Our Woke Leadership
Re: “I may address some other things from Mason’s book as time goes by. That all depends upon whether I am sufficiently provoked.” I miss No Quarter November. Any chance of a reprise this year?
Bill
Bill, there’s a chance.
Submission: Did the photo you posted of the Woke Church staying woke remind anyone else of this? This is what it reminded me of . . .
Dave
Dave, and this is why we are supposed to have the Internet.
Great article here on the woke folks! I am increasingly concerned about the effect of the constant accusation of racism from the left anytime people disagree with them. If you disagree it’s because you are a racist. I can’t help but think that this sowing of wind is going to turn into a whirlwind. How should we be fighting against this? What are some tactics that you have found helpful? As always very thankful for your ministry!
Jon
Jon, the basic tactic I would recommend is to not give an inch.
Re: The Sin of Being “White.” Or “Black” for that Matter. Doug, You say: “But within this woke world, they reserve to themselves the liberty of toggling back and forth between the skin color simpliciter and the whiteness as construct.” I think the best and perhaps only way to counter this tactic is to point out that differences among races consist of much more than skin color. Skin color may be one of the more observable differences, but there are also differences in bone density, facial structure, musculature, testosterone levels, brain size, and limb length, just to name a few, as well as different risk levels for certain diseases (the medical field doesn’t subscribe to the “race as a social construct” idea). And of course, as I’ve discussed previously, there are mental differences as evidenced by substantially different average IQs (even after controlling for socio-economic status and education level) as well as levels of impulsiveness. By pointing this out, you refute the Gramscian idea of race being a mere construct, as well as the Marxist narrative that blacks’ and other minorities’ poor outcomes isn’t just the result of white oppression, but is rooted at least to some extent in biological differences. Once these ideas are deconstructed, anti-whites like Mason will have nothing left to stand on.
Armin
Armin, here’s the problem with your approach, and it is not trivial. The fact that there are marked ethnic differences when it comes to IQ tests is undeniable, and is why the egalitarians have to resort to attacking the tests themselves as racist. But remember the Flynn Effect. IQ tests, being the kind of test they are, have to be re-normed over time, and if you adjust for that, the scores of average blacks today matches the scores of average whites around the time of the First World War. In other words, IQ is not baked in the genes, not hard-wired. It is the result of many factors, culture and education included. And to insist on a fixed inferiority of one ethnic group is how I understand the sin of racial vainglory, which I believe requires repentance. Simply observing facts does not require repentance. But if you are happy to acknowledge that blacks today are superior (in this regard) to a bunch of your white ancestors, then you are not far from the kingdom.
It seems that some of our dispensationalist brethren (like John MacArthur and Phil Johnson and those behind the excellent Statement on Social Justice) may have an advantage over those of us who embrace a more transformationalist view of cultural engagement while rejecting Woke Evangelicalism. This question may be too big for the “letters” section, but how do we guard against apostate wokeness while still affirming a robust transformational (dare I say postmillennial) view? Pastor MacArthur has been right on “social justice,: but often wrong on engagement, veering somewhere near pietism. Thanks,
John
John, you are right. Too big for a letters section, but I do need to address it sometime soon.
Truth is truth regardless of who or what utters it. Anyway, how come I instinctively cringe at words like “flourish” and “woke?” Am I just an ignorant 50 some year old white guy? Wait, I’m not sure I want you to answer that.
Ron
Ron, we don’t know why you cringe. But it is probably the same reason we do. Cringeworthy expressions are not conducive to human flourishing.
Regarding the woke foreword, I agree with you. People who are “woke” have a perverted imitation of a spiritual awakening. However, I really think you are damaging the cause when you turn to the 10 commandments to try to show that slavery is not condemned in the Bible. God also commanded his people to destroy entire people groups. However, that was the O.T. Now we are under the law of grace and there is no longer any commands to kill and enslave wicked people groups. Instead, we spread the Gospel to them. And I think a more apt verse to apply to chattel slavery would be Exodus 21:16.
Cheryl
Cheryl, my point is never to highlight slavery in the Bible as a positive creational good, like food, air, or sunshine. It is always a function of sin, and slavery was an institution attended with many sins. The issue for me is how the Bible teaches us to address, ameliorate, and eliminate such things. We must, when we inherit ungodly institutions, deal with them as Scripture requires.
Paleo-Confederate?
