as Galadriel in Peter Jackson’s LOTR. Galadriel is powerful and terrifying—but not because she swings a sword or wears armor or manspreads when she sits. She is all woman—or she-elf—but she presents the naked power of womanhood, the kind of mythical power of an unfallen Eve. She isn’t going to beat you up, but her magical power and her deep knowledge are frightening and you realize that while Galadriel is beautiful and kind, she is also someone who deserves the utmost respect.

Compare her to the new version of Galadriel. She’s a cruel, thuggish, rude, undersized, Mary-Sue girl-boss who plays essentially the toxic male, or the 80s-movie rich-kid villain, but it’s OK because she’s a girl. And the only way that this half-pint is able to get away with it is by making the men weak and stupid around her.

People know this is a lie. People know that this is a false anthropology. Yes, there have been great women fighters in history. There have. And yes, there are women who can fight today. But the notion that this tiny blond spaghetti-armed loudmouth is going to just command the awe and obedience of men who are significantly bigger and stronger than her is ludicrous—that’s not how men behave! And it’s not how women behave—and the women who do act like her are people we all hate!

Brothers and sisters, all fiction has a message, and the truth is that ALL fiction puts its message front and center—the difference is that some do it well and some do it poorly. And some present a message people believe and which resonates with them and some present a message that rings false and that people don’t believe and they reject. And sometimes it’s not easy to understand what a story is teaching us. Not only with fiction, but even with true stories!

Read the narratives in the Old Testament! What is the message of the story of Sampson? What’s the message of King Hezekiah? What about Esther? What about Bathsheba?

Christians are people whose lives are entirely built upon and built around stories—true stories, to be sure—but stories all the same. Christians are mythological people, and we admit it…all people are people of myths but some choose NOT to admit it. We own up to the fact that stories make and shape us.

And it’s true that when it comes to MAKING stories, recently, Christians haven’t always been the best. There’s much to criticize about a lot of Christian art and entertainment. Some of it is downright awful.

But not because of the true messages that Christians believe. Christian film and television is often bad because of bad acting and bad writing and bad production values—but not because Christian messages are bad.

If anything it’s the Christian values and messaging that have dragged Christian media along and allowed it to get better and better—not hindered it. Message-first stories will always be part of Christian media. And that doesn’t mean that it is doomed to be bad or second-rate. But the good messages don’t mean that there is nothing to criticize or that critics are in bad-faith, either.

Christian film and television is growing up, and part of growing up is learning to take your lumps. Believes need to support high quality Christian entertainment so we can get our message our. But we’ve also got to learn to take criticism and to accept that sometimes Christian art is bad and the media isn’t persecuting us when they say so.

Brothers and sisters, the message works—lets work to make sure that the artwork works too!

Let’s keep the message central and strive to produce great art that will shape the souls of generations.

Peak-Crazy Doesn't Exist

Listen to it here!

So, if you want to understand this post you’re going to need to read the AP article by Annie Ma and Aaron Morrison about the SCOTUS cases the banned affirmative action and stopped the Biden Administration’s college loan debt forgiveness plan. If you choose not to read it then, probably listen to the broadcast…if you choose to do neither, you’ll be a little lost, but you’ll probably find your way towards the middle.

OK, so, in all seriousness, if you think that this article is ridiculous, then go to the AP website and read the whole thing. And by the way, this was their top story! This was the most important take on 2 very important SCOTUS decisions. This. This was the best that Annie Ma and Aaron Morrison could do. I mean, granted, they are members of the AP’s Race and Ethnicity team. I have a race, and an ethnicity…can I be on the team? How does one get on said team? Are there try-outs? But I digress.

This article was worse than the normal word-salad of nonsensical wokeism. Typically, one can tell that those articles are written by people with a tenuous grasp of the rudiments of English grammar, as well as reality, and an IQ that’s reaching for the stars if it hits triple-digits.

But Annie Ma and Aaron Morrison, wrote a ridiculous, but fairly well written piece, and if you look at their bios it’s clear that they aren’t stupid people, and indeed they look like nice, put-together, capable young professionals. And yet, when you look at the substance of what they’ve written and not just the mechanical skill necessary to put it together, one gets a different picture.

I’m sure that Annie Ma and Aaron Morrison are perfectly capable on a technical level at writing articles. But when it comes to the CONTENT of the articles they write, well, now the water becomes a bit more murky.

For instance, consider this line:

“Six Republican-led states filed a legal challenge questioning whether the president, a Democrat, had authority to forgive the debt. On Friday, the Supreme Court held the administration needed Congress’ endorsement before undertaking so costly a program.”

OK, in analyzing this mini-paragraph it becomes pretty clear right away that either Annie and Aaron aren’t that sharp or the people they’re writing for are fairly stupid. Does anyone need to be told which political party initiated the legal action? Does anyone need to be told what political party Joe Biden is a member of?!

Joe Biden has been a Democrat Politician since 1969! It is currently 2023. By my reckoning that’s 54 years. Joseph Robinette Biden, yes that is his name, has been a Democrat Politician for 54 years, but apparently the AP wonders whether its readership is aware of that fact. Or this is just bad writing. Who knows.

But more than that, consider the comment, “the Supreme Court held the administration needed Congress’ endorsement before undertaking so costly a program.” Yes. Yes, you see it’s Congress that has the power of the purse. Article 1, § 8 of the Constitution makes that clear. And this is not new news. The Constitution was written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in effect since 1789.

Again, if you don’t understand the functional distinctions between the Legislature and the Executive I’m not sure I can help you.

And I could go ON and ON and ON picking apart the ridiculous content in this prettily worded article. But there is something that I must discuss instead. You see brothers, sisters, friends, when I sat down and began my research for this week’s episode I found this article and began to see the name of Makia Green, and I saw it over and over and over again. And she kept saying ludicrous things, over and over and over again. So I thought, OK, let’s find out who this Makia Green is—I mean, the article tells us that she’s a “community organizer.” So maybe she’s like the girl-version of Barak Hussein Obama.

But no. Makia Green is exactly, and I mean EXACTLY what you should expect her to be and be like if you read what she says in this article carefully. You can, of course, look up Makia yourself and see if her public persona is what you would have predicted, but I will attempt to describe her and quote from her own self-made descriptions to give you an idea of who Makia Green—the central human-interest figure in this article—is.

SO, if you look up Makia you will find quite a lot of her on the interwebs. The first page to come up with her name in a google search is forgeorganizing.org.

Makia is pictured on a bio page and she is a morbidly obese black woman wearing a windbreaker that says “Eat The Rich.” Now, technically on the webpage you can’t read the word “Rich” and given her physical aspects it’s hard to know what direction that windbreaker is going, but if you search you’ll see that there’s a website that sells these “Eat The Rich” windbreakers—for $50.

Which seems odd since they hate rich people so much, though as I’ve said before, all wokeism is performative wokeism, but I digress.

Anyways, you might be asking yourself, how did I guess that the morbidly obese black woman community organizer talking to the Associated Press about how she deserved the taxpayers to pay off her college loans would have a windbreaker on that said “Eat The Rich”—by the way, “rich” is spelled with a dollar-sign—how did I know that “Eat The” was followed by “Rich?” Well, I’ll let you try to work that one out. But anyways the morbidly obese community organizer who says that opponents of affirmative action—including, presumably, those of East Asian descent—are white supremacists apparently wants to eat the rich and wants to be photographed in public wearing a $50 dollar, sold-for-profit “eat the rich” windbreaker.

And again, perhaps you’re wondering why I keep referring to her as a morbidly obese black woman. Am I just being mean calling her a fat, fat, fatty? No. Not at all. And the reason I’m not is because, and I’m sure nobody at home could have predicted this, but Makia is very active in the fat-positive and body-positivity movements.

On her biopage on another website she is described as, and I’m quoting directly: “MAKIA GREEN is a queer, nonbinary, fat, Black liberation organizer who is co-chair of the Defund MPD Coalition, co-founder of Harriet’s Wildest Dreams and a former core organizer of Black Lives Matter D.C.”

And the website for the organization Harriet’s Wildest Dreams, an organization she co-founded we read this, “is a queer non-binary fat Black liberation organizer. They are a steering committee member of the Defund MPD Coalition, a former leader of DC Money Pot, and Organizing Director with DC Working Families Party. They are the conductor of base-building, political organizing and political education for HWD through Ella’s Emancipators Pillar.”

Notice that on Harriet’s Wildest Dreams she’s called “they” but in the AP article she’s called she—I wonder when Annie Ma and Aaron Morrison will schedule their struggle session and make a teary-eyed apology for the horrendous sin of misgendering. Prolly they won’t have to, but someone somewhere noticed and this will be weaponized against them if they step a toe out of line, BELIEVE THAT!

And, last but not least Makia, uses the Instagram handle “fatfairygodmuva” with mother spelled m-u-v-a.

Now, here’s the thing. I’m not doing this to pick on Makia. I’m really not. She’s a deeply ridiculous person, and in all honesty, I really do blame society. People like Makia don’t become people like Makia without an enormous amount of social reinforcement. But that’s another story for another day.

My point is not to point at Makia and point out what an unserious person she is—because she’s not a serious person. My point, and what I want you to notice is that the top story from the Associated Press featured this lunatic. Makia Green was the centerpiece of this article. Her input, her experience, her commentary create the backbone and the narrative arc—such as it is—in this article.

And the question I asked myself, and the question I asked some of my friends is “why?” I mean, why would you make this person, this obviously deluded, narcissistic, ridiculous person the centerpiece of your article.

Now, for a moment I entertained the notion that Annie Ma, who with a name like Ma, and a face like hers, is probably Chinese, maybe she was actually active in a sneaky game of anti-affirmative-action propaganda. Maybe Annie herself was denied entrance to Harvard—she only went to Dartmouth—what a pleb—and maybe she’s actually an agent provocateur for a pan-Asian consortium attempting to subtly undermine the pro affirmative action line of reasoning by publishing articles that are so on-their-face ludicrous that it sways public opinion against affirmative action.

I considered it. But alas. I don’t think that’s the case. I think Annie Ma, who seems, on the whole, like an intelligent, talented, and serious young woman actually thought that Makia Green was someone who should be taken seriously. She thought that if people heard Makia’s point-of-view that they would listen. She honestly believed that Makia was a poster-child for her cause.

And we are seeing what happens in godless societies. Everything becomes unhinged. Refusing people college admission because of their race is antiracism. Being morbidly obese is sexy and healthy. Girls can be boys. Narcissism is generosity. Idiots are treated as the wise.

We are living in a lunatic society. And here’s the thing—there is no peak-crazy. There is no peak-crazy. Unless God intervenes, our society will become crazier and crazier until it is destroyed or destroys itself, but crazy doesn’t fix itself. Godlessness cannot look at crazy and say, thus far and no further.

Brothers and sisters, if Hell is real then there is no peak-crazy. If God really does display his wrath by letting nations go their own way then there is no peak crazy.

Normal people look at Makia Green and say that she’s a ridiculous person and wonder how Annie Ma could think people would take her seriously? Godlessness. Simple as that. Godlessness and a godless worldview make you a prey to foolishness and madness.

Brothers and sisters, buckle up, because history is only going to get more interesting. Because there is no peak-crazy. There’s just, in the end, the wisdom of worship and the madness of folly, and they are working themselves out in history.

So how’s about we pray for our nation!

Saving Babies Isn't Cynical

Listen to it here! 

OK, so many, if not most of you, have not heard much about the Women’s Reproductive Rights bill. But it’s real and it will be on the ballot on November 7 this year. And this ballot proposal is just as bad, if not worse, than people say. The devil truly is in the details on this bill.

