The Hatred of Calvinism and Liberalism

My fellow Postliberals who are Roman Catholic think that the logic of Postliberalism leads to Catholicism. But what I am finding is that the logic of Postliberalism leads to Calvinism. As I think about it, most of the objections to Calvinism *reek* of liberal views of freedom. We have become a society so deeply ingrained in liberalism that it even controls the way we think about theology!

Remember, the difference between liberal and postliberal views of freedom. Liberalism conceives of freedom as the freedom from external constraints, including customary norms and values (such as those found in scripture). The only exception to this kind of freedom from external constraints is those things that are necessary for the continuation of society (ie, you can’t murder people). These restraints are accomplished through promulgated law.

The Postliberal (or, perhaps more accurately preliberal) view of freedom sees liberty as the right to self rule. True freedom comes as one disciplines oneself according to specific Biblical values and morals. Thus, true freedom comes through hard work and discipline to overcome base but persistent desires. To illustrate, when someone says, “I am free from my addiction,” no one thinks they mean that they are free to do whatever they want to do! Just the opposite. They have mastered those desires and are no longer slaves to them.

When I think about all of the objections to Calvinism, I cannot help but consider how many of them presuppose this very view of freedom. For example, the idea that God only predestines some people to heaven is seen as “unfair.” But *why* is it seen as unfair? It seems to me that not giving certain convicted sinners a means out of their sin while giving others a means out of their sin is unfair. But what does that assume? It assumes that everyone must be free from the consequences of their sin. And the consequences of their sin are external constraints on their freedom. Indeed, for many people, it isn’t even enough that a Calvinist is willing to acknowledge that unregenerate man will never *desire* to turn from his sin. The mere fact that God has put that constraint on man and is under no obligation to give a way out is enough to say God is doing something unfair.

Indeed, the boundlessness of liberalism comes through in the objection that God is somehow unloving for not giving certain people a chance (again, even if they don’t want it). The idea is that love must have no boundaries. You might love your brother who is a thief, but you aren’t going to let him in the same room with your wallet! You have boundaries. In the same way, God has said that the soul that sins shall die. Yet God is somehow obligated to remove that boundary because…why? It would seem it is because boundaries in regards to love are bad. But consider the similar logic used to justify open borders. “Don’t you care about those immigrants!?” It doesn’t even matter that certain immigrants wouldn’t fit into your culture and could even cause havoc (look at the Middle Eastern immigrants in Germany). Love must be boundless. Even within American society, we must accept *everyone,* including people who identify as “gay” and practice homosexuality. This boundlessness of liberalism can be seen in our view of God’s love. If He lays down boundaries, He is unloving. He must either give people a way out of punishment for sin (non-Calvinist Christianity) or not punish sin at all (antinomianism). And if God cannot lay down boundaries like death for sin, and must give everyone a way out, why must he impose the boundary even for those who *don’t* take that way out? You will say, “Because they chose.” The problem is that they *didn’t* choose to be in a state of sin in the first place as original sin teaches. Why then should they be responsible for getting out of something they didn’t chose to get into in the first place?

In fact, I think the thing that people hate about Calvinism is that they think that man’s freedom is most clearly seen in the fact that he is free to reject God. But when you point out that even *this* is even under the sovereign control of God, that illusion of freedom from God is taken away. Even here, man in his wickedness is not only constrained by God, but following the very decree God laid down before the foundation of the world. Thus, liberal views of freedom from external constraints are seen as a complete farce.

Indeed, one’s view freedom and rights leads to one’s view of what it means to be human. The whole point of rights is to protect the humanity of individuals. When freedom and rights are conceived of as freedom from external constraints, not having external constraints becomes the essence of what it means to be human. Thus, people argue that Calvinism takes away the image of God. However, if we believe man’s humanity is related to the fact that he is created in the image of God, then his identity must ultimately go back to God and His nature and character…not to man doing what he wants to do free from external constraints. Thus, for man to truly be free, he must discipline himself according to the values of scripture which reflect the nature and character of God. Thus, the rights of man must ultimately be to do what is consistent with the nature and character of God. The liberal view of freedom seems to presuppose that man is created in *his own* image, rather than in the image of God, since it goes back to man and *his* desires rather than the desires of God. That is why some of the most dehumanizing photos you can see are of people who identify as transgender, often looking like something out of a horror movie. And yes, they demand that you accept it all in the name of “rights” and “liberty.”

The view of freedom that conceives of it as discipline according to external constraints still allows God, *at His own discretion* to make exceptions and show mercy. The whole time man is constrained by the boundaries God puts in place. Even after man is justified before God, God *still* expects man to live according the the values of scripture (albeit with new desires that *want* to please God and *desire* to serve Him). Man must discipline his body and make it his slave (1 Corinthians 9:27), so as to “offer his body as a living sacrifice” (Romans 12:1) and “be transformed in the renewing of our mind” (Romans 12:2). We need to be spiritually disciplined according to Godliness because “bodily discipline is of some value, but Godliness is profitable for all things” (1 Timothy 4:8). Thus, even after regeneration and justification, man works to discipline himself according to the values of scripture.

Many people are concerned about the whole “cheap grace” view of salvation that says that man can pray the sinners prayer and get his fire insurance, and it doesn’t matter if he lives a life of Godlessness afterwards. He is still going to heaven. Aside from the fact that we have already demonstrated this view to be *entirely* unbiblical, again, one can see the tinge of the liberal view of freedom that seeks to remove the external constraints God has placed on man. Indeed, many people *rightly* saw the connection between the acceptance of homosexuality into the church and this view of salvation. But the reason they are linked is because they both partake of the same liberal view of freedom.

In many ways, this is why Reformed theologians emphasize what they call the “Lordship” of God. It is *this* that liberalism is incompatible with. Indeed, my pastor pointed out that unregenerate man ultimately hates this aspect of God the most, namely, his Lordship, and that is why it appears that scripture knew *very well* of this view of freedom, even if it hadn’t been polished in a more philosophically sophisticated way. That is why I would say that to be a Calvinist and to embrace even right wing liberalism’s views of freedom (as is done in many Christian Libertarian and Theonomic circles) is *grossly* inconsistent.

Indeed, not only did *scripture* address these notions of freedom, but many people in Reformed history, up until recent times, openly *rejected* these views of freedom. For example, while I am much more Continental in my view of Reformed thought than the Puritans, the one thing I respect the Puritans for is their rejection of this liberal view of freedom. In his sermon “The Duty of Self-Denial,” Thomas Watson speaks of several ancient philosophies that *likewise* rejected the need for self-denial. While they were more philosophies of life than views of rights and freedoms, what he says applies to them as well:

This justly indicts those who live in a contradiction to the text, who instead of denying themselves, let loose the reins and give themselves up to all manner of pleasure and licentiousness.124 “The heart of fools is in the house of mirth” (Ecc 7:4). Such the prophet deciphers,125 who do not mortify126 but gratify the flesh: “That lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches…that chant to the sound of the viol…that drink wine in bowls” (Amo 6:4-6). Pleasure, like Circe,127 enchants men’s minds and transforms them into beasts. There is a place in Africa called Tombutium where the inhabitants spend all their time in piping and dancing. And have we not many who consume their hours in plays and brothels? As if God has made them like the leviathan, to play in the water (Psa 104:26). How will their countenances be changed when God shall say, “Give an account of thy stewardship” (Luk 16:2)? These frolicking sensualists live as if there were no world to come. They pamper their bodies but starve their souls. As if one should feed his slave but starve his wife! Do epicures deny themselves? Indeed, in one sense they do. Enjoying their lusts, they deny themselves a part in heaven! In the country of Sardinia there is an herb-like balm that if a man eats of it he shall die laughing. Such an herb is pleasure. If one feeds immoderately on it, he will go laughing to hell. Esau lost the blessing while he was hunting. Oh, how many, while they are hunting after worldly pleasures, lose blessedness? There is a sin cup brewing which will spoil the sinner’s mirth. “In the hand of the LORD there is a cup, and the wine is red; it is full of mixture” (Psalm 75:8)

Yes, all men deny themselves. Liberalism teaches people to deny themselves Christ and live for self while Christianity teaches us to deny ourselves that we may receive Christ. Thomas Watson understood that such an attitude is inconsistent with Christ’s call to “Deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ.” Thus trying to mix these views of liberty with Christianity doesn’t work. Eventually, people are going to demand freedom from self-denial, and if you have already agreed with liberty as being freedom from external constraints, it is totally arbitrary to say Christians who discipline themselves should be free of external constraints and not others. Thus, society is torn apart as easily as a whale tearing through a net. Indeed, this is *exactly* what I saw growing up. As liberal views of freedom gradually replaced Christianity, immoral behavior was justified in terms of “rights” and “freedoms.” But remember promulgated law is the only thing liberalism uses to try to contain that. But which freedom should the law contain? What is Biblical and Christian or liberty *from* what is Biblical and Christian. Consistent liberalism has no answer for that, as the whole point of the government is to protect people’s “rights,” ie, free them from external constraints…including institutions like the church, Christian understandings of marriage, and even the duties of parenthood once a child is conceived. The results have been the mess that we have right now. I

ndeed, I even heard a Theonomist say the other day that Theonomy isn’t about imposing the law on others. It is about conceiving about what a Christian society would look like if the people ever wanted it, and such a society would never come about unless the people wanted it. However, the reality is that the people *don’t* want it, and as long as the government can keep teaching people that freedom from Christ is good by its laws, with the cooperation of movies, music, TV, the news media, and education, they will *never* want it. And all those in the government need to do is tell these pastors to “get back in their own lane” if they try to take power in *any* of those spheres to try to stop the birds and the weeds put out by the public sphere from taking away and choking out the word of God. The only real option is a retreat from the public sphere to try to protect a remnant. But that is hardly the Postmillennial golden age! You can’t say the word of God is relevant to all areas of life (including government), and then turn around and say the transforming message of the gospel has been given to the Church and *not* to the government. No, the government has the responsibility to teach *all* the word of God by its laws *including* the gospel. When the power of God into salvation is left out of the state, don’t be surprised if the state becomes a Godless, anti-God god.

