The Wussification of Jesus

Having read Machen, I returned to a realization that I have carried for years. We have emasculated Jesus. Machen was correct but he could not foresee the Post-Modernist movement. The Modernists have seen science does not always arrive at the conclusions for which they had hoped. A new, more fluid Christianity was needed. Now, rather than rely on science alone, they rely on “feelings.” Someone’s “feelings” can never be judged, because their “feelings” are just as valid as your “feelings.” You will also notice that there is no longer the scientific premise of “absolute truth.” Now, everyone has “their truth,” which may differ from “your truth.”  Did O.J. Simpson kill Nicole or Ron Goldman? In “his truth” the answer is “no;” in Fred Goldman’s “truth” the answer is “yes.” Our truth does not matter. 

So, how do you make the Bible align with the Post-Modern movement? Easy, you make Jesus a Post-Modern man! Except that men are threatening, so we can’t identify Jesus with any “manly” characteristics. Jesus was gentle. Jesus never judged people. Jesus sat with prostitutes and criminals. Jesus was all peace and love, more of a Gandhi-type or even a Che Guevara. (Never mind that Che would have executed the same people that celebrate him today). Jesus exists only to make us feel good about ourselves. 

That old vengeful God guy of the Old Testament is gone. Hippy dippy Jesus is just all right with me, man. (Never thought you'd see the Doobie Brothers in one of my blogs, did you?) 

I have been a member of churches that are led by these Post-Modernist preachers. They want to tear down everything in the church that might make someone uncomfortable. The exception being white, middle-aged or older males who caused all these problems in the first place. Someone offended by the Bible declaring an act or omission a sin? Don’t worry, God knows what is in your heart and he forgives you. Jesus won’t judge you and no one else should either.

The problem is, this is a false Christianity. A wussified Jesus is not a Savior. A God that is only vengeful is a one dimensional God. It ignores what we learn in Isaiah 41:13, “For I, the Lord your God, hold your right hand; it is I who say to you, “Fear not, I am the one who helps you.”  It ignores what we learn from Jesus in Matthew 10:34, “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”  

God is vengeful AND loving. Jesus judged AND forgave. The Post-Modern Christian does not want to deal with the fact that some people will be condemned to eternity in Hell. (The same Hell that the Modernists disposed of as superstition- a lie to get people to behave). The Post-Modernist response? “A loving God would never send someone to Hell.” The fault with this thinking? “A perfectly holy God could not tolerate sin, and Jesus died for the redemption of those sinners who God has chosen to enjoy eternity with Him.” If Jesus is not the Son of God, he is either a liar or a madman. Even if you don’t believe in limited atonement on unlimited atonement, the idea that everyone goes to Heaven (universal atonement) was ruled heretical in 543 at the Council of Constantinople.

No one likes to be called a sinner. No one likes to hear that their child is a sinner. No one likes to hear that their friend is a sinner- but guess what? WE ALL SIN. The Bible sets a high standard, because God sets a high standard. 

My sin is no different from your sin. Our sin is no different from your child’s sin. Your child’s sin is no different than your friend’s sin. We all sin- but when we try to excuse it by declaring it is not a sin, we compound that sin because we put ourselves in the place of God. 

Fortunately, we don’t need to take on God’s responsibility because He can do it for us. The path isn’t always easy and you will slip along the way, but the ending is beyond description. How can I be sure? I can be sure because that is the absolute truth found in the Bible. The Bible makes you uncomfortable? IT SHOULD! If you could read the Bible with a clear conscience, you would not need the Bible, or God, or Jesus. The truth is always hard to hear. But we are not children who get participation trophies. We need to hear the hard truths.

It is because we are all created imago Dei (in the image of God) that I care about you and I want to share that destination with you. It is because I love you as brothers and sisters in Christ, that I share this passage: 

For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

 

II Timothy 3:2-5

Use the Bible and be discerning. Don’t be fooled by the Modernist and Post-Modernist. And don’t fool yourself.

My Reading List: Liberalism and Christianity

 

I recently finished reading Christianity and Liberalism (Machen, J. Gresham; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2009). Before I begin my analysis, a brief history of the author and the purpose of the book may be in order. J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) was a Princeton Theological Seminary professor who caused great consternation due to his resistance to the liberal tendencies of the day. When he deemed that Princeton was being lead “inexorably to a sentimentalized religion that had nothing to do with the God of the Bible or, indeed, with real life,” he departed to founded Westminster Theological Seminary (near Philadelphia) and the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. (The above quote comes from the Foreword to this new edition, written Carl R. Trueman the Vice President for Academic Affairs at Westminster). 

What led to the book being originally published in 1923? To understand the time, there was a division in the Presbyterian Church between the Fundamentalist and the Modernist factions. Machen did not fall into either camp. He viewed the Fundamentalist position as lacking an appreciation for scholarship and based on false pietism. (Machen was not a smoker but, like C.H. Spurgeon, saw the value of a good cigar). Machen viewed the problem of the Liberal/Modernist position as taking the history and meaning of the Gospel and trying to make it more palatable to the more progressive elements of society.  Christianity and Liberalism was based on a sermon he delivered and subsequent article he wrote to demonstrate the flaws of the Modernist position. 

Machen starts from the premise that the Modernist position placed emphasis on advances in science and understanding and viewed “truth” not as absolute, but as pragmatism- viewing an acceptable outcome as more productive. While this may be troubling, it was the Modernist tendency to discount Biblical miracles as fiction based on science and the redefinition of Christian understanding that most troubled Machen. 