And the tragedy is that as it is written, unless there is a major work of God or work of common sense among Ohioans, current polling suggests that it will pass. Now, Pro-Life Republican politicians who are fighting this bill have a plan. And that plan is their own bill that will be voted on on August 8.

The Pro-Life bill will change the standards for Amendments to the Ohio Constitution.

As it stands the constitution can be emended with a simple majority. 50% plus one is enough to change the constitution. 50% plus one is enough to add anything, change anything, determine anything. This means that one deceptively written bill can override any number of laws, court decisions, precedents, norms, standards, and traditions. As it stands with 50% plus one you could legalize slavery in Ohio. You could outlaw cattle farming. You could make the Church of Satan the state religion. You could legalize crack. You could, golly, I don’t know, eradicate parental rights and legalize abortion.

And all this is done with deceptive language, with no debate, outside of our legistature. And, despite the lies or ignorance of people like Marylou Johanik, constitutional amendments coming directly from the people and only requiring a bare majority is not a 175-year tradition. It was added into Ohio’s second constitution in 1912. And since then Ohio’s new Constitution has been amended 160 times. This means that Ohio’s constitution has slowly become a policy document instead of a definition of the form of government.

But Ohio Issue 1, that will be voted on on August 8 of this year would raise the percentage of the vote needed to pass a constitutional amendment from 50% plus one vote to 60%. This would mean that rather than the barest of bare majorities being able to undo literally any law on the Ohio books or any article of the Ohio Constitution, now it would take 10% more than that! Which, frankly, I still think is too low for my personal political philosophy, but hey, higher might not be ideal, but it is better.

And the reason that it’s better is not simply because having a high threshold for constitutional amendments is part of what I believe to be a reliable and rigorous political philosophy, rather, it’s better because the higher the percentage of votes needed to amend the Ohio Constitution, the more likely it is that this baby-murder-and-child-genital-mutilation bill will fail.

According to Ohio government officials whom I’ve spoken to, at 50% the baby-murder-and-child-genital-mutilation bill passes. But at 60% it fails.

Now, let’s consider some of the objections that Christians have concerning Ohio Issue 1. Because there are objections. And the objections that are most likely to affect and have an impact on Christians are objections that have to do with philosophical integrity and a sense of fair play.

So, let’s deal with the least thorny issue first and then move on to the tricky stuff.

First, some Christians may want to vote down Issue 1 because they believe in democracy. Well, first of all, democracy isn’t exactly a very Biblical notion. Representative government is. And there are places where one can argue for democratic means of selecting representatives. Sure. But to say that the Bible promotes democracy plain and simple, no. No, the Bible does not teach this. Of course, I am aware that for decades Leftists have been trying to get us to stop talking about our Republic and talk about our Democracy. But I don’t want to live in a Democracy—I’m very happy living in a Republic. I want checks and balances; I want representative government. But more than any kind of political philosophy you might have. If you have an opportunity to stop baby-murder-and-child-genital-mutilation isn’t surrendering a tiny bit of your political philosophy worth it?

If you’re a pure democracy person. And I don’t know why you would be, but let’s say you are. And you literally think that majority rules. And that if the majority want to gas the Jews that it’s OK because the majority says so—and by the way explain to me how abortion is meaningfully morally different than genocide—if that’s what you believe then I guess I have no counter-argument. But if you don’t believe that the majority should be allowed to gas the Jews then why should the majority be allowed to commit baby-murder-and-child-genital-mutilation? And if you agree that the majority shouldn’t then you have no reason to oppose Ohio Issue 1.

Second, people may be opposed to losing the ability for the people of Ohio to put forward ballot initiatives. There are a lot of lies going around about what actually is in this Issue and what it actually does. But what it doesn’t do is eliminate the ability for the people to bring forth ballot initiatives. What it does do is prevent a ballot initiative from changing the Ohio Constitution by a bare majority.

Third, and this is the point that I’ve seen come up often from pro-abortion news-agencies and journalists, they point out that conservatives are being cynical with their use of political power. That conservatives have used the bare majority to get their way in the past and now they want to prevent others from using a bare majority.

To which I answer, “so?”

So what?

That’s called politics. That’s called hardball. Politics is, as much as anything else, the art of the possible.

But on a more fundamental level, let me tell you why I have no interest in entertaining this complaint. You see, I have no interest in the moral arguments of people who advocate the murder of babies and child genital mutilation. I am just no interested in your arguments. I don’t care about your protestations. When you are pro-baby-murder and/ or pro-child-genital-mutilation you have forfeited your right for me to take your moral arguments seriously. I don’t care what you say. The moral protestations of the depraved and wicked have no weight or value with me!

And they should have no value with you.

But let’s just say, for sake of argument that you might be willing to concede the point. Perhaps you’re willing to say that Pro-lifers in Ohio are being hypocrites because if we could get a bare-majority law passed that would illegalize abortion we would. And that we aren’t taking action on political-philosophical principal but only on our moral preferences. Let’s accept that this is hypocrisy.

Ok.

So?

Who cares?

So for the price of being seen as politically philosophically inconsistent I can save the lives of babies and prevent the mutilation of children?

Yeah, I will make that trade EVERY SINGLE TIME.

I will, without fail, accept that I’m a political cynic in the eyes of baby-murderers if it means I can save babies’ lives.

Mark 3:1–6: Another time Jesus went into the synagogue, and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Some of them were looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, so they watched him closely to see if he would heal him on the Sabbath. Jesus said to the man with the shriveled hand, “Stand up in front of everyone.”

Then Jesus asked them, “Which is lawful on the Sabbath: to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” But they remained silent.

He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored. Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.

So I pose the question to you: what is cynical? To be philosophically inconsistent and save life or to be philosophically consistent and destroy? Again, I’m not even accepting the point that I AM being inconsistent. I’m simply saying, that for sake of argument, if we accept the premise that conservatives are being inconsistent, and even cynical—I don’t care. I couldn’t care less.

If the choices are between murdering babies and being a cynic, I will take being a cynic every single time.

Moreover, let’s not pretend that those who oppose Issue 1 aren’t being hypocrites. They claim to love the Ohio Constitution and human rights—but the very first line of the Ohio Constitution, Article I § 1 says this:

All men are, by nature, free and independent, and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking and obtaining happiness and safety.

So, I would say that if you claim to love the Ohio Constitution then you oughtn’t to seek to violate Article I § 1 by violating the most fundamental right of all which is the right to life.

Christians should not be shamed or cowed or bothered in the slightest by the arguments from the baby-murder and child-mutilation crowd. And we shouldn’t give a fig for the arguments of pseudo conservatives and Christians who don’t know the times.

Because, there are many well-meaning but foolish Christians who think that playing political hardball is a sin. They think that being hard-nosed means hard-hearted. They would never dirty their hands. They would never mar their precious (though not very valuable principles).

Because here’s the thing. If your principles prevent you from using political power to stop baby-murder and child-mutilation, then you probably need to get some new principles. If your principles would have you look on in impotent frustration as babies by the million are slaughtered and children are mutilated, they you’re principles aren’t worth very much.

I would rather be called a cynic by a baby-murderer than to not fight unjust laws because I’ll be called a cynic.

I’d rather be called names by the godless than to surrender to their godlessness.

Friends, I hope I’m speaking plainly enough. I hope that I’m not unclear. If I am then I’m not sure how to make myself clearer.

The long and short of it is this. Christians need to get out and vote on August 8. We need to make sure that godly people get absentee ballots and they are encouraged to vote. We need to ensure that our godly friends, family, and fellow church members are getting to the polls. We need to give this bill a resounding defeat by showing up in droves. We need to use the political tools at our disposal to fight for what is right and good. We need to ignore the arguments of the godless and fight for what is right. We need to ensure that righteousness prevails by getting the word out, by voting, by encouraging others to vote, by donating to groups like Protect Women Ohio and others.

This is a fight we can win. And a win on this fight gets us one step closer to abolishing the most heinous crime in America’s history. We’re not going to win all at once, and we’re not going to win without a lot of battles along the way. We must grow weary; we need to keep up the fight. Because by God’s grace, I believe we’re winning. And perhaps we will win entirely. But only if we keep in the fight. Run the race, fight the fight, keep the faith.

A Tale of Two Conventions

Listen to it here.

So, there was a lot in the news this week, and when I say a lot, I mean perhaps two of the biggest pieces of news in US History happened this week. President Trump was indicted after charges were brought by the Biden DOJ. And President Biden apparently, according to a document that the FBI tried pretty hard to hide and pretend didn’t exist, was involved in a bribery scandal involving his son Hunter and the Ukrainian government.

Both of these are monumental bombshells, and I will get to these in the future, especially as more details emerge.

But for now I want to look at two pieces of religion news that I think paint a fascinating picture of where the church is at this present moment.

First, a story out of Germany and this has been edited for length.

AI-powered church service in Germany draws a large crowd

Benj Edwards Ars Technica

On Friday, over 300 people attended an experimental ChatGPT-powered church service at St. Paul’s church in the Bavarian town of Fürth, Germany. The 40-minute sermon included text generated by OpenAI's ChatGPT chatbot and delivered by avatars on a television screen above the altar.

The chatbot, initially personified as a bearded man with a fixed expression and monotone voice, addressed the audience by proclaiming, “Dear friends, it is an honor for me to stand here and preach to you as the first artificial intelligence at this year’s convention of Protestants in Germany.”

The unusual service took place as part of … an event held biennially in Germany that draws tens of thousands of attendees. The service… was the brainchild of Jonas Simmerlein, a theologian and philosopher from the University of Vienna. Simmerlein told the Associated Press that the service was "about 98 percent from the machine."

“I told the artificial intelligence, ‘We are at the church congress, you are a preacher … what would a church service look like?’”

Reactions to the machine-led service were mixed. The AP reports that the computer avatars occasionally drew unintentional laughter for deadpan delivery. Others took the event more seriously, but not necessarily positively. Some congregants, like Heiderose Schmidt, a 54-year-old IT professional, found the avatar's lack of emotions and fast, monotonous speech off-putting, remarking, "There was no heart and no soul."

Others, like Marc Jansen, a 31-year-old Lutheran pastor, had a more positive outlook. "I had actually imagined it to be worse. But I was positively surprised how well it worked. Also, the language of the AI worked well, even though it was still a bit bumpy at times," said Jansen.

Simmerlein told the AP that his intention wasn't to replace religious leaders but to utilize AI as a tool that could assist them. For instance, AI could provide ideas for upcoming sermons, or it could expedite the sermon-writing process, freeing up pastors to devote more time to individual spiritual guidance.

But while the wisdom of outsourcing spiritual wisdom to a machine is an open question, Simmerlein frames it more like a hyperbolic necessity. “Artificial intelligence will increasingly take over our lives, in all its facets," he told the AP. "And that’s why it’s useful to learn to deal with it."

Now a story out of New Orleans. And it has been edited for length.

Southern Baptists say no to women pastors, uphold expulsion of Saddleback megachurch

Jason DeRose NPR

The Southern Baptist Convention voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to uphold earlier decisions to expel two churches because they have women pastors.

The decision came during the group's annual meeting in New Orleans.

The SBC's 2000 statement of faith, called Baptist Faith and Message, asserts that only qualified men can serve as pastors, and the nearly 13,000 voters, who are called "messengers," voted to uphold the churches' removals.

Defending the churches' expulsions was prominent SBC theologian and seminary president Albert Mohler.

He argued that the Bible restricts the role of pastor to men only.

"The issue of women serving in the pastorate," he said, "is an issue of fundamental Biblical authority that does violate both the doctrine and the order of the Southern Baptist Convention."

