Letters at the OK Corral

Why should Christians take an alien formulation, such as free speech, and make it a given, an assumed goal for which we should strive? Shouldn’t we replace free speech with Biblical Speech, Yahweh Speech, or something of the sort? You are the one who taught me Scripture is the ultimate standard, no matter what; whether the issue is gender, slavery, predestination, or whatever. If the issue is speech, shouldn’t the Christian sanctify in their hearts “Word-Speech,” defined as speech which conforms to the Word of God, rather than Free Speech, which is a thing that permits both vulgarity and Islam? The Word of God is the enemy of both vulgarity and Islam. Why should I embrace a concept which acts as a defense for things which the Word of God is opposed to?

Dave

Light Rule:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” God

Dark rule:

“Hooray for me and bleep you.” Man

Just to spell it out, God has the best rules.

Jason

The Gift of Gab As I have read you repeatedly argue that free speech is a distinctly Christian idea and secularism cannot produce it, I have found myself in the position of the objector which you responded to in your most recent post. I do value free speech (for myself) and understand the golden rule. But, for whatever reason do not feel persuaded by the case that you are making, although I want to be.

The problem is that I also believe (as do you) that the Law is the standard of morality and the Law obviously says things like this, “But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die (Due 18:22).” As a result, when I read passages like that, I find myself unable to offer a coherent rejection of some of the things that the Reformers did, like drowning the Anabaptists, even though I am baptistic. I obviously object to their understanding of baptism, but it is more difficult to forcefully object to the idea that a nation that has been largely Christianized should not put heretics to death with the stolid conviction that the Bible teaches free speech.

In responding to this sort of objection, you have repeatedly also stated the inescapable concept that it is not whether a society will punish blasphemy laws but which blasphemy laws should be punished. I understand this to be responding to the idea that a wholehearted commitment to free speech must involve an absolute commitment to free speech in all forms. I understand that there must be some sort of brakes on the concept, e.g. porn, vandalism, riots, etc.

However, I think what is problematic for me is that it seems like at the very point where we are wanting freedom of expression for ourselves, namely the freedom to express our sincerely held religious beliefs, we do believe in a book that seems to be instructing Christians (when they are in charge of the government) to deny that same freedom to others in some respect. As a result, the argument Christians should be allowed the freedom to express our sincerely held religious beliefs because the Bible teaches the importance of free speech, seems to fall flat . . . It feels like you are dodging the force of the “free speech for me but not for thee” argument because it is very unclear in your writing what we are supposed to do with Deut. 18 and you seem very open to applying the passage as the Reformers did one day, although you won’t come out and say so directly.

It seems more natural to just admit that the Bible does not absolutize free speech and argue that it is always wrong to persecute individuals who are speaking the truth. In doing so, you aren’t trying to build some concept for yourself that you might deny for others at the exact same point.

In summary, I find the tactic that you are taking confusing. You seem to be arguing for the freedom of Christians to speak the truth in the public square and largely wanting that to be reciprocal because the Bible teaches the importance of free speech. We believe in the golden rule. We don’t want to kill our mission field. At the same time, you acknowledge that free speech cannot be absolutized and all societies have blasphemy laws. Yet, you don’t really deal with the question (if you have I must have missed it) about what the reformers did and how we actually should interpret passages like Deut. 18.

In order to be persuaded fully as to the Bible’s teaching on the importance of freedom of speech for sincerely held religious beliefs, I think I need someone to come along and directly address the question of how Christians should interpret Deut. 18 and stare squarely at the actions of the Reformers and give a thumbs up or a thumbs down, directly. Should I be working towards building a society that looked like that? Why or why not? What did they get wrong about Deut. 18? How should we understand it today?

