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
Sunday, January 18, 2015
Tuesday, January 6, 2015
About Boehner.
Conservatives who complain about Boehner's third term are schizophrenic and shouldn't be surprised. Want a libertarian? Vote for one.
— Nick Visel (@Nickvisel) January 6, 2015
Friday, January 2, 2015
Samwise Gamgee, the Calvinist's Hobbit
"I don't like anything here at all," said Frodo, "step or stone, breath or bone. Earth, and water all seem accursed. But so our path is laid."
"Yes, that's so," said Sam. "And we shouldn't be here at all, if we'd known more about it before we started. But I suppose it's often that way. The brave things in the old tales and songs, Mr. Frodo: adventures, as I used to call them. I used to think that they were things the wonderful folk of the stories went out and looked for, because they wanted them, because they were exciting and life was a bit dull, a kind of a sport, as you might say. But that's not the way of it with the tales that really mattered, or the ones that stay in the mind. Folk seem to have been just landed in them, usually - their paths were laid that way, as you put it. But I expect they had lots of chances, like us, of turning back, only they didn't. And if they had, we shouldn't know, because they'd have been forgotten. We hear about those as just went on - and not all to a good end, mind you; at least not to what folk inside a story and not outside it call a good end. You know, coming home, and finding things all right, though not quite the same - like old Mr. Bilbo. But those aren't always the best tales to hear, though they may be best tales to get landed in! I wonder what sort of a tale we've fallen into?"
"I wonder," said Frodo. "But I don't know. And that's the way of a real tale. Take any one that you're fond of. You may know, or guess, what kind of a tale it is, happy-ending or sad-ending, but the people in it don't know. And you don't want them to."
"No, sir, of course not. Beren now, he never thought he was going to get that Silmaril from the Iron Crown in Thangorodrim, and yet he did, and that was a worse place and a blacker danger than ours. But that's a long tale, of course, and goes on past the happiness and into grief and beyond it - and the Silmaril went on and came to Eärendil. And why, sir, I never thought of that before! We've got - you've got some of the light of it in that star-glass that the Lady gave you! Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?"
"No, they never end as tales," said Frodo. "But the people in them come, and go when their part's ended. Our part will end later - or sooner."
"And then we can have some rest and some sleep," said Sam. He laughed grimly. "And I mean just that Mr. Frodo. I mean plain ordinary rest, and sleep, and waking up to a morning's work in the garden. I'm afraid that's all I'm hoping for all the time. All the big important plans are not for my sort."
----
The Two Towers, page 711-712
by J.R.R. Tolkein
Nick
"Yes, that's so," said Sam. "And we shouldn't be here at all, if we'd known more about it before we started. But I suppose it's often that way. The brave things in the old tales and songs, Mr. Frodo: adventures, as I used to call them. I used to think that they were things the wonderful folk of the stories went out and looked for, because they wanted them, because they were exciting and life was a bit dull, a kind of a sport, as you might say. But that's not the way of it with the tales that really mattered, or the ones that stay in the mind. Folk seem to have been just landed in them, usually - their paths were laid that way, as you put it. But I expect they had lots of chances, like us, of turning back, only they didn't. And if they had, we shouldn't know, because they'd have been forgotten. We hear about those as just went on - and not all to a good end, mind you; at least not to what folk inside a story and not outside it call a good end. You know, coming home, and finding things all right, though not quite the same - like old Mr. Bilbo. But those aren't always the best tales to hear, though they may be best tales to get landed in! I wonder what sort of a tale we've fallen into?"
"I wonder," said Frodo. "But I don't know. And that's the way of a real tale. Take any one that you're fond of. You may know, or guess, what kind of a tale it is, happy-ending or sad-ending, but the people in it don't know. And you don't want them to."
"No, sir, of course not. Beren now, he never thought he was going to get that Silmaril from the Iron Crown in Thangorodrim, and yet he did, and that was a worse place and a blacker danger than ours. But that's a long tale, of course, and goes on past the happiness and into grief and beyond it - and the Silmaril went on and came to Eärendil. And why, sir, I never thought of that before! We've got - you've got some of the light of it in that star-glass that the Lady gave you! Why, to think of it, we're in the same tale still! It's going on. Don't the great tales never end?"
"No, they never end as tales," said Frodo. "But the people in them come, and go when their part's ended. Our part will end later - or sooner."
"And then we can have some rest and some sleep," said Sam. He laughed grimly. "And I mean just that Mr. Frodo. I mean plain ordinary rest, and sleep, and waking up to a morning's work in the garden. I'm afraid that's all I'm hoping for all the time. All the big important plans are not for my sort."
