1. I thought Romney would get a solid win. Boy, was I wrong.
2. Pro-life politicians need to learn how to speak clearly, carefully, and winsomely at all times. That may be an impossible standard, given the media and electorate.
3. People (including me) are fond of thinking that America is a center-right country that sometimes elects liberals to govern. I think we need to re-think that thought.
4. It’s an odd country where the electorate is profoundly dissatisfied with the direction of the country and then votes for the status quo.
5. Faithfulness begat Prosperity, and the daughter devoured the mother. Cotton Mather
6. The Democratic Party (and portions of the Republican party) has successfully turned politics into a religion. I’d be willing to bet that a large number of people voted for their candidate because they identified with his “tribe,” while being largely ignorant of his specific proposals.
7. We may have reached the tipping point from a growth economy to a transfer economy. A growth economy enlarges the pie and lifts all boats (to mix metaphors). A transfer economy manages a shrinking pie. We just voted to fight over the shrinking pie.
8. We’re witnessing the triumph of envy, resentment, and blame-shifting in American culture. The President ran ads saying that Romney is “not one of us.” He stirred up crowds with “voting is the best revenge.” For his entire first term, he blamed America’s woes on George W. Bush, House Republicans, the Japanese Tsunami, and so on. And 51% of the American people rewarded him for it. Class warfare worked. Demonizing success worked. And I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it worked because many of us are full of envy and resentment ourselves, and because we hate to take responsibility for our actions.
9. The President vocally, clearly, and persistently advocated for same-sex marriage and the right to abortion. A substantial portion of the American people gladly embrace the culture of death.
10. A sign of the times: A woman’s right to make herself barren is considered a part of reproductive rights.
11. Jethro on leaders: Choose men who fear God and hate a bribe. Obama: Vote for me and I’ll keep the free abortifacients coming.
12. This looks to me like a “father hunger” election. A fatherless generation is looking for a Father in Washington. The President won single women by 38%. The President, as a man abandoned by his own father, is in a unique position to appeal to the needs, desires, and fears of the fatherless (there’s a deep connection between father hunger, sexual “freedom,” and envy). He put out a famous ad about the life of Julia, a single woman who has most of her needs provided for her by the federal government, from high school through old age. In the liberal vision, the State replaces the father as the direct provider for the family. I predict that the State will make a lousy dad.
13. On the father hunger note, I think Wilson’s book on the subject is probably one of the most important books on connecting the dots between fathers, envy, provision, abortion, environmentalism, homosexuality, the welfare state, and the gospel. Here’s a quotation I thought of last night: “Chesterton says somewhere that free love, sexual laxity, is the first and most obvious bribe that can be offered to a slave. The kind of freedoms for which the Left—ever friendly to the burgeoning state—agitates are the kind that can be indulged in a six by eight prison cell. You can look at porn in such a cell, you can fornicate in a cell, you can smoke dope, and so on. In contrast, the kind of liberties that conservatives want people to have are the liberties that allow them to move around the country, settle wherever they want, start a business, make money, and most important, keep that money in order to feed their families.” (Doug Wilson, Father Hunger)
14. Get ready for the further Balkanization of America, the division of people along racial, class, and generational lines. I predict increasing generational conflict (old versus young, parents versus their children), centered around abortion, end-of-life health care decisions, euthanasia, the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, job creation, and so forth. Class warfare and the demonization of “the rich” (or at least the wrong kind of rich) will continue. And I have no idea how to think about racial polarization in the age of Obama.
15. This is the flowering of the 1960’s sexual revolution (and associated movements). The media, government schools, universities, and culture-makers are overwhelmingly progressive and hostile to the gospel and the Scriptures. As someone said, you can’t fight a culture war if you don’t have a culture. Seems to me that figuring out what a godly culture is and cultivating it within our churches and communities is one of the chief challenges for Christians.
16. Some day President Obama and all those who support the murder of unborn children will stand before the God who gives life. That’s a terrifying consolation.
17. Upside: We’ll get to learn what it’s like to be Jeremiah and Ezekiel when Nebuchadnezzar was on his way to Jerusalem. I’ve always been curious.
18. A hermeneutical question for Bible-believing Christians: Does God still judge nations today for specific sins, and do we have the ability to recognize his intentions in historical events? Natural disasters, willful blindness of leaders, societal disintegration: are these God’s judgment for specific sins and how can we know? It seems to me that recovering our prophetic voice means learning to stand in God’s counsel and then to interpret the present time in light of God’s authoritative word.
19. A practical question for Bible-believing Christians: Will we hold the line on the Bible’s teaching on sexuality and gender in the face of increasing hostility, opposition, and marginalization? Will we continue to be the 7000 who don’t bow the knee to Baal?
20. Here’s what I’m preaching to myself in light of the country’s downward trajectory:
    1. Love your wife. May she never desire to look to the State for provision and protection.
    2. Love your boys. May they never pray in their hearts, “Our Father which art in Washington.”
    3. Teach your students. May they think and feel and live like Christians all the way down.
    4. Pray for the mercy and justice of God. May His kingdom come and His will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
    5. Remember that there are only two ways to live and two ways to die. And in God’s world, faithful death is always followed by resurrection.
    6. Cultivate a genuine counter-culture where God has planted you. Generational love and faithfulness; honor to godly authorities; wise husbands and fathers who provide for their households; strong wives and mothers who don’t fear what is frightening; care for widows, orphans, and the unborn and their mothers; and a readiness to give gospel love when the Lie comes undone.
    7. Hope in God and laugh at the time to come.

Why Did God Create This World?

It condenses much of the material that we’ve covered in class. As always, questions and feedback are welcome in the comments.

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 92)

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 92)

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 90)

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 89)

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 88)

For example, recently a friend of mine wrote a well-crafted call for the church to be the church for Christians who struggle with same-sex desire. In it, he wrote poignantly of the loneliness that accompanies the life of faithful Christian celibacy in the face of same sex attraction, as well as the need for communities of supportive Christians who can walk with someone in the fight of faith. In reading it, I was awakened afresh to the desire to be a part of a church where sinners are welcome.

But the need for the church to embrace Christians who struggle against same sex desire is not the only need. There is also the need for faithful witness to the sinfulness of homosexual behavior in the face of rising politically correct sentiment. In some countries, it is illegal to preach on the sin of homosexuality. Therefore, the church must be winsome and bold as we continue to plead with sinners to flee from the wrath to come.

So then, we’re pulled in two directions. We must love those who are struggling while simultaneously resisting calls to approve homosexual behavior. In other words, we must be drawn and quartered.

For an excellent example of the kind of thing I’m talking about, read this interview of David Powlison. He describes perfectly the balance of seeking to live at both extremes.

Adrian Warnock has the video and notes on the sermon. He also throws up a couple of quotations by Edwards and Lloyd-Jones on the need to “change people in their seats” (Keller’s phrase). I can’t be sure, but I think the Lloyd-Jones quotation is building off of  one from Edwards in Some Thoughts Concerning the Reviving of Religion. Here’s the story:

During the Awakening, religious meetings were almost a daily practice and people would hear multiple sermons per week. Charles Chauncy and other opponents of the Awakening disparaged this practice because there was no way that people could remember what they heard in order to apply it to their lives. Edwards described this objection thusly:

The frequent preaching that has lately been, has in a particular manner been objected against as unprofitable and prejudicial. ‘Tis objected that when sermons are heard so very often, one sermon tends to thrust out another; so that persons lose the benefit of all: they say two or three sermons in a week is as much as they can remember and digest.

Edwards responded by making an incredibly profound statement on the benefit of preaching:

Such objections against frequent preaching, if they ben’t from an enmity against religion, are for want of duly considering the way that sermons usually profit an auditory. The main benefit that is obtained by preaching is by impression made upon the mind in the time of it, and not by an effect that arises afterwards by a remembrance of what was delivered. And though an after remembrance of what was heard in a sermon is oftentimes very profitable; yet, for the most part, that remembrance is from an impression the words made on the heart in the time of it; and the memory profits as it renews and increases that impression; and a frequent inculcating [of] the more important things of religion in preaching has no tendency to raze out such impressions, but to increase them, and fix them deeper and deeper in the mind, as is found by experience. (Some Thoughts, Part III, in Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 4, page 397)

That statement has been hugely influential for me as I approach not only preaching, but classroom teaching and listening to sermons. My primary goal in hearing a sermon is not to take copious notes for later reflection (as helpful as those may be). The main goal in hearing a sermon is to meet with the living God, to have his grace awaken my affections so that I am conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29).