But how was liberalism so readily accepted? The answer is that, after World War II, America became a super power, and was pitted against the Soviet Union. Because Marxism is an idealistic ideology which the Soviet Union wanted to impose on other countries, America basically idealized its founding making it an idealistic form of government that could be transported overseas to other countries. Even though the founders would have laughed at such a notion, as the American founding was complex involving differences of opinion and common interests among contradictory ideologies, the American founding as an ideal was pitted against the idealistic Marxism in the minds of Americans. Of course, this attracted and served the interests of liberalism and its free market ideology. Thus, following the logic of liberalism, the Constitution becomes promulgated law, stripped of any kind of Christian morals or values which had been simply assumed to be behind the Constitution up until that point. Indeed, “natural law” was assumed to have the God of scripture behind it up until this point. Thus, liberalism destroyed the fundamental Christian basis of society, and paved the way for the rejection of Christianity as a constraint on society. Indeed, this idealistic idol of “Americanism” is what I believe has ultimately mixed with Christianity creating the unstable mess we have today.

I started this discussion by saying that I think that I am coming to the conclusion that Postliberalism leads to Calvinism. Perhaps it might also be correct to say that Calvinism should lead consistently to Postliberalism. In a world where you have the complete sovereignty of God, it is utterly *impossible* for man to be free from external constraints even in a limited way. God is either Lord or He is not. Thus, liberalism should have *no place* in Calvinistic thought. But, more than that, liberalism and its view of freedom creates a seemingly self-evident objection to Calvinism that leaves you susceptible to leftist liberalism’s view of freedom. That is one of the reason I am a Calvinist is that I think it gives the most consistent response to leftist views of liberty and freedom. In our modern society, that cannot be underestimated!

The Wrath of God Satisfied, Penal Substitution, Expressive Individualism, and the Old Testament Sacrifices

[Note: This was originally a Facebook post, but given the popularity of some of the ideas I addressed, I decided to post it here. I hope you will find it edifying!]

As always happens on Good Friday, I get a myriad of posts from my leftists friends upset at penal substitution. Indeed, this year, these lines from this particular chorus seem to be ripe for attack:

This gift of love and righteousness,
Scorned by the ones He came to save:
Till on that cross as Jesus died,
The wrath of God was satisfied –
For every sin on Him was laid;
Here in the death of Christ I live.

However, after reading Carl Trueman’s book on expressive individualism, I am starting to see these posts in a new light. As I alluded to yesterday, expressive individualism’s presuppositions are the direct opposite of the presuppositions of the Hebrew Bible. Trueman distinguishes between what he calls “mimesis” and “poiesis.” In mimesis, the position of the Hebrew Bible, God is who He us, He has created the world to be what it is, and has created us to be what we are. Thus, we must fit into God’s world and the existence He has created, not the other way around. In poiesis, our identity is basically our psychology and reality (including God) is raw materials which we can mold according to our own psychological identity. Indeed, to not allow a person to act according to their psychology is a violation of their human rights. In this system, therefore, historical iconoclasm is the norm. History is always viewed with suspicion, because we are trying to remake theology according to our psychologized identity.

Now, they aren’t going to come right out and say that. They will ask for a particular verse that teaches that Christ satisfied the wrath of God on the cross. Of course, the problem is that there isn’t one single verse that teaches the Trinity either. It is based upon the fact that the Bible sees the nature of each of the persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) as divine, the fact that it says there is only one God, and the fact that the persons are distinguished. This id one of the reasons I rejected formalism in linguistics. Thought patterns are what lie behind forms on the page, and the question isn’t whether you can find something in the forms, but whether it matches the thought that produced those forms. Or, as Immanuel Kant would have said, the empirical forms aren’t all there is to reality. We must consider various relationships the mind processes between those forms. “I went to the store. I bought some lettuce” can be understood both as “I went to the store and subsequently bought some lettuce” as well as “I went to the store, and as a result, I bought some lettuce.” That is because we know the background relationship between going to the store and buying something. In the case of the atonement and satisfaction, leftists read their notion of poiesis and expressive individualism into the relationship between the forms. But, if we don’t accept the presuppositions of poiesis, the idea of Christ satisfying the wrath of the Father by His death on the cross is quite obvious.

One of the most deadly passages to the notion of poiesis is the story of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 10:

Leviticus 10:1-3 Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said to Aaron, “It is what the Lord spoke, saying, ‘By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.'” So Aaron, therefore, kept silent.

Notice how Nadab and Abihu sin against God and violate His law by offering fire in any way they wanted, and in a way not consistent with how God had told them to. The result wasn’t that God was forced to accept it because it matched their psychological disposition. No, fire came out and consumed them. And not only that, this is seen as just by Moses. By those who come near to God, we must treat Him as holy. To act sinfully in His presence just because of our psychology is wrong, and God has every right to take our life in His wrath. He sets the world the way it is, and we must act accordingly. He is holy, and so we as His worshipers must also be holy. As the law says:

Leviticus 11:45 For I am the Lord who brought you up from the land of Egypt to be your God; thus you shall be holy, for I am holy.'”

Thus, we don’t get to remake reality. We try to do it, and we end up like Nadab and Abihu. And it is not a matter of God violating some supposed human right to psychological peace. He is completely holy and just to do it to the point where God tells the Israelites not to mourn for Nadab and Abihu lest they incur the same wrath:

Leviticus 10:4-7 Moses called also to Mishael and Elzaphan, the sons of Aaron’s uncle Uzziel, and said to them, “Come forward, carry your relatives away from the front of the sanctuary to the outside of the camp.” So they came forward and carried them still in their tunics to the outside of the camp, as Moses had said. Then Moses said to Aaron and to his sons Eleazar and Ithamar, “Do not uncover your heads nor tear your clothes, so that you will not die and that He will not become wrathful against all the congregation. But your kinsmen, the whole house of Israel, shall bewail the burning which the Lord has brought about. You shall not even go out from the doorway of the tent of meeting, or you will die; for the Lord’s anointing oil is upon you.” So they did according to the word of Moses.

Moses sees this as a wakeup call to the people of Israel. They need to understand the holiness of the one they worship, and bewail their sin in the presence of a holy God that has caused this. Indeed, they couldn’t even go out of the tent if meeting. There are other stories like this (the story of Uzzah being struck dead for merely touching the Ark of the Covenant in 2 Samuel 6. But there is a reason I have chosen this story to illustrate just how opposed the Hebrew Bible is to the poiesis of expressive individualism. It is because it is directly relevant to the atonement. Often overlooked is that fact that the famous celebration of Yom Kippur outlined in Leviticus 16, begins with a reference to the incident with Nadab and Abihu:

Leviticus 16:1 Now the Lord spoke to Moses after the death of the two sons of Aaron, when they had approached the presence of the Lord and died.

The instructions he gives to Aaron are interesting because they relate both to the time He is to be approached (only once a year), but also the mode by which He is to be approached. For example. Aaron is not simply supposed to bring a sacrifice for the sins of the people, but for His own sin and the sins of His household as well:

Leviticus 16:3,6 Aaron shall enter the holy place with this: with a bull for a sin offering and a ram for a burnt offering. Then Aaron shall offer the bull for the sin offering which is for himself, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household.

Why would Aaron need to do that? Well, the story of Nadab and Abihu should answer that question. If Aaron enters into the Holy of Holies with sin, it would be an affront to the Holiness of God. Remember, Gid must be regarded as Holy by those who approach Him. Otherwise they will be consumed by God in His wrath. This, the atonement here satisfies the wrath of God so Aaron can enter into the Holy of Holies and pour the blood on the mercy seat without being consumed by the wrath of God. This sacrifice is specifically called a “sin offering” (Leviticus 16:11). That will become important later.

Indeed, this notion of atonement satisfying the wrath of God is typical. Consider, for example, the story of the rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16. Korah and his family had the earth swallow them up because of their sin, God sent fire to destroy others, and then you have this interesting scene:

Numbers 16:43-46 Then Moses and Aaron came to the front of the tent of meeting, and the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Get away from among this congregation, that I may consume them instantly.” Then they fell on their faces. Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer and put in it fire from the altar, and lay incense on it; then bring it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone forth from the Lord, the plague has begun!”

Here again, atonement appeases and satisfies the wrath of God against the sins of the people.

Indeed, such sin offerings, like on Yom Kippur with the scape goat, can require the priest to lay his hands on the bull before slaughtering it signifying that the sins of the people have been transferred to the bull and the bull is taking the death and not the person committing the sin:

Leviticus 4:14-18 when the sin which they have committed becomes known, then the assembly shall offer a bull of the herd for a sin offering and bring it before the tent of meeting. Then the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands on the head of the bull before the Lord, and the bull shall be slain before the Lord. Then the anointed priest is to bring some of the blood of the bull to the tent of meeting; and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, in front of the veil. He shall put some of the blood on the horns of the altar which is before the Lord in the tent of meeting; and all the blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar of burnt offering which is at the doorway of the tent of meeting.

One particular kind of sin offering that is interesting is called the guilt offering. It is outlined in Leviticus 5-7. Again, it is used to make atonement (Leviticus 5:6, 7:7). Again, the idea is that the person has sinned, and such sin brings the wrath of God upon the congregation. That wrath must be satisfied by making atonement.

So, how does all of this relate to Christ? In Isaiah 53, Jesus’ death is specifically called a “guilt offering.” And notice how the language of the satisfaction of the wrath of God just leaps off the page when we understand it in the context of these sacrifices:

Isaiah 53:10-11 But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities.