I’ve surmised that you often use the term “paleo-Confederate” to describe your politics. I’d like to know more about what you mean by that. Perhaps you mean to identify with the pre-1789 system of national government under the Articles of Confederation, but the capital “C” in “Confederate” seems more like an allusion to the Southern Confederacy/Confederate States of America. As you know, words like “Confederate” have lots of connotative historical and ideological baggage. I’m interested in knowing which items from the Confederate cafeteria you want on your plate and which you’re content to allow the lunch ladies to consign to the dumpster. I’m familiar with your opinions on the American Civil War and the notion of chattel slavery being wicked, but less repugnant than 620,000+ men killed in four years of war and the subsequent legacy of expansive federal power and soured race relations. While I’m certain you wouldn’t have been Amen-ing the kind of overtly racist rhetoric like that found in Alexander Stephens’ 1861 Cornerstone Speech, I’m curious as to how much common ideological ground you claim to have with the ante bellum Southern worldview. Is it just that you hold to the Compact Theory of constitutional federalism? Do you harbor a Jacksonian contempt for commercial banking, industrial market capitalism, and national infrastructure? Are you the Joel Chandler Harris/Margaret Mitchell type that reminisces about cotton-fields, magnolias, and wisteria and laments the destruction of Cavalier plantation culture at the hands of the Yankees and the Carpetbaggers? Or are you, like myself, just a classical liberal who enjoys reading Faulkner, Foote, and the Abbeville Review of Books? How would you distinguish yourself from “Neo-Confederates” like the League of the South guys? It’s just curious to me that you’d use such a loaded and controversial label to describe your views. I’d appreciate clarification. In Christ,
Joe
Joe, the basic thing I mean by it is that I hold that the South was correct on the issue of secession. Related to that, before the War, the Bill of Rights restricted the reach of the federal government, and the states were the guardians. Now the Bill of Rights is applied to the states, with the Supreme Court as guardian. That is my basic issue, although some of the other things you mention do have some resonance as well. The second basic thing is that I will not let the forces of totalitolerance define for me which words are appropriate for me to use.
Random Compliment
I read your blog for tidbits like this, “It is getting to the point where they are scratching their watches and winding their rear ends.”
Chad
Chad, thanks. Not original with me. Kind of a Southern proverb, I think.
The Davidsons
I am a huge fan of your material, and enjoy a steady diet of it. Thank you for your courage and service. Your writing has been a monumental blessing to my household, along with countless others, I am sure. That said, I want to thank you especially for the “Jesus was a Davidson” quote you shared from Mere Fundamentalism. You wouldn’t believe how much mileage I’ve gotten out of that already! I had intended to buy that book anyway, but now I kinda have to. (And yes, I know what you really meant.) Keep up the good work. Sincerely,
John Davidson
John, just remember what happened to the lion in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I mean the one who ran around all excited because Aslan had said, “us lions.”
Jury Nullification
I enjoyed the Plodcast about jury nullification last week. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I inferred that you look favorably upon jury nullification.
Jury nullification is bad, bad, bad. It pushes us away from being a nation of laws and towards a results-oriented worldview. We rightly complain when unelected appellate judges overturn laws because of something they found under a penumbra somewhere. So we must also gripe when unelected jurors ignore a law because they don’t like the results. At least the judges have to pretend that the Constitution prohibits laws they find distasteful.
I don’t blame advocates of jury nullification for pointing to awful cases—I know they’re out there. But if a case is truly heinous, our issue should be with the law that’s written and with the legislature that has let it survive. We can’t blame the executive branch or judicial branch for staying in their lanes by respectively enforcing and interpreting the law. (And, no, you don’t interpret a law by ignoring it completely.)
I see a troubling trajectory where conservatives are beginning to see courts the same way the left does: as a mere tool to bypass legislative process. While I support constitutional litigation when done in good faith, we can’t act as the liberals do and start asking how we can sue our way out of a law that’s ugly but procedurally clean. Otherwise, we’ll need to add a new line to the Schoolhouse Rock song. “And once the Governor signs a bill, it becomes a law, as long as a randomly selected jury agrees with it on a case-by-case basis!” It kinda has a ring to it.
As tempting as jury nullification is, and as fun as it must have been to annoy the Redcoats, jury nullification is an appetizer for revolution, not reform.
John
John, you are right that I support jury nullification. But I would draw a distinction between not liking the outcome of a trial and not approving of the law itself. And given the right of a jury to simply not convict, it would seem to me that this is a built-in feature, and not a bug. And it is a feature that goes back centuries—not a result of recent developments in the conservative world. Also, remember that we are talking about the unanimous consensus of twelve strangers—I am not talking about a hung jury here, but about a not guilty.
Lig Duncan
In regards to “Lig Duncan, Woke Forewords, and the Dikai-Word Group”: My very nice American Christian heart wants to give Duncan the benefit of the doubt and think he can’t possibly support this. Duncan is no doubt excited about the street cred he gets from this. My question is doesn’t this put him at odds with the PCA who rejected the NPP?
Grant
Grant, you would think so. But it is becoming apparent to me that all of this has very little to do with consistency or logic.