The overarching theme is that the Modernist Christian use Christian vocabulary and ideas, but their meaning to the Modernist is entirely different from the meaning of the Orthodox position. And therein lies the problem. The Modern church uses the trimmings of Christianity, but for fear of seeming unsophisticated, minimalizes or discounts the essential meaning of Christianity. Orthodox essentials such as the inerrancy of scripture, the Virgin birth of Jesus, vicarious atonement, etc., are discarded as superstition or ignorance. 

Machen’s analysis of the Modernist movement is coherent and thoughtful. His premise is not based on a straw man easily defeated, but by careful examination of the Modernist theology. Machen articulates the reasons that Modernist Christianity has developed not from Christianity, but as its own separate religion. He does this through a logical progression of the “if…, then…” type. Machen takes the dogma of the Modernists and, through careful analysis, demonstrates how their beliefs are not supported by the Christianity they seem to proclaim, but are in direct conflict with Christianity.  Machen starts in the area of Doctrine and develops the argument through key areas of Christianity, pointing out the hazards and pit-falls along the way. 

In the end, although written nearly one hundred years ago, Machen is prescient in his analysis. The so-called “Main Line” denominations have wandered down the Modernist path. One only need to bring up the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states, “[The Holy Scripture] being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them.” (6.008). I have heard in churches who purport to follow the Westminster Confession, as it regards certain New Testament scriptures, “Well, Paul said that, so we don’t really rely on it.” Machen seems to have proved his point by such examples now common in churches today. That is why it is so important to read Christianity and Liberalism. 

To be continued…

A Christian Lawyer Silenced... The Court Worships at the Secular Altar

 

It has finally happened. In Pennsylvania, the practice of law is governed by The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. They promulgate the Rules of Professional Conduct which are enforced by its Disciplinary Board. 

On June 8, 2020, the Court amended Rule 8.4 (related to misconduct) to include a new subsection: 

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer in the practice of law, by words or conduct, knowingly manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment or discrimination, as those terms are defined in applicable federal, state or local statutes or ordinances, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, harassment or discrimination based upon race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, or socioeconomic status. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules. (The Rules of Professional Conduct, 8.4(g)). 

I am going to be in deep trouble. I am an unabashed believer in God. I believe that The Holy Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God. I believed that we a conceived in total depravity. I believe that God directs us according to His perfect will and that Jesus died for the sins of those people chosen by God. I believe that those not among the elect are condemned to Hell. I believe that there is nothing we can do to resist God’s grace, and that once we have been saved by grace, there is nothing we can do to lose God’s grace. If that sounds a lot like Calvinism- yes, I believe in classical Reformed teaching. 

So, how can a Christian who believes that sin is sin continue to practice law? I am the Legal Advisor to the board of a non-profit organization (which will go un-named unless I obtain permission) that believes, as I do, in the inerrancy of scripture. If I affirm their beliefs, I will have committed misconduct. If someone objects to my choice of art or literature in my office, I will have committed misconduct. If someone at church asks me my legal opinion regarding an issue as it relates to the secular world, I am likely to have committed misconduct. To live my faith, I may lose my career. 

Of course, Jesus warned all of us about that in the Bible. “…and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake.” (Matthew 9:22; ESV). 

Maybe you think I am being a little dramatic.  You may be saying, “Rule 1.16 gives you an out. You don’t have to accept someone as a client.” 

Guess again. I do have latitude to determine the clients I choose to represent.  According to 8.4(g), I would not be able to ask the questions to find out if my representation could expose me to misconduct. Furthermore, I would not be able to terminate my attorney/client relationship if there is some conceivable way that my termination might relate to a protected class.

 Maybe you think that I’m still being too dramatic. You may be saying, “Surely they won’t go after you- that isn’t what this rule is about.” 

I hope you are right, but I don’t place much hope in that.  Just ask Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of Arlene’s Flowers. A same-sex couple asked the 75 year old florist to provide flowers for their wedding. Ms. Stutzman declined based upon her religious beliefs. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled against Stutzman. If the Washington courts were willing to rule against a florist, there is no doubt in my mind that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, who promulgated the rule, would discipline me. 

Where does that leave me? The answer is simple and stated by Martin Luther in 1521 at the Diet of Worms, “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason, … my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. So help me God. Amen.”

Review: Seeing Jesus from The East

Ravi Zacharius and Abdu Murray, Seeing Jesus from the East: A Fresh Look at History's Most Influential Figure (Zondervan Reflective, 2020).

I have been anxious to read this book, and it did not disappoint. Ravi Zacharius was not on my radar prior to the beginning of June 2019, when he was recommended to me by the mother of a friend. Some time after that I planned to go to a Christian Legal Society retreat where the guest speaker was Abdu Murray, the senior vice-president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. In between those two events Ravi was diagnosed with cancer and after the retreat COVID-19 hit, Ravi died, and the release of the book was delayed by an extra month.

Abdu Murray was one of the most powerful speakers I have had the privilege of hearing. Born to a Muslim family from Lebanon (the country, not the city in Pennsylvania) he converted to Christianity. Along the way, he also became an attorney.

Both Murray and Zacharius excel at apologetics- the defense of Christian beliefs or, as Peter states, "being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you....." (1 Peter 3:15, ESV). Murray's legal training and construction of his defense issuperb, but that is not what fascinated me.