Such a view of preaching and teaching is hugely liberating because it means that my aim as a preacher is not that my hearers be able to pass a quiz two days (or 30 minutes!) later, but that they would encounter the triune God in the preached word and be transformed from one degree of glory to another (2 Corinthians 3:17-18).

Before this post gets too long, I’ll just direct your attention to one other place where Keller unpacks this view of preaching and contrasts it with common models today. In an issue of Cutting Edge, the Vineyard Church magazine, Keller had this to say about informational vs. experiential preaching:

The informational view of preaching conceives of preaching as changing people’s lives after the sermon. They listen to the sermon, take notes, and then apply the Biblical principles during the week. But this assumes that our main problem is a lack of compliance to Biblical principles when, in fact, our problems are actually due to a lack of joy and belief in the gospel. If that’s our real problem, then the purpose of preaching is to make Christ so real to the heart that in the sermon itself people have an experience of God’s grace such that false idols and false saviors lose their power and grip on us on the spot. That’s the experiential view of preaching we see in someone like Jonathan Edwards.

In any event, I think that the view of preaching set forth by Edwards, Lloyd-Jones, and Keller is worth deep reflection and meditation. I’d love to hear your thoughts.

What’s more, the order apparently even revokes authorization for the latter kind of stem cell research, the kind that no one objects to. That’s right. In the name of science and healing people, we’re going to stop the research that works and is morally okay in favor of the unproven, morally-objectionable kind. Hope and Change.

Here’s a sampling of the President’s speech about this new policy:

“In recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research — and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.”

Got that? Obama believes it; that settles it. And don’t forget, he’s “a person of faith,” which is kind of like saying “he’s a person that’s breathing.” Apparently, the content of that faith is his right as supreme leader to force people through coercive taxation to pay for wicked research. Some creed.

Oh, and don’t forget: we’re “called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering.”*

*”Unless you live in a womb somewhere. Or a laboratory. Then your reason for existing (or not) is to alleviate the rest of our suffering. At the expense of your life.”

And though it’s not a popular comparison, and kind of inflammatory, the Nazi’s also had the “capacity,” and “will” to pursue their research. And their “consciences” were just as seared as President Obama’s.

“Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it’s also about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about letting scientists like those who are here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

This quotation relates exactly to my point about the evangelical appeal to science in the public square. The President’s hubris notwithstanding, this executive order is so full of ideology that it’s coming out his ears. “Science” is being co-opted by idolatrous and wicked ideology. The appeal to “the facts” is simply masking that ideology.

Which is why to try to have this debate purely at the level of science is a recipe for failure. There are fundamental idolatries at work here. Sacrifices must be offered; the “priests” who run the abortion racket must be paid off. Science is just trotted out to give the whole thing an air of legitimacy.

Meanwhile, Rick Warren isn’t commenting on any of this because he doesn’t like to comment on political matters and evangelicals are busy printing “Wild About Horses” Bibles and doing altar calls with text messages, just like Jesus told us to.

But in all of this, we must remember that God still reigns over the universe and he will judge this nation and all nations in due time. We may be slouching toward Babylon at the moment, but we can take comfort in God’s preservation of his people. There will always be the 7,000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal (Romans 11:1-6). And when God acts to establish justice among the nations, it will be because he first acted to establish true worship in the hearts of his people.

So, before you go to bed tonight, read a psalm, sing a hymn with your family, and offer up some glad-hearted prayers of supplication, with gratitude in your heart to God. “Commit your way to the Lord, and he will act. His steadfast love endures forever.”

For more articles on the embryonic stem cell issue, Justin Taylor has a good list of articles.

When my wife and I were first married in the fall of 2005, she and I immediately made the long trek north from Texas to Minneapolis. My ever-gracious wife was willing to put up with a honeymoon “on the road” in Texarkana and Graceland (don’t worry; we did spend a few days in Chicago on the Magnificent Mile and went to a Broadway show). Nevertheless, she left home and family in order to come north with me to make a new home and family. And though the past three years have been better than wonderful, there was something missing.

You see, we moved to Minneapolis so that I could go to school at The Bethlehem Institute. Consequently, my wife graciously agreed to work in order to help pay the bills. Her first job here was at a small company. As the new employee, she was given all the jobs that no one else wanted, which basically meant that she was charged with organizing an unheated shed in Minnesota in November and taking the trash through the snow to the dumpster across the parking lot. It was a terrible job. And yet she did it.

Eventually, we decided that it would be better for her not to work than to endure that. So she came home for a season, which meant she was all alone in a poorly-lighted basement apartment in Minnesota in the winter (you know, when the sun is out for, like, 4 hours per day). Needless to say, this was not an ideal situation.

But God soon provided a much better living situation (still underground, but with wonderful windows and fine landlords). What’s more, he provided her with a new job at Desiring God. And for the past 2 and a half years, she’s faithfully worked in a variety of capacities at Desiring God.

She’s been the administrative assistant for almost all of the directors at DG at one time or another. She worked for Bill Walsh when the International Outreach department launched. For a while, she split time between three bosses, diligently seeking to serve them however she could. She then transitioned to the Events department, where she served through multiple conferences, manning the info desk, coordinating volunteers, and serving conference-goers in countless ways.

From what her co-workers say, she’s excelled in her various positions, showing herself to be a competent and capable assistant. What’s more, as those who know her can attest, my wife has the amazing ability to brighten a room with her sheer presence and personality. Her sense of humor is hilarious and her laughter and joy are infectious. I’m tempted to think that the only reason I have friends up here is because everyone likes to be around her so much that they’re willing to put up with me.

So what was missing? Through all of this service she was not doing what she felt she was called to do deep in her heart. My wife loves the home and feels called to it. Vocational ministry and service is wonderful, but her heart has always called her homeward.

Make no mistake; even in the midst of her 9 to 5 job, she still found time to feed me, transform my wardrobe (she almost completely de-plaidified me, though there are still some stubborn hold-outs), and made our humble abode a welcoming and delightful place to be.

But because of her day job, she was unable to devote her full attention to the home. Like many working women, she was torn between work and home. All so I could study and prepare for the ministry. Her service outside of the home was not just a service to DG; it was fundamentally a service to me and to God.

So this is why I’m grateful: because finally, at long last, it is my great pleasure for her to officially “retire” and devote herself fully to our home and family. Today is my wife’s last day of work at Desiring God.

And so, I want to publicly say thank you to God for giving me such a wife. I don’t deserve her and never have. And yet here she is, serving, loving, honoring, and supporting me every day. Remarkable.

And Jenny, thank you for your glad willingness to serve me in this way for the past three years. I know you sacrificed so that I could chase the call of God on my life. I’m thrilled that you will now be able to chase your call. I’m thrilled that you can now use all your creativity and gifts to minister and bless me and others out of our home. I’m thrilled that you will be devoting yourself to raising our son. As Mike Tong said, Lord willing, you now know God’s call on your life for the next 20 years: Raise up a son to hope in God (and aid the Lord in the difficult task of sanctifying your husband).

So Jenny, for all this and more, thank you.

So here’s my contemporary application: Much of what we call “Red-State America” (the South, rural and suburban parts of most states) is in the first stage of idolatry. The fidelity of our parents and grandparents (and, in truth, even farther back) has produced great blessings and fruit in society. However, many have grown to love the gifts over the Giver. The family, the free market economy, safety, security, and prosperity; the list could be multiplied.

We value and treasure these things, but we easily forget where they came from. Such gifts have not been the normal state of existence for most of humanity throughout history. But, as we come to treasure these things above Christ, God will bring discipline in order to turn our hearts back to him. Apart from connection to the vine, the fruit will die. Not immediately perhaps, but in due time. This type of idolatry is subtle and many times difficult to see because it can still masquerade behind a faux-gratitude and reverence for God.

On the other hand, what we call “Blue-State America” (the Coasts and urban areas) is in the later stage of idolatry. Here, rejection of God is more overt and public. Rebellion is flaunted. Persistent glory-exchange has resulted in God’s judgment upon us, in which he hands us over to our self-destructive lusts. As the judgment deepens, we come to despise the former gifts (traditional family, free markets, etc.) because they remind us of Him.

Now then, here is the big challenge, especially for those of us who identify more readily with “Red-State America.” In our rejection of the brazen rebellion, self-destruction, and godlessness of those farther down the road to perdition, we must make clear that we are not simply calling for an earlier, more benign form of idolatry. We must be willing to cast down idols, root and branch. Repentance, regular and heartfelt, is what is required of us.

