Books Read 2021

 Competing priorities slowed down my reading this year, but I managed to consume a wide variety of interesting material:

Books Read 2021

 

Fiction

1.      William F. Buckley, Jr., Saving the Queen. Buckley’s fiction was not really that good, but it serves as a nice diversion from more serious reading.

2.      Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels. The interactions with the Lilliputians made for more interesting reading than the land of the giants.

3.      Neil Munro, Doom Castle. Recommended by a friend. It was ok.

4.      William F. Buckley, Jr., Stained Glass

 

Non-Fiction

5.      R.C. Sproul, What we Believe: Understanding and Confessing the Apostle’s Creed. This is a nice summary.

6.      Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol. 1 – Theology Proper. Vos’s writing can be a slog at times but is worth the effort.

7.      James E. McGoldrick, Presbyterian and Reformed Churches: a Global History. The spread of Reformed Christianity is an engaging story, even if all too frequent apostacies are depressing.

8.      Camden Bucey, et al, No Uncertain Sound

9.      Edwin H. Rian, The Presbyterian Conflict. A great account of the founding of the OPC.

10.  Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol. 4 – Soteriology.

11.  Herman Ridderbos, Paul: an Outline of his Theology

12.  Bill Broward, Red Notice. This should be read by everyone who would want to understand the tyranny of the Putin regime.

13.  J. I. Packer, Affirming the Apostle’s Creed. Packer is almost always worth reading.

14.  John Bolton, The Room Where it Happened. Bolton doesn’t like the former President for many good reasons, but got himself into the messes he laments.

15.  Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol. 5 –Ecclesiology, the Means of Grace, Eschatology

16.  Ronald H. Nash, The Gospel and the Greeks. This is a good basic survey of these issues.

17.  Julian Jackson, Charles de Gaulle. I learned a lot about de Gaulle, yet do not feel like I understand him. That is because de Gaulle himself defies explanation, though this author made a valiant try.

18.  George M. Marsden, The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience. An early work by Marsden. It is good, but not his best work.

19.  R. Kent Hughes and Douglas Sean O’Donnell, The Pastor’s Book. I found this very helpful.

20.  David McCullough, The Path Between the Seas. McCullough always is worth reading. He covers the French failure and the ultimate American success.

21.  Costi Hinn, God, Greed, and the (Prosperity) Gospel. This is a fascinating story about the conversion of the nephew of Benni.

22.  Michael J. Behe, Darwin Devolves

23.  David Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Preaching and Preachers. Almost anyone will find things to disagree with in this book, but it is a challenging and fruitful read.

24.  Joel Richard Paul, Without Precedent: Chief Justice John Marshall and his Times. The subject deserves a better biography.

25.  David Berlinski, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions. A sometimes interesting take by a non-Christian.

26.  David McCullough, The Wright Brothers. This is an amazing story well told.

27.  A. Scott Berg, Wilson. Wilson is generally sanctimonious and unlikable, though the biographer tries hard to make him otherwise.

28.  David McCollough, The Great Bridge. I always like McCullough and enjoyed this story of the building of this engineering marvel more than I expected.

29.  Rachel Green Miller, Beyond Authority and Submission. Overall, this is a helpful read.

30.  Antonin Scalia, The Essential Scalia. Scalia is a great writer. The editing of these documents was somewhat frustrating.

31.  Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, The Living Presidency. This was highly recommended political philosophy that I found mediocre.

32.  David McCullough, The Johnstown Flood. A fascinating re-telling of one of the great natural disasters of American history.

33.  Harvey C. Mansfield, Jr., Taming the Prince. Better than #31 above.

34.  Doris Kearns Goodwin, The Bully Pulpit. Contrasts Roosevelt and Taft. It is an interesting take on these 2 men.

35.  Cornelis P. Venema, Children at the Lord’s Table. Helpful in addressing this issue in dispute among many of the Reformed.

36.  Aristotle, Rhetoric. Not what most would call scintillating reading, but many would benefit from an approach that gives significant focus to the listener.

37.  Nigel Yates, Eighteenth-Century Britain: Religion and Politics, 1714-1815. I don’t generally enjoy reading surveys. This was a survey.

38.  Nathaniel Philbrick, In the Hurricane’s Eye. The American Revolution was won by nature and the French navy in large degree, so argues this well-written tome.

39.  Lynne Cheney, James Madison: a Life Reconsidered. I learned a lot about Madison, but thought the writing was mediocre.

40.  Thomas Oden, Pastoral Theology. I picked this up because Oden’s life story fascinates me. This particular work, though, was disappointing.

