Silence Like a Cancer Grows

 White Fellas in the Black

As the West turns away from the Living God it will slide irrevocably into the darkness.  We have published many pieces on the “soft” despotism that now grips Europe and the Anglo-Saxon world.  Eventually and inevitably the soft despotism will become hard.  There will be plenty of sign posts along the way. 

By the time the proverbial “man-in-the-street” wakes up and decides that he does not particularly like living under a despot and that in rejecting Christ as his King he never meant nor intended to end up under the heel of a totalitarian regime, it will be too late.  Prufrock’s  “That’s not what I meant at all” will be heard on the lips of the sheep.  Even as we write these words we anticipate the reaction, “Totalitarian?  You’ve got to be kidding.  In the West?  In New Zealand?  Never.  Ever.  It’s impossible.” 

But as Santayana observed, those who don’t learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
  Limited, constrained government can only be sustained where a culture believes itself to be governed ultimately by the law of God.  Only then will the culture believe that government itself is itself under law and is proscribed and limited.  Without fear and reverence of the Living God, government power inevitably grows like a malignant cancer. 

In the West we have insisted that we can enjoy the freedom brought by the Christ without Him.  We have grounded it in “human rights”.  Increasingly those same rights are driving us more and more into despotism.  Here is the latest signpost, this time from Australia. 

Class action against columnist Andrew Bolt succeeds in Federal Court

THE assumed right of unfettered freedom of speech was trumped by laws protecting against racial vilification this morning after the Federal Court delivered its decision on the controversial “white Aborigines” case of Pat Eatock v Herald Sun columnist Andrew Bolt. 
 
Justice Mordy Bromberg found Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times contravened the Racial Discrimination Act by publishing two articles on racial identity which contained “errors in fact, distortions of the truth and inflammatory and provocative language”.  Speaking outside court, Bolt said it was “a terrible day for free speech in this country”.  “It is particularly a restriction on the freedom of all Australians to discusss multiculturalism and how people identify themselves,” Bolt said.

“I argued then and I argue now that we should not insist on the differences between us but focus instead on what unites us as human beings,” Bolt said.  The columnist said he would read and consider the full judgment before commenting further.

Justice Bromberg said it was important to note his judgment did not forbid debate or articles on racial identity issues if done “reasonably and in good faith in the making or publishing of a fair comment”.  “Nothing in the orders I make should suggest that it is unlawful for a publication to deal with racial identification, including by challenging the genuineness of the identification of a group of people,” Justice Bromberg said.

Ms Eatock and a group of eight other Aboriginals took Bolt and the Herald and Weekly Times to court claiming racial vilifiication over two articles in which he criticised fair-skinned Aborigines for what he argued was a choice they made, as people of mixed racial background, to emphasise their indigenous heritage over their white heritage.  Ms Eatock welcomed the judgment, saying it was a statement against discrimination.  She said the court’s decision meant racial identity could be debated, but with respect.

“It’s how you handle it, you can’t be malicious … he (Bolt) must handle it based on truth and fact,” she said outside court.  Ms Eatock told the Herald Sun she was aware of her Scottish ancestry from her mother’s side but saw herself as Aboriginal. 

In the articles, on April 15 and August 21, 2009, Bolt wrote that some fair-skinned Aboriginal people, whom he called “political Aborigines”, had received prominence or indigenous awards because they chose to identify with their Aboriginality.  The Eatock action claimed Bolt’s articles – which appeared under the headlines “It’s so hip to be black” and “White fellas in the black” – had “offended, insulted, humiliated or intimidated” them and were a breach of racial vilification laws.

In court during hearings in April, Neil Young, QC, for Bolt, had argued that freedom of speech “trumped” other rights and was a cornerstone of democracy.  “Everything that’s said, even if it’s expressed colourfully, is rationally related to a thesis that’s a matter of public interest,” Mr Young had said.  He argued the legal test for racial vilification was how an informed person would interpret the views expressed in Bolt’s articles.

But Ron Merkel, QC, for the complainants, said there was no attempt by Ms Eatock or other members of the group to shut down freedom of speech or debate about racial identity issues.  Mr Merkel said Bolt was free to express his views on the subject but should not have chosen to attack the nine individuals he named in his columns and blog.

In the sometimes heated court exchanges, Bolt took exception to Mr Merkel’s comparison of the debate and Bolt’s views to Nazi race laws, the Holocaust and eugenics.  Bolt argued those who chose to identify with only one part of their background over another were contributing to racism and came at the cost of less focus on the important issues of education, housing, health and poverty.  The parties were asked by Justice Bromberg to meet and discuss what orders the court should make.

The nine Aborigines who took legal action against Mr Bolt were former ATSIC member Geoff Clark, artist Bindi Cole, academic Larissa Behrendt, author Anita Heiss, health worker Leeanne Enoch, native title expert Graham Atkinson, academic Wayne Atkinson, lawyer Mark McMillan and activist Pat Eatock.  Mr Bolt and several of the plaintiffs were in court for today’s decision.

Douglas Wilson’s Letter From America

Four Kinds of Idolatry

Theology – Roman or Catholic?
Written by Douglas Wilson
Monday, September 26, 2011

Richard Baxter once said, “It is almost incredible how much ground the devil takes when he has once made sin a matter of controversy: some are of one mind, and some of another; you are of one opinion and I am of another.” Nowhere is this more apparent than when we discuss the use of images in prayer. We are given straightforward commands regarding this, but the commands go contrary to something that runs deep in the human heart, and so it has become controversial.

The apostle John warns his children to stay away from idols, and he does this because (presumably) it was possible that true Christians might not want to do so (1 John 5:21). This being the case, we should distinguish various kinds of idolatry. For my purposes here, I am understanding idolatry as placing a created thing where only the uncreated God should be. This clearly happens whenever images are used in prayer, but images need not be involved. Idolatry is more subtle than that.

1. Idolatry without images. The apostle Paul tells us in an aside that coveteousness is idolatry (Col. 3:5). This means that the objects of a man’s covetous desire have come to occupy the place of devotion in his heart that only God should occupy. We don’t think this happens only if the coveteous man starts burning votary candles in front of his bankbook. The fact that this idolatry is “low church” doesn’t keep it from being idolatry. And given the nature of covetousness, we can see that idolatry can extend to anything — if your neighbor can have it instead of you, you can covet it (Ex. 20:17). And when you do, that’s idolatry.

Idols of the heart are really hard to smash. The heart is deceitfully wicked, and is fully up to the challenge, for one example, of fashioning even iconoclasm into an idol. When that happens the idol leers from his intellectual shelf in the temple of reason, as much as if to say, “Get me now.”

This kind of covetous idolatry doesn’t need images, but it is not surprising that it still kind of likes them. Do covetous people pour over catalogs, full of desiderata? A godly woman looking at a catalog is shopping. A covetous woman pouring over a catalog is worshiping.

Incidentally, this is why the use of porn is clearly idolatry. The covetousness is right there, which is idolatry. And whatever icon you click on your desktop, it ought to be an image of a man bowing down before a buxom Astarte.

2. Idolatry as traffic with false gods. The Scripture clearly teaches us that it is also idolatry to worship false gods (who are really there) with images. “Turn ye not unto idols, nor make to yourselves molten gods: I am the LORD your God” (Lev. 19:4). In this instance, the problem is not the images, the problem is what they represent. The gods themselves don’t mind those images; they encourage them. The images truly represent the false.

In biblical vocabulary, false gods are not the same thing as non-existent gods. There were spiritual realities behind these images.

“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him” (1 Cor. 8:4-6).

Paul is saying that for believers there is only one God. He acknowledges that there are “gods many and lords many” out there, but in the biblical parlance, these are demons, not divine beings (1 Cor. 10:20). Demons are not non-existent. At the same time, they are not what they claim to be. The clearest instance of this is when Paul casts a spirit out of a girl at Philippi (Acts 16:16). The Greek says that she was possessed with the spirit of a python, making her a devotee of the god Apollo. Or, as a Christian would say, demon-possessed.

With such idolatry, the images are not rejected because they are inaccurate, but because they are accurate representations of terrible gods. For the idolater they are accurate because they open up the way to “spiritual realities,” which they really do. For the faithful believer, they are accurate because they are impotent wood and stone (Is. 44:15), which accurately represent the ultimate impotence of the spiritual realities behind them (Ps. 115:5).

3. Idolatry as superstition. I don’t want to spend a lot of time here, because this is not a significant biblical category. But suppose someone made up a little Kwaanza god, or used a Hummel figurine to represent the “spirit of recycling” or something in their morning NPR meditations. These things would have no spiritual realities behind them, and are just dumb. But they would still be idolatry — at a minimum they would be idolatry in my first sense.

