Feathers? Must be a duck.

How to start with this one?

This is a response to Dr. Michael A. Cox, a pastor at First Baptist Church in Pryor, OK, who took Calvinism to task as "Spiritual Racism", comparing it to racism (Haha, really?) and Hinduism (the milk is dribbling out my nostrils).
His post can be read here: http://sbctoday.com/is-calvinism-spiritual-racism/

In his article, he asserts that Hinduism, racism, and Calvinism have "many things in common; too many for Christians not to be alarmed." There's a word for bad logic that a particular beloved Papist of mine wrote. That word is "bosh".

Cox says the following of Hinduism:

"Reincarnationists, like Hindus, avoid the giving of invitations, publicity, or advertisement, and simply trust the Law of Attraction to draw their own to them and them to their own.[1] This is fueled by a primary tenet of Hinduism, namely that one is born into a caste out of which there is no escape in life. Thus, Hinduism propounds social determinism characterized by social superiority, social caste, social election, social bigotry, social prejudice, and social exclusivity."

Firstly, let's note that Cox provides a source. I haven't looked at the source, but the "[1]" is a hyperlink on his page to a source which helps provide the basis for his point.

Of racism:

"Racism is the dogma that one ethnic group is condemned by nature to hereditary inferiority and another group is destined to hereditary superiority.[2] Thus, Racism propounds racial determinism characterized by racial superiority, racial election, racial caste, racial bigotry, racial prejudice, and racial exclusivity."

"[2]" indicates that there is another source for his information regarding racism. I haven't checked the source, but, yes, this seems like a perfectly reasonable explanation of racism as it exists today.

Of Calvinism, Cox asserts the following

"Calvinism is the dogma of spiritual determinism characterized by spiritual superiority, spiritual election, a spiritual “caste,” spiritual bigotry, spiritual prejudice, and certainly by spiritual exclusivity. "

No source included. Let's hope he can get a better source, because his internal information seems inconsistent with scripture.

And his thesis:

"Clearly, it shares some distressing affinities with Hinduism and Racism."

I see. If it has feathers, then it must also quack like a duck.

Cox proceeds to say that Hinduism, Racism and Calvinism are caste-systems, which presuppose that all people are stuck in their caste and have no way of getting out. This is easily seen in Hinduism, wherein you must live life in the social caste you've been given, and as the social caste is somehow absolute, you must learn to live with it regardless of your objections and aspirations.

Racism contends that you're in a particular racial caste which predetermines your value and worth. Plainly put, unless you're one of the people who thinks Rachel Dolezal is one of the good guys, there's just no getting out of it. You're stuck in your heredity. And since your entire worth is based on race, the racist need only decide that their race really superior, and supposing that they are actually the same heritage you have, they can imagine a class within which they have qualified as a member and you have not.

We should see here that, especially for racists, and the kind of racist who believes that "election" in scripture supposes a particular elect race, a doctrine can easily be misconstrued into a dogma that a person's inherent standing and worth in society is predetermined by their race. It's easy to point out that as early as Exodus 12, we have definitive proof that God not only hates racism, but holds to principle and not to people. God is not loyal to the nation of Israel due to their personal interest in Him, but rather because of His covenantal interest in them. And the covenant is no respector of persons, because the covenant was made and fulfilled by Himself, and holds to the principle of God's word, and not to the people of Israel.

So, Cox says, look at the spiritual pride that Calvinism elicits. You're not elect? Then we have no time for you! You aren't one of those chosen to be saved by God? Gee, you should just get over it. As if election

1) was a legitimate cause for boasting
2) meant that those who desired to be saved wouldn't actually be saved ever.
3) was Calvinism's way of creating an upper-class sect of Christianity so that they could go off and be really lazy, because they already know who the elect are and can thus quit evangelising unless they know there's an elect person out there somehow. Presumption is the Calvinist's best weapon, after all.

What?

So, Let's ignore the existence of the word "elect" in scripture and dig into the inferential texts. Let's just assume that Peter never called the church "elect" and dig into some 200 proof-calvinism for a second.

Cox seems to forget the following point, which Calvinism has used only scripture to demonstrate: People are evil. They are totally depraved. Jeremiah 17:9. Psalm 51:5, Psalm 58:3, Ephesians 2:1-5, John 3:19, John 8:34, Romans 3:10-11, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 1:18, Proverbs 14:12, 1 Corinthians 1:18, Romans 8:7.