From Atheism and Marxism to Christian Faith

 Marvin Olasky's story of his own conversion is not typical, but it is a compelling read. Find it here.

Mr. Olasky has been for many years the Editor-in-Chief of World Magazine.

Hat Tip: The Aquila Report

Answering the anti-life argument of the anti-vaxxers on the use of aborted tissue

This issue is raising its head with regard to the coronavirus vaccine, but in reality it is a claim that impacts more or less all vaccines. Because of that, a response is important to all of us that find it anti-life to make arguments that would reinvigorate the measles and polio and a host of other nearly extinct diseases that once maimed and killed thousands.

In that vein, I am posting this video by the performer/physician currently known as ZDoggMD. He makes this case as well as anyone I have heard.

Books Read 2020

 

Books Read 2020

 

1.      Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, March 1917: Node III, Book 2. I enjoyed most of Solzhenitsyn's earlier work, but have not cared for his historical novels set during the Russian Revolution.

2.      Charles Dickens, Martin Chuzzlewit. This was enjoyable reading. Dickens shows s certain amount of disdain for America, though.

3.      Brian Holsinger, The Gifted School. Though not exactly on point with the recent college admissions scandals, the novel is poignant in light of them.

4.      Thomas Hardy, Jude the Obscure. Thomas Hardy's view toward marriage was shockingly negative for his day.

5.      Evelyn Waugh, Brideshead Revisited. Based on what I had heard from others, I thought I would like Waugh. I will probably try another work, but I found this one only ok.

6.      Charles Dickens, Our Mutual Friend.

7.      Scott Turow, The Last Witness. A novel about facing one's mortality and diminishing capacities, primarilty through the lens of Sandy Stern. All of Turow's novels (legal thrillers) are worth reading.

8.      Charles Dickens, Little Dorrit. Mostly concerns the misery of debtors prison.

9.      Charles Dickens, Barnaby Rudge. Dickens places this story in the historical backdrop of riots that occurred in London around 1780. This may be the most unique of his novels.

10.  Charles Dickens, The Mystery of Edwin Drood. Dickens died before finishing this novel, which means we don't know how it would have ended, though there have been no shortage of guesses.

11.  Alan Jacobs, The Year of our Lord 1943. Centers around the work of several Christian writers from the era that focused on education as the mechanism for redeeming society. I found the selection of subjects for the book eccentric.

12.  Thomas C. Oden, A Change of Heart. Oden's story is arguably the most remarkable biography -- certainly of a theologian -- of the last century. He was a remarkable man who accomplished an unfathomable amount of work.

13.  Michael Horton, Justification: Volume 1. This may be Horton's best academic work. It covers the history of the doctrine from the patristic era up to the Reformation.

14.  Nathaniel Philbrick, Bunker Hill. Philbrick tells the story well.

15.  Michael Horton, Justification: Volume 2. The second volume addresses contemporary debates. It is well worth the read, though I enjoyed volume 1 more.

16.  Robert L. Guyer, How to Get and Keep your First Lobbying Job. Good for someone starting out. 

17.  Matthew Barrett, None Greater: the Undomesticated Attributes of God. Highly recommended.

18.  Robert L. Guyer, Guide to State Legislative Lobbying

19.  Steven D. Smith, Pagans and Christians in the City. An excellent comparison of current debates and those that occurred in the time of the late Roman Empire.

20.  D.G. Hart, That Old-Time Religion in Modern America. Everything that Hart has written is worth reading.

21.  Elaine Pagels, Why Religion? A Personal Story. I disagree with Pagels on most things, but enjoyed reading this because she is thoughtful and creative.

22.  David McCullough, The Pioneers. This is a fantastic work, with McCullough chronicling the founding of a town along the Ohio River in southeast Ohio.

23.  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Between Two Millstones. 

24.  F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

25.  Mark A. Noll, The New Shape of World Christianity

26.  Emile Durkheim, The Division of Labor in Society

27.  Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

28.  Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, Why we Love the Church

29.  H.W. Brands, Heirs of the Founders

30.  Russell Kirk, The Conservative Mind

31.  Cornelius Van Til, Christianity and Idealism

32.  Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. My wife and I have spent many hours discussing Kuhn's use of paradigms and how it applies to various areas of knowledge, including history of religion. She wrote her undergraduate thesis largely around the application of Kuhn to understanding the Protestant Reformation.

33.  Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600)

34.  Alvin Plantinga, Knowledge and Christian Belief

35.  Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines

36.  Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 3: The Growth of Medieval Theology (600-1300)

37.  Robert W. Merry, President McKinley: Architect of the American Century. I learned a lot about McKinley. This is well written.

