Joshua D. Jones's Blog, page 11

Round Three: Letters to my Atheist Youth Leader

In this post, we'll see a few weird 
things that set homo sapiens apartHey, Rich. Thank you for your post (here). I was glad to see that we share a mutual appreciation of the metric system – a trait not shared by all our native countrymen. I was also glad to see that your response also touched on the subject of human value and meaning. 

These are weird notions for big clumps of cells like us to possess. As a Christian, I can give warrant for why I believe in value and meaning. But I'm curious how you - in your material Universe filled with atoms but void of fairies and deities - still hold to these notions. 
For example, musing on what is of real value you ask,
Think of Doctors Without Borders perhaps. These people literally give their lives to what they do. Is the reduction of suffering and the increase in happiness of these people of value?
The answer is no it isn’t.
Illusion of Value
In your pure materialist Universe, there is no more value in one blob of protoplasm flying from England to Uzbekistan to alleviate a subjective experience called pain than there is any of the chemical reactions exploding right now in the sulphuric atmosphere of Venus. None. There is nothing inherently valuable or meaningful in it. And no science experiment is remotely capable of proving otherwise.
It is only sentimentality (a curious misfiring phenomena of the evolutionary process) that gives us the bizarre sensation that there is anything called ‘value’ in the first place. You concede that in the end, no life will be left and all will be forgotten. But you insist there is a temporal meaning,
Any reduction of suffering in this Universe has intrinsic value regardless of the end state – for those people were able to lead happier lives while they existed.
Intrinsic value? Who confers this? Other humans? What if they are my enemies – and I value seeing them suffer to satisfy my sense of justice? Then an increase of suffering is valuable... to me. 
Perhaps this illusion of meaningfulness once aided some of our ancestors in their quest for food. But in our scientific age, we are free to dismiss such a notion. ‘Value’ is not a material term and cannot be quantified in any empirical way. And, as you wrote to me in your first post,
Should I build my lens for viewing the universe on anything that doesn’t have material and therefore absolutely provable existence?  For me, the answer is a resounding no.
Is there a scientific experiment we can do that proves that one piece of matter is inherently more valuable than another? What experiment proves that I am inherently worth more than helium gas? 
You said in your second post,
If I can’t prove it via the scientific method or direct observation then I have to rely on faith.
Quite.
Believing that anything has inherent value is an act of faith. But, if we are to be consistent in our philosophical materialism, we must dispose of things that cannot be empirically verified. Things like value.
Dawkins & Meaning
Your assessment of human value and meaning is certainly different from that of 19th and 20th Century atheists. Nietzsche, Sartre, Russell, etc. were all resolute that life is meaningless and therefore of no objective value. The 21st Century ‘New Atheists’ are more optimistic. Like you, Richard Dawkins argues that we can still find value and meaning in the face of death. Some of your words reminded me of what he wrote in the beginning of his book, ‘Unweaving the Rainbow’,
We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones. Most people are never going to die because they are never going to be born. The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see the light of day outnumber the sand grains of Arabia… We privileged few, who won the lottery of birth against all odds… the vast majority have never stirred?
The reasoning here is clear: we should be thankful that we get to exist for a limited time as opposed to not existing at all.
But this argument raises questions that don't give comfortable answers. Why do we need to compare ourselves to theoretical, ‘potential people’ to feel this contentment? In order for Dawkins statement to carry its persuasive force, our imaginations need to bestow personhood on those who have never been conceived.
We must also ask if the argument that Dawkins presents satisfies the human soul. Some may feel that since we exist, we now know what will be taken from us. We must suffer the knowledge of losing everything. 
If we were to take a cynical approach, we could argue that it is easy for a healthy, famous millionaire like Dawkins to feel content in this life. But what of the billions who live in poverty or those who suffer violence or chronic pain? What about those for whom death is an escape from an existence of torment? 
It's a beautiful place to live... 
just don't look up.The Teacher in Ecclesiastes takes the opposite position. He points to the difficult lives in a material Universe (‘