Tim

Regarding Biblical Law as foundation of free speech:

I grasp that in history the Christian worldview has led to things like free speech. And I like America, and I like the Constitution, and, whether I believe it is biblical or not, I grant that I like free speech. But, apart from some deductions which might be made from certain Christian doctrines, I cannot see the Word of God teaching me to uphold things like free speech and freedom of religion. I do see Moses teaching me that, while aliens in Israel are free not to worship Yahweh, they are not at all free to worship idols within the land. And acceptable speech, according to the Law, could not be simply termed Free Speech; acceptable speech must be speech which conforms to the glory of God, or at the very least, does nothing to detract from it. I believe the Law of Moses contains the best civil law ever seen on planet earth, as it comes from the hand of God, all other civil laws being the best that some man could devise. Please tell me: As a Christian (really, as a human) is it not the case I should reject freedom of religion based on the Word of God through Moses? Isn’t it the case that, should I ever find myself in a position of political power, I should do anything possible, within legal limits, to prevent the building of a mosque, a Hindu or Sikh temple, etc? If not, why not?

Dave

Would you flesh out what you mean by “manipulative arbitrary absolute”? How does this differ on the ground from other forms of tyranny?

BL

For all your labour, a hearty thanks! For some time now I’ve been puzzled by a certain narrative that seems to be pushed by many conservative Evangelicals and wonder if you could comment. The message takes many forms but goes something like this.

The radical Trump supporters have a distinct Evangelical bent to them and are destroying the witness of the gospel for the rest of us and how will the rest of us ever reach a lost world, etc.

The most recent example cited was when Viking Man gave his prayer in the Capitol and the language of his prayer (not the f-bombs as he walked down the aisle) had all the hallmarks of a genuine Evangelical prayer.

Now, I don’t know Viking Man from Adam’s house cat and whether he is regenerate or has any meaningful association to anything Evangelical. Regardless, the actions of individuals in a mob don’t speak for everyone present or for those like me who were sitting on my couch thousands of miles away.

The root of my question is this. Could it be that many in the camp of, let’s call radical Trump supporters for discussion sake, be nothing more than individuals who have enough wisdom to discern the times and see that Western freedom is not only rapidly crumbling but that the only answer or source of any recovery of those said freedoms, has to be founded in the truth of Scripture and thus they “cry” out to Him claiming His authority? In other words some of these folks may have nothing to do with anything Evangelical, but God has provided them with enough revelation to see that He is the source of the freedoms they long for.

I say all this, partly in reference to something I read from Douglas Murray a few years back in his book, The Strange Death of Europe. In chapter 16, titled, The feeling that the story has run out, he makes several references that, “. . . Western liberal societies may in fact owe something to the religion from which they arose.” He goes on to say, ” . . . the culture of human rights, for instance, owes more to the Creed preached by Jesus of Nazareth . . .” and asks the question ” . . . how long can a society survive once it has unmoored itself from its founding source and drive?”

All this to say, if a journalist who confesses to be an atheist can recognize to some degree that a free society must anchor itself to the truth of God in order to maintain those freedoms, is it not fair to say that folks like Viking Man and company are simply recognizing that same truth and responding as they know how, all be it in the wrong way? Shouldn’t this be expected to a degree in a nation as large as the US and with a Christian heritage as such? That many who may not have much or anything to do with following Christ, also have enough discernment to at least know who to look to when trouble comes—God, when they find themselves oppressed?

Just a few thoughts rolling around in my head that I’m trying to rightly organize.

Jon

Deliverance is a Major Scriptural Theme

My favorite, whether past or future, although I lean future, is “They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.”

Dianne

I know you are a Gilder fan, or at least have read some of his stuff. Have you read Life After Google: The Fall of Big Data and the Rise of the Blockchain Economy? He makes the case for why and how blockchain will be the next movement of the internet, away from companies like Google and Amazon, and towards a system where security and privacy is foundational. The Cryptocosm, as Gilder names it, can be fairly confusing and I feel like I only have a fingernail’s grasp on it. Here is an interview with Gilder about his book. Of course, everyone knows about Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency, but the Cryptocosm is something much, much bigger. It is a new way of doing money, contracts and privacy. For Big Data, privacy is an annoying afterthought because their bottom line is based on us NOT having privacy, and gleaning and selling data to advertisers (maybe fixing and election or two on the side). Could something like this be a practical means to change the game?