38.  Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300=1700)

39.  John H. Walton, The Lost World of Genesis One. I frequently disagree with Walton, but he is an engaging writer.

40.  W. Robert Godfrey, Saving the Reformation: the Pastoral Theology of the Canons of Dort

41.  Tremper Longman and John H. Walton, The Lost World of the Flood

42.  Richard A. Muller, Divine Will and Human Choice: Freedom, Contingency, and Necessity in Early Modern Reformed Thought

43.  Ross Douthat, The Decadent Society

44.  James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky, Science and the Good: the Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality

45.  J. V. Fesko, Reforming Apologetics. Fesko defends classical apologetics and attacks Van Til, among others.

46.  John V. Fesko, Word, Water and Spirit: a Reformed Perspective on Baptism

47.  Henry Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, Vol. 1

48.  Ned B. Stonehouse, J. Gresham Machen: a Biographical Memoir. Those interested in Machen might look to Darrly Hart's work instead.

49.  J.I. Packer, Engaging the Written Word of God. Most of the essays in this volume are good.

50.  Doris Kearns Goodwin, Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream. I always like reading her. I disagree on Johnson about nearly everything, but there are aspects of that era that are better than our own.

51.  George F. Will, The Conservative Sensibility. Will's book argues for a variety of conservatism among many (none of which, by the way, resemble whatever one wants to call Trumpism). The most interesting chapters was the one on religion. Notably, I agreed with almost everything Will had to say about the role of religion (or lack thereof) in America's founding, though I of course disagreed with his atheism. Will advocates a version of natural rights that goes along with atheism, even as he acknowledges that the record on whether it can actually work in the real world is not favorable to date. He is fascinating to read on this subject.

52.  Michael F. Bird and Scott Harrower, eds., Trinity without Hierarchy. Almost all of the essays are really good, though the one by Leithat seems weak and out of place.

53.  Bob Woodward, Rage

54.  Richrd B. Gaffin, Jr., Resurrection and Redemption. All of the books from here to the end I have read while preparing for an ordination exam in theology. I hope I pass.

55.  John Murray, Collected Writings: Volume two – Select Lectures in Systematic Theology

56.  Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of Christianity & My Credo

57.  Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost

58.  James E. Dolezal, All that Is in God

59.  John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied

60.  Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology

61.  Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol. 3, Christology

62.  J. Gresham Machen, Things Unseen

63.  Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics: Vol. 2, Anthropology

In the World, but Not of the World

I thought about headlining my post, "It's the Uncertainty, Stupid," but in the present environment I worried that such might be considered uncharitable, even though I am only using the final word rhetorically. Those old enough to remember old political slogans will realize my play on one if they choose to do so.

Nonetheless, this lament continues my writing on the way that the church, at least as I witness its pronouncements by online representatives, focuses on the wrong things. I see lots of attention being given to whether or not to wear masks (mostly decided one way or the other based on poor reasoning), social distancing, and when and how to re-open services.

It is hard to find much attention being given to various uncertainties general to life but magnified during this crisis such as illness, the loss of loved ones, isolation from friends, fear of economic privation due to job loss, and hopelessness about the future -- and where is a sovereign God in all of this.

I am not saying that the first set of subjects are unimportant -- quite the contrary -- but those are subjects driven mostly by forces outside the church -- by the world. The second set of subjects are priorities of Scripture, which is full of texts to be expounded and applied. Each furnishes the opportunity to provide contextualized hope as it is found only in the Gospel. In so doing, the church would be providing a unique perspective, rather than one parroted with Bible verses.

So, why are so many Christian leaders obsessed with masks and distancing while virtually ignoring death, sickness, and hopelessness? The provocative answer is that the present crisis has opened the curtain to show an unseemly worldliness that dominates the church. The crisis sheds light on a great need for repentance and reform among God's people.

The term "worldliness" is biblical, yet in cultural terms hopelessly old fashioned. Many of us will associate the word with a past age of complaints about card playing and dancing and liquor. Be that as it may, this present worldliness is far more deep seated yet easily ignored and therefore pernicious. Our worldliness means that churches and Christians that claim allegiance to biblical authority set priorities based on agendas from outside of Scripture based on social and political concerns tangential to the biblical witness, though we have the capacity to find creative ways to pretend that they are biblical. Rather than recognizing that Scripture should drive our concerns, we instead use it to rubber stamp whatever social and political views we happen to hold.