If there are a series of verses which explain this concisely, it's Romans 3:9-18.

No One Is Righteous

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
“Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
“Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
in their paths are ruin and misery,
and the way of peace they have not known.”
“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

(Romans 3:9-18 ESV)

We ought to see that verse 9 should lead us to conclude a couple things:
1. The Jews are not better off than the Greeks, though they were given God's law.
2. The Greeks are not better off than the Jews.
3. All are under sin. UNDER sin, as if sin were OVER them; everyone's master. You cannot have two masters. It's a reasonable conclusion that the Bible speaks to the depravity of men being total, and that the charge of depravity does not apply to specific men, or to specific groups of people, but to the entire human race.

Is there any reference to race here, that in any such way, could be logically construed to provide a basis for the heinous sin of racism? I don't see it. Maybe Calvinism isn't spiritual racism then. Cox's argument is the same argument every opponent to the doctrine of election has ever made. The only difference is that right now, racism is a hot-card. It's a commodity to use it to illustrate your points. Who wants to make a short wager that apart from the publicity of apparent racism in today's social media, Cox would not have brought up his point? I'll start with a bottle of whiskey.

The only solution to people who don't seek God is a God that seeks them. And we are told repeatedly that Jesus goes out and recovers each every one of his flock. The conclusion must be made: Jesus loses none that he seeks to find(John 6:39). Meaning that those who were lost are condemned already (John 3:18). Meaning that we have to determine why God saves people.

If Cox is right, then God saves people based on spiritual determinism, and chooses spiritually superior men, elects them due to their superiority, and only chooses them due to their superior spiritual caste. Thus, Cox concludes that Calvinism's God must be a spiritual bigot, and spiritually prejudiced, and spiritually "exclusive".

Cox also has to contend with a couple errors of his own here. Namely, using a foremost example of Election, by which Abram was called and determined by God to be the patriarch and vehicle for all his successors for all who would come to believe in Jesus Christ. Using election to disprove election? I'm not certain what he is getting at here.

Also, the tones of racism here are applied to Calvinism's "prideful" theology. The elect are proud because they are elect? Circular reasoning? You bet. But Paul, the author whose writings were used foremost, especially in the book of Romans, to infer the doctrine of election said this:

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh.

(Romans 9:1-3 ESV)

So beside from the inference which is rightly made, that if God calls all believers and Jesus loses none of them, and therefore God must also not effectually call all unbelievers so that Jesus continues to lose none of the elect, we also see that election is unconditional, to the point of Paul lamenting the fate of unelect kinsmen, his own Jewish brothers. And how do Christians get saved if not by the commendation of faith (Hebrews 11) which we are told is a gift:

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

(Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV)

See also that God prepared good works beforehand which we (being the elect) should walk in. Also note that "no one may boast". The election of Calvinism specifies through scripture that faith "is the gift of God, not a result of works". We also see that faith should result in thankfulness:

I thank my God in all my remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine for you all making my prayer with joy, because of your partnership in the gospel from the first day until now. And I am sure of this, that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

(Philippians 1:3-6 ESV)

It is not possible for the proud to be thankful of an object other than themselves. Yet we find that those "elect" in scripture are called not to pride, but to thankfulness, sobered by the reality that your faith is not the source of God's election but rather the fruit. The Calvinist, above all others, should not be proud but extremely humble. The Calvinist should ask the rhetorical "Why should God have saved me?" There is no inherent good reason in a person that causes God to save them, but for His own glory for which he uses both the elect and the reprobate. The question we should be asking isn't "Why doesn't God save everyone?". It is this: "Why does God save anyone?"

I thank him who has given me strength, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he judged me faithful, appointing me to his service, though formerly I was a blasphemer, persecutor, and insolent opponent. But I received mercy because I had acted ignorantly in unbelief, and the grace of our Lord overflowed for me with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost. But I received mercy for this reason, that in me, as the foremost, Jesus Christ might display his perfect patience as an example to those who were to believe in him for eternal life. To the King of the ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

(1 Timothy 1:12-17 ESV)

Note that Paul, whose works are some of the foremost sources for the doctrine of election, called himself chief of sinners. Does that sound like pride?