The words of that song “On the cross when Jesus died, the wrath of God was satisfied” are now all over this text. I once heard John MacArthur quoting NT Wright as saying that such beliefs are paganism. Aside from the fact that they are right here in the Hebrew Bible, and thus cannot be paganism, I would actually argue that Wright’s position is actually worse than paganism. At least in paganism, the pagans recognize that they are under God’s wrath and need to make atonement. Now, they redefine God and redefine the nature of their offense, but still, at least they recognize those things. Wright and those who deny Penal substitution and satisfaction can’t even see the need to appease God’s wrath. That is why John MacArthur was right to call NT Wright a heretic. But, more profoundly, such thinking expresses the fact that modern man thinks that He does not need to satisfy the wrath of God because he can just remake God in his image. As my pastor said, “God created man in His image, and man has been returning the favor ever since.” Man thinks he is God, or, at least, he thinks that he can remake God according to his psychologized identity. The results are ugly, and in the end, people are left without any way to deal with the wrath of God which is sure to come. But God is who He is independent of our psychology, to the point where He is perfectly justified in striking us dead in His anger because of our sin. But thanks be to Jesus Christ who took that wrath that we should have received, freeing us from the curse of the law. Now, we can approach God through the shed blood of Jesus Christ which has satisfied the wrath of God on our behalf. This is the gospel of Jesus Christ to whom is all the glory, honor, power, worship, and adoration forever and ever! Amen!

Toward a Post-Liberal Protestant Theology

I am a Protestant. I have been arguing against Roman Catholics for a long time, and while I realize that there is a wide spectrum of beliefs in Catholicism, I believe Tridentine Catholicism has abandoned the gospel set down in the pages of scripture. That being said, often reading Roman Catholics can help you understand your own faith much better as you see how your faith differs from their faith. However, there are times when you read a Roman Catholic, and they challenge you to be more consistent and to define your terms more carefully. I recently came across a book that has forced me to do just that. It is a book by Patrick Deneen called “Why Liberalism Failed.” It is an ironic book in that it is endorsed by Rod Dreher, who is Eastern Orthodox, and former President Barack Obama. Obviously, not a lot of books are endorsed by both the left and right side of the aisle! As I am reading it, I am finding that I have to sharpen my views, especially on the relationship between scripture and politics.

I had originally conceived of this article as a critique of modern Theonomy. Now, I have dear and close friends who are Theonomists, so my issue isn’t with Theonomy per se. It is with some of the worldly philosophies that have made their way into Theonomy such as Common Sense Realism, Stoicism, and Aristotelianism. It is with some of the bad and careless hermeneutics in modern Theonomy. While a critique of modern Theonomy would be a worthwhile pursuit for another day, I came to realize just how much of Protestant Christianity more broadly has a lot of the same attitudes that I see in modern Theonomy. In fact, many of the issues within the church today I think stem from these attitudes.

Deneen’s book attempts to show why liberalism, in the classic sense, ended up failing. He says, ironically, it is because it succeeded. Why is it, for example, that bastions of liberal thought, such as the modern university, have become so *illiberal?* It is because liberalism succeeded. Why is it that once treasured values such as free speech are being eroded away? It is because liberalism has succeeded. His argument is, if liberalism succeeds, then paradoxically, it fails. It has the seeds of its own destruction built into it.

What has bothered me, however, is the way in which modern Protestant Christianity has borrowed from liberalism. While most Christians I talk to agree that vaccine mandates are wrong given that these vaccines have caused death, and no one seems to want to find out why, the whole argument over mask mandates divided the church. Indeed, some small churches lost so many members that they were forced to close. More than that, odd and bizarre interpretations of Romans 13 and related passages were taken by otherwise sound exegetes in order to justify not wearing masks all in the name of “resisting tyrants.” Now, resisting *tyranny* is good, but when tyrants tell you that you need to drive 45mph on a particular highway, should we disobey them, and then refuse to pay our ticket all in the name of “freedom?” “But,” you might reply, “they will arrest you if you do that!” You mean the same way they are arresting the Canadian truckers in Ottawa right now? I mean, I could be seen as a light for freedom and my name will go down in history like Martin Luther if I purposefully break the speed limit and refuse to pay the ticket!

I think that the problem with all this thinking is a misconception about what “freedom” is. It used to be, before liberalism, that freedom was conceived of in terms of the right to self governance. As Deneen says:

By ancient and Christian understandings, liberty was the condition of self-governance, whether achieved by the individual or by a political community. Because self-rule was achieved only with difficulty—requiring an extensive habituation in virtue, particularly self-command and self-discipline over base but insistent appetites—the achievement of liberty required constraints upon individual choice. This limitation was achieved not primarily by promulgated law—though law had its place—but through extensive social norms in the form of custom. This was so much the case that Thomas Aquinas regarded custom as a form of law, and often superior to formalized law, having the benefit of long-standing consent. [Deneen, Patrick. Why Liberalism Failed. Yale University Press. Kindle Edition]

What has changed is that liberty has been conceived in a very libertarian way. Of course, the famous way of conceiving of John Stewart Mill’s view of liberty is:

We should be free to do whatever we want to do, so long as what we do does not harm our fellow man.

It is subtle, but I sense that this has come into Christianity. What has changed is simply the limiting principle:

We should be free to do whatever we want to do, so long as what we do doesn’t contradict the commandments of scripture.

The idea, given the relevance of modern Theonomy to legal theory as well as the fact that Jeremy Bentham (one of the fathers of classic liberalism) was a judge himself, is that this is a theory of legal jurisprudence. Hence, it is easy to understand why people would view laws about wearing masks as acts of tyranny since it takes away liberty in this libertarian sense. This is because not wearing a mask doesn’t harm anyone, nor is it contrary to anything in scripture. Indeed, this notion is often connected back to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. However, I dare say that this was *not* the view of liberty of the Biblical authors, the Patristics, the Medieval church, nor of the Reformers. More than that, in borrowing from libertarianism, it has the seeds of its own destruction built into it.

For example, one of the problems with libertarianism is with the fact that they see all men as natural egoists. Indeed, this seems to fit well with the Protestant notion of Total Depravity. But, if that is the case, then this position can be *easily* turned against itself. It is not on the basis of interpretation of scripture per se, but on the basis of the fact that someone has to *implement* these laws. Given that everyone believes that scripture can be abused, the question is, “How do we know that the people implementing the teaching of scripture in the laws of our society won’t abuse those scriptures for their own gain? You might be able to correct their abuses of scripture by speaking out against them, but what if you have no power to stop them from implementing interpretations that are contrary to the word of God, and merely give the politician or pastor more money, power, and fame? Now, obviously, I believe scripture is the standard as a Protestant. What I object to here is with interpreting “standard” as a “limiting principle” in a libertarian context. I will come back to this later, and show how a *rejection* of the libertarian framework can actually put the doctrine of Sola Scriptura on a much firmer foundation.

A second problem with trying to reformulate libertarianism along Protestant lines is with the notion of freedom. There are *lots* of things scripture doesn’t forbid that aren’t wrong in and of themselves, but simply aren’t a good idea. For example, traveling to a foreign country when you know nothing about their language and culture could end up making people mad at you. There is nothing wrong with eating a bowl of ice cream, but it *is* high in fat and calories. There is nothing wrong with sleeping during the day, but it will give you less time to get your work done.

The reason these things are true is because scripture isn’t an isolated set of commands. Those commands go back to specific *values* that underlying the commandments of scripture. That is how we know that certain laws directly apply today and certain laws do not. Understanding that the law regarding the railing around the roof of the house goes back to the value of human life helps us to see why this law no longer applies in this way today because having a railing around the roof of our house today would be irrelevant to human life. But, obviously, it *would* mean that laws regarding homosexuality still apply as those laws go back to values such as creation, human relationships, and the value of family and marriage.

Where it gets tricky is when an action you could take comes up against multiple Biblical values. In such a case, one must see how the Bible prioritizes these values. For example, the food that we eat is a good gift of God. But God repeatedly warns against gluttony because it can kill you…not to mention the selfishness of taking all the food for yourself! Hence, although the Bible speaks of food as a good gift of God, having that second bowl of ice cream (or even possibly the first bowl) may not be overly wise depending on the context. God has laid down natural boundaries, such as how our bodies work, how much our stomachs can hold, what foods are good for us or not good for us that we cannot cross without serious consequences in regards to the values God has set down for us.

What I mean is that these kinds of things involve self-governance and self-discipline. While eating ice cream isn’t necessarily wrong, it must be done in moderation. Same thing with sleep. Same thing with anything here on planet earth. God and God alone is the one thing we can never have in excess. But that means viewing all of these things from the perspective of the values laid down in the scriptures. It is cultivating this skill that is central to freedom.

Indeed, it is cultivating this skill that gives a much firmer foundation to the issue of implementation of the law of God. Recall earlier that I brought up the problem of egoism in regards to the implementation of scripture. However, that doesn’t really become a problem unless there is no self-discipline, in terms of the study of scripture and the implementation of its values among the *individuals* in society. This is something that *cannot* be done by leaders, whether pastors or government officials. It has to be done by *individual Christians* who cultivate this wisdom. Then, whenever someone tries to come along and make self-centered demands, those with discipline will be able to see through it. Indeed, for Sola Scriptura to function, I would say such discipline must already be in place. One must have the attitude of the Bereans to test whether something is consistent with scripture, and the discipline to follow it rather than our own desires. I would say the Reformers simply assumed that as a matter of fact because that is what the common people of the Reformation valued.

But the process of cultivating this discipline is difficult, and many people would rather just listen to their favorite teacher tell them what to do on all kinds of issues. However, that is a good way to get yourself engulfed in the pit of tyranny. In fact, people who just believe whatever their favorite pastor teacher says have already given up their freedom, if we conceive of liberty as the right to self governance, because they aren’t governing themselves. They are letting a teacher on podcasts, on the radio, or YouTube do this job of ruling they should be doing themselves. And sadly, it happens on both the left and the right! I have seen people who think that John MacArthur can do no wrong, and I have seen people who think that Tim Keller can do no wrong. But, in either case, the reason people give up this freedom to self rule is because self-discipline is hard.