The result is a failure to minister to the great needs of the day to which Scripture speaks -- needs related to the discipleship of our church members and to the evangelization of our communities and that recognize that by His death Christ put death to death. While I have focused on the COVID crisis, similar laments could be stated regarding the present dilemma regarding racial issues, about which many Christians have much to say about "cultural Marxism" ind "critical race theory," subjects about which frankly they don't seem to know much beyond sloganeering, and relatively little to say about the imago dei in man, which could form the basis for deep Christian reflection for how to move forward. The present crises have provided an opportunity for the church to bring the Gospel to bear on deep human concerns. To date, the church has largely failed in that endeavor. We need to repent.

"As a Dying Man to Dying Men"

Some readers will be old enough to remember when it was said that a community or national crisis would bring people back to church. Eventually, levels of attendance would revert to the mean, but at least for a while those who attended only sporadically if at all attend church looking for answers to address their deepest fears.

Of course, that could not happen during the present pandemic because churches, along with other entities that hold mass gatherings, either have been required to close their doors or restrict attendance. However, the financial crisis of a decade ago also did not result in an upswing in church attendance, and it may be that old maxims no longer hold true. If that is the case, one might wonder why. It would seem that most of those who do not already attend church in the United States no longer think of the church as a place to find answers to life's deepest problems. If that is the case, it might be said that the present crisis has served to verify that they are right.

Rightly understood, a pandemic might seem like just the sort of crisis into which the church could speak with comfort, authority, and deep value. It has been said that the purpose of a minister -- and of a church -- is to prepare people to die, but accepting that as true, one must also recognize that the subject is one that most Americans would just as soon avoid. In fact, churches on the vanguard of what passes for relevance in our day are more interested in offering advice for improving life than they are in addressing the more ultimate concerns of sin and death.

The spread of a disease without a known cure but with unpredictable morbidity and vast levels of mortality has forced people to think about that which during normal times they prefer to ignore. Add to illness and death the other disruptions created by the present crisis -- social isolation, financial uncertainty, and so on -- and one sees that it is no wonder that many are filled with fear. Things that once seemed stable and predictable are now wobbly.

Thus, people have been brought to the place where the church could help, if only it would.

I have not surveyed churches on how they have responded, but what I have witnessed online -- to the extent that provides a window into the soul of American Christianity -- has not been encouraging. It is understandable that churches have lamented the loss of the ability to gather, but we have seen too little creative activity in terms of finding ways to minister to both Christians and non Christians in our communities. Thus, many church communities have experienced only subtraction -- the loss of gathered worship but without any effort at offering temporary ways to connect people and needs during this time.

Even worse, many churches have ignored the crisis as an opportunity to show love toward the fearful and hurting and have addressed the crisis primarily in the sorts of political categories that are tangential to Christian faith. While conclusions regarding wearing masks at worship are matters where Christians may differ, it is rather disheartening to see moral reasoning that devolves into navel gazing fixated on personal autonomy and unconcerned with either the Great Commission or the Great Commandment -- or even the Good Samaritan. Now, I see that some ministers are desperately pleading for people to return, when even church members might find themselves conflicted about rejoining a congregation where the leadership has demonstrated that they do not care for the wellbeing of the most vulnerable -- the elderly, the cancer patient, the diabetic, or the overweight. It is correct that every believer has the obligation of church attendance, but it is sad to see the obstacle of having realized that the local congregation doesn't care enough to help one feel safe, particularly given the slight nature of the needed sacrifice in the big scheme of things.

The church had an opportunity to urge upon congregants to ignore the predictable political categories and find ways to care for people. In many ways, the church has failed. May God drive us to repentance, that we might speak to our communities, in the words of Baxter, "as a dying man to dying men.

What is conservatism? What is science?

This is a different sort of post than the ones that I generally compose for this site. Typically, I avoid political topics, or topics that may be regarded as political. This is not because I am uninterested in politics -- the job that pays my bills requires that I be interested -- but it is because for the church, both those segments of it that lean to the right and that lean to the left, I regard politics as a temptation drawing their attention away from matters of first importance about the inbreaking of a kingdom not of this world to secondary matters about which they frequently opine without any real knowledge, expertise, or ability to influence.

Nonetheless, I see many religious leaders, in the name of their religious convictions, promoting what they refer to as a sort of political conservatism. I am going to take the risk here of adding to my criticism of pulpit politics an accompanying criticism that what many call conservatism is not particularly conservative.