Cox also falls into the mistake that the assumption of hard-determinism often leads itself to. I'm perfectly willing to say there is determinism if we qualify it. People are determined to sin and continue to sin, and until God intervenes, they do nothing but sin. They are chiefs of sinners. It doesn't get better unless God interjects. But the idea that the determinism is capricious, that God determines selfishly, is irreconcilable with the bible. Rather, the determinism most of us espouse is compatiblism. Everyone is destined for hell. But some are predestined for salvation. And that's where election comes in. Unless God changes you so that you desire good, you will always desire sin. And if you desire good, you will cooperate with him. If not, you resist him. The Holy Spirit works in the elect to bring about faith, and from that faith proceeds good works. It's a cooperative work, but it doesn't start with you. If you cooperate, it's because God first gave you life and thus the desire to cooperate. It's all God's work.

The non-elect are the proud ones. They are even condemned by their pride.

Pride goes before destruction,
and a haughty spirit before a fall.
It is better to be of a lowly spirit with the poor
than to divide the spoil with the proud.


(Proverbs 16:18-19 ESV)

If we are dead in our trespasses, we cannot "choose" to be alive. We must be given life in order to choose Him. If God completes every good work, and gives you spiritual life, then you are guaranteed the completion of that good work in you. The non-elect are simply dead in their trespasses.

Calvinists aren't motivated to evangelise, Cox says, because they are only looking for the "elect". Well, Paul certainly did not seem in the slight worried about "finding the elect", but in preaching the gospel. Puritans of old were not looking for the elect. They were preaching to the public. Reformed churches today are not interested in finding the elect, because they already understand that God gives the growth. God provides the elect for evangelism. Calvinists need not worry to this end; nor have they ever been inclined to worry about it. The chant of biblical Christianity has always been "preach the Gospel and God will bring hearers". Calvinism upholds the truth of scripture, especially on the subject of election.

Conclusively, election is based not on the works, or caste, or anything else that a sinner could bring to the table in exchange for salvation. The only thing a Christian contributes to salvation is the sin which requires forgiveness. Indeed, the purpose of election was not for God to save a particular caste of people, but to save all kinds of people. And has He not accomplished this so far? The charge of spiritual racism Cox has levied against Calvinism rings hollow and untrue. The reason the plans of God can be viewed as a universal scope is because NOTHING stops Him from saving anybody. If you're elect, your salvation is guaranteed. Election is the call to joy of the Christian, for they cannot even escape God themselves, regardless of their prodigousness or sinfulness. That is the doctrine of election. There are none too far to be effectually called to Christ.

If election sounds spiritually racist, Cox ought to look in scripture and see it for himself. If he is a Christian, election should be nothing short of his joy. It is not pride that election should elicit from the Christian, but rather joy. The entire purpose of election is that no good work God calls us to returns void.

The alternative to election is that nobody ever gets saved, and we wallow in our sins until we die, and we die in our sins, and we are rightfully judged and condemned for our sins. That's the history of mankind without election. Do we really want Cox's non-electing God in the driver seat?

I didn't think so.

SDG

Nick

Why God Does Not Punish Believers

This fruitful discussion came up last night at our little community group and I figured I ought to complete the thoughts that were coming into my head, since I was averse to keeping people up all night with a systematic thought behind the doctrine of substitutionary atonement and how that was played out under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and the differences and similarities therein.

The thesis is this: God does not punish believers for their sins, nor has he ever punished believers for their sins, nor will he ever punish believers for their sins. God cannot do this because that sin was nailed to the cross when God took out ALL punishment for ALL the elect's sin on his own Son.
So in other words, God does not apply the retributive result of justice to the Christian, because He already punished Jesus for it. God does not punish Christians. He does not draw retribution to satisfy his wrath against the Christian by inflicting his wrath upon the Christian, because Jesus took that wrath for himself. The great exchange was when Jesus took our sinfulness and applied it to himself, and he handed us his righteousness.

Where the disconnect comes is in the word "punish", and its contrast with the word "discipline". Some definitions of "discipline" use the word "punish", but if we are looking at the real roots of the word, we find that discipline and punishment need not be the same thing, and I believe there to be a real distinction when we are referring to God's punishment (His visiting of his wrath upon the unrighteous) and God's discipline (His visiting of his corrective grace upon the elect).