Let me close with two analogies.

Imagine a hill with a slight incline (perhaps 1-2 degrees) that eventually turns into a steeper incline (20-30 degrees). You start a ball at the top of the hill. At first, it barely seems to be moving, but over time, it picks up speed, especially as it crosses into the steeper incline. Eventually the ball falls off a cliff.

Our goal is not to put the ball back to where it was rolling slowly down the hill to hades. Rather, we want the ball at the top of the hill, and we want it to stay there. In other words, we don’t get Brownie points for rebelling more slowly than the other guy.

Analogy number 2:

The apostle James compares sin to conception, pregnancy, and birth. ” Each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death” (James 1:14-15). I’m going to modify the analogy a bit.

In type-2 idolatry, we are at 34 weeks and the baby could come at any time. The pregnancy is obvious, the baby is kicking, and Mom and Dad are picking out the colors for the nursery.

Type-1 idolaters, who aren’t quite ready to be “parents” yet (it’s a messy business), want to become 2 months pregnant and stay there. They (we?) want our idolatry in moderation.

But that is not how idolatry works. Societies, like individuals, are not static; they are on trajectories. They are going somewhere. Our task as Christians is to figure out what direction we’re headed so we know whether to punch the right pedal or the left. Do we need to speed up or turn around? And if we’re headed in the wrong direction, we shouldn’t regard taking three steps forward and one step back as a viable solution.

–Augustine, Confessions [Book 10, Chapter 26)

One of the guys in the class (Tim) noted that suffering often involves the removal of something we treasure, and we run to God, not for his sake, but in order to get our idol back. One thinks of the people who make bargains with God in dire straits (“If you’ll just get me out of this, I will…”). The priority is the removal of pain, not the increase of holiness.

I’ve seen this reflected often in my own life, as God refines me by uprooting some of his treasured gifts to me in order that I would delight in him above all else. So then, here’s the progression:

1. We are walking in faith, delighting in God.
2. God blesses us with good and perfect gifts, which we enjoy for his sake.
3. We begin to treasure those gifts above God, but with no discernible negative consequences.
4. God uproots the gifts so as to remind us of our ultimate Good.
5. Persistent clinging to God’s gifts results in greater chastisement, and eventually we come to hate the very things we formerly treasured.
6. We will continue to spiral downward until either we utterly destroy ourselves, or we repent and God heals us.

So then, when we find ourselves steadily marching down the road to perdition, how do we respond? Do we simply want to return to Stage 3, idolizing God’s gifts with no consequences? “Remember the good ol’ days when we could sacrifice to Baal and enjoy a fruitful harvest?” Or will we repent and return to Stages 1 and 2, where God’s gifts are enjoyed for his sake?

This line of thinking applies not only to individuals, but also to societies. When a society has been penetrated with the gospel such that many of its members walk in trust and obedience to the living God, a thousand blessings are likely to flow. Sowing to the Spirit results in reaping from the Spirit.

However, God’s gifts are often greater threats to true worship than anything else. When God is gracious to us, failure to honor him as God and give thanks is a heinous offense. However, the consequences of this new idolatry do not come right away, just as the blessings of the former obedience did not appear immediately. First we sow, then we reap.

Therefore, for a time, we are both reaping the good fruit of former obedience and sowing the seeds for future judgment. In other words, as a society, we are at Stage 3 in the progression above. God is long-suffering with us, but he will judge in due time. And, as Romans 1 teaches us, his judgment will often take the form of a “giving over” to our idolatrous passions. He punishes us by giving us what we want, knowing that no creaturely image will ever replace the satisfaction supplied by the incorruptible glory of God.

What this means, then, is that, as individuals and as a society, we must be on the lookout for two types (or rather, stages) of idolatry. In the first, we will pay lip-service to God while treasuring his gifts above him. Idolatry is just gaining its foothold in our hearts.

In the second stage, we have jettisoned God all together, overtly worshipping and serving the creature rather than the Creator, and being judged by God accordingly. At this point, we have come to despise many of the good gifts that formerly delighted us, as they have fallen to husks and ashes apart from a vital connection to the God who gave them. No one wants to eat an orange that’s been sitting on the counter for 6 months.

In a subsequent post, I’ll try to make some contemporary application. But before then, any questions or comments? Any pushback or tweaking? Comment away.

Such a view of the role of singing is eminently biblical.

And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery, but be filled with the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:18-21)

And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. (Colossians 3:15-16)

Common elements in both verses: singing in your heart, with other people, with thankfulness.

Back in 1985, a much younger-sounding Pastor John preached a sermon from 2 Chronicles 20 entitled “Ambushing Satan with Song.” In the story, Judah’s armies are preparing to go to war with the Moabites and Ammonites. Before going out, the people worship God in prayer and singing. Then, when they go to battle, the choir is the tip of the spear, leading the people to victory over their enemies.

From this story I would draw out the following exhortation: Spiritual worship and spiritual warfare should be carried out with singing. In verse 19 when all the people fell down to worship, the choir stood up to sing. And in verse 21 when the people went out to meet the enemy, the choir went before them with songs of victory.

And even more than that, I think that the writer wants us to learn from verse 22 that the enemies of God are thrown into confusion by the songs of God’s people. Or to put it another way, God has appointed the use of spiritual songs as an effective weapon against his archenemy Satan.

Take a look at the sermon, then head over to Jen’s blog and let her know what songs you use to fight the good fight.

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 87)

We did have a little scare on the ultrasound: a calcium buildup on his heart. But the testing of our faith produces perseverance, and God was gracious to us in multiple ways, not least of them the prayers of many. And, as best as the doctors can ascertain, everything is fine with the boy. Getting bigger and cuter every day.

You can read the details of the week over at my wife’s blog.

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 87)

I hope that those of you who are reading these posts are storing up some questions. When I’m done, I’d love to hear them. For now, I’d like to address another aspect of the natural law appeal: the appeal to “science.”

In the contemporary world, appeals to science are a tricky thing, for two reasons. First, most people, educated as they are in government schools, have a deep, almost sub-conscious faith in scientific truth. Appeals to science (unlike the Bible) still carry weight. But, secondly, science, properly understood, is a subordinate authority. It never exists independently of the people practicing it, and they are shot through with all manner of biases, presuppositions, and ideologies.

Now, of course, not all biases are bad. I’m biased in favor of the gospel, liberty, and dark beer. So also, biases are unavoidable and inescapable. Even if we were able to achieve the “God’s-eye view” of things, we would discover that biases still exists. After all, God loves righteousness and hates wickedness. So the fact of bias is not the problem; but the nature of the bias may be.

Science, when properly understood as the attempt to explore the world God made, is a glorious thing and a gift from God. Rodney Stark, in his book For the Glory of God, argues that it was Christianity that gave rise to science (Modern secular scientists chafe at the thought). So appeals to scientific truth are right and good in their proper place.

But in the contemporary world, we rarely encounter this type of scientific inquiry. Rather, science is hijacked by various ideologies, all of them idolatrous. In this light, science is used as a way to escape the world God made. Seeking to divest themselves of his rule, they use science to serve whatever idols folks are setting up these days.

In the article Anderson appeals to “scientific fact” to argue for the humanity of the unborn, “social science” to show the harmful social effects of abortion, and “studies” to demonstrate the harmful results of the breakdown of traditional families on children.

Now, in principle again, I am perfectly happy to use such arguments to make a case for the dignity of the unborn and the rightness of the traditional family. But, in urging us to make such appeals, I wonder if there is something else at work, something that is seeking to supplant biblical authority with a rationalistic, scientistic authority.

Don’t misunderstand; I’m not accusing Anderson of sneaking around, flirting with secular idols. I’m just raising the question as to whether, by limiting our appeals to nature and science, we are giving away the game. And, happily enough, I have a simple way to test whether science is being used in the service of false ideologies.

Ask yourself this question: Are certain appeals to nature and science ruled out of bounds by the contemporary political and cultural milieu? For example, suppose that someone said that homosexuality (not just marriage, but homosexuality itself) was “contrary to nature.” Then suppose they set out to prove that such was the case “from science.” I’m no biologist, but I do know a little anatomy, and I think there’s a case to be made by appealing to nature. Something like, “The parts just don’t fit.”