In this book, Zacharius and Murray write separate chapters highlighting how the Western interpretation of the Bible is different from the Eastern interpretation. While we know intellectually that Jesus was from the Middle East, we seem to think of his teachings as Westerners. We force the "Jesus-peg" into our hole. When Murray spoke at the retreat, he re-cast the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard into an Eastern perspective. That was one of the "a-ha" moments I had.

If the book was just a matter of demonstrating how we miscast the teachings of Jesus, it would be well worth the price. There is, however, so much more.  The reader learns how to witness to others and exposes some of the popular fallacies and misconceptions of Christianity and other faiths. 

In a little over 200 pages, plus endnotes, there is too much information for me to cover here. Just buy two copies- one for you and one to give to a friend (or donate to a church library) and keep your eyes open for another book from Abdu Murray- he intends to write a book on the subject of Jesus and slavery.

What Can I Do?

 

I always like to take a few days before I comment on something. Often, the initial story is incorrect or misleading and new facts come to light. Other times I might be inclined to let emotion- or lack thereof- interfere. 

So it was with the murder of George Floyd. And Ahmaud Arbery. And Trayvon Martin. And so many more. 

I grew up in a time when the words of Martin Luther King, Jr. were the goal of society.  “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” I earnestly tried to live these words. To me, color was unimportant- because I was more interested in the person.  The color blind world was something noble to be achieved. We are no closer to achieving that goal now than we were when those words were first spoken. 

My realization is that I am complicit in the failure. I my fault lies in trying to be color blind before I had earned that right. I never understood the “Black Lives Matter” movement- until recently. The fact that Black Lives Matter was so obvious to me, that I missed the point. The point is, that in many circles Black Lives DON’T Matter.  If you question this, you haven’t been paying attention to prison population, poverty statistics, and the deaths of so many black men. 

So where do we- where do I- start to combat the problem? 

I don’t believe I have the right to decide how to combat the problem. I am not the one affected. There have been too many people who condescend with the best and worst of intentions. I can’t understand the history. I can have ideas- I can have suggestions, but I have no skin in the game. I have never been a black man, so I can never know what it is like to be a black man.

How does a white man stand for his brothers and sisters of other colors and beliefs? I must admit, I don’t know. I believe that ultimately there must come a meaningful conversation that transcends differences- while acknowledging differences exist. We cannot rely on government to direct us. None of our groups are monolithic. I am open to suggestions. 

The Secret Behind Legal Fees

Did you ever wonder why lawyers charge so much?  You'll hear the same old story about arcane knowledge and student loans. Malpractice insurance and office leases. Books and continuing legal education.  You'll hear the excuse that there so much that goes into a legal action and that if you want to get results you have to pay for it. Then there is the pet food for all those bull dogs, lions, tigers, and bears that attorneys try to convince you they are. Finally, you know they are competent because they either smile with artificially white teeth or the don't smile and strike a stern and threatening posture with their arms folded.

You may ask, "Are there any other reasons?"  Funny you should ask because there are other reasons.

1. Attorneys make money because you let them. They will ask for a retainer of several thousands of dollars. Many attorneys will not even consider a case unless you can pony up $5,000.00 or more of retainer. Twenty-five hours at $200.00 an hour. They will earn every penny of that. They will give you status updates when there is nothing has changed. They will send emails and make phone calls and draft letters and review your file. And they will dutifully mark the time on their billing software. Question them and the excuse is that "the other attorney is ___________ (fill in the blank)." You see, opposing counsel is responsible for the fees you are being charged.

B. More conflict = More fees. You have gone to see an attorney because there is conflict that you have been unable to settle. If you have one issue, the attorney will make "X" amount of money.  If the attorney can convince you that there are other issues, the attorney will make multiples of "X" amount of money. So, in an attempt to get you "what you deserve," the attorney "creates" conflict where none necessarily need exist. Furthermore, "what you deserve" is always something that the other person has- so it is their fault for not giving it to you in the first place. Opposing counsel is the reason you have to pay more.

Let me give you a real-life example from the case files of Christopher B. Enck. I was handling a divorce that could have been very simple. The parties were living apart and most of the marital estate had already been divided. There were a few minor issues that needed to be resolved and I presented the unrepresented spouse with a settlement proposal that was, in my eyes, very reasonable. That spouse decided to hire an attorney- which was their right. The simple litigation was prolonged for more than a year, cost the spouse several thousand dollars and my client several hundred. In the end, we reached an agreement that cost the spouse more than if he had accepted the proposal that I presented earlier.

It is true that my "loyalty" was to my client. It was also true that we discussed the settlement and I told my client that the opportunity existed to possibly receive a better settlement. My inclination is generally to be reasonable in an offer and to reasonably negotiate. It saves time and money if both parties are realistic and meet in the middle, rather than negotiate from extremes and meet in the middle anyway. My client respected that approach and approved of the position.

To be fair, there are times when conflict may need to be created and sizable retainers make sense. If you are planning a divorce and you have young children, working on custody might prevent future trouble. If you are faced with criminal charges, a big retainer to an attorney might keep you out of prison. There is also the fact that, unlike a mechanic who can keep your vehicle if you don't pay your bill, an attorney's work product is their knowledge and creativity. Once litigation is over, a client does not have an incentive to pay a bill- and I have had to file suit against numerous clients to recover my fees.