4. Idolatry as the worship of the true God through images. Note what Aaron says when he convenes a festival around the golden calf.

“And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, To morrow is a feast to the LORD. And they rose up early on the morrow, and offered burnt offerings, and brought peace offerings; and the people sat down to eat and to drink, and rose up to play” (Ex. 32:4-6).

So we may distinguish the worship of false gods with true images (#2) and the true God with false images (#4). But this is not a distinction between idolatry and non-idolatry. The Bible condemns them both, and in the same terms. When the people of Israel were prohibited from making images, they were prohibited from making images of the true God as much as anything else in the creation that they might bow down to in the name of a false god (Dt. 4:12).

We know this because when Paul discusses the golden calf incident, he calls this worship of YHWH idolatry.

“Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand” (1 Cor. 10:7-8).

So the apostle Paul condemns a certain form of YHWH worship as idolatry. What? Because of the presence of the calf, not because of the absence an invocation of YHWH. This means that people who worship Jesus Christ, the true God, in the form of images, are still guilty of idolatry.

The Debating Chamber

The Odium of Modern Politicians

The public hates partisan politicking.  Over and over, in virtually all Western democratic constituencies, the proverbial “man-in-the-street” professes disgust at politicians always trying to score (usually lame) points off one another.  (The one arguable exception is Australia where the public seems genuinely to admire politicians who rip their opponents up one side and down the other.) 

Consequently, the public tends to complain against politicians and in the job-admiration surveys politicians generally hover around the used-care-salesman rankings–which is probably being unfair to the latter.

Those closer to the actual workings of representative chambers will tell us that most of the real work goes on behind closed doors in committees and that representatives actually do a great deal of positive work; partisan wrangling in committees is more muted.  Thus, we are told, we ought not to judge politicians by their public posturing. 

We beg to differ.  We accept the point about more constructive behaviour during deliberative committee work.  But it does not excuse the public displays of childish, petulant behaviour that is stock-in-trade for many politicians when in public view.  It behoves politicians, we believe, always to give higher fidelity to the public good (however they may conceive it) than to their own political fortunes.  If they were to do so, then they would engage in a lot less reckless politicking in public, and would be much more inclined to work constructively and deliberatively with political opponents, rather than attempting to score cheap political debating points in an attempt to “cut through” and gain electoral traction. 

Everyone knows that the family which is constantly arguing, cutting one another down with dripping sarcasm, perpetually refuting one another for form’s sake, would not survive.  Family life would quickly become non-existent, the family dysfunctional.  The same is true for businesses or any other corporate enterprise.  Since everyone knows that such behaviour tears down and is ultimately destructive for the common good they hold politicians in disdain because they know their selfish behaviour does not do the country any good. 

It becomes inevitable that politicians–particularly when they are languishing in the polls–so pervert their understanding of the common good that they come to identify themselves and their parties with the righteous, and their opponents as destructive of the nation itself.  We see this in Parliament now as non-governmental parties wrangle and argue over the attempts by the Government to close a legal loophole in order to allow police to continue undercover surveillance. 

We are not expecting any change.  Politics and politicians cannot escape the limitations of their own character.  It is because they are depraved and given over to arrogance and self-seeking and vanities that they behave this way. 

Honourable men and women are not made so by virtue of the offices they hold: they bring the honour and virtue to the office and ennoble it.  We are sorely lacking politicians (and political parties) of honour, integrity, and good character. 

Luther’s Advice For Proud Preachers

Donkey Ears

Martin Luther:

If, however, you feel and are inclined to think you have made it, flattering yourself with your own little books, teaching, or writing, because you have done it beautifully and preached excellently; if you are highly pleased when someone praises you in the presence of others; if you perhaps look for praise, and would sulk or quit what you are doing if you did not get it—if you are of that stripe, dear friend, then take yourself by the ears, and if you do this in the right way you will find a beautiful pair of big, long, shaggy donkey ears.
Then do not spare any expense! Decorate them with golden bells, so that people will be able to hear you wherever you go, point their fingers at you, and say, “See, see! There goes that clever beast, who can write such exquisite books and preach so remarkably well.” That very moment you will be blessed and blessed beyond measure in the kingdom of heaven. Yes, in that heaven where hellfire is ready for the devil and his angels.

—Martin Luther, LW 34:287-288.

HT: Justin Taylor

No Doubt About This

Kings Shall Come to Your Rising

When the (Chinese) Communists took power in 1949 there were perhaps 2 million Christians in China. At the time, not only Marxists but even American liberal church leaders dismissed these as mainly “rice” Christians–people who put up with missionary efforts only in exchange for handouts. Fifty years later we have discovered that these Chinese rice Christians were so “insincere” that they endured decades of draconian repression, during which their numbers doubled again and again–there might be as many as 100 million Christians in China today! Moreover, conversion to Christianity is concentrated not among the peasants and the poor but among the best-education, most modern Chinese.

There are many reasons people embrace Christianity, including its capacity to sustain a deeply emotional and existentially satisfying faith. http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jtertullian&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0812972333&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrBut another significant factor is its appeal to reason and the fact that it is so inseparably linked to the rise of Western civilization. For many non-Europeans, becoming a Christian is intrinsic to becoming modern Thus it is quite plausible that Christianity remains an essential element in the globalization of modernity. Consider this recent statement by one of China’s leading scholars:

“One of the things we were asked to look into was what accounted for the success, in fact, the pre-eminence of the West all over the world. We studied everything we could from the historical, political, economic, and cultural perspective. At first, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we thought it was because you had the best political system. Next we focused on your economic system. But in the past twenty years, we have realized that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West is so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don’t have any doubt about this”

Neither do I.

Rodney Stark, The Victory of Reason, p.234f.

Studies in I Samuel

A Grotesque Parody of Holy War

Expository – Book of Samuel
Written by Douglas Wilson
Saturday, September 24, 2011

INTRODUCTION:
In the Gospel of Mark, we read the account of Jesus feeding the five thousand (Mark 6), but this occurs immediately after John the Baptist’s head was brought before Herod, at a banquet, and it was brought out on a platter. There are two kinds of kings, two kinds of rulers—those who feed the people and those who eat the people. There is no middle way.

THE TEXT:
“David therefore departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam: and when his brethren and all his father’s house heard it, they went down hither to him . . .” (1 Sam. 22:1-23).

SUMMARY OF THE TEXT:
David escaped to Adullam, a place halfway between Gath and Bethlehem (v. 1). Those who were in various kinds of trouble gathered to him there, until he had a force of about 400 men (v. 2). David took the time to situate his aging parents in Moab (vv. 3-4), where his great-grandmother Ruth was from. The prophet Gad, apparently with him, tells him leave an unnamed stronghold, and to return to Judah (v. 5).

Saul hears about David’s whereabouts while he is holding open air court at Ramah (v. 6). He there upbraids his men for not being informants against Jonathan and against David (vv. 7-8). At this point Doeg reports on what he saw at Nob (vv. 9-10). Saul then summons Ahimelech and all the priests, and they come (vv. 11-12). Saul accuses Ahimelech of treason (v. 13), which Ahimelech ably denies (vv. 14-15). Saul then pronounces a death sentence (v. 16), and commands his men to kill the priests. They refuse, which was to their credit (v. 17).

He then gives the command to Doeg, and so he kills 85 priests (v. 18). He then attacks the priestly city of Nob, killing everyone and everything there (v. 19). Only one of the priests managed to escape, a man named Abiathar (v. 20), and he escaped with the ephod (1 Sam. 23:6). Abiathar told David of the slaughter of the priests (v. 21). David says that he was afraid of that—he had noticed Doeg there (v. 22). He invites Abiathar to stay with him (v. 23), which Abiathar does.

A MOTLEY START:
David eventually succeeds in establishing a powerful force, with an impressive array of mighty men (2 Sam. 23: 8-39). But initially the materials were not really promising. He gathers 400 men right away, but they are the ones in distress, in debt, or discontented. A bit later he has 600 men (1 Sam. 25:13). It looks as though David took all comers. For those who are curious, this place in Scripture is where the feature of Credenda magazine entitled the “Cave of Adullam” comes from—comments offered on life in the Israelite mainstream, and offered from our offices in the back of the cave.