Thanks,

Tim

I live in Costa Rica with my wife and baby daughter. Three years ago we left the home church we were a part of due to severe theological issues (there was a change in leadership and the new pastor started teaching Marxist ideas in the sermons. The church fell apart shortly after we left.). Since then we have visited many churches near us and are not happy with any of them. Most don’t have great theology, allow female pastors, and are quite lukewarm.

Since COVID, we have been so disappointed, as every church we know of is complying completely with the government regulations – contact tracing, only 50 congregants being able to meet in the building, full masking mandates, social distancing, etc. This really bothers our consciences as we want to be in fellowship with people with “unveiled faces,” and it seems like most pastors here are very naive as to what is actually going on politically and spiritually in this moment – it’s hard to respect and follow a pastor if he’s heartily complying with all this and sees no problem with it. We’ve tried to contact churches to see if there are small groups meeting in homes, but they are all only meeting over Zoom.

It’s been three years since we’ve been part of a fellowship. We have solid Christian friends here and most are in the same boat and having difficulty finding a church.

My question is, what advice would you give our family? The options I see are to join a church that is not great and possibly try to influence it (and put up with the COVID mandates for now), or start a church in our home with our Christian friends that are willing to meet in person (which I don’t feel completely prepared to lead, but it might be better than nothing).

We have been doing the BRC and following Christ Church’s teachings and sermons for about two years now and are so thankful you share your content online. It has been a huge blessing to our family during this time.

Mario

Doug, I just placed an order of the NT set of the Modernized Geneva Bible. Once the OT is completed will you still use the KJV or switch to the MGB?

Ryan

I’ve been blessed by your blog and just started following it six months ago.

My question is on adoption. I don’t see much in your archives about it, though I did enjoy the father-driven adoption blog. My wife and I wanted kids of our own but medically cannot have kids, and feel no desire for adoption or pursuing in vitro.

We feel aimless, purposeless. We are 33 and have zero desire to pursue adoption. We are blessed financially and are trying to use that as a ministry and being hospitable. But otherwise are uncertain if we should just force ourselves to pursue some route for children, even if it appears clear the Lord has at least partially closed this door and not moved our hearts that way.

Thoughts?

JP

Thanks for the reply about collective conscience. To go one step further, what will be your response to the elders of the local church if they forbid you to come to Sunday worship in person (but you’re left with the online option) because you don’t wear a mask? Reason for not wearing a mask is because it’s against your conscience. And the reason for forbidding you to come is because it’s against local church community conscience.

Thanks!

Aleksandar

Can you write a blog on what this term means as I am hearing it being used a lot these days . . .”Systemic Racism”. . . I think people are using it without knowing it’s true meaning. Thank you . . .

Joe

Do you have any suggestions for what family worship might look like when a family is at different stages of development and comprehensive abilities (2-10yo). Straight Bible reading is fine for the older two and yet too much for the younger two, yet a story book Bible is not helping the older kids as much anymore. I could jump back and forth to try to strike a balance or I could just plow ahead at the highest comprehension level, but wondered if you had some practical suggestions that I may not have thought of. Appreciate you and your family. Keep up the great work!

John

Several months ago, I asked you a question about the Septuagint vs the Masoretic Text, and Jesus’ usage of them. This was your response: “Emeth, I hope my answer doesn’t confuse things for you further, but here it is in a nutshell. The Jews of the Dispersion used the Septuagint, and the Jews used the Hebraic OT. We can tell this from the fact that Jesus referred to the “blood of Abel” to the “blood of Zechariah,” which was basically giving us the A to Z, the table of contents — Genesis to 2 Chronicles. Chronicles was the last book in their arrangement. The OT of Jesus and the apostles was identical to the Protestant OT, which gives me my baseline.

The Septuagint, however, was undoubtedly used by the apostles, and the Septuagint did contain additional books, along with the variant readings that are creating the question you ask. Remember that Jesus taught in Aramaic, and so the gospel accounts we have are not original, but are rather translations into Greek. And in many cases, in that rendering the Septuagint was used.