On Advice for Donors
Donors, Dollars, and Decisions Great parameters for wise giving. I share your conviction about the tithe. Namely, that it belongs to the Lord, is to be given to the local church, and that tithe means ten percent of one’s increase. I was curious to know your philosophy of enforcing the tithe amongst a local congregation. If our interpretation is correct on this matter, then technically it is thievery and a lack of faith to withhold it from the body. I don’t think excommunication (not recognizing them as Christians or withholding general fellowship) would be called for against those who honestly arrived at a different interpretation and application of Scripture on this matter because they would be bound by conscience. But in this day and age where so many congregations are so unpruned, would it be an unbiblical approach for the elders to tighten up on this issue in the lives of their people and make tithing a requirement for formal membership in that local church? Would it be out of bounds to hold this standard amidst the congregation and encourage the free-loading brothers to move on and “do church” elsewhere? In this scenario, let’s assume this is being done with the purest of motives by elders trying to preserve the testimony of the church and achieve the agenda outlined in Deuteronomy 4:6 – “Keep them and do them, for that will be your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.’” And if there were any reservations about the negative impressions this might give, how about a scenario where this was being enforced by truly qualified elders that were in agreement, independently-wealthy or make their own way, and never have or ever will take a dime from the storehouse of contributions?
Rope
Rope, I still wouldn’t recommend it. We have to remember two things. First, there is a built-in conflict of interest if the recipients of the tithe are the enforcers of the tithe. And secondly, in the Old Testament, it appears to me that God was the one who enforced the tithe. There isn’t any civil penalty in the OT for the non-tithers.
Paedobaptism Won’t Go Away
In regards to your response to Steve: Christ in the heart vs. Christ on the cross is a false dichotomy. First of all, Jesus is not on the cross anymore. He is in Heaven. Baptism is about allegiance to the living God, not an historical doctrine. I’m not splitting hairs; being born again is about belief in the risen Christ. Yes, declaring the creed is necessary to knowing we’re talking about the right Jesus. But the creed is not Jesus. And yes, the Spirit of Jesus is in the heart of the baptizand because the Spirit is who testifies of Jesus (John 4:2-3, Acts 5:32, 1 Cor. 12:3) and out of the heart the mouth speaks. Like Jesus’ baptism, it is about the one in Heaven and the dove on your shoulder. That is not a contradiction. That is Christian baptism. Belief in the Son of God whose Spirit is in our hearts (Gal. 4:6). Babies do not have this testimony. They are not yet sons of God.
Steve
Steve, when Paul preached to the Galatians, he preached Christ as crucified in their very midst. “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?” (Gal. 3:1). And as for your “they are not yet sons of God,” I would only add, “except for the ones that are.”
Personality Typing
Do you think personality typing is a legitimate way to understand people? I’ve been finding insights into understanding others and myself. I’ve also been trying to figure out what personality type you are from your debate with Christopher Hitchens. My suspicion is that you’re an ENTP. Am I correct? Thanks as always for your insights,
Josh
Josh, I am not a big fan of leaning too much on personality tests.
Sexual Pandemonium
“When sin gets out to the utter frozen limit, it leans and reaches out for the right to define and redefine anything and everything. Sin wants to ascend the sides of the north, in order to sit down on the throne from which all definitions are issued. Boys are girls. Girls are boys . . .” We need to remind ourselves that they are the moral equivalent of Sexual Flat-Earthers. The problem is one of blindness and stubbornness, not one of facts and who has science on their side.
Zack
Zack, yes. The problem is a moral one, not an intellectual one.
Doug, I love reading your blog and would love to hear your thoughts on the attempt by Bart Barber, a Texas pastor and trustee at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, to revoke Mark Aderholt’s degree. Here is a link to Bart’s proposal along with the reasoning behind this attempt (http://praisegodbarebones.blogspot.com/2019/03/i-found-something-i-could-do.html). I engaged with him on Twitter (@mkennedyjr) about the absurdity of moving forward prior to a conviction and without a proper investigation done by SWBTS. The trustees are meeting this week and allowing Mrs. Miller to address them even though Mr. Aderholt has not been given that opportunity. The IMB report has not been released in full at this point (though law enforcement officials do have it). The background is a lot to catch up on but I feel like the cart is before the horse right now. Am I off base?
Michael
Michael, no, you are not off base. The idea of consequences first, trial afterwards is an appalling one. And if he is found to be guilty, then follow all the appropriate processes.
Josh, personality tests are fun, but people attach way too much importance to the results. Quite a few psychologists have discredited Myers-Briggs because its reliability and validity have never been established, its test items are either-or when most personality traits actually exist on a continuum, and it presents constellations of traits as rigid categories. That makes it disturbing that so many corporations use M-B results for hiring decisions and even pastors use it for marriage counseling. Like horoscopes, M-B presents every personality trait as a positive which isn’t exactly consistent with a Christian view of human nature. “Impatient with irrational… Read more »
“Impatient with irrational or meaningless social rituals”
Jill, you know you’re only saying that because you’re a TGIF, or whatever the acronym is. That’s your box now.
Maybe I was better off when I attributed everything good or bad to being a Libra. At least I realized even at the time that it had to be rubbish!
I’m hoping discoveries in the brain’s neuroplasticity will encourage more people to realize they can change their personalities–at least somewhat. God didn’t place permanent INFJ and ENFP chips in our brains, as much as some would like to think so.
