UnderØath has always been one of my favorite bands.
I know they broke up and now I guess they are back together. And while I think I have moved on from the phase in life where all I listened to was metal music --
When I was 14, I used to have a binary test for whether or not a metal band was good. It was:
Is the band UnderØath? Yes=1 No=0. I didn't make a lot of friends for a while.
-- I can always find myself crawling back to the accessibility in Florida-native UØ's brand of distortion.
--
I discovered UnderØath when I got a Tooth and Nail sampler of 96kbps tracks from their up-and-comer's. It was probably "It's Dangerous Business Walking Out Your Front Door". I could never remember the whole track name. All I remembered was SCREAMING. And SINGING. And SCREAMING. And SCREAMING. It was SCREAMO
Then I borrowed They're Only Chasing Safety from Justin who was in the 10th grade, and listened to it on my Phillip's portable CD player with my Panasonic clip-on earphones, for probably three hours straight on a field-trip to the Phoenix Art Museum (or something like that). I was enamored with the noise. But I was mostly enamored with "I'm Content With Losing". I couldn't get over it. It was SCREAMO
Well, I had to give the CD back, but then I got it again and ripped it to my PC and it was bomb's away. Over a period of a couple months, it was all I could listen to.
Well, over the summer between 9th and 10th grade, I managed to borrow a copy of Define The Great Line from Thomas who was in the same grade I was. Over a period of a couple years, it was all I could listen to.
Well, over the summer between 11th and 12th grade, I managed to buy a copy of Lost In The Sound Of Separation with my own money. Over a period of a couple years, it was all I---
My dang brother managed to find the .mp3 files I made of that album and proceeded to over-play "Too Bright to See, Too Loud to Hear" (literally for hours, same song, repeat, for like a year). Well, Josh and I both had an appreciation for the juxtaposition of Aaron Gillespie's clean vocals against the heavy-shred bleeding esophagus of Spencer Chamberlain. I still really enjoy the album but it took a few years of maturity to get over the sibling-jealousy I had for My Favorite Band. I started listening to UnderOath because nobody else in my family wanted to listen to it and he had to go and "ruin" it by enjoying it like I enjoy it.
But I'm more hardcore, see? I actually think it is UnderOath's Ø (Disambiguation) that stands on the pedestal of Magnum Opus. I think it is the best album they ever created.
And innumerably I've been told I was wrong. Nobody likes it. Well, some people like it. But seriously, nobody likes it.
Why? Because UØ always ran on the fuel mixture, a stoichiometric concoction of SCREAM/CLEAN DISTORTION/EXPERIMENTAL LYRIC/INSTRUMENTAL HAPPY/ANGRY UPLIFTING/DEPRESSING music that got them the label deal, that got them millions of albums sold, that got them on the fathers of crossover music list. They were giving into that patriarchy, the one that said "you'll only sell music if Adam D likes it".
Subsequently, bands like Killswitch Engage, As I Lay Dying, and HASTE THE DAY were winning the battle at the release of 2010's gooder metal album. I don't really like to talk about it.
No, Disambiguation was the kind of album that makes a person think twice about its merits. It isn't an instantaneous joy-ride. It's thoughtful, and deep, and tragic like the last famous battles of warriors long past dead. It's the kind of progressive that makes you uncomfortable because you didn't think music made you feel like this.
I'm convinced that it is the best metal album to ever come out of a Solid State band (with the exceptions of maybe The Chariot's The Fiance and The Chariot's Wars And Rumors Of Wars), sheerly due to the creative force that was unleashed by the depature of last remaining original member Aaron Gillespie from the band. (I love The Almost, and I think that Aaron is a very good musician, so this isn't so much an insult as pure observation and conjecture).
It really takes some listening with Ø (Disambiguation). It's an acquired taste. It's not easy like the previous stuff. You aren't given the respite of soft vocals with emotive lyrics. You're stuck listening to the whole thing;
like you're standing in the Tower of Terror line,
waiting to get to the place where you sit,
where they take up you up,
where they send you up and down,
and the whole thing is uncomfortable.
You have to let it grow on you. And then you reap the rewards of your patient ears, the feeling of microgravity for that split second where if you dropped your phone, it would float there with you all the way down.
And then the drop stops.
And shoots you up.
And then drops you again.
And then you're released back to the wild wondering what happened to your ears and why the breath in your lungs is aching for community.
That's Ø (Disambiguation) in a nutshell. I can only explain it by metaphor because there is no simile to suit it. It's incomparable. It's deep. But not deep in the bungie-jumping way. Deep in the "leagues under the ocean" fashion.
It isn't fashionable. And that's why it suits my fancy.
Recommended listens:
In Division
Paper Lung
Who Will Guard The Guardians
Vacant Mouth
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
Friday, November 27, 2015
Music Recommendation: Jimmy Eat World: Clarity
"Hey man."
"Hey."
"Hey, I got a music question for you."
"OK, shoot."
"OK, so have you ever heard of Jimmy Eat World?"
"Yes! I love that band. They are probably my favorite band."
"Dude! Yeah me too. Like, Bleed American is so good, man."
...
end conversation.
So, you say you like Jimmy Eat World. You say you jumped on before they were ALL BIG. You got into them before they made the decision to change "Bleed American" to "Jimmy Eat World" because of post 9/11 sympathies. You heard "The Middle" and you liked it before the video, before the radio play, before everyone else saw them in concert. Well guess what. You're a poser.
You're a poser like your dad's love for the C3 Corvette. You're a poser like Christian butt rock. You're a weirdo who tried to be cool. You got left in the dust because the 90's weren't with you like you were with them. You were watching "Hey! Arnold" because it was on T.V., not because it was transcendent. You were sitting in the bathroom picking your nose in the stall. You were not listening to Clarity.
Clarity.
Now, I'll be honest and say this up front: I discovered Futures before any other Jimmy Eat World album came to my ears. I discovered them because my friend Nathaniel told me they were good. He had the "deluxe edition" and I had a CD player so I just borrowed the thing for nigh-near two years, just to give it back scratched and well-worn. Thanks Nathaniel.
McDaniel had this protomillenial habit of collecting myriads of burned CDs with low-fi MP3 tracks from all sorts of crap audio on it. Remember when the iPod was not a household name back in 2005? That's when we were burning CDs and dealing with the awful two-second pause in between tracks, because both iTunes and Windows Media Player were pathetic and weren't interested in giving us the full experience. We had to be economic. You had 80 minutes and it was a waste to use less than all 80 revolutions of the second hand. We weren't torrenting. Some of us had dial-up. We had to burn our stuff to laser disks because upload speeds were in the 128-768kbps range and we had time limits on how much we could use the computer. We were using MSN messenger. Or AOL. or Yahoo.
And myspace. oh myspace.
So anyway, Nathaniel gave me one of those plastic holders that came holding fifty blank CD-Rs, and he gave it to me with about fifty used CD-Rs. There's a long list of bands I could be thanking Nathaniel for, but really, this is about Clarity. This is about the time I discovered a CD full of Jimmy Eat World tracks and most of them were from Clarity. This is about the time I got used to the inevitable skipping that comes with the peeling surface of cheap CD-Rs. This is about the time when I discovered my favorite album and couldn't drop it.
No, I've carried Clarity with me for years.
So eventually I was able to scrounge up a couple bucks and find Clarity at Barnes and Noble. It was miraculous. Fifteen year-old me found an album he had been wanting since he heard the first couple tracks off of it. All the redbook audio quality. No more track skipping.
Enter "Table For Glasses." The beauty of the first track is its understatement. In fact. Clarity is an album of understatements. The first track is just the understatement of the album of understatements. It's the breaking voice in the middle of "hello". It's the gasp for air after you've exhaled and delayed breathing. It isn't so much deep as it is wide. That's not to say that Clarity lacks depth. But you have to get past the second syllable of the proverbial understatement to get anywhere. It takes a certain kind of viligence to keep listening for the subtlety.
You get to the first single of the song "Lucky Denver Mint". The chorus sings
You're not bigger than this
not better. why can't you learn?
I'm not really certain why this song got the "single". I'm not sure that there's any song here that really commands radio time. And that's alright. That's part of the charm.
"Your New Aesthetic" comes on and suddenly you're anti-nostalgiating forward to "Nothing Wrong", the only RADIO PUNK on Futures. This is the roots of the angry political JEW that we've all come to know or skip tracks.
"Believe in What You Want" is probably the only track I ever consider skipping. Why? I don't know. It's just as good as the others. I just have impossible standards.
"A Sunday" -- Now here's where the album gets good. Here's where the album goes from standard emo father fare to underproduced beauty. From this point forward, the album goes uphill and fast. You've survived the last three songs just to get to this one. You've pulled up to the top of the coaster and you're on the brink of heading to oblivion.
"Crush" -- The second "Believe in What You Want" but twice as good. It's got the typical Mark Trombino flare you find everywhere. It's because of tracks and albums like this that got me into Drive Like Jehu (Trombino drums for them).
12.23.95 - Merry Christmas, baby - Enough said.
"Ten" -- The trifecta begins with the under-the-table whiskey drink song. Listen to the chorus. Listen to the piano. Listen to the drums. Listen to the beat. The syncopation. And then listen to Blame no one. Blame no one.
"Just Watch The Fireworks" -- The second of the sweet trilogy. I'm always stuck between this song and the next for "best song ever". This song has the exposition of musical themes. Strings. That epic Jimmy Eat World build-up stolen by many a worship drummer years over.
"For Me This Is Heaven" -- The prestige. The reveal. The heart swoon. The nail in the coffin which drives in home this thought "Yes, this is the best Jimmy Eat World Album Ever." So famous is the chorus line that the re-master released in 2007 featured the lyric on the CD front.
"Blister" -- Good ol' rocking Jimmy Eat World.
"Clarity" -- The one before the big one.
"Goodbye Sky Harbor" -- The one that puts you to sleep. I don't mean that in a bad way. It goes from emo, to alternative-ish... to synthesizers. To the fade-out. It takes 13 minutes and you shouldn't ask for it back.
__
It's not my typical to do any track-by-track. I'm not even sure the above is good advice or good descriptions. But I swear this is my favorite album.
Lots of other bands that I like have made three albums in a row that correspond with the Jimmy Eat World format.
There's the Clarity, the underproduced one that sounds perfect, but only in practice. It doesn't make sense until you've listened to that album as whole, and it cements itself as your favorite because this is the one where you suddenly see everything clearly.
Then there's the Bleed American, the one that everyone likes. The one with all the singles. The one that warrants the most track skips because you really only care about the singles. Yeah, that's the one. Yeah, "Bleed American" is one of the hardest songs ever, bro. Nobody cares.
Lastly, there's Futures, the one that everyone should like. The one with all the brains. The one that somehow perfectly engineered the production process to keep all authenticity inward and all the pretension and pop-sensibility away. The one that you know should really be your favorite, but you wouldn't call it the "best" album.
See, bands like Death Cab For Cutie, and Sufjan Stevens have albums that fit under these. Not necessarily in the same release orders.
Clarity - Transatlanticism - Seven Swans
Bleed American - Plans - Illinois
Futures - Narrow Stairs - Michigan
I think about it now.
Just ignore that guy that says things like "Static Prevails was the best Jimmy Eat World album, and I really only listen to the Photo album. And Enjoy Your Rabbit was back when Sufjan was real."
I never really have gotten over Clarity. It's the album that started me down understated drums. It's the album that stopped me from listening to emo-pop (with few exceptions like Taking Back Sunday). It's the album that stopped me from thinking about death and more about learning to live. Futures was all about dying to me. A guy from high school named David passed and all I could listen to was "Pain" and "23" and think about growing old. Clarity was really about learning to live with consequences. Learning to move on. I guess I haven't learned that lesson yet.
Nick
"Hey."
"Hey, I got a music question for you."
"OK, shoot."
"OK, so have you ever heard of Jimmy Eat World?"
"Yes! I love that band. They are probably my favorite band."
"Dude! Yeah me too. Like, Bleed American is so good, man."
...
end conversation.
So, you say you like Jimmy Eat World. You say you jumped on before they were ALL BIG. You got into them before they made the decision to change "Bleed American" to "Jimmy Eat World" because of post 9/11 sympathies. You heard "The Middle" and you liked it before the video, before the radio play, before everyone else saw them in concert. Well guess what. You're a poser.
You're a poser like your dad's love for the C3 Corvette. You're a poser like Christian butt rock. You're a weirdo who tried to be cool. You got left in the dust because the 90's weren't with you like you were with them. You were watching "Hey! Arnold" because it was on T.V., not because it was transcendent. You were sitting in the bathroom picking your nose in the stall. You were not listening to Clarity.
Clarity.
Now, I'll be honest and say this up front: I discovered Futures before any other Jimmy Eat World album came to my ears. I discovered them because my friend Nathaniel told me they were good. He had the "deluxe edition" and I had a CD player so I just borrowed the thing for nigh-near two years, just to give it back scratched and well-worn. Thanks Nathaniel.
McDaniel had this protomillenial habit of collecting myriads of burned CDs with low-fi MP3 tracks from all sorts of crap audio on it. Remember when the iPod was not a household name back in 2005? That's when we were burning CDs and dealing with the awful two-second pause in between tracks, because both iTunes and Windows Media Player were pathetic and weren't interested in giving us the full experience. We had to be economic. You had 80 minutes and it was a waste to use less than all 80 revolutions of the second hand. We weren't torrenting. Some of us had dial-up. We had to burn our stuff to laser disks because upload speeds were in the 128-768kbps range and we had time limits on how much we could use the computer. We were using MSN messenger. Or AOL. or Yahoo.
And myspace. oh myspace.
So anyway, Nathaniel gave me one of those plastic holders that came holding fifty blank CD-Rs, and he gave it to me with about fifty used CD-Rs. There's a long list of bands I could be thanking Nathaniel for, but really, this is about Clarity. This is about the time I discovered a CD full of Jimmy Eat World tracks and most of them were from Clarity. This is about the time I got used to the inevitable skipping that comes with the peeling surface of cheap CD-Rs. This is about the time when I discovered my favorite album and couldn't drop it.