----
The Two Towers, page 711-712
by J.R.R. Tolkein
Nick
Monday, December 29, 2014
What Have I Gots In My Pocketses
My wife's most blatant competitor for my attention (that I have found) in marriage has been my smartphone. I'm staring at it constantly. I'm using it to play a dumb game, or to follow up on some clever words I think I have produced in my most genius moment of the hour, or the minute. I'm constantly talking to people on facebook. Or talking with people. Sometimes I am detailing why I believe something to be truth or to not be truth.
My phone is a Pharaoh and one that I give much of my time to. It's a tax on my time just to have it in my pocket. This became apparent to me, not because my wife had mentioned that I stare at my phone a lot (she has), or because I read a blog or timely article about the problems with smartphone (I've read). Rather, I discovered it shortly after purchasing a pocket watch on a whim, partly because I thought it a cool thing, and partly because it really is just a cool thing.
It shortly dawned on me after purchase that a pocket watch could be a distraction from my distractions, the physical gratification of carrying something that held as much weight as a smartphone. I could check the time without wasting time. It takes longer to read an analog clockface than a digital clock but the extra five seconds spent doing the simple math and reading between the lines is not the extra five minutes that I would have spend checking on some foolish crusade I was having on Facebook. It was a nice change, and perhaps my wife noticed. I had made a new friend that required less time of me, and gave me exactly what I needed to reach in my pocket for -- the time.
That watch broke, mostly because it was a souvenir watch. But I enjoyed it nonetheless. It was a sad day when I realized there was no surgical procedure I could do that would reliably improve the watch's timekeeping. It was, as my wife says, a cheap watch.
Recently (five days ago), I unwrapped a particular box which was covered in wrapping paper on Christmas Eve. Inside it came a mechanical watch, a much better quality one than the one I had left on the desk for its cursed unreliability.
This mechanical watch is just that. Mechanical. You manually wind it and must remember to do this once a day or you will lose track of time or else resort to checking your smartphone (which is now the reason why I carry both around -- the watch for the time, the smartphone to make compulsive changes to the watch's time, see?).
This particular watch is mesmerizing if only for its presentation when you click open the clasp. Now I find myself thirty seconds in a moment staring at the innards of the pocket watch. The magic. The mechanical clicking. Sometimes I place it close to my ear just to hear the clock tick its way to the next minute. I feel the tempo of the watch (which is about 240 beats per minute, should you imagine that a watch actually keeps time). I watch the clock hands move around the face. I watch the minute hand move ever close to a superimposed position over a particular aligned letter. I watch the white space disappear in between the letters, as the minute hand casts its lunar eclipse over the Roman numerals shaped like "I" or "III". The solar eclipse, brought by the slow-moving hour hand, is not nearly as exciting, but I check back on it to see where the time has gone.
I used to be so adept at reading analog clocks when all my elementary school colleagues suffered or worse switched to digital clocks. It takes me a couple seconds to do the math nowadays.
I've come to the realization that I carry a small and nigh limitless world in my pocket. It has a battery life but it paints at lightspeed brick roads from my address to news rooms and picture stories across the sea. I travel at the speed of information (which nowadays is faster than our ability to translate it from the data we receive every second) with my thumbs barely moving. In the hands of its owner, the smartphone is a bridge to many worlds, and to many fake-worlds, and to many hyper-real worlds.
Yet I see now that it is a good thing to refrain from looking through the corridors of current events, or the conversations, the debates, the blog posts. My iPhone is as much a blessing as it is the possibility of cursing, if only my life consisted of my thumbs and an LTE connection and eyes, and the cold, precise electrical signals I send to write another instantaneous message in a bottle for no one.
In my phone, there is a gateway to worlds, but through my pocket watch, which has no internet, is only so precise over a respective period of time, and must be wound once a day like an old dog which needs to be walked to stave off its worsening dysplasia, is a mirror and reminder of another world. One which surrounds me more fully and follows me more closely than the screens of social media and constructed persona ever will.
Because I can look at a pocket watch to tell the time, I'm not so often whisked away in my propensity for distraction. Instead, I can look at the time, and respond to my wife, who is talking to me no matter which apparatus I use to check the time. The little world of time, moving pieces, some whose movements are undetectable unless I stare at the watch and risk bored, is really just a mirror of the waking reality I walk in -- the one in which I am able to hold a fuller conversation with my wife, and she can know me more, and I her, and be more aware of my immediate surroundings than of the musings and amusement of the social media sphere. My little pocket watch is an entrance to the most interesting world I have discovered -- that of my wife.
I've gots a pocketwatch in my pocketses, and I don't mean to remove it any time soon, excepting to check the time, and to conceit an increase in attractive appearance to my wife, the one who dressed it for me. But perhaps it was more that Someone dressed me for it, and further, me for her and not for an iPhone.