When men come in distress, or in debt, or discontented, the basic problem can either be theirs or somebody else’s. Sometimes people get in distress themselves, and sometimes it is done to them. Sometimes people get into bad debt themselves, and other times it is done to them. Sometimes the discontent comes from within, and other times it is imposed. But even when it comes from without, the person to whom it is done must guard against internalizing it, against owning it somehow. As Thomas Watson said, it is better to suffer wrong than to do wrong. But sometimes men suffer wrong, and then, because they process it wrongly, begin to do wrong in their hearts. But as someone once wisely said, becoming bitter is like eating a box of rat poison and then waiting for the rat to die.

So David’s forming army sounds like the problem that many church planters have—trying to build a fresh, joyful community out of a group of people who are still seething. Everyone who comes that first Sunday has a history. But as we learn here, God is not stumped by this kind of thing.

A GLORIOUS START:
We have noted before that the Spirit has come upon David, which means that he is blessed by God even though he has to live in a cave. Saul sits on a throne, abandoned by God. David sits on a rock outside his cave, accompanied by God. A new Israel starts to form around him, and though it looks like a bunch of losers, this is just the kind of situation God loves to work with. The Lord Jesus, as we know, is our prophet, priest, and king. Here with David, on the run from Saul, we have the prophet (Gad, v. 5), we have the priest (Abiathar, v. 23), and we have the king (David, v. 1). David has been finally exiled from Saul’s court, and we are just a few weeks into it—and already the shape of the future kingdom was beginning to appear. Abiathar stays with David for the rest of David’s life. Gad lives to see the Temple built, and even helped to regulate its worship (2 Chron. 29:25). Gad was also one of the chroniclers of David’s life (1 Chron. 29:29). All of this started to come together right away.

AN INESCAPABLE CHOICE:
The holy war which Saul refused to carry out against the Amalekites (1 Sam. 15:9), and which cost him his dynasty, was a war which he then carried out against a priestly city of Israel (vv. 18-19). This was an ungodly action, but God was using it as the penultimate stage of His judgment against the house of Eli (1 Sam. 3:12-13).

The final stage of that judgment occurred when Solomon finally exiled Abiathar (1 Kings 2:26). So what we see here is a striking example of the “no neutrality” principle. You either gather or scatter (Luke 11:23). You either feed or devour. You will wage holy war (total war) on sin or on righteousness. An Israelite city could be the object of a holy war, but it had to be a city that had gone after other gods (Dt. 13:12-18). This was the great sin. What Saul would not do to the Amalekites, he was willing to do to a faithful city in Israel. Muddle and compromise are always seeking to carve out a third way. They want a neutral zone. They want a place to hide from decisive choices. But, as you have heard, not to decide is to decide. Not to decide decisively is to decide decisively. Dithering is deciding. Why? Because that is how God writes His stories.

A Speck of Dust

Will 2012 Represent a Sea Change?

Further to our piece entitled “Foolish Predictions” in which we had the temerity to suggest that President Obama and the Democrats will be toast in 2012 we came across this article which purports that the Democratic Party has now lost the centre. 

What many folks outside the US don’t realise is that unlike most other Western democracies there are three dominant “parties” in the US electorate: Republicans, Democrats and Independents.  So, Republicans we know, Democrats we know, but who are the Independents?
  They are the elephant in the proverbial room.  The Independents are people who do not align themselves with either Republican or Democrat–and they represent a larger group of voters than registered/self-identified Republicans or Democrats respectively.  Often the Independents are said to represent the political centre. 

As the Independents go, so does the country come election time.   And here is where the Independents are now: 

In mid-2005, as disaffection with the Bush administration and the Republican Party was gathering momentum, the Pew Research Center asked American to place themselves and the political parties on a standard left-right ideological continuum. At that time, average voters saw themselves as just right of center and equidistant from the two political parties. Independents considered themselves twice as far away from the Republican Party as from the Democrats, presaging their sharp shift toward the Democrats in the 2006 mid-term election.

In August of this year, Pew posed a very similar question (note to survey wonks: Pew used a five-point scale, versus six in 2005), but the results were very different. Although average voters continue to see themselves as just right of center, they now place themselves twice as far away from the Democratic Party as from the Republicans. In addition, Independents now see themselves as significantly closer to the Republican Party, reversing their perceptions of six years ago.

There’s another difference as well. In 2005, Republicans’ and Democrats’ views of their own parties dovetailed with the perceptions of the electorate as a whole. Today, while voters as a whole agree with Republicans’ evaluation of their party as conservative, they disagree with Democrats, who on average see their party as moderate rather than liberal. So when Independents, who see themselves as modestly right of center, say that Democrats are too liberal, average Democrats can’t imagine what they’re talking about.

Democrats see themselves as moderate, sensible, reasonable middle-of-the-road types.  The Independents now see Democrats as extreme and even fringe left.  No doubt President Obama, who has carried the Democratic brand, bears a great deal of responsibility for this shift in perception. 

William Galston, who writes the above quoted article, draws this conclusion:

Granted, ideology isn’t everything. Political scientists have long observed that Americans are more liberal on particulars than they are in general—ideologically conservative but operationally liberal. (Surveys have shown majority support for most individual elements of the president’s jobs and budget packages.) And the Republicans could undermine their chances by nominating a presidential candidate who is simply too hard-edged conservative for moderates and Independents to stomach.

In the face of widespread skepticism and disillusion, it will be an uphill battle for Democrats to persuade key voting blocks that government can really make their lives better. But if they fail, the public will continue to equate public spending with waste, the anti-government message will continue to resonate, and Democrats will be in dire straits when heading into what is shaping up as a pivotal election.

Of course, this is typical Democratic stuff.  If we are going to have a Republican win, then for goodness sake let’s hope that the President will be a big-government Republican.  In that case we could argue about particulars and policies, but we would all be on the same chess board.  That would be a Republican that we could live with.

So, the real questions and issues emerge.  It seems certain that President Obama will lose the presidency to a Republican.  It seems certain that the Republicans will strengthen their hold on the House and win a majority in the Senate. The real question is how they will win.  Will small-government conservatism win the day?  Will Independents agree that small-government conservatism is common sense?  Will they come to the view that devolution to the states on a whole raft of issues, and dis-assembling the Federal Government as much as possible, whilst getting Federal spending under control is sound, prudent common sense. 

If small-government Republicans and the Independents join hands, and if the new government actually carries out the fundamental restructuring of the Republic which is implied in small-government ideology,  then Democrats will be forced to adopt a me-too ideological shift to the right.  Obama and the big-government centralists will seem like a bad dream. 

There are a lot of  big “ifs” in there.  But if correct the US may be on the cusp of a generational change in politics and political ideology.  We will see. 

Now, if only we could see the US repent of its “Exceptionalist” idolatry.  Recently our stomach disemobogued once again hearing candidate Romney portentously declare in a recent debate that the “US is the hope of the entire world”.  The terribly sad and angering thing is that no-one in the audience (predominantly Republican) objected–neither did any of the other presidential candidates, including those who are self-confessed Christians. 

Such statements as Romney’s can only provoke God to wrath.  Such statements ignorantly and blasphemously presume to replace the installed King of all kings with a stupid pathetic speck of dust or drop of water (Isaiah 40:15).  

Two-Faced Facebook

Facebook Hates the Christian Gospel

Social networking behemoth, Facebook has decided to promote homosexuality by classifying opinions and speech critical of homosexuality on Facebook as hate-speech.  As you all know, hate-speech is a big, big no no. It is the latest attempt at censorship and the denial of free speech. It always devolves into an attack upon Christians and Christianity.  The reason is that the Gospel is offensive to the natural man.

The Bible declares that the Unbeliever abides under the wrath of God (John 3:36).  Now to the natural man in his pride and arrogance, that is offensive.  He regards it as “hateful” speech. So, over time, banning “hate-speech” morphs into restrictions upon and persecution of Christians and the Church.
  When Christians declare that the Bible condemns homosexuality as abhorrent, a perversion, an evil–denounced in the same ethical terms as murder, theft, God-cursing and paedophilia–homosexuals and Unbelievers regard that as hate-speech.

Ironically, of course, the Unbeliever cannot argue or prosecute his cause without expressing hate-speech towards Christians and the Church.  Thus when your opponent expresses his views he is denounced as being guilty of hate-speech; when one denounces the “hater” it is regarded as just, and righteous, and fair.  The “hate-speech” construct is simply a device to exert hegemony over others. 

So, Facebook has decided to enter the lists and engage in hateful acts against those who condemn the ethical perversion of homosexuality.  Here is the Daily Caller‘s take on the matter.