Of course, the biggest spat of the night was the following distinction I made (which was not agreed with) about the substance and nature of the Old and New Covenants. I asserted (and still do) that David's sin with Bathsheba, the resulting death of his son, and the resulting blasphemy against God's law by the people of Israel as they witnessed their wayward king; all of these were covered by the blood of Jesus Christ. The New Covenant was not inaugurated but its effects were most certainly retroactive. The same faith that saved David is the same faith that the believer has. The difference is, David's faith was in the promise of the seed of the woman and the Christian's faith is in the actual seed of the woman. The New Covenant is better than the Old for many reasons, and this is one of the big ones. We no longer see the shadow of Christ in the sacrificial systems of the Old Covenant. We see Christ through the Spirit because He has atoned for all sin for all time for all of His elect. And when Hebrew asserts that the patriarchs of the faith were commended due to their faith, we have to ask what sort of faith they had and what the object of the faith was.

The Old Covenant believers had real saving faith in the promise of the New Covenant. That faith was not provided for by the sacrificial system. Rather, the sacrificial system was used to clean the Old covenant believer of their sins. Its use was manifold in keeping God's people preserved in the covenant of works. The law acted as a guardian (Galatians 3:23-29), a schoolmaster, but faith in the law was not the means by which God's people were preserved. Rather, faith in the promise of the New Covenant is how God preserved his people.

Now we know that the New Covenant is better than the old, and I think a lot of this has to do with seeing the shadow of Christ (forthcoming, revealed but not inaugurated in the Old Covenant), and partaking in the substance of Christ (now revealed, inaugurated, delivered as promised in the New Covenant).

My point: The Old Covenant believers had the same faith while under the Old Covenant that New Covenant believes have under the New Covenant. Were there differences? Absolutely. But God took it upon himself to take up the wrath against all believers for all time. Look at the inheritance that the Gentiles have in the epistle to the Hebrews, the perfection of God's sacrifice for ALL believers in Hebrews 10, the commendation of faith (the same commendation the Christian receives) in Hebrews 11. All of which was made possible by the revelation of the New Covenant in Genesis 3:16, and God's reconfirmation of that promise through the Old Covenant with Abraham, and the rest of the patriarchs. Thus the shadowy object of their faith was inaugurated as the full substance of the Christian's faith.

For this reason, I have strong reason to believe that God has never punished believers for their sins and blasphemies, in the Old Covenant, and in the New Covenant. The same unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, is that which God ultimately punishes all unrepentant believers for. But for the elect church, for all time, believers in the NT and the OT, God's punishment was meted out on himself, mirroring the promise he made with Abraham, taking the responsibility of the covenant upon himself in Genesis 15:17. He swore on himself because there was no greater one in Hebrews 6:13.

God promises to discipline His beloved, and promises to not punish them. And justice is preserved because Jesus took that sin upon himself, past. present, and future, and paid the penalty, and He was punished for our sins and blasphemies. He took our rags and gave us riches. It is consequently unjust for God to punish a believer when that punishment was already given to Christ, who died and rose again. It is consequently only just for God to discipline his beloved (Hebrews 12). It is consequently just for God to punish the unrepentant rebellious sinner. As God's wrath was satisfied by Jesus' death, and we are clothed in Jesus' righteousness, it is impossible for God to strike the Christian in wrath, for He would be striking himself, and that was already finished at Calgary.

SDG

Nick

Goodreads Review: The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis

Occasionally, I read a book. Less frequently, I write a review about the book because it was polarizing. Nobody needs a reason to give Harry Potter books five stars. It is obvious why.

On the other hand, sometimes I feel the need to explain myself when I only partially advocate a book, especially one written by Charles Staples. I admit I'm not a huge C.S. Lewis fan, but reading his stuff is still a good look at someone else's opinion. That is to say, the YFR Calvinist in me would like to butt his head against all things he sees as theological error. Hence, my copy of the book is littered with underlined sentences and phrases and notes on the margins of certain pages with certain errors I found untenable. The fact that I kept on reading should indicate that in this case, mine and Lewis's disagreement was philosophical and not theological. Yes, his mind was wracked with inconsistency when he wrote this book, and I wrote a note about how he apparently hated Total Depravity yet upheld its distinctions. Thus Douglas Wilson may call him a Calvinist of sorts. I can rejoice in Lewis's inconsistency because it is that inconsistency that made the book more palatable. Let's not call it "total depravity" if you want to get stuck in the etymology and the details. He still asserts the doctrine, but refuses to name it and explains it in different terms.