Of course, there are many streams of conservatism that have flowed through the course of history. I have waded in varieties of those streams over the course of my life before ultimately landing in that which seems to have the best pedigree, which is the understanding that conservatism, as Russell Kirk put it, is not an ideology so much as it is a sentiment, a sentiment that there are things about the past that are worth preserving, that human nature is not ultimately malleable, and that improvement in some area is likely to have mal effects elsewhere. This sort of conservatism differs from progressivism, various forms of liberalism, and conservative libertarianism in various ways. For one thing, those views make their beginning point their ideologies and tend toward various forms of utopianism that typically end in disappointment, sometimes tragically. Conservatism, rightly understood, does not begin with ideology, but with the real world. Conservatism is not utopian because it views human nature as incapable of attaining it in this world (or ever, for those who do not believe in an after life). Conservatism is not opposed to change, but tends toward skepticism and concerns about unintended consequences.

This sort of conservatism stands in sharp contrast to family values (a hopelessly relativistic term) conservatives or social conservatives, who tend toward utopianism, even positing spiritual revival, based on using political power to achieve desired results. It is odd to see self-described conservatives advocating centralized power in ends justifying means arguments.

How does this relate to the other part of my title: science? Like many of the ministers who feel free to comment on and advocate regarding scientific matters, I have no expertise in this field. Nonetheless, I make some effort at reading widely and make my living working around people with strong scientific interests. The conservative British historian Paul Johnson began his history of the 20th century, Modern Times, with an account of Albert Einstein's statements surrounding findings he expected regarding red light shift during a solar eclipse. In advance of an eclipse, Einstein made the extraordinary statement that if the red light shift phenomenon was not observed that his theory of general relativity "would have to be abandoned." That, to his credit, was falsifiability on steroids.

What if those with ideological commitments nowadays would put themselves on the line in the same way? You may recall that back in early and mid July, after states had begun the effort at reopening their economies, that the number of COVID infections had begun to increase, but the number of deaths had remained low. I had multiple conversations about this with skeptical friends. I am no Einstein, but I hope I have learned from history. I told many people the following: Death is lagging indicator. It takes a couple of weeks after changes to see the impact on cases. Additional time is needed before seeing the impact on hospitalization and ICU usage. After that, we start to see an uptick in deaths. I told many people that we would see an increase in deaths (raw number, not rate because many of those infected were younger and healthier) by the first of August. If that did not happen, my concerns could be dismissed.

How I wish I were wrong, but I was not! But I haven't found that my conversation partners have been in any rush to acknowledge that they needed to change their minds about how to respond.

Reasonable people do not use racial terms to refer to this as a Chinese infection, but there may be some merit in thinking of the American response as a form of Chinese water torture. Instead of acting decisively in the face of unusual but real circumstances, Americans have responded based on ideology and political predilection. The result has been the ongoing, insanity inducing drip of social and economic tragedy.


In the face of this, many well meaning people have declared beliefs and made statements about this pandemic without having any knowledge or expertise in pandemics, infectious disease, or even economics. Ok, we know what opinions are like. However, in an age where social media platforms give anyone with sufficient hubris the delusion of expertise, how about putting yourself on the line. Make a clear prediction without wiggle room. If you are wrong, own it.

I realize such thoughts are subversive of modernity. So be it, says this conservative.

Because the 9th Commandment is Actually in the Bible....

Lest I be accused of Biblicism, I will note it is also in reformed confessions of faith! Nonetheless, I am thankful to see a group of Orthodox Presbyterian Church officers taking a stand that ministers who engage in public debate have a duty to do so honestly and charitably. I wrote about this subject recently more broadly. Those who fail to disagree in that way are conducting themselves in a manner that violates their ordination vows.

For those who perhaps do not keep up with the debates of current American reformed and evangelical Christianity, this dust up involves a book recently published by Aimee Byrd, a member of an OPC church and until recently a participant in a podcast of some prominence in the reformed world. Her book addresses issues of discipleship of women in conservative and confessional churches. In so doing, it expresses disagreement with some aspects of what is known as complementarianism, which is a rather broad term related to the way women and men relate to one another. I say broad because complementarianism is claimed by a variety of people who find themselves occupying the area between egalitarianism on the left and patriarchy on the right. Ms. Byrd would not for herself use the term "complementarian," but she is accused of being a "thin complementarian" and she is criticized by those who dislike that she interacts, sometimes favorably, with egalitarians.

I will now remove myself from the weeds.

I have not read Ms. Byrd's book, so any knowledge I have is second hand. As such, it is not my place either to defend or disagree with it, at least not in any detail. My wife has read the book and, in fact, wrote 4,000(!) words of notes that provided a basis for discussion of the book among leaders of a FB group that she participates with. My wife found aspects of the book helpful and disagreed with others. She along with others engaged in debate that I would consider healthy.