Something I’m realizing only recently…is just how much we can change ourselves and adapt to new entertainments. What are the things that you -want- to want to do? I’ve been working to drop my ungodly entertainments and habits lately and adopt godly ones, and I’m frequently surprised when I realize that I enjoy things now that I used to despise. Find better things to grow fond of :)
Alexander,
It is amazing how purging your life of hollywood/TV/video game attempts at transgressional sex and violence will resensitize you to the good, true and beautiful – while also sensitizing you to the horror of being entertained by the dehumanizing and dishonoring of others.
JP, I think that’s one of the real dangers of these test results being taken as valid and used for serious purposes. Not only do we view our personal traits as destiny–we’re also likely to start living up (or down) to them. “Of course I didn’t get my taxes in on time. My dominant I/N constellation makes paperwork and deadlines so much harder for me than for other people. I kind of thought about it but got distracted by a bunch of really cool cat videos. “
Ha! Or every introvert’s favorite: “I’m a (fill-in-the-blank) so no, I can’t go introduce myself to the new neighbors.”
Everyone should read Susan Cain’s book “Quiet,” about introverts. It’s not perfect, but one of her major themes is that being an introvert isn’t an excuse. It’s something you can know about yourself, so you can learn how to deal with certain challenges.
I think people often confuse shyness with introversion. They often co-exist, but lots of introverts are neither shy nor socially withdrawn when they actually have to engage with other people. They just need a long recuperative period afterwards. A useful description of introversion might be “lives in her head so much that you could set her socks on fire without her noticing.” I will look for Cain’s book. I would like to become a party animal before it’s too late.
Why do you talk about introversion like it’s a bad thing?
I tend to think introversion is a very good thing because I rely on other introverts to keep me supplied with interesting things to read and just enough social interaction that I stay reasonably sane without having to leave the house. I think the problem arises when someone uses introversion as a valid reason for shirking the social duties incumbent on us all. The impulse to say “I’d come to your farewell dinner but you know how I feel about being with too many people” is perfectly understandable to me, but I know I’m supposed to stifle it.
I think a problem arises when someone is motivated by extroversion to impose social obligations on us all.
I have a lot of natural sympathy with your point of view. But I think a natural preference for solitude can only be indulged to a point. Even contemplative nuns who live under a rule of silence are forced to get together and talk for an hour a day!
Yes. And Christianity requires us to live in community, practice hospitality, actively love others by being involved in their lives, etc….even if we are introverts who’d much rather be living in our own heads.
However, Christian community and hospitality does not require us to be group activity junkies imposing our preference on our brothers and sisters. The more we get together the happier some of us will be, but those happy people are not always usefully involved in anyone’s life, and the person who prefers more time away from the crowd may sometimes be involved in more meaningful interactions. The point isn’t that extroverts are necessarily shallow, though some strike me that way, but that pushy, smothering extroversion isn’t required to have community or to love one another.
A rule of silence is silly anyway, but I’d rather talk to people who spend time contemplating something than people who merely assimilate feelings and notions through their incessant social interactions and never think about anything. If that is an inaccurate and unfair caricature of extroverts it is no more so the way some people characterize introverts.
Introverts can have a hard time in American culture because it sets such a high value on gregariousness. At best we’re seen as nerdy and socially awkward; at worst, we’re seen as so arrogant that we think only our own company is good enough for us. As children we’re forced into unwanted social activity by parents and teachers who see our introversion as incipient pathology; as adults in the workplace, we learn to hide it or we get the kiss-of-death label of “not a team player.” Not seeming to need other people can be seen as rejection by those people… Read more »
“….parents and teachers who see our introversion as incipient pathology” Exactly. When I describe myself as an introvert that’s not a confession, but some people respond as if I ‘d told them I have an anger management problem, or low impulse control. Apart from misguided parents and teachers, some of the those people who would force us into unwanted social activity are simply people who crave the social activity, and they’re selfish about it. “…fewer of them, and not all the time.” I frankly have never quite gotten the point of parties. Funny thing is, in the right setting I… Read more »
Pity me, a hyper-introvert raised by British parents in an introverted culture, plunked into the middle of a California workplace on my arrival on these shores. In the Canadian work environment when I was young, everyone from the CEO to the janitor was addressed as Miss, Mrs., or Mr. regardless of age. Nobody hugged at work. It would have been considered grossly unprofessional, although not quite as bad as bursting into tears. Nobody brought food and passed it around, nobody kept track of birthdays, and above all, nobody talked about personal problems except perhaps at a private lunch with a… Read more »
I second Jilly here. Personality tests are for parlor talk and the way they are used by corporations would simply be a case of comical inptitude if I didn’t have to sit through the MB seminars occassionally.
If you do want a personality test with some empirical backing definitely look at the big 5. It is pretty good at predicting things like political behavior of groups – but, in my opinion, doesn’t offer much for individuals.
They would be a useful tool if people used them to figure out what they can improve about themselves, not to tell other people how they need to be treated, or to applaud themselves about what they’re strong in. To the extent they are used that way, they are useful. And I’m not saying being an E is worse than being an I or whatever, but rather that if you know you’re an E, you know you might have a weakness in area X that you can work on, whereas an I would have different weaknesses in different areas.