A lot of good, and some sifting of the bad to make when you read this book.

Anyway, here's the review:

__

Reading this book is frustrating. Lewis shows a great contempt for his caricaturized form of Total Depravity and has a fitting description of his objections to it: If it were true that we are totally depraved, we would have no reason to trust that we could ever be totally deprived. Maybe he would be correct if scripture taught "utter depravity", the distinction being that total depravity gives the possibility that all men are capable of more evil than they have expressed at any moment. Utter depravity would say that all men do all evil all the time, which we know not to be true. A tyrant can love his mother and at the same time be totally depraved because he doesn't not love his mother fully in the way God has intended. We could also say this is "no real love at all", because the sum of that love is so small compared to the commandment that requires it. Lewis sets up his straw men to burn them when he refutes total depravity. His disagreement is philosophical and not theological, so he misses the mark.

All that being said, Lewis has done some measure of justice to describing some of the effects of the human fall, suffering and pain included.

Interesting is his commitment to the idea of free will. But even libertarian free will is subjected to the effects of sin and is made a slave. Yes, we have wills. And we have free choices, but the freedom of those choices depend on that to which it is bound. Lewis presupposes a libertarian free will but that is inconsistent with scripture. A libertarian will is free to choices of its nature. Lewis appears to forget this when he talks all about free will, mistaking wills which proceed from essence to wills which proceed from existence. The essence of will is the nature which gives it rise. Hence, sin nature gives us sinful wills. We need to be new men because apart from being given a new nature which seeks to love God, we do choose to love the self. Lewis can't account for that with his view of free will.

Also problematic is his conception of hell. While clever, the idea that Hell is simply giving a man what he wants is not supported by scripture. Men are thrown into hell because they do not want to be there. They desire their sins, but not so the consequences.

His chapter on animals is a bit bewildering but holds some nuggets of truth within. All creation was created to glorify God, and all nature reflects some facet of God's nature, hence the prospect of Lionhood being maintained and glorified in a new heaven and earth seems applicable and likely.

All in all, a solid read for fans of Lewis. I do wish he had stuck to the accidental allegories of Narnia rather than delving into theological thought, as now his cognitive dissonance shows when he speaks of men being used by God to glorify him, even in their evils. But in Narnia, worship to Tash in the style of Aslan means their goods to Tash could not be received by Tash. Lewis breaks his own rules but I think this book shows that it is sometimes for the better.

Nick

Music Recommendation: And So I Watch You From Afar: Heirs

An adrenaline rush that wakes you up in a cold sweat at two in the morning.

You wake up on your starship staring at the asteroid fields and pockets of ice crystals floating about you in oblivion.

Your ideas about what constitutes tonal beauty are challenged when you're trying to keep your mouth above the tidal wave of bass and gain which is stifling the ability to breathe and think lucidly.

Voices? Are those real words? Your brain tries to comprehend the vocalizations until you realize that ignoring your preconceptions of language is the only road to comprehension.

Your watering eyes blink and you wipe the salt off your forehead trying to see into the mist. The burning comes from the sadness or maybe the trauma of joy crashing against your stone tower of musical presuppositions.

Is this the future? Or is this the decade on repeat? Holding hands with strangers you know better than the hands you’re hold theirs with.

That’s a bit of the tumult that Heirs offers its listeners. It’s comfortable but it isn’t familiar. It’s your average raucous post/math rock album but it also has dignity. The band is clearly comfortable with displaying their emotions and they are also at home using their mouths to speak musical notes rather than words if that’s what it takes to get the point across. You’ll want to sing along, but there aren’t words. It’s your favorite song that prompts you to mouth the non-sense words, but you’re underwater, fighting to hold your breath.

At once, ASIWYFA channels post-hardcore’s destructive bass tones, Tera-Melos’ atonality (7/4 vocal-earthquake These Secret Kings I Know), Animals As Leaders’ progressive proclivities (People Not Sleeping, second half), and Adebesi Shank’s floor pounding stomp-riff-ic madness (F*cking Lifer). Somehow they trimmed the fat off of their experience with All Hail Bright Futures, which by all means is a great album but had a lot of weird hiccups. Those songs weren’t forgettable but there were some uncomfortable filler songs. And the effort was made a bit worse by the lack of meaning in real words. Heirs is the antithesis: fullness of meaning within the lack of words.