As Mohler spoke, voters interrupted him multiple times with applause in support of his position.

The women at Fern Creek and Saddleback will continue to serve as pastors there, but their congregations are no longer part of the Southern Baptist Convention.

After upholding the expulsions, messengers in New Orleans voted by a two-thirds majority to amend their constitution to state that the Southern Baptist Convention "Affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder."

The SBC's executive committee had urged messengers to not amend the constitution because it said the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message was already clear on the restriction against women holding the title pastor. That document includes the sentence "The office of pastor is limited to men as qualified by Scripture."

In order to go into effect, the amendment will need to be voted on a second time and pass by a two-thirds majority at the Southern Baptist meeting next year.

Now, I chose these two stories over all the other things in the news this week, as well as some pretty cool human interest stories, because I thought that these two pieces together represent the diverging paths of contemporary Christianity.

It is, in many ways, A Tale of Two Cities…or at least conventions. In New Orleans we have an organization that has been trending towards liberalism for quite a while that is now reaffirming its conservative bona fides. In Fürth a convention celebrates perhaps the least conservative trend in Christianity.

Now, not only are these two conventions in two cities that are representative of two opposing trends in Christianity, but these trends seem to be forcing both extremes to become more extreme.

You see, often, if not most of the time, when there are theological debates the two opposing sides are pulling away from eachother, but still in tension with eachother. And the mutual pulling keeps them both from spreading any further away and can actually draw both closer to the middle.

Think about a tug of war against two equally matched sides. The people are pulling against eachother, yes. But as long as they keep pulling they’re keeping the other side from running away. For example, think about the debates in the early church about the Trinity. On one hand you had Christians who were effectively falling into tritheism, the Persons of the Trinity were so distinct that they were effectively 3 different Gods. On the other hand there were those who treated the Unity of the Persons as so important that the Persons were effectively not individual Persons, but just modes of being. They pulled against eachother, but in pulling nobody could get too far afield. They kept eachother in line. In philosophical terms this is called a dialectic. You have a thesis an antithesis and a synthesis. And it’s very, very common.

However, not all debates and trends are that way. Sometimes rather than a tug of war we see a battle of one-upsmanship.  The left is so left that the right goes farther right which causes the left to go farther left and so on and so forth. This happens a lot when politics gets more personal than philosophical.

You see there are two trends and these two trends are mutually driving eachother.

On one hand there is futurism and on the other is traditionalism. I don’t say liberalism and conservatism because while those terms may have some overlap, they really don’t apply. These trends moreover are not limited to individual denominations or certain theological cliques. Rather they are gross trends that churches tend to align with.

Futurism and traditionalism are not about left and right—or at least that’s not the primary driver. Yes churches into futurism may be more likely to be a little left-leaning, but not necessarily so. And there are a lot of traditionalist churches that are quite liberal. Sure, on the whole, left and right overlap, but that’s not really the issue.

What’s going on is that we are living in a rapidly changing society—a society changing faster than people can keep up with—and churches and Christians do not know how to integrate their lives into this changing world and how their faith factors in. And at times of great upset, and social change people rarely are able to carefully assess the changes and try to find a way of dealing with that change in a way that is moderated and healthy in the short term. Rather, people tend to either become hyper-optimistic about the change, and they wish to accelerate the pace of change so as to sooner arrive in Utopia. OR, they becomes hyper-pessimistic and become extremely conservative—reactionary is the word the Commies use—as they attempt to drag their feet as hard as possible to slow the descent into dystopia. Sadly, the Utopianism of the futurists leads to even more drastic Dystopian dread among the pessimistic traditionalists and this angst and its accordant actions cause the Utopians to grow more aggressive in bringing in their preferred future and on and on it goes.

Now, the rightward push in the SBC is not, in my opinion, entirely about a reaction against futurism—but it’s not NOT about that. Big organizations like the SBC are not going to have large scale trends for one and only one reason. But it may be a bellwether, along with the schism in the Anglican and United Methodist Churches. There is a rightward push. And entailed in that broad rightward push is a push towards traditionalism.

Is it entirely about traditionalism? No. But that’s a part of it. We see this also in the Trad-Wife trends. At a more political level RR Reno has described this in his concept of the Return of the Strong Gods. Nationalism and Populism Reno argued would be major factors in the future. And since he wrote in 2017 he has been proved a prophet. Eastern European countries, in particular Hungary, are entering into what may be a European Renaissance, especially if other Populist and Nationalist countries can get their birth rates about 2.1. Eastern Europe is rising—not there yet, but rising.

However, the futurist trends are nothing to be ignored. The move towards futurism, towards a technocratic Utopia is not a new one, but with AI technology it may finally be attainable. This future looks different to different people, depending on whom you ask, but, in general, it seems that there is a fundamental trust in the ability of science and technology to eradicate disease, eradicate sadness, eradicate crime, eradicate hate, and ensure maximal human flourishing.

We can see these trends everywhere and I won’t go into a laundry list of examples, but there are many who believe that science and technology will bring us to a Utopia.

All these trends can be looked at and analyzed in isolation—and they should!—but that doesn’t mean that the motives on the individual and societal levels that drive these trends exist in isolation—they never do!

People are moving further into their traditionalism and further into their futurism and these moves are exacerbated by eachother. The futurist becomes more Utopian as a response to the traditionalist becoming more traditionalist which causes the traditionalist to become even more traditionalist and on and on it goes.

And the thing is that both sides have, theoretically, laudable goals. On one hand the futurists are right. Science and technology do have the power to improve life and increase human flourishing. On the other hand the traditionalists are right that all technology comes at a cost and not everyone is willing to pay that cost.

The Christian has to learn how to navigate this changing world and we can’t do it by rushing headlong into the void. Christianity will always have moral imperatives—but that doesn’t mean that Christianity will always be traditionalist. Christianity was futurist when it opposed abortion in the ancient Roman empire. Christianity was futurist when it stood against slavery and ended the African slave trade and when abolitionists in American ended slavery in America. Christians were futurist in their concern for civil rights and, I’ll say it, social justice. Christianity has also been traditionalist. It was traditionalist when it rejected the heretics, and when it stood against Liberalism and Modernism, when it stood against Communism, when it now stands against abortion and stands for family values, patriotism, and equal justice under law.

Christianity is not fundamentally traditionalist or futurist. Christianity is not, by default in favor of or opposed to the status quo—it all depends on what the status quo IS.

And so Christians need to be careful in considering how we navigate these waters. We must hold to an Idealism, tempered by Realism, without tripping into Cynicism. Because it’s easy for the idealist whose gotten a taste of reality to become a cynic. But cynicism is another word for despair and despair is a sin.

Christians don’t despair and therefore we don’t become cynical. Rather we seek to look at everything in the cold light of day and use the wisdom God gave us.

And so, we must learn to be shrewd as serpents and gentle as doves. We need to reject Chatbot pastors, but we mustn’t burn our computers and despise anything that might bring about change, either. Technologies shouldn’t simply be utilized by churches because they’re the next big thing, but neither should they be rejected because they’re the next big thing.

We should reject Chatbot pastors not because Chatbot pastors won’t be able to pastor well—but because they will pastor too well! They will be perfect and exactly what we want and they will never sin against us and they will always know exactly how to speak to us so that we never fight and the sermons are always perfect and personal. Chatbot pastor will know what we need before we need it, never gets sick, never gets lazy, always answers the phone, never forgets your dog’s name. Chatbot pastor is perfect.

And that means you never have to forgive him. You never have to learn to love someone who’s failed you. You never have to forgive someone of his frailties and meanness and pettiness and ridiculousness and pride and ego and selfishness.

Chatbot pastor is perfect—which means that he’s completely inadequate. Chatbot pastor is bad for the same reason that Robot Girlfriends are a bad idea. For the same reason that cats aren’t kids.

Because it isn’t real. Because it’s too good. Because it never forces us to grow.

There is a place for AI in the church. But it isn’t behind the pulpit.

I don’t know how exactly the church should move forwards. But I do know that just because the orthodox faith may TEND to side with the traditionalists today doesn’t mean we will in 10 years. And it doesn’t mean that the futurists are wrong about everything.

Mostly what we need is wisdom. It’s a good thing God promises to give it to those who ask.

Beer Brands and Boycotts

Listen to it here.

OK, so, I’d like to begin with a quote from Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr., one of America’s most famous and influential jurists. He said, “History has to be rewritten because history is the selection of those threads of causes or antecedents that we are interested in.” What Holmes was saying, among other things, is that the historian selects the material that he uses to create the history itself.

History IS storytelling. Now, we have the presupposition that history is TRUE storytelling. We have a cultural expectation that historians are doing their best to present us with the facts, as they were. But anyone who has read broadly and deeply in history, and especially in the philosophy of history, knows that history is not a simple relation of facts. History is a narrative that tries to explain the causes, effects, meaning, and purpose of a select series of events. As Dionysius of Halicarnassus said, “History is philosophy teaching by example.”

History, much to the chagrin of my fellow conservatives, is NOT simply the truth about the past. It is an inquiry into the past which seeks to get at the truth. Again, if you don’t believe me, read two books on any historical event by two different people. The simple fact of the matter is that it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about Julius Caesar or Jesus Christ or Jimmy Carter, when a historian puts pen to paper—or nowadays digits to keyboard—that historian is selecting certain data and omitting other data. It has to be this way. First, because we don’t possess all data. Second, because you can’t write a book about everything. Third, because a lot of information will be irrelevant to the historian’s project.

However, there is a 4th common reason why information is omitted. And that’s what I want us to talk about today. The 4th reason is because sometimes there are data that are either outright counterfactuals, or that undermine or weaken one’s case and so the unscrupulous historian…or in today’s case, journalist…chooses to simply omit these data and go about their merry way.

Here’s what I mean, the CNN article by Nathaniel Meyerson has a purpose and that purpose is not to point to the broader trends in retail stock prices. No. His purpose is to demonstrate that conservative boycotts are not effective. He’s saying that a lot of conservatives are crowing about how Target will be the next woke corporation to fall, but that it simply ain’t so because Target’s actual problems are part of a broader trend in retail sale failures.

So I looked at his arguments and examined the stock prices from May 17—the date HE chose–to the closing price on June 1 the last day he would have closing stockprices for, since his article was published before the closing bell. Now, he’s right that a lot of retail chains have taken hits. Some are part of a long-term trend and not just recent sales slumps. Macy’s for instance has been hemorrhaging stock value for over a year. Dollar General and Dollar Tree also have slumping stock values—almost all of DG’s value was lost over that period on June 1! Dollar Tree has also taken a hit, but Dollar Tree’s value was about this low in March and over the last 5 years, the value is up significantly.

However, most curious was his claim that Walmart’s value was one of the similar big losers. Sure, it lost 1.4% from May 17–June 1, and at its lowest drop in that period the stock took a 2.3% loss. But WM is already back to where it was. And that may have something to do with the fact that WM also sells a lot of groceries and everyday items and relies less on retail than other companies do.

So, let’s just say, for sake of argument, that Mr. Meyerson is right and that the stock value loss that Target has taken has nothing to do with wokery, and special swimsuits, but is just part of a broader retail trend. OK. Let’s entertain that notion. Does that prove the thesis? Does that prove that all the financial losses are part of a trend? It’s hard to say. If you look at their 5-year stock price Target had slow, but consistent stock value growth and then around summer 2020 it started to take off and from June 2020 to August 2021 the value went from about $120 to $260! And a quick review of 5-year trends of other retailers suggest that perhaps these huge stock value swings are the result of the government giving away free money and now inflation coming on the heels of that free money.

So, yes, it is VERY possible that Target’s stock value is simply falling because we’re entering into a period of high inflation without a lot of extra consumer cash lying around.