That’s all fair and true Jill, but if I can’t take that test seriously, how can I continue to mentally pleasure myself over my own alleged positive traits? I’m a big fan of my own result you see, and it would be very preferable if I could use it as a source of pride and ego.
https://www.16personalities.com/intp-personality
I will make an exception for you, Justin, so that you can continue to enjoy your association with Albert Einstein. My own repellent category–INTJ–lays claim to Ayn Rand. You got Logician, but I got Mastermind. While it is true that I was accused of being the mastermind behind any childish mischief anyone got up to during my school days, I can’t think of many labels more inaccurate, except maybe “Social Butterfly”. If I could hatch a plot, I would have written a novel by now. The one curiously true thing was “Gets insanely curious about something, studies it obsessively, gets… Read more »
I can now say without reservation that the most interesting thing I’ve ever learned about porn with exotic animals, I learned on Douglas Wilson’s blog.
Jill, let us join forces to redeem INTJ from the execrable Ayn.
Her being INTJ does explain a lot. I find I have a lack of instinctive empathy, for example, but I consider it a virtue (rightly applied) to be cultivated. She made a virtue out of lacking it.
Rand’s lacking instinctive empathy was a mere symptom of her total lack of humanity. Perhaps there has never been a successful novelist so utterly lacking in any understanding of how everyone except herself thinks and feels. She could have been a space alien describing the human species and getting it wildly wrong. Never mind. INTJ also lays claim to Jane Austen who I think might have said that a deliberately cultivated virtue is both more reliable and more valuable than one that comes easily. Empathy derived from a conscious effort to observe, understand, and have fellow feeling with other people… Read more »
I haven’t made the effort to read her novels, but from what I understand, her success as a novelist lies mostly in the enthusiasm of her philosophical followers and the notoriety that has generated over time. By all accounts, the novels themselves pretty well reflect an author without much understanding of what it means to be human.
As for Ligon Duncan and NPP, he was (still is?) an outspoken critic and a name-calling one at that: https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/attractions-new-perspectives-paul/ ” there are evangelicals who are social conservatives but who are bent on Christianity expressing itself societally. Among these are theonomists, reconstructionists, “ex-theonomists and reconstructionists” and other miscreants. It is amazing how quick they are to discard reformational soteriological teaching in order to advance their neo-sacerdotalism, kingdom ecclesiology/eschatology, and dreams of Christendom.” You could easily rewrite his last sentence: “It is amazing how quick woke Christian miscreants are to discard reformational soteriological teaching in order to advance their neo-Gnosticism, Liberation… Read more »
Doug, The Flynn Effect has actually been reversing in the developed world. Flynn himself has stated that the increase in IQ has less to do with real intelligence increases and more to do with a shift to more abstract thinking. See this article: https://www.amren.com/news/2012/10/why-iqs-rise/ Note this quote from the article (not a direct quote of Flynn): “In contrast, the Arithmetic IQ subtest and the Vocabulary IQ subtest—tests that rely on previous knowledge—show hardly any score increase at all.” The below article states, “As a rule of thumb, tests of Digit Span and Maths have shown little variance with cohorts.” http://www.unz.com/jthompson/the-flynn-effect-explained-partly/… Read more »
Look, it’s easy, really. White men can’t jump. Black men can’t swim.
Anything else is just racial profiling.
Obviously genetic differences between populations are real. Those genetic differences manifest themselves in morphological and (likely) cognitive differences between groups. Non-shared environment also has a big effect on both physical and cognitive features. Tgese things can be really hard ro tease out, especially comparing across time scales and geographic space. Ron Unz has a good review of IQ and the Wealth of Nations that covers many of these difficulties on detail. Anyone interested in this topic should give it a read. http://www.unz.com/runz/race-iq-and-wealth/ Despite the differences in population generics and phenotype there is a big problem with reductive reasoning about “race.”… Read more »
I don’t think anyone disputes the performance gap between blacks and whites on standardized IQ tests. But I also think that “race realist” proponents both cherry-pick their data and view the results simplistically, ignoring anything that doesn’t appear to fit. Without being in any way knowledgeable about the subject, I’ve read widely enough to encounter contradictions, anomalies, and results that are simply inexplicable if IQ is determined entirely by racial origin and cannot be changed. In an article I read recently, Steve Sailer wrote about black women outperforming black men on standardized IQ tests. Does this make sense in strictly… Read more »
Armin, IQ is a particularly terrible metric to try and get any point like this across because amongst many reasons, there is wild array of data available to suggest your conclusions are spectacularly unreliable. Really any time at all studying IQ showcases that if there’s any hard relationship between genetics and IQ, it is nearly impossible to measure under layer after layer after layer of variable that it is completely impossible to properly account for, as they haven’t been adequately studied and there isn’t much of a practical reason to fund that research. As an example, First borns are, on… Read more »
This is the Steve of the baptism letter above. First let me make a correction to my letter: 1 John 4:2-3, not John 4:2-3. As for “Except for the ones that aren’t”–If this is the case, what in the world is paedobaptism for? It turns you into a son of God!…unless it doesn’t…but be encouraged!… And in regards to Galatians 3, how can you not see that it works just as well to substitute paedobaptism for circumcision, especially since paedobaptists say baptism is the new circumcision? O foolish paedobaptists! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus… Read more »
The problem with subbing paedobaptism in for the Galatians, besides the obvious and serious problem of calling your brothers unbelievers, is that there’s no reason to limit the critique to baptizing infants — if any ritual can be substituted for what the Galatians were doing simply because people *might* presume upon it, then you might as well throw believer baptism right in there, too.