Nick
My phone is a Pharaoh and one that I give much of my time to. It's a tax on my time just to have it in my pocket. This became apparent to me, not because my wife had mentioned that I stare at my phone a lot (she has), or because I read a blog or timely article about the problems with smartphone (I've read). Rather, I discovered it shortly after purchasing a pocket watch on a whim, partly because I thought it a cool thing, and partly because it really is just a cool thing.
It shortly dawned on me after purchase that a pocket watch could be a distraction from my distractions, the physical gratification of carrying something that held as much weight as a smartphone. I could check the time without wasting time. It takes longer to read an analog clockface than a digital clock but the extra five seconds spent doing the simple math and reading between the lines is not the extra five minutes that I would have spend checking on some foolish crusade I was having on Facebook. It was a nice change, and perhaps my wife noticed. I had made a new friend that required less time of me, and gave me exactly what I needed to reach in my pocket for -- the time.
That watch broke, mostly because it was a souvenir watch. But I enjoyed it nonetheless. It was a sad day when I realized there was no surgical procedure I could do that would reliably improve the watch's timekeeping. It was, as my wife says, a cheap watch.
Recently (five days ago), I unwrapped a particular box which was covered in wrapping paper on Christmas Eve. Inside it came a mechanical watch, a much better quality one than the one I had left on the desk for its cursed unreliability.
This mechanical watch is just that. Mechanical. You manually wind it and must remember to do this once a day or you will lose track of time or else resort to checking your smartphone (which is now the reason why I carry both around -- the watch for the time, the smartphone to make compulsive changes to the watch's time, see?).
This particular watch is mesmerizing if only for its presentation when you click open the clasp. Now I find myself thirty seconds in a moment staring at the innards of the pocket watch. The magic. The mechanical clicking. Sometimes I place it close to my ear just to hear the clock tick its way to the next minute. I feel the tempo of the watch (which is about 240 beats per minute, should you imagine that a watch actually keeps time). I watch the clock hands move around the face. I watch the minute hand move ever close to a superimposed position over a particular aligned letter. I watch the white space disappear in between the letters, as the minute hand casts its lunar eclipse over the Roman numerals shaped like "I" or "III". The solar eclipse, brought by the slow-moving hour hand, is not nearly as exciting, but I check back on it to see where the time has gone.I used to be so adept at reading analog clocks when all my elementary school colleagues suffered or worse switched to digital clocks. It takes me a couple seconds to do the math nowadays.
I've come to the realization that I carry a small and nigh limitless world in my pocket. It has a battery life but it paints at lightspeed brick roads from my address to news rooms and picture stories across the sea. I travel at the speed of information (which nowadays is faster than our ability to translate it from the data we receive every second) with my thumbs barely moving. In the hands of its owner, the smartphone is a bridge to many worlds, and to many fake-worlds, and to many hyper-real worlds.
Yet I see now that it is a good thing to refrain from looking through the corridors of current events, or the conversations, the debates, the blog posts. My iPhone is as much a blessing as it is the possibility of cursing, if only my life consisted of my thumbs and an LTE connection and eyes, and the cold, precise electrical signals I send to write another instantaneous message in a bottle for no one.
In my phone, there is a gateway to worlds, but through my pocket watch, which has no internet, is only so precise over a respective period of time, and must be wound once a day like an old dog which needs to be walked to stave off its worsening dysplasia, is a mirror and reminder of another world. One which surrounds me more fully and follows me more closely than the screens of social media and constructed persona ever will.
Because I can look at a pocket watch to tell the time, I'm not so often whisked away in my propensity for distraction. Instead, I can look at the time, and respond to my wife, who is talking to me no matter which apparatus I use to check the time. The little world of time, moving pieces, some whose movements are undetectable unless I stare at the watch and risk bored, is really just a mirror of the waking reality I walk in -- the one in which I am able to hold a fuller conversation with my wife, and she can know me more, and I her, and be more aware of my immediate surroundings than of the musings and amusement of the social media sphere. My little pocket watch is an entrance to the most interesting world I have discovered -- that of my wife.
I've gots a pocketwatch in my pocketses, and I don't mean to remove it any time soon, excepting to check the time, and to conceit an increase in attractive appearance to my wife, the one who dressed it for me. But perhaps it was more that Someone dressed me for it, and further, me for her and not for an iPhone.
Nick
Saturday, December 27, 2014
On Reading Chesterton
Currently plowing my way through the most recent literary gift I received: In Defense of Sanity by G.K. Chesterton. It's a collection of his "best" essays. In marking the high notes of his best essays I am really just adding the worst marks to the book myself. I'm learning to just write in the books I'm reading. If not, I will never really remember what made me think about changing my mind about anything. That's worse than writing in a book and possibly covering a smidgen of printed text.
