Blog & Mablog the blog of Pastor Douglas Wilson
Grace Agenda 2013

Rachel Held Evans Denies the Cat

In the aftermath of the Oklahoma tragedy, Rachel Held Evans took John Piper to task for claiming, right in line with the Bible, that if disaster befalls a city, it is from the hand of God (Amos 3:6). Not only is it from the hand of God, but it is from the hand of a holy God. But to know — as insurance companies do — that such things are classified as acts of God, is not to say that God is abusive.

This stance of Piper’s upsets Evans, and she went on at length about it, maintaining that this creates abusive church environments, etc. I don’t want to go point-by-point through her post here — I simply want to make one observation, in line with the great Chesterton:

“If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.”

Here is the problem. Rachel Held Evans rebukes John Piper for answering the problem of evil as all orthodox Christians must, but then cops out herself. “We don’t know exactly why suffering happens in every situation . . .” Now of course this is quite right if we are maintaining that Henry got cancer because he cheated on his taxes three years ago. We don’t know that. But it is staggeringly wrong if we are talking about why our world is broken the way it is. We do know that. We have been told.

Read more →

Crucial Context

“At thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore” (Ps. 16: 11)

The Basket Case Chronicles #117

“All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not” (1 Cor. 10:23).

There are verses where the surrounding context does not matter as much in the reading of the verse, and there are verses where the surrounding context matters a great deal. The phrase all things is qualified in context, but is unqualified within the confines of the verse. Apart from context, this passage appears to urge us on to the higher grace of antinomianism. But in context, Paul is talking about a particular set of behaviors—eating meat offered to pagan idols.

He is talking about particular cases of conscience. He is not talking here about, say, fornication, drunkenness, or extortion, as we can readily see by flipping back a few pages (1 Cor. 5:11). Here is a paraphrase of the passage, tailored so that it cannot be made to stand alone. “All the things we are talking about are lawful for me, but they are not expedient. All of those things are lawful, as I said, but doing them won’t help you edify your brother.”

Actual Thugs

It is not too soon to begin referring to the Obama regime as scandal-ridden. But what does this mean?

I was amazed at Obama’s first election, amazed that more people didn’t see through him. His gauzy promises, his tip-tilted nose, his serene arrogance, were all a sight for the prescient gobsmacked to behold. And then I was amazed again at his re-election — but this time I was amazed that the electorate hadn’t seen him. Now it was not a matter of seeing through him, it was simply a matter of seeing him. He had a record now; he had actually done stuff. Lots of people could see it, and they kept saying to the others, “Can you see it now?” And the answer came back . . . no . . . no . . . no . . . call it a continent-wide Huxtable presidency wish fulfillment syndrome.

But the American people, bless their hearts, are now starting to see the big E on the eye chart. Of course, our collective nose is almost touching the big E on that eye chart, but we can at least see it now. The doctor has been most encouraging.

We have the AP scandal. We have the James Rosen scandal. We have the IRS scandal. We have the Benghazi scandal. We have reports waiting in the wings that these scandals are going to go much deeper, and that a couple more volcanoes may erupt any time now. And the reason we now have these scandals functioning as real scandals is that the mainstream media — fully complicit in helping maintain a purblind populace the last four years — has by some act of God awakened. This doesn’t make them virtuous, but it does make them interesting.

One of the central things this means is that we should be glad that Obama won re-election — this may well in retrospect be a profoundly merciful kindness from God. God draws straight with crooked lines. Obama is a Chicago thug and Romney appears to be a nice man, but they are both of them statists. Statism is always death, whether or not there are smiley faces at the top, and it needs to be discredited in real time, by those running it. And who better to discredit something than the discreditable?

Statism is thuggery, and I prefer my thuggery be run by actual thugs. It helps to concentrate the mind.