Facebook: Criticizing gays no longer allowed, but hoping for Limbaugh’s slow death OK

By Caroline May – The Daily Caller    10/19/2010

At the end of last week Facebook announced that it had allied with the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) to remove what it considers anti-gay references from the social networking site.
“This violent, hateful speech has no place in our media – whether it is in print, on the airwaves or online,” GLAAD President Jarrett Barrios said in a press release. “Facebook has taken an important first step in making social media a place where anti-gay violence is not allowed. Our community needs to continue to be vigilant and report instances of hateful comments and images across the site to Facebook moderators as well as post messages of support for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth.”

The site’s “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities” already demands that users to adhere to basic precepts of civility while using Facebook. “You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user. You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence,” the agreement reads. Facebook further reserves the right to remove any content that violates these standards.

But not all threatening language is created equal, apparently. Among Facebook’s many online communities are groups such as, “I Hate Rush Limbaugh,” “I Can’t Wait For Rush Limbaugh to Die,” and “Rush Limbaugh Should Die Slowly.” Hateful? Yes. Threatening? Sure. So why are these groups still on Facebook?

In an email to The Daily Caller, Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes did his best to explain why language criticizing homosexuality is hateful and will be censored, while calls for Rush Limbaugh’s slow death are legitimate and allowed. “Direct statements of hate against particular communities violate our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and are removed when reported to us,” Noyes wrote. “However, groups that express an opinion on a state, institution, or set of beliefs — even if that opinion is outrageous or offensive to some — do not by themselves violate our policies. When a group created to express an opinion devolves into hate speech, we will remove the hateful comments and may even remove the group itself.”

Got that? Looks like Limbaugh needs his own anti-defamation alliance.

Hymn Writers and Music Leaders

Reforming Worship

This is a really neat piece from The Rabbit Room.

Avoiding Convenience: A Word to Hymn Writers

by Fernando Ortega on September 20, 2011

Every music minister knows the weekly anxiety of searching for the right songs for the upcoming Sunday service. The criteria may differ from church to church, but hopefully, the goal is to find songs that tie in thematically with the sermon or the weekly scripture reading. However, I know of a pastor on the west coast who directed his music minister to follow a grid when planning the music service—a large W—meaning that the service starts with upbeat songs that slowly give way to medium ballads, then go up again, then back down, before sending the congregation off with a happy bang. Never mind the content. The music becomes a space filler and provides the congregation with a reason to stand up and clap, or to settle down and get ready to dish out an offering, or listen to a sermon.

I used to serve in a church that followed a similar grid. It was always those dang happy songs that gave me the hardest time. Not that there wasn’t a plethora to choose from, but the upbeat songs were always so corny and forgettable. These days, no one sings the ones we used back then and I imagine the same fate will follow many of today’s happy slappy modern worship songs.

Now that I’m in an Anglican church the weekly song search is much more complicated than the W model. There’s the lectionary to deal with—scripture passages that are appointed for every week of the year: an Old Testament reading, a Psalm, an Epistle reading (or one from Acts), and finally the Gospel reading. These readings are arranged according to the narrative of the Christian calendar: Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, Holy Week, Easter, Pentecost, and Ordinary Time (the season after Pentecost). More often than not, there’s an obvious theme that ties all the readings together such as contrition, service, God’s faithfulness, baptism, etc. I’ve learned to love the challenge of discovering that theme and finding the perfect songs to underscore and enhance the various portions of the Anglican mass. This process in the last year and a half has opened the door for me to many rich and beautiful hymns that I’d never heard before. It’s how I stumbled upon the stunning hymn “Come Down, O Love Divine” (lyrics: Bianco De Siena; Music: Ralph Vaugh Williams) in the weeks before Pentecost Sunday last year. Here are the verses as we sing them at our church:

Come down, O love divine, seek Thou this soul of mine,
And visit it with Thine own ardor glowing.
O Comforter, draw near, within my heart appear,
And kindle it, Thy holy flame bestowing.

O let it freely burn, till earthly passions turn
To dust and ashes in its heat consuming;
And let Thy glorious light shine ever on my sight,
And clothe me round, the while my path illuming.

Let holy charity mine outward vesture be,
And lowliness become mine inner clothing;
True lowliness of heart, which takes the humbler part,
And o’er its own shortcomings weeps with loathing.

And so the yearning strong, with which the soul will long,
Shall far out-pass the power of human telling;
For none can guess its grace, till he become the place
Wherein the Holy Spirit makes His dwelling.

I’m drawn to the specificity of this hymn. It’s about something. It’s about a specific event in the Christian narrative. The humble stance, the plaintive tone; it’s a perfect hymn about God pouring out his Holy Spirit on a contrite heart that’s found redemption through Jesus Christ.

Let this be an encouragement to modern hymn writers—a cause for inspiration to those who are suffering from writer’s block. There are so many Biblical scenes to choose from that would make for beautiful songs: the transfiguration of Christ, the feeding of the five thousand, the woman at the well, the stoning of Stephen, water baptism, washing of the disciple’s feet, the betrayal of Judas. If just a few good modern hymn writers tackled some of these subjects, the anguish that untold thousands of music ministers suffer weekly could be greatly diminished.

It’s easy to write a chorus that says:

God, you are a Holy God
I need your grace to see me through
I need your mercy to make me new
Let me live each day for you.

I just made that up in two minutes and there’s nothing wrong with it. It might fit easily and competitively among the hundreds of worship songs that are available to choose from. But compare those lines to the third stanza from the above hymn:

Let holy charity mine outward vesture be,
And lowliness become mine inner clothing;
True lowliness of heart, which takes the humbler part,
And o’er its own shortcomings weeps with loathing.

It took some real thought to craft those lines. They’re timeless. They set a standard for all of us who write music for the church. I didn’t set out to write a didactic piece. I’m reminding myself, too. Be specific when you write songs about God. Avoid cliché. Avoid convenience. Avoid an obsession with the consumer. Avoid the temptation to make commercial success your central goal. Write with intelligence, employing all the craft, skill, and experience with which God has endowed you.
————————————————————–
Fernando Ortega is a singer/songwriter and song leader at a church in Albequerque, New Mexico. He and I toured together about ten years ago and have been friends ever since. I’d rather hear him sing a hymn than anyone else on earth. His new album Come Down, O Love, Divine is available here and at iTunes.
–The Proprietor 

One comment ran:
Great post! I’m currently working on putting melodies to The Psalms and Hymns of Isaac Watts, a compilation of hundreds of his hymns and his entire work from the book of Psalms. The lyrics have blown me away. As you note, they’re about something and they are intentional in their attempt to translate Scripture into prose that can be sung. O that the Church would strive for this in their worship music instead of something that’s only viewed through the lens of being commercially viable or culturally “relevant” (whatever that means).

Foolish Predictions

How’s That “Hopey-Changey” Thing Workin’ Out

Ok, so a week in politics is a long time.  Therefore, anyone who presumes to pontificate upon the US presidential election that is still about twelve months off must be a sandwich short of a picnic. 

Yet, if present grass roots political realities in the US continue then it looks as if President Obama is not just going to lose the White House, but he is going to lose in such a way that the defeat will be labelled catastropic and historic.  We will see.  Ever since Obama took office we have ruminated on the likelihood that Obama would prove to be another Jimmy Carter–a president driven by naive ideological mishmash emotionalism, perceived as weak by the world, incompetent and ineffective at home.  His subsequent trouncing was a thing to behold (entirely unexpected by the media pundits at the time, by the way). 

It looks like we may have underestimated the negative fortunes of President Obama.
  Whilst Carter may have had many faults, corruption was not one of them.  To his shallow ineptitude, Obama has recently added the dirty smell of corruption, using tax payers money to reward companies which gave him financial support in his 2008 presidential campaign.  He appears to have acted like a true-to-type Chicago politician covertly working behind the scenes to ensure that his “debtors” get federal contracts and tax payer money. 

One current scandal involves a hapless solar panel (“green-energy”) company, called Solyndra–now bankrupt.  Here is a piece from Reuters on the matter:

Solyndra is the bankrupt solar company that received the first Department of Energy loan under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. It also is notorious in that its largest financial backer, George Kaiser, was a substantial supporter of President Barack Obama in 2008 and regularly visited the White House following the election.
Many media outlets have been covering the contacts between George Kaiser, Solyndra officials, administration officials and members of Congress. A rich paper trail will no doubt yield the facts of SolyndraGate. But my interest has always been in following the money trail and trying to understand how the United States, contrary to law, became subordinate to George Kaiser’s Argonaut in bankruptcy court.

The article goes on to trace how the company principals at Solyndra appears to have known that their company was going bankrupt, engineered a Federal bailout, but ensured that they themselves, rather than other creditors, got the money into their own pockets.  