I'm only about 23 pages of 400 in, but here's my favorite line so far:
"There is an idea that it is humiliating to run after one's hat; and when people say it is humiliating they mean that it is comic. It certainly is comic; but man is a very comic creature, and most of the things he does are comic - eating, for instance. And the most comic things of all are exactly the things that are most worth doing - such as making love. A man running after a hat is not half so ridiculous as a man running after a wife."
I used to make fun of my peers in high school when I took their hats off and they scrambled to take them back from me with all vindication. Now I realize that I'm the married one.
Nick
I'm only about 23 pages of 400 in, but here's my favorite line so far:
"There is an idea that it is humiliating to run after one's hat; and when people say it is humiliating they mean that it is comic. It certainly is comic; but man is a very comic creature, and most of the things he does are comic - eating, for instance. And the most comic things of all are exactly the things that are most worth doing - such as making love. A man running after a hat is not half so ridiculous as a man running after a wife."I used to make fun of my peers in high school when I took their hats off and they scrambled to take them back from me with all vindication. Now I realize that I'm the married one.
Nick
Thursday, November 20, 2014
In which I am unapologetic for not blogging.
Yup, still here. Just trying to figure out what's best to blog about.
Thursday, May 8, 2014
Some thoughts about "God, Our Mother" by the Liturgists
I'm starting to wonder how seriously the Liturgists take theology. They certainly understand things from anthropomorphism. But then they try to view theology through the lens of anthropology and say some things that are close to heresy. They continue to question not just musical boundaries but also what should be core tenets of the Christian faith. How much more will they continue to emerge?
Though I find Gungor's (and the Liturgists') music to be pretentious some moments, I genuinely enjoy their music, and their thoughts, and their honesty. They weave a tapestry of art that seems to transcend the barriers of lyric and harmony and melody. Their music is moving, because it is greater than the sum of its parts. My bones to pick come not out of self-righteousness, but from a dedicated listener who has some honest worry for the theology of not just the individual members of the band, but also the individual followers and listeners of the band. They have the unique position of being palatable to both the contemporary church and the emergent. They have significant secular crossover as well.
Michael Gungor and his bands have always seemed like button-pushers. In some respects, this is a good thing. They see a problem in the Christian music industry. One, that it is an "industry" at all. Two, Christian music is generally bad or identifiable in very blase ways. Three, they find that many Christian music artists aren't very intellectually honest. So in one sense, I applaud them for sticking up for the purpose of music as they see it, and defining their music on their own terms. The problem is that they also end up defining a lot of other non-art-centric, non-culture-centric things as well.
This wouldn't be a problem if I didn't see the amount of weight their words carry on their readers and listeners. This wouldn't be a problem if they were being "intellectually honest" with their agenda. I get it. All people have an agenda. I have agenda to at least air-out some boiling thoughts in my mind. They have an agenda to at least make some sort of living creating music. But they also seem to have another agenda in mind, with all the preaching (and yes, it is preaching) that they are doing in their music.
For most Christian artists, this agenda is usually something like trying to express or ascribe holiness, or love, or attributes to God. Not that God is given any real holiness, or love, or attributes based on what we say about Him. It's just part of what it means to witness. If you're a Christian, and you tell people you believe in God, people will begin to at least understand some small portion of God by your actions, whether that understanding is flawed because it's being seen through a flawed person, or that understanding is redeened because it's being seen through a redeemed person. And people gain both good understanding and bad understanding from the same observed person. The good, from the Holy Spirit within us that causes and motivates us to glorify Him and be at peace with all men, the bad coming from the sin nature within us that causes and motivates us to glorify ourselves and be at enmity with God.
Michael Gungor says he is being honest when his band releases an album called "God, Our Mother".
So, I get it. Assigning a sex to God seems superfluous. So here are some common arguments we've seen for God as mother.
1. God doesn't have a real gender. The Bible uses accommodating language when it calls God "Father" or personifies 'Him' in a male pattern. But it is accommodation, not denotation. So God is not literally a Father in any biological sense. More in a experiential or spiritual sense. Maybe existential.
2. God is not always described sex/gender exclusive. The Bible says in some verses, like Hosea 13:8, that God is like a bear robbed of her cubs. Or Isaiah 66:13, "As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem". The Bible also refers to God in some (read: most) verses as being "Father" and he is referred to with male pronouns.
3. God is not a man. The Bible says God is spirit, not flesh. Exodus 20:4, tells the Israelites not to carve images of any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. This commandment was also understood as to not carve an idol that one imagined was an image of God. Romans 8:9: You, however are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. John 4:24: God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.