Aside from Roman Catholics, another group that has really challenged me on this is is the Seventh Day Adventists. I ran into them because they are really big in Romania. I don’t have *near* as severe a reaction to SDAs as I do to Roman Catholics. While there are certain Adventists who hold problematic views on things like the Investigative Judgement, I agree with Walter Martin that it is possible to be a Seventh Day Adventist and be a Christian. Perhaps it is because I was raised in the Holiness Movement in the conservative Church of the Nazarene, but one thing I admire about SDAs is precisely this emphasis on self-control. Dr. Ben Carson is the par excellence example of this. Someone can be yelling at him in a debate, and he still stays calm, cool, and respectful. That’s not easy to do! But I am finding that it goes back to some of the emphases in Adventism that I think are woefully lacking in this fusion of libertarianism and Christianity. I heard a song on this theme that describes this quite well. It is in Romanian, and I don’t know if I like the music as much as I like the lyrics. The name of the song is Ca Să Fii Rege. Here are the lyrics with a rough translation:

Ca să fii rege peste animale,

To be king over animals

nu-i cine ştie cât.

It isn’t a matter of how much you know

Trebuie doar să fii

You just have to be

mai puternic decât ele.

stronger than they are.

Şi-atât.

And that’s it!

Ca să fii rege peste păsări

To be king over the birds

este puţin mai greu.

is a bit more difficult

Dar frumos.

but beautiful

Trebuie să zbori mereu

You have constantly fly

mai înalt decât ele

higher than them

şi niciodată mai jos.

And never lower

Ca să fii rege peste flori

To be king over the flowers

trebuie să suporţi la hotare

you must support the edge

mărăcinii şi spinii

of thorns and thistles

şi mai ales,

And more than that

trebuie să înmiresmezi către lume

You must smell the earth

mai mult decât crinii.

more than the lillies

Ca să fii rege peste înstelare

To rule over the stars

trebuie să te aşezi printre luceferi

you must sit down among luminaries

călător spre Orion

as a traveler to Orion

şi, reprivindu-te de jos,

Looking down on you

să fii mai luminos

To be brighter

decât oricare.

than any one of them

Şi fără tron.

but without a throne

Ca să fii rege peste ape şi vânt

To be king over water and wind

trebuie să înveţi osanale ca îngerii

you must learn praises like angels

şi să le aduci pe pământ

and to bring upon the earth

alinare pentru lacrima corbilor

relief for the tear of ravens.

din Valea Plângerii.

in the Valley of Sighs.

Ca să fii rege peste oameni

To be king over men

este mai greu decât toate altceva.

Is more difficult than all of these others.

Trebuie să trăieşti şi să mori pentru ei,

You must live and die for them

învăţându-i ce înseamnă a iubi,

Learning what it means to love

a ierta.

and to forgive.

Dar, cel mai minunat,

But the most wonderful thing

este să poţi fi rege peste tine însuţi,

Is to be able to rule over yourself,

atunci când alegi binele,

when you choose good

fie din bucuria altuia,

Whether from the joy of another

fie din plânsul tău.

or from your own crying.

Şi să încheiem înţelept şi frumos.

And let us conclude wisely and beautifully

Şi, mai ales, cum se cuvine.

and all the more how it is proper.

Încoronarea ta o face Hristos

It is Christ who coronates you

când mergi pe drumul dinspre rău spre bine.

when you go from the way from evil to good.

În clipa aceea,

At that moment

Veşnicia te cumpăneşte.

You make an eternal decision.

Dacă vrei să fii rege, alege binele!

If you want to rule, choose well!

Even if you didn’t get some of the references to the Valley of Sighs, the point of this song is how hard it is to rule over ourselves. Indeed, we can only rule over ourselves if Christ makes us king. But it is also a skill we learn over time as Christ sanctifies us. We aren’t just “free to do whatever we want to do” outside of some limiting principle. We must rule ourselves. Hence, I would say what we end up with in the mixture of Christianity and liberalism is a counterfeit view of liberty that is incompatible with the exhortation of this song to “alege binele” (choose well)!

Moving on from explaining my new position, I would argue that, if we follow the logic of libertarianism out, it explains a lot of the problems we have right now in evangelicalism. Indeed, it explains both the left and the right, and I don’t think each side can see how their views logically lead to the other. For example, why do people feel like they have to add all of these commandments to scripture? “Thou shalt get married young.” Thou shalt have children after you get married unless you are biologically unable.” “If you are a woman, Thou shalt be a homemaker.” All of these things are exegetically ludicrous. I think part of the reason is that, once you assume that it is either a scriptural command or you are free to do whatever you want to do, if you see a big problem in society that needs limitation (such as people not having enough kids or feminist mockery of homemakers), you really only have two options: boundless freedom (which clearly isn’t working) or Biblical commandment. Hence, given this libertarian framework, you have to find some Biblical commandment to solve the problem. If the values of scripture are involved at all, it is “Well, you must not value marriage and children is you don’t get married or have children.” Of course, that is *nonsense.* I highly value police work, but that doesn’t mean I am a policeman! But, obviously, such values are going to obviously be something you are going to have to weigh in making your decision, and it is hard to argue that society and governments take these values seriously when birth rates are so low! But you can see this binary way of thinking when people criticize those who don’t have children as loving “human autonomy,” as if the only options are “free to do whatever you want to do” or “Biblical commandment.”

More importantly, these additions to the word of God cause an equal and opposite reaction. Feeling that they are losing their freedoms, leftists run from *any* and *all* constraints seeking to push the “free to do whatever we want to do” side. Now, even boundaries such as prohibitions of homosexuality are up for grabs. They are rightfully suspicious of these additions to scripture. But they react in an equal and opposite way by getting rid of borders and boundaries that are absolutely essential. They see it as a mark of compassion to not say homosexuality is someone’s identity or that trans women are really women, because not being bound is the essence of who someone is. Thus, laying down boundaries is seen as mean and discompassionate, if not an out and out violation of an individual’s rights. They often connect these things to abuse within the church. But, of course, those boundaries are there for a reason, and getting rid of them destroys the distinction between the church and the world. Thus, this side ends up sounding a whole lot like the mainline denominations. Indeed, this is what John MacArthur was trying to get across when he said he didn’t believe in religious liberty. The context was a Christian, in the name of religious liberty, helping Muslims build a mosque, which is quite bizarre. Indeed, defenses of refusals to make a cake for a gay “wedding” or for churches to not have to perform gay “weddings” based on “religious liberty” in this context end up making the fundamental rights for Christians to practice their faith based on a pagan view of liberty! When you have to defend your faith with paganism, there is something wrong.

But it is not just leftist ideas that come from this boundless aspect of liberalism. The Quiverfull Movement and those that believe deliberate childlessness is a sin will often argue that you should have children irregardless of financial constraints, what skills God has given you, or even, sometimes, the very health of the woman and the doctor’s assessment that it would be medically dangerous for her to have a(nother) child. They argue that children are a blessing, and, therefore, none of those things should matter. Again, we can see the connections with the overindulgence of food and the overindulgence of entertainment. Boundaries don’t matter because something is good and a blessing. This isn’t Biblical thinking about blessings at all (Proverbs 25:16-17, 27-28), but it is *perfectly* in line with the same kind of lack of respect for boundaries of gender that you find in the transgender movement as well as the lack of concern for boundaries that you find in those who argue for open borders. The boundaries are just of a different type. All of this is the heritage of liberalism and its notion of “free to do whatever you want to do” irregardless of the boundaries God himself has put in place!

I would say that this is also where the countercultural manhood stuff comes from. Rather than seeing people who simply allow Biblical boundaries to be transgressed as a sign of the unbounded nature of libertarianism, they see it as a sign that society is becoming more feminized. The problem is that men aren’t standing up and leading. Hence, the concept of the man with “courage” comes up, and you see the abuses of passages like 1 Corinthians 16:13. And, of course, all kinds of unbiblical ideas are read into the concept of “manhood” that completely run roughshod over sound exegesis, preferring pragmatism in exegesis to linguistic truth, and running roughshod over the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Even the doctrine of the Trinity must be tampered with by bad exegesis in order to “wake men up” and stop the “feminizing of society and of men.” In reality, the message should be one of learning where the boundaries are at, and learning how to properly apply the Biblical values to our lives with wisdom. An unwillingness to do that causes people to charge like a pit bull over Biblical boundaries of the sufficiency of scripture and the doctrine of the Trinity all in reaction to people allowing others to prance over Biblical boundaries like gender and heterosexuality without a word because they think it is compassionate to do so! If both sides would recognize the need for these boundaries and the need to be wise and to exercise self-discipline and self-restraint in how we govern our lives *individually* by the values found in scripture, this ironic transgression of boundaries on *both* sides wouldn’t be happening!

In an attempt to try to avoid the fact that liberalism has the seeds of its own destruction built into it, many of these people try to set up boundaries which have traditionally been called “spheres of influence.” But, in a libertarian context, spheres of influence do *nothing* to stop tyranny. Indeed, they invite it! Why? For several reasons:

First, you cannot have strict spheres of influence. Obviously, most people acknowledge that the state has a right to come in and take away children from parents who beat their children until they are black and blue and throw them in cages. But the question is, at what point does the treatment of a child become an offense for which children must be taken away or for which the church must engage in discipline? Obviously, if it is *every* time the parents sinned, the other spheres would be getting involved *all the time.* But, remember what I said earlier, and that is that one of the problems with libertarianism is its claim that the laws must be implemented by people who are natural egoists and, as Christians would say, sinners. What happens if the person implementing this rule as to when an offense becomes serious enough that the church must step in defines this time in a way that gives him more power over others, more money, or more speaking engagements at the big conferences? Again, going back to scripture at this point doesn’t help in this libertarian framework for the reasons I outlined above, most especially, if you are the one telling others whether it is legitimate to step across the spheres of influence or not in a certain situation, then how can you be corrected even if you are wrong and there is an outcry that you are wrong?