Now suppose someone took that hypothesis, did a scientific study evaluating the harmful effects of homosexual behavior and a social scientific study demonstrating increased levels of depression and suicide among the homosexual community. Would Anderson say, as he does in the article, that “their results need to be publicized?” Does he think that the politician who brings that study up has any chance of getting elected? Or would this be an example of another political road not to take?

My point is that I can discover from nature that homosexual behavior is unnatural, just like Paul said (Romans 1:26-28). I can do studies showing that no-fault divorce has disastrous effects on children, that one of the greatest predictors of the academic and emotional achievement of kids is whether they are raised in a two-parent, heterosexual family (I’ll even add, where the father assumes godly leadership as the head of his family). I can seek to publicize them in sophisticated journals and national newspapers.

And people would go right on ignoring “science” and “nature.” Or, more accurately, they would react against these arguments in the same way that they do against direct biblical ones–with shock and outrage. Just ask Larry Summers, the former president of Harvard who was forced to resign when he simply suggested that there were intrinsic reasons why more men than women sought high-end positions in science and engineering. The mere suggestion of differences between sexes was enough to spark a firestorm.

My simple point in this post is that appealing to science and nature is legitimate, provided that we recognize the limitations of such appeals. These authorities are lesser authorities. We do science in the service of the triune God, who created heaven and earth, just as unbelievers do science in the service of their gods.

So if the reason that people reject biblical teaching is because they are at war with God (Romans 8:7), because they don’t want to acknowledge him or submit to his law, and because they are darkened in their understanding, alienate from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to their hardness of heart (Ephesians 4:18), then why would we expect scientific appeals to have any greater effect than biblical appeals? If they don’t want to hear his voice when He speaks clearly in Scripture, what makes us think they will want to listen when He speaks in nature?

But I’m beginning to love pithy one-liners. The power of a sentence to illuminate is really quite remarkable. In the future I hope to have a whole category devoted to exploring Proverbs. For now, I’ll just keep it in Exe-Jesus.

My son, eat honey, for it is good, and the drippings of the honeycomb are sweet to your taste. Know that wisdom is such to your soul; if you find it there will be a future, and your hope will not be cut off. Proverbs 24:13-14

One of the stated goals of this blog is to help us learn to read God’s two books, the Bible and Creation. We learn to read the latter by listening carefully to the former. Here we see one of the many purposes of honey, and by extension other pleasant foods that we encounter.

Why did God make honey so tasty and sweet? So that we would have some idea what wisdom was like. The sweetness of honey points beyond itself to the wisdom of God. Honey is “good” and we are exhorted elsewhere to “Taste and see that the LORD is good!” Our souls have taste buds, just like our tongues, and we can train the soul-buds by exercising the tongue-buds. We savor the sweetness of honey or sweet tea or pumpkin crunch cake, and in the moment engage in a fancy bit of remanating, transposing the physical enjoyment of taste onto our souls and offering thanks to God, not only for the simple pleasures of food, but for the spiritual pleasures to which the food is but an echo.

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 86)

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 86)

Anderson now turns to a discussion of how arguments from natural law might actually work. As I noted in the last post, I have no problem with appeals to natural law in themselves. Appeals to nature and science are perfectly at home in my repertoire, as long as they stay in their proper place. But, natural law, when divorced from the natural Law-giver, has a funny way of becoming just another dressed-up idol. But before we get there, I want to point out the divorce Anderson is proposing. He writes:

[R]ather than claim that a debased practice offends God, politicians can—and, I would add, should—explain to the public what aspect of some immoral behavior is contrary to our own good, especially the common good—and why a just and decent society shouldn’t accept it.

Rather than argue that abortion is contrary to God’s law and that we need to bring the Constitution into conformity with God’s law, social conservatives should argue that as a matter of scientific fact the child in a mother’s womb is a whole, living human being, and that as a matter of moral truth the direct killing of any peaceable human being is gravely unjust.

In themselves, the arguments presented here are fine, and Christians should never shrink from making them. My trouble is with the “rather thans” in these passages. The triune God reveals himself in nature and in Scripture, in his Word and in his works. Why separate what God has joined together?

What’s more, Anderson assumes that a “just” society is desirable. But “just” according to whose standards? The definition of righteousness is an overtly and irreducibly religious question. So now we’re back to discussing (in a frightfully sectarian way) those pesky religious authorities. The same holds true for Anderson’s assertion that the killing of any peaceable human being is unjust “as a matter of moral truth.” What’s to stop some sharp sophomore in the back row from simply saying, “Says who?”

Now, I have no doubt that Anderson would be able to deftly handle such objections from cocky secularists by discussing with them the nature of justice and morality. But now we’re back to fundamental questions of ultimate authority, and any Christ-confessing Christian has to put Christ in that place, which is what Anderson is arguing we shouldn’t do, at least when the unbelievers are listening in.

Anderson next urges us to “press the argument that if human beings really are equal in dignity, then abortion is inconsistent with our fundamental commitments.” Again, no problem with the argument itself, but it assumes that we are in harmony about these fundamental commitments. And, looking at the state of the Union today, I’m not convinced that that is true.

Everyone will pay lip-service to such fundamental commitments, and then go right ahead and violate them. There are 162 Catholics in the 111th Congress (that’s about 30% of the whole). Many of them are openly pro-choice, in violation of the clear teachings of the Roman Church. The same is true of many Protestant politicians. So-called “fundamental commitments” can’t slow the Obama-nation Train down, probably because, for many, they are not all that “fundamental.”

For people like Anderson (and myself), inconsistency is a bad thing. But for many in this shape-shifting generation, inconsistency is just the old modernist word for “authentic” and “relevant.” “Who are you to say that something is inconsistent? You’re not the boss of me.” For many in this country, their fundamental commitment is to their own personal happiness and fulfillment, and no one is going to get in the way of that.

Finally (for now), Anderson makes some arguments for maintaining the traditional structure of marriage:

If marriage isn’t the union of one man and one woman coming together as husband and wife to become father and mother to any children their marital love may bring, then social conservatives should demand that their opponents explain what marriage is.

Here’s the difficulty with this: if we demand that our opponents give an answer, they might actually tell us what they think (!).

Is it simply the union of any consenting pair of sexually active adults? If so, then why only two? And why does it have to be exclusive and permanent—why not open or temporary “marriage”? Indeed, if marriage isn’t about a bodily union, then why limit it to sexual relationships at all? How about codependent relatives? How are marriage and children connected? Do children need mothers and fathers, or not?

Anderson asks these questions, assuming that most people will give the “obvious” answer.

“Of course, it can only be between two people. And of course marriages are exclusive and permanent. Except for, you know, the 50% or so that aren’t.”

But what if people started giving the other answer. “Yeah, why not have open or temporary marriage? Why not more than two people? That sounds like a great idea!” On the marriage question, though social conservatives have been able to hold the line for the moment, the culture is trending in the other direction. Opponents of traditional marriage know this, and they are more than happy to huff and puff until the house finally collapses.

In one sense, this battle may already be (temporarily) lost, not because the homosexual lobby was convinced everyone, but because heterosexual marriage has become so degraded by the rampant divorce culture (among other things). Many people (rightly) recognize the oddity and hypocrisy of defending the sanctity of traditional marriage while millions of professing Christians avail themselves of no-fault divorce.

“Marriage is so holy that I had to try it three times!”

The solution (in my view) is not to adopt a holding pattern, seeking to plant our So-Con flag here and hold this hill at all costs. We need to move the ball forward. We need to start charging the gates of hell again. But we can only do that when we have firmly in our minds and our hearts–and fundamentally in our churches–the only conviction that can throw down those hellish gates, Jericho-style: “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16).

The basic argument is that, as the size of government increases, regular attendance of religious services decreases. It isn’t difficult to see why:

By contrast, the more the state steps in to reduce the economic and social insecurity of its citizens, the less likely fair-weather believers are to darken the door of a church on Sunday. Now, to paraphrase Charles Krauthammer, Obama hopes to expand the size of the welfare state by offering cradle-to-grave health care and cradle-to-cubicle education to Americans. If he gets his way, Americans will not have to trust in God, or their fellow congregants, to support an ailing parent, or to help them figure out how to pay for their daughter’s college tuition. Instead, they can put their faith in Uncle Sam.

Now, as Christians, we need to get straight why this is bad news. This isn’t bad news because we’ll have less tithing people in the pews. God provides for the needs of his people, and he does so no matter the size and scope of government. Rather this is bad news because:

1. It will result in a cleavage between generations. Accustomed to relying upon a welfare-state to meet their needs, younger generations will not feel compelled to take care of aging parents or other members of their household. Paul regards such negligence to be apostasy (1 Timothy 5:8). The State cannot produce the same bond between generations that makes mutual care possible.