In the end you pay for what you get; you don't necessarily get what you pay for.

Der Kommissar's in town

Four months since my last post and I start by making a reference to an 80's pop song. https://youtu.be/vBfFDTPPlaM

This is the world in which we find ourselves.  In my state of Pennsylvania, we have had millions, er
thous, wait hundr... tens!  Yes, tens of cases of COVID-19!  76 as of Tuesday morning, March 17 to be exact.

Before you accuse me of insensitivity or thought-crime, I understand the seriousness with which the government and the media imbue this crisis.

Governor Wolf (according to his website www.governor.pa.gov) "strongly urged non-essential businesses across the state to close for at least 14 days to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19." Strongly urged? That sounds ominous. He also, "ordered all restaurants and bars close their dine-in facilities."  Ordered? That is ominous. Finally, Governor Wolf is "relying on businesses to act before the Governor or the Secretary of Health finds it necessary to compel closure." And there we have it- compel closure.  All this over tens of cases.

To be fair to Dear Leader Wolf, he is only following the lead of Emperor Trump. And really, when we run out of toilet paper we can just use our copies of the Constitution of the United States of America. We have a right to assembly pursuant to the First Amendment- but for some reason we have decided that we can do without that.

35 Pa Code §§7301 et seq places responsibility for dealing with crises in the Governor. Specifically the governor "may issue executive orders, proclamations and regulations which shall have the force and effect of law." (Emphasis added). Among the specific powers awarded the governor is the ability to "suspend or limit the sale, dispensing or transportation of alcoholic beverages, firearms, explosives and combustibles."  Anyone see a problem with this? Bueller?\

There is another solution- one so painfully obvious there should be no need to pose it. But I will.

Let the people decide!! If a business owner believes it is wise to close the business, let it close. Likewise, a business owner may decide to keep the business open and, as the owner sees fit, implement whatever strategies are desirable.  And We the People can decide which businesses we want to patronize. Are we really that feeble-minded that we can't decide these things for ourselves? Yes, some people will get set. Yes, some people will die.

Or let Der Kommissar decide. "He's got the power and you're so weak."

One Libertarian's View on Impeachment

We are being duped.

Why are we going through this impeachment debacle?

Representatives Schiff (D) and Pelosi (D) may be able to present a case that would be voted upon by the Democrat controlled House.  Suppose that the House of Representatives votes in favor of forwarding the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  What then? 

A hearing would be held in the U.S. Senate, led by its President Pro Tempore Chuck Grassley (R). The hearing would be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts.  With a Republican controlled Senate, what do you think the result would be?  Even if there was a slim chance of conviction, we would inaugurate President Michael Pence.

What about President Trump? Why does he persist in attacking the character of witnesses instead of the facts?  Why does President Trump not release all the information he has at his disposal to demonstrate his innocence- or at least support his position?

The voting citizenry? The latest polls have shown that we are equally divided on the result.  Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump voters are entrenched. Very few people will actually have an open mind and objectively assess the evidence.

We are being duped.

Why are we going through this impeachment debacle?  When one examines the situation, it makes no sense.

Except it makes perfect sense if you are Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Grassley. It makes perfect sense if you are the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee.  It makes perfect sense if you realize this is not about impeachment.  This is about money.

We are being duped.

This is a great fundraising opportunity.  Republicans will be able to cry “foul” if/when the Democrats pass the Articles of Impeachment. Democrats will be able to cry “foul” if/when the Senate votes to acquit.  In both cases, the donors will contribute more money to the coffers to keep their preferred party in power.  In Washington D.C., money is power.

Who else makes money? The media.  No matter which side you are own, your involvement leads to increased value in advertisement spots.  The longer the media, both Pro-Trump and Anti-Trump, make money by making sure that they keep stirring the pot of discontentment.

A crazy conspiracy theory?  Maybe.  Or, are you being duped?

Elegy for a Moribund Church

Elegy for a Moribund Church

Some go to church to take a walk; some go there to laugh and talk.

Some go there to meet a friend; some go there their time to spend.

Some go there to meet a lover; some go there a fault to cover.

Some go there for speculation; some go there for observation.

Some go there to doze and nod; the wise go there to worship God.

Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)

This is a painful post to write.  I have played my part in the decline.  I bear responsibility.  As someone who is responsible for the decline, it is my duty to do what I can to reverse the decline.

It is no secret that the Mainline Denominations are losing membership.  A recent (October 17, 2019) report from the Pew Research Center on Religion and Public Life notes a decline of 12% in the number of people who identify as “Christian” in the past decade. While one statistic from a longer research project means little, I encourage you to read the entire report, along with the supporting tables which break down the demographics to smaller groups. All can be found at: https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

In its Religious Landscape Survey, the Pew Research Center found among Mainline Protestants:

66% are absolutely certain there is a God

54% Pray at least daily

29% Look to religion to determine right and wrong (51% rely on common sense)

32% Believe that there are absolute standards of right and wrong (65% believe it depends

            on the situation)

24% Believe the Bible as the literal Word of God; 35% believe the Bible but not as literal.[1]

28% Believe the Bible is not the Word of God.

80% Believe in Heaven

60% Believe in Hell

https://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/mainline-protestant/

The Church, both local and universal is in decline.  Attendance at worship is declining. Opportunities for Bible study and learning outside of worship is declining.  Programs that once thrived have either dwindled or ceased entirely.