There are probably other, more intellectually long-winded arguments one can make for the "Motherhood" of God, but I think this may be enough for now. So I'll try and refute some of these points, or at least show that they don't make sense, especially in light of sola scriptura.
1. God doesn't have a real gender.
So this is a true statement. But it isn't true because he has two genders. And it isn't true because He isn't a biological father. And despite these concepts which would have had a very long time to stew in the hearts and minds of Israel and other believers, Scripture still constantly refers to God as He, Him, Father. Scripture constantly refers to those who belong to God with the adjective His. Why then did scripture make this distinction? And why does Scripture use accommodating language to refer to God as He, Him, Father?
Because God accommodated to Israel in this way. If we subscribe to verbal plenary inspiration (the theological position that God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired men to write the books and letters of the Bible perfectly), then the Bible was written by God through the hands of men, and that God himself chose to be referred to with male pronouns. The New Testament, Jesus uses this God-given accommodating language and refers to God as Father because that is how God commanded people to refer to Him. In Acts and the epistles, all Jesus' followers refer to God with masculine pronouns.
To make the assumption that God would be pleased for people to refer to Him as Her is a very bold step, if we believe in any regard the tenets of regulative principle. If God never referred to himself with a feminine pronoun, why would any believer dare to refer to God with feminine pronouns directly?
2. God is not always described sex/gender exclusive.
This is also a true statement. God is not described as only masculine/feminine. There are even some verses like Hosea 13:8, or multiple verses in Isaiah, or Jeremiah, that seem to support the assumption that it is good to call God Mother.
The problem with the assumption is that it is anthropomorphism. What is that?
Miriam-Webster defines anthropomorphism as this: an interpretation of what is not human or person in terms of human or personal characteristics.
Genesis says that man and woman are created in God's image. Genesis 1:26-27. God refers to the entirety of humanity as "man" in verse 26, and then refers to the individual parts as "male and female". So both men and women, male and female, bear God's image. The problem is when we attempt to make God bear "man and woman's" image. That's anthropomorphism. If God is a Spirit, he cannot be described in human terms. The opposite, however, is true. You can describe the number "one" as a "number". But you cannot describe "number" as "one".
So when The Liturgists say "God, Our Mother", they are describing God in human terms. But they aren't saying "God is like our Mother", they are saying "God, our mother". It isn't metaphorical, they are using the sentence literally. Why is it literal? Because God is described as a literal father.
At the beginning of their album, the Liturgists state: "a father is a man who raises a child, donates sperm during conception, or both". They are defining the term and idea of father based on human experience. They are defining father based on cultural presuppositions: God cannot be a literal Father because he does not temporally raise a child. He cannot be a literal Father because he does not donate sperm. Therefore, God is not a literal Father and people who hold to that position cannot defend God's Fatherhood because there is no literal corollary.
Let me state this clearly. God is called "Father" not because He is like a "father". Fathers are called "father" because they bear that image in God!
Now the next statement wouldn't be half-true or problematic if the basis of God's accommodating masculinity wasn't established in point one. Let's replace male pronouns and nouns on this one.
God is called "Mother" not because She is like a "mother". Mothers are called "mother" because they bear that image in God!
Why is this untrue and problematic? Because the same scriptures that people use to say that God is mother generally use simile, not metaphor. And the distinction is sharp enough for it to not be unintentional. Let's take Hosea 13:8 for example.
I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs;
I will tear open their breast,
and there I will devour them like a lion,
as a wild beast would rip them open.
Do you see that God is like "a bear of robbed of her cubs"? Simile. Not a metaphor. Later in Hosea 13 God refers to Himself as a "He".
Deuteronomy: 32:18
You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you,
and you forgot the God who gave you birth.
But in this verse, God says "you forgot the God who gave you birth". That's a little interesting. How can a masculine God bear children? Still later in Deuteronomy 32 God refers to Himself as a "He".
How can a masculine God 'bear' children? If we bear in mind that human beings bear the image of God, then we see in human motherhood what we see in human fatherhood. Mothers are called "mother" because they bear that image in God. A mother birthing a child is bearing God's image in the act of creating man and woman. It's a reflection of what God has done. The same goes with human fathers raising a child or "donating sperm" to an egg. It (the act of birthing) is a reflection of what God does when He creates human beings.
If we can call men to pursue and love their wives as Jesus loves the church, why are similar analogies so easily ignored?