Sitting on the Kitchen Floor

All right, so if you come here often, you may have noticed things look a little bit different. I just moved from Joomla to WordPress, and boxes are still everywhere. Please pardon the clutter, especially in the categories over on the right. I am still learning the tags thing, and not very well I might add. But the best way to make sure a move like this happens is just to do it. So here we are, eating pizza and sitting on the kitchen floor.

Comments should be much easier for you to make now, and there will be other benefits as well, which I will announce as they get figured out.

Not All Cake

Levi Heiple has graciously interacted with my post on technology and education here. As he notes, we have a good bit of common ground — and so what follows here is simply what I believe to be a necessary voice of caution. There are principles involved in education, and there are methods, and whenever you come across a dazzling new method, the temptation is to forget or slight the principle. I am not against the right use of a new method; I am jealous for the principle.

For me, the issue is not whether these new technologies are  going to affect education — of course they are. The issue is where and how we categorize it all — which was my point about the enhanced library. This is the basic distinction I was making there. You either learn from someone you know personally, or from someone you do not know personally. If it is the latter, then it is enhanced library learning — with the difference that I might be fooled into thinking otherwise with the new technologies. Reading Augustine is not likely to make the student think that he knows him, but if we had a recorded video series of that great man’s lectures, and we got to watch his gestures and that little facial tick, we might come to think (erroneously) that we did know him. This is a mistake I see happening everywhere, and which I am trying to head off. I don’t think the full force of what Jesus taught in Luke 6:40 is possible without face-to-face relationship at the beating heart of education.

Now I say this as someone who has used available technologies for spreading the word my entire adult life. So I currently stand condemned in all these ways — I blog, I write books, I tweet all over tarnation, my sermons are recorded in both audio and video, they are made available for smart phones, I helped edit the Omnibus textbook series for homeschoolers, and I will be teaching an online seminar for Logos Press in the fall. Mea maxima culpa.

My position might be compared, at some disadvantage to myself, to that of Jehu in his chariot, whipping his horses into a froth, while simultaneously yelling whoa.

In line with this, I recently got a note from a friend pointing to what he thought was an inconsistency between these Logos Press online offerings, and all the cautionary kibbitzing I have done in the past (and am doing right this minute). But again, as before, it is not what we are doing that concerns me — it is what we think we are doing.

So with that said, let me begin with Mortimer Adler’s breakdown of education into the categories of didactic, coaching, and seminar. I believe there is room for disagreement on the percentages he assigns to them, but for the sake of discussion, let’s start there.

I take Levi’s distinction between distance learning and blended learning in account, and also assume the coaching and seminar leading is face-to-face. This does address the concerns about “disembodiment” that I have expressed, but there are still a couple of other practical problems.

First, a bus company has to run on a schedule — they can’t have the bus go whenever ten or more passengers have collected at the bus stop. That would play old Harry with all the other potential passengers at all the other bus stops all over the city. So even if the students are self-paced in the didactic phase, they would still have to be ready “by the time the bus leaves.” And enough of them would have to be ready by the time the bus left. Otherwise, you won’t be able to keep your coaches employed. In other words, we find a host of logistical detail here that needs to be taken into full account.

And second, the coach or mentor (or seminar leader) will either be on top of the material, or he will not be. He will either be a true teacher himself, or he will be a facilitator/coordinator/study hall monitor. If he is the latter, it will be hard for the bright students to see the value added. But if he is the former, it will not be long before his students will want to hear his voice added to the didactic portion of the education — and we are back in regular old school where we started.

There is obviously much more that can be said about all this, and so I appreciate the thoughtfulness that Levi has put into this question. And speaking of questions, let me conclude by addressing the questions that Levi presented to me.

How do age-segregated classrooms prepare students for adult life?

The fundamental principle here is not age-segregation, but rather ability-segregation, for which age-segregation is simply the first rough draft. Students who surge ahead or who lag behind can always be sorted accordingly, and always have been. Sometimes proud parents want to believe their children are being hampered by “the system” when all they are doing is being a regular kid. We have to be careful here of the Lake Woebegone effect — where all the children are above average.