That is a reminder that discussions on controversial subjects can be vigorous and ought to be healthy and charitable. What has been shocking has been the reaction of some ministers and officers of churches that have been dishonest, vicious, and sometimes misogynist. One might expect certain types of language from profane unbelievers, but not from officers of the church. Some of this has taken place in online groups deemed to be "private." I have wondered what it would be like to have to sit under the ministry of a pastor that conducts himself in this way when he erroneously supposes himself to be in secret.

I am not an officer of the OPC, so I cannot sign this letter, but I would urge those who are eligible to do so. Those who do so are not expressing wholesale agreement with Ms. Byrd's book, but they are opposing conduct by ministers that is not becoming of a follower of Christ. Does that even require a "courageous" stand? One would hope not. Nonetheless, it is perhaps of interest that some ministers have expressed outrage at Ms. Byrd's employment of "feminist imagery" in the form of yellow wallpaper on the book's cover. If one will forgive me, I am more concerned about ministers displaying a yellow streak. If you can't take a stand on this, what are you going to do in the face of real persecution?

Wisdom and the Coronavirus

I don't recall having read Alistair Roberts prior to this post, but he provides an excellent summary of the nature of wisdom based on the biblical wisdom literature along with some worthy applications. I highly commend it.

It was hard to pick a single snippet to highlight when so much in the post is good, but here is one:

"One of the dismaying features of too many Christian contexts is their narrow fortress mentality, their failure to interact receptively with and learn from insightful non-Christians, and the way that their thinking is so driven by political and ideological antagonism and entrenchment."

Read the whole thing.

Hat Tip: The Aquila Report

"Promoting ... the Good Name of our Neighbor"

Ask most Christians about immorality on the internet and discussion will likely turn immediately to the prevalence of sexually explicit material. This is not an entirely wrong response, as internet pornography is reported to be big business, and sexual obsessiveness damages both individuals and relationships. However, the response also results from an unfortunate reduction of morality to matters involving sex in the minds of many religious conservatives. In fact, one might suggest that among Christians one finds more promiscuous -- and casually indifferent -- violations of the 9th Commandment (bearing false witness) than of the 7th (adultery).

People seem naturally to get their backs up at accusations of violating the 9th Commandment, as no one likes being called a liar (even when it happens to be true). In fact, during an earlier era of American history, a man who called another a liar might find himself shortly thereafter squaring off at 10 paces. Nonetheless, the Westminster Larger Catechism (question 144) explains our duty with regard to the 9th Commandment rather expansively:

"The duties required in the ninth commandment are, the preserving and promoting of truth between man and man, and the good name of our neighbor, as well as our own; appearing and standing for the truth; and from the heart, sincerely, freely, clearly, and fully, speaking the truth, and only the truth, in matters of judgment and justice, and in all other things whatsoever; a charitable esteem of our neighbors; loving, desiring, and rejoicing in their good name; sorrowing for and covering of their infirmities; freely acknowledging of their gifts and graces, defending their innocency; a ready receiving of a good report, and unwillingness to admit of an evil report, concerning them; discouraging talebearers, flatterers, and slanderers; love and care of our own good name, and defending it when need requireth; keeping of lawful promises; studying and practicing of whatsoever things are true, honest, lovely, and of good report."

The same catechism proceeds with the next question to summarize forbidden sins, but just the list of positive duties would seem to provide enough to shut down much of what happens on social media.

My wife and I were discussing this last night, and in the course of that discussion she brought up a valid and disturbing point: how can we expect church members to acknowledge the 9th commandment in the way that they engage social media when they are being discipled under the authority of ministers who routinely commit the same sins?

Now, I should hasten to add that we were not discussing matters related to anyone in our congregation -- or even the presbytery of which our church is a part. Nonetheless, the fact that we are Presbyterians means that we are in a denomination and tradition that holds to governing structures and processes we believe to be grounded in Scripture and adapted in our Book of Church Order. Yet, I see things written by ministers of our denomination (and similar ones) that are brazenly false. That is to say, I am not talking about matters that are open to varying interpretations; I am talking about clear falsehood. Because it is on the internet, the spreading of falsehood is public sin.