Obama is already in deep trouble at the grass roots.  It would seem that not only are his prospects of re-election tenuous, but that the House and the Senate will result in a Democratic annihilation. This from the left-leaning Politico:

No one’s ready to write off the House yet.  But in the wake of two recent special election defeats and President Barack Obama’s declining poll ratings, Democrats are increasingly pessimistic about their prospects of winning back control in 2012.

As recently as May, when the GOP plan to overhaul Medicare looked to be a silver bullet after a dramatic special election victory, Democrats held a glimmer of hope that the House might be in play.  Now, resigned to the likelihood that the president will be a down-ballot drag in many races and absent signs of an electoral wave on the horizon, Democrats are scaling back their expectations.

Interviews with more than two dozen operatives and House members in both parties reveal that the cautious optimism of the spring has given way to a more grim view of the hurdles facing Democrats in 2012 — an unpopular president on the ballot; scores of vulnerable Republican incumbents bolstered by redistricting; free-spending, GOP-allied independent groups that will outpace their newer Democratic counterparts; and long-standing historical election trends.

While the idea of recapturing the House in 2012 has always been something of a long shot in the wake of the massive losses House Democrats suffered in 2010, the consensus is that the odds have never been longer.  “I’m glad the election’s not today,” said Democratic pollster Keith Frederick, a veteran of House races. “Every poll shows independents losing their patience for the president. These House elections tend to get nationalized, and there’s no doubt right now that as a referendum on Barack Obama, House Democrats lose.”

Assuming that there is going to be a rout resulting not just in a Republican presidency, but also in Republican control of the House and Senate, to us the real focus now needs to be on Congress.  Republican presidents, by-and-large, prove to be compromised, disappointing, and confused.  They end up being very big spenders. Fiscal conservatives they are not.  Each of the current runners for president in the Republican Party has weaknesses, gaps, inconsistencies, and foibles. 

A Republican president simply cannot be relied upon to act consistently with an ideology of small-government conservatism.  To turn the tide back in the United States requires a small-government anti-Federal House and Senate.  The Tea Party folk need to concentrate their attention upon the local and state elections for Congress.  If genuine small-government, fiscally right conservatives take control of the two legislative houses and begin to act consistently with those principles then which of the current Republican crop wins the presidential election and occupies the White House is less important. 

If both the House and the Senate go small-government conservative, then it may be appropriate to think that “hope and change” slogans should be trotted out again. 

Douglas Wilson’s Letter From America

Bad Stories and Good Cameras

Culture and Politics – Creative Control of the Reformation
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, September 21, 2011

A few weeks ago I wrote about A Jungle Full of Monkeys. In that post, I talked about the incipient reformation of aesthetics that may be taking shape among the young, restless, and Reformed. The interest in that post, and response to it, tells me that I am not just firing random neurons on this subject.

Here are just a couple of follow-up thoughts — cautions directed at two different generations.

There are saints out there of a more seasoned mien — old, listless, and Reformed — no, just kidding — who bring a great deal of experience to the subject of aesthetics. Those of them who care about it could easily miss this trend because the burgeoning interest in aesthetics is taking place in areas where they are not accustomed to look. If a church service takes place in a warehouse, it looks (architecturally) like there is no theological interest in aesthetics at all. But often it has simply been relocated — in this church, the fanatics of “standards” are all laboring at the sound board in the back. I am not here participating in a debate about where the standards should be manifested; I am simply maintaining that there ought to be such a discussion, and that we could easily find people to take up each side.

In short, I am saying that there has not so much been an abandonment of aesthetic standards among the young and Reformed as there has been a relocation of where those standards are on display. But they care about it, a lot, and when committed Christians care about glorifying something, it is astonishing how much can be done.

But to those who are engaged in this kind of reformational work, I would say this — beware of the equipment. Back in the old days, buying a bunch of brushes didn’t make you a painter. The same thing is true now. The fact that the “brushes” are far more expensive doesn’t change the principle. In the realm of aesthetics, we are dealing with some permanent things, and it never will be possible to fix a bad story with good cameras. The best sound engineer in the world won’t turn a “Jesus is my girlfriend” song into “Love bade me welcome . . .” by Herbert.

Consequently, those who are laboring in the creative arts among the young, restless, and Reformed need to pray that God give them some words. They need poets, writers, wordsmiths, screenplay writers. Special note: this is not the same thing as needing people who desperately want to be poets, writers, etc. Still less is it a need for people who want to have written something grand, but are too lazy actually to do it. We need that kind of aspiring screenwriter like we need a sucking chest wound.

The lure of the equipment exists because the equipment is complicated and expensive. Having mastered the features of the complex tool, it is easy to think there is nothing left to master. But how many of us have had the experience of staring at a movie screen, thinking that thing up there the “dumbest thing I ever saw,” while at the same time reeling under the weight of the knowledge that the dumbest thing you ever saw cost 75 million to make? And somebody — let us call him Mr. Chump — coughed that money up.

So pray that God send you someone with the words. We are the people of the Word, and so it is a good prayer.

Utterly Evil

The Perverse Always Double Down

Further to our piece on sex-education in New Zealand government schools, Herald columnist, Garth George contributed an excellent piece on the subject. 

He commences by describing our world as mad and becoming progressively more insane.  “Mad” is George’s description for a culture apostatizing from the Living God.  Religion has consequences.  False, idolatrous religion has false and evil consequences.  George is not enough of a Bible scholar to understand the profound consequences of a world where people are blinded in their own conceits and self-asserted autonomy.  He just calls it as he sees it: they are insane.  But he is not far wrong.
   

Graphic lessons in schools have proven to be a failure by any measure. I nearly choked when I read what the FPA’s Frances Bird had to say.I have suggested several times in this column over the years that the world has gone mad and I have never had cause to resile from that view.  In fact, there is plenty of evidence that it is getting even madder.

He goes on to summarize some the symptoms of reckless self-destruction of our culture evident in this shambolic pretence at education.

Can you imagine a female schoolteacher standing before a class of 15-year-old girls and simulating for their edification the noises she makes while in the throes of sexual orgasm?  Can you imagine 14-year-old schoolgirls being taught how to roll what one of them called “yucky and sticky” condoms on to plastic penises?

Can you imagine children as young as 12 being taught in class about oral sex and boys being told it’s acceptable to play with a girl’s private parts so long as “she’s okay with it”?  Can you imagine a class of 12-year-old boys discussing with their teacher the things they could do besides having intercourse, and the teacher suggesting oral sex since it “wasn’t sex” and “won’t inevitably lead to sexual intercourse”, then adding that anal sex was another option?

Can you imagine those same boys being told to lie on the floor together with their eyes shut and imagine the world was predominantly homosexual? All those things are happening in our schools right now, as this newspaper has reported this week, and if that’s not madness, then I don’t know what is.

He then turns his guns on the New Zealand Family Planning Association–a government supported organization dedicated to teaching children libertine perversions.

I nearly choked when I read what the Family Planning Association’s health promotion director Frances Bird had to say. In one breath she said that international research showed a good-quality, comprehensive sex education programme could make a significant difference. And in the next she said that New Zealand has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the developed world and that children as young as 12 are sexually active.

Considering that FPA-backed (Family Planning Association) sex education programmes have been used in schools for more than 25 years, any sane person who looks at the facts must come to the conclusion that they have been an abysmal failure. Over that time the number of teenage pregnancies, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, the number of abortions and suicides have all soared.

According to the Ministry of Youth Development, births to 15- to 19-year-olds have been rising since 2000. The birth rate increased between 2001 and 2008 from 27.5 births for every 1000 women in 2000 to 33 births to the 1000 in 2008. There were 5185 births to this age group in 2008 compared with 3787 in 2000. The ministry says the teenage birthrate is still fifth-highest in the developed world at last count. This country also has among the highest rates of STDs, abortions and suicides in the developed world.

One manifestation of madness or insanity is when one does the same thing repeatedly, in expectation of different results. When the FPA’s madness produces not less, but more sexual promiscuity, unwanted pregnancies and soaring abortion rates amongst teenagers, the response? More.  We need more “education”.  Doubling down in the face of such powerful contrary evidence to your propaganda is not just a sign of ignorance, but of a wilful, stubborn darkness of heart.

George then takes a swipe at the degradation of sex to an animal function–physically pleasurable and, therefore, to be experienced and exploited as soon as hormones inform us “naturally” that it is time.

The tragedy is that the whole sex education thing is predicated on the spurious proposition that sex between consenting children is on about the same level as having a meal together or going to the movies. And that is a dreadful, dangerous, damaging lie.

The horrific result is that thousands of our children are today finding themselves abused, impregnated or poxed because they’ve been taught how to do it.  And far from encouraging them to delay sexual relations, it encourages them to experiment. In children that is only natural.

