Trying to Finish the Letters Feature

A Different Pence Rule

“If your imagination is not up to it, I have supplied a useful graphic.” Has anyone ever seen Mike Pence and Race Bannon in the same room at the same time? No? I didn’t think so. There! Image fixed! ; – )

Jason

Jason, except that I don’t know who Race Bannon is.

Volunteer Open Road Stuff

A great drone picture from Facebook:

Mark

Mark, thanks.

A Request

I just recently watched “Anatomy of a Murder” (1959) and was bowled over by the relevance of its themes to (among other things) the Kavanaugh controversy. What was even more surprising to me was how precociously cynical it was for a film made in the 50’s. It feels like it was tapping in on a tipping point in American culture that I haven’t heard fully-discussed. I know you don’t usually do this, but I would love to hear your thoughts on it if you had time to watch it and do a post on it. It’s got ol’ Jimmy Stewart in it! Thanks,

Jonathan

Jonathan, thanks. Maybe, but can’t promise anything.

Ordained?

Not tied to any particular post, but have you been ordained? If not, why not? Thanks.

Austin

Austin, I had what I would call an irregular ordination. No deep reasons, and mostly because it was the seventies. If you are really interested, I describe it in detail in my book Mother Kirk.

November Cometh

Please give no quarter to this mixing of the Christian religion with the #MeToo religion. https://twitter.com/BethMooreLPM/status/1049278827376123904 No quarter to: Men who seek to propitiate other men’s sins rather than taking responsibility for their own. Those who claim such men are Christ-like rather than seeing such men are attempting themselves to be Christ the mediator. Those teaching women to forgive on the basis of a man being on his knees rather than Christ being on the cross. Happy sailing on the high seas in November.

Jared

Jared, okay. No quarter.

No Quarter November: Take on every false narrative of the world, particularly the one’s Christians love to embrace. 1. Racialism 2. Marxism 3. Globalism 4. Multiculturalism 5. Individualism 6. Capitalism/Industrialism (big business, corporatism) 7. Nationalism 8. Etc . . . those are the only “false narrative” ideologies/worldviews I can think of off the top of my head. I’m talking about attacking the false narratives, not necessarily the specific policies those narratives would support. For example, multiculturalism’s policy would be open borders. Racialism’s policy would be affirmative action. Nationalism’s policy would be closed borders. Globalism’s policy would be a one world order. And so on. The policy is just the symptom of the false narratives.

Trey

Trey, that’s the general idea.

Trump Remains a Factor

[8] Trump has courage, tremendous instinct, and charisma. These traits coincide with being a successful president in this climate, especially if one is a Republican. [12] Trump warned the moderate Republicans that he’d teach them how to win. Mitch McConnell has figured it out, at least on the issue of presidential appointments. Treat nothing the opposition does in good faith, as it is all a lie. [6] Names in the Bible normally describe the character . . . Abraham was the father of many, Jacob was deceptive, Jesus is the Savior, etc. What’s clear is that America—which historically was the most Christian nation in history—is under God’s sovereignty and will receive His blessing or judgment depending on what we do just like the Israelites were. May we repent and turn to Him.

Greg

Greg, thanks.

Preach it Phil Robertson . . .

Joe

Joe, thanks for sharing.

More Gender Bendery

Apropos of your recent reference to Kuyper, modernism, boys, and girls, you would appreciate a headline in today’s print edition of The Tacoma News Tribune, which reads in part: “Girls prepare to join Boy Scouts.” I laughed until I cried—Scout’s honor—and thought maybe they should have headlined it “New non-discriminatory Boy Scouts hold girls-only weekend camp,” or simply “2+2=5. Say it, comrade!” But: baby steps, hey? =) Keeping the rapier sharp,

Jason

Jason, okay comrade.

A Keller Question

Prophetic or Political? I am grateful for your courageous and prophetic cultural engagement. Your push-back on Dr Tim Keller’s NYT article has provoked some questions for me which I would be grateful for you to address. I value Dr. Keller’s missiological insights just as I value your prophetic insights. I do however consider that the missionary and the prophet should be free to pursue different modi operandi in line with their callings. Whilst John the Baptist was right to put Herod’s sexual immorality front-and-centre in his interactions with the king, the apostle Paul chose not to put the Athenians’ sexual immorality front-and-centre in his interactions at the Areopagus. My concern is that we make allowance for one another’s different callings. When Elijah cries that “I, only I, am left” is he not incorrectly dismissing the ministry of an Obadiah who also fears the Lord, although with a very different way of showing it? And is it therefore possible that your approach and Dr. Keller’s are both valid in your different contexts, and to be celebrated as such?