Whether the falsehood results from mental incompetence, a failure to make simple investigation, or willful moral deficiency, it is still false. Sadly, in many instances, sessions and presbyteries do not seem to care about counselling and, if necessary, disciplining their ministers who are guilty of this sort of sin. The practical result of this is that men stand in the pulpits of churches to preach the good news of Christ when some among their listeners know about their public sins against the truth. This is a matter of disgrace for the church.

it has been said that the American Constitution's First Amendment was not needed to protect speech about cute puppies. Protection of speech is required to protect the right to controversial speech. Similarly, we rarely violate the 9th Commandment regarding those we like: we fail in our duty more often when we disagree with someone or have some other reason for wanting to tear them down.  The conversation that my wife and I were having concerned the reaction of others to Aimee Byrd's recent book. I have not read it: Lanette has read it and provided 4,000 words of notes about its contents to a Facebook group. Thus, she knows the book pretty well.

Of course, Ms. Byrd's book is controversial, and there is plenty of room for discussion and disagreement with her conclusions and applications. I am not here to defend Ms. Byrd, in part because I have not read the book and am not therefore competent to do so, and in part because I am sure she was prepared for controversy given the subject matter and is more than capable of defending herself. However, much of the discussion on the internet features more heat than light, and by heat I mean illegitimate name calling, ad hominem attacks, and false and misconstrued information about Ms. Byrd's arguments and character. These are serious sins, and when ministers routinely commit them they should be counselled appropriately and brought to repentance.

It's not the differing conclusions; it's the reasoning

How should Christians talk about the Coronavirus? I am not sure we have been doing a terribly good job at it.

Last weekend, many states began the partial re-opening of economic activity. In many instances, that resulted in little change to the way people have been going about their business. While activists on left and right argue loudly about what should or should not be done, the mushy middle seems to have found consensus that caution remains in order. While that disappoints the activists on either side, in this instance it seems wise. Those in the middle who apparently have no leader nowadays seem to be acting in a way that fails to comport with the political disintegration that afflicts the country.

The small church that I attend opened its doors with spread out seating and continued streaming the service. For reasons I will describe momentarily, I watched on a computer. When I attend again personally will be based on my best understanding of the level of risk living in an area where the infection rate has been relatively modest but continues to increase, albeit slowly at present.

Anyone entering this fray should be aware of their own biases, and I believe I have an understanding of my own, which are affected by political predilections and interactions based on my employment, but most of all by health status. By most measures, I am actually currently in better health than I have been in for many years, going back to when I was younger but not as physically active. However, a health condition requires me to take medication that keeps me in remission while compromising my immune system. Thus, if I got this, it probably would not be a good time.

I am not paranoid about this -- my dog is enjoying daily walks in the nearby park, and I make frequent quick trips to the grocery store. I just stay away from anyplace I would expect to find crowds or gathered groups. In terms of the hot button questions of opening the economy or not, my views tend toward the more cautious side, but it does not bother me that others disagree -- my wife and I do not fully agree (though she is of course respectful of my personal situation) -- and our marriage has somehow remained happy even though she has to tolerate my nearly constant presence while I have worked from home these last two months. So, it remains possible in America to have differing opinions and still walk together.

Thus, I do not worry about differing conclusions. What strikes me as shocking is the reasoning with which people get there. It is one thing to weigh the relative merits of public health impacts versus economic damage (though I will note in passing that very few making these arguments possess either the skill or the effort needed to assess the economic impact of more widespread morbidity and death: what would it mean to the economy if what has happened to the meat processing industry was occurring in many more industries had they not shut down). What strikes me most is an increasingly dismissive attitude toward the lives that could be lost. I most note those who take pro-life positions on other issues that quickly dismiss concerns for the sick and the elderly as mere collateral damage that should not be bothered with.

It is not that the sick should imagine the world revolves around them. But, are Christians regarding their plight in a way that shows brotherly love toward fellow believers, as well as kindness toward those outside the household of faith?

The questions facing the nation are not easy, and Christians should expect that among us there will be a spectrum of understandings. I have my own views, but they are leavened with a considerable amount of uncertainty -- perhaps I am learning humility in middle age. The novelty of our situation finds wisdom in admitting that there is much that we do not know about the ramifications of our decisions. All of that said, while circumstances may require hard, even unpopular, decisions, they never permit us to leave the Second Great Commandment at the church house door.

Will We See a Transition toward Small Churches?

I don't know the answer to the question in the title. I am not a prophet, and given that very few foresaw two months ago what we are experiencing now, there perhaps should be a healthy skepticism of anyone who pretends to know what or when the next state of normalcy looks like. However, it appears that big crowds may remain a big problem for some time. This fascinating interview with Bob Costas (the portion relevant to this discussion starts several minutes in) for the prospects of the return of professional and collegiate sports any time this calendar year could be described as pessimistic but not obviously wrong, and many national trade organizations who have relied as a staple of personal identity, not to mention revenue, on large national and statewide meetings also now find those at significant risk. Many churches obviously pack in large numbers of people in relatively small spaces on a regular basis, and those may be deemed risky beyond the time when most businesses that are less crowded begin to open their doors again.

