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
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)