2. Euthanasia and other end-of-life issues will become more salient. As the tax burden shifts to a smaller workforce (due to low birth rates), there will be greater pressure to “cut costs.” One of the solutions will be to encourage elderly individuals to “do the right thing.” I would not be surprised to discover that at some point euthanasia becomes less about an individual or family’s choice and more about the government’s need.

3. Basic principles of personal responsibility will continue to erode. If the government will take care of me from the cradle to the grave, why bother taking care of myself?

Ultimately, the promise of the religion of the State is a huge lie. The government is a lousy god. The government can be no better than the people in it, and, when they are an idolatrous people, turning from the living God to worship and serve creatures, the government can only reflect that idolatry. Promises will be broken, lives will be destroyed, and image-bearers will be defaced.

As we discern what’s going on and prepare ourselves to live as Christians in such a world, we must do so with the rock-ribbed, grateful confidence of those who take refuge in the God of Jacob. Like Paul, we may be called upon to learn the secret of facing hunger and need (Philippians 4:12). And if we do, we will face it the same way he did: rejoicing, giving thanks in all circumstances, and doing all things through him who is our Strength.

Most of these controversies deal with the tension between seemingly contradictory doctrines. Is God one or three? Is Christ God or man? Is God sovereign or is man responsible? Is the will enslaved or free?

Likewise, the Christian life is filled with these paradoxes. Does God choose us or do we choose him? Does God preserve us or must we persevere? Can we fall away or are we eternally secure? Do I just need to trust God or must I obey him also?

When dealing with such controversies, most people try to place their position in the middle. “You have this bad extreme on the one hand, and you have that bad extreme on the other. Then you have my position, perfectly in between, properly balanced, just like Paul.”

In itself, I think this is the right approach. But there are two ways to wind up in the middle. One is through compromise, smoothing out the rough edges until both sides have a group hug in the middle. Such an approach is attractive to a certain type of person.

I myself view the practice of staying in the middle a bit differently. To me, the Christian life is more like being drawn and quartered. Rather than camping out in the mushy middle in a kind of lowest-common-denominator approach, I prefer to run to both extremes at once. I take the rope of God’s absolute sovereignty and hold it in one hand. I take the rope of man’s complete responsibility and hold it in the other. Then I say “Giddy-up!”

I tie the rope of God’s one-ness around the left leg and the rope of God’s three-ness around the right leg. I hitch God’s preserving grace to one side and my need to persevere to the other. Christ’s humanity pulls in one direction while his deity pulls in the other.

The goal is simple: Don’t let go of either rope. If I do, I wind up as a hyper-Calvinist or an Arminian, a legalist or an antinomian, a Muslim or a polytheist.

The stretching is painful, and sometimes I wonder if I can hold it together. But fidelity to God and His Word means that letting go is not an option. After all, He’s not letting go of me.

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 85)

Having noted the folly of Huck’s appeal to religious authority to accomplish political ends, Anderson now turns to his positive case for “the political road not taken.” It is essentially an appeal to the “natural law” tradition in theology and ethics, a tradition that has a long and storied history, particularly in Roman Catholic teaching, but also in some branches of Protestantism. I have no objection to the use of natural law per se, but my own opinion is that natural law should only be used in its proper place, namely subordinated to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Natural Law implies a Law-giver, and his name is Jesus.

Before proceeding to the heart of the engagement, I need to make one key point. I recognize that some of what I wrote in the last post (and which I will continue to expound here) can be taken as a form of Christian triumphalism. And while I do want to make clear that Christ is objectively triumphant (Matthew 28:18-20; Philippians 2:9-11), I want to avoid all premature chest-bumping, back-slapping, and end-zone dancing. There will come a time for celebration, and if the book of Revelation is to be believed, it will be glorious.

In the meantime, we are stuck on our own 25-yard line, having just been sacked for a 15-yard loss by the big nose tackle from Multi-Culti U. The road to the end zone is narrow and hard, and few make it all the way. And many that do make it suffer all kinds of perplexities, persecutions, and striking downs along the way (2 Corinthians 4:7-11), so much so that some get pulled from the game early and have to ice their busted knee in the locker room. Which is to say, that the triumph of Christ will look radically different than what we might expect. We are called to live crucified lives in this world, filled with suffering and brokenhearted affections, by the power of the risen Christ. We celebrate the present reign and rule of the Son of God, and sometimes get our head chopped off for it.

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Anderson notes that “social conservatism has resources for public argument besides the Bible” and that “our obligations to treat fellow citizens as equals–as well as the practical requirements for broad political consensus–demand that we rise above sectarian appeals to religious authority.” This one’s thick and will take some detangling.

First, we do have resources besides the Bible. The heavens declare the glory of God (Psalm 19:1), his invisible attributes are perceived (clearly, even) in what has been made (Romans 1:20), and rebellious human beings know good and well that their current wickedness is deserving of death (Romans 1:32). In a sense, all of created reality, because it is belongs to Christ, can be marshaled against human sin and folly. “All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future–all are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s” (1 Corinthians 3:21-23).

But the fact that we have a plethora of resources available doesn’t mean that we should abandon the one offensive weapon in the holy arsenal, the sword of the Spirit. Yes, if need be, Christians can head-butt people with their helmet, but God has given us a perfectly effective weapon to use as we fight this fight. The word of God is, after all, living and active. So rather than choosing between the Bible and natural law, I say, let’s use them both. Generously. Sword thrusts and head butts it is. Hopefully, Mr. Anderson agrees.

The second part of my engagement with the above section has to do with these so-called “practical requirements for broad political consensus.” I think I know what Anderson has in mind, namely, the electoral realities that Christ-confessing Christians are not a sufficient governing coalition in this country. As such, it is necessary to build consensus with non-Christian groups.

In principle, I have no problem with such endeavors. Daniel was able to get things done just fine in Babylon, working with the Zoroastrian magi of the day. But if our efforts to forge political coalitions require us to eat any defiled food from the king’s table by muting our testimony to the gospel, then I think we should put down our cards and walk away. A political coalition made up of Christ-haunted secularists and neutered Christians is not a recipe for long-term success by anybody’s measure.

Finally, we have this bit about “rising above sectarian appeals to religious authority.” This kind of language raises a host of questions in my mind:

What constitutes a “religious authority?” Do religious authorities have to have a holy book? a god? Is Al Gore a religious authority? What about Reason with a capital “R”? If one religious authority created the other “non-religious” authorities ex nihilo, does his religiosity contaminate the alleged “non-religious” authority?

What is a “sectarian appeal”? An appeal to the Bible? What about the Constitution? The Declaration of Independence, with that “endowed by their Creator” bit? Who decides which appeals are sectarian and which aren’t? Who elected that person and why didn’t I get to vote?

Is saying “We shouldn’t murder innocent human beings because Jesus said so” a sectarian appeal? Does the truth of the sectarian appeal matter?

What about sectarian appeals to irreligious authorities? And if these authorities aren’t religious, then why in the world are they binding on me?

Okay, enough smart-alecky questions. My point, and I do have one, is simply that all appeals to authority are, at root, religious. They are rooted in our ultimate commitments and assumptions. And because we live on this side of the 2nd Coming, we are a sectarian bunch through and through, the whole lot of us. Such a claim is significant, and will require some proof, and by the end of this series I hope to have at least made a valiant attempt. So let me close by beginning that attempt. Anderson finishes that paragraph with the following:

If social conservatism is to win the day, social conservatives–especially those seeking and holding public office–must make public arguments using public reasons to defend human life and marriage.

This gets right down to the crux of the issue I have with Anderson’s approach, as much as I respect it and him (and I really do). The operative word in this sentence is “public.” So here is my simple argument: Jesus Christ was publicly crucified on a hill outside of Jerusalem, was publicly raised from the dead three days later, appeared publicly to his disciples for the next forty days, and publicly ascended to heaven where he now reigns over the entire cosmos. Therefore, all men are obligated to obey him publicly (and privately too for that matter). Reasons can’t get more “public” than that.

Francis Schaeffer was fond of reminding us that the gospel is “public truth.” It can never be reduced simply to me and Jesus in the prayer closet (as crucial as that is to maintaining any kind of public witness to Christ’s kingdom). Which means that for Christians there is no rising above sectarian appeals to religious authority. If we do attempt this sort of “rising above,” we will discover very quickly that we can’t help but bump our heads on the footstool of King Jesus.