No, I've carried Clarity with me for years.
So eventually I was able to scrounge up a couple bucks and find Clarity at Barnes and Noble. It was miraculous. Fifteen year-old me found an album he had been wanting since he heard the first couple tracks off of it. All the redbook audio quality. No more track skipping.
Enter "Table For Glasses." The beauty of the first track is its understatement. In fact. Clarity is an album of understatements. The first track is just the understatement of the album of understatements. It's the breaking voice in the middle of "hello". It's the gasp for air after you've exhaled and delayed breathing. It isn't so much deep as it is wide. That's not to say that Clarity lacks depth. But you have to get past the second syllable of the proverbial understatement to get anywhere. It takes a certain kind of viligence to keep listening for the subtlety.
You get to the first single of the song "Lucky Denver Mint". The chorus sings
You're not bigger than this
I'm not really certain why this song got the "single". I'm not sure that there's any song here that really commands radio time. And that's alright. That's part of the charm.
"Your New Aesthetic" comes on and suddenly you're anti-nostalgiating forward to "Nothing Wrong", the only RADIO PUNK on Futures. This is the roots of the angry political JEW that we've all come to know or skip tracks.
"Believe in What You Want" is probably the only track I ever consider skipping. Why? I don't know. It's just as good as the others. I just have impossible standards.
"A Sunday" -- Now here's where the album gets good. Here's where the album goes from standard emo father fare to underproduced beauty. From this point forward, the album goes uphill and fast. You've survived the last three songs just to get to this one. You've pulled up to the top of the coaster and you're on the brink of heading to oblivion.
"Crush" -- The second "Believe in What You Want" but twice as good. It's got the typical Mark Trombino flare you find everywhere. It's because of tracks and albums like this that got me into Drive Like Jehu (Trombino drums for them).
12.23.95 - Merry Christmas, baby - Enough said.
"Ten" -- The trifecta begins with the under-the-table whiskey drink song. Listen to the chorus. Listen to the piano. Listen to the drums. Listen to the beat. The syncopation. And then listen to Blame no one. Blame no one.
"Just Watch The Fireworks" -- The second of the sweet trilogy. I'm always stuck between this song and the next for "best song ever". This song has the exposition of musical themes. Strings. That epic Jimmy Eat World build-up stolen by many a worship drummer years over.
"For Me This Is Heaven" -- The prestige. The reveal. The heart swoon. The nail in the coffin which drives in home this thought "Yes, this is the best Jimmy Eat World Album Ever." So famous is the chorus line that the re-master released in 2007 featured the lyric on the CD front.
"Blister" -- Good ol' rocking Jimmy Eat World.
"Clarity" -- The one before the big one.
"Goodbye Sky Harbor" -- The one that puts you to sleep. I don't mean that in a bad way. It goes from emo, to alternative-ish... to synthesizers. To the fade-out. It takes 13 minutes and you shouldn't ask for it back.
__
It's not my typical to do any track-by-track. I'm not even sure the above is good advice or good descriptions. But I swear this is my favorite album.
Lots of other bands that I like have made three albums in a row that correspond with the Jimmy Eat World format.
There's the Clarity, the underproduced one that sounds perfect, but only in practice. It doesn't make sense until you've listened to that album as whole, and it cements itself as your favorite because this is the one where you suddenly see everything clearly.
Then there's the Bleed American, the one that everyone likes. The one with all the singles. The one that warrants the most track skips because you really only care about the singles. Yeah, that's the one. Yeah, "Bleed American" is one of the hardest songs ever, bro. Nobody cares.
Lastly, there's Futures, the one that everyone should like. The one with all the brains. The one that somehow perfectly engineered the production process to keep all authenticity inward and all the pretension and pop-sensibility away. The one that you know should really be your favorite, but you wouldn't call it the "best" album.
See, bands like Death Cab For Cutie, and Sufjan Stevens have albums that fit under these. Not necessarily in the same release orders.
Clarity - Transatlanticism - Seven Swans
Bleed American - Plans - Illinois
Futures - Narrow Stairs - Michigan
I think about it now.
Just ignore that guy that says things like "Static Prevails was the best Jimmy Eat World album, and I really only listen to the Photo album. And Enjoy Your Rabbit was back when Sufjan was real."
I never really have gotten over Clarity. It's the album that started me down understated drums. It's the album that stopped me from listening to emo-pop (with few exceptions like Taking Back Sunday). It's the album that stopped me from thinking about death and more about learning to live. Futures was all about dying to me. A guy from high school named David passed and all I could listen to was "Pain" and "23" and think about growing old. Clarity was really about learning to live with consequences. Learning to move on. I guess I haven't learned that lesson yet.
Nick
Friday, November 13, 2015
Music Recommendation: Norma Jean: Bless The Martyr And Kiss The Child
White tie. Black Jacket. I ain't see you in a while.
Your whites shine, black velvet. I ain't seen you in a while.
You're slick, a slick and polished mess. I ain't see you in a while.
Let's just face the facts. And get back to the basic form.
^^
The lyrics above belong to a song that's like SEVEN minutes long.
I don't know if I'm going to be making a point here. I'm just once again revisiting an album that I enjoy and endear to my adolescence.
Norma Jean is now a very recognizable metal band. But from back when Christian metal was a thing, this album probably set an impossibly high bar. Everyone can limbo but nobody can jump higher. Except for The Chariot but that's a blog for another day.
A Solid State pandora's box of slam-dancing, incoherent and illiterate guitar screeches, cacophonous crashing drums, with a dash of "God" here, "Jesus" - there. "Christ" speckled over the oblivion of screams, absence of overdub, guitar-flavored distortion, and the lyrics of a poet.
Have I talked about the lyrics?
Do you get it now?
By way of disclaimer, this album was done back before Josh Scogin split to raise up the screaming adulation of METALCORE fans with his third labeled band, The Chariot; a comparison with who would not be fair. Neither do I believe it fair to make Cory Brandan's headship face:face with Scogin's brand of incoherence. All this to say, I have two favorite Norma Jean albums, and this is one of them. The other one (NJ's latest which I've already talked about here) is a standup album by its own right. It has its own merits and it would be obtuse to compare this album from 2002 with a different headman to their recent releases.
But back when, I was a child, see? And I spoke in hyperbole because metaphor was too similar. I said "This is the best Norma Jean album". And I was right, see? Because I had all the ideas figured out. Bless The Martyr... is the most crunchiest, distorted, absolutist, atonal, progressive,thrash drunken cousin metal rock band album to come out. Back in 2006 when the harmony of Underoath
--[Yes they are still a good band, and Disambiguation was the best they ever released]
--wasn't really RESONATING with my teenage tumult into romances and long nights wasting away with thoughts of holding hands and breathing shared air with a nameless ideal, I turned my face toward Norma Jean's Bless the Martyr and Kiss the Child.
Resonance? DISSONANCE.
Meter? AMBIMETER.
Singing? SCREAMING.
Pose? POISE.
Dishes? MUSIC
Catharsis? SURFING ON LAVA
Guitars? Experimental music? WHATEVER MAN IT'S JUST NOISE
I don't know what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the ~16 minute Pretty Soon, I Don't Know What, But Something is Going to Happen is 16 minutes long, man, and it's gonna blow your mind. It's so long, they actually have a longer official name for it which Wikipedia used to reference but no longer does. Why? Because everyone who edits Wikipedia was my age when they were my age, and now they are older and they don't have time to remember obscure 16 minute song titles from an obscure album from their obscure teenhood. I don't either. I'm too busy listening to math rock to listen to mathcore anymore.
Did I tell you about the lyrics?
Norma Jean, the fathers of anthemic illiterate breakdowns. Here's a line. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Listen to the guitar do a thing. The drums are nuclear weapons exuding from the hamfisted percussionist. Just listen to it. Do you feel the ART?
NO! You feel DEATH. You feel like you're watching something dying. And it's not just dissonant. It's not just crashing noises and weeping and the gnashing of teeth. It's beautiful. Why? Because the music and unintelligible screaming require you read the lyrics and then you've realized: This is poetry. Poetry. Poetry read aloud in the middle of child-warfare battlefields and Orwellian martyrdom. "It's all worth while".
It was so worthwhile that I got my Zune 80 engraved with an abridged version of one of their lyrics on the back of it. I didn't need to exude creativity. My ears needed to absorb it. I owe all my teenage poetry to bands like Norma Jean and The Chariot and Converge and Botch. I was a sweaty mess. I was quitting basketball and picking up drums FOR REAL. 2006 was an interesting time for me. I now know that I'm mostly an uninteresting person (much less interesting now than I was back then and back then I was already boring) and that I can enjoy my music in my headspace and not have to share it with everyone. I don't have to say "This album is good and here's why" because now I've got nostalgia on my side and the only thing that defeats nostalgia is death. And when I'm dead, nobody has won the argument because, really, there wasn't an argument in the first place.
I digress. Why is this album one of my favorites ever? I blame my adolescence. I finally found some music that my entire family hated and that I loved. And they hated it for good reasons based on their decadent sensibilities, and I loved it because what produced such aural hatred in others produced sonic affection in me (the bitter taste of discordance has never gone away and I hope it is here to stay). I was on top of the world when nominal Christianity was starting to fade from my heart and meaning was found more than in the scribes of dictionaries.
Bless the Martyr is like a 180-proof shot of whiskey. It burns. It goes down hard. It lowers your blood temperature. You're not sure you could take another one. But the distilled product is the THING. It's so much the THING all other things are suddenly really small things.
I will leave you to ponder my motivation with the recommendations to listen to:
Memphis Will Be Laid To Waste
Sometimes It's Our Mistakes That Make For The Greatest Discoveries
Organized Beyond Recognition
Congratulations.
This is my escape.
A pen and a book
And if the world can see what I got
Then let's all have a good look.
A fortunate one.
Peace.
SDG
Nick
Your whites shine, black velvet. I ain't seen you in a while.
You're slick, a slick and polished mess. I ain't see you in a while.
Let's just face the facts. And get back to the basic form.
^^
The lyrics above belong to a song that's like SEVEN minutes long.
I don't know if I'm going to be making a point here. I'm just once again revisiting an album that I enjoy and endear to my adolescence.
Norma Jean is now a very recognizable metal band. But from back when Christian metal was a thing, this album probably set an impossibly high bar. Everyone can limbo but nobody can jump higher. Except for The Chariot but that's a blog for another day.
A Solid State pandora's box of slam-dancing, incoherent and illiterate guitar screeches, cacophonous crashing drums, with a dash of "God" here, "Jesus" - there. "Christ" speckled over the oblivion of screams, absence of overdub, guitar-flavored distortion, and the lyrics of a poet.
Have I talked about the lyrics?
Do you get it now?
By way of disclaimer, this album was done back before Josh Scogin split to raise up the screaming adulation of METALCORE fans with his third labeled band, The Chariot; a comparison with who would not be fair. Neither do I believe it fair to make Cory Brandan's headship face:face with Scogin's brand of incoherence. All this to say, I have two favorite Norma Jean albums, and this is one of them. The other one (NJ's latest which I've already talked about here) is a standup album by its own right. It has its own merits and it would be obtuse to compare this album from 2002 with a different headman to their recent releases.
But back when, I was a child, see? And I spoke in hyperbole because metaphor was too similar. I said "This is the best Norma Jean album". And I was right, see? Because I had all the ideas figured out. Bless The Martyr... is the most crunchiest, distorted, absolutist, atonal, progressive,
--[Yes they are still a good band, and Disambiguation was the best they ever released]
--wasn't really RESONATING with my teenage tumult into romances and long nights wasting away with thoughts of holding hands and breathing shared air with a nameless ideal, I turned my face toward Norma Jean's Bless the Martyr and Kiss the Child.
Resonance? DISSONANCE.
Meter? AMBIMETER.
Singing? SCREAMING.
Pose? POISE.
Dishes? MUSIC
Catharsis? SURFING ON LAVA
Guitars? Experimental music? WHATEVER MAN IT'S JUST NOISE
I don't know what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the ~16 minute Pretty Soon, I Don't Know What, But Something is Going to Happen is 16 minutes long, man, and it's gonna blow your mind. It's so long, they actually have a longer official name for it which Wikipedia used to reference but no longer does. Why? Because everyone who edits Wikipedia was my age when they were my age, and now they are older and they don't have time to remember obscure 16 minute song titles from an obscure album from their obscure teenhood. I don't either. I'm too busy listening to math rock to listen to mathcore anymore.
Did I tell you about the lyrics?
Norma Jean, the fathers of anthemic illiterate breakdowns. Here's a line. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Repeat it. Listen to the guitar do a thing. The drums are nuclear weapons exuding from the hamfisted percussionist. Just listen to it. Do you feel the ART?
NO! You feel DEATH. You feel like you're watching something dying. And it's not just dissonant. It's not just crashing noises and weeping and the gnashing of teeth. It's beautiful. Why? Because the music and unintelligible screaming require you read the lyrics and then you've realized: This is poetry. Poetry. Poetry read aloud in the middle of child-warfare battlefields and Orwellian martyrdom. "It's all worth while".
It was so worthwhile that I got my Zune 80 engraved with an abridged version of one of their lyrics on the back of it. I didn't need to exude creativity. My ears needed to absorb it. I owe all my teenage poetry to bands like Norma Jean and The Chariot and Converge and Botch. I was a sweaty mess. I was quitting basketball and picking up drums FOR REAL. 2006 was an interesting time for me. I now know that I'm mostly an uninteresting person (much less interesting now than I was back then and back then I was already boring) and that I can enjoy my music in my headspace and not have to share it with everyone. I don't have to say "This album is good and here's why" because now I've got nostalgia on my side and the only thing that defeats nostalgia is death. And when I'm dead, nobody has won the argument because, really, there wasn't an argument in the first place.