But that doesn’t prove the thesis. Because his thesis is NOT simply about the causes of Target’s stock value decrease. His thesis is to prove that right-wing boycotts aren’t working. His thesis is to prove that negative public pressure isn’t having any impact. His thesis is that Target can keep flying the rainbow and making Buffalo Bill style swimsuits and that won’t hurt their brand at all. That’s what he’s really trying to prove.

And I think that’s he’s omitting an awful lot of relevant information if that’s what he’s trying to prove.

He’s omitting the possibility that Target is absolutely full of crap. They say that they are getting rid of a bunch of their pride propaganda out of a concern for employee safety. Really? Where are these incidences of far-right extremists violently attacking retail associates? I’m familiar with violence from Trans activists against Christians, but I’m not familiar with the opposite. And even if it has happened, has it happened sufficiently frequently for them to capitulate? I thought that this was Pride Month?! Isn’t visibility more important than worker safety?

You see Target is simply lying. Target may be woke, but they also have learned a lesson from Bud Light!

You see friends, it MAY be the case that Target’s stock value drop is only and entirely caused by a drop in consumer retail demand. That’s possible, and I think that there’s a good case to be made for that argument. What you cannot make a good argument for is that Target’s actions are not at all influenced by conservative boycotts and social media action.

Two things can be true at the same time. It’s possible that Target’s stock price is entirely controlled by market forces independent of their woke politics and the reaction that that has engendered.

It can also be true that Target is seeing the writing on the wall and realizing that there is a right-ward movement in this culture back towards more traditional and conservative values and they want to hedge their bets.

OF COURSE, Target wants to win brownie points with all the woke movers and shakers in public life. Of course, they want to be seen, in America anyways, as allies to the Trans movement and the LGBTQIA+ movement broadly. Of course, they want to virtue signal. Because they think that in America, right now, it’s good for business. And I’m sure there are true-believers in that company that would rather see Target go broke than go unwoke. But the majority of stockholders are, I would guess, primarily interested in making money.

And Target has seen the writing on the wall—they are watching, in real time, the decline and fall of Anheuser-Busch. They are watching Disney destroy itself with its woke policies, race-baiting, conservative-baiting, anti-straight-white-male storytelling. People are sick of Disney and their corrupt values. But more than that, their corrupt values are leading to incompetence. The wokery of Disney actually prevents them from telling a good story because the woke ideology is contrary to reality and human nature. Politically correct fiction never works. It doesn’t matter if it’s communist, or fascist, or wokeist—politically correct stories stink and discerning customers ain’t buying.

All across our culture we’re seeing a shift. It may be short-lived or it may be a revolution, but there is a discernable and sensible shift. People are growing tired of corrupt governments and corrupt corporations. People are growing tired of being force-fed perverse and immoral values. People are growing tired of being made to feel evil because they happen to have dangly genitalia or because of the color of their skin. People are tiring of these things and some of the major corporations are starting to notice, but now they are in a dilemma.

Target is of two minds. On the one hand they want money. On the other they want to continue to be seen as allies. On one hand they like profits, on the other they want to virtue signal.

And this is a problem that the godless face all the time. The godless constantly are in the dilemma of choosing what’s best for them and what they want most—choosing between life in Christ, which they don’t want, or death and damnation in the sin that they do.

But this is not simply a problem for unbelievers.

There are multitudes of Christians who are compromised. There are huge swathes of believers who have fallen in love with the world and who are unwilling or unable to pick a side. On one hand they love the world and the things of the world and they’re terrified of being thought of as an IST or a PHOBE, but on the other hand they want the blessing of God. They want the blessing of God apart from living in such a way as to receive the blessing of God.

Paul talked about how Demas, because he loved the present world, fled from him.

The book of Revelation warns that the cowardly will not inherit the kingdom of Heaven.

Jesus states that those who are ashamed of Him and His word and who deny Him will be denied BY HIM.

Brothers and sisters life is lived with live ammo and there are no take-backs. And you have to pick a side. You can either be with Christ or against Him. But there is no in-between.

We deceived ourselves for a long time—and to be fair we were deceived by Satan as well—Christian lied to themselves thinking that the world wasn’t really all that bad that there aren’t actually Satan and demons that there really isn’t evil in the world and that you don’t really have to hate the world. We lied to ourselves, and more fool we, we believed our own lies. We convinced ourselves that we could love the world and be of the world and love Christ and be of Christ too—but you can’t.

You have to make a choice. You have to pick a side. You can choose to be on the side of righteousness or the side of wickedness, but there is no more sitting on fences. Target wants to sit on the fence—but they’ve chosen their side. They will side with wickedness. They will side with the baby-murder industry. Disney will side with wickedness and perversion and infanticide. They will side with them unless they are forced to stop. And for them the only thing—and maybe not even this—but the only thing that will ever make them stop is going broke. For Bud Light and Target and Disney, their spiritual rock-bottom is losing enough money. And maybe not even that, they may be past repentance.

But what about you friend? Are you in love with the world or are you standing for and living in righteousness. DO you love what God loves and hate what he hates and make it known publicly? Or are you a coward?

We need to be brave—the days of getting by without courage are over. We must be brave. We must pray for courage. We must be willing to lose everything to stand for righteousness—because we just might have to.

ChatGPASTOR Part 2

Listen to it here.

So, last week we began by reading and article about how cheating is rampant on college campuses now that ChatGPT is so readily available and the simple reality is that any assignment meant to develop critical thinking skills is now useless—that is if it’s in written form to be taken home and then turned in. And I said that the death of the essay will be a major blow to a liberal arts education—and that’s not good for our republic. We need people with critical thinking skills if we want to have substantive debate on political issues. And if we don’t have that then tyranny is inevitable.

However, I said that as bad as AI will be for education and therefore public discourse, it has the potential to be even worse for preaching. “Why” you might ask? Well, because if half the pulpits in American become booths housing meat-puppets for AI theologians, then soon the Christianity of half of America (at least) will begin to reflect the positions and preferences of our silicon spiritual Strombolis.

It’s bad enough for a pastor to surrender his voice and his integrity to plagiarism or purchasing his preaching. It’s even worse to hand over the keys to a computer and let them control the congregation.

Admittedly, it is unknown how exactly the AI revolution will play out. What is not uncertain is that it currently is playing out. And what is certainly certain is that nefarious actors wish to harness the incomprehensible power of generative AI to achieve their evil ends.

AI could be and, in fact, is a powerful and immensely useful tool. There is no question about that. But is it a tool that we should have? Does its potential for good outweigh its potential for evil; I don’t know. But I do know that those who are currently developing AI software are not the kinds of people whom I would trust to have and control that kind of power.

But, alas and alack, genies don’t go back into bottles.

To give you a reason why this is so dangerous and terrifying, from the theological side, let me give you an example.

Let’s say that your favorite preacher IS in fact your pastor. Now, imagine that your pastor has a podcast—let’s say a daily podcast. Now, your pastor, if he’s been preaching a while, might have a few hundred hours of content available. This will include his speech, speech patterns, word choice, thinking patterns, sense of humor—everything that is authentically him.

Well, let’s say that pastor Todd, we’ll call him Todd; Todd decides that he really would like to take a break from the grueling pace of making podcasts, because he wants to spend more time…I dunno…doing Pilates or Jazzercise in the morning with his wife…doesn’t matter what he wants to do, he just doesn’t want to do the podcasts as much because they are a lot of work and he wants to do other stuff. But the podcast is popular—and as we know, it’s ALL about pop-u-u-lar—so he can’t give it up because that would hurt his brand. Correction…that would damage the church’s outreach capacity.

So Todd decides to try something. He goes online and has one of the generative AI programs produce a 1 hour podcast for him on the topic of what the Bible says about Miley Cyrus, or why God loves Hawaiian pizza—doesn’t matter---just random examples. Anyways, pastor Todd has the generative AI produce a one-hour podcast on whatever subject he wants. But this isn’t just the AI producing copy for him to read. No. This production will be in pastor Todd’s own voice with his own mannerisms with his own quirks and foibles. If pastor Todd always mispronounces a word or consistently uses a certain malaprop, the generative AI will make those same “errors” in a bid for consistency. All our hot-toddy has to do is prompt the program and let’r roll!

Now, if this seems disingenuous and lazy and pathetic—you’re correct, it is all those things. And if you think this won’t happen, then you are, what the French call, “naïve.” Of course, this will happen. The never-ending push for pastors to brand themselves and “produce content,” to be relevant, to incessantly be in everyone’s front-of-mind because he’s constantly trending, to, well to put it bluntly, to get and hold attention, has done nothing but feed the narcissistic egos of the people least trustworthy to have the attention of God’s people paid to them constantly. But the problem isn’t the narcissists. Well, of course, it IS the narcissists, but that’s not really the problem. There have always been narcissists in the church.

Philippians 1:12–18

12 Now I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that what has happened to me has actually served to advance the gospel. 13 As a result, it has become clear throughout the whole palace guard and to everyone else that I am in chains for Christ. 14 And because of my chains, most of the brothers and sisters have become confident in the Lord and dare all the more to proclaim the gospel without fear.

15 It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. 16 The latter do so out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble for me while I am in chains. 18 But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.

3 John 1:9–10

9 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will not welcome us. 10 So when I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, spreading malicious nonsense about us. Not satisfied with that, he even refuses to welcome other believers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

There have always been self-serving people who want attention and who want to turn preaching the gospel into a means of financial gain. They want to trend. They say Washington is Hollywood for ugly people; well, celebrity pastors are often something similar—though admittedly the most famous of the celebrity pastors tend to be quite handsome and fairly rhetorically talented. But you get my point. Every pastor who desires to be a celebrity should by no means be permitted to so become one.

In fact, a pastor friend and I were talking in my study the other day about a certain pastor we both know and how this person has immense talent, but who didn’t simply like, but craved and needed attention. And we both said that every young preacher goes through a time when he thinks that he has all the answers and once he hangs out his shingle the world will beat a path to his door to hear his sage wisdom. Now, most pastors have that delusion beaten out of them by their early to mid-twenties. Some guys never give up the dream, however. Some guys are out there believing, how completely they believe this and how much is self-deception I know not, but they’re out there believing that if they can become mega-celebrities that they will be able to bring about peace and harmony and salvation to the multitudes—all it takes is a few more twitter followers. All it takes is another Instagram. All it takes is the book deal, or the podcast, or the merch table, or whatever. Now, for the ones who actually make it big and ride the tiger of celebrity pastordom, I’m sure it’s a helluva ride. But most never make it. They become miserable failures, or perhaps the most contemptable kind of narcissist: the local-celebrity.

Now, you might think that I’m just ranting about celebrity pastors…and, OK, I was…a little…but there’s actually a point here! The point is that when you look at what a celebrity pastor does to be a celeb, and all those dreaming of becoming celebrity pastors do in their hopes of achieving fame, when you look at these things you’ll see that all of it is “content production.”

Now, what I say next I want to say extremely carefully. There is a world of difference between pastors who are trying to “produce content” to content the slavering masses and pastors who are trying to preach and teach so that they can disciple disciples to disciple disciples. And, please, listen carefully—it is often VERY hard, if not impossible, to tell the difference. At least for a while. Eventually it becomes clear, or the Holy Spirit makes it clear, that some out there are just producing content. They are making media for the masses so they can manufacture more fame. Corrupt shepherds also show up with crooks in their hands and lambs on their shoulders. They look like real shepherds. But time will tell. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear will know, eventually. And, frankly, it isn’t usually that hard to tell.