It is important to note that the worst of the COVID-19 outbreaks in the U.S. and elsewhere have been in places where people can't spread out: large cities such as New York where transit and other aspects of life place people in close proximity, nursing homes (recognizing age and health condition also to be relevant), cruise ships, sporting events, weddings and funerals, church services, and so forth. If much of economic life attempts a comeback, but crowded places remain suspect farther into the future, those types of gathering places will require evaluations (hopefully self-evaluation rather than government mandate, but we have seen instances of irresponsibility that will encourage the government to act).

Church growth experts have long warned that church sanctuaries that are 80% full are for all practical purposes maxed out and churches that reach that level of saturation will begin to decline. Will churches need to rethink that percentage to a lower number in the future? Will seating need to be altered to allow smaller crowds in the same size of sanctuaries? Will more churches go to multiple Sunday morning services to reduce crowding? What about classroom space? Will more churches limit growth beyond a medium size by starting additional congregations to disperse Christians geographically? Are churches truly welcoming if older persons or those with comorbidities are put at risk by attending a crowded facility?

I don't know the answer to any of those questions, but I hope that they are being asked. Worshipping with a congregation for a month or two via videoconferencing is difficult; it will be more challenging for churches if they have to extend that for a much longer time -- or if they don't make changes and have an outbreak of sickness and mortality within their congregations.

I attend a small church, but our seating is extremely tight. That is a reminder that large churches may experience the biggest impact, but medium and small size churches will have questions to answer as well.

And, this post doesn't pretend to know the answers. Perhaps three months from now this whole thing will be in the rear view mirror and life will go back to what it was like the first of the year. Perhaps. However, secular organizations are busily preparing contingency plans for all sorts of possibilities. Churches would be foolish to fail to do the same.

The Tempting of the Church in America

Thirty years ago, Robert Bork published his account of the rejection of his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court under the title "The Tempting of America." Given the direction evident at the time, it hardly took a prophet to realize that Mr. Bork's jeremiad over the politicization of the court would come to pass. Nonetheless, one should not be stingy, and regardless of his other virtues or defects, Judge Bork was right about this: the court, at the hands of both liberals and Trump supporters, is today more widely regarded as a political than a legal institution. Such accrues to the nation's detriment.

These admittedlly old thoughts come to mind afresh upon reading about Albert Mohler's public declaration of his intent to vote for the aforementioned Trump in the upcoming election. Rev. Mohler, in fact, has declaimed the possibility that he will ever vote for a Democrat. For those who do not know, Dr. Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, long considered the flagship of Southern Baptist institutions, and it seems that he may be elected president at the next session of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Mohler also is associated with a parachurch group of some influence, The Gospel Coalition, among those commonly referred to as being "young, restless, and reformed."

Mohler's ringing endorsement will undoubtedly tickle the ears of those who support the president, and others will say he made a bad choice. While this blogger has his own views of that -- of note to what follows, those views are not being written here or elsewhere -- the debate over whether Mohler made the right choice veers away from a far more interesting discussion that merits attention, though it rarely receives it. That discussion centers around this:

Why would Albert Mohler, who is widely regarded as a representative of the church, need to express an electoral political preference at all?

Those responsible for politicizing the federal courts have viewed it as a matter of relevance, and those that continue to drag the church into American electoral politics do the same. However, it is not noted frequently enough that church ministers are ambassadors, not of any temporal earthly kingdom, but representing the inbreaking of the age that is coming. God's ambassadors announce the inbreaking of another, eternal kingdom as a pronouncement of judgment on earthly kingdoms which are necessarily time limited. While the inbreaking kingdom has things to say about judgment and mercy to the time limited ones, in fact, the inbreaking kingdom moves among its citizens across geographic borders and includes persons of every people and tribe and nation. The ultimate message is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and is followed by a command: be reconciled to God.

Again, in the course of declaring God's word regarding justice and mercy in the present age, there are things to be said addressing political matters. That said, the church is most relevant when it understands it belongs neither to the left or the right, but to the age that is coming, the one that is both here and not yet here in its fullness. The interest in relevance through temporal political power is a temptation, and those ministers who embrace it are guilty of dereliction of duty before the King whose glory shall have no end.