I digress. Why is this album one of my favorites ever? I blame my adolescence. I finally found some music that my entire family hated and that I loved. And they hated it for good reasons based on their decadent sensibilities, and I loved it because what produced such aural hatred in others produced sonic affection in me (the bitter taste of discordance has never gone away and I hope it is here to stay). I was on top of the world when nominal Christianity was starting to fade from my heart and meaning was found more than in the scribes of dictionaries.
Bless the Martyr is like a 180-proof shot of whiskey. It burns. It goes down hard. It lowers your blood temperature. You're not sure you could take another one. But the distilled product is the THING. It's so much the THING all other things are suddenly really small things.
I will leave you to ponder my motivation with the recommendations to listen to:
Memphis Will Be Laid To Waste
Sometimes It's Our Mistakes That Make For The Greatest Discoveries
Organized Beyond Recognition
Congratulations.
This is my escape.
A pen and a book
And if the world can see what I got
Then let's all have a good look.
A fortunate one.
Peace.
SDG
Nick
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Questions for Ann Coulter
This is in response to her article "The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth, But They Shouldn't Be President". Anybody who reads her loyally and agrees with her and is in her purported demographic (Conservative, Evangelical, Republican, Christian, etc.), I would love to hear your responses. Thanks.
__
1. Who exactly do you believe the "meek" are? Since you are using scripture, give me some scriptural references to the "Meek" and which qualities they possess which would bar them from presidency?
2. The country needs a man. And it needs a man all the time. What kind of man? And also, how do you judge the qualities of a man? What qualifies a "man" as president-material? Bible verses?
3. Please give the context of Job 12 which would apply positively to Donald Trump.
4. Does your understanding of this context apply when Mr. Trump says he has never asked for forgiveness? Is that not pride? Isn't the entire life of Christian one of repentance (I'm paraphrasing German reformer Martin Luther)? How could you expect an apparently unforgiven man to run the U.S. appropriately? What does the bible speak of ungodly rulers (and an unforgiven man has no capacity to be a godly ruler unless he repents and is forgiven)?
5. On which basis do you call the "concept of America" the "last hope for Christianity on the planet"? It seems there are many other last hopes for Christianity, a majority of which are popping up all over China. Do you really believe that if America went down the tubes, there would be no hope for Christianity on the planet? The kingdom grows with each dying martyr.
6. Where's the biblical basis for your views on immigration flow? Do government borders limit people or governments? If they limit people, then you're encroaching on the ideals of socialism. Tread carefully here.
7. That's a very cute plug for your book there. Have you noticed the self-fulfilling prophecy in your book? "If illegals enter the states, they will ruin us. I hate them. And look how they don't want to vote for my team. That's why I hate them." What does the bible say about the sojourner? What does God's law say about the sojourner?
SDG
Nick
__
1. Who exactly do you believe the "meek" are? Since you are using scripture, give me some scriptural references to the "Meek" and which qualities they possess which would bar them from presidency?
2. The country needs a man. And it needs a man all the time. What kind of man? And also, how do you judge the qualities of a man? What qualifies a "man" as president-material? Bible verses?
3. Please give the context of Job 12 which would apply positively to Donald Trump.
4. Does your understanding of this context apply when Mr. Trump says he has never asked for forgiveness? Is that not pride? Isn't the entire life of Christian one of repentance (I'm paraphrasing German reformer Martin Luther)? How could you expect an apparently unforgiven man to run the U.S. appropriately? What does the bible speak of ungodly rulers (and an unforgiven man has no capacity to be a godly ruler unless he repents and is forgiven)?
5. On which basis do you call the "concept of America" the "last hope for Christianity on the planet"? It seems there are many other last hopes for Christianity, a majority of which are popping up all over China. Do you really believe that if America went down the tubes, there would be no hope for Christianity on the planet? The kingdom grows with each dying martyr.
6. Where's the biblical basis for your views on immigration flow? Do government borders limit people or governments? If they limit people, then you're encroaching on the ideals of socialism. Tread carefully here.
7. That's a very cute plug for your book there. Have you noticed the self-fulfilling prophecy in your book? "If illegals enter the states, they will ruin us. I hate them. And look how they don't want to vote for my team. That's why I hate them." What does the bible say about the sojourner? What does God's law say about the sojourner?
SDG
Nick
Thursday, October 8, 2015
Music Recommendation: Citizens & Saints: Join The Triumph
Two consolations:
I know I haven't posted a music recommendation in a while.
I know this album technically came out last year.
Citizens & Saints (formerly Citizens) released this album almost a year ago as the time of this blog's writing. I'm just here to make a couple observations and link a Spotify thing.
Observations:
1. Even less contemporary guitar-bass-piano-bass. Lots more synth.
The band has gotten a lot more comfortable with the almighty synthesizer. Expect more artificial noise. I personally think these sorts of things detract from the musicianship, but I'm saying this as a drummer who prefers to hit real drums. Take my salt with a grain of feelings. The sound works for them, and for that, I am glad.
2. Even more clean production.
Production value is an all-time high for this band. I prefer the dirtiness of their first EP (back when they were a Mars Hill band). But this is not necessarily a detraction.
3. Even more hymns.
Criticisms of Mars Hill's church strategy aside, I do believe there has been an increase in the proliferation of the hymns of the last few centuries, in no small part due to the influence of Mars Hill's worship music and its stylistic pervasion into the CCM sphere. The helpfulness of the old forms is not to be dismissed; and the hymn+modern music sensibilities formula never sounds terribly formulaic. Advantageous to hear these words because of how malleable the media is.
The verdict:
Citizens... sounds kinda like what I expect. A non-nonsense 80's-tinged indie rock worship album with clean production and classic hymns.
The Recommendations:
The Strife Is Over
Be Thou My Vision
Father You Are All We Need
I don't give out letter ratings, but if I did, I'd give this one a B.
I guess I give out letter ratings.
SDG
Nick
Spotify:
I know I haven't posted a music recommendation in a while.
I know this album technically came out last year.
Citizens & Saints (formerly Citizens) released this album almost a year ago as the time of this blog's writing. I'm just here to make a couple observations and link a Spotify thing.
Observations:
1. Even less contemporary guitar-bass-piano-bass. Lots more synth.
The band has gotten a lot more comfortable with the almighty synthesizer. Expect more artificial noise. I personally think these sorts of things detract from the musicianship, but I'm saying this as a drummer who prefers to hit real drums. Take my salt with a grain of feelings. The sound works for them, and for that, I am glad.
2. Even more clean production.
Production value is an all-time high for this band. I prefer the dirtiness of their first EP (back when they were a Mars Hill band). But this is not necessarily a detraction.
3. Even more hymns.
Criticisms of Mars Hill's church strategy aside, I do believe there has been an increase in the proliferation of the hymns of the last few centuries, in no small part due to the influence of Mars Hill's worship music and its stylistic pervasion into the CCM sphere. The helpfulness of the old forms is not to be dismissed; and the hymn+modern music sensibilities formula never sounds terribly formulaic. Advantageous to hear these words because of how malleable the media is.
The verdict:
Citizens... sounds kinda like what I expect. A non-nonsense 80's-tinged indie rock worship album with clean production and classic hymns.
The Recommendations:
The Strife Is Over
Be Thou My Vision
Father You Are All We Need
I don't give out letter ratings, but if I did, I'd give this one a B.
I guess I give out letter ratings.
SDG
Nick
Spotify:
Friday, August 28, 2015
Wisdom from Miracles by C.S. Lewis
Reading through Miracles. I may have accidentally saved the best of the apologetic
in the "essential collection" for last.
"If it is maintained that anything so small as the Earth must, in any event, be too unimportant to merit the love of the Creator, we reply that no Christian ever supposed we did merit it. Christ did not die for men because they were intrinsically worth dying for, but because He is intrinsically love, and therefore loves infinitely. And what, after all, does the size of a world or a creature tell us about its 'importance' or value?"
"If it is maintained that anything so small as the Earth must, in any event, be too unimportant to merit the love of the Creator, we reply that no Christian ever supposed we did merit it. Christ did not die for men because they were intrinsically worth dying for, but because He is intrinsically love, and therefore loves infinitely. And what, after all, does the size of a world or a creature tell us about its 'importance' or value?"
Thursday, August 20, 2015
Life Is Short. Repent.
The recent Ashley Madison dumps reveal two things about our secular media.
They love when the righteous fall.
They hate when unrighteousness is exposed.
The cognitive dissonance is astounding. On one hand, there are now millions of men and women whose "private" cheating has been brought to the watching eye of the public. On the other hand, there are now millions of men and women whose lives will be utterly changed by this. And it trickles down to the family, to the children. Divorces are likely. Huge personal ramifications are likely. People will despair of their sin, and attempt to cover the ugliness.
Everyone can see how ugly it is. But is the ugliness in the questionable practice of the data dump (namely, the hacking, the deception inherent in pulling out large swaths of personal information and exposing it to the world)? If it is, then we ought to remember the uglier sin of adultery. The uglier sin of breaking the wedding vow. The uglier sin of turning one's back on the wife of their youth. The uglier sin of David and Bathsheba's adultery and the ugliness of David's attempts to cover his sin with the death of another man.
Wasn't Nathan also deceptive? For he drew out David's hypocrisy with his own ruse, speaking as the mouthpiece of God. Then we must concede that there is such a thing as righteous deception.
The Ashley Madison data dumps are merely unwitting calls to repentance. Who knows why the hackers did it. But we know why God orchestrated them to do it:
Everyone can see how ugly it is. But is the ugliness in the questionable practice of the data dump (namely, the hacking, the deception inherent in pulling out large swaths of personal information and exposing it to the world)? If it is, then we ought to remember the uglier sin of adultery. The uglier sin of breaking the wedding vow. The uglier sin of turning one's back on the wife of their youth. The uglier sin of David and Bathsheba's adultery and the ugliness of David's attempts to cover his sin with the death of another man.
 | |||
Wasn't Nathan also deceptive? For he drew out David's hypocrisy with his own ruse, speaking as the mouthpiece of God. Then we must concede that there is such a thing as righteous deception.
The Ashley Madison data dumps are merely unwitting calls to repentance. Who knows why the hackers did it. But we know why God orchestrated them to do it:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.”
Romans 1:18-32 ESV
The interesting backlash and moral outrage by those who approve such practices against the release of this data is epitomized by this scripture. And yet, there is silence among them, in the form of selfrighteous gloat, when the sins of people like Josh Duggar are further revealed. Now Edom is laughing. Beware, Edom:
“But do not gloat over the day of your brother in the day of his misfortune; do not rejoice over the people of Judah in the day of their ruin; do not boast in the day of distress. Do not enter the gate of my people in the day of their calamity; do not gloat over his disaster in the day of his calamity; do not loot his wealth in the day of his calamity. Do not stand at the crossroads to cut off his fugitives; do not hand over his survivors in the day of distress.”
Obadiah 1:12-14 ESV
So what to make of this news? 39 million accounts were created by aspiring adulterers who had already committed their sins in secret, in their hearts. And God sees them all. And now God has exposed it all. Chances are there are adulterer pastors shaking in their boots, waiting to see if they will be found out. Men and women are seeking to cover their shame with the indignant blast against those on higher moral pedestals. Yet the only way to cover the shame of sin forever is to let Jesus be your covering.
If you are a Christian, Jesus died for your sins before your adultery, he died for your sins after they were covered. But he didn't die to cover them so that they wouldn't be revealed. Rather, the only way Jesus covers sin is by uncovering it. The confession of the Christian is not a non-admission of guilt, but the admission and transfer of that guilt to Jesus, where it was swallowed up on the cross. We give Jesus our sin, and Jesus gives us his righteousness. Nothing has changed. Christian, were you found out? Then repent. Repent before you're found out, so that when you are found out, you are pointing people to Jesus and the sin you transmitted to Him. Give Jesus the glory of your repentance.
God's response to Edom is more fearsome and quakening than the crash of the ocean of iniquity unleashed by the revelation:
“For the day of the Lord is near upon all the nations. As you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own head. For as you have drunk on my holy mountain, so all the nations shall drink continually; they shall drink and swallow, and shall be as though they had never been. But in Mount Zion there shall be those who escape, and it shall be holy, and the house of Jacob shall possess their own possessions. The house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau stubble; they shall burn them and consume them, and there shall be no survivor for the house of Esau, for the Lord has spoken.”
Obadiah 1:15-18 ESV
Esau dies. Esau burns. The church is the agent of God's flame. God will blot Esau out, by changing their names, or by giving them escape through the cross of Christ.
Every human being was born in Esau's tent.
Christians should be reminded of Paul's exhortation:
““Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.”
1 Corinthians 6:13-20 ESV
But before this, Paul commands we remember the why:
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
1 Corinthians 6:9-11 ESV
Such was I. And such were some of you.
Were the Christian's sin revealed to them, they need only rejoice in repentance and come back to God's fold. But for those who gloat at the fall of the righteous,
““Woe to him who makes his neighbors drink— you pour out your wrath and make them drunk, in order to gaze at their nakedness! You will have your fill of shame instead of glory. Drink, yourself, and show your uncircumcision! The cup in the Lord’s right hand will come around to you, and utter shame will come upon your glory!”
Habakkuk 2:15-16 ESV
The glory of the unrighteous is the fall of the righteous, and their just deserts will be utter shame.
SDG
Nick
Monday, July 20, 2015
Feathers? Must be a duck.
How to start with this one?
This is a response to Dr. Michael A. Cox, a pastor at First Baptist Church in Pryor, OK, who took Calvinism to task as "Spiritual Racism", comparing it to racism (Haha, really?) and Hinduism (the milk is dribbling out my nostrils).
His post can be read here: http://sbctoday.com/is-calvinism-spiritual-racism/
In his article, he asserts that Hinduism, racism, and Calvinism have "many things in common; too many for Christians not to be alarmed." There's a word for bad logic that a particular beloved Papist of mine wrote. That word is "bosh".