I can speak directly of one program that I led. One day, after the pastor of the church belittled me in front of guests, I decided to end the program. Lest you think my decision was hasty I was previously told by a program overseer that the same pastor did not consider my program as celebratory of God.  I also asked those non-guests who were present at the belittling if I heard what I thought I heard. I was assured that the comment was made to put me down and to build her up.  Pardon the digression, but I put included the situation to reach my final point: No one outside of the participants noticed that the program had ended. 

The culmination of all of this was when I was asked to leave the church.  And for that I thank God. As so often happens when we ignore God, God takes the steps necessary to get our attention.  I am now blessed to be attending a growing church. A church that faithfully believes the Bible to be the inspired (we should say “expired”) Word of God, subscribes to its traditional confessions of faith, and hears the Word preached expositorily.  Expository preaching is essential, because it forces the pastor and the congregant to deal with difficult passages; passages that expose our sinful nature.

To the moribund church, I beseech you, listen to God!!  The signs are all about you.  You have replaced the God of the Bible with the God of self.  When only 66% believe in God, there are 34% who have replaced God with something else. When 51% rely on common sense, they have replaced God with themselves.  If only 80% believe in Heaven and 60% believe in Hell, they have no hope in salvation and no belief in damnation.

God is forgiving and God is patient. In the Old Testament covenant, God gave His people a law to establish a relationship between them and God. To paraphrase, if you obey God and observe his laws, God will set you above all nations, but if you do not obey God and observe his laws, God will send on you cursing until you are destroyed because of your wickedness. (Deut. 28:1-20).  I and II Chronicles and I and II Kings are replete with stories of curses visited upon rebellious people and blessings visited upon those who obeyed.

In the New Testament, Jesus tells us, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” (John 14:15).

The answers to your situation are clear. Return to God. Seek Him out. Read and believe His Word. Pray and give thanks at least once a day. Cleanse your temple of the gods of self and the secular world. Find teachers who “preach the word… for the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” (II Tim 4:2-4). May God bless you in your journey.

---

[1] This is problematic. The chart itself does not take into account the use of personification, hyperbole, and metaphor.  If you read the Bible like you read any other book, you know that you don’t read poetry like you read history. The writers of God’s word used poetry, narrative, proverb, epistle, sermon and many other styles. I bring this up to posit that you may not believe the Bible is not the literal Word of God simply because of the use of textual devices.

The Hugest Book Ever

Did you ever get book expecting one subject only to find it was based on something else? Did the premise challenge your beliefs? Did you come away with a new appreciation for an unexpected concept and tips to make you a more effective person? I just had one of those experiences.

At a recent book sale, I picked up a copy of Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don’t Matter. (Adams, Scott; Penguin Random House, 2017). Expecting some satirical take on President Trump (I’m not a fan) from the author of Dilbert (I am a fan), the book I was expecting was not at all what I read.

Well-written, carefully explained, and thoroughly illustrated with examples from the campaign, Adams explains why Trump was elected. While a basic knowledge of psychology might be helpful, the reader can rest assured that Adams takes terms and simplifies them to a level that most everyone can understand. Concepts such as “cognitive dissonance,” “confirmation bias,” and “persuasion” are the foundation. He then goes on to show how Mr. Trump used these tools to become President Trump. And after reading this you might come away with the idea, as I did, that President Trump is destined for a second term.

The analysis of the Trump victory is the main course. The ability to use those tactics in any situation where you may need to persuade others is the dessert. This is one of those rare books that I will re-read and take notes. My synopsis could never adequately describe the book. I can only highly recommend this to anyone who wants to improve their communication skills.

What the Bible Doesn't Say and What Calvinists Don't Believe

I was recently given a book to read: Half Truths: God Helps Those Who Help Themselves and Other Things The Bible Doesn’t Say. (Hamilton, Adam; Abingdon Press 2016). On its surface this seems like a practical book. We are familiar with the “money is the root of all evil” fallacy (if not, read I Tim. 6:10 carefully). I was expecting similar gems.

I like to read new books “cold.” I’d rather not research the author and come to writings with a preconceived notion of the author’s intent. The first chapter is entitled, “Everything Happens for a Reason.” As a Calvinist geek- the chapter title didn’t seem too controversial. Hamilton summarizes a number of tragedies and notes that believing in God’s will alleviates us from personal responsibility, makes God responsible for everyone’s actions, and ultimately leads us to fatalism and indifference. At this point, I didn’t like where this was going.

Hamilton then moves on to a summary of the beliefs of John Calvin (1509-1564):

Calvin seemed to believe that for God to be sovereign- that is, to be the highest authority and to have dominion over the universe- then God must will and, in some ultimate sense, cause everything that happens. If something happens that is not God’s will, Calvin argues, then God does not in fact have dominion over everything.

(p. 26).

Hamilton then develops his straw man. Certainly it is ridiculous to believe that God controls the weather when science has given us satellites. (p. 27). Certainly it is ridiculous to believe that God “closed up” or “opened” a woman’s womb when science has given us physiological and biochemical answers. (p. 28). He then goes on to assert that we can have no original ideas, but that God has planted those ideas in our heads. Id. Finally, Hamilton gives us his concept of “predestination.” (p. 29). By this time I had already correctly identified Hamilton as Methodist.