Second, the spheres of influence are not equal in their power. Consider if a church wrongs a family. That family can certainly stop going to that church and tell other people it is an abusive church. But the church can discipline them right up to excommunication for not complying with their egoistic and unbiblical commandments. And if they hear that the family is saying they are an abusive church, all they need to do is label that family as “liars” and “troublemakers,” and the whole problem “goes away.” It is their word against the family’s word.

The third reason spheres of influence don’t work in a libertarian sense is that there can be collusion across the spheres of influence. If a father and the elders of a church collude to teach an ideology they believe is “Biblical” and it isn’t, what’s a mother or a child supposed to do, especially if they connect the denial of their beliefs with the secularism and statism of the left? In reality, there is nothing they *can* do. Indeed, the attempt of many Christians to indoctrinate families with these odd marriage and family ideologies all the while showing extreme hostility to the state (even if it is rightly deserved) creates a dangerous situation in which the holders of these ideologies are unaccountable to anyone. Ironically, in an attempt to avoid tyranny through spheres of influence, we end up in tyranny. This is why, although I try to be careful to not speak to any one specific account of abuse, I do believe that there is abuse that goes on in these kinds of churches. That is because one of the classic problems with libertarianism is that you can take its limiting principle, and reduce it to tyranny. That’s not hard to do with the spheres of influence!

Now, it might surprise you to learn that I *do* believe in spheres of influence. I just don’t accept the libertarian framework of them. Remember, for me, the most basic form of government is self-government. Self-restraint and self-discipline based upon the values found in scripture and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit are key to any successful government. If you begin with those things, then spheres of influence make sense, not as some Biblical requirement, but as a very wise way to make sure that there are checks and balances so that mistakes can be corrected. Since everyone is operating beginning from Biblical *values,* there will be general agreement as to when those values have been transgressed, as opposed to starting with commandments and not understanding the values behind those commandments, and not understanding how to apply those values in areas where there is no Biblical commandment.

I spoke earlier about mask mandates, and how this libertarian view of freedom makes sense out of the position many have taken on mask mandates. However, we have also had vaccine mandates now, as well as mandates to close churches indefinitely. While the latter was (rightly) argued against on Biblical grounds, the mask mandates and vaccine mandates were things that people argued needed to be matters between individuals and their doctors. However, again, it is like these people can’t see themselves in their own arguments. If I am a smart leftist, I can simply reply, “Have you *seen* what happens when people and their doctors make their health decisions? Look at the obesity rates! Look at the rates of heart disease! Look at all the junk food people consume! Do you *really* want these health decisions to be between them and their doctors, especially when Covid-19 is something that could *kill* them already because of “decisions between them and their doctors?” There have, thankfully, been people who have stated the fact that we need to get people to have better health habits. But it apparently never occurred to them that their argument for freedom was based on the supposition of self discipline and self control. It also didn’t seem to ever occur to them that this kind of discipline must therefore be *central* to the avoidance of tyranny. Nor did they think to address what to do about the fact that most people *in the present* don’t care about their own health, and hence, it is going to be downright impossible to implement something like that *without* people exercising discipline and self-control and not having a view of freedom that says, “Do whatever you want to do.” The common objection to this is that it doesn’t hurt anyone but myself if I don’t take care of myself. Really? It doesn’t hurt hospitals? It doesn’t hurt your family members? This is where this view of freedom really starts to reek of selfishness.

You can see this when some of these people started complaining about seat belt laws saying they, like mask mandates, were tyranny. But what they *don’t* say is that, as the LA Times noted in 1985, 86% of Americans believed that seat belts could significantly increase their chance of surviving an accident. Yet, at best, only 41% used them. Other studies showed that number to be as low as 14%. What does that have to do with anything? Well, as people died in accidents, insurance companies had to pay more. The irresponsibility of individual Americans not wearing seat belts was hurting insurance companies, so they had to pass laws requiring people to wear seatbelts in order to protect the insurance companies! Yes, your decisions about your personal health *do* affect others. We don’t live on an island. We live in a society!

It is, indeed, a wonderful thing to rule over ourselves, to choose well. But it isn’t something that is automatic. Given that this is the foundation of government in a society, and given that we have so little of it today, it is hard to be optimistic about the future. Not only can’t people control what they eat, but they keep having sex outside of marriage even with all kinds of painful and sometimes deadly Sexually Transmitted Diseases. That is *not* a good sign! The threat of Marxism and leftist totalitarianism is obvious. But, from watching Christian celebrities grabbing hold of foolish things like Critical Race Theory, which is based in cultural Marxism, to watching as the people who cry the loudest about female submission being something that is obvious in scripture then turn around and abuse passages of scripture that use *the exact same term “submission*” of the government, it is hard to have much hope for the church either. It would be humorous if it weren’t so sad. But it is also dangerous. As I said, I know of churches that have closed their doors because the elders said they were going to comply with the government mask mandates, but wouldn’t comply with vaccine mandates or requirements that churches close their doors. Half of the members of the church listened to these libertarian ideas on these podcasts, and decided to rebel against the elders and simply leave the church all over a pagan view of liberty. The result is that these churches had to shut their doors. Remember how I said earlier that spheres of influence will not stop tyranny? Here is a classic example of that. Those who have the popular podcasts can demand female submission, but when they see “obey your elders and submit to them” (Hebrews 13:17) as well as commandments to submit to governing authorities, they don’t care. Instead they promote a false and pagan view of “liberty” and “freedom,” the members of churches repeat their rhetoric, and they don’t even care if churches end up splitting and closing their doors because of their carelessness. Indeed, in that situation, no elder can question their notion of liberty without losing their church. So, who are the true elders of these individual churches? Those who are duly elected, or the celebrities with podcasts? Oh sure, they will *say* they value the local church. But do they value the local church enough to want the members of those churches to submit to their elders even if those elders have a slightly different view than them? I saw *no* evidence of that during this whole pandemic, and the result was the closing of perfectly good and flourishing churches all in the name of “fighting tyranny.” This is why I say that I fear that there is as much a threat of ecclesiastical tyranny right now as there is of government tyranny!

I must stress, though, that whether it is government tyranny or ecclesiastical tyranny, it all goes back to one thing: the mixture of libertarian notions of freedom and Christianity. Indeed, many people were recently surprised when The Blaze and PragerU congratulated David Rubin and his homosexual partner on their decision to have children through surrogacy. Indeed, The Blaze and PragerU are two platforms that have been trying to mix libertarianism and Conservative thought for a long time. In my mind, this is more understandable than mixing Marxism and Christianity, as Ronald Reagan did it, mixing libertarian economics and conservative social policy. Indeed, these ideas are the zeitgeist of the Southern Confederacy and the Victorian Culture it represents. But it is just as destructive as mixing Marxism and Christianity. In fact, as we have seen, libertarianism tends to drift leftward *towards* Marxism and statism. This drift leftward on the part of conservatives will continue until libertarianism is abandoned. That is because true freedom for anyone is a matter of Liber în Domnul, “Freedom in the Lord,” and not freedom in ourselves. This pagan view of freedom does nothing more than lead to slavery. That is why I urge us to reject it, and turn to Christ for the self-control and discipline needed to have *true* freedom!

The Argument Culture in Calvinism

A while back, I wrote an article in which I was concerned about the reasoning of JD Hall, because I was concerned that it was putting forward patterns of discourse that I had already seen from Deborah Tannen’s book The Argument Culture. About the only thing I would do differently now is use different notations for pitch and intonation, as I hadn’t studied phonetics and phonology at the time I wrote that piece, and wasn’t aware that there are official IPA symbols for some of those things. Other than that, I agree with everything I wrote…and then some. Since then, there have been some new developments. Unfortunately, there has been an entire movement of the argument culture in Calvinism, to the point where there was a debate between Sonny Hernandez and Theodore Zachariades on the the Calvinist side, and Leighton Flowers and Jonathan Prichett on the Arminian side, and the Calvinists refused to acknowledge the Arminians as brothers in Christ. This brought out a whole mess of Calvinists who likewise refuse to accept the profession of faith of those who simply disagree on these issues. Now, we have known that such people exists on the Arminian side for a long time. I have ran into a huge number of fire-breathing Arminians who want to throw every Calvinist into the pit of hell. And, of course, you have the same thing going on in politics as well, so this fits the zeitgeist both theologically and culturally.

More than that, Deborah Tannen connects this way of thinking to a more masculine way of thinking, and said that men tend to fall into this trap far more than women do. In my experience, she is right. While there are certain patterns of male discourse, such as using language to negotiate status, using language to force people into lower positions for power is a particular temptation of men because of their concern for status in their discourse. It is frightening, therefore, to consider the kinds of “masculine Christianity” put forward by Mark Driscoll, as well as the fact that many people in the Reformed community were openly embracing the Christian Patriarchy Movement. The “masculinization” of the reformed movement provides another context out of which to look at this. Without the recognition that men are fallen, and are susceptible to sin, and without the recognition that women are extremely important in balancing out that way of thinking, I think that a masculinized reformed Christianity is every bit as dangerous as a feminized reformed Christianity. What we need is *integration,* not characterizing reformed Christianity as masculine or feminine[1].

And, of course, there have always been the “cage stage” Calvinist among us, and Calvinist leaders who have had their appeal because they say radical things. I can think of one pastor who believed and preached that it was sinful for a Calvinist to marry an Arminian. While that view never gained much prominence in the Reformed community, it was there, and it reflects an inner attitude problem that I saw many Calvinists have toward Arminians. It is this dangerous attitude that has lead to a movement that has made the phrase “Doctrines of Grace” seem rather ironic.