Cox says the following of Hinduism:
"Reincarnationists, like Hindus, avoid the giving of invitations, publicity, or advertisement, and simply trust the Law of Attraction to draw their own to them and them to their own.[1] This is fueled by a primary tenet of Hinduism, namely that one is born into a caste out of which there is no escape in life. Thus, Hinduism propounds social determinism characterized by social superiority, social caste, social election, social bigotry, social prejudice, and social exclusivity."
Firstly, let's note that Cox provides a source. I haven't looked at the source, but the "[1]" is a hyperlink on his page to a source which helps provide the basis for his point.
Of racism:
"Racism is the dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by nature to hereditary inferiority and another group is destined to hereditary superiority.[2] Thus, Racism propounds racial determinism characterized by racial superiority, racial election, racial caste, racial bigotry, racial prejudice, and racial exclusivity."
"[2]" indicates that there is another source for his information regarding racism. I haven't checked the source, but, yes, this seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation of racism as it exists today.
Of Calvinism, Cox asserts the following
"Calvinism is the dogma of spiritual determinism characterized by spiritual superiority, spiritual election, a spiritual “caste,” spiritual bigotry, spiritual prejudice, and certainly by spiritual exclusivity. "
No source included. Let's hope he can get a better source, because his internal information seems inconsistent with scripture.
And his thesis:
"Clearly, it shares some distressing affinities with Hinduism and Racism."
I see. If it has feathers, then it must also quack like a duck.
Cox proceeds to say that Hinduism, Racism and Calvinism are caste-systems, which presuppose that all people are stuck in their caste and have no way of getting out. This is easily seen in Hinduism, wherein you must live life in the social caste you've been given, and as the social caste is somehow absolute, you must learn to live with it regardless of your objections and aspirations.
Racism contends that you're in a particular racial caste which predetermines your value and worth. Plainly put, unless you're one of the people who thinks Rachel Dolezal is one of the good guys, there's just no getting out of it. You're stuck in your heredity. And since your entire worth is based on race, the racist need only decide that their race really superior, and supposing that they are actually the same heritage you have, they can imagine a class within which they have qualified as a member and you have not.
We should see here that, especially for racists, and the kind of racist who believes that "election" in scripture supposes a particular elect race, a doctrine can easily be misconstrued into a dogma that a person's inherent standing and worth in society is predetermined by their race. It's easy to point out that as early as Exodus 12, we have definitive proof that God not only hates racism, but holds to principle and not to people. God is not loyal to the nation of Israel due to their personal interest in Him, but rather because of His covenantal interest in them. And the covenant is no respector of persons, because the covenant was made and fulfilled by Himself, and holds to the principle of God's word, and not to the people of Israel.
So, Cox says, look at the spiritual pride that Calvinism elicits. You're not elect? Then we have no time for you! You aren't one of those chosen to be saved by God? Gee, you should just get over it. As if election
1) was a legitimate cause for boasting
2) meant that those who desired to be saved wouldn't actually be saved ever.
3) was Calvinism's way of creating an upper-class sect of Christianity so that they could go off and be really lazy, because they already know who the elect are and can thus quit evangelising unless they know there's an elect person out there somehow. Presumption is the Calvinist's best weapon, after all.
What?
So, Let's ignore the existence of the word "elect" in scripture and dig into the inferential texts. Let's just assume that Peter never called the church "elect" and dig into some 200 proof-calvinism for a second.
Cox seems to forget the following point, which Calvinism has used only scripture to demonstrate: People are evil. They are totally depraved. Jeremiah 17:9. Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5, John 3:19, John 8:34, Romans 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 1:18, Proverbs 14:12, 1 Corinthians 1:18, Romans 8:7.
If there are a series of verses which explain this concisely, it's Romans 3:9-18.
No One Is Righteous
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
(Romans 3:9-18 ESV)
We ought to see that verse 9 should lead us to conclude a couple things:
1. The Jews are not better off than the Greeks, though they were given God's law.
2. The Greeks are not better off than the Jews.
3. All are under sin. UNDER sin, as if sin were OVER them; everyone's master. You cannot have two masters. It's a reasonable conclusion that the Bible speaks to the depravity of men being total, and that the charge of depravity does not apply to specific men, or to specific groups of people, but to the entire human race.
Is there any reference to race here, that in any such way, could be logically construed to provide a basis for the heinous sin of racism? I don't see it. Maybe Calvinism isn't spiritual racism then. Cox's argument is the same argument every opponent to the doctrine of election has ever made. The only difference is that right now, racism is a hot-card. It's a commodity to use it to illustrate your points. Who wants to make a short wager that apart from the publicity of apparent racism in today's social media, Cox would not have brought up his point? I'll start with a bottle of whiskey.
The only solution to people who don't seek God is a God that seeks them. And we are told repeatedly that Jesus goes out and recovers each every one of his flock. The conclusion must be made: Jesus loses none that he seeks to find(John 6:39). Meaning that those who were lost are condemned already (John 3:18). Meaning that we have to determine why God saves people.
If Cox is right, then God saves people based on spiritual determinism, and chooses spiritually superior men, elects them due to their superiority, and only chooses them due to their superior spiritual caste. Thus, Cox concludes that Calvinism's God must be a spiritual bigot, and spiritually prejudiced, and spiritually "exclusive".
Cox also has to contend with a couple errors of his own here. Namely, using a foremost example of Election, by which Abram was called and determined by God to be the patriarch and vehicle for all his successors for all who would come to believe in Jesus Christ. Using election to disprove election? I'm not certain what he is getting at here.
Also, the tones of racism here are applied to Calvinism's "prideful" theology. The elect are proud because they are elect? Circular reasoning? You bet. But Paul, the author whose writings were used foremost, especially in the book of Romans, to infer the doctrine of election said this:
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
(Romans 9:1-3 ESV)
So beside from the inference which is rightly made, that if God calls all believers and Jesus loses none of them, and therefore God must also not effectually call all unbelievers so that Jesus continues to lose none of the elect, we also see that election is unconditional, to the point of Paul lamenting the fate of unelect kinsmen, his own Jewish brothers. And how do Christians get saved if not by the commendation of faith (Hebrews 11) which we are told is a gift:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
(Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV)
See also that God prepared good works beforehand which we (being the elect) should walk in. Also note that "no one may boast". The election of Calvinism specifies through scripture that faith "is the gift of God, not a result of works". We also see that faith should result in thankfulness:
I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
(Philippians 1:3-6 ESV)
It is not possible for the proud to be thankful of an object other than themselves. Yet we find that those "elect" in scripture are called not to pride, but to thankfulness, sobered by the reality that your faith is not the source of God's election but rather the fruit. The Calvinist, above all others, should not be proud but extremely humble. The Calvinist should ask the rhetorical "Why should God have saved me?" There is no inherent good reason in a person that causes God to save them, but for His own glory for which he uses both the elect and the reprobate. The question we should be asking isn't "Why doesn't God save everyone?". It is this: "Why does God save anyone?"
I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
(1 Timothy 1:12-17 ESV)
Note that Paul, whose works are some of the foremost sources for the doctrine of election, called himself chief of sinners. Does that sound like pride?
Cox also falls into the mistake that the assumption of hard-determinism often leads itself to. I'm perfectly willing to say there is determinism if we qualify it. People are determined to sin and continue to sin, and until God intervenes, they do nothing but sin. They are chiefs of sinners. It doesn't get better unless God interjects. But the idea that the determinism is capricious, that God determines selfishly, is irreconcilable with the bible. Rather, the determinism most of us espouse is compatiblism. Everyone is destined for hell. But some are predestined for salvation. And that's where election comes in. Unless God changes you so that you desire good, you will always desire sin. And if you desire good, you will cooperate with him. If not, you resist him. The Holy Spirit works in the elect to bring about faith, and from that faith proceeds good works. It's a cooperative work, but it doesn't start with you. If you cooperate, it's because God first gave you life and thus the desire to cooperate. It's all God's work.
The non-elect are the proud ones. They are even condemned by their pride.
Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor
than to divide the spoil with the proud.
(Proverbs 16:18-19 ESV)
If we are dead in our trespasses, we cannot "choose" to be alive. We must be given life in order to choose Him. If God completes every good work, and gives you spiritual life, then you are guaranteed the completion of that good work in you. The non-elect are simply dead in their trespasses.
Calvinists aren't motivated to evangelise, Cox says, because they are only looking for the "elect". Well, Paul certainly did not seem in the slight worried about "finding the elect", but in preaching the gospel. Puritans of old were not looking for the elect. They were preaching to the public. Reformed churches today are not interested in finding the elect, because they already understand that God gives the growth. God provides the elect for evangelism. Calvinists need not worry to this end; nor have they ever been inclined to worry about it. The chant of biblical Christianity has always been "preach the Gospel and God will bring hearers". Calvinism upholds the truth of scripture, especially on the subject of election.
Conclusively, election is based not on the works, or caste, or anything else that a sinner could bring to the table in exchange for salvation. The only thing a Christian contributes to salvation is the sin which requires forgiveness. Indeed, the purpose of election was not for God to save a particular caste of people, but to save all kinds of people. And has He not accomplished this so far? The charge of spiritual racism Cox has levied against Calvinism rings hollow and untrue. The reason the plans of God can be viewed as a universal scope is because NOTHING stops Him from saving anybody. If you're elect, your salvation is guaranteed. Election is the call to joy of the Christian, for they cannot even escape God themselves, regardless of their prodigousness or sinfulness. That is the doctrine of election. There are none too far to be effectually called to Christ.
If election sounds spiritually racist, Cox ought to look in scripture and see it for himself. If he is a Christian, election should be nothing short of his joy. It is not pride that election should elicit from the Christian, but rather joy. The entire purpose of election is that no good work God calls us to returns void.
The alternative to election is that nobody ever gets saved, and we wallow in our sins until we die, and we die in our sins, and we are rightfully judged and condemned for our sins. That's the history of mankind without election. Do we really want Cox's non-electing God in the driver seat?
I didn't think so.
SDG
Nick
This is a response to Dr. Michael A. Cox, a pastor at First Baptist Church in Pryor, OK, who took Calvinism to task as "Spiritual Racism", comparing it to racism (Haha, really?) and Hinduism (the milk is dribbling out my nostrils).
His post can be read here: http://sbctoday.com/is-calvinism-spiritual-racism/
In his article, he asserts that Hinduism, racism, and Calvinism have "many things in common; too many for Christians not to be alarmed." There's a word for bad logic that a particular beloved Papist of mine wrote. That word is "bosh".
Cox says the following of Hinduism:
"Reincarnationists, like Hindus, avoid the giving of invitations, publicity, or advertisement, and simply trust the Law of Attraction to draw their own to them and them to their own.[1] This is fueled by a primary tenet of Hinduism, namely that one is born into a caste out of which there is no escape in life. Thus, Hinduism propounds social determinism characterized by social superiority, social caste, social election, social bigotry, social prejudice, and social exclusivity."
Firstly, let's note that Cox provides a source. I haven't looked at the source, but the "[1]" is a hyperlink on his page to a source which helps provide the basis for his point.
Of racism:
"Racism is the dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by nature to hereditary inferiority and another group is destined to hereditary superiority.[2] Thus, Racism propounds racial determinism characterized by racial superiority, racial election, racial caste, racial bigotry, racial prejudice, and racial exclusivity."
"[2]" indicates that there is another source for his information regarding racism. I haven't checked the source, but, yes, this seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation of racism as it exists today.
Of Calvinism, Cox asserts the following
"Calvinism is the dogma of spiritual determinism characterized by spiritual superiority, spiritual election, a spiritual “caste,” spiritual bigotry, spiritual prejudice, and certainly by spiritual exclusivity. "
No source included. Let's hope he can get a better source, because his internal information seems inconsistent with scripture.
And his thesis:
"Clearly, it shares some distressing affinities with Hinduism and Racism."
I see. If it has feathers, then it must also quack like a duck.
Cox proceeds to say that Hinduism, Racism and Calvinism are caste-systems, which presuppose that all people are stuck in their caste and have no way of getting out. This is easily seen in Hinduism, wherein you must live life in the social caste you've been given, and as the social caste is somehow absolute, you must learn to live with it regardless of your objections and aspirations.
Racism contends that you're in a particular racial caste which predetermines your value and worth. Plainly put, unless you're one of the people who thinks Rachel Dolezal is one of the good guys, there's just no getting out of it. You're stuck in your heredity. And since your entire worth is based on race, the racist need only decide that their race really superior, and supposing that they are actually the same heritage you have, they can imagine a class within which they have qualified as a member and you have not.
We should see here that, especially for racists, and the kind of racist who believes that "election" in scripture supposes a particular elect race, a doctrine can easily be misconstrued into a dogma that a person's inherent standing and worth in society is predetermined by their race. It's easy to point out that as early as Exodus 12, we have definitive proof that God not only hates racism, but holds to principle and not to people. God is not loyal to the nation of Israel due to their personal interest in Him, but rather because of His covenantal interest in them. And the covenant is no respector of persons, because the covenant was made and fulfilled by Himself, and holds to the principle of God's word, and not to the people of Israel.
So, Cox says, look at the spiritual pride that Calvinism elicits. You're not elect? Then we have no time for you! You aren't one of those chosen to be saved by God? Gee, you should just get over it. As if election
1) was a legitimate cause for boasting
2) meant that those who desired to be saved wouldn't actually be saved ever.
3) was Calvinism's way of creating an upper-class sect of Christianity so that they could go off and be really lazy, because they already know who the elect are and can thus quit evangelising unless they know there's an elect person out there somehow. Presumption is the Calvinist's best weapon, after all.
What?
So, Let's ignore the existence of the word "elect" in scripture and dig into the inferential texts. Let's just assume that Peter never called the church "elect" and dig into some 200 proof-calvinism for a second.
Cox seems to forget the following point, which Calvinism has used only scripture to demonstrate: People are evil. They are totally depraved. Jeremiah 17:9. Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5, John 3:19, John 8:34, Romans 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 1:18, Proverbs 14:12, 1 Corinthians 1:18, Romans 8:7.
If there are a series of verses which explain this concisely, it's Romans 3:9-18.