Straw man arguments are great because you just mischaracterize what others believe so that you can easily defeat their position. Hamilton fails to acknowledge that God’s knowledge and plan is not necessarily Man’s knowledge and plan. In other words, just because God knows doesn’t mean we know. While God may know what we are going to do before we are born, it does not mean that we know. The concept of free will may be technically illusory, but in all practicality we still have free will. This does not relieve us responsibility for our actions.

Furthermore, God cannot be the author of sin or evil because then God would not be God. God can, however, use evil for His own good purposes. For further reading, and a more accurate summarization of Calvinism as it applies to foreknowledge and predestination, I refer Pastor Hamilton and the reader to Chapter XVII of The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. (Boettner, Loraine; Presybterian and Reformed Publishing Co. 1932) In fact, the entire book presents a thorough summary of, and biblical foundation for, Calvinism.

By page 26 of Hamilton’s book, I’ve already run into my first problem. This is not to say my Arminianist (Methodist) friends won’t enjoy the book. It is just that when you find logical fallacy after reading only the first 15% of the book, it is going to be a long slog. I will not bore my reader any further with my review. Let me just conclude by acknowledging that I did not disagree with everything Hamilton wrote- but I often found his analysis tended toward Arminianism (as can be expected) and was generally sloppy as he contrasted it with a more Calvinist alternative.

Can a Christian be a Libertarian?

This debate seems to have popped up around me lately. In my last blog post, I made the point that although I am Christian (Reformed and Complementarian) and a Libertarian, if someone wants to have an abortion, that is their right. I don’t condone the action and don’t ask me to participate, but I won’t stop them.

Dr. Albert Mohler would have difficulty with that position. For those not in the know, Dr. Mohler is president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and the Joseph Emerson Brown Professor of Christian Theology. In his recent podcast, The Briefing, Dr. Mohler makes the following relevant observations regarding the death of David Kock.

“The important thing to recognize here is that the traditional conservative movement in the United States has consisted of three parts for the last several decades. That would include big business and corporate interests and then the libertarian movement and then Christian conservatives. Those three have been necessary components of that larger conservative movement, although the worldview of those three components is not exactly the same.”

“In the news story on David Koch's death in the Wall Street Journal, the reporters write, "Although he was a liberal on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage, Mr. Koch used his fortune to support conservative causes such as lower taxes, free trade, and fewer regulations." It also notes, "He was the Libertarian Party's 1980 vice-presidential candidate." Again, the Libertarian Party, the Libertarian Movement. And here's where we need to recognize something very, very important. David Koch was often identified as a conservative. But the Wall Street Journal says even as he was a conservative on fiscal matters, he was a liberal on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage."

"This is where the Christian worldview reminds us that when you are looking at the dignity of human life and the structures of human life given to us in creation that allow for human happiness and human flourishing, then you're not a conservative if you argue for or allow for the revolution and rejection of both human dignity when it comes to the life of the unborn and the dignity and sanctity of marriage. My final observation based upon a biblical worldview is this. If you do not recognize the full measure of human dignity and if you do not recognize the sanctity of marriage as given to us by the Creator, then there will be virtually nothing left to conserve, and that includes free enterprise.” (Emphasis added).

(For the entire podcast or a transcript of the relevant portion, I will provide this link:

https://albertmohler.com/2019/08/26/briefing-8-26-19  

https://albertmohler.com/2019/08/26/briefing-8-26-19, part IV.

The purpose of my blogs is to express my views and not as a forum for debate, but a reader also questioned my position as it relates to Matthew 18. (Which I will ask the reader to review on his own- it is simply too long to reprint for my purposes here).

I have long realized that there may be some confusion or perceived inconsistency between my beliefs. It was always my intention to address the intersection of my faith and my politics. Now is as good a time as any.

I cannot compare my bona fides to those of Dr. Mohler. His opinions are his and they are well-reasoned. I concede that Dr. Mohler is correct that Libertarianism may not align with traditional Christianity. I can, however, raise what I feel to be a cogent and persuasive argument for my position. Libertarianism and traditional, conservative Christianity are not mutually exclusive.

I begin with the Westminster Confession of Faith of which I am familiar as a former Presbyterian (and perhaps soon to be Reformed Baptist). I recognize that the Westminster Confession of Faith is not as persuasive as the Bible, but since it is based upon Reformed biblical precepts, I believe that it provides a sound introduction to my reasoning.

Chapter V, Paragraph 1 provides that “God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.” (footnotes omitted although I encourage you to check the footnotes for the Biblical texts that support this and the following citations).

I am completely unable to do anything without the prior action of God. This does not relieve me of free-will, nor does this relieve me of my responsibility to spread the Gospel. Furthermore, Chapter III provides that “some men are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death.” Now, if you are not a believer in the Reformed concept of pre-destination, stop reading now and we will just continue to disagree. (I will not debate Reformed theology when many theologians more capable than I can make the position more clearly than I).

If you are a Reformed-kind of person, you can see where I am going. I cannot control what another person is going to do. I can only spread the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. I maintain my principles and share them, but I cannot force them on you. Only God can convict the heart of mankind. I am not responsible for your sin unless I propogate that sin. If you are ordained to accept God’s Word, it is solely through the actions of God.

Assuming that the reader is inclined to accept, if not fully agree, with my position, the reader may raise another question: Why wouldn’t I support laws that would further the Kingdom?