Hi Jane. I’m not calling paedobaptists unbelievers, unless you are referring to their baptized babies. Those babies I would call unbelievers because faith comes by hearing the gospel (Rom. 10:17, Gal. 3:2). No, not any ritual is similar to mandatory circumcision like paedobaptism is. Here are two of the major parallels: -both say that the ritual is putting you into a covenant that you weren’t previously in -both say it is appropriate to do this ritual to someone without their say in the matter In contrast, biblical baptism is about putting on the office of ambassador of the new covenant… Read more »
If you are accusing them of the Galatian heresy, you’re calling them unbelievers.
True or false, I’m not sure the label of “unbeliever” is necessarily an important thing to hash out. The only particular purpose I can see is to sort out unbelievers from a particular church and, as luck would have it, churches have already done this on baptismal lines in many places. As for my part, the whole argument from paedobaptists rings a little incongruous with everything I know of God’s actions in world history up to this point. This God *loves* free will. He’s gangbusters for it. This is the guy who guides his people into creating their own nations,… Read more »
My point is that the effect of Paul’s address to the Galatians tends to place them outside the church, so accusing people of the same heresy, or a heresy that somehow is full of significant and relevant parallels but is not fundamentally the same heresy, which I don’t quite grasp, is over the top unless that’s what you actually want to do. And that is not the way you should address your fellow Christians if that’s not what you are prepared, and believe yourself to have the authority, to do.
I’m not accusing them of the Galatian heresy. For one they don’t make it a requirement, which is very good on them. I’m saying there are some very real parallels and for Pastor Wilson to use Galatians to defend paedobaptism in any form is very ironic.
The Galatian heresy was about circumcision in regard to Sinai. Infant baptism looks farther back, to Abraham’s circumcision as a seal of righteousness by faith. Classic protestant baptism, infant or adult, is not administered to induct a person into a misguided covenant of works, such as the one put forward by the Judaizers. It makes no sense to substitute paedobaptism for circumcision in Galatians.
John K,
Paedobaptism is not intended to put them under the Mosaic law, but it is intended to put them under certain obligations which, if not fulfilled, result in them being labelled a hypocrite. That is a form of “works righteousness” if there ever was one. Look no farther than here:
https://dougwils.com/the-church/temptation-starts-early.html
Except that the fundamental obligation, among biblical paedobaptists, is to trust in Christ alone for salvation.
If the problem is hypocrisy, that’s an issue with all baptisms, right? What’s the least age of baptism that you think solves that problem? Except it doesn’t.
As for prior consent, some obligations require it, others not. Thankfully, credobaptists nurture and admonish their children in the Lord, without the child’s prior consent.
The fundamental obligation for EVERYBODY is to trust in Christ alone for salvation. This is why paedobaptism is redundant. Everyone, churched or unchurched, is called to belief in Jesus. Hypocrisy is saying one thing but doing the opposite. It is not hypocrisy for a paedobaptized person to not act like a Christian because they never said the one thing. They never said they were a Christian (biblical baptism). No hypocrisy there. You are getting to the heart of the paedobaptist’s misunderstanding here, which is that they are confusing baptism with Christian parenting. Of course Christian parenting requires no consent. But… Read more »
Steven Opp wrote: The fundamental obligation for EVERYBODY is to trust in Christ alone for salvation. This is why paedobaptism is redundant. Everyone, churched or unchurched, is called to belief in Jesus. God certainly requires all men, everywhere, to repent and come to Christ, but Christ is the Vine, and He calls His covenant people to abide in Him, or they will be cut out from Him. Abiding in the covenant is an obligation unique to covenant members, by definition. Unbelievers are not obligated to abide within the covenant they were never part of. Steven Opp doesn’t seem to have… Read more »
In your tradition, does baptism wash the child of the stain of original sin? Or is it an initiation into the covenant? Or is it to have the church witness the parents’ pledge that this child will be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? Do you believe that infant baptism will save the soul of a child who dies before reaching the reason–this would be point at which Catholics consider a child capable of actual sin. Thanks, Katecho.
Jill Smith asks: In your tradition, does baptism wash the child of the stain of original sin? No. I’m not aware of any Scriptural support for that notion. Our culpability in original sin has to do with our being represented in the first Adam. The only way to be free of that representation is to be represented in Christ, the last Adam. But to be ultimately represented in Christ is to be free of all sin, not just original sin. Baptism is God’s public ritual identifying and claiming us in covenant union with Christ, and we are then called to… Read more »
Christian parenting is baptism followed by discipleship: nurture and admonition. Nothing is misunderstood, unless the parent thinks the ordinance without the follow-up is sufficient.