A far more reasonable approach would be to teach abstinence.  He reviews some case history of sex-education programmes stressing abstinence has being helpful and effective.  But, of course, that would not represent the doubling-down that our madness and degeneration demand.  He concludes with this indictment:

But what really gets me is that our sex education is devaluing what can be one of life’s most glorious experiences. It takes no account of the emotional and spiritual dimensions of the sex act, the means by which two, a man and a woman, can become one flesh. Rather, this so-called sex education is in fact child abuse and is tantamount to paedophilia. It is not just misguided, not just ill-thought-out, not just dangerous, it is utterly evil. 

Utterly evil.  The nail on the head.

Douglas Wilson’s Letter From America

A Jungle Full of Monkeys

Goo-Mongers – Postmodernism
Written by Douglas Wilson
Wednesday, September 07, 2011

There are two basic ways for evangelical Christians to care about the arts. One is the Kuyperian Reformed route, and the other is the way of bohemian pose-striking. One of the most heartening aspects of the “young, restless, and Reformed” development is the possibility of a real aesthetic reformation. Perhaps I should explain myself.

Scripture teaches us, over and over again, that deliverance comes from odd and unexpected places. And Scripture also tells us repeatedly that the faithful who are waiting for such deliverance have a tendency to wait by the wrong door.
David was just a shepherd boy. Joseph was handed off to a passing caravan for a bit of money. Daniel was a slave, captured in war. Esther was just one more beauty for the harem. Jeremiah was just a kid. And Jesus grew up in that podunk place, Galilee of the Gentiles.

When it comes to what is true, what is good, and what is beautiful, the emergent types have gone bohemian in all three areas. Their truth has gone to relativistic mush, their ideas of goodness are more interested in anal intercourse than they ought to be, and their concept of beauty is summed up by outre tattoos in inappropriate places. They have fallen for the simplest of Screwtape’s devices, the idea that “gritty” is real and “lovely” is bourgeois. They fell into that simple trap because they are such deep people.

In the meantime, with our culture teetering on the edge of the great desolation, the academic Keepers of Kuyper have been reading learned papers to each other, dealing with lots of good material, but when anybody coughs, a small cloud of dust appears above the audience, and then slowly drifts away. A lot of really good stuff there, but about as lively as you might expect. They do produce some good books though.

And so then, in this setting, against all odds, a large sector of up and coming young evangelicals become ardent . . . Calvinists. And by Calvinist, I do not mean someone who grew up in the environs of Grand Rapids, and whose thought processes are tinctured with some elements of a by-gone Reformed tradition. I mean somebody who acctually thinks that God is God, all the way up, all the way down, and all the way across.

This means that all the elements of a true Kuyperian rennaissance are now in place. It has not happened yet, but it is starting to. I have noticed some quite striking developments, which I may write about in a future post. This is because it is not really possible to believe that God is God, and then not have it come into authoritative contact with everything. The young, restless, and Reformed are on the same conveyor belt called time that the rest of us are, and this means they will shortly have kids to educate, schools to start, businesses to build, albums to record, paintings to paint, novels to write . . . and decisions to make.

If those decisions continue to be in line with the evangelical truth that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, and the Reformed truth that He did not do this in some kind of haphazard way, and the Kuyperian truth that He is invested in the entire creation, then we are on the threshold of a striking aesthetic reformation. And about time.

Don’t get me wrong. When I look at the young, restless, and Reformed I do not see a likely source of deliverance. They actually make me think of a jungle full of monkeys. But perhaps the Holy Spirit smiles and says, “Just the thing.”

Turning From the Sins of our Fathers

Reformation in our Day

The seeds of our current prevailing secular idolatry were sown three hundred years ago by church leaders.  They wanted to assure their world that the Christian faith was grounded, not in God and the work of His Spirit in the hearts of men, but in human reason.  This necessitated making room for reason–giving it a locus of authority independent of God.

The sphere in which human reason was authoritative, and in which it could bring God to the bar, was the study of creation.  Nature was no longer seen first through the pre-interpretive lens of Scripture, but first (and last) through the ratiocinations of man.  These ratiocinations purported to “prove” the existence of the God spoken of in the Bible.  The Bible everywhere, but particularly the Psalms, speak of God’s ceaseless, total and complete involvement in the entire creation.  Even the brute beasts of the forest cry to the Lord for food, and thank Him when He provides it.  Teaching such as this church leaders covered over, then eventually denied.

Reformation, and a return to the cultural dominance of Christendom, will not be possible until the Church recognises these sins and repents of them.  It is critical that the Church rediscovers and re-proclaims that all the created realms came into existence in the first place and continue to exist only because God spoke and continues to speak their existence.  Only by God’s continual speaking do atoms exist and the structures of Nature hold. It is critical that the Church rediscovers this God–the only God–and returns to worship Him for Who is truly is.   

This is, and was, the historical Christian faith.  The last three hundred years have been a departure, a defalcation from orthodoxy at this point.  This is why we charge the modern and post-modern church in general with the sin of idolatry–of worshipping a god of its own devising, not the God revealed in the Scriptures. It is essential that the Church repent of these things and return once again to believe in the God of ex-nihilo creation and exhaustive, total providence.

Here is the orthodox doctrine, now largely lost to the Church, as recapitulated and applied by B. B. Warfield:

It is because we cannot be robbed of God’s providence that we know, amid whatever encircling gloom, that all things shall work together for good to those that love him.  It is because we cannot be robbed of God’s providence that we know that nothing can separate us from the love of Christ–not tribulation, nor anguish, nor persecution, nor famine, nor nakedness, nor peril, nor sword. . . . Were not God’s providence over all, could trouble come without his sending, were Christians the possible prey of this or the other fiendish enemy, when perchance God was musing, or gone aside, or on a journey, nor sleeping, what certainty of hope could be ours?

“Does God send trouble?”  Surely, surely.  He and he only.  To the sinner in punishment, to his children in chastisement.  To suggest that it does not always come from his hand is to take away all our comfort.  [B. B. Warfield, “God’s Providence Over All,”  Selected Shorter Writings of Benjamin B. Warfield, 2 vols., ed. John E. Meeter (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2001), 1: 110.]

Note Warfield’s allusion to Baal, as lampooned by Elijah in I Kings 18.  We either worship the God of all-governing, all-conditioning, all-disposing providence, or we worship is an idol–a creature of human fabrication.

Studies in I Samuel

Mercy Stands Taller

Book of Samuel
Written by Douglas Wilson
Sunday, September 18, 2011

INTRODUCTION:
David seeks to get away from Saul, but he cannot get away from his anointing. He can evade Saul, but he cannot evade the fact that a new Israel is going to start to form around him. David goes into the wilderness and finds a throne. Saul goes to his throne and finds a wilderness.

THE TEXT:
“Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? . . .” (1 Sam. 21:1-15).

SUMMARY OF THE TEXT:
David continues on the run, and he comes to Nob, a priestly city (v. 1). The tabernacle had apparently been moved there after the destruction of Shiloh. They didn’t have the ark there, but they still put out the showbread. The showbread was also called the bread of the Presence—but the Presence wasn’t there anymore. A lot of things were dislocated. Ahimelech was concerned because David did not have the kind of entourage he should have had, and so David told him he was on a secret mission (v. 2).
David asks for five loaves of bread (v. 3). Ahimelech says he has no common bread, but that David can have the showbread if his young men have kept themselves from women—meaning they were dedicated to holy war (v. 4). David replies in the affirmative (v. 5), and so the priest gives him the showbread (v. 6). But Doeg the Edomite was there (v. 7). David then asks for weapons (v. 8), and so the priest gives him the sword of Goliath (v. 9). And so David then fled to Gath, where Achish was king (v. 10). But the servants of Achish recognized him, and repeated the words of the song that the women of Israel had sung, back at the beginning of all the trouble (v. 11). David was starting to hate that song. And so David came to be afraid of Achish (v. 12), and so pretended to be insane (v. 13). And Achish was fooled (v. 14), and delivers one of the great lines of Scripture (v. 15).

SOME BACKGROUND:
Ahimelech was the great-grandson of Eli, and the brother of Ahijah—the man who came into the priestly service of Saul after the departure of Samuel (1 Sam. 14:3). Jesus identifies this episode as happening in the “days” of Abiathar (Mark 2:26), the son of Ahimelech, who joined up with David later, and who served as high priest for David. Each one of these five loaves contained about three and a half pounds of flour (Lev. 24:5-9). David already had a group of men around him, but they were apparently a pretty rag tag bunch, which is what caused Ahimelech to wonder about the absence of a more regular detail. In an odd move, David receives the sword of Goliath and promptly flees to the city of Goliath.