No One Is Righteous
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:
“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
(Romans 3:9-18 ESV)
We ought to see that verse 9 should lead us to conclude a couple things:
1. The Jews are not better off than the Greeks, though they were given God's law.
2. The Greeks are not better off than the Jews.
3. All are under sin. UNDER sin, as if sin were OVER them; everyone's master. You cannot have two masters. It's a reasonable conclusion that the Bible speaks to the depravity of men being total, and that the charge of depravity does not apply to specific men, or to specific groups of people, but to the entire human race.
Is there any reference to race here, that in any such way, could be logically construed to provide a basis for the heinous sin of racism? I don't see it. Maybe Calvinism isn't spiritual racism then. Cox's argument is the same argument every opponent to the doctrine of election has ever made. The only difference is that right now, racism is a hot-card. It's a commodity to use it to illustrate your points. Who wants to make a short wager that apart from the publicity of apparent racism in today's social media, Cox would not have brought up his point? I'll start with a bottle of whiskey.
The only solution to people who don't seek God is a God that seeks them. And we are told repeatedly that Jesus goes out and recovers each every one of his flock. The conclusion must be made: Jesus loses none that he seeks to find(John 6:39). Meaning that those who were lost are condemned already (John 3:18). Meaning that we have to determine why God saves people.
If Cox is right, then God saves people based on spiritual determinism, and chooses spiritually superior men, elects them due to their superiority, and only chooses them due to their superior spiritual caste. Thus, Cox concludes that Calvinism's God must be a spiritual bigot, and spiritually prejudiced, and spiritually "exclusive".
Cox also has to contend with a couple errors of his own here. Namely, using a foremost example of Election, by which Abram was called and determined by God to be the patriarch and vehicle for all his successors for all who would come to believe in Jesus Christ. Using election to disprove election? I'm not certain what he is getting at here.
Also, the tones of racism here are applied to Calvinism's "prideful" theology. The elect are proud because they are elect? Circular reasoning? You bet. But Paul, the author whose writings were used foremost, especially in the book of Romans, to infer the doctrine of election said this:
I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.
(Romans 9:1-3 ESV)
So beside from the inference which is rightly made, that if God calls all believers and Jesus loses none of them, and therefore God must also not effectually call all unbelievers so that Jesus continues to lose none of the elect, we also see that election is unconditional, to the point of Paul lamenting the fate of unelect kinsmen, his own Jewish brothers. And how do Christians get saved if not by the commendation of faith (Hebrews 11) which we are told is a gift:
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
(Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV)
See also that God prepared good works beforehand which we (being the elect) should walk in. Also note that "no one may boast". The election of Calvinism specifies through scripture that faith "is the gift of God, not a result of works". We also see that faith should result in thankfulness:
I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.
(Philippians 1:3-6 ESV)
It is not possible for the proud to be thankful of an object other than themselves. Yet we find that those "elect" in scripture are called not to pride, but to thankfulness, sobered by the reality that your faith is not the source of God's election but rather the fruit. The Calvinist, above all others, should not be proud but extremely humble. The Calvinist should ask the rhetorical "Why should God have saved me?" There is no inherent good reason in a person that causes God to save them, but for His own glory for which he uses both the elect and the reprobate. The question we should be asking isn't "Why doesn't God save everyone?". It is this: "Why does God save anyone?"
I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
(1 Timothy 1:12-17 ESV)
Note that Paul, whose works are some of the foremost sources for the doctrine of election, called himself chief of sinners. Does that sound like pride?
Cox also falls into the mistake that the assumption of hard-determinism often leads itself to. I'm perfectly willing to say there is determinism if we qualify it. People are determined to sin and continue to sin, and until God intervenes, they do nothing but sin. They are chiefs of sinners. It doesn't get better unless God interjects. But the idea that the determinism is capricious, that God determines selfishly, is irreconcilable with the bible. Rather, the determinism most of us espouse is compatiblism. Everyone is destined for hell. But some are predestined for salvation. And that's where election comes in. Unless God changes you so that you desire good, you will always desire sin. And if you desire good, you will cooperate with him. If not, you resist him. The Holy Spirit works in the elect to bring about faith, and from that faith proceeds good works. It's a cooperative work, but it doesn't start with you. If you cooperate, it's because God first gave you life and thus the desire to cooperate. It's all God's work.
The non-elect are the proud ones. They are even condemned by their pride.
Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor
than to divide the spoil with the proud.
(Proverbs 16:18-19 ESV)
If we are dead in our trespasses, we cannot "choose" to be alive. We must be given life in order to choose Him. If God completes every good work, and gives you spiritual life, then you are guaranteed the completion of that good work in you. The non-elect are simply dead in their trespasses.
Calvinists aren't motivated to evangelise, Cox says, because they are only looking for the "elect". Well, Paul certainly did not seem in the slight worried about "finding the elect", but in preaching the gospel. Puritans of old were not looking for the elect. They were preaching to the public. Reformed churches today are not interested in finding the elect, because they already understand that God gives the growth. God provides the elect for evangelism. Calvinists need not worry to this end; nor have they ever been inclined to worry about it. The chant of biblical Christianity has always been "preach the Gospel and God will bring hearers". Calvinism upholds the truth of scripture, especially on the subject of election.
Conclusively, election is based not on the works, or caste, or anything else that a sinner could bring to the table in exchange for salvation. The only thing a Christian contributes to salvation is the sin which requires forgiveness. Indeed, the purpose of election was not for God to save a particular caste of people, but to save all kinds of people. And has He not accomplished this so far? The charge of spiritual racism Cox has levied against Calvinism rings hollow and untrue. The reason the plans of God can be viewed as a universal scope is because NOTHING stops Him from saving anybody. If you're elect, your salvation is guaranteed. Election is the call to joy of the Christian, for they cannot even escape God themselves, regardless of their prodigousness or sinfulness. That is the doctrine of election. There are none too far to be effectually called to Christ.
If election sounds spiritually racist, Cox ought to look in scripture and see it for himself. If he is a Christian, election should be nothing short of his joy. It is not pride that election should elicit from the Christian, but rather joy. The entire purpose of election is that no good work God calls us to returns void.
The alternative to election is that nobody ever gets saved, and we wallow in our sins until we die, and we die in our sins, and we are rightfully judged and condemned for our sins. That's the history of mankind without election. Do we really want Cox's non-electing God in the driver seat?
I didn't think so.
SDG
Nick
Friday, July 17, 2015
Why God Does Not Punish Believers
This fruitful discussion came up last night at our little community group and I figured I ought to complete the thoughts that were coming into my head, since I was averse to keeping people up all night with a systematic thought behind the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and how that was played out under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and the differences and similarities therein.
The thesis is this: God does not punish believers for their sins, nor has he ever punished believers for their sins, nor will he ever punish believers for their sins. God cannot do this because that sin was nailed to the cross when God took out ALL punishment for ALL the elect's sin on his own Son.
So in other words, God does not apply the retributive result of justice to the Christian, because He already punished Jesus for it. God does not punish Christians. He does not draw retribution to satisfy his wrath against the Christian by inflicting his wrath upon the Christian, because Jesus took that wrath for himself. The great exchange was when Jesus took our sinfulness and applied it to himself, and he handed us his righteousness.
Where the disconnect comes is in the word "punish", and its contrast with the word "discipline". Some definitions of "discipline" use the word "punish", but if we are looking at the real roots of the word, we find that discipline and punishment need not be the same thing, and I believe there to be a real distinction when we are referring to God's punishment (His visiting of his wrath upon the unrighteous) and God's discipline (His visiting of his corrective grace upon the elect).
Of course, the biggest spat of the night was the following distinction I made (which was not agreed with) about the substance and nature of the Old and New Covenants. I asserted (and still do) that David's sin with Bathsheba, the resulting death of his son, and the resulting blasphemy against God's law by the people of Israel as they witnessed their wayward king; all of these were covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. The New Covenant was not inaugurated but its effects were most certainly retroactive. The same faith that saved David is the same faith that the believer has. The difference is, David's faith was in the promise of the seed of the woman and the Christian's faith is in the actual seed of the woman. The New Covenant is better than the Old for many reasons, and this is one of the big ones. We no longer see the shadow of Christ in the sacrificial systems of the Old Covenant. We see Christ through the Spirit because He has atoned for all sin for all time for all of His elect. And when Hebrew asserts that the patriarchs of the faith were commended due to their faith, we have to ask what sort of faith they had and what the object of the faith was.
The Old Covenant believers had real saving faith in the promise of the New Covenant. That faith was not provided for by the sacrificial system. Rather, the sacrificial system was used to clean the Old covenant believer of their sins. Its use was manifold in keeping God's people preserved in the covenant of works. The law acted as a guardian (Galatians 3:23-29), a schoolmaster, but faith in the law was not the means by which God's people were preserved. Rather, faith in the promise of the New Covenant is how God preserved his people.
Now we know that the New Covenant is better than the old, and I think a lot of this has to do with seeing the shadow of Christ (forthcoming, revealed but not inaugurated in the Old Covenant), and partaking in the substance of Christ (now revealed, inaugurated, delivered as promised in the New Covenant).
My point: The Old Covenant believers had the same faith while under the Old Covenant that New Covenant believes have under the New Covenant. Were there differences? Absolutely. But God took it upon himself to take up the wrath against all believers for all time. Look at the inheritance that the Gentiles have in the epistle to the Hebrews, the perfection of God's sacrifice for ALL believers in Hebrews 10, the commendation of faith (the same commendation the Christian receives) in Hebrews 11. All of which was made possible by the revelation of the New Covenant in Genesis 3:16, and God's reconfirmation of that promise through the Old Covenant with Abraham, and the rest of the patriarchs. Thus the shadowy object of their faith was inaugurated as the full substance of the Christian's faith.
For this reason, I have strong reason to believe that God has never punished believers for their sins and blasphemies, in the Old Covenant, and in the New Covenant. The same unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is that which God ultimately punishes all unrepentant believers for. But for the elect church, for all time, believers in the NT and the OT, God's punishment was meted out on himself, mirroring the promise he made with Abraham, taking the responsibility of the covenant upon himself in Genesis 15:17. He swore on himself because there was no greater one in Hebrews 6:13.
God promises to discipline His beloved, and promises to not punish them. And justice is preserved because Jesus took that sin upon himself, past. present, and future, and paid the penalty, and He was punished for our sins and blasphemies. He took our rags and gave us riches. It is consequently unjust for God to punish a believer when that punishment was already given to Christ, who died and rose again. It is consequently only just for God to discipline his beloved (Hebrews 12). It is consequently just for God to punish the unrepentant rebellious sinner. As God's wrath was satisfied by Jesus' death, and we are clothed in Jesus' righteousness, it is impossible for God to strike the Christian in wrath, for He would be striking himself, and that was already finished at Calgary.
SDG
Nick
The thesis is this: God does not punish believers for their sins, nor has he ever punished believers for their sins, nor will he ever punish believers for their sins. God cannot do this because that sin was nailed to the cross when God took out ALL punishment for ALL the elect's sin on his own Son.
So in other words, God does not apply the retributive result of justice to the Christian, because He already punished Jesus for it. God does not punish Christians. He does not draw retribution to satisfy his wrath against the Christian by inflicting his wrath upon the Christian, because Jesus took that wrath for himself. The great exchange was when Jesus took our sinfulness and applied it to himself, and he handed us his righteousness.
Where the disconnect comes is in the word "punish", and its contrast with the word "discipline". Some definitions of "discipline" use the word "punish", but if we are looking at the real roots of the word, we find that discipline and punishment need not be the same thing, and I believe there to be a real distinction when we are referring to God's punishment (His visiting of his wrath upon the unrighteous) and God's discipline (His visiting of his corrective grace upon the elect).
Of course, the biggest spat of the night was the following distinction I made (which was not agreed with) about the substance and nature of the Old and New Covenants. I asserted (and still do) that David's sin with Bathsheba, the resulting death of his son, and the resulting blasphemy against God's law by the people of Israel as they witnessed their wayward king; all of these were covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. The New Covenant was not inaugurated but its effects were most certainly retroactive. The same faith that saved David is the same faith that the believer has. The difference is, David's faith was in the promise of the seed of the woman and the Christian's faith is in the actual seed of the woman. The New Covenant is better than the Old for many reasons, and this is one of the big ones. We no longer see the shadow of Christ in the sacrificial systems of the Old Covenant. We see Christ through the Spirit because He has atoned for all sin for all time for all of His elect. And when Hebrew asserts that the patriarchs of the faith were commended due to their faith, we have to ask what sort of faith they had and what the object of the faith was.
The Old Covenant believers had real saving faith in the promise of the New Covenant. That faith was not provided for by the sacrificial system. Rather, the sacrificial system was used to clean the Old covenant believer of their sins. Its use was manifold in keeping God's people preserved in the covenant of works. The law acted as a guardian (Galatians 3:23-29), a schoolmaster, but faith in the law was not the means by which God's people were preserved. Rather, faith in the promise of the New Covenant is how God preserved his people.
Now we know that the New Covenant is better than the old, and I think a lot of this has to do with seeing the shadow of Christ (forthcoming, revealed but not inaugurated in the Old Covenant), and partaking in the substance of Christ (now revealed, inaugurated, delivered as promised in the New Covenant).
My point: The Old Covenant believers had the same faith while under the Old Covenant that New Covenant believes have under the New Covenant. Were there differences? Absolutely. But God took it upon himself to take up the wrath against all believers for all time. Look at the inheritance that the Gentiles have in the epistle to the Hebrews, the perfection of God's sacrifice for ALL believers in Hebrews 10, the commendation of faith (the same commendation the Christian receives) in Hebrews 11. All of which was made possible by the revelation of the New Covenant in Genesis 3:16, and God's reconfirmation of that promise through the Old Covenant with Abraham, and the rest of the patriarchs. Thus the shadowy object of their faith was inaugurated as the full substance of the Christian's faith.