This isn't to diminish the worth of motherhood, of child-bearing and -rearing, of the process of pregnancy, or anything. This isn't to diminish the value of women, or to favor the value of men. This increases the value and worth of motherhood (and fatherhood). A woman gains her "mothering" characteristics by bearing God's image. A man gains his "fathering" characteristics by bearing God's image. Nevertheless, God accommodates with masculine pronouns. Why? Probably because He wishes to be viewed primarily as Father. This has no bearing on the worth, value, or usefulness or meaning on motherhood. I drive cars. It does not mean that I will not occasionally drive trucks. It does not mean that I look down on people who drive trucks.
The physical reality of motherhood and fatherhood find their complete end and design in the spiritual and existential reality of God. They are not whole without Him. They have no meaning without God defining that meaning. And He has done that, perfectly.
3. God is not a man.
Also true! God is also not a woman. God does not have a Male/Female gender because He is Spirit. But because He is Spirit, and because He defines creation, he can define himself to accommodate to others the way he would like. And scripture constantly, boldly refers to God with a masculine pronoun. So God does not have a real gender. But He has decided it best to describe himself as a Father.
Most of the issue with using this point is that we cannot define a spiritual God with human characteristics. God does not take on human aspects of existence, such as gender, race, age, disposition, personality, diversity, unity, etc.
People get those from God, not the other way around. God defined gender in such a way that echoed His image. God defined race in a way that echoed His image. God is not a man. But God created man. And God created man in His image. Man cannot re-create God into his image. The corollary: God is not a woman. But God created woman. And God created woman in His image. Woman cannot re-create God into her image.
A single mother fulfills the role of mother and father for her children. A single father fulfills the role of father and mother for his children. But God is not limited by gender, and He is not limited by resources or flesh the way that a mother or father would be. He fulfills both roles perfectly, for He defines them. And yet scripture refers to God with masculine pronouns directly, and may use some metaphors and similes when describing him with feminine pronouns.
When we call God "Mother" in preference of "Father", we are not ascribing him glory. Not because mother is somehow a lesser title than father. But because God commands us to call him so: Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."
His commandment is one of life, one that Christians should cling to, not question and take their hands off wondering if they can catch some other ledge to hang on to Christ with.
While the Liturgists may say
God our Father
Giver of daily bread
Blessing our hands and covering our heads.
God our mother
Leading us into peace
Blessing and comforting all those in need ;
in scripture, Matthew 6:7-13 says
This was a long-winded post, so I will conclude.
Fathering finds its meet in God.
Mothering finds its meet in God.
Fathers are fathers because they bear God's image.
Mothers are mothers because they bear God's image.
Therefore, God's image is the shadow in which fatherhood and motherhood exist.
God created fathers and mothers and loves them equally.
God created children who need both earthly mothers and earthly fathers.
God redeemed His children who need God, who, though calling himself Father and fulfilling the role of Father, does fulfill the metaphorical role of mother spiritually speaking.
Therefore, birth, bearing, rearing, nurturing, providence, care, protection, provision, wisdom, teaching, instruction, discipline and all other responsibilities of fathers and mothers come inherently from God's image for which he created them to bear and reflect.
God still calls himself a Father, despite lending human motherhood some very distinct characteristics in respect to human fatherhood.
Therefore, God is not our Mother.
God is our Father.
May we always be defined by God's terms, and not seek to define God by our terms.
Nick
Though I find Gungor's (and the Liturgists') music to be pretentious some moments, I genuinely enjoy their music, and their thoughts, and their honesty. They weave a tapestry of art that seems to transcend the barriers of lyric and harmony and melody. Their music is moving, because it is greater than the sum of its parts. My bones to pick come not out of self-righteousness, but from a dedicated listener who has some honest worry for the theology of not just the individual members of the band, but also the individual followers and listeners of the band. They have the unique position of being palatable to both the contemporary church and the emergent. They have significant secular crossover as well.
Michael Gungor and his bands have always seemed like button-pushers. In some respects, this is a good thing. They see a problem in the Christian music industry. One, that it is an "industry" at all. Two, Christian music is generally bad or identifiable in very blase ways. Three, they find that many Christian music artists aren't very intellectually honest. So in one sense, I applaud them for sticking up for the purpose of music as they see it, and defining their music on their own terms. The problem is that they also end up defining a lot of other non-art-centric, non-culture-centric things as well.
This wouldn't be a problem if I didn't see the amount of weight their words carry on their readers and listeners. This wouldn't be a problem if they were being "intellectually honest" with their agenda. I get it. All people have an agenda. I have agenda to at least air-out some boiling thoughts in my mind. They have an agenda to at least make some sort of living creating music. But they also seem to have another agenda in mind, with all the preaching (and yes, it is preaching) that they are doing in their music.