Heirs is less dauntingly weird, and takes some undue challenge out of listening to it by blending the incoherence of math-rock with the atmospheric beauty of post-rock and the space-exploration of progressive rock. It’s the guilty pleasure of accessibility without all the alienation of a sell-out.

Highly recommended.

The vanity within long flights

The words of the Preacher, the son of David, king in Jerusalem. Vanity of vanities, says the Preacher, vanity of vanities! All is vanity. What does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun? A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever. The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. The wind blows to the south and goes around to the north; around and around goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns. All streams run to the sea, but the sea is not full; to the place where the streams flow, there they flow again. All things are full of weariness; a man cannot utter it; the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. What has been is what will be, and what has been done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun. Is there a thing of which it is said, “See, this is new”? It has been already in the ages before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of later things yet to be among those who come after. (Ecclesiastes 1:1-11 ESV)

And thus begins the overwhelming feeling of vanity come 36,000 feet above the earth. I'm listening to music with earbuds to forget the crying baby and young child in the seats behind me. I'm trying to ignore the slight turbulence when it came at the beginning of the flight. I'm sitting in cramped space. The week was too short but the days were too long. Dorena (another no-name post rock band from Europe) is serenading my ears and my nerves.

Megan is doing the crossword puzzle and forgetting that nothing else exists in the space of the three hour flight. My neck is stiff. I wish I had the patience to crossword puzzles. Another small window into her world.

And I want to sleep and take advantage of the two hours I've gained back with the vain time zone adjustments.

Vanity vanity vanity. And only in Christ can I really enjoy it.

Nick. 

Lent and Facebook: the aftermath.

Things I don't miss about Facebook.

Being told about the latest food industry travesty.
Being told what I shouldn't eat.
Being told what I should eat.
Feeling like blogging about Facebook. Or some current event issue on Facebook. Promoting my blog on Facebook knowing it probably won't get read anyways.
Logical fallacies and one-sided blaring of opinions in fruitless online arguments.
The need to check it every fifteen minutes.
Non-stories about how one feels about other people.
Stupid opinions.
Strongly worded stupid opinions.
My need to share my opinions.
My need to share my strongly worded stupid opinions.
Bands asking to follow other bands.
Bands asking to follow record labels.
The rumbling feeling that my distant relatives are watching my every status update.
Getting a message from my grandparents about posting something on Facebook.
Deleting posts and comments from Facebook.
The blatant blaring of bad theology.
The time it takes away from intellectual capacity to hear my wife's voice.
Stories about the latest awesome thing Pope Francis did and how much we should love him for it.
Stories about the latest terrible thing Barack Obama did and how much we should hate him for it.
Finding excuses to dislike people more than I ought to love them.
Establishing my opinion about people based on what they do and share on Facebook.
The awkward and superficial connections that I try to legitimize with people I should really let go of.
The awkward and superficial connections that I refuse to progress with people in real life because of time spent otherwise on Facebook.
The social abandonment felt when leaving Facebook. For no good reason.
My idea that Facebook is the only way to keep connected with the people who really matter.
My need to feel clever and validated by the amount of likes I receive on status updates and comments.
Militant slacktivist feminism.
Militant slacktivist conservativism.
Militant slacktivist liberalism.
Militant and crappy theology.
The shadow of myself in the social sphere.
Feeling known by people who certainly do not know me.
Friend requests from people who certainly do not know me anymore.
Superficial friendships and the illusion of being known.

Things I miss about Facebook

The reformed pub.
Pictures of my wife when we are not in the same place.
Album releases
Tour announcements.
Seeing what's up with my relatives and people that I really ought to know.

Nick

Music Recommendation: Pacific Gold

Here's another band I rarely have time to listen to lately but wish I could forever. Here's their first EP, "The River". Everything else is good but this one might be my favorite folked-up hymnal EP.

Alas and did my Saviour bleed, and did my Sovereign die?
Would He devote that sacred head for sinners such as I?
Was it for sins that I have done He suffered on the tree?
Amazing pity, Grace unknown, and Love beyond degree!

Well might the sun in darkness hide and shut His glory in
When Christ the great Redeemer died for man, the creature's, sin.
Thus might I hide my blushing face while His dear cross appears,
Dissolve my heart in thankfulness, and melt my eyes to tears!