As I see it, there is one very dangerous consequence to this action. You cannot legislate God. It would change the government of these United States into a Theocracy. For those of you who believe this is a good idea, you must have forgotten about the Old Testament. David and Solomon, both held up as the best of the Kings fell short of a Godly ideal. It didn’t work out so great then… why would today be any better? Short answer- it would not. Man is totally incapable of following God’s Word and we would very quickly fall into the risk of false idols and teachings.

Thus, I believe that Libertarianism is the best and most consistent response for me. Christians continue to spread the Good News. God works in the hearts of all. I cannot control, but I can use my God-given talents to persuade. You are free to take the actions that you feel led to take- less government involvement in the day-to-day life of everyone. And in the meantime, I look forward to the perfect Rule of God in Heaven.

The Christian Attorney and Free Speech

The Christ-professing attorney may soon become extinct.  Once again, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is recommending a change to the Rules of Professional Conduct.  Yes, attorneys have Rules of Professional Conduct.

The proposed amendment "is intended to make it professional misconduct for a lawyer, in the practice of law, to intentionally manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment or discrimination."  This proposal was made by the Disciplinary Board in the belief that, "it is in the best interests of the profession and the public to amend its rules to formally disapprove the conduct of any lawyer" who engages in such conduct.  In a curious turn, the Board continues that this "does not limit the ability of the lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16." 

Now, I must admit- I'm a libertarian kind-of guy (person?). I want to be free to live my life, and I want you to be free to live yours. I am pro-life, but if you are not- that is your right. I disagree, but I won't stop you. All I ask is that you don't ask me to participate.

I am, what I am now informed, is a cis-gendered male. Fine. I prefer "male." I don't really care how you identify. You may torture the language in your choice of pronoun and I will do my best to accommodate you. 

I am also a God-inspired-the-whole-Bible believing Christian who affirms that "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestined unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death." (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter III, paragraph 3).  I have QUILTBAG (I prefer this acronym over the LGBT...) friends and acquaintances. I love them as fellow humans, but they may undertake actions of which I cannot approve. I also have cis-gendered friends, but they may undertake actions of which I cannot approve. In these cases, I may not- in good faith- represent them.  My life is already one of sin- but I don't need to flaunt these before God.

The Disciplinary Board wants me to take my faith and sacrifice it on the altar of secularism. Or at least not profess my faith too loudly, lest it make someone feel harassed or discriminated against. This seems like letting the camel's nose under the tent. As an attorney, I know there is a difference between a rule and the interpretation of the rule. Once my ability to express myself as a Christian is restricted, it will soon be gone.

Thessalonica and Mechanicsburg

The church I have been attending (I'm not yet a member- something to be corrected) features expository preaching. We have been moving verse by verse through Paul's first epistle to the Thessalonians.  Paul had established a church in Thessalonica and wrote this message somewhere in the AD 50's- one of his earlier epistles.  Apparently there was some confusion amongst the Believers that required the instruction of Paul, along with Silas and Timothy.

Paul encourages these new Christians to "Be at peace among yourselves," and to "See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone."  (I Thes 5: 13 and 15; ESV).

Recently I had a discussion with a client regarding divorce. In Pennsylvania there are two types of divorce: fault and no-fault. A divorce based on fault achieves the same end as a no-fault divorce, but serves to enrich the attorneys. There are also two types of no-fault divorce: one where the parties co-operate and the other where the parties do not co-operate. Again, the end result is the same, but a non-co-operative divorce enriches the attorneys. I also posited another way- one that involved personal harm. It was meant- and received- as a joke.

Divorce is never pleasant. There is always some level of regret and some level of wrong-doing by both parties. And there is always the desire to repay "evil for evil."  Look around and you will see the attorneys that thrive on repaying "evil for evil." This is where less mature Christians or non-Believers will trot out the old "eye for an eye" excuse. But we must read the Scriptures in the manner and method they were written.

  

"But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

(Ex 21: 23-25; ESV)

What was the purpose of this law? To provide definitive retribution to eliminate evil and promote the holiness of God. Remember, these laws were given to Moses by God- they were not capricious. Furthermore, the goal was retribution- not revenge. Verse 26 shows that this law only applied to the free Israelite- if the wrong was perpetrated on a slave, the slave was to be set free.

As Christians and citizens of the US, we are no longer bound by the Mosaic Law. Instead, we are called to follow the second half of verse 15, "always seek to do good to one another and everyone." God, help me to remember to practice law as in I Thessalonians and not as in Exodus.

The Moment of Truth

Among the books that I have recently read, of great interest to me is The Moment of Truth by Dr. Steven J. Lawson.  I had the pleasure of hearing Dr. Lawson preach- and I do mean pleasure.  He is the founder and president of OnePassion Ministries and the executive editor of Expositor magazine (remember them?) and host of the Institute for Expository Preaching.  With his bona fides established, I heartily recommend his writings, preaching and anything else to which he may lend his name.

The book itself is a collection of sermons, organized in three parts: The Reality of Truth, The Rejection of Truth, and The Reign of Truth.

Since you are reading this, you probably recognize The Reality of Truth.  But if I may digress, I was recently exposed to this graphic:

https://chrisharrison.net/projects/bibleviz/BibleVizArc7small.jpg" /

Taken from www.ChrisHarrison.net, "The bar graph that runs along the bottom represents all of the chapters in the Bible. Books alternate in color between white and light gray. The length of each bar denotes the number of verses in the chapter. Each of the 63,779 cross references found in the Bible is depicted by a single arc - the color corresponds to the distance between the two chapters, creating a rainbow-like effect."