Sadly, you can see all of the elements of The Argument Culture in this movement. Instead of idea vs idea, this movement frames everything as person vs person. Also, there is a strong ethic of aggression, where the proper response to anything is always the most aggressive response. In fact, people like Dr. James White have been attacked because he does *not* take this approach. Consider this example from Sonny Hernandez:

Notice the use of the pronouns: placing “we” and “us” in opposition to “you.” Notice to the notion of Dr. White doing what was “predictable.” This gives the sense that they have power over him, because they already know what he is going to do before he does it. And, we also find the ethic of aggression, where Dr. White’s refusal to take the most aggressive approach and debate them is seen as nothing more than “appealing to emotions,” “mocking,” and “inciting others against” them. It is, in essence, painting Dr. White as running from them and their power, simply because it is not the most aggressive approach, whereas anyone who gets involved in this war of words rather than ideas is seen as manning up and not being cowardly. Hence, what is most ethical is seen as the most aggressive, and everything is framed from a position of power.

Even scripture is reframed in this way. Jesus casting the money changers out of the temple now becomes right merely because it was aggressive. However, the Bible also presents Jesus very patiently dealing with the woman at the well and with Nicodemus. Even the apostle Paul speaks of how we are to interact with others, and speaks of how we are to do so “with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition.” These have been brought up before in this discussion, but the balance of the Biblical presentation on this topic is ignored in favor of an ethic of aggression which glories in the most aggressive response. Again, you can see the same thing in this meme:

What is interesting about this meme is how the first two numbers say the same thing…almost. The first one uses the term “arminianism” which refers to the belief system, whereas the second uses the specific “friends” or “family members.” As I understand it, what the person is trying to do is to say that this aggression must not only be in your own mind or only something you are willing to say in private, but in your practice too…in how you relate to your friends and family. Notice how, again, the most aggressive opposition, both in private and in public, is seen as the most ethical and most holy. And, again, even saying arminianism is “inconsistent” isn’t enough. If you don’t take the most aggressive approach, you are not really being ethical on this issue. Also, again, notice how the “Cowardly Calvinist” is “men” who do this. The unstated assumption is, “We are not cowardly, because we don’t do this.” Again, it frames it as person vs person rather than idea vs idea.

I would also say that there are other elements of the argument culture in this as well. For example, Tannen talks about the idea that many newscasters had back in the 1990s that if you get two people with polar opposite views, and have them duke it out on TV, it is great entertainment. Shows like CNN’s Crossfire or even more wild and crazy shows like Jerry Springer are built on the idea that a fight is fun and entertaining. JD Hall, in reviewing the above mentioned debate, said the following:

On several occasions, when Zachariades was speaking, I said to my self, “Oh, snap!” and giggled silently, reaching for my imaginary bag of popcorn. Zachariades – and to a lesser extent, Hernandez – clearly were not planning on sitting by while their opponents challenged the authority of God. While they will be criticized for not having the right demeanor for debate, I would suggest that is only because we have been inundated with the soft-bellied, lily-livered, limp-wristed creampuffs who make up the children of our age. These men were all fire and lightning, and the respect given to Flowers and Pritchard was commensurate with the respect due.

Clearly, there is an entertaining element to this infighting for Hall. I think this has, unfortunately, been one of the weaknesses of debates within the reformed community. When people like James White or others debate, you can frame it in many ways. For some people, you can frame it as entertainment. For some people, it is education. However, I am deeply concerned about the fact that these debates can be framed in terms of CNN’s Crossfire or some other show where the two sides get together to fight. I know Dr White has spoken before about why he does debates, and it is not for entertainment, but for edification. Still, it is one of the weakness of debate, and that is that what is happening can be framed in so many different ways. Thus, it lends itself to the possibility of being framed in terms of the argument culture, whether you intend it or not.

Now, having established that this movement is very much what Tannen is talking about, what are the dangers here? Well, we have already mentioned one, and that is that scripture is reframed in that what is considered right is not right because it reflects the nature and character of God, but, instead, because it is aggressive. Scripture is then abused to justify any aggressive behavior, even when it totally crosses the line. And, conversely, any scripture that could be used to correct that behavior is either ignored or distorted in the entire reframing of scripture to justify their ethic of aggression.

Even worse, facts, data, and reason are ignored and dismissed for the sake of maintaining the aggressive “me vs you” position. Here is an example from Deborah Tannen herself. I would recommend you read the whole article, but the beginning of the article is sufficient to illustrate what can happen as someone who has spent most of her adult life studying the differences between male and female discourse is largely ignored because of this:

I was waiting to go on a television talk show a few years ago for a discussion about how men and women communicate, when a man walked in wearing a shirt and tie and a floor-length skirt, the top of which was brushed by his waist-length red hair. He politely introduced himself and told me that he’d read and liked my book “You Just Don’t Understand,” which had just been published. Then he added, “When I get out there, I’m going to attack you. But don’t take it personally. That’s why they invite me on, so that’s what I’m going to do.”

We went on the set and the show began. I had hardly managed to finish a sentence or two before the man threw his arms out in gestures of anger, and began shrieking — briefly hurling accusations at me, and then railing at length against women. The strangest thing about his hysterical outburst was how the studio audience reacted: They turned vicious — not attacking me (I hadn’t said anything substantive yet) or him (who wants to tangle with someone who screams at you?) but the other guests: women who had come to talk about problems they had communicating with their spouses.

My antagonist was nothing more than a dependable provocateur, brought on to ensure a lively show. The incident has stayed with me not because it was typical of the talk shows I have appeared on — it wasn’t, I’m happy to say — but because it exemplifies the ritual nature of much of the opposition that pervades our public dialogue.

Now, anyone who has read Tannen’s book You Just Don’t Understand, Men and Women in Conversation is amazed that someone with expertise in this field with a huge amount of knowledge gets shut down by someone with very much the same oppositional attitude as we find in this movement within the reformed community. Here you have people who legitimately need help, and someone who is imminently qualified and willing to help them, and she is shut down for entertainment purposes, and because someone wants to start a fight.

A related concern is that people’s words are distorted. When someone said something in a particular context, and they didn’t mean anything nefarious by it, their words will be distorted into something that demands a vituperative response from the aggressor. We saw that with Hall’s comments on the Pope, and, sadly, an unwillingness to even listen to what people who have tried to correct him on that issue and other issues. Indeed, such could create a very dangerous situation in which the individual holding the ethic of aggression never sees himself as wrong or needing to improve, as words even of constructive criticism can be twisted and used against them, as they are reframed in an “us vs them” mentality.

It is precisely this attitude that makes this movement so dangerous. Truth is redefined as not what is consistent with reality, but what is consistent with their opposition to another person. In such a view, facts and reason take a back seat to fighting. Someone on Twitter today asked me if I thought the people up in Toronto associated with Michael Brown were dangerous like this movement is. My reply was that this movement is more dangerous even than the most wild charismania. He then posted some wild video with Heidi Baker in it, and asked how I can believe that JD Hall and this movement is more dangerous than that. My reply was that this movement trades truth for an ethic of aggression, and, if the truth is gone, how are you going to deal truthfully with the most wild charismania, or anything else? That is why I believe this movement is far more dangerous than anything charismania can offer.

So, what is the solution to this problem? I think the solution comes down to wisdom. I had a professor tell me one time that he believes that 98% of the people in our churches are pious, but only about 2% are wise. An emphasis on wisdom, and also the basics of the Christian faith are essential in building a Christian church that can, not only recognize differences, but also Biblically recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each group [including your own], and work to get better. So, for example, even Dr. Michael Brown himself has said that there are discernment problems within the charismatic movement. However, one of the things that charismatics and Pentecostals do very well is love the brethren. Some of the best and most loving brothers and sisters in the Lord have been charismatics. The reformed community, on the other hand, is just the opposite. We are very good at discerning truth from error, but very poor at loving the brethren. In fact, we tend to eat our own. It sounds to me like Pentecostals need to become more like the reformed, and the reformed need to become more like Pentecostals! And that is the way we should look at it. Every Christian community does some things well, and some things not so well. We should be willing to learn from others, and not blast them because they are weaker in certain areas, especially since, as long as we are on this earth, we will have sin, and thus, we will all have weaknesses.

This kind of attitude will involve a change in the way we think about problems. Jesus said that “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick,” and makes immediate application to his “calling sinners to repentance.” I thought of that immediately when I read Dr. Tannen talking about a doctoral dissertation one of her students did on Japanese radio broadcasts. Her student said that, on Japanese broadcasts, there were always at least 3 participants [never 2], and the framing of the discussion was not in terms of war, but in terms of medicine. So, for example, they would say things like “What is your diagnosis of the problem” and “what treatment would you offer?” That does not take away from the sinfulness of sin, and the need for a redeemer. In fact, it heightens it. What it means is that sin has infected our thinking, and what we *should* be doing is treating one another like fellow doctors seeking to use the truths found in the scriptures to eradicate the sinful elements of our thinking. That means that we have one another’s best interest in mind, and, often, the problems in our thinking can involve many layers. It can also involve overreactions, and we should always be aware of the need to maintain Biblical balance.

The reality is that sanctification [another issue of controversy in the reformed community] should involve a growth in wisdom. The reformed community simply cannot ignore this foundational lack of wisdom in how we treat others. It is a danger far worse than the lack of discernment within charismatic circles, and we would do well to take the plank from our own eye before removing the speck from their eye. Theology that does not make one wiser in how we treat others and minister to others is a horrible theology indeed, and I pray that God would protect us from this dangerous lack of wisdom until the day of his coming, and protect his people in his churches from falling prey to it.

[1]In saying this, I am in no way trying to address the issue of ordained officers of the church. There is a strong tradition going back into church history that this is limited to men. However, even if you take that view, there is no more foolish an officer of the church than the one who thinks that this somehow means that his masculinity is to frame everything the church does. Men who will not listen to women, or, even worse, abuse women are setting themselves up for a hard fall, as women are created in the image of God too, and have much to offer in terms of their view of the world. Ignoring what they have to say can be like ignoring a snake ready to bite you. The book of Proverbs doesn’t speak kindly of those who will not listen to others.