ETHICAL FUSSINESS:
David uses deception twice in this chapter. Once was to mislead Ahimelech, giving him the protection of plausible deniability (which didn’t work), and the other instance was when he pretended to be mad in order to get away from Achish (which did work). We have previously seen that deception is an essential part of warfare, and pious evangelicals who object to this are slicing it way too fine. An example would be the (otherwise commendable) ESV Study Bible, which says of this place, “Though David normally acted as an upright man, the Bible does not hesitate to record honestly his instances of wrongdoing.” But what sense does this make? Do we want to say that it is not a sin to blow somebody up with a tank just so long as you never camouflage it? In this instance, David is using deceit as a way of avoiding direct conflict with Saul, and God bless him.

If you were standing at a crossroads, and a screaming woman ran by, and then about five minutes later, a lunatic with furious eyes and an axe ran up, demanding to know “which way she went,” I trust that all of you here would lie like a Christian. And none of this changes the fact that the lake of fire is reserved for liars (Rev. 21:8), that the ninth commandments prohibits the corruption of the courts (Ex. 20:16), and that we are commanded not to lie to one another because we have put off the old man (Col. 3:9). Kids, if your mom asks if you made your bed, and you reply that you did (even though you did not), you cannot fix it by appealing to the Hebrew midwives, or to the faithful deception that Rahab used. You should get swats a couple times—once for the lie, and the other time for the faulty hermeneutic.

THE SHOWBREAD:
Jesus refers to this incident, and He does so in a way that exonerates David (Matt. 12:1-8). The law of God, the Lord teaches, is not built out of two by fours. It is a case law system, the same kind of thing as our common law system, which means that the principles of justice must be understood, and they cannot be understood unless we are free men in Christ. Legalists are not qualified to be judges. Judges need to understand and love the law. This means that we must be the kind of men who understand that God wants mercy, and not sacrifice. Not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all is fulfilled, but this does not turn the Lord of mercy into a cross-eyed i-dotter.

The law made allowances within it, as can be seen by the priests who had to work in the Temple on the Sabbath. Ahimelech had to replace the twelve loaves every Sabbath, which meant that every Sabbath he had to bake bread. What Ahimelech could bake, David could eat—because of two principles. The first is the presence of one who is greater than the Temple. Which is greater, the bread of the Presence or the Presence itself? The second is the authority of mercy. Mercy does not negate authority; mercy has authority.

Do not confuse this. Mercy is not what happens when your standards fall apart. Laziness in discipline is not mercy. Mercy is what happens when your standards are outranked. Mercy stands taller than justice.

Sex Education in Pagan Schools

 Imagining the World as Predominantly Homosexual

The NZ Herald has been running a “thread” on sex ed in schools.  Some parents have discovered what their children are actually being taught in the government schools and they are angry. 

Schools are being accused of going too far in what they teach children about sex. Children as young as 12 are being taught about oral sex and told it’s acceptable to play with a girl’s private parts as long as “she’s okay with it”.

In other cases, 14-year-old girls are being taught how to put condoms on plastic penises, and one female teacher imitated the noises she made during orgasm to her class of 15-year-olds. The often-graphic nature of today’s sex education lessons is considered perfectly acceptable, and necessary, by some parents, but many others are shocked and say it has gone too far.

Now the other “side” has weighed in.  The professionals.
  They are citing “international research” to “prove” that sex education in schools can actually reduces teenage sexual activity.  Yup.  And we have research to prove that placebos can cure diseases. 

Good quality and comprehensive education programmes in schools can delay the first time a teenager has sex and reduce risk-taking behaviour, international studies show.  Their findings are backed by Family Planning chief executive Jackie Edmond who said programmes were most effective when they began before a young person first has sex. “Comprehensive sexuality education aims to equip children and young people with the knowledge, skills and values to have safe, fulfilling and enjoyable relationships and to take responsibility for their health and well-being.”

“Because sexuality education is much more than ‘the birds and the bees’ it should start young.”

The NZ Herald has also run a bio on a young girl who has fallen pregnant after one of the enlightened sex education sessions in government schools.  She is about to give birth.  She claims that her sex-ed class encouraged her to have sex as long as everyone consented.

A pregnant teenager says sex education in schools does not prevent young people from having sex – if anything, it encourages it.  Amber-Leigh Erasmus is due to give birth to her first child on Saturday, a result of having unprotected sex during New Year celebrations.

The Hibiscus Coast 17-year-old lost her virginity at 14, a year after she was taught about sex at school and the fact it was “okay as long as you consented”.

Now sometimes social issues work through society in a kind of pendulum effect.  One generation is permissive; the next is far more strictly moral.  Will sex education in schools follow this effect?  Will it swing back to a more sane position, introducing a moral context which promotes abstinence and sex only within the bounds of marriage?

Unfortunately we do not believe so.  In the first place the edifice of our culture is built upon an established religion of evolutionary materialism.  Human beings are nothing more than biological machines.  Sex is part of the machine function.  Sex education will therefore always focus upon the mechanics of sex.  How it works.  How you do it.  The moving parts.  Whilst evolutionary biologists speculate on morality being a product of evolution its moral codes are nebulous, undefined, and racked with the naturalistic fallacy: what exists is morally right. 

Thus sex education in government schools (which exist to propagate the established religions of our age) will always focus upon sex being an ordinary part of life, a biological function, to be participated in as one participates in eating food, or breathing, or playing sport.  This will not change until our nation repents of its pathetic idolatries and false gods and turns back to the Living God. 

Secondly, it could be argued that government schools and the “sex education lobby” will eventually come to realise that it is far better for parents to ensure their children receive appropriate sex education.  Not a hope.  Why?  Because government schools proceed on the assumption and assertion that parents are incompetent to educate or to arrange for an appropriate education for their children.  They need experts to take over.  Hence New Zealand government education is “free” (a lie), compulsory, and secular. 

So if there is to be no change but only a relentless drive to promote animal-like behaviour as sex-education, what will the government classrooms be promoting in twenty-five years time?  Prostitution will be promoted as a normal part of life and an excellent career for pupils to aspire to.  Prostitutes, now euphemistically referred to as “sex-workers” will be invited to promote their careers to pupils, with explanations of how brothels work, the kinds of sex workers one can employ, how a sex worker goes about his or her work and so forth.  They will also be asked to demonstrate their craft in the classroom.  Teachers will bring their current lovers into the class to demonstrate advanced techniques of foreplay and coitus.  And so on.  All this has actually occurred in reported cases in the United States. 

We are fast following.

The father of a 12-year-old boy is questioning why his son has been taught “all the grubby stuff” about sex, but none of the basics, such as how a baby is made.  The man, who is in his 40s, took his son out of sex education classes last week because of how explicit they had been.

The boy’s class had discussed things they could do besides intercourse, and the teacher had suggested oral sex as it “wasn’t sex” and “won’t inevitably lead to sexual intercourse”.  Anal sex was discussed as another option. Students also lay on the floor together with their eyes shut imagining the world was predominantly gay.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Unbelief.  

Bring Back the Cane, Sir

 Even Pupils Agree

Necessity is the mother of invention, they say.  Maybe it’s not surprising, then, that in the UK half the parents want corporal punishment to be brought back into schools.  Many schools resemble war zones and a growing proportion parents have apparently had enough.  They no longer believe the naive idealism of their governments; they are ready for some hard headed realism.  And that means support for reintroducing the cane to government schools.

According to the Telegraph,

Some 49 per cent of mothers and fathers are in favour of corporal punishment to crack down on the worst offenders, it was revealed. The vast majority of parents also want greater use of other back-to-basics discipline measures including detention, expulsion and forcing badly behaved children to write lines.

Even a fifth of secondary school pupils themselves support the reintroduction of caning or smacking. The disclosure comes amid claims from Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, that “adult authority” has been eroded in too many schools.

Corporal punishment was banned in the UK in the 1980’s.  New Zealand has followed the same naive lunacy.  
Corporal punishment was banned in state schools in 1986.

Some independent schools continued to mete out physical punishment, such as a slap to the hands or ordering press-ups, until it was outlawed 10 years later.But a survey of 2,000 parents and 530 children by the Times Educational Supplement has found strong support for the reintroduction of smacking or caning to discipline the most badly behaved pupils.

The UK Department of Education is strenuously resisting any moves back to employ corporal punishment.  Dark Ages and all that stuff. But they are being pushed.  The Department is “toughening up teachers’ disciplinary powers and restoring their authority,”whatever that might mean.