Andrew

Andrew, I agree with that in principle. I served on a submarine, and there was no problem with the division of labor between the cooks and the torpedo men. The problem arises when the crew forget the larger mission and starting critiquing each other.

Paul Wrote Hebrews?

Listened to your most recent sermon on Psalm 95 and was surprised to hear you say that Paul wrote Hebrews. What’s the argument for that being the case?

TF

TF, I do believe that. A more detailed case is in my book Christ and His Rivals. But one thing to mention here is that the Pauline authorship of Hebrews was the reason it was included in the canon. Had the early church not believed that, it would have been excluded.

Back to Kavanaugh. And Trump.

Regarding “Viewing the Kavanaugh Game Film”—Greetings from a Baptist who is also a big fan. Like many of my fellow Christians, I was very reluctant to support Donald Trump. He was, in fact, my very last choice (I preferred Cruz and Walker), and I had serious doubts about him governing in any way approaching conservative . . . but in the end I pulled the lever for him. I like to say that I voted for Donald Trump (and against Hillary Clinton) out of self-defense. I cannot claim to have coined the phrase, but I also cannot remember where I first heard it. The above is certainly true, but it was also about judges. Once it became clear that Trump was to be our nominee, I hoped and fervently prayed that the Lord would grant him both the wisdom and the courage to do what was right for our country, particularly in the appointment of judges who respect the Constitution as opposed to those who twist it into pretzel-like shapes. The Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg comes to mind. I know we are not to put our faith in worldly powers but in the Lord, but I am also well aware that the Lord works His will in the world through many means, some of which confound general wisdom. Trump is certainly one of these. It hasn’t been pretty, nor perfect, but I believe that my prayers have been answered thus far. The Left’s behavior the past few weeks have only served to drive home my concern about the circumstances that would result should they be ascendant. I had no idea, however, that basic concepts such as the presumption of innocence and equality before the law would be up for grabs this soon. As an attorney new to the profession, this scares the crap out of me. It appears that in this season at least, particularly with the #MeToo movement dominating, we are told to believe accusers no matter what, even when there is a distinctive lack of corroborating evidence, and biblical principles of justice go right out the window. Judge Kavanaugh was far from my first choice (like many, I favored Amy Coney Barrett). From what I have read, he is a good judge, but some of his past opinions or writings relating to Fourth Amendment issues are troubling. I hope and pray that the Lord grants him wisdom going forward. Despite my misgivings, once the Left started their no-holds-barred assault on basic American legal principles, my resolve strengthened to a tungsten-like level. Apparently I am not alone. Your anecdotes mirror my own, and I think (and hope and pray) that us normals are waking up to the fact that the insanity displayed by the Left these past few weeks is not limited merely to judicial confirmations, but is indeed how they actually think 24/7. Barring a miracle, I was very pessimistic about our Republic’s chances during the Obama years, but our current climate, at least on the political Right, gives me a ray of hope. Squishy Susan Collins gave a well-argued defense of Kavanaugh and American legal principles on the Senate floor. Even Lindsey Graham seems to have discovered that he has a spine. My fellow conservatives appear suddenly energized to vote this November, and even some pollsters have been quietly sounding a warning that the much-heralded “Blue Wave” that has been repeated ad nauseam for the last year or so may be in doubt. What say you?

Caleb

Caleb, thanks. After you wrote, I said it yesterday.

Why Children Matter

I listened to “Why Children Matter” over the weekend, and I loved it. I was especially taken by the simplicity and totality of your father’s three rules: No disobedience, No lying, and No disrespecting your mother. I’m curious, though, whether there’s any significance to framing those rules negatively instead of positively: Obey your parents, Tell the truth, Respect your mother. Is there a reason it’s a list of three “No’s in the garden of “Yes” instead of three aspirational “Yes’s”—or am I perhaps reading too much into it? Thanks for your ministry and your writing!

Josh

Josh, perhaps reading too much into it. The principle is to keep life simple, which those three rules do.