For this reason, I have strong reason to believe that God has never punished believers for their sins and blasphemies, in the Old Covenant, and in the New Covenant. The same unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is that which God ultimately punishes all unrepentant believers for. But for the elect church, for all time, believers in the NT and the OT, God's punishment was meted out on himself, mirroring the promise he made with Abraham, taking the responsibility of the covenant upon himself in Genesis 15:17. He swore on himself because there was no greater one in Hebrews 6:13.
God promises to discipline His beloved, and promises to not punish them. And justice is preserved because Jesus took that sin upon himself, past. present, and future, and paid the penalty, and He was punished for our sins and blasphemies. He took our rags and gave us riches. It is consequently unjust for God to punish a believer when that punishment was already given to Christ, who died and rose again. It is consequently only just for God to discipline his beloved (Hebrews 12). It is consequently just for God to punish the unrepentant rebellious sinner. As God's wrath was satisfied by Jesus' death, and we are clothed in Jesus' righteousness, it is impossible for God to strike the Christian in wrath, for He would be striking himself, and that was already finished at Calgary.
SDG
Nick
Friday, June 5, 2015
Goodreads Review: The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis
Occasionally, I read a book. Less frequently, I write a review about the book because it was polarizing. Nobody needs a reason to give Harry Potter books five stars. It is obvious why.
On the other hand, sometimes I feel the need to explain myself when I only partially advocate a book, especially one written by Charles Staples. I admit I'm not a huge C.S. Lewis fan, but reading his stuff is still a good look at someone else's opinion. That is to say, the YFR Calvinist in me would like to butt his head against all things he sees as theological error. Hence, my copy of the book is littered with underlined sentences and phrases and notes on the margins of certain pages with certain errors I found untenable. The fact that I kept on reading should indicate that in this case, mine and Lewis's disagreement was philosophical and not theological. Yes, his mind was wracked with inconsistency when he wrote this book, and I wrote a note about how he apparently hated Total Depravity yet upheld its distinctions. Thus Douglas Wilson may call him a Calvinist of sorts. I can rejoice in Lewis's inconsistency because it is that inconsistency that made the book more palatable. Let's not call it "total depravity" if you want to get stuck in the etymology and the details. He still asserts the doctrine, but refuses to name it and explains it in different terms.
A lot of good, and some sifting of the bad to make when you read this book.
Anyway, here's the review:
__
Reading this book is frustrating. Lewis shows a great contempt for his caricaturized form of Total Depravity and has a fitting description of his objections to it: If it were true that we are totally depraved, we would have no reason to trust that we could ever be totally deprived. Maybe he would be correct if scripture taught "utter depravity", the distinction being that total depravity gives the possibility that all men are capable of more evil than they have expressed at any moment. Utter depravity would say that all men do all evil all the time, which we know not to be true. A tyrant can love his mother and at the same time be totally depraved because he doesn't not love his mother fully in the way God has intended. We could also say this is "no real love at all", because the sum of that love is so small compared to the commandment that requires it. Lewis sets up his straw men to burn them when he refutes total depravity. His disagreement is philosophical and not theological, so he misses the mark.
All that being said, Lewis has done some measure of justice to describing some of the effects of the human fall, suffering and pain included.
Interesting is his commitment to the idea of free will. But even libertarian free will is subjected to the effects of sin and is made a slave. Yes, we have wills. And we have free choices, but the freedom of those choices depend on that to which it is bound. Lewis presupposes a libertarian free will but that is inconsistent with scripture. A libertarian will is free to choices of its nature. Lewis appears to forget this when he talks all about free will, mistaking wills which proceed from essence to wills which proceed from existence. The essence of will is the nature which gives it rise. Hence, sin nature gives us sinful wills. We need to be new men because apart from being given a new nature which seeks to love God, we do choose to love the self. Lewis can't account for that with his view of free will.
Also problematic is his conception of hell. While clever, the idea that Hell is simply giving a man what he wants is not supported by scripture. Men are thrown into hell because they do not want to be there. They desire their sins, but not so the consequences.
His chapter on animals is a bit bewildering but holds some nuggets of truth within. All creation was created to glorify God, and all nature reflects some facet of God's nature, hence the prospect of Lionhood being maintained and glorified in a new heaven and earth seems applicable and likely.
All in all, a solid read for fans of Lewis. I do wish he had stuck to the accidental allegories of Narnia rather than delving into theological thought, as now his cognitive dissonance shows when he speaks of men being used by God to glorify him, even in their evils. But in Narnia, worship to Tash in the style of Aslan means their goods to Tash could not be received by Tash. Lewis breaks his own rules but I think this book shows that it is sometimes for the better.
Nick
Monday, May 18, 2015
Music Recommendation: And So I Watch You From Afar: Heirs
An adrenaline rush that wakes you up in a cold sweat at two in the morning.
You wake up on your starship staring at the asteroid fields
and pockets of ice crystals floating about you in oblivion.
Your ideas about what constitutes tonal beauty are
challenged when you're trying to keep your mouth above the tidal wave of bass
and gain which is stifling the ability to breathe and think lucidly.
Voices? Are those real words? Your brain tries to comprehend
the vocalizations until you realize that ignoring your preconceptions of
language is the only road to comprehension.
Your watering eyes blink and you wipe the salt off your
forehead trying to see into the mist. The burning comes from the sadness or
maybe the trauma of joy crashing against your stone tower of musical
presuppositions.
Is this the future? Or is this the decade on repeat? Holding
hands with strangers you know better than the hands you’re hold theirs with.
That’s a bit of the tumult that Heirs offers its listeners. It’s comfortable but it isn’t familiar.
It’s your average raucous post/math rock album but it also has dignity. The
band is clearly comfortable with displaying their emotions and they are also at
home using their mouths to speak musical notes rather than words if that’s what
it takes to get the point across. You’ll want to sing along, but there aren’t
words. It’s your favorite song that prompts you to mouth the non-sense words,
but you’re underwater, fighting to hold your breath.
At once, ASIWYFA channels post-hardcore’s destructive bass
tones, Tera-Melos’ atonality (7/4 vocal-earthquake These Secret Kings I Know),
Animals As Leaders’ progressive proclivities (People Not Sleeping, second half),
and Adebesi Shank’s floor pounding stomp-riff-ic madness (F*cking Lifer).
Somehow they trimmed the fat off of their experience with All Hail Bright Futures, which by all means is a great album but
had a lot of weird hiccups. Those songs weren’t forgettable but there were some
uncomfortable filler songs. And the effort was made a bit worse by the lack of
meaning in real words. Heirs is the
antithesis: fullness of meaning within the lack of words.
Heirs is less
dauntingly weird, and takes some undue challenge out of listening to it by blending
the incoherence of math-rock with the atmospheric beauty of post-rock and the space-exploration
of progressive rock. It’s the guilty pleasure of accessibility without all the alienation of a sell-out.
Highly recommended.
Monday, May 4, 2015
The vanity within long flights
The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in
Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is
vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? A
generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. The sun
rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. The wind
blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the
wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. All streams run to the sea, but the
sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again.
All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not
satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what
will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new
under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has
been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who
come after. (Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 ESV)
And thus begins the overwhelming feeling of vanity come
36,000 feet above the earth. I'm listening to music with earbuds to forget the
crying baby and young child in the seats behind me. I'm trying to ignore the
slight turbulence when it came at the beginning of the flight. I'm sitting in
cramped space. The week was too short but the days were too long. Dorena
(another no-name post rock band from Europe) is serenading my ears and my
nerves.
Megan is doing the crossword puzzle and forgetting that
nothing else exists in the space of the three hour flight. My neck is stiff. I
wish I had the patience to crossword puzzles. Another small window into her
world.
And I want to sleep and take advantage of the two hours I've
gained back with the vain time zone adjustments.
Vanity vanity vanity. And only in Christ can I really enjoy
it.
Nick.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Lent and Facebook: the aftermath.
Things I don't miss about Facebook.
Being told about the latest food industry travesty.
Being told what I shouldn't eat.
Being told what I should eat.
Feeling like blogging about Facebook. Or some current event issue on Facebook. Promoting my blog on Facebook knowing it probably won't get read anyways.
Logical fallacies and one-sided blaring of opinions in fruitless online arguments.
The need to check it every fifteen minutes.
Non-stories about how one feels about other people.
Stupid opinions.
Strongly worded stupid opinions.
My need to share my opinions.
My need to share my strongly worded stupid opinions.
Bands asking to follow other bands.
Bands asking to follow record labels.
The rumbling feeling that my distant relatives are watching my every status update.
Getting a message from my grandparents about posting something on Facebook.
Deleting posts and comments from Facebook.
The blatant blaring of bad theology.
The time it takes away from intellectual capacity to hear my wife's voice.
Stories about the latest awesome thing Pope Francis did and how much we should love him for it.
Stories about the latest terrible thing Barack Obama did and how much we should hate him for it.
Finding excuses to dislike people more than I ought to love them.
Establishing my opinion about people based on what they do and share on Facebook.
The awkward and superficial connections that I try to legitimize with people I should really let go of.
The awkward and superficial connections that I refuse to progress with people in real life because of time spent otherwise on Facebook.
The social abandonment felt when leaving Facebook. For no good reason.
My idea that Facebook is the only way to keep connected with the people who really matter.
My need to feel clever and validated by the amount of likes I receive on status updates and comments.
Militant slacktivist feminism.
Militant slacktivist conservativism.
Militant slacktivist liberalism.
Militant and crappy theology.
The shadow of myself in the social sphere.
Feeling known by people who certainly do not know me.
Friend requests from people who certainly do not know me anymore.
Superficial friendships and the illusion of being known.
Things I miss about Facebook
The reformed pub.
Pictures of my wife when we are not in the same place.
Album releases
Tour announcements.
Seeing what's up with my relatives and people that I really ought to know.
Nick
Being told about the latest food industry travesty.
Being told what I shouldn't eat.
Being told what I should eat.
Feeling like blogging about Facebook. Or some current event issue on Facebook. Promoting my blog on Facebook knowing it probably won't get read anyways.
Logical fallacies and one-sided blaring of opinions in fruitless online arguments.
The need to check it every fifteen minutes.
Non-stories about how one feels about other people.
Stupid opinions.
Strongly worded stupid opinions.
My need to share my opinions.
My need to share my strongly worded stupid opinions.
Bands asking to follow other bands.
Bands asking to follow record labels.
The rumbling feeling that my distant relatives are watching my every status update.
Getting a message from my grandparents about posting something on Facebook.
Deleting posts and comments from Facebook.
The blatant blaring of bad theology.
The time it takes away from intellectual capacity to hear my wife's voice.
Stories about the latest awesome thing Pope Francis did and how much we should love him for it.
Stories about the latest terrible thing Barack Obama did and how much we should hate him for it.
Finding excuses to dislike people more than I ought to love them.
Establishing my opinion about people based on what they do and share on Facebook.
The awkward and superficial connections that I try to legitimize with people I should really let go of.
The awkward and superficial connections that I refuse to progress with people in real life because of time spent otherwise on Facebook.
The social abandonment felt when leaving Facebook. For no good reason.
My idea that Facebook is the only way to keep connected with the people who really matter.
My need to feel clever and validated by the amount of likes I receive on status updates and comments.
Militant slacktivist feminism.
Militant slacktivist conservativism.
Militant slacktivist liberalism.
Militant and crappy theology.
The shadow of myself in the social sphere.
Feeling known by people who certainly do not know me.
Friend requests from people who certainly do not know me anymore.
Superficial friendships and the illusion of being known.
Things I miss about Facebook
The reformed pub.
Pictures of my wife when we are not in the same place.
Album releases
Tour announcements.
Seeing what's up with my relatives and people that I really ought to know.
Nick
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Music Recommendation: Pacific Gold
Here's another band I rarely have time to listen to lately but wish I could forever. Here's their first EP, "The River". Everything else is good but this one might be my favorite folked-up hymnal EP.
Alas and did my Saviour bleed, and did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head for sinners such as I?
Was it for sins that I have done He suffered on the tree?
Amazing pity, Grace unknown, and Love beyond degree!
Well might the sun in darkness hide and shut His glory in
When Christ the great Redeemer died for man, the creature's, sin.
Thus might I hide my blushing face while His dear cross appears,
Dissolve my heart in thankfulness, and melt my eyes to tears!
Alas and did my Saviour bleed, and did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head for sinners such as I?
Was it for sins that I have done He suffered on the tree?
Amazing pity, Grace unknown, and Love beyond degree!
Well might the sun in darkness hide and shut His glory in
When Christ the great Redeemer died for man, the creature's, sin.
Thus might I hide my blushing face while His dear cross appears,
Dissolve my heart in thankfulness, and melt my eyes to tears!
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Music Recommendation: Lent
Here's a good album that I listen to all the time, but since Lent began have not listened to 'til just now. Ironical. I have lent brain and have neglected social media for the last month. And it turns out that I love people a lot more than being clever when I no longer am given the ammunition to attempt clever responses and snark. I may ditch Facebook forever. But I do miss hanging out in the Reformed Pub, the only place on Facebook that I have found that has time and time again encouraged me even through the debates. And the reformed folk are indeed a debatey bunch.
Anyways, enjoy this music I enjoy. Or else.
Anyways, enjoy this music I enjoy. Or else.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
More on Reading Chesterton
I'm not a Roman Catholic (nor do I ever imagine becoming one). Regardless, I think this quote holds much savor and hope for Protestants if only we replace the words "the Mass" with "The Church", and I do mean that in the universal congregation of all believers in Christ Jesus everywhere, perhaps to the chagrin of Our Darling Papist Chesterton.
After all, it is perhaps no matter of surprise that Bishop Barnes of Birmingham should see a link between the Magician and the Mass. There is a sort of logical link between them; the logical link that connects Yes and No. In other words, they are exact contraries; like light and darkness, which are often classed together because they are often mentioned at once. They cross each other with the complete collision and contradiction that belongs to "The Two Magics." The Magician is the Man when he seeks to become a God, and, being a usurper, can hardly fail to be a tyrant. Not being the maker, but only the distorter, he twists all things out of their intended shape, and imprisons natural things in unnatural forms. But the Mass is exactly the opposite of a Man seeking to be a God. It is a God seeking to be a Man; it is God giving His creative life to mankind as such, and restoring the original pattern of their manhood; making not gods, nor beasts, nor angels, but, by the original blast and miracle that makes all things new, turning men into men.