Of course if authority is once again delegated to government schools in the UK to employ corporal punishment, the next thing will be pressure to de-criminalise disciplinary smacking in homes.  There will be an inevitable linkage.  

Canada Spreads the Love

Molech Ovens Making a Comeback

Here is Mark Steyn on the Canadian version of the death penalty: suspended sentence for the murderer who committed infanticide on her child for the crime of being alive.

Fourth-Trimester Abortion

By Mark Steyn 

Posted on September 13, 2011

From the Court of Queen’s Bench (the appellate court) in Alberta:

The Wetaskiwin, Alta., woman convicted of infanticide for killing her newborn son, was given a three-year suspended sentence Friday by an Edmonton Court of Queen’s Bench judge.
Katrina Effert was 19 on April 13, 2005, when she secretly gave birth in her parents’ home, strangled the baby boy with her underwear and threw the body over a fence into a neighbour’s yard…
Effert will have to abide by conditions for the next three years but she won’t spend time behind bars for strangling her newborn son.

Indeed. As Judge Joanne Veit puts it:

“While many Canadians undoubtedly view abortion as a less than ideal solution to unprotected sex and unwanted pregnancy, they generally understand, accept and sympathize with the onerous demands pregnancy and childbirth exact from mothers, especially mothers without support,” she writes… “Naturally, Canadians are grieved by an infant’s death, especially at the hands of the infant’s mother, but Canadians also grieve for the mother.”

Gotcha. So a superior court judge in a relatively civilized jurisdiction is happy to extend the principles underlying legalized abortion in order to mitigate the killing of a legal person — that’s to say, someone who has managed to make it to the post-fetus stage. How long do those mitigating factors apply? I mean, “onerous demands”-wise, the first month of a newborn’s life is no picnic for the mother. How about six months in? The terrible twos?
Speaking of “onerous demands,” suppose you’re a “mother without support” who’s also got an elderly relative around with an “onerous” chronic condition also making inroads into your time?
And in what sense was Miss Effert a “mother without support”? She lived at home with her parents, who provided her with food and shelter. How smoothly the slick euphemisms — “accept and sympathize . . . onerous demands” — lubricate the slippery slope.

Another Giant Leap Foward

Shakespeare Going the Way of the Dodo

According to NZ Herald columnist, Garth George, Shakespeare is on his way out.  No longer will Shakespeare be a compulsory part of the English curriculum for Level 13 students.  Here is George’s cynical comment on this great educational leap forward at our government schools. 

As of next year changes to the Level 3 English component of the ridiculous National Certificate of Educational Achievement, which asks students to respond critically to a Shakespearean drama, will expire and not be replaced.

It is the last Shakespeare-specific unit in the curriculum and its demise will mean that studying the Bard will be entirely up to individual teachers. Not much hope for him, then, since I suspect that one reason for this is that far too many English teachers today are simply incapable of interpreting him to their students.

Whilst we understand George’s frustration, and indeed agree that removing the study of Shakespeare from the government school curriculum is deplorable, we have to confess we are not surprised. 

Firstly–a general observation.
  When civil government attempts to run anything outside the basic tasks for which it has genuine (God ordained) competence (justice, defence, maintaining the peace) the repeated outcome is almost always gross bumbling and woeful waste and incompetence.  Why, then, would be surprised that government schools would be any different.  The reason we have 30% illiteracy and innumeracy in New Zealand is because most of the schools in this country are government run schools.  The underlying reason we have, on any given school day, ten percent of the student population absent from government schools without a justified, certified excuse is because governments are incompetent as educators.

Therefore it comes as no surprise that our government schools constantly lower educational standards to make “achievement” more easy.  After all that is the fundamental objective and intent of our unique NCEA qualification.  It has been deliberately designed to make education and educational qualifications more relevant to NZ pupils–which is to say, the system is designed to facilitate pupils getting qualifications in what they can do and in what interests them.  Since its introduction we have seen a constant watering down of NCEA: the removal of Shakespeare is just one more example.  That is why schools (and students) are pushing for more and more internal assessment on subjects: they can demonstrate their educational excellence by passing out serried rows of  “achieved” students, where, in the end, it is the teacher and the pupils who are defining and identifying and certifying the “pass”. 

We have to make a bit of a distinction at this point.  The hard science subjects have largely escaped the grade inflation and standards deflation.  There is a certain hard reality to the material world.  No matter what our preferences, we cannot suspend natural laws, orders, and structures at will.  Gravity is gravity whether one likes it or not.  But when it comes to the liberal arts, free flights of fancy are able to take over.  There is no “hardness” about these subjects.  They are consequently far more subject to the whim and fancy of teachers and pupils. 

Why, however, should we be critical of Shakespeare being removed from the English curriculum?  Surely there is nothing wrong with replacing the ancient Bard with a modern, fast moving, racy playwright.  Like Roger Hall and some of his oh-so-contemporary comedies of manners, for instance. The answer lies in the word “civilisation”.  Shakespeare and his corpus represent a very significant way point in the development of Western civilisation, not only in capturing and portraying the world-and-life view of Elizabethan England, but in drawing together so many themes and strands that had influenced the development of Western civilisation from the time of the ancient Hebrews and then the classical era onwards.  Not only that: Shakespeare’s plays are so significant and momentous they have influenced the West for four hundred years since. 

In a word, Shakespearian plays are able to make us wise.

To cut ourselves off from Shakespeare is to cut ourselves off from our cultural roots, our heritage–the world-view that we have inherited and that Shakespeare has facilitated passing down to us.  Moreover, that is the only Christian civilisation we have seen to date in the history of the world.  Therefore, the study of it is vital to Christians and to the Church in general.  That is why Chinese Christian academics, for example, are pouring over the great works of theology, literature, and Christian philosophers of the West.  They are attempting to learn what a Christianised China would look like, and how to bring it into being. 

But of these things government schools know nothing.  Their “thought leaders” find it objectionable to suggest that we can learn anything of the past that is relevant.  The idea that there is an authoritative and vital tradition to be imparted and inculcated into students is not just wrong, they regard it as an offensive anathema. 

For Christians, our schools will always be very different.  Focused upon learning the past thoroughly–in every subject–so that we might understand and be effective in serving God in the present.  That is why Christian educators and Christian schooling will never get rid of Shakespeare. 

The Ugliness of the Prosperity "Gospel"

The Gospel-Emptying Cruelty of Pat Robertson

Justin Taylor

Sometimes I think the category of “righteous anger” was created to respond to people like Pat Robertson.
His latest cringe-inducing statement is that a man should divorce his wife suffering with Alzheimer’s disease and “start all over again” if he is lonely and in need of companionship. When asked about the vow “to death due us part,” Robertson responded that “if you respect that vow,” then Alzheimer’s can be viewed as “a kind of a death.”

The best counsel is usually to ignore Robertson.
But when a professing Christian says such cruel and worldly things, it also presents an opportunity to re-examine gospel truth afresh. In that regard Russell Moore has provided a wonderful service for us. He rightly writes that Robertson’s statement “is more than an embarrassment. This is more than cruelty. This is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

At the arrest of Christ, his Bride, the church, forgot who she was, and denied who he was. He didn’t divorce her. He didn’t leave.

The Bride of Christ fled his side, and went back to their old ways of life. When Jesus came to them after the resurrection, the church was about the very thing they were doing when Jesus found them in the first place: out on the boats with their nets. Jesus didn’t leave. He stood by his words, stood by his Bride, even to the Place of the Skull, and beyond.

A woman or a man with Alzheimer’s can’t do anything for you. There’s no romance, no sex, no partnership, not even companionship. That’s just the point. Because marriage is a Christ/church icon, a man loves his wife as his own flesh. He cannot sever her off from him simply because she isn’t “useful” anymore.

Pat Robertson’s cruel marriage statement is no anomaly. He and his cohorts have given us for years a prosperity gospel with more in common with an Asherah pole than a cross. They have given us a politicized Christianity that uses churches to “mobilize” voters rather than to stand prophetically outside the power structures as a witness for the gospel.

But Jesus didn’t die for a Christian Coalition; he died for a church. And the church, across the ages, isn’t significant because of her size or influence. She is weak, helpless, and spattered in blood. He is faithful to us anyway.

If our churches are to survive, we must repudiate this Canaanite mammonocracy that so often speaks for us. But, beyond that, we must train up a new generation to see the gospel embedded in fidelity, a fidelity that is cruciform.

You can keep reading the whole thing here.  To see the gospel-centered perspective in action and in contrast, listen to or read the story of Robertson McQuilkin’s commitment to his wife Muriel.