Imagine the number of authors, the level of education, the length of time over which the Bible was written, and the inter-relatedness of the most intricate details.  While there are many fine apologists with great proofs for the existence of God- to me this is one of the most stunning proofs.  (And that includes my "Rice Krispies" theory).

But, returning to Dr. Lawson, the most interesting part to me was The Rejection of Truth.  Dr. Lawson thoroughly analyzes the movement from Science v. God to Anti-science v. God.  Secular society is no longer interested in facts.  Instead of truth, we hear phrases such as "social construct" and "your truth" which may be different from "my truth."  But where have we heard this before?  Pilate asking Jesus, "What is truth?" (John 18:38).  Even in law school, I was told, "Truth is whatever you can convince a judge is truth."  But as Believers, we may deny certain aspects, but we know that Jesus is "the way, and the truth, and the life." (John 14:6).  And therein lies the victory, The Reign of the Truth.

White Nationalists and Orthodox Jews

White Nationalists.  Neo-Nazis.  Alt-Right.  Their views are repugnant.  I hope all of you reading this post agree with me.  I don't want to hear the hate they spew.  And if they all just "disappeared," I'd be fine with that.

  

So if Facebook wants to take down their posts, fine.  Same with YouTube.  Same with Snapchat, Twitter or any other social media platform.  Deny their permits for marches and rallies.  After all, who needs them?  I'm sure 99% of humanity would agree.

Orthodox Jews.  Their New York communities are the epi-center of a severe measles epidemic.  We can discuss the value or dangers of vaccines, and most of us believe that vaccination is valuable.  So as long as their measles stay in their community, I'd be fine with that.

So if local officials want to fine them for spreading the disease amongst the general populace- why should we complain?

Therein lays the problem.  It is easy to demonize groups with which we disagree.  Racism is an easy one because their opinions are reprehensible.  Orthodox Jews are easy because they are a minority of a minority.  If a few people are deprived of their Right to Express their views, as long as the majority approves, well, democracy is served.

Except democracy is not served.

When Americans start turning on other Americans, we need to worry.  These are easy examples because the supression of their views is popular.  That is not to say that we must agree with their views.  But to silence or force majority opinions on others is not the way.  For the racist, the marketplace of ideas will win.  For the Orthodox Jew or others opposed to vaccines- that is the right to the self-determination.  When we start shutting down opposition, we must begin to worry that our "opposition" may be next.  When they came for the Jews....

Context is Everything

I recently listened to a sermon where the pastor cited a verse from a Christian inspirational calendar.  "All these I will give you, if you will fall down and worship me."  A beautiful sentiment- especially for those prosperity preachers.  But there is a problem- that phrase comes from Satan in his temptation of Jesus.  (Matthew 4:9).  You see, if you don't know the context, then you may misunderstand the true meaning. 

    

The importance of context has really been driven home to me over the past few weeks.  You see, I have become a bit of a Reformation Geek.  And one of the tenets that has been driven into me is "God alone is Lord of the conscience."  You find it in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XX (or XXII depending), paragraph 2 and you find it in The Baptist Confession of 1689, Chapter 21, paragraph 2.  Again, this sounds great- God is the Lord of my conscience- and I can do whatever I feel God is leading me to do.  

But then we come to context. In this case, that phrase is only part of the first sentence.  "God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to His Word, or not contained in it."  (Baptist Confession.  The Westminster Confession substitutes, "or beside it in matters of faith or worship" for the underlined clause).  In other words, we must pray to God for guidance and rely on our conscience only where the teachings and rulings of humankind are contrary to the Word of God or in some way are not clear.

   

Now, this means that you have to believe that the Bible is the Word of God- and I'll get into that in a subsequent post.

Law and Luddites

An email I received recently made reference to a decision handed down by the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct.  I don't normally read these decisions; they have no application to my practice.  But somehow this one struck a chord.     

It seems that a town court justice resigned while under formal charges for failing to fulfill various judicial, administrative and financial responsibilities.  This is a reported case, and for those of you who really care, you can look up the details.  I will leave the judge unnamed because there is no need to embarrass him anymore than he has already been embarrassed.   

The Commission cites three charges, but lists four.  Of interest to me are the failure of the judge to monitor his official court email account or respond to emails received by that account for more than three years, AND failing for at least one year to activate or utilize a computer and software provided to him by the Office of Court Administration for the purpose of facilitating the issues raised in the first two counts.     

The judge at issue was admitted to the bar in 1977 and took office in 1990.  In all honesty, he probably did not have a background with computers and their use.  His unfamiliarity with computers in conjunction with his age made their use intimidating.  Besides, the old way probably worked well for him.     

Times have changed.  My cellphone has more memory and computing power than my first three computers- COMBINED.  It is now incumbent upon all of us to "keep up with the times."  I'm sure that I've caused some consternation because I like to mail letters to counsel and the court rather than email or e-file.  I keep copies of my document saved on my computer and on a separate hard drive.  But I also print out a copy- just in case.  I also have my own anxiety issues over correspondence, no matter how it is transmitted.  Which makes me sympathetic to this judge.  But it doesn't change the underlying fact that I must keep up with the times and do a better job- lest I end up before disciplinary poo-bahs in PA.