For most Christian artists, this agenda is usually something like trying to express or ascribe holiness, or love, or attributes to God. Not that God is given any real holiness, or love, or attributes based on what we say about Him. It's just part of what it means to witness. If you're a Christian, and you tell people you believe in God, people will begin to at least understand some small portion of God by your actions, whether that understanding is flawed because it's being seen through a flawed person, or that understanding is redeened because it's being seen through a redeemed person. And people gain both good understanding and bad understanding from the same observed person. The good, from the Holy Spirit within us that causes and motivates us to glorify Him and be at peace with all men, the bad coming from the sin nature within us that causes and motivates us to glorify ourselves and be at enmity with God.
Michael Gungor says he is being honest when his band releases an album called "God, Our Mother".
So, I get it. Assigning a sex to God seems superfluous. So here are some common arguments we've seen for God as mother.
1. God doesn't have a real gender. The Bible uses accommodating language when it calls God "Father" or personifies 'Him' in a male pattern. But it is accommodation, not denotation. So God is not literally a Father in any biological sense. More in a experiential or spiritual sense. Maybe existential.
2. God is not always described sex/gender exclusive. The Bible says in some verses, like Hosea 13:8, that God is like a bear robbed of her cubs. Or Isaiah 66:13, "As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem". The Bible also refers to God in some (read: most) verses as being "Father" and he is referred to with male pronouns.
3. God is not a man. The Bible says God is spirit, not flesh. Exodus 20:4, tells the Israelites not to carve images of any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. This commandment was also understood as to not carve an idol that one imagined was an image of God. Romans 8:9: You, however are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. John 4:24: God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.
There are probably other, more intellectually long-winded arguments one can make for the "Motherhood" of God, but I think this may be enough for now. So I'll try and refute some of these points, or at least show that they don't make sense, especially in light of sola scriptura.
1. God doesn't have a real gender.
So this is a true statement. But it isn't true because he has two genders. And it isn't true because He isn't a biological father. And despite these concepts which would have had a very long time to stew in the hearts and minds of Israel and other believers, Scripture still constantly refers to God as He, Him, Father. Scripture constantly refers to those who belong to God with the adjective His. Why then did scripture make this distinction? And why does Scripture use accommodating language to refer to God as He, Him, Father?
Because God accommodated to Israel in this way. If we subscribe to verbal plenary inspiration (the theological position that God, through the Holy Spirit, inspired men to write the books and letters of the Bible perfectly), then the Bible was written by God through the hands of men, and that God himself chose to be referred to with male pronouns. The New Testament, Jesus uses this God-given accommodating language and refers to God as Father because that is how God commanded people to refer to Him. In Acts and the epistles, all Jesus' followers refer to God with masculine pronouns.
To make the assumption that God would be pleased for people to refer to Him as Her is a very bold step, if we believe in any regard the tenets of regulative principle. If God never referred to himself with a feminine pronoun, why would any believer dare to refer to God with feminine pronouns directly?
2. God is not always described sex/gender exclusive.
This is also a true statement. God is not described as only masculine/feminine. There are even some verses like Hosea 13:8, or multiple verses in Isaiah, or Jeremiah, that seem to support the assumption that it is good to call God Mother.
The problem with the assumption is that it is anthropomorphism. What is that?
Miriam-Webster defines anthropomorphism as this: an interpretation of what is not human or person in terms of human or personal characteristics.
Genesis says that man and woman are created in God's image. Genesis 1:26-27. God refers to the entirety of humanity as "man" in verse 26, and then refers to the individual parts as "male and female". So both men and women, male and female, bear God's image. The problem is when we attempt to make God bear "man and woman's" image. That's anthropomorphism. If God is a Spirit, he cannot be described in human terms. The opposite, however, is true. You can describe the number "one" as a "number". But you cannot describe "number" as "one".
So when The Liturgists say "God, Our Mother", they are describing God in human terms. But they aren't saying "God is like our Mother", they are saying "God, our mother". It isn't metaphorical, they are using the sentence literally. Why is it literal? Because God is described as a literal father.
At the beginning of their album, the Liturgists state: "a father is a man who raises a child, donates sperm during conception, or both". They are defining the term and idea of father based on human experience. They are defining father based on cultural presuppositions: God cannot be a literal Father because he does not temporally raise a child. He cannot be a literal Father because he does not donate sperm. Therefore, God is not a literal Father and people who hold to that position cannot defend God's Fatherhood because there is no literal corollary.
Let me state this clearly. God is called "Father" not because He is like a "father". Fathers are called "father" because they bear that image in God!
Now the next statement wouldn't be half-true or problematic if the basis of God's accommodating masculinity wasn't established in point one. Let's replace male pronouns and nouns on this one.