Here is the nub. I reject the idea of a sole autograph having sole authority, which I regard as an Enlightenment shift. That would create the problem you are dealing with. Is it “my ear you have pierced” or a “body you have prepared”? My answer is that both are canonical, and both are the Word of God.

Your answer helped me, and I appreciate it. As time progressed, and I’ve done more research, there is something I’d like clarification on if you’re willing.

You said:

“The OT of Jesus and the apostles was identical to the Protestant OT, which gives me my baseline.

With the reason for using this as a baseline:

We can tell this from the fact that Jesus referred to the “blood of Abel” to the “blood of Zechariah,” which was basically giving us the A to Z, the table of contents — Genesis to 2 Chronicles. Chronicles was the last book in their arrangement.”

When I initially dug into that above, I stumbled upon the obvious issue—who the father of this Zechariah was. Matthew 23:35 identifies him as “Zechariah the son of Barachiah”, but in 2 Chronicles 24:20 he is called “Zechariah the son of Jehoiada”.

While digging into that, I came across this scholarly article:

“The Blood from Abel to Zechariah in the History of Interpretation,” New Testament Studies 60 (2014)

Partially this article comforted me, in that it proved there was an ancient tradition among the Latin church fathers (and especially Jerome) on interpreting “Zechariah the son of Barachiah” and “Zechariah the son of Jehoiada” as the same person—I would have had a hard time swallowing it if that was something we JUST discovered in the modern age. I’m always leary of pulling a Joseph Smith.

But the article also bothered me, for similar reasons. It indicated that the ‘canonical’ interpretation of “Abel to Zechariah” was not how any father of the church interpreted this passage for the first 1500 years.

I’d appreciate reading your take on this. Church Fathers aren’t authoritative, I know—but we also don’t want to be pulling Joseph Smiths, here. I’m struggling with understanding the balance.

And here is its conclusion:

“To which Zechariah did Jesus refer in his remarks about the righteous blood ‘from Abel to Zechariah’? Why did he single out these particular individuals, Abel and Zechariah? Exegetes through the centuries have struggled with these two questions as they encountered Matt 23:35. The Greek Fathers often identified Zechariah with the father of John the Baptist and apparently understood the reference chronologically—all the righteous blood from the beginning of the world up to Jesus’ own time.

The Latin Fathers, on the other hand, often identified Zechariah with the murdered prophet of 2 Chron 24:20-2 and seem to have thought that the heinous nature of the deaths of both Abel and Zechariah prompted Jesus to mention them. The most popular interpretation today, relating Zechariah to the story in 2 Chron 24 as the final murder mentioned in the Bible viewed canonically, arose in a situation when the printed Hebrew Bible had firmly established Chronicles as the final book of the Bible. We have seen that exegetes throughout the centuries have usually not even considered such an explanation as they were completely unfamiliar with an order of books for the Old Testament concluding with Chronicles. The ‘canonical’ interpretation of Matt 23:35 proves convincing only in an era which allows little deviation in the sequence of scriptural books. Though we have lived in such an era for a number of centuries now, neither Jesus nor anyone else could assert the same until the late fifteenth century. It is doubtful whether the ‘canonical’ interpretation can do justice to the blood of Zechariah.”

Emeth

I did as you suggested and acquired the infant baptism book edited by Dr. Strawbridge. I read Jeffrey Niell’s chapter on the newness of the New Covenant. I’m no longer in the position of “affirming paedobaptism but possibly persuaded to the other side.” I’m just a paedobaptist. He’s right. The Reformed Baptists are wrong about what is new in the New. Thanks for the recommendation.

Andrew

Would evangelicals who are currently masking go along with to stay consistent or change their mind and resist if some sort of carbon capture mask is invented and the government requires them for the sake of climate control?

Paul

Exodus 21:1-6 ESV says: “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out alone. But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free,’ then his master shall bring him to God, and he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall bore his ear through with an awl, and he shall be his slave forever.”

The bit about needing to leave his wife and kids if he goes free is so strange to me. Now, it would seem that he could buy, or beg, them from his master, but this passage rubs me the wrong way.

Do you have any commentary on this particular passage you could direct me to?

Nathan