SDG
Nick
After all, it is perhaps no matter of surprise that Bishop Barnes of Birmingham should see a link between the Magician and the Mass. There is a sort of logical link between them; the logical link that connects Yes and No. In other words, they are exact contraries; like light and darkness, which are often classed together because they are often mentioned at once. They cross each other with the complete collision and contradiction that belongs to "The Two Magics." The Magician is the Man when he seeks to become a God, and, being a usurper, can hardly fail to be a tyrant. Not being the maker, but only the distorter, he twists all things out of their intended shape, and imprisons natural things in unnatural forms. But the Mass is exactly the opposite of a Man seeking to be a God. It is a God seeking to be a Man; it is God giving His creative life to mankind as such, and restoring the original pattern of their manhood; making not gods, nor beasts, nor angels, but, by the original blast and miracle that makes all things new, turning men into men.
SDG
Nick
Monday, February 9, 2015
The better wine of the new covenant
This past Sunday my pastor Erik preached on wine. We're currently going through an expositional study of John's gospel. The text was John 2:1-11
The Wedding at Cana On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. (John 2:1-11 ESV)
While Erik spoke a small amount about the wine being actual wine (to the dismay of our prohibitionist brethren, his main focus was the purpose of the miracle: why Jesus chose to make wine as the first miracle. I won't recount the entire sermon but one of Erik's main points made me thirsty for red drink. Indeed after church Megan and I made our way to BevMo and picked up a delicious Pinot Noir and partook of it during a match of SkipBo and dinner.
Jesus' wine was a sign of the inauguration of the new covenant.
Jesus made wine out of the water from the jars "there for the Jewish rites of purification". This is but the shadow of the reality: Jesus took the old covenant of "rites of purification" and made it into wine, but not just any wine. Jesus made "good wine" which was "kept until now". The good wine (the old covenant) was a shadow of the better wine (the new covenant). There should be no mistaking it: the good wine was served already, and Jesus made better wine and served it afterward. This is the shadow of the substance of Christ made into the full substance of Christ.
Jesus' wine is the best wine because Jesus is the best vineyard and the best winemaker.
Jesus' creation of wine may be unprecedented even here in wine-happy California. We are told that Jesus made good wine. The master of the feast recognizes Jesus' craftmanship when he is served the wine, remarking that the good wine was "kept... until now". Jesus loves good wine. Why? Because --stay with me here -- Jesus is the essence of good wine. Jesus makes the best wine.
Wine, like food and all other drink and all other pleasures, is the shadow of true pleasure and fulfillment in Christ. So when I drink wine, it is best consumed when I pray thus: "This wine is but a shadow of the fulfillment I already have in Christ". We commemorate this and continually do so in the ordinance of communion. Our grape juice (or wine for all you lovely RPW folks) and bread is, like baptism, a symbol of continuing communion with Christ. Metaphorically we renew the covenant with Christ as we partake.
In our homes, it is good to remember this as we drink good wine. The wine is good because God is good, because Jesus is good.
Jesus cares about wine and makes good wine because He is the unlimited source of good wine.
Jesus made roughly 150 gallons of wine. That's about 608 750ml bottles of the best wine this earth has ever seen. While the limitation of the jars necessitated a physical absolute on the volume of wine, the truth was this: Jesus filled the jars with wine to last the entirety of the wedding at Cana. Jesus was essentially the source of that wine, and he provided an effectively unlimited amount of wine for the wedding.
Jesus made good wine that people may drink and their hearts be gladdened, and that they may be satisfied in his provision. Good wine is good because God is good and Jesus is the essence and source of good wine.
While we may rejoice at the fountains of earthly wine unending, this wine will never satisfy, nor is it truly unending. The true satisfaction in wine is found in Christ Jesus, and he is the unlimited fountain of life and pleasure everlasting. The new covenant is better than the old, and thus new wine is better than old wine. Good wine matters because Jesus is good and Jesus matters.
SDG
Nick
The Wedding at Cana On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him. (John 2:1-11 ESV)
 |
| So delicious, and 2 for $30 at BevMo right now. Full flavor and the beautiful bottle. |
Jesus' wine was a sign of the inauguration of the new covenant.
Jesus made wine out of the water from the jars "there for the Jewish rites of purification". This is but the shadow of the reality: Jesus took the old covenant of "rites of purification" and made it into wine, but not just any wine. Jesus made "good wine" which was "kept until now". The good wine (the old covenant) was a shadow of the better wine (the new covenant). There should be no mistaking it: the good wine was served already, and Jesus made better wine and served it afterward. This is the shadow of the substance of Christ made into the full substance of Christ.
Jesus' wine is the best wine because Jesus is the best vineyard and the best winemaker.
Jesus' creation of wine may be unprecedented even here in wine-happy California. We are told that Jesus made good wine. The master of the feast recognizes Jesus' craftmanship when he is served the wine, remarking that the good wine was "kept... until now". Jesus loves good wine. Why? Because --stay with me here -- Jesus is the essence of good wine. Jesus makes the best wine.
Wine, like food and all other drink and all other pleasures, is the shadow of true pleasure and fulfillment in Christ. So when I drink wine, it is best consumed when I pray thus: "This wine is but a shadow of the fulfillment I already have in Christ". We commemorate this and continually do so in the ordinance of communion. Our grape juice (or wine for all you lovely RPW folks) and bread is, like baptism, a symbol of continuing communion with Christ. Metaphorically we renew the covenant with Christ as we partake.
In our homes, it is good to remember this as we drink good wine. The wine is good because God is good, because Jesus is good.
Jesus cares about wine and makes good wine because He is the unlimited source of good wine.
Jesus made roughly 150 gallons of wine. That's about 608 750ml bottles of the best wine this earth has ever seen. While the limitation of the jars necessitated a physical absolute on the volume of wine, the truth was this: Jesus filled the jars with wine to last the entirety of the wedding at Cana. Jesus was essentially the source of that wine, and he provided an effectively unlimited amount of wine for the wedding.
Jesus made good wine that people may drink and their hearts be gladdened, and that they may be satisfied in his provision. Good wine is good because God is good and Jesus is the essence and source of good wine.
While we may rejoice at the fountains of earthly wine unending, this wine will never satisfy, nor is it truly unending. The true satisfaction in wine is found in Christ Jesus, and he is the unlimited fountain of life and pleasure everlasting. The new covenant is better than the old, and thus new wine is better than old wine. Good wine matters because Jesus is good and Jesus matters.
SDG
Nick
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Sunday, January 25, 2015
What I'm reading January 2015
The Lord of The Rings - J.R.R. Tolkien
The New Testament Deacon - Alexander Strauch
In Defense of Sanity - G.K. Chesterton
The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology - Pascal Denault
If LOTR wasn't such an ocean of fiction and mythos I may eventually start reading Harry Potter. 
Sunday, January 18, 2015
About Matt Walsh
DISCLAIMER: This is in no way directed toward any friends or family who I've seen post a plethora of Matt Walsh materials. This is not meant to offend as much as it is to inform those who I share a lot of common ground with, being conservatively-minded with economical and social issues, and the truth-bearing moral outrage behind certain social issues such as abortion and the rescinding of the traditional family and its values.
___
Anybody with an outspoken, socially-inclined, conservative friend has probably seen at least an inkling of the words of the blog of one man Matt Walsh. Matt Walsh is the conservative version of today's modern millennial, with the sort of qualities that the young, brash, quick-witted, and expressive conservatives have attached themselves to: scathing sarcasm and humor, an eye for liberal fallacies, strong -footed, -armed, and -headed stances on certain very important social, philosophical, economical and moral issues; and perhaps the grassroots-tinged air of the tea-party's young, restless, and conservative crowd. His blog is self-christened as "Absolute Truths (and alpaca grooming tips)". He knows his audience as much as his audience knows him.
I like some of Matt Walsh. Perhaps it's easier to say that I like Matt Walsh despite Matt Walsh. He's like Ann Coulter but more idealistic, like Fox News but more staunch and level-headed. He seems to believe in an absolute standard for morality. He has the eyes and ears and potential thoughts of many younger people in this country and thus has the pulpit of conservativism before him with many in his congregation.
I have issues with a lot of Matt Walsh though, the sort of issues that motivate and invoke a blog post that you have now wasted a couple minutes reading. And I do have issues with the apparent mentality of those who would devotedly share his material on social media, only to be reprised with an onslaught of complaints by their more liberal-leaning or disagreeable acquaintances. Perhaps a large part of the problem is that the average person in America with an opinion about anything believes that a peer's disagreement need necessarily equate to opposition to that person's thoughts and values. Matt Walsh readers and sharers have the same proclivity and are not immune but perhaps bolstered by this almost-victim mentality.
I'm going to raise up some issues that I have with Matt Walsh. I'm going to be loud and clear about them and try to provide the clarity necessary for one to understand what my issues are with Matt Walsh, and why I think that despite some of his most strongly-worded articles, he's part of a problem that he is ultimately unwilling or unwitting to fix.
Just so there is no question: I am a Protestant Christian with postmillennial-leaning theonomic eschatology who is declared under the anathema of the Roman Catholic Church, the same church that many Protestant Americans have been anathematized by, the same church that Matt Walsh belongs to and attends Mass with every Saturday (assuming he is keeping up with his religion). Despite this, I hold no ill will towards Roman Catholicism, but do believe the RCC to be under the anathema of scripture based on their extra-biblical additions to the doctrines of holy scripture and practice of sola ecclesia. I don't know if Matt Walsh is a theologian and he may or may have not done his homework. I don't know if he is ignoring the council of Trent when he refers to the American church at large with the term "Christians" or if he is saying this in full knowledge that the "Christians" in question are illegitimate according to his church's official stance on protestants and the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.
Like Matt Walsh, I hold deeply the sanctity of human life, the objective and immeasurable value of all human beings, I mostly prefer a conservative approach to the many social, economic, and political problems the American populace face today, and I resound with an ironic amen when he says that the Osteens are heretics. Matt Walsh is infinitely preferable to Ann Coulter and the hundreds of other conservative soothsayers that the mainstream right in America have aligned themselves with. That being said, I'd prefer no Matt Walsh to some Matt Walsh.
Here is why.
1. Matt Walsh's written logic is atrocious. When I say atrocious, I mean this: circular, fallaciously reasoned, and ignorant of raw information and data.
On his very provocatively-titled article "Black Lives Matter, So It's Time To Outlaw Abortion", He opens up with a sarcastic quip about the "alleged war being carried out against black people." Now, I'm no expert but I do know a presupposition when I see one. Matt Walsh's first instinct when facing an issue with conservatives is to oppose the liberal side, rather than to take a look at the objective facts and information.
His words are manipulative. "There are tragic accidents, mistakes, and misunderstandings -- like the poor young boy who was shot after brandishing a realistic toy gun on the playground a few weeks ago". I call BS on this wording because he does exactly what the liberal media accuses conservative media of doing. The toy gun was not realistic. Let's get over it. We have an issue with certain police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, but that's not as important to him as making a point about tragedies like this being the "exception to the rule".
His tirades against particular social issues usually come down to him presenting his reason that his opinion is better than yours, never presenting the juxtaposition with an "Absolute Truth". His attempts to make a person change their minds is to perform ad hominem and make them feel stupid. He will never truly perform ad absurdum because proving the absurdity of an issue requires an objective standard, not merely a reasonable conclusion, but he never provides an objective standard. Ultimately, Matt Walsh's ability to prove you wrong comes down to whether or not you will use the same standard he does; but he offers no reason why you should trust his standard.
2. Matt Walsh is intellectually dishonest.
Matt Walsh wants you to listen to him because he believes that he is correct. But he never provides a reason for this. Like most modern politically-conservative Christians (I venture to call him one because he appeals to Catholics and Protestants), he's content to take the standard conventions rather than stand on the objective Word of God. He believes that the war against a secularized nation takes using secularist logic. He calls himself a Christian when it is convenient to do so, and he refers to other Christians when it is convenient to do so, but he doesn't seem to apply the full counsel of scripture to the issues which he labors to write about.
It is dishonest.
It's dishonest because in the end, his view of the world is as relativistic as the liberal view is. Because he doesn't really want God in the picture, he believes he can divorce God from the social and economic conundrums we find ourselves in. It's just not possible. You can have one standard, not two. You can use the objective word of God and draw out the basis of civil law and what is good and moral and right and true, or you can use the subjective word of Modernism and draw out what common decency (which is neither common nor truly "decent") means to the average American today. You can't take both roads. You can't stand on two horses taking opposing tracks. They will meet once and then your legs will break as you attempt to stand on both until you're forced to take either the secular horse or the Christian horse. It's just that simple. Theonomy or autonomy.
Matt Walsh's appeal to the modern secularist conservative (that type of Christian who believes in Jesus Christ but also believes that you should only be a Republican in order to prove your faith -- Read: The ones who voted for Mitt Romney because somehow an apostate heretical church member seems better than the faithful member of a true Christian church) is his relative religious neutrality. But it is something that does not exist because it simply cannot. When Matt Walsh makes claims based on the grounds of common decency and not on the Word of God, he is standing on sinking sand.
Therefore,
3. Matt Walsh does not change anybody's mind.
He doesn't. He doesn't supply a reason for why you should believe him. The only reason you agree with him is because his conclusions are the same as yours; only his grounds are likely shakier than what you stand on, and thus when you share an article of his, you are likely to piss off your friends who can't handle his conclusions; and then your friends are likely to ignore the reasons for which you may supply your presuppositions about important issues, like abortion and black lives mattering.
He doesn't say anything a reasonable person wouldn't have already said.
He doesn't give reasons to believe what he says.