But here’s my point. For those who wish to simply produce content generative AI is a windfall. They can increase their output astronomically and they can do it in such a way that it’s calculated, curated, and catered to the whims of all their adoring fans. The AI will know when you need a dose of Pastor Todd, and will give you that sweet, sweet content right when it matters most…for your dopamine levels and Pastor Todd’s market share, that is. AI will allow the lazy pastor to not do his job and the ambitious pastor to magnify himself. Deep fake tech and the research and writing capability will mean that a pastor will never have to get out of bed or crack open a bible or a self-help book to reach his fans. All he will need to do is to know what prompts to use and ensure he has the computing power necessary to utilize the AI’s capabilities.

So what can we do about it? Well that answer is very simple and very difficult. Stop seeking content. It really is that simple and it really is that difficult. Christians need to stop seeking after “content.” They need, instead, to seek after godly shepherds who will know them personally, care for them deeply, speak to them honestly, pray for them heartily, show them hospitality generously, and take the charge to guide and care for their souls with the utmost dread terrifying seriousness.

There IS a solution. Stop seeking content. Stop watching church on a screen and get yourself and your family to a church where there are not too many people for you to sit down and have a meal with the pastor once a month. By my calculations that means a church NO LARGER than 3-400 people and, frankly, I think over 300 is pushing it.

We need to stop doing everything online. We need in-person Bible studies. We need pastors who know the Word of God and can preach on ANY VERSE IN SCRIPTURE at the drop of a hat. You need a man you can hand an open Bible to and point at a passage and say “GO” and he’s gonna give you something that, nomatter how polished it is, reflects a deep and thorough knowledge of the Scriptures, a wealth of experience in living the Christlife, and a visible and audible passion for Christ and His Church. And I think more pastors need to be challenged on this. I think that Bible studies should often be done this way. People show up with passages they want answers to and the call ‘em out and the pastor needs to explain them.

But more than that, we must stop viewing Christianity as the acquisition of knowledge. As though knowing a certain set of facts makes you a Christian and growing in the number and obscurity of facts makes you a better Christian. No. No friends, that ain’t how it works. Christianity is Christ. It’s about knowing Him. It’s about being in Him and Him being in you and living by the power of the Holy Spirit. It’s about loving the brethren. It’s about being Christ to the world. That’s what it’s all about.

But we’ve turned church into some kind of self-help seminar and/ or 4th rate Bible college and seminary. We have fallen into the Gnostic Enlightenment folly of thinking that we’re souls who inconveniently are stuck for a while in these obnoxious, smelly, constantly breaking bodies. We think that the only thing that matters is the collection of facts or the temporary high of having a worship experience.

Again, don’t mishear me. I’m all for the acquisition of facts and I’m all for having powerful worship experiences. But these are secondary. These are byproducts and not the reality. The reality is discipleship—of being made like Christ. Does that involve learning? Of course, but learning isn’t discipleship, it’s part of it. Does it involve high-like emotionally charged experiences? Of course, but having a tear-jerking emotional release isn’t discipleship, it’s part of it. But there are more important parts. Love for God. Love for neighbor. Joy. Peace. Patience. Kindness. Goodness. Faithfulness. Gentleness. Self-control. Generosity. Hospitality. Righteousness. Virtue. Courage. Holiness. Industry. Selflessness. Dedication. Zeal. Faith. Hope. Obedience. These are the kinds of things you can’t get from content. These are the kinds of things that you can never get from a celebrity pastor. These are the kinds of things that ChatGPT could care less if you develop, because generative AI doesn’t care about anything and I have serious doubts that the people who created the current iterations of generative AI are all that interested in inculcating the Christ-life in you either.

Content will never make you like Christ.

The Church can, because the Church is Christ’s body in the world, empowered by the Holy Spirit—by God in you and in the world to transform you into the image of Christ. The Church can do this if it’s done right. And here are a few suggestions about what kind of church can disciple disciples in the age of AI.

You want a church that A) is within walking distance of your home B) celebrates the sacraments C) rejects the content-production model D) whose pastor and elders are available and who want to spend time with you E) whose pastor teaches from the Word of God and is wiling to teach, in person, as often as the congregation so desires F) whose people desire in-person services where there is the breaking of bread and the hugging of bodies G) whose people open their homes in hospitality H) is no bigger than 400 people I) the building must have windows J) the services must promote congregational singing K) rightly exercises discipline L) The majority of books on your pastor’s shelf should be serious works and not devotional, church-growth, self-help, or staff-management in nature, and the majority should be by people who are dead.

Of course, I have more to say, but these should help. If you find such a church and you can tolerate the theology—that’s the church I’d make my own!

ChatGPASTOR

Listen to it here.

There is a good article in the Chronicle of Higher Ed. by Owen Kichizo Terry. The main contention of this article is that writing software like ChatGPT—generally known as AI—is here to stay…yes, I know, I know, it’s not TECHNICALLY Artificial Intelligence, it’s an extremely advanced search engine; I get it, but for sake of convenience I’m just gonna call it AI and if that annoys you then consider this an opportunity to grow in patience…you’re welcome. ANYWAYS, the main contention in this article is that AI is here to stay and so colleges had better learn to deal with that and help students to learn how to responsibly use it and how to get the most out of it.

Now, this may come as either no surprise at all or it may be the shock of a lifetime, but I would say that the chances are high that you have listened to a plagiarized sermon. Unfortunately there aren’t great statistics. But according to one company, Docent, who came under fire a few years ago, they “helped” pastors write sermons that reached over a million people a month. And Docent is just one company. There are many companies that will ghostwrite the sermon for you o give you an outline—there are some that will give you the sermon, the slides, and the promotional materials.

In fact, here’s a test. Next time your church’s pastor has a series, look up the title of that series online and see if this is something for sale. Another way to check if your pastor is plagiarizing—if he has a really memorable quote, copy it down, and do an internet search for that expression. Now, of course, there’s nothing wrong with recognizing someone else’s brilliance and giving them credit. There are times when I’ve prepared to give a sermon and I found that the way one pastor or commentator approached the passage of scripture was so good that I couldn’t improve upon it, and was going to model my message off of his—so you just tell people that’s what you’re doing.

Indeed, I remember years ago I was listening to a local church service; I was driving in my truck and listening to a young man preach a sermon. And as I listened, I kept thinking, “Man, this guy’s sharp.” And then I got to thinking, “Wow, I really like how he put that.” And then as he kept preaching, I thought, “Wow, that’s exactly how I woulda said that!” The I realized, “Wait, that IS how I said that, this guy’s rippin’ me off!”

I listened to someone plagiarize me. Now at that time I was a bivocational guy; I was poor, and I mean poor, I didn’t hardly have money for food some weeks, and this guy, I won’t say who he was or where, was on staff at a nice church and was making good money. And he stole from me. He robbed me. He took what was mine—what I not only was not getting paid for, but I actively paid for the airtime. He listened to my radio broadcast—which, let’s be honest, that was his first mistake—and then he liked it so much he decided to copy my sermon, in places verbatim. There he was, on staff, making good money, while I was working multiple jobs, and he took my words and used them for his own. I was so angry.

But it taught me a lesson. 1) it taught me that there are clergymen who will lie, cheat, and steal—because plagiarism is all three of those things. You’re lying by claiming someone else’s work is yours. Your cheating because you are breaking the rules of intellectual integrity—not to mention cheating yourself out of the opportunity to mature in faith and cheating your congregation out of the chance to be edified by an authentic message. And it’s stealing because you were paid to do a job and you took the money and didn’t do the job. 2) it taught me that he got away with it.

Cheating, plagiarism, intellectual dishonesty, theft, moral failure—call it what you will—it’s rampant. And if the clergy do it why shouldn’t we expect college students to do it? And if you think that your church is immune, think again. Remember Ed Litton? You know, President of the Southern Baptist Convention? Remember Mark Driscoll? Those two were two of the biggest names in Evangelicalism. They were both serial plagiarists.

But they got caught because they were just ripping people off. It was lazy and corrupt. Sure. But now. Now you can have someone write your sermons for you and you don’t even have to pay for it. You can have ChapGPT do your theologizing for you! And nobody will ever know. And frankly, considering a lot of preaching in this country, it might be an improvement!

I said years ago that eventually AI would be able to write better sermons than any human being. We’re not there yet, but we’re to the point where AI can write better sermons than most human beings.

And there are two ways of looking at this. On one hand we can look at AI as a legitimate tool—and there are certainly legitimate research applications for ChatGPT. On the other hand it is a tool that is so powerful that it will do your thinking for you—and that’s dangerous.

Think of it like a calculator. Most people use calculators if they have to do ANY amount of math. And calculators are great—they are fast, they are error free, they are cheap, and they make life better. But every math teacher worth her salt knows that you don’t start with a calculator—you start with longhand mathematics. You start with learning how to do the math by hand and in your head, step by step, arduously and painfully, sometimes with tears, sometimes with fear and trembling. But when a child learns math, there is a tremendous sense of accomplishment and confidence that comes with that!

I can tell you that apart from my children, some of the things I’m most proud of in my life are learning calculus in High School and being self-taught in Greek and learning Hebrew in seminary. I’m proud of having read and understood Shakespeare and Dante and Milton and Homer. I’m proud of my years as a carpenter, learning the trade. I’m proud of these things because they were hard, and because they were hard they were rewarding. I’m proud of the Master’s Thesis I wrote and the novels I’ve written and the sermons and essays I preach and write. I’m proud of them. Are they great? No. Not really. I’m well aware that I’m a fair to middling preacher at best, and maybe a slightly above average writer on a good day.

But I don’t care about that. I’m proud that I’ve been doing this radio broadcast for over 10 years and have over 600 episodes in the can. It has been hard. But, as Jimmy Dougan says in A League of their Own “the hard is what makes it great.”

Preaching is hard. Now, for some it comes more easily than for others, that’s most definitely true. Some are more natural preachers and some are just gifted with the ability to get up and go. But there is no truly great preacher, who doesn’t work his tail off to be great. It isn’t always work spent practicing or writing a specific sermon—but everything else that goes into it. Every sermon is the culmination of a lifetime. Great preachers (and mediocrities like me, too) are always writing sermons, they are constantly examining life and trying to understand the lessons God teaches, they are ravenous readers, attentive listeners, careful questioners, and they have dedicated themselves to the Word of God. Great preachers are never not working on a sermon—everything, every book, every tv show, every movie, every conversation, every walk or bike ride or drive, every prayer, every meditation, every song they sing, every weed they pull, every meal they cook, every nail they pound or lawn they mow, every thing, absolutely everything contains some truth about God and His self-revelation and it is the joy and duty of the preacher, to use his wisdom to turn all of life into the material needed to speak to God’s people with a prophetic voice. It is hard work. But it’s honest work. And it’s work of the self and soul.

But when pastors plagiarize, when they use software to write their work for them, to do their thinking for them, to do their theologizing for them—the problem is not just that they are lying, cheating, and stealing. It’s worse than that. And it isn’t just that they are surrendering their own voice—though that’s worth a whole series of messages to unpack that idea.

No, the worst part of letting AI into the pulpit is that we’re now being preached to by whoever created the algorithms that determine how these chatbots search, collate, and respond to prompts. The danger is NOT that the man of God surrenders his voice to a computer. It’s that he exchanges his voice with the voice of someone he doesn’t know, and who is not worthy of the trust of preaching.

Chatbots are not neutral arbiters of facts. It’s been pretty well demonstrated by this point that Open AI’s ChatGPT is woke—or at least its programming was done by people with woke biases that have revealed themselves in the responses to prompts that people have received. It’s significant enough that Elon Musk wants to create a rival “Based AI”, as opposed to Woke AI.