Can I ask my 4 year old (who has never yet said he was a Christian) to thank Jesus for food? An unbeliever praying, thanking? On the baptist view, isn’t Christian parenting really training in hypocrisy?
John K,
Christian parenting does not include baptizing one’s child because baptism is all about being born again as a child of God (Gal. 3:26-27), not a child of man.
A child obeying their parents in honoring God is just that: a child obeying their parents. It is a wonderful thing. But baptism is a declaration of a child of God obeying their Heavenly Father, not their earthly father.
Yes, one thing baptism signifies is being born again as a child of God. Circumcision also was about being born again, having a new heart (Deut. 30:5-6). Yet it was given to the children of believers. Abraham is the father of those who believed before, and those who believed after receiving the sign of righteousness by faith (Romans 4:9-13). A child obeying their parents in honoring God is just that: a child obeying their parents. What is the power and motive for obeying parents? Paul says obedience must be “in the Lord” (Eph. 6:1-3), that is, as a child saved… Read more »
John K, Deuteronomy 30:5-6 says nothing about being born again. A circumcised heart is a cut heart, not a resurrected heart. They were still “under the sword” so to speak. Baptism is about bearing the sword, about doing the heart cutting (testifying to the truth like Peter in Acts 2 which cuts people to their hearts). Also, circumcision is not the sign of righteousness by faith. Where does it say that? Paul says that circumcision or uncircumcision doesn’t matter, but what matters is a new creation. The sign faith is fruitful living (James 2:18). I was talking about children obeying… Read more »
Steven Opp wrote: Paedobaptism is not intended to put them under the Mosaic law, but it is intended to put them under certain obligations which, if not fulfilled, result in them being labelled a hypocrite. That is a form of “works righteousness” if there ever was one. Complete nonsense. To come into, or to be born in, covenant union with Christ, by grace, does not mean that we are without obligations. Nor does the presence of obligations necessitate or entail any sort of works righteousness. For example, we have a duty to love God and love our neighbors. That obligation… Read more »
Steven Opp wrote: No, not any ritual is similar to mandatory circumcision like paedobaptism is. Here are two of the major parallels: -both say that the ritual is putting you into a covenant that you weren’t previously in This is a common misunderstanding on both sides of this issue. Recall that Abraham was not circumcised in order for him to enter into covenant with God. God had already entered covenant with Abraham. Abraham was circumcised, later, *because* he was a covenant member. Baptism is the same. We baptize infants of believers, and new converts, not in order to make them… Read more »
“Because there is nothing wrong with circumcising infants, in principle, then Steven Opp has no principled case against God claiming such children as covenant heirs through the representation of their parents (even one believing parent). ” Not sure I buy this one Katecho. Whether or not God considers the difference between physical sacraments and predominantly mental sacraments as significantly different is debatable, but in the absence of a direct verse claiming so there are obviously differences enough to provide a rational barrier between drawing such a direct comparison between the two. As an obvious and simply example to drive the… Read more »
Justin Parris wrote: … but I don’t think you’ve established “If infant circumcision is ok, baptism must be as well.” quite as well as you claim. Perhaps because this wasn’t my claim. :-) I may not have been as clear as I wanted to be, but I was addressing the issue of consent that Steven Opp tried to raise against applying a “ritual to someone without their say in the matter”. My counterargument was that Steven Opp can’t swing consent around as an objection to infant baptism without first explaining why lack of infant consent was perfectly acceptable with respect… Read more »
“Such an appeal clearly doesn’t work against infant circumcision, which God explicitly commanded to be done even without the infant’s consent. ” The explicit command changes the point of contention though. It is understood by Christians at the outset that God might command you to do things that seem contradictory, but you must nonetheless obey. This makes singular circumstances of God’s commands (generally without God explaining his reasoning for those commands) very difficult to use to establish a broad principle. What we’re left with once again is “Some people think God commanded us to baptize infants, and some people don’t.”… Read more »
Steven Opp wrote: In contrast, biblical baptism is about putting on the office of ambassador of the new covenant (Gal. 3:27); it is about who goes out, not who comes in. This is incorrect. Ironically, Galatians 3:27 actually says: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. Notice the direction of baptism is explicitly described in terms of who comes “into“. Elsewhere, Paul says that all Israel was baptized “into Moses”. Baptism is overwhelmingly described in terms of who “is in”, or who “comes in”. Further, Romans 6 says: 3 Or do you not… Read more »
Hi Katecho, In regards to your first post: Again, everybody is born under the New Covenant with its sanctions. All are called to faith in King Jesus and to walk in his ways (Acts 17:30). His Lordship is over all. Being in the church is not like Old Covenant Israel where you are born into a special covenant with God while the world sits outside. No, the whole world is now set apart. Baptized Christians function within it as a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9) who minister to the unbelievers. Everyone is born into the world which was bought by… Read more »
Steven Opp wrote: Baptism is about bearing the sword, about doing the heart cutting (testifying to the truth like Peter in Acts 2 which cuts people to their hearts). So far, Steven Opp has presented no Scriptural passage indicating that Baptism, itself, is a sword-bearing sign, or an enlistment to an activity of “heart cutting”. Opp appears to be sidestepping direct passages that clearly indicate baptism is into covenant union (in this case, into burial and union with Christ’s death, but in other cases a union into Moses as covenant head, for example). In other words, baptism is a covenant… Read more »
Katecho, the New Testament is very clear that once your heart has been transformed, then you go and get baptized (Acts 2:37-38). It is not the other way around. Baptism is not the new circumcision. The circumcision of the heart is the new circumcision. This is so very basic that the other issues (such as the baptism into Moses) are skinny branches in contrast.