Race, the PCA, and The Gospel Coalition

There are some things that continue to be repeated again and again, although they have been refuted over and over again. One such myth is the idea that you only use 10% of your brain. That is demonstrably false, as the brain is constantly keeping you breathing, keeping your heart beating, processing your vision, moving your body, and mediating aspects of your personality. Other such myths are that Herbert Hoover was a modern day libertarian who just wanted the government to have a hands off approach to handling The Great Depression. Hoover pushed through massive tax increases to try to handle the problems of the depression, and, indeed, Roosevelt’s New Deal actually prolonged the depression my many years!

The interesting thing about myths is that they can be used for political purposes. Obviously, the myth that you only use 10% of your brain is often used to motivate children to think more rigorously. The myth that Hebert Hoover was a modern day Milton Friedman is used to blame the continuation of The Great Depression on libertarian economic philosophy, and to try get people to avoid voting for candidates that advocate such a philosophy.

The problem is that some myths are dangerous. Many “cures” for autism involve actions that could be potentially harmful for the patient. Although higher taxes are often thought to help the poor, the reality is that those higher taxes often end up harming the poor as businesses usually take their business overseas, and leave poor people without a job. Similar unintended consequences of various myths are what I fear the PCA faces today in the growth of leftist racial philosophy within our denomination. Sadly, the arguments that are used not only have very little to do with scripture, but they also are deeply influenced by secular antibiblical philosophy such as liberalism and multiculturalism. These ideas have been refuted over and over again by *black* people like Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams. What is sad is that I have heard rumblings that Critical Race Theory is being borrowed by many of these people in the PCA, and that is exceedingly dangerous, as such theories basically apply Marxist ideas of economics to race. Marx would not have agreed with them, and the roots of such ideas are intellectually troubling.

However, what is amazing is the thinking and statistics that are used to justify this line of thinking. Again, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Milton Friedman and other economists and political theorists have already taken them apart. Hence, almost *nothing* in this post is going to be new. In fact, I will take most of the information in these posts from these three economists. My reason for doing so is simple. Often statistics can *hide* the truth. Mark Twain’s famous statement putting statistics in the same category as lies overstates the truth, but it, nevertheless, communicates something important. You can’t just look at the statistics. You have to *interpret* those statistics, and that means putting them in their proper framework. As we will see, people who promote these racial theories almost always stop when they get statistics that they can use to promote their agenda, but never go deeper to see if that interpretation is borne out by further analysis of the same statistics. More on that in a moment.

I first heard of this racialism in the PCA when one of the boys at church was talking about our magazine “By Faith” which had ran several articles about “racial reconciliation.” When I finally understood what they were talking about, it was extremely disturbing. Just recently, Covenant Seminary had a conference featuring these kinds of teachings. Here is an example of some of the rhetoric:

“For whites, our position as majority-culture citizens of America grants us privilege and safety that people of color are not afforded. It is good and wise that we have time together, as white people, to have honest discussion and explore the ways that we can expose our own biases and be effective in the fight for racial justice.” – Joel Littlepage

This conference is an initiative of another major player in this push, and that is the Reformed African American Network [RAAN]. Recently, one of the founders of RAAN, Jemar Tisby wrote a piece with the following rhetoric:

Black Christians long for spaces where they can be proud, black, and free.

We want places to lament when the next unarmed black person is killed by law enforcement. We want “amens” from people who understand what it’s like when a classmate or co-woker insinuates that your presence is only due to affirmative action. We want to say “That’s my jam!” when someone mentions a nineties R&B song (clearly the best era for this genre). We want to talk about what it’s like to be a black believer in a white Christian congregation.

But how can black people get this kind of communal strength when all of our gatherings are integrated?

Ben Sciacca recently wrote two articles on how to talk to your children about race. In the first article he says:

Our distinct cultures produce equally unique cultural artifacts of art, music, literature, apparel, food, and beauty. This is because our Creator endowed each of us with creative ability. The majority of these cultural artifacts should be seen as diversely wonderful and distinctively appreciated.

On the other hand, despite the fact that we are over 50 years removed from the Civil Rights Movement and the ugly days of legalized segregation, there are still systemic racial injustices in this country that frequently target people of color. I live and serve in a part of Birmingham, Alabama where most of the minority children are zoned for an under-resourced or failing school. This is educational injustice. It is rampant in cities around the nation and affects millions. These same kids live in a food desert with no access to quality grocery stores with healthy vegetables and produce. Predatory lending stores infest the neighborhood, dispensing quick loans and then charging poor and desperate people almost 500% in interest.

In the second article he says:

2. Promote diversity around the dinner table

Great things happen around the dinner table. There is almost something magical about inviting people into your home and breaking bread. Many of us find ourselves saturated in a homogenous world. We live, work, and worship predominantly with people who look a lot like us. Even if we have some diversity around us, we typically flock to “our own kind.”

It is good for our children to witness diversity in our homes. Many of our kids will meet students from different cultures at school. But in this context, their integration is somewhat forced. An invitation into our homes is an invitation into our lives.

Inviting people from different ethnicities and cultures into our homes knocks down barriers. It allows our children and us to simply behold people as people. Diversity enriches the conversations and enlarges our world. These relationships can provide healing, empathy, and understanding that would be hard to produce otherwise.

My family has been intentional about inviting a variety of people into our homes. This includes people from different cultures, even unbelievers and those from different backgrounds. In almost every case, our guests have been surprised that we would invite them over. It was something unexpected. But I can say that my family has been the beneficiaries of these meals. Our lives have been deeply enriched by the lives, the stories, the humor, and presence of our guests. The power of and the need for diverse dialog is what drove me to write my book Meals from Mars.

So, are their still problems with racism in our country? What about all of these statistics? Are they true? If so, how are they to be understood?

To answer all of these questions, we must begin with the eras of thinking among the intelligentsia about race. I am following Thomas Sowell’s outline in his books Intellectuals and Society[1] and Intellectuals and Race[2]. First in history, you had the progressive era back in the early 20th century. The progressive era was characterized by a belief that differences among races were due to genetics and genetic determinism. Thus, if you found that blacks scored worse on IQ tests than whites, it was because of their genetics. It was because they were somehow *inherently* intellectually inferior to whites. This kind of thinking led to the genocide found in the holocaust, as well as the eugenics movement and forced sterilization. Second, you had the liberal era. The liberal era represented a shift in thought to the idea that racism was a problem in the head of the white person. Thus, in essence, racism became a part of genetic determinism where whites were inherently racist simply by virtue of being whites. The final major player in this line of thinking is the era of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism basically taught that all cultures are inherently good, and such cultures must be celebrated by everyone as equal.

The problem is that these ideas, especially the latter two of multiculturalism and liberalism, become the lens through which you look at statistics, and don’t bother to go any further. One of the troubling things about intellectuals is their constant desire to use rhetoric and statistics, as Sowell says, to paint themselves on the side of the angels against the forces of evil. Thus, it is not just that liberalism or multiculturalism are their views; it is that they actively promote those things, and attack anyone who does not agree with them as a demon or “racist” in disguise. This causes them to see statistics that seem to support their views, but, when you dig further, you find that they actually do not support their contention.

So, for example, let’s take the example of lending mentioned above by Sciacca. Are those lending stores really “predatory?” Is it really the case that these lending differences are due to racism? In another article, Sowell completely takes apart the idea that these lenders are “predatory:”

However, both research and old age tend to produce skepticism about things that look plausible on the surface. Just scratching the surface a little often makes a plausible case collapse like a house of cards.

For example, neither study took credit histories into account. People with lower credit ratings tend to get turned down for loans more often than people with higher credit ratings, or else they have to go where loans have higher interest rates. This is not rocket science. It is Economics 1.

Blacks in the earlier study turned out to have poor credit histories more often than whites. But the more recent news story did not even look into that.

Anyone who has ever taken out a mortgage loan knows that the lenders not only want to know what your current income is, they also want to know what your net worth is. Census data show that blacks with the same income as whites average less net worth.

That is not rocket science either. Not many blacks have affluent parents or rich uncles from whom they could inherit wealth.

The earlier study showed that whites were turned down for mortgage loans more frequently than Asian Americans and the more recent study shows that Asian Americans are less likely than whites to take out high-cost “subprime” loans to buy a house.

Does that mean that whites were being discriminated against? Or are statistics taken seriously only when they back up some preconception that is politically correct?

Combine that with the fact that lending companies owned by black people turned down black people for mortgage loans at the same rates as lending companies owned by white people turned down black people for mortgage loans[3], and the issue becomes an open and shut case. And, of course, it is obvious that, if you have a lower credit score, and *are* able to secure a loan, the interest rates are probably going to be higher. This isn’t “predatory.” It is basic common sense.

As you can see, whenever these kinds of statistics are cited, you are going to have to consider whether “racism” is the explanation, or whether there are other economic factors that might contribute to the “disparities.” Consider Sciacca’s comment about stores in black neighborhoods:

These same kids live in a food desert with no access to quality grocery stores with healthy vegetables and produce.

There have also been complaints that stores in black neighborhoods have higher prices. The question is whether this is due to “racism,” or whether this is due to simple economics. Again, Sowell suggests:

An alternative economic explanation is that it costs more to operate stores in ghetto neighborhoods and that such costs are passed on to the consumers there. To the extent that higher costs cannot be fully passed on to the consumers, ghetto businesses would tend to be less profitable, and so such neighborhoods would attract fewer businesses in general Moreover, it is difficult to survive the competition in middle-class neighborhoods, whether because of lower efficiency or less courteous service[4].