Let's take the ironic example: "Joel Osteen and his wife are heretics and that's why America loves them". I say ironic not because Matt Walsh is a heretic (he might be), but because the Roman Catholic church is scripturally apostate. There's no getting around this issue. Neither does Matt Walsh seem to get around the actual issue of the Osteen heresy (and I agree with him). Ultimately though, what I see is one member of an apostate church calling the pastors of an apostate church heretics. The people who believe that the Osteens are heretics are those who thought they were heretics before reading the article, and will continue to believe the Osteens are heretics after reading the article. Matt Walsh makes a reference to some of the scripture but never gets down into the interpretation of it. In other words, he's preaching to the choir (so to speak). Sharing this article will convince no-one that the Osteens are obvious wolves like any other prosperity teacher. It will make the sharer look like a hyper-critical jerk. Walsh believes what he thinks is true but never actually explains this presupposition. He never dissects it. And that is why he is so easily ignored.
My issues with Matt Walsh are not just logical, but theological. And my beef is less with Walsh as it is with his purported followers on facebook and twitter. His self-proclaimed Protestant followers. The people who have the greatest opportunity to present a rational and reasoned explanation backed by the objective basis of the Word of God (we call that Sola Scriptura) are letting a Catholic do their work for them, and he's not doing it well at all.
Matt Walsh is an unwitting wolf. Proverbially, he's a terrible mathematician who can do some good with addition, but cannot explain to you why the plus sign must be different from the negative sign, and conservatives are trusting him to "say it like it is". I say it like this because he comes to some right conclusions, in some terribly wrong or fallacious ways. The average millennial is seeking not just the answers but why they should believe the answers. When the average conservative shares his article, even if Matt Walsh's conclusions are correct, his logic is wrong, so the average liberal reader will immediately reject his claims.
4. Matt Walsh is unkind.
That's it. I don't mean "Matt Walsh is offensive", because of course he is offensive. It's his job. Offense is not a measure of the kindness or unkindness of a person. Rather, the kindness of a person will determine the purpose of the offense. Matt Walsh is very good at using bible verses when it is convenient, but seems to ignore all that stuff about the waywardness of the tongue in James' epistle.
Matt Walsh loves to offend people. His " the Osteens are heretics, and that's why America loves them" rings nothing but offensive. He's not rebuking the Osteens, he's attacking very mislead sheep.
When he is responded to with sarcastic attacks by liberal bloggers and readers, his response is to punch back harder, insult smarter. Matt Walsh seems very interested in protecting his intelligence, the intelligence of his readers, and the intelligence of his premises. He also seems very interested in attacking the intelligence of those who don't agree. Matt Walsh believes that his opponents are stupid and speaks of them accordingly.
Matt Walsh is a jerk. And because he is a jerk, he is unpalatable to the average liberal reader. This by no means absolves the liberal reader of their liberality, their modernism, their relativism, their belief in irresponsible self-determination. But Matt Walsh has no reason for taking offense at people who are responding to him in kind. He's a wordsmith and witty bully. But he's a bully.
Matt Walsh is a statist-leaning neocon just like most of the others out there. He's trying to attack liberal logic but he can't play the liberal game as well as a liberal can. He encourages more fear-mongering and social inconsistency. He is winning at the conservative propaganda game. He's part of the problem and not the solution.
Matt Walsh needs to convert to Protestantism and then use the standard of the Bible if he really wants to have any good meaningful impact on his readers. As long as the ground that he stands on is relativistic (and don't be fooled: it is), he will continue to lose the same culture war that Christians have been losing since we conceded the bible as the standard of truth for America. You can't beat something with nothing. You can't tell a person their sand isn't as good to stand on as your sand is. You need a solid rock and Matt Walsh hasn't started standing on Him yet, when it comes to his blog.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Nick
___
Anybody with an outspoken, socially-inclined, conservative friend has probably seen at least an inkling of the words of the blog of one man Matt Walsh. Matt Walsh is the conservative version of today's modern millennial, with the sort of qualities that the young, brash, quick-witted, and expressive conservatives have attached themselves to: scathing sarcasm and humor, an eye for liberal fallacies, strong -footed, -armed, and -headed stances on certain very important social, philosophical, economical and moral issues; and perhaps the grassroots-tinged air of the tea-party's young, restless, and conservative crowd. His blog is self-christened as "Absolute Truths (and alpaca grooming tips)". He knows his audience as much as his audience knows him.
I like some of Matt Walsh. Perhaps it's easier to say that I like Matt Walsh despite Matt Walsh. He's like Ann Coulter but more idealistic, like Fox News but more staunch and level-headed. He seems to believe in an absolute standard for morality. He has the eyes and ears and potential thoughts of many younger people in this country and thus has the pulpit of conservativism before him with many in his congregation.
I have issues with a lot of Matt Walsh though, the sort of issues that motivate and invoke a blog post that you have now wasted a couple minutes reading. And I do have issues with the apparent mentality of those who would devotedly share his material on social media, only to be reprised with an onslaught of complaints by their more liberal-leaning or disagreeable acquaintances. Perhaps a large part of the problem is that the average person in America with an opinion about anything believes that a peer's disagreement need necessarily equate to opposition to that person's thoughts and values. Matt Walsh readers and sharers have the same proclivity and are not immune but perhaps bolstered by this almost-victim mentality.
I'm going to raise up some issues that I have with Matt Walsh. I'm going to be loud and clear about them and try to provide the clarity necessary for one to understand what my issues are with Matt Walsh, and why I think that despite some of his most strongly-worded articles, he's part of a problem that he is ultimately unwilling or unwitting to fix.
Just so there is no question: I am a Protestant Christian with postmillennial-leaning theonomic eschatology who is declared under the anathema of the Roman Catholic Church, the same church that many Protestant Americans have been anathematized by, the same church that Matt Walsh belongs to and attends Mass with every Saturday (assuming he is keeping up with his religion). Despite this, I hold no ill will towards Roman Catholicism, but do believe the RCC to be under the anathema of scripture based on their extra-biblical additions to the doctrines of holy scripture and practice of sola ecclesia. I don't know if Matt Walsh is a theologian and he may or may have not done his homework. I don't know if he is ignoring the council of Trent when he refers to the American church at large with the term "Christians" or if he is saying this in full knowledge that the "Christians" in question are illegitimate according to his church's official stance on protestants and the doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone.
Like Matt Walsh, I hold deeply the sanctity of human life, the objective and immeasurable value of all human beings, I mostly prefer a conservative approach to the many social, economic, and political problems the American populace face today, and I resound with an ironic amen when he says that the Osteens are heretics. Matt Walsh is infinitely preferable to Ann Coulter and the hundreds of other conservative soothsayers that the mainstream right in America have aligned themselves with. That being said, I'd prefer no Matt Walsh to some Matt Walsh.
Here is why.
1. Matt Walsh's written logic is atrocious. When I say atrocious, I mean this: circular, fallaciously reasoned, and ignorant of raw information and data.
On his very provocatively-titled article "Black Lives Matter, So It's Time To Outlaw Abortion", He opens up with a sarcastic quip about the "alleged war being carried out against black people." Now, I'm no expert but I do know a presupposition when I see one. Matt Walsh's first instinct when facing an issue with conservatives is to oppose the liberal side, rather than to take a look at the objective facts and information.
His words are manipulative. "There are tragic accidents, mistakes, and misunderstandings -- like the poor young boy who was shot after brandishing a realistic toy gun on the playground a few weeks ago". I call BS on this wording because he does exactly what the liberal media accuses conservative media of doing. The toy gun was not realistic. Let's get over it. We have an issue with certain police officers who shoot first and ask questions later, but that's not as important to him as making a point about tragedies like this being the "exception to the rule".
His tirades against particular social issues usually come down to him presenting his reason that his opinion is better than yours, never presenting the juxtaposition with an "Absolute Truth". His attempts to make a person change their minds is to perform ad hominem and make them feel stupid. He will never truly perform ad absurdum because proving the absurdity of an issue requires an objective standard, not merely a reasonable conclusion, but he never provides an objective standard. Ultimately, Matt Walsh's ability to prove you wrong comes down to whether or not you will use the same standard he does; but he offers no reason why you should trust his standard.
2. Matt Walsh is intellectually dishonest.
Matt Walsh wants you to listen to him because he believes that he is correct. But he never provides a reason for this. Like most modern politically-conservative Christians (I venture to call him one because he appeals to Catholics and Protestants), he's content to take the standard conventions rather than stand on the objective Word of God. He believes that the war against a secularized nation takes using secularist logic. He calls himself a Christian when it is convenient to do so, and he refers to other Christians when it is convenient to do so, but he doesn't seem to apply the full counsel of scripture to the issues which he labors to write about.
It is dishonest.
It's dishonest because in the end, his view of the world is as relativistic as the liberal view is. Because he doesn't really want God in the picture, he believes he can divorce God from the social and economic conundrums we find ourselves in. It's just not possible. You can have one standard, not two. You can use the objective word of God and draw out the basis of civil law and what is good and moral and right and true, or you can use the subjective word of Modernism and draw out what common decency (which is neither common nor truly "decent") means to the average American today. You can't take both roads. You can't stand on two horses taking opposing tracks. They will meet once and then your legs will break as you attempt to stand on both until you're forced to take either the secular horse or the Christian horse. It's just that simple. Theonomy or autonomy.
Matt Walsh's appeal to the modern secularist conservative (that type of Christian who believes in Jesus Christ but also believes that you should only be a Republican in order to prove your faith -- Read: The ones who voted for Mitt Romney because somehow an apostate heretical church member seems better than the faithful member of a true Christian church) is his relative religious neutrality. But it is something that does not exist because it simply cannot. When Matt Walsh makes claims based on the grounds of common decency and not on the Word of God, he is standing on sinking sand.
Therefore,
3. Matt Walsh does not change anybody's mind.
He doesn't. He doesn't supply a reason for why you should believe him. The only reason you agree with him is because his conclusions are the same as yours; only his grounds are likely shakier than what you stand on, and thus when you share an article of his, you are likely to piss off your friends who can't handle his conclusions; and then your friends are likely to ignore the reasons for which you may supply your presuppositions about important issues, like abortion and black lives mattering.
He doesn't say anything a reasonable person wouldn't have already said.
He doesn't give reasons to believe what he says.
Let's take the ironic example: "Joel Osteen and his wife are heretics and that's why America loves them". I say ironic not because Matt Walsh is a heretic (he might be), but because the Roman Catholic church is scripturally apostate. There's no getting around this issue. Neither does Matt Walsh seem to get around the actual issue of the Osteen heresy (and I agree with him). Ultimately though, what I see is one member of an apostate church calling the pastors of an apostate church heretics. The people who believe that the Osteens are heretics are those who thought they were heretics before reading the article, and will continue to believe the Osteens are heretics after reading the article. Matt Walsh makes a reference to some of the scripture but never gets down into the interpretation of it. In other words, he's preaching to the choir (so to speak). Sharing this article will convince no-one that the Osteens are obvious wolves like any other prosperity teacher. It will make the sharer look like a hyper-critical jerk. Walsh believes what he thinks is true but never actually explains this presupposition. He never dissects it. And that is why he is so easily ignored.
My issues with Matt Walsh are not just logical, but theological. And my beef is less with Walsh as it is with his purported followers on facebook and twitter. His self-proclaimed Protestant followers. The people who have the greatest opportunity to present a rational and reasoned explanation backed by the objective basis of the Word of God (we call that Sola Scriptura) are letting a Catholic do their work for them, and he's not doing it well at all.
Matt Walsh is an unwitting wolf. Proverbially, he's a terrible mathematician who can do some good with addition, but cannot explain to you why the plus sign must be different from the negative sign, and conservatives are trusting him to "say it like it is". I say it like this because he comes to some right conclusions, in some terribly wrong or fallacious ways. The average millennial is seeking not just the answers but why they should believe the answers. When the average conservative shares his article, even if Matt Walsh's conclusions are correct, his logic is wrong, so the average liberal reader will immediately reject his claims.
4. Matt Walsh is unkind.
That's it. I don't mean "Matt Walsh is offensive", because of course he is offensive. It's his job. Offense is not a measure of the kindness or unkindness of a person. Rather, the kindness of a person will determine the purpose of the offense. Matt Walsh is very good at using bible verses when it is convenient, but seems to ignore all that stuff about the waywardness of the tongue in James' epistle.
Matt Walsh loves to offend people. His " the Osteens are heretics, and that's why America loves them" rings nothing but offensive. He's not rebuking the Osteens, he's attacking very mislead sheep.
When he is responded to with sarcastic attacks by liberal bloggers and readers, his response is to punch back harder, insult smarter. Matt Walsh seems very interested in protecting his intelligence, the intelligence of his readers, and the intelligence of his premises. He also seems very interested in attacking the intelligence of those who don't agree. Matt Walsh believes that his opponents are stupid and speaks of them accordingly.
Matt Walsh is a jerk. And because he is a jerk, he is unpalatable to the average liberal reader. This by no means absolves the liberal reader of their liberality, their modernism, their relativism, their belief in irresponsible self-determination. But Matt Walsh has no reason for taking offense at people who are responding to him in kind. He's a wordsmith and witty bully. But he's a bully.
Matt Walsh is a statist-leaning neocon just like most of the others out there. He's trying to attack liberal logic but he can't play the liberal game as well as a liberal can. He encourages more fear-mongering and social inconsistency. He is winning at the conservative propaganda game. He's part of the problem and not the solution.
Matt Walsh needs to convert to Protestantism and then use the standard of the Bible if he really wants to have any good meaningful impact on his readers. As long as the ground that he stands on is relativistic (and don't be fooled: it is), he will continue to lose the same culture war that Christians have been losing since we conceded the bible as the standard of truth for America. You can't beat something with nothing. You can't tell a person their sand isn't as good to stand on as your sand is. You need a solid rock and Matt Walsh hasn't started standing on Him yet, when it comes to his blog.
And that's all I have to say about that.
Nick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)