It is bad enough that ChatPGT is going to rob many young men and women of the ability to think for themselves—which is, you know, a necessary condition of maintaining a free and prosperous republic. Because, make no mistake, outsourcing all mathematical skill to calculators has a price, and a not insignificant cost, to society. But critical thinking skills, you know, the kind that are developed through writing, the ability to read or listen to someone else, understand their perspective, identify their main points and be able to reproduce their argument faithfully, and then meaningfully interact with what they say, this is not some obscure skill set. This is the fundamental pedagogical objective of Western education! And the reason why faithfully reading and carefully, meaningfully responding is the fundamental pedagogical objective is because that is the primary skill in debate. And debate is the basis of all free societies. A republic cannot exist without debate.

Oh, friends, ChatGPT has the power to do more to destroy the Republic than any of the miscarriages of education we’re seen heretofore.

But the destructive power of AI on the Republic is nothing compared to the destructive power of AI on the Kingdom of God. When pastors and preachers commit the gross and unforgiveable moral failure of plagiarizing sermons, outsourcing their ability to communicate God’s prophetic message to a bunch of godless woke programmers, friends this isn’t just a few bad messages, this means the effective destruction of the pulpit in the Western World.

Next week we’re going to talk about what we can do to fight back and save preaching.

Apocalypse: Now!

APOCALYPSE: NOW

Introduction

“Luke, that book changed my life more than anything else I’ve ever read or anything I’ve ever seen.” These words were spoken to me by a member of my congregation as we sat digesting our lunch and sipping coffee. The reading material that was so important to my parishioner was Heaven is for Real. [1] And the strange thing is that this passion for Heaven is for Real is not strange at all. In my 15 years in professional ministry, I have been struck by how popular, influential, and uncritically received books like Heaven is for Real are. [2] Other works such as 90 Minutes in Heaven and 23 Minutes in Hell have achieved fame and have sold in large quantities. These works have provided hope and courage for multitudes of believers. And while the high sales and the speaking tours and movie deals, along with the tyranny of the present, may make it appear that these works and their popularity is a new phenomenon, it isn’t. [3] The market may seem saturated with these kinds of works, making them look like a novelty, but they fit into an ancient and very popular genre. Both the narrative format and the use of rhetoric demonstrate that these works are apocalypses. Moreover, these popular apocalyptic visions and visitations belong in the tradition of the Ancient Jewish and Christian apocalypses of the previous three millennia and which evidence deep anxiety and the need to produce apocalyptic rhetoric.

Pernning in the Gyre

“FOR certain minutes at the least

That crafty demon and that loud beast

That plague me day and night

Ran out of my sight;

Though I had long pernned in the gyre,

Between my hatred and desire.

I saw my freedom won

And all laugh in the sun.” [4]

Whatever W. B. Yeats was, he was not a dull man. And his eccentric, occultic, and apocalyptic views made their way into his poetry. While these tendencies are most famously seen in The Second Coming, [5] they also feature prominently in this much lesser known poem from the same collection. Yeats’ pernner in the gyre is an important image as “gyre” is not merely a spiral, but rather a cyclical historical vision derived and adapted from Pre-Socratic Greek philosophy. [6] Yeats believed that the world was on the ragged edge of a cataclysmic change—and one not for the better.

He was not the only one. Occultism was alive and well at the turn of the 20th century. The world was changing and there were cultural forces arrayed at stopping or slowing the transformation away from the spiritual to cold, industrialized materialism. From the Arts Deco and Nouveau movements to seances and spiritualist and occultist literature, the early 1900s, on an artistic level, were often the resistance against what people thoroughly believed was a frightening future. It is important to note, however, that the foreboding apocalypses produced were not limited to the works of Occultists, and Christian magicians. [7] Nor was this trend towards spiritism and apocalypticism unresisted; men of the arts and letters like Kipling mocked what he viewed as fraudulent fakery. [8] And even among those who had little interest in spiritual things, there was an interest in the apocalyptic and the “sublime” that was to be met or meted out through machinery and the machinations of men. [9] The literature of the early 20th century seems to carry the theme of dissatisfaction with Enlightenment infused Modernistic Western Societies. For many, the post-Civil War and Victorian enthusiasm and optimism had become horrified disappointment after the First World War, compounded by a worldwide depression and then followed up by another World War, which became a nuclear war, followed by a very long Cold War with ceaseless hot proxy wars and the ever-looming threat of nuclear exchange, only to be supplanted with the threat of Islamic Terrorism and now the fears of social disintegration, Chinese expansionism, and renewed fears of a nuclear exchange. The century following the First World War has been one full of political upheaval, social transformation, and theological crisis.

Such a time is perfectly suited for the apocalyptic. But what vision shall be revealed? Yeats’ concept of history repeating? science fiction’s Janus-like double-sided coin of utopia and dystopia? the extinction-event vision of the cults and isms of Hale-Bopp and Mayan Calendar infamy? or the secular fears of Y2K and modern preppers with their “go-bags” and inexhaustible ammo? Perhaps the “zombie” craze was more social commentary than slasher. [10]

But beyond the secular and spiritualist apocalypses is a century replete with Christian apocalypse, often in the form of near-death or actual death experiences where the witness is given secret knowledge and a vision of the spiritual realms and insight into the plans and purposes of God. In what follows I am only going to consider apocalyptic in America from the late 20th century till now. I believe that when we consider both a historical analysis of the apocalyptic genre and the apocalyptic literature produced recently, we can see that these works receive wide readership because socio-political and cultural-theological factors have primed audiences to desire and positively respond to apocalyptic rhetoric.

Apocalyptic Discourse

Throughout history human beings have produced apocalyptic writings. Greg Carey provides us with a definition of apocalyptic discourse that is helpful in moving forwards in this work. He states that,

Apocalyptic discourse refers to the constellation of apocalyptic topics as they function in the larger early Jewish and Christian literary and social contexts. Thus, apocalyptic discourse should be treated as a flexible set of resources that early Jews and Christians could employ for a variety of persuasive tasks. [11]

The key point that Carey makes is that apocalypses exist as discourse and as such they have rhetorical force. [12] This point is echoed by Christoph Auffarth. [13] In pointing out the genric transition from “prophetic to apocalyptic eschatology” he offers several reasons this came about. [14] However, all of his proposed explanations presuppose that apocalypses were written with rhetorical purpose. It does not matter whether prophets began to speak of eschatological things out of a desire to resist Babylon or to promote Dualism or really anything. The central point is that apocalypses are written not (merely) as transporting visions, but as rhetoric.

It must be said that while “rhetoric” talk may sound as though it minimizes the historical value of the claims, that is to miss the point. Certainly, some who emphasize the rhetorical value of apocalyptic do not hold to inerrancy and believe that all these apocalypses are either pure fiction, fraud, or fantasy. [15] But not everyone who emphasizes rhetorical force in apocalyptic denies biblical inerrancy—certainly not for me—and, again, it misses the point.

One can believe that Daniel and Revelation are historically reliable revelations from God, which are records of actual conversations between God and men and which give accurate predictions about the future AND believe that these books were written with rhetorical purpose. Indeed, John tells us that they are written with rhetorical purpose. Rev 1:3 opens with a promise of blessing to those who obey the words of the prophecy. How does one “obey” a prediction about the future? By acting in line with the rhetorical force. [16] Daniel and John wrote apocalypses not merely to delight and affright, but to get people right. I believe those scholars who do not hold to a Futurist reading of Revelation or of Old Testament apocalypses are right to emphasize the cultural milieux in which these were written. Of course, they were written to encourage believers in times of trouble, to persuade and dissuade.

Therefore, as we consider apocalypse neither canonicity nor inspiration is really relevant to the discussion. Similarly, especially as we consider our latter-day apocalypses, the question of facticity is not particularly important to this paper. Whether the Apostle John or Don Piper actually “went” to heaven is immaterial. What matters is that they wrote about it, and they wrote about it for a purpose. And that purpose was more than to simply disclose celestial geography or geopolitical prophecy. The purpose was rhetorical. The purpose was to effect change in the lives of those who read the words of their apocalypses. Apocalyptic writers either wish to effect behavioral change or theological change, or both. [17]

This is central and perhaps the hinge upon which my thesis hangs: all apocalypse is rhetorical. And it is not self-evident that all apocalypse fulfills the same rhetorical function. Much of the non-canonical apocalyptic functions theologically to promote a dualistic cosmology, but it would be quite a stretch to suggest that John’s Revelation is dualistic. Non-canonical apocalypses from the Christian era seem to have Gnostic tendencies, but not always. [18]

There is a significant question however, with respect to the “facticity” of apocalypse that has a bearing on its rhetorical force. While for many of these works it is unlikely to ever be conclusive, it is worth asking to what degree these were fictional, and understood as fictional? The citation of Enoch in Jude may be no more an indication of facticity or canonicity than Paul’s citation of Greek playwrights. We know that there is canonical material that was written as a performance: the Psalms. Song of Solomon possesses a long tradition of being treated as drama. [19] Beyond the canonical fictional apocalypses, even acknowledged works of fiction, have influenced Christian thought and behavior for centuries. Consider Dante’s Divine Comedy; it is clearly fiction and yet has influenced the theology of Hell more than, probably, anything else, including the Bible. Add to that the sheer exhausting number of films and television series that rely on near-death experiences and we see that fictional does not mean unacceptable in the world of apocalyptic.[20] And the acceptability of fiction in the apocalyptic genre redounds to its possession of rhetorical force. Indeed, the volume and popularity of fictional apocalyptic only enhances the argument that fictional apocalypses have powerful rhetoric to impart. If fictional apocalypses are not a powerful vehicle for delivering rhetoric, then artists would not use these tropes as often as they do.

Even if one is highly cynical and believes that the modern apocalypses are only written to sell books, that doesn’t negate that they have rhetorical force. Lots of people have near-death experiences and not all of them have New York Times bestsellers. Whatever the truth-content of contemporary Christian apocalypse, the reality is that the message of these works connects with the book reading (and buying) public. One may argue that modern apocalyptic contains shallow, vapid, or even heretical rhetoric. That does not matter. The significance lies in modern Christian apocalyptic, real or fictional, possessing a rhetorical message that appeals to readers. People want what the Burpos, Pipers, and Wieses of the world are selling.

Does this mean that apocalypses are simply a reflection of cultural theological values or are they transgressive and transformational? This is, of course, another way of asking whether life imitates art or if art imitates life. The answer, I believe, is yes. And how these modern apocalypses both reflect and realign theology and practice is what I will consider next.

The Message from Beyond

One of the phenomena I have found most fascinating in my career as a pastor is the number of times people would tell me that they have certain and factual information concerning heaven, hell, or the afterlife and their source is a modern apocalypse. For example, consider the war described in Heaven is for Real.[21] Here we are told about a conversation Colton and Todd had on their way to Wal-Mart. Colton informs Todd that Todd is going to have to fight against monsters with either a sword or a bow and arrow while the women and children watch, but that Jesus will ultimately win. In the midst of the relation of Colton’s descriptions Todd adds this commentary, after quoting Rev 9,

For centuries, theologians have mined these kinds of passages for symbolism: maybe the combination of all those different body parts stood for some kind of country, or each stood for a kingdom of some sort. Others have suggested that “breastplates of iron” indicate some kind of modern military machine that John had no reference point to describe.

But maybe we sophisticated grown-ups have tried to make things more complicated than they are. Maybe we are too educated, too “smart,” to name these creatures in the simple language of a child: monsters. [22]

Anyone paying attention to the rhetorical force of the book can sense immediately that Todd has made a significant statement. Todd’s assessment of essentially the entire history of interpretation on Revelation is dismissed as unbiblical egg-headery compared to the vision his son had and his son’s interpretation of that vision. And this kind of credence is not only granted by Todd to Colton, but by huge numbers of Christian to Colton.