So, what of the crime and poverty that makes these neighborhoods ghetto? Sciacca again assures us it has nothing to do with the cultures themselves. In his first article, he writes:

One has only to look at our prison system to see that the majority of men in prison are minorities, despite the fact that there is almost an equal number of crimes committed in predominantly white neighborhoods as there are in predominantly minority neighborhoods.

Of course, the problem with this is the use of the term “minorities.” Minorities are arbitrarily defined categories that include, not just blacks, but Asians, Latinos, and other groups. If Japanese Americans and Chinese Americans have low crime rates, and blacks and other groups have high crime rates, it will mean that whites and minorities will have about the same crime rates, but there will be far more minorities in prison.

However, black crime rate is much worse, and is often assumed to be so even in writings favorable to racialism. Yet, such high crime rates didn’t exist in Harlem or San Francisco back in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. Many people have connected this increase in crime to the decline of the black family, but as late as 1960, 78% of black kids grew up with both a mother and a father, and all the statistics show increases in crime and drug use associated with a lack of fathers in the home. What changed was the mass migration of blacks from southern cities where they had imbibed the immoral redneck culture[5], and then, the welfare state subsidized such immorality to the point where we have it today. Combine that with a system that refuses to punish crime, and crime rates will explode. And, of course, if a particular group of people have high crime rates, you are going to have more encounters with the police, and hence, more people are going to get shot by police. As Sowell explains:

Although many people regard these “disparate impact” statistics as evidence, or virtually proof, of racial discrimination, suppose that I should tell you that black basketball players are penalized by NBA referees out of all proportion to the 13 percent that blacks are in the American population.

“Wait a minute!” you might respond. “Blacks are more than just 13 percent of the players in the NBA.”

Black basketball players are several times more numerous than 13 percent of all NBA players. This is especially so among the star players, who are more likely to be on the floor, rather than sitting on the bench. And players on the floor most are the ones most likely to get penalized.

The difference between the percentage of blacks in the general population and the percentage of blacks in the particular activity being discussed is the key to the fraudulent use of “disparate impact” statistics in many other contexts.

Often with people who promote these kind of statistics, they assume that everyone within a group is exactly the same, so that all “minorities” have identical crime rates to blacks. Often, when you start breaking down the data, you see that not all groups are identical. For example, much is made of the wage gap between blacks and whites, but, as Sowell points out, aside from the fact that almost nowhere do you find groups evenly represented [hence, it is legitimate to ask why we should use this concept of “equality” as having anything to do with justice in the first place], if you account for all of the normal economic factors that control wage, such as education, experience, etc., you will actually find that blacks make *more* depending on how you break down the data. In fact, Richard Vedder and Lowell Galloway have brought forward statistics showing that in 1890 and in 1930, black labor participation was actually *higher* than that of whites[6]. In fact, while Tisby might not like talking about affirmative action, the problem it creates for blacks is huge, because it mismatches them with schools causing needless failure. Sowell relates a personal story of how 50% of black students were on some kind of academic probation at Cornell. It wasn’t that this kids were stupid, as they scored in the top 25% in math. But Cornell was geared to the top 1%, and they got left behind creating needless failure. This *also* contributes to problems with black income. One could also mention problems with the minimum wage law, which Milton Friedman called the most anti-black law on the books, because it prices low skilled black workers out of a job. Even Karl Marx himself knew that minimum wage was not the solution to these problems, but employment was.

Indeed, what is interesting with people like Tisby wanting to connect this kind of poverty and crime to black identity, and saying they need spaces “to lament when the next unarmed black person is killed by law enforcement” is that these things did not exist with blacks in the past. If it is part of black identity, were the blacks in Harlem in the 1930s not really blacks? Why is it that these things have only come about recently?

About the only thing I agree with these people on is education. Yes, blacks receive a *horrible* education. However, the question I must ask is whether it is due to racism or due to politics. When you have powerful teachers unions whose main goal is for people to keep their jobs, do you think they are going to want those bad schools to shut down. Furthermore, since these schools are often government run, do you think politicians up for elections want these schools to shut down? That is why you have the constant opposition from politicians to things like school choice and vouchers which would break this monopoly. So, again, while I agree that this is a problem, there is no evidence that it is due to “systemic racism.” In fact, Sowell gives the example of Dubar High School which used to be an extremely prestigious all black High School in New York. It used to put out graduates that would go to Ivy League schools long before affirmative action. Yet, now it is just a ghetto school. Are we seriously suggesting there is more racism today than back then?

The problem is, with all these issues from loans and economics to crime, it appears that there has been a change in the black culture. I already mentioned the absorption of redneck culture from the south, but I think that Sciacca’s comments above extolling diversity and multiculturalism are actually the problem. In all of this discussion of diversity, where is any evidence ever asked for or brought forward? You can see the philosophy of multiculturalism I spoke of at the beginning showing through, and being given a Christian flavor. The problem is that certain cultures are good at some things, but often not at others. Take Japan who was lagging far behind in industry and technology until they realized the United States was far ahead of them in those areas. Instead of blaming those buying products for being racist against Asians, they set up America as the standard of business and industry, and sought to learn how the did it, even sending their students to America to study. As a result, their GDP rose to the point where they are one of the most powerful economic forces on the face of the planet[7]. Sowell mentions how the Scots learning English and the Czechs learning German helped them to improve. And, of course, I think white Americans could improve by looking at how hard Asians work. Still, all cultures can improve, and the question is whether the things Tisby and Sciacca mention are the result defect in black culture or racism. It is *assumed* to be the latter, but never proven, and, indeed, much evidence shows it is the former, not the latter.

Evidence that this is cultural can be seen in that the same kind of crime and poverty is found in other cultures that have low morals and high crime rates and are likewise the target of welfare. Consider a book like Life at the Bottom[8], which chronicles the Underling class in England which looks very much like black culture here in the United States in terms of crime and poverty. In fact, they are often shot by police at such a high rate that they view the police as discriminating against them. As a result, they often riot with riots looking very much like Ferguson or Baltimore. One problem: They are not a different race from the rest of the population. What it shows is that this kind of violence and hatred among groups is quite common in situations like this.

However, it would be too reductionistic to say it is black culture alone that is causing these problems. As I alluded to earlier, intellectuals promote this kind of multiculturalism, and view any problem within cultures as a result of “discrimination.” This kind of thinking, however, tore up Sri Lanka, taking peaceful people from two different religions, and turning Sri Lanka into a violent bloodbath. Indeed, the more a society looks like liberal diversity and multiculturalism, the more susceptible it is to such violence. I am not saying that all blacks are a part of this black redneck culture. Indeed, many blacks have been speaking out against it far longer than I have.

That is why I echo the concerns of people like Todd Pruitt, James White, and the signers of this statement that this could bring severe division into the church to the point of even violence and blood. Sadly, intellectuals divide society in ways *they* want to see society divided, either to get votes, to sell books, or to continue a brand or a cause. Statistics like those cited by Tisby and Sciacca should cause blacks, whites, or anyone on the short end of those statistics to ask how they can improve themselves as a culture. It should cause us to ask why it is that our culture is not doing so well in those areas, and others are, rather than attributing it to malice from others. If we interpret high crime rates as a need for more morals in your culture, economic problems as a need to gain more economic skill in your culture, and education problems as a need for better education in your culture rather than blaming someone else, I think *all* groups will be better off. Yet, that doesn’t make you an angel against the forces of the evil racists, and probably won’t get you book sales, votes, or any other position of prominence.

Still, my plea to the PCA is to recognize the serious danger here. Beware that automatically interpreting disparities as “institutional racism” or any form of racism for that matter can, itself, belie a hidden racism. Yes, intellectuals on the left want blacks to take these statistics in this way. That is how they get their votes year after year, and how Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson bring in their millions. However, it trains people to hate one another out of envy, and such hatred can cause, not just division, but, if the evidence from places like England, Sri Lanka, Baltimore and Ferguson are any indication, it could also cause mass violence. We don’t want that in the Church. The embrace of this kind of multiculturalism may give you solidarity with African Americans, but it will be solidarity based on something that could end up harming both African Americans and white people in our churches.

More than that, I am also concerned that we in the PCA be willing to warn black people of the dangers inherent in this kind of redneck culture. The more we try to pretend that this is black, and that this will actually help black people, the more we are not giving them the gospel, as the gospel says to repent of such sinful behavior and turn to Christ. If we promote these ideas, we are promoting the failure of black people, plain and simple. True love for our neighbor involves telling them when there are elements in their culture that could hurt them, and that sinful behavior has consequences. That is why I would say that the PCA must stand against multiculturalism, and work with all cultures to bring the transforming power of the gospel to each culture. If we do not, we could see people in those cultures die both in this life and in the next life.

[1]Sowell, Thomas. Intellectuals and Society. Basic Books. New York, NY. 2011. pgs. 441-467.

[2]Sowell, Thomas. Intellectuals and Race. Basic Books. New York, NY. 2013. pgs. 21-43; 86-106.

[3]Sowell. Intellectuals and Society. p.132

[4] Sowell, Thomas. Economic Facts and Fallacies p.176

[5] Sowell, Thomas. Black Rednecks and White Liberals. Encounter Books. 2006.

[6] Vedder, Richard. Galloway, Lowell. “Declining Black Employment.” Society. July-August 1993. p.57

[7] Sowell, Thomas. Intellectuals and Society. pgs.461-462

[8] Dalrymple, Theodore. Life at the Bottom. Ivan R. Dee Publishing. Chicago, IL. 2001.

First Post

I have loved running the blog over at neurosciencelinguisticsandhebrew.wordpress.com, but there are many times I wanted to address topics that simply do not fall under the category of neuroscience, linguistics, and Hebrew. I have already stretched it by addressing several issues of New Testament Greek on the other blog. This blog will solve that problem, as it will be more for theological and philosophical issues that don’t fall under those topics, especially issues having to do with things like theology, political philosophy, and current issues in the PCA, my church’s denomination. In both blogs, I hope I glorify God in all I write.