What are some resources that will correct the “nonsense being spouted about the history of education?”

I would recommend some of the footnotes I supply in The Case for Classical Christian Education. In particular, I would recommend histories of education written simply as histories. The point here is not a complicated one — we have had classrooms for a long time. It is not a modernity thing at all.

Do you believe that a lecture-based school is the best method of delivering information? If so, why?

Well, no, I don’t, but here is a common confusion — a classroom-based school is not the same thing as a lecture-based school. A well-run classrom is going to have a healthy component of each one of Adler’s categories. There will be didactic instruction, there will be coaching and mentoring, and there will be robust discussion. Those are good categories, essential to a good school, and is part of our common ground. A school that just has all its teachers talking 24-5 is a big dud.

Do you believe that there might be legitimate alternative methods in which a student will be forced to learn the lesson “life is not all about you?” Do you believe that our present school model is the best way to do this?

Yes, I believe there is more than one way to skin that cat. And I also assume that education will look very different one hundred years from now. But I also believe that the present school model is the best departure point for that future. I want a balance of maintaining what we have already attained while at the same time adapting to what God is giving us.

Postscript: technology also has its hazards. This post was delayed in coming because my new computer froze up yesterday, and ate the first draft of this response. So it is not all cake.

Not Too Gooby

“Stacey was trying to figure out a way to communicate something along the lines of ‘my hero’ without sounding too gooby. She like Keith about as much as Keith liked Mindy, and knew she was a little behind Mindy in a race that Mindy wasn’t even in, and so she had to play it cool. So she was silent and just looked on admiringly” (Evangellyfish, p. 155).

Sanctified Ambition

“Jesus does not say that we are to rip out the chief seats in the synagogues, but rather how to relate to them. He does not teach us to get rid of seats of honor at banquets — He teaches us how to get into them. He does not say that it is wrong to want to be great in the kingdom of heaven. He shows us how to become great in the kingdom of heaven. The glorious thing is that His method of doing this (becoming the servant of all) is a great way of removing the toxins of selfishness that will almost certainly be corrupting our ambition” (For a Glory and a Covering, p. 85).

The Right Kind of Temperance

“The preacher should by all means avoid ultraism . . . Not everything should be avoided which is often grossly abused . . . The world is full of great and dreadful evils, which may well excite both grief and indignation, and which call loudly for correction; but one evil is not to be cured by another” (Broadus, Preparation and Delivery, pp. 104-105).

Deracinated Evangelicals

My latest for Real Clear Religion is now up, which you can check out here. And when going there in the future (without linkage), you will want dot org, not dot com.

How Envy Devours

Introduction
This chapter marks the beginning of civil war in Israel. There had been strains and tensions before, but now it breaks out into open hostilities. As we will see, there are noble men on both sides, and scoundrels on both sides. Life is not always a simple white hats/black hats affair.

The Text:
“And it came to pass after this, that David inquired of the Lord, saying, Shall I go up into any of the cities of Judah? And the Lord said unto him, Go up. And David said, Whither shall I go up? And he said, Unto Hebron . . .” (2 Sam. 1:1-32).

Summary of the Text:
Saul had fallen because he would not obey the Lord, or in other instances, inquire of Him. With Saul out of the picture, David begins by humbly seeking the Lord’s will for his movements (v. 1). Go to Hebron, God tells him. So David moved there with his family (v. 2). All the men who had been with him in Ziklag, and their families, moved with him to Hebron (v. 3). The men of Judah, David’s tribe, came and anointed him king there (v. 4). Immediately after this, David reaches out to the courageous men of Jabesh-gilead (vv. 4b-7), the men who had buried Saul. In the meantime, Abner brought Ish-bosheth to a place east of the Jordan called Mahanaim, and made him king there (apparently gradually) over the northern tribes (vv. 8-9). We then have a comparison of the reign of Ish-bosheth and David (vv. 10-11).