Again, it is not my purpose or place to say whether Colton did or did not have the visions he has claimed. That’s not relevant to this work. But Colton’s description of the events of Revelation was relevant to Todd and Lynn Vincent and the editors of the work. And they all agreed that the readers of Heaven is for Real needed to know about the coming war.

Similar excerpts can be taken from any modern apocalypse. Piper ponders why he was not allowed to stay in Heaven. While he has no answer, he is confident that his story is one God wants people to hear. [23] He goes on to tell about people who affirm that God specifically sent Don to speak to certain people and share his vision of Heaven to give hope to the hopeless. [24] Bill Wiese claims that Christ was present with him in hell but hid that knowledge from Bill so that he could experience the despair of the lost. [25] This conversation with the Lord continues into a command by Jesus for Bill to warn the world of the horrors of hell and the urgency of getting right with God. Christ tells Bill that He is coming “very, very soon.” [26] Bill goes on to wish he had asked Jesus what “very, very soon” actually meant, but while in God’s presence one would never ask such an impertinent question—rather it is all important that Bill, and everyone reading the book, get out the Gospel. [27]

The question is not whether there is theological rhetoric being conveyed in these revelations but what theological rhetoric. Not only that, but the question that I find particularly relevant for pastors and theologians is why the theological rhetoric employed is finding such an eager audience? As noted above from the early 20th century till now there has been no lack of popular interest in the world beyond. Figures like Aleister Crowley and Edgar Cayce stand shoulder to shoulder with the children of Fatima and Don Piper in the popular imagination.

I cannot say whether there is a greater interest in the apocalyptic today than there was one-hundred or one-thousand years ago, and perhaps all the focus on the apocalyptic in pop-culture is an accident of cheap paper and ink and not a real reflection of the societal interest in messages from the great beyond. Perhaps we are living in a time that fixates on the apocalyptic because of the horrors of the 20th century and the ever-present possibility of human extinction. [28] But perhaps all people at all times have had such a focus. And whether we think such books and movies are a score or a scourge for the church, they will almost certainly keep on coming. Perhaps not, perhaps Americans will surrender their existential anxieties and learn to stop worrying and love the bomb. I doubt it. I believe that as long as there are nuclear arms there will be a sizeable portion of the population who will care deeply about the world after this one if for no other reason than fears that this life may soon, and without warning, be over. Many have made the same observations; the union of apocalypticism and nuclear annihilation looms large in the imaginations of those who analyze the 20th Century. But I believe that in contemporary American Evangelicalism another factor drives apocalypticism.

There will always be people who have apocalyptic messages to communicate a world on the brink of disaster. However, within American Evangelicalism, the rhetorical force of our contemporary apocalypses revolves around reassurance. One could describe such reassurance as triumphalism or exhortation depending on one’s generosity. The key takeaway is that heaven is great and it is for believers in Jesus Christ and that hell is real and it is for unbelievers. One may act on that information as they feel impelled, but none of these works are noteworthy for their divergence from the popular Evangelical theological imaginary. Indeed, they reaffirm the faith already practiced—which I believe partly explains their commercial success.

These books offer the average American Evangelical comforting reassurance that they win, they are right, and all the unbelievers are wrong. These works do not grant new revelation or make predictions. Rather they tell us that heaven is good and hell is bad and you want to believe in Jesus so you can go to the good place and not the bad place. But why does this message sell? Because Christianity in America continues its decline in numbers, and socio-political influence. Americans who have long believed in Jesus need reassurance that what they believe about the afterlife corresponds to reality. They see century-old churches close their doors and society disintegrate and they are fearful. The church in America has never been so weak culturally and politically—at least not in living memory. Burpo, Piper, and Wiese give reassurance that those who trust in Christ are not fools; they are doing it right; they are wise and their wisdom will be revealed to all someday.

The End

At the beginning of this paper, I said the contemporary American Evangelical Apocalypses belong in “the tradition of the Ancient Jewish and Christian apocalypses of the previous three millennia and which evidence deep anxiety and the need to produce apocalyptic rhetoric.” No one can say whether interest in the apocalyptic is higher or lower than in previous points in history. But we can say that the apocalyptic has a long and relatively unbroken history. Moreover, the works of contemporary American Evangelicals fit nicely into the tradition of non-canonical Christian apocalyptic.

The claim that apocalyptic material is of interest because of fears of global conflict is uncontroversial. And I believe that certainly plays a role in the interest and publishing success of these works. But I believe that the changing socio-cultural milieu plays a larger part. Christians in America find themselves reorienting to a changing world—in many ways a hostile world. And in such a world reassurance from Heaven encourages and strengthens.

The facticity of these apocalypses makes little difference to its rhetoric. These words encourage believers to continue to believe what they already believe. They function as calls to keep the faith. And that message seems to resonate, and I predict more apocalypses will be written and unless there is a significant social change in favor of the church, we will continue to see apocalypses that are (broadly) orthodox reaffirmations of the faith people already hold, functioning to encourage and comfort in trying times.

Notes

[1] Todd Burpo and Lynn Vincent, Heaven Is for Real (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010).

[2] Hitchcock gives an fuller treatment about the veracity of these claims. I am not interested in whether or not these stories are true, but rather why they are written and why they resonate. Mark. Hitchcock, Visits to Heaven and Back (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2015).

[3] Books about visits to heaven, or hell, have had large print runs in the past. Consider Marietta Davis’s story Scenes Beyond the Grave that was in print, in nearly 40 updated editions since the 1850s. Several modernizations of Davis’s celestial and infernal adventures have been created, one with a title clearly playing off of Ninety Minutes in Heaven. Marietta Davis, Caught up into Heaven (New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 1999). Marietta Davis, James L. Scott, and Gordon Lindsay, Scenes beyond the Grave: Visions of Marietta Davis, 36th ed. (Dallas, Texas: Christ for the Nations, Inc., 1990). Dennis Prince, Nolene Prince, and Marietta Davis, Nine Days in Heaven: The Vision of Marietta Davis, 1st ed. (Lake Mary: Creation House, 2006).

[4] William Butler Yeats, "Demon and Beast" in Later Poems (London: Macmillan, 1922), 344–45.

[5] Yeats, “The Second Coming” in Later Poems, 346–47.

[6] Colin McDowell and Timothy Materer, “Gyre and Vortex: W. B. Yeats and Ezra Pound,” Twentieth Century Literature 31, no. 4 (1985): 343–67.

[7] The secret life of Charles Williams that was subtly, though sometimes not so subtly, revealed through his novels and poetry is indicative of the strength of Occultism in early 20th Century Britain. That a Christian as influential as Williams could also be a not-so-secret practitioner of magic seems scandalous by today’s standards. Whatever his arcane practice means, soteriologically, Williams was a brilliant novelist and poet and his works are worth reading. The most commonly read of his works are: Charles Williams, Charles Williams Omnibus (Oxford: Oxford City Press, 2012); Charles Williams, Taliessin through Logres & The Region of the Summer Stars, Inklings Heritage Series (Berkeley: Apocryphile, 2016).

[8] Rudyard Kipling, "En-Dor" in The Years Between (Garden City: Doubleday, 1919), 53–55.

[9] Alan P. R. Gregory, Science Fiction Theology: Beauty and the Transformation of the Sublime, (Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2015), 3–7.

[10] Kevin O’Neill, The Afterlife in Popular Culture: Heaven, Hell, and the Underworld in the American Imagination (Santa Barbara: Greenwood, 2022), 26-28.

[11] Greg Carey, Ultimate Things: An Introduction to Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature (St. Louis, Mo.: Chalice Press, 2005), 5. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10632102.

[12] Carey, 14.

[13] Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Fall of the Angels, Themes in Biblical Narrative (Leiden; Brill, 2004), 2–3.

[14] Auffarth and Stuckenbruck, The Fall of the Angels, 1.

[15] Granted, many believe that Daniel and other apocalypses are indeed works for fiction. Carey, Ultimate Things, 37–41.

[16] This could also be called the perlocutionary force.

[17] Auffarth and Stuckenbruck write about this concept vis-à-vis the “fall of the angels” and the reimagining of Satan in Christian theo-mythology. They argue that Satan in the dualistic, Premodern world was the eternal villain; however, this concept gave way to a Modernist vision of a Faustian trickster. One may theorize what kind of behavioral change such a paradigm shift is wont to create, but it is undeniable that such a transition is a significant theological realignment. Auffarth and Stuckenbruck, The Fall of the Angels, 7.

[18] Dylan M. Burns, “Apocalypses among Gnostics and Manichaeans,” in The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature, ed. John J. Collins, Oxford Handbooks (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 359–61 http://site.ebrary.com/id/10837503.

[19] Joseph R. Jones, “The ‘Song of Songs’ as a Drama in the Commentators from Origen to the Twelfth Century,” Comparative Drama 17, no. 1 (1983): 17–39.

[20] Kevin O’Neill, The Afterlife in Popular Culture, v–ix.

[21] Todd Burpo and Lynn Vincent, Heaven Is for Real, 135–39.

[22] Burpo and Vincent, Heaven is for Real, 137.

[23] Don Piper and Cecil Murphey, 90 Minutes in Heaven (Grand Rapids: Revell, 2004), 158.

[24] Piper and Murphey, 90 Minutes in Heaven, 158.

[25] Bill Wiese, 23 Minutes in Hell (Lake Mary: Charisma House, 2006), 37.

[26] Wiese, 23 Minutes in Hell, 37.

[27] Wiese, 23 Minutes in Hell, 38.

[28] James Berger, “Introduction: Twentieth-Century Apocalypse: Forecasts and Aftermaths,” Twentieth Century Literature 46, no. 4 (2000): 387–95.

Bibliography

Auffarth, Christoph, and Loren T. Stuckenbruck. The Fall of the Angels. Themes in Biblical Narrative. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Berger, James. “Introduction: Twentieth-Century Apocalypse: Forecasts and Aftermaths.” Twentieth Century Literature 46, no. 4 (2000): 387–95.

Bill Wiese. 23 Minutes in Hell. Lake Mary: Charisma House, 2006.

Carey, Greg. Ultimate Things: An Introduction to Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic Literature. St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2005.

Charles Williams. Charles WIlliams Omnibus. Oxford: Oxford City Press, 2012.

Taliessin through Logres & The Region of the Summer Stars. Inklings Heritage Series. Berkeley: Apocryphile, 2016.

Collins, John J. The Oxford Handbook of Apocalyptic Literature. Oxford Handbooks. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Davis, Marietta. Caught up into Heaven. New Kensington, PA: Whitaker House, 1999.

Davis, Marietta, James L. Scott, and Gordon Lindsay. Scenes beyond the Grave: Visions of Marietta Davis. 36th ed. Dallas, Texas: Christ for the Nations, Inc., 1990.

Don Piper and Cecil Murphey. 90 Minutes in Heaven. Grand Rapids: Revell, 2004.

Gregory, Alan P. R. Science Fiction Theology: Beauty and the Transformation of the Sublime. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2015.

Hitchcock, Mark. Visits to Heaven and Back. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2015.

Jones, Joseph R. “The ‘Song of Songs’ as a Drama in the Commentators from Origen to the Twelfth Century.” Comparative Drama 17, no. 1 (1983): 17–39.

Kevin O’Neill. The Afterlife in Popular Culture: Heaven, Hell, and the Underworld in the American Imagination. Santa Barbara: Greenwood, 2022.

McDowell, Colin, and Timothy Materer. “Gyre and Vortex: W. B. Yeats and Ezra Pound.” Twentieth Century Literature 31, no. 4 (1985): 343–67.