God is called "Mother" not because She is like a "mother". Mothers are called "mother" because they bear that image in God!
Why is this untrue and problematic? Because the same scriptures that people use to say that God is mother generally use simile, not metaphor. And the distinction is sharp enough for it to not be unintentional. Let's take Hosea 13:8 for example.
I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs;
I will tear open their breast,
and there I will devour them like a lion,
as a wild beast would rip them open.
Do you see that God is like "a bear of robbed of her cubs"? Simile. Not a metaphor. Later in Hosea 13 God refers to Himself as a "He".
Deuteronomy: 32:18
You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you,
and you forgot the God who gave you birth.
But in this verse, God says "you forgot the God who gave you birth". That's a little interesting. How can a masculine God bear children? Still later in Deuteronomy 32 God refers to Himself as a "He".
How can a masculine God 'bear' children? If we bear in mind that human beings bear the image of God, then we see in human motherhood what we see in human fatherhood. Mothers are called "mother" because they bear that image in God. A mother birthing a child is bearing God's image in the act of creating man and woman. It's a reflection of what God has done. The same goes with human fathers raising a child or "donating sperm" to an egg. It (the act of birthing) is a reflection of what God does when He creates human beings.
If we can call men to pursue and love their wives as Jesus loves the church, why are similar analogies so easily ignored?
This isn't to diminish the worth of motherhood, of child-bearing and -rearing, of the process of pregnancy, or anything. This isn't to diminish the value of women, or to favor the value of men. This increases the value and worth of motherhood (and fatherhood). A woman gains her "mothering" characteristics by bearing God's image. A man gains his "fathering" characteristics by bearing God's image. Nevertheless, God accommodates with masculine pronouns. Why? Probably because He wishes to be viewed primarily as Father. This has no bearing on the worth, value, or usefulness or meaning on motherhood. I drive cars. It does not mean that I will not occasionally drive trucks. It does not mean that I look down on people who drive trucks.
The physical reality of motherhood and fatherhood find their complete end and design in the spiritual and existential reality of God. They are not whole without Him. They have no meaning without God defining that meaning. And He has done that, perfectly.
3. God is not a man.
Also true! God is also not a woman. God does not have a Male/Female gender because He is Spirit. But because He is Spirit, and because He defines creation, he can define himself to accommodate to others the way he would like. And scripture constantly, boldly refers to God with a masculine pronoun. So God does not have a real gender. But He has decided it best to describe himself as a Father.
Most of the issue with using this point is that we cannot define a spiritual God with human characteristics. God does not take on human aspects of existence, such as gender, race, age, disposition, personality, diversity, unity, etc.
People get those from God, not the other way around. God defined gender in such a way that echoed His image. God defined race in a way that echoed His image. God is not a man. But God created man. And God created man in His image. Man cannot re-create God into his image. The corollary: God is not a woman. But God created woman. And God created woman in His image. Woman cannot re-create God into her image.
A single mother fulfills the role of mother and father for her children. A single father fulfills the role of father and mother for his children. But God is not limited by gender, and He is not limited by resources or flesh the way that a mother or father would be. He fulfills both roles perfectly, for He defines them. And yet scripture refers to God with masculine pronouns directly, and may use some metaphors and similes when describing him with feminine pronouns.
When we call God "Mother" in preference of "Father", we are not ascribing him glory. Not because mother is somehow a lesser title than father. But because God commands us to call him so: Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."
His commandment is one of life, one that Christians should cling to, not question and take their hands off wondering if they can catch some other ledge to hang on to Christ with.
While the Liturgists may say
God our Father
Giver of daily bread
Blessing our hands and covering our heads.
God our mother
Leading us into peace
Blessing and comforting all those in need ;
in scripture, Matthew 6:7-13 says
“And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Pray then like this:
“Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil."
hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil."
Fathering finds its meet in God.
Mothering finds its meet in God.
Fathers are fathers because they bear God's image.
Mothers are mothers because they bear God's image.
Therefore, God's image is the shadow in which fatherhood and motherhood exist.
God created fathers and mothers and loves them equally.
God created children who need both earthly mothers and earthly fathers.
God redeemed His children who need God, who, though calling himself Father and fulfilling the role of Father, does fulfill the metaphorical role of mother spiritually speaking.
Therefore, birth, bearing, rearing, nurturing, providence, care, protection, provision, wisdom, teaching, instruction, discipline and all other responsibilities of fathers and mothers come inherently from God's image for which he created them to bear and reflect.
God still calls himself a Father, despite lending human motherhood some very distinct characteristics in respect to human fatherhood.
Therefore, God is not our Mother.
God is our Father.
May we always be defined by God's terms, and not seek to define God by our terms.
Nick
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)