Now it happened that a small force with Abner ran across a small force with Joab at Gibeon (vv. 12-13). Abner proposes some sort of tournament or ritual combat, and Joab agrees (v. 14). Twelve men from each side came out, and they all slew each other (v. 15-16). The tournament erupted into a battle, and it went badly for Abner (v. 17). There were three sons of Zeruiah (1 Chron. 2:16), who was David’s sister. These men were Joab, Abishai, and Asahel, who was very swift (v. 18). Asahel made a point of pursuing Abner, who twice tried to stop Asahel from chasing him (vv. 19-22). Finally, Abner struck Asahel with the butt of his spear and killed him (v. 23). Joab and Abishai pursued Abner until sundown (v. 24), when Abner was able to regroup with his men at the top of a hill (v. 25). Abner calls upon Joab to halt (v. 26), which Joab decides to do (vv. 27-28). Abner and his men traveled all night back to Mahahaim (v. 29), just as Joab and his men traveled back to Hebron the same way (v. 32). When the tally was made, the fatalities were disproportionate in favor of David’s men (vv. 30-31).

Hebron and Mahanaim:
To get a lay of the land, David’s temporary “capital” was about 55 miles southwest of Mahanaim, where Ish-bosheth was located. David’s territory was due west of the Dead Sea, and Ish-bosheth “controlled” both sides of the Jordan north of the Dead Sea. Gibeon was in the border area about halfway between. It is likely that Ish-bosheth was headquartered east of the Jordan because the Philistines made things dicey to the west.

Hebron was an important city in Judah, and had been associated with Abraham (e.g. Gen. 13:18), and was a Levitical city (Josh. 21:13).

The discrepancy between the length of Ish-bosheth’s reign and David’s here is likely accounted for by the time it took for Ish-bosheth to consolidate his reign, and the time it took all Israel to acknowledge David after Ish-bosheth’s death.

Getting to Know Abner:
Abner was a noble character, despite being in opposition to David. He sets Ish-bosheth on the throne instead of taking it himself, for example. Abner was Saul’s cousin, and captain of his army (1 Sam. 14:50), and clearly had the power to make himself king. He was not worried about Asahel killing him; he was worried about how he would face Joab if he was forced to kill him. He and Joab knew each other—having apparently studied at West Point together—but Abner was clearly not cold-blooded the way Joab was.

Terrible War:
“I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war” (Ps. 120:7). Robert E. Lee once said that it was good that war was so terrible—otherwise we would grow too fond of it. And of all wars, civil wars are the worst. The eagerness with which the twenty-four warriors dispatched one another was a grim foreshadowing of what was to come. Asahel’s single-minded pursuit of Abner (and glory for himself) is another indicator of how these things go. And Abner’s vain desire to keep things constrained show us another side of this kind of conflict.

How Envy Devours:
Subsequent events will show that not only were David and Ish-bosheth rival kings, but that Abner and Joab were rival military commanders. What would happen to Joab if someone of Abner’s caliber came over to David’s side? Joab knew the answer to that question, and he acted accordingly. He was shrewd, but still a fool.

When John the Baptist gave way to Jesus, he said that Christ would increase, and the he would decrease. Jesus taught us to defer to one another, to take the lowest seat, to become the servant of all. But in countless situations, we still jockey for position, we still throw elbows. We would rather be the biggest frog in the smallest pond than to have much more than we do and be the seventeenth biggest frog in the biggest pond. If there were a button in front of you that would make you, a poor person, and all other poor people in the world, twice as well-off, but it would also make every rich person five times better off, would you push it?

This is not just a matter of income, or status, or military power. James asks us to figure out where conflicts in our midst come from (Jas. 4:1-7). Do they not come from desire that wars within our members?

Because of this, many would rather be a Joab—a wrong man on the right side—than an Abner, a right man on the wrong side. This is because we are trying to write the narrative of the world in big block letters, and we want it to shake out simplistically. There are, of course, two other options, but never become the kind of person who hides personal sin behind a righteous cause.