The idea of revoking an earned degree rubs me the wrong way in ANY circumstance. I don’t care if the guy is a murderer caught stone red-handed, he earned the degree. It doesn’t reflect badly on the institution that the guy allegedly went and did bad things, it reflects that the institution keeps the terms of granting a degree for those who keep the terms of earning one, period. It reflects that the institution is honorable, and stays in its lane.
It depends. If the bad things one is doing is in relation to the degree earned, then the institution should absolutely consider revoking the degree. Case in point: Alexandria Donkey-Chompers. Her degree is in economics. Boston University, the institution from which she graduated, promises that BU economics majors will depart “with a firm understanding of core microeconomic and macroeconomic theory” and the “empirical skills that are essential to applying economic reasoning in our increasingly data-driven world.” The woman is a total raving economic doofus. And with a giant megaphone, she makes it a point to showcase her economic stupidity (not… Read more »
BU would have to refund her tuition upon an admission they had failed to keep their promise to imbue her with sound economic theory and reasoning skills! I don’t think AOC lacks intelligence. In high school she came second in the microbiology category of an international science and engineering competition for her research on the effect of anti-oxidants on the longevity of nematodes. Her project impressed MIT so much that they named a small asteroid after her (23238 Ocasio-Cortez). She came fourth in her class at BU. I think she’s not dangerously stupid but rather dangerously radical. It’s a pity… Read more »
I think you could argue that she’s a test case for the dictum that leftism makes you stupid, when stupid is defined not as a lack of raw cognitive ability, but intellectual folly. Because of her folly, even the intelligence she has has been taken away. Many of her recent statements don’t merely reflect arrogance or radicalism, but a stupidity that goes beyond that.
Unfortunately, we seem to be moving rapidly to the end game of radical absurdity and lawlessness. Apparently there is a new DA, John Creuzot, in Dallas county, TX, who has announced that his department will no longer prosecute “thefts of personal items worth less than $750”. This goes along with the failure of State’s Attorney, Kim Foxx, to prosecute Smollett, failure of cities like Seattle and San Francisco to uphold vagrancy and drug laws, and active government threats against landlords in Illinois who would assist federal authorities regarding illegal immigrants. Of course this behavior is countered by refusal to enforce… Read more »
We’ve all got to live somewhere in the world until the day we don’t), so in the meantime it may come down to pick your poison, I guess. I don’t think I want to live anywhere thieves know they can steal from me up to $749.99 with impunity.
The thing about those fault lines is, they aren’t altogether along state or regional lines. Maybe people will gravitate to one place or another based on what they can’t stand, then a true political and geographical fracturing will occur. Not what I want to see.
JohnM wrote: Maybe people will gravitate to one place or another based on what they can’t stand, then a true political and geographical fracturing will occur. Not what I want to see. Indeed, but this is exactly what I expect will happen. Not open civil war, but migrations. We’re seeing cities like Seattle rapidly filling up with drug addicts because they know they won’t be prosecuted for their lifestyle. I expect there could be increased concentrations of more freedom-loving folks in certain jurisdictions as well. It’s going to be a tough course though, because it may mean weaning off of… Read more »
No, they should consider making their degree program more credible. Evidently, she did what BU required of her. It’s what BU requires that’s the problem, not the fact that we don’t find her credible.
Armin says: By pointing this out, you refute the Gramscian idea of race being a mere construct, as well as the Marxist narrative that blacks’ and other minorities’ poor outcomes isn’t just the result of white oppression, but is rooted at least to some extent in biological differences. Once these ideas are deconstructed, anti-whites like Mason will have nothing left to stand on. Well, yes, I think Mason would, even in the unlikely event that “race realism” was once again a majority point of view. Because what you are saying boils down to “Even if whites had never historically oppressed… Read more »
“Once these ideas are deconstructed, anti-whites like Mason will have nothing left to stand on. ”
The race hustlers already have almost nothing to stand on….it’s not as if they (or feminists, or LBTQ+ extremists, or any other woke group) think they need the intellectual high ground. When your platform is based on stuff like systemic racism and unconscious bias, you’re willing to make up almost anything to support your positions.
Jill,
Tangentially related to your post, I think many more people should read this reflection:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2015/01/31/the-parable-of-the-talents/