Back to Kavanaugh Again

Re: Kavanaugh Game Film: 1) You seem to have gone all in with football metaphors recently. I applaud you :) 2) You write: “The reason the Democrats can’t reel it in is that they have moved left past the tipping point. The commies are in complete control of the party now, and even if they wanted to move back to the center, for the sake of winning elections, the center is not there anymore.” Forget the commies. The abortionists are in control now. That’s all they care about. They say they didn’t like Kavanaugh before the accusations because he wasn’t strong on “reproductive rights.” They only cared about the accusations because they loved abortion first. That’s their god and they will do and say anything in service to it. The commies only want your money. I can handle the commies. But these guys want you to kill your children. 3) You write: “Not a day goes by but that the realization that Hillary is not the president brings a spring into the step, a gleam to the eye, and an ebullience of spirit that cannot be dampened by anything the president might tweet.” Do I detect the aroma of Bertie Wooster? I applaud you again, sir.

Nathan

Nathan, way to pick up on the nuances.

Socialism as Theft

Regarding the Keller post: can you explain why socialism is theft (or provide resources where I can learn more about it?)? If you reside in a socialist country aren’t you agreeing to the social contract of that country?

Lindsey

Lindsey, the short form is that the government becomes a kleptocracy when two conditions are met: they are taxing at a level higher than ten percent, thus claiming to surpass God, and secondly, they tax in order to accomplish tasks that God never assigned to the magistrate. And so I would say that all socialistic regimes, and all governments heading that way, are made up of thieves.

“Socialism is theft. Christians who support it are supporting theft, and I am afraid Keller is among them.” Okay, then for sake of argument, is a legal tax in a __________ type of government considered theft as well?

G

G, the theft can occur in any form of government. If the magistrate is funding things he has no authority to do in the first place, and if the level of taxation is over ten percent, then the government is stealing.

Back to Keller Related

You’d never make it as a politician, Doug! I’m so glad you wrote this. I’m writing my own blog post (with far fewer eyes to see than yours) titled plainly, “Tim Keller is Wrong About Social Justice.” I so hate the latter phrase. I’ve been hugely influence by Keller, especially in terms of apologetics. When my wife and I met at Westminster Seminary in 1986 and were engaged, Keller was our pre-marital counselor. As he grew famous and influential, and succeeded in Gotham when everyone thought he was crazy, my respect for him grew as well. So it’s hard for me to criticize him, but he could not be more wrong. Listening to him a lot over the years, and reading many of his books, unfortunately this doesn’t surprise me. What is so effective in some areas, like apologetics, is clearly not in his thinking about politics, and for the very reasons you state. I’ve heard Mike Horton, another one of my heroes, do the same thing on the White Horse in numerous times. Doing a kind of political moral equivalence between left and right. There is none! The left, as we’ve seen especially in the last weeks, is evil. No other word for it. I’ve written a book called “The Persuasive Christian Parent,” to be self-published soon. I’ve raised my children on the veracity of the Christian worldview, and this applies to all of life. I’m also apologetics oriented about my political and economic convictions. My children would no more grow up to be progressive, liberal, left-wingers than they would grow up to be Hindus or secularists. Again for the reasons you state. That’s what’s so frustrating about reading the Keller piece (his book on Justice is a clue that writing something like this was possible); he’s so incredibly wrong! Keep up the good work, brother.

Mike

Mike, thanks.

The Place of Reason

I’m a long time reader of yours. This is my first “letter to the editor.” My question is not concerning one specific post of yours but rather the topic of the Enlightenment. I read this by Robert Tracinski at The Federalist: I agree with a lot of what I have read by Trackinski in the past but as I read this article my (often blunt) spider senses started tingling. It was one of those situations where I sensed “wrongness” but couldn’t articulate why. One of my fist thoughts was “What would Doug say about this?” Care to dissect? Or perhaps point me to where you have already done so? Keep up the great work. From all the way over here in Australia. Regards

Andrew

Andrew, this is just a short form general response, and not a response to that article in particular. Without reason as an absolute, everything is lost. But reason itself will tell us that reason cannot be an autonomous absolute. Reason tells when it would be unreasonable to trust reason. The best exemplar of this approach, in my view, would be the romantic rationalist, C.S. Lewis.