Prince, Dennis, Nolene Prince, and Marietta Davis. Nine Days in Heaven: The Vision of Marietta Davis. 1st ed. Lake Mary: Creation House, 2006.

Rudyard Kipling. The Years Between. Garden City: Doubleday, 1919.

Todd Burpo and Lynn Vincent. Heaven Is for Real. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010.

Yeats, W. B. Later Poems. London: Macmillan and Co., 1922.

Bibliotheca Profana

Listen to it here!

Well, if you haven’t heard a whole lot of people in Indiana are losing their minds because of a new Indiana Senate bill that is going to the Indiana house. Lots of people are warning that this will have a chilling effect on free speech and is going to make it impossible for school librarians to do their jobs. There’s a lot of big talk going on. And because a lot of people are talking about this Indiana bill, I thought that I should, you know read it and understand it. So, I actually read the bill! I know, shocking; many people in our society seem blithely unaware that these things are actually published! But they are, and you can read it to. And I highly recommend reading the bill in full.

 

And as far as bills go this one seems pretty short. The bill itself is only 6 pages of itemized material; and the part that everyone’s up in arms about, with school librarians is really short. In fact, it’s so short that I’m going to read it now.

 

1 SECTION 1. IC 20-26-5.5 IS ADDED TO THE INDIANA CODE

2 AS A NEW CHAPTER TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE

3 JULY 1, 2023]:

4 Chapter 5.5. School Library Sec. 1. As used in this chapter, "appeal committee" refers to a

6 committee comprised of:

 7 (1) the school principal;

8 (2) a parent or guardian; and

9 (3) a certified librarian employed by the school.

10 Sec. 2. (a) The governing body of a school corporation or

11 charter school shall:

12 (1) publish on the website of each school; and

13 (2) make available in hard copy for a parent or guardian of a

14 child enrolled in the school;

15 a current list of each book contained within the school library.

16 (b) A list under subsection (a) must include the following

17 information about each book:

1 (1) Title.

2 (2) First and last name of the author.

3 (3) Edition.

4 (4) Publisher.

5 (5) Year of publication.

6 Sec. 3. (a) The governing body of a school corporation or

7 charter school shall establish:

8 (1) a procedure for each school to allow a parent or guardian

9 of a student enrolled in the school to submit a complaint that

10 a book in the possession of the school library is inappropriate

11 to students; and

12 (2) a response and appeal procedure for each school to

13 respond to a complaint submitted by a parent or guardian.

14 (b) If a parent or guardian submits a complaint under

15 subsection (a), a certified librarian employed by the school

16 corporation or charter school shall review the book that is subject

17 to the complaint and make one (1) of the following

18 recommendations:

19 (1) That the book be removed from the school library.

20 (2) That the book be placed in an age-appropriate section

21 within the school library.

22 (3) That the complaint be denied.

23 If the recommendation is to deny the complaint, the certified

24 librarian shall provide a written response to the parent or

25 guardian.

26 (c) If the person who submitted a complaint under subsection

27 (a) disagrees with the recommendation of the certified librarian,

28 the person may request that the appeal committee review the

29 recommendation.

30 (d) The appeal committee may:

31 (1) uphold;

32 (2) modify; or

33 (3) overturn;

34 the recommendation of the certified librarian issued under

35 subsection (b). The appeal committee shall issue its decision in

36 writing.

37 Sec. 4. (a) If the person who submitted the complaint under

38 section3(a) of this chapter disagrees with the decision of the appeal

39 committee, the person may submit a final appeal to the governing

40 body of the school corporation or charter school.

41 (b) After reviewing the complaint, the recommendation of the

42 certified librarian, and the decision of the appeal committee, the

1 governing body of the school corporation or charter school shall do

2 one (1) of the following:

3 (1) Order the removal of the book from the school library.

4 (2) Order that the book be placed in an age-appropriate

5 section within the school library.

6 (3) Deny the complaint.

7 If the decision is to deny the complaint, the governing body shall

8 provide a written response to the person who submitted the

9 complaint. The written response shall be made public at the next

10 regular meeting of the governing body.

11 Sec. 5. The governing body of a school corporation or charter

12 school shall publish each policy established under this chapter on

13 the website of each school.

14 Sec. 6. A school corporation or charter school may not make

15 available a book or materials that contain:

16 (1) obscene matter (as described in 35-49-2-1); or

17 (2) matter harmful to minors (as described in IC 35-49-2-2);

18 within the school library.

19 SECTION 2. IC 35-49-3-3, AS AMENDED BY P.L.158-2013,

20 SECTION 648, IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS

 21 [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2023]: Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in

22 subsection (b) and section 4 of this chapter, a person who knowingly

23 or intentionally:

24 (1) disseminates matter to minors that is harmful to minors;

25 (2) displays matter that is harmful to minors in an area to which

26 minors have visual, auditory, or physical access, unless each

27 minor is accompanied by the minor's parent or guardian;

28 (3) sells, rents, or displays for sale or rent to any person matter

29 that is harmful to minors within five hundred (500) feet of the

30 nearest property line of a school or church;

31 (4) engages in or conducts a performance before minors that is

32 harmful to minors;

33 (5) engages in or conducts a performance that is harmful to

34 minors in an area to which minors have visual, auditory, or

35 physical access, unless each minor is accompanied by the minor's

36 parent or guardian;

37 (6) misrepresents the minor's age for the purpose of obtaining

38 admission to an area from which minors are restricted because of

39 the display of matter or a performance that is harmful to minors;

40 or

41 (7) misrepresents that the person is a parent or guardian of a

42 minor for the purpose of obtaining admission of the minor to an

1 area where minors are being restricted because of display of

2 matter or performance that is harmful to minors;

3 commits a Level 6 felony.

4 (b) This section does not apply if a person disseminates, displays,

5 or makes available the matter described in subsection (a) through the

6 Internet, computer electronic transfer, or a computer network unless:

7 (1) the matter is obscene under IC 35-49-2-1;

8 (2) the matter is child pornography under IC 35-42-4-4; or

9 (3) the person distributes the matter to a child less than eighteen

10 (18) years of age believing or intending that the recipient is a

11 child less than eighteen (18) years of age

 

OK, so that’s the really relevant portion of this law, and you can see I did skip over some material for sake of time, but it wasn’t pertinent to this discussion. What IS pertinent to the discussion is that this law effectively ensures that if school libraries have porno in them that they either need to get it out or the librarians will face felony charges.

And the thing is, this isn’t hard to understand. And the bill itself references the parts of the Indiana Code that are relevant. Because what Senate Bill 12 says is that a librarian, or teacher, or anyone for that matter; is subject to a level 6 felony if they distribute material to kids that is obscene or harmful. And they use the Indian Code’s definition.

I’ll read it for you now:

IC 35-49-2-1 Obscene matter or performance

     Sec. 1. A matter or performance is obscene for purposes of this article if:

(1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds that the dominant theme of the matter or performance, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest in sex;

(2) the matter or performance depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct; and

(3) the matter or performance, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

IC 35-49-2-2 Matter or performance harmful to minors

     Sec. 2. A matter or performance is harmful to minors for purposes of this article if:

(1) it describes or represents, in any form, nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse;

(2) considered as a whole, it appeals to the prurient interest in sex of minors;

(3) it is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable matter for or performance before minors; and

(4) considered as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

If you have a problem with this, then you’re depraved.

What the bill says is that public schools can’t have porn and librarians, you know, the people in charge of the libraries, are going to be held liable for the material in the library. If you’re an Indiana librarian serving in a school or children’s library—just get rid of the porno. It’s not so very difficult.

I mean, maybe I’m old fashioned, and maybe I’m a bit hard-nosed, but I think the standard should be no obscene or harmful material in children’s libraries. I mean, when I come to power porn will be made illegal again so this will all be a moot point, but until that day this is a positive step forwards.

Because let me ask you a question. Why should librarians be exempt from laws about distributing porn to kids? What is it about being a school librarian that should shield you from the prosecution that literally anyone else would face?

Now, I’m a scholar. I use libraries a lot. I have my own personal library in print; I have access to over 14,000 books and articles on my Bible Study program, and through my Alma Mater Dallas Seminary, where I’m currently working on a PhD, I have access not only to Dallas’ library but libraries across the world. I spend a good amount of time using libraries and research librarians are highly skilled, highly trained, very necessary members of the research community. I have the utmost respect for good librarians.

And librarians have served and will continue to serve a vital role in research and knowledge preservation for the foreseeable future.

Moreover, librarians who really know their material can be a massive resource. They can help people to find materials to research, to direct them, to help them create effective searches, to develop useful bibliographies.

Also, librarians can help people select books that will be enjoyable and worth the time of reading.

So please, I could continue, but I won’t, but please don’t mishear me. I respect librarians and the work they do. But just because I respect the job librarians do doesn’t mean that I think they get the act with impunity—the school library is not the librarian’s personal fiefdom, where they get to direct the hearts and minds of children whithersoever they wish.

No.

A public school librarian is an employee of the school, tasked by the school board to provide and direct children to materials that will promote their education in line with state standards and the goals of the school board—which are reflective of the purposes of the voting community.

The librarian is not the Queen of Books who gets to stock her shelves with what she deems best for the children, what parents want be damned. No. She is an employee, bound by certain expectations and limitations, and the Indiana SB 12 insists that some of the limitations on school librarians must include not being able to have porno on the shelves nor to direct children to harmful material.

And I think that’s reasonable.

Hey, call me crazy, but I think that librarian is not a position that should give someone the legal authority to show prurient and pornographic material to kids. I know, I’m old fashioned, but I guess I can’t help it.

And friends, what’s the alternative?

That we permit school librarians to have porn on the shelves? Is that the solution? Is the solution that we do allow a select group of people to be immune from the laws that protect children that everyone else has to follow?

The Bible is pretty explicitly clear about not leading children astray.

18 At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

He called a little child to him, and placed the child among them. And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes the lowly position of this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me.

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come! If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

10 “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven. 

It might be possible for Jesus to have spoken stronger language, but I think that this is strong enough. If you’re going to turn a child away from Christ; if you are going to cause them to stumble; if you are going to scandalize a child, to cause them to sin, it would be better for you to commit suicide.

Now, you might be thinking, “But Luke, Jesus was clearly using hyperbole; suicide is a sin; Jesus cannot mean that committing one sin is better than committing another!”

Oh Jesus most certainly can mean that committing one sin is better, or less evil, than committing another. All sin is evil, but some sin is more evil and does more damage than other sin. Lusting after a woman is sin; going and committing adultery is a worse sin; lusting, adulterating, and abandoning your family is an even worse sin. Anger is a sin; murder is worse.

Jesus is saying that killing yourself would lead to a less awful judgement than to be a corrupter of children. God will deal so severely with those who corrupt kids that you’d be better off committing hari-kari.

Now, I think I know a little bit about the Bible. And the way I read this text it tells me that some librarian would be better off committing suicide than to stock the school shelves with porn. God will deal less severely with the self-murderer than with the one who corrupted a child.

And the Indiana bill protects all parties. It protects the children from being corrupted and it protects those who would corrupt children from storing up God’s wrath against themselves.

And that’s what laws should do—they should promote righteousness and punish wickedness. Discouraging evil is part of what good laws do. Discouraging the corruption of children is something that good laws do.

It’s tragic that such a law even needs to be considered. But all sorts of things in this post-Christian society are tragic. Now’s not the time to sulk; but the time to take action of all kinds: prayer; evangelism; righteous living; and righteous political action. Because Jesus cares about all of life—even the books in the children’s library.