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (pg. 82)

Anderson turns now to an examination of one incident that illustrates the bad way for social conservatives, and particularly Christians, to engage in the public square:

One incident, in particular, illustrates how Huckabee narrowed the appeal of social conservatism. While stumping to a largely Evangelical audience in Michigan, Huckabee said: “I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do—to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.”

Now both Anderson and I take issue with Huck on this one, but for very different reasons. Anderson seems to dislike this approach because it is electorally counter-productive. He writes, “Arguing that ‘God said so’ won’t persuade anyone who doesn’t already agree with you.” In other words, seeking to bring “the word of the living God” to bear on the Constitution is a non-starter and politically futile.

In contrast, I think amending the Constitution to conform to God’s standards for explicitly religious reasons is a fine idea, but effectively futile, at least for the country as we currently know it. The problem isn’t merely that people won’t be persuaded by our appeals; it’s that imposing God’s laws on a godless people is a fool’s errand. When rebels get placed under Law, they simply find more creative ways to rebel. In other words, Huck’s prescription is a classic example of putting the cart (godly legal system) before the horse (widespread embrace of the gospel).

Anderson quotes two reactions from two conservative writers at NRO, Lisa Schiffren and Andy McCarthy. While it’s difficult to tell if Anderson agrees entirely with their sentiment, he appears to at least recognize that such opposition from those who ostensibly “agree” with Huck on the issues renders Huck’s approach DOA.

However, the reaction of Schiffren and McCarthy demonstrate one of the fundamental issues in the debates about Christians in the public square: How much Christ is allowed in here?

Lisa Schiffren quickly pointed out: “Mike Huckabee is going to force those of us who have wanted more religion in the town square to reexamine the merits of strict separation of church and state. He is the best advertisement ever for the ACLU, even if you share his ultimate views on the definition of marriage, or the desirability of abortion on demand.”

Got it? “We thought we were getting a little more religion in the public square. Then this Jesus guy came barging in here, turning over tables and acting like he owns the place. He even had the audacity to tell us what to do. Who does he think he is?” Schiffren’s view of “the separation of church and state” is more accurately described as the separation of Christ and state. In my view, Christians should rightly desire to keep the Church (as Church) separate from the state. Meaning, among other things, that Rick Warren should not be the pastor of Saddleback and Governor of California.

But, at the same time, we should insist, against all protestations to the contrary, that the State, as much as the Church, exists under the authority of Christ, and has the duty to acknowledge this fact out loud where everyone can hear. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus, including authority over America’s public square. Christians, of all people, need to be clear on this.

McCarthy’s response was even more illuminating:

“Part of my usual response . . . focuses on the Taliban, their imposition of sharia (i.e., God’s law), and the marked contrast to our system’s bedrock guarantee of freedom of conscience. . . . Where has Huck been for the last seven years? Does he not get that our enemies—the people who want to end our way of life—believe they are simply imposing God’s standards?”

Now, I read McCarthy a fair amount over at NRO. He’s a great repository for information about radical Islam around the world. But there is simply no way to avoid imposing the standards of some god or another. That’s what “law” is, an imposition rooted in a culture’s understanding of ultimate reality. And laws restricting abortion have zero to do with “freedom of conscience” and everything to do with the freedom not to be slaughtered in-utero.

As far as his comparison to the Taliban goes, the reason that Muslims don’t have the right to impose sharia law on the rest of us has nothing whatever to do with the fact of their imposition and everything to do with their imposing the laws of a false god. The principle is not “Never impose any law rooted in a god.” Rather, it’s “Only impose laws rooted in the living God and his Son Jesus Christ.” And then, only in areas that he has placed under the jurisdiction of the State.

Such equivocation between Christians and Muslims, Jesus and Allah is fundamentally misleading. Allah, like all the other principalities and powers, was disarmed and subdued by Jesus at the cross (Col 2:15). Which means that, while Allah has absolutely no standing to tell me what to do, Jesus does. He triumphed. And all men everywhere are now commanded to repent and trust him, including Supreme Court Justices, Senators, and NRO bloggers.

Anderson laments that “the Bible doesn’t carry the authority it once did. And many of those who generally hold the Bible in high regard consider it ‘dated’ and ‘out of touch’ on certain controversial moral questions.” Aside from the oxymoronic idea that someone can simultaneously rule the Bible “out of touch” and “hold it in high regard,” Anderson and I approach this observation of political fact (and it is a political fact) differently.

He seems to take this as a baseline political reality, one with which we Christians must learn to live. “Bible-thumping used to work, but we’re way past that now.” But movement away from biblical authority is precisely what got us into this mess. It’s why in this country, filled as it is my professing Christians, mothers can kill their unborn children at any time during pregnancy, judges can be willing and ready to sanction sexual rebellion as soon as the proper Supreme Court case is mounted, the State can continue to borrow and spend money it doesn’t have to pay for things it can’t afford, and a host of other social, moral, and political ills. Before any of these things can be addressed at any fundamental level, the Bible has to regain some of that long-lost authoritative mojo.

I’ll close with this: Liberals (rightly) recognize the threat to their idolatries posed by the Risen Christ. They read “All authority in heaven and on earth” and get the message, loud and clear. “No square inch of reality left unclaimed by Jesus, huh? Well then, we’d better get rid of him.”

Conservatives, on the other hand, often pay lip-service to the role of “religion” or “God” in society, but look for loopholes to his reign. The public square, governmental affairs, education: we cede such realms to the nice secularists in exchange for some temporary protection from the rabid ones. We then act surprised when the State shuts us out of the negotiations over which group of individuals will be dehumanized, taxed, or marginalized next so that people can continue to enjoy the Handbasket to Hell Ride a little longer. “No more,” says I, “The world belongs to Jesus, bought with his own blood. This we proclaim, and this only.”

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (pp. 80-81)

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (pp. 79-80)

The aim of Anderson’s piece is to give some direction to conservatives and the Republican Party after the 2008 drubbing by the Obamachine. His direction is both positive and negative, meaning he criticizes one option and proposes an alternative. My hope is that I’ll do something similar in these posts. But before going to disagreement, I thought I’d mention a few places where Anderson and I are reading from the same page.

First, we both reject the trope of moderates and liberals in the Republican party that McCain lost because he was insufficiently progressive on social issues. No one has ever accused John McCain of being a culture warrior, at least not anyone possessing all of their mental faculties. McCain (and even Palin) rarely addressed “social” issues like abortion and gay marriage on the campaign trail. In fact, it seemed sometimes like he was going out of his way not to mention Barack Obama’s abortion radicalism and double-speak on gay marriage.

What’s more, Anderson hits the nail on the head when he seeks to discern the motives of “moderate Republicans” who seek to tie a millstone around the necks of social conservatives and cast them into the heart of the sea:

“They find support for authentic social values so contemptible that they’ll use any event as an excuse to argue for its elimination.”

Right ho, Jeeves. (I had my first Wodehouse experience this week; expect more of that in the future.) As Chesterton might say, “Any stick is good enough to beat social conservatives with,” even if, upon examination, you discover that said-stick is in fact a styrofoam noodle with “Maverick” written on the side of it.

We’re also in agreement about the continuing electoral relevance of social conservatives, though I am less optimistic about the trends than he is, as will become apparent. African-American voters put Prop 8 over the top in California, and Rudy Giuliani’s campaign never made it out of the gate, mainly because of his views on social issues (and his lackluster efforts in early states).

The desire for conservatives to reach out to similarly-minded minority voters is one that I share with Mr. Anderson, and in the short-term, if done properly, has the potential to put some more Republicans into office (if that’s your goal).

Finally, while Anderson is correct that Huckabee failed to reach beyond social conservatives (particularly evangelicals), I’m not convinced that this is because of his religious appeals as much as it was his perceived deviations from fiscal conservatism. Huckabee simply seemed like a continuation of the compassionate conservatism of George Bush, but with a more Southern Baptist-style. Many Republicans were tired of defending expansionist government programs. If government is going to grow by leaps and bounds, then at the very least let the other team be the ones to leap and bound.

In any event, Huckabee was never able to turn the corner, and would have probably gone down in flames much the same way as McCain did, though the debates might have been a little more entertaining.

The above points are not exhaustive of our agreement, and I’ll mention more as we go, but we’re about to part ways on some significant points, so now’s as good a place as any to close this post. We’ll pick it up again soon.

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (pp. 78-79)

In a sense, I understand the fear of commenting (no one likes to misspell the word “teh” over and over). And a certain amount of reticence to speak is certainly praised in the Bible: “Whoever restrains his words has knowledge, and he who has a cool spirit is a man of understanding. Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent” (Proverbs 17:27-28).

That said, I hope that fear is not keeping any of the highly intelligent readers of this blog from commenting. If you have a thought or opinion about a certain matter, throw it out there. If you think I’m full of silly string in what I post, I’d very much like to hear about it (I hear they have medical procedures to deal with that sort of thing nowadays). If I’m unclear or fuzzy in something I write, I’d really like to hear about it. And, of course, always remember that there are no stupid questions, only stupid people (just kidding; see, you were planning to comment and I had to go and say something like that!).

In all seriousness, I am personally acquainted with most of the you who pass through these parts. I like you. Heck, I’m flattered that you keep coming back. So if you’re one of the ones who’s been lurking around, pick a post and dive in. You (and I!) will be glad you did.

While I’m shamelessly promoting the work of others, I’ll also mention that the article “How to Think About the War and Other Manifestations of Globaloney” is a fine example of political thinking and has ramifications far beyond the Iraq War. It addresses how we as Christians ought to think about politics, economics, and global issues. For the INSIGHT students listening in, reading Wilson on the subject might give some valuable perspective as we study Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as those involved in the American and French Revolutions.

The article is by Ryan T. Anderson and is entitled “A Political Road Not Taken.” It was one in a series of articles on the 2008 election called “Where Do We Go From Here: A Forum.” Here is Anderson’s professional biography from the blog he edits, Public Discourse:

Ryan T. Anderson is editor of Public Discourse: Ethics, Law, and the Common Good. Previously he was the assistant editor of First Things and a Fellow of the Phillips Foundation. His articles have appeared in First Things, the Weekly Standard, National Review, the New Atlantis, the Claremont Review of Books, Touchstone, Books and Culture, Christianity Today, and the Human Life Review. Anderson is an alumnus of Princeton University, where he graduated Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude.

Because I plan to interact critically with Anderson’s article (meaning, I will take issue with a number of his prescriptions), I want to make clear at the outset that I have nothing personal against Mr. Anderson. Judging by his professional history, I assume that he is a fellow Christian (though I’m unsure of his denominational affiliation) and, if I remember correctly, I’m also a member of Phi Beta Kappa. I greatly admire his work over at Public Discourse, read First Things whenever I can get my hands on it, and I love HBU’s The City and would recommend subscribing to it (it’s free!). Disagreement with his position shouldn’t be interpreted as dislike for the man.

What’s more, the reason that I chose his article is because I think it is one of the more thoughtful and clear examples of a viewpoint regarding Christian engagement in the public square that I think is very common among Christians. It’s also a perspective that I have some sympathy for, even if at the end of the day I disagree. So I’m engaging Mr. Anderson as a fellow Christian on a topic that more followers of Jesus should be giving serious thought to.

So have a look at his article, and feel free to make yourself known in the comments.

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (pg. 77)

The International Justice Mission is a human rights agency that secures justice for victims of slavery, sexual exploitation and other forms of violent oppression. It is a “faith-based organization” that requires its employees to submit a statement of faith with their application. It takes inspiration from Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Theresa, and William Wilberforce, as well as Isaiah 1:17: “Seek justice, protect the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.”

In this Q&A, the Vice President of Government Relations answers questions about IJM’s work to combat gender-based violence. Give the Q&A a read and put your reaction to it in the comments. What do you think of IJM’s approach to this issue? I’ll give my thoughts in a follow-up post later this week.

UPDATE: Sorry about the link. It should be fixed now. Comment away.

“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”

Carson noted that Jesus is simply the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Joshua (okay, Jesus is actually the English translation, via German I believe, of the Greek translation of the Hebrew name Yeshua, but you get the point). Anyway, the name “Joshua” means “the LORD saves.”

Now Carson hinted at this, but didn’t flesh it out in detail (for goodness’ sake, he was covering the whole Bible in two weekends!). Notice the logic of the second and third parts of Matthew 1:21 (INSIGHT students, think arcing). The word “for” indicates that 21c is grounding 21b. But how is it grounding it?

Call his name Jesus (i.e. Yahweh saves) because he (i.e. Jesus!) will save his people from their sins.

Note the relationship between the italicized and bolded words. Who exactly is doing the saving around here?

Jesus’ name coupled with the rationale for that name is just one of the many subtle and profound ways that the Bible teaches us that Jesus is himself Yahweh in the flesh.

Don’t you just love the Bible?

–Jonathan Edwards, Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion (Part 1, Section 5, Paragraph 6)

I think she’s a Calvinist too.

The founders of the city had built a large wall around it, protecting the inhabitants from ruffians and thieves, as well as preventing any livestock or children from wandering too close to the cliff’s edge. The one way in and out of the city was through the large reinforced gate on the west side.

Generations went by, and the trusty wall did its tedious duty, protecting the people of the city from all manner of harm.

At some point, however, the people of the city began to feel that the wall was one massive inconvenience. It was way too restricting. It hindered the free flow of goods in and out of the city. People on the east side of the city had to walk all the way across town just to get to the gate. All that extra effort was exhausting and inefficient.

So some of the more enterprising citizens decided to tear some holes in the wall. Nothing too large, just enough to make travel easier. The naysayers in the town warned of disastrous consequences if parts of the wall were torn down. But the deconstructors were persistent and most of the townspeople didn’t give a rip.

Despite the holes in the wall, nothing disastrous happened. Soon more people were making holes in the wall and the existing holes were widened. A few bandits got in and out, but no one seemed to mind. “That’s the price of progress,” they said.

As the wall continued to deteriorate, the consequences were not hard to predict. One of the Jones kids fell of the cliff, as did half of Farmer Peterson’s flock. A new band of thieves moved in and started absconding with property that didn’t belong to them. At one point, some marauders actually burned a quarter of the city to the ground.

Though many of the inhabitants were surprised by the rise in crime, they quickly came up with a solution. They passed laws against thievery, fire, and falling off of cliffs. They were sure that their new legislation would solve the current problems.

However, a number of the younger folks in town came up with a different solution. They started building their own walls around their houses (and in some cases, whole neighborhoods). When asked why they didn’t simply rely on the new legislation, their reply was simple:

“That’s what walls are for.”

—Jonathan Edwards, Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion (Part 1, Section 5, Paragraph 1), describing his wife Sarah’s experience, which occurred multiple times throughout her life. I’m not sure I even know what the “his transcendent lobe” is! But the last sentence sure sounds like a remanation to me.

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 75)

NOTE: I love this quotation and can greatly relate to its sentiment. So many trajectories are set by first principles, by foundational assumptions, that to try to discuss the details without addressing the core is often an exercise in futility. If two people get in a disagreement, one who prefers civilization and one who prefers savagery, it does no good for the civilized man to point to the bookcase over and over. The ubiquity and obviousness of his belief makes it far more difficult for him to articulate and convince others.

Chesterton’s observation also proves illuminating for many contemporary political and theological debates. It also helps us to see the impossibility, from a human perspective, of evangelism. In one sense, the Christian finds himself to be a fish in the strange position of convincing his fellow that they are, in fact, in water. If the other fellow is convinced otherwise, what could you possibly say to him?

I seem to remember my professor at one point mentioning that some scholars didn’t think that Shakespeare actually wrote the plays that were attributed to him. He never pursued it, and as a lowly undergrad, I didn’t know how to pursue it. So imagine my surprise when the most recent edition of Credenda Agenda (the website hasn’t been updated in a while; I think they’re going through an overhaul at the moment) included an article from Doug Wilson arguing that William Shakespeare of Stratford was not the author of “Shakespeare’s” works and that the true author was a Puritan (of sorts) named Edward de Vere.

Here’s a sketch of the argument against Shakespeare of Stratford and for Edward de Vere.

Against Stratfordian Shakespeare

We have no evidence that Will of Stratford was well-educated, and the author of the plays clearly is.

He had no training in the law and Shakespeare’s plays are filled with legal expertise.

He never travelled abroad, least of all to Italy, a place that appears in detail in the plays.

He was a commoner and the plays demonstrate an aristocratic outlook.

He left no books or manuscripts in his will.

For Edward de Vere of Oxford

He knew the city of Venice intimately.

He studied law at Gray’s Inn, explaining the regular presence of “legal-ese” in the plays.

He was captured by pirates in the English channel, much like Hamlet.

He believed a false accusation against his wife, much like Othello.

His uncle, Arthur Golding, who may have tutored de Vere as a boy, introduced the form of the sonnet to England.

His copy of the Geneva Bible is heavily marked up in many of the same passages that appear in the plays.

That’s just a thumbnail sketch. There’s more in the article, including responses to possible objections, and an explanation of how de Vere may also have been somewhat of a Puritan. To get the rest of the details, you’ll have to order the magazine.

For now, I’ll simply throw it open: Any English lit buffs who can verify or deny the argument? Comment away.

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 75)

NOTE: Though this isn’t the reason that I first became a Christian at age twelve, it is one of the reasons that I remain a Christian. The explanatory power of Christianity, down to the details, is one of the most glorious signs of its truthfulness. One of my aims in all my teaching (and now blogging) is to constantly remind myself and others that what we see in reality is accounted for by the Christian faith. Christianity fits.

–G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (p. 74)

As the Obama administration pushes through Congress its $800 billion deficit-spending economic stimulus plan, the American public is largely unaware that the true deficit of the federal government already is measured in trillions of dollars, and in fact its $65.5 trillion in total obligations exceeds the gross domestic product of the world.

I checked with someone I trust on financial and economic matters, and while it’s difficult to know the exact numbers, the basic premise of the article is sound. And in case you missed it: We owe more money than exists in the world. Only the United States government could accomplish such a feat.

When I read the story, it reminded me of Matt Chandler’s talk at the recent Desiring God Conference for Pastors. At one point, he cracked a joke about debt in which he imagined a hypothetical Christian worship leader writing a song that said, “If you have $4 and you spend $7, that’s dumb.”

So what is it if you have a couple trillion, but you spend 65 trillion? Oh, and what if, technically-speaking, the only work you did in order to get it was promising people that you would give them things, and that you did such lofty work as the representatives of the people who will inevitably pay for your insanity?

I love the last line of the story.

“The federal government is bankrupt,” Williams told WND. “In a post-Enron world, if the federal government were a corporation such as General Motors, the president and senior Treasury officers would be in federal penitentiary.”

For related thoughts on the Government’s game of Grabby-Grabby, see this one by Doug Wilson.

1. Remember that judgment begins with the household of God. Expecting the broader culture to conform to God’s standards when half the church is neck deep in all kinds of sexual foolishness is a classic example of putting carts before horses. Paul has some pretty harsh words for those who berate idolators while robbing their temples (Rom 2:17ff). When the salt loses its taste, God throws it out in the street so that it’s trampled underfoot. How then shall its saltiness be restored?

2. Through heartfelt repentance. Let us never forget that God is ever and always ready to turn and forgive. “Now is the favorable time; now is the day of salvation.” So let us avoid falling into any sort of fatalistic traps that assume that the trajectory we’re on determines our destiny. We may be rolling down the hill, picking up steam, but God is able to make grace abound to us and kick this big ball of culture back the other direction, often in response to the penitent cries of his people.

3. Demonstrate some antithesis. Following repentance, the greatest impact we can have on the culture is to actually be a city on the hill. Let there be a clear difference between sexual relationships inside and outside the church. We need strong, godly husbands, who take responsibility for their strong, godly wives, who joyfully submit to their strong, godly husbands, who…The world is not hungering for a slightly sanitized version of the same rotten trash that everyone else is serving. So settle these things in your own mind now. Purity until marriage. Fidelity and covenant-keeping love for a lifetime.

4. Be faithful where God plants you. When confronted with the depravity and brokenness that is endemic and multiplying in God’s world, the main question that you should ask is this: what is God requiring of me now? What is right in front of my face that God is calling me to do? Resist the pull toward abstractions and airy ideologies. Get incarnational dirt under your fingernails. Go local. Be faithful here, and God will take care of there.

5. Resist the temptation to despair because the world keeps getting in the same hell-bound handbasket. Yes, idolatry is self-destructive and it is frustrating, angering, and grievous to watch God’s image-bearers desecrate themselves and others. Our hearts should break over the futility and defamation in the world. But we must never despair. You are not responsible to change the world. You are responsible to trust and obey where God has placed you.

6. While living faithfully, we must recover a real prophetic voice, as opposed to the limp-wristed prophetic whisper that is tamed by smooth strokes and soothing words from the idolatrous establishment. Christians must never sacrifice the proclamation of Jesus’ lordship for a seat at the multi-culti table. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t ever sit down with the world of unbelief; it does mean that we should always do so as thoroughgoing, Christ-confessing Christians. With any luck, they will be throwing tomatoes at us before we’re done with our salad.

7. Insofar as is possible, rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. Draw upon the mighty grace of God and refuse to faint in the day of adversity (Proverbs 24:10-11). This includes (among others) the unborn, their desperate mothers, women enslaved through sex trafficking, child-prostitutes, orphans, and the list goes on.

8. Take a lesson from the Proverbs 31 woman and “laugh at the time to come.” When Jesus considers the rulers and authorities amassed against him, he scoffs and laughs at them in derision (Psalm 2). Though things may look bleak now, remember: All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus. That’s unbelievable news. We must deal with painful and wicked reality, but we mustn’t broker in gloom and doom. Satan’s doom is sure. The Crucified Lord is risen!

9. Weep with those who weep. Rejoice with those who rejoice. Our tears should have a deep, confident joy undergirding them, just as our joy must be textured by the broken-hearted sorrow of life in a fallen world. Ours is a cruciform Easter-faith. We are called to live crucified lives by the power of the resurrection. The Christian life is full of such exhilarating impossibilities.

10. Pray often for an outpouring of God’s Spirit upon the world and a release from God’s chastening judgment. Rebellious blindness holds sway in so many places in this world. Plead with God to lift his judgment and unleash his storehouses of mercy. Pray confidently with the knowledge that , if he so chooses, God could drown the world in grace.

1. In a post that was practically made for Unintended Consequences, Will Wilkinson highlights the fallout of the government’s past push for home-ownership for every American. In a nutshell,

Government-subsidized borrowing gave us the housing bubble, precipitated financial Armageddon, helped prompt recession and mass unemployment. But, as the infomercials say, that’s not all! By zealously pushing home-ownership, federal housing policy has pinned to the map many now-jobless Americans who otherwise would have moved to find new work.

In other words, the government forced banks and lending companies to lower their standards so that more people could “have a piece of the American Dream.” People bought more house than they could afford, the housing bubble burst, the economy cratered, those same people are now losing their jobs, and…. they can’t move to find new jobs because they’re stuck in their piece of the American Dream. And no one saw it coming.

2. Here’s a little historical perspective on the relationship between government action in the New Deal and the prolonging of the Depression Previously Known as The Great.

Why wasn’t the Depression followed by a vigorous recovery, like every other cycle? It should have been. The economic fundamentals that drive all expansions were very favorable during the New Deal…So what stopped a blockbuster recovery from ever starting? The New Deal. Some New Deal policies certainly benefited the economy by establishing a basic social safety net through Social Security and unemployment benefits, and by stabilizing the financial system through deposit insurance and the Securities Exchange Commission. But others violated the most basic economic principles by suppressing competition, and setting prices and wages in many sectors well above their normal levels. All told, these antimarket policies choked off powerful recovery forces that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend by the mid-1930s.

Well, at least we learned our lesson.

3. And now for a little economic apocalypticism from Peter Schiff. In the short interview on the left side of the screen, Schiff thinks the economic “stimulus” will be “an unmitigated disaster.” He predicts a crisis of the dollar, hyper-inflation, and the collapse of the current consumer economy resulting in an Even Greater Depression. I’m wary of Chicken-Little-style sermons, but Schiff has been predicting a collapse like this for some time, and he seems to have more economic sense than both houses of Congress.

4. Finally, if you’re like me, you listen to someone like Schiff and you start to panic a little. “What happens if the economy does go belly up?” Anxiety starts to well up in the heart, sin crouches at the door, and you start to get the economic equivalent of a bad case of indigestion. If that happens, I would heartily commend John Piper’s message “What Is the Recession For?” from a couple of weeks ago, as well as a couple of posts from Doug Wilson (here and here).

Remember: The Market is not sovereign; it does not run the world. Jesus does, and of all people, that should give those who belong to him a mighty dose of mind-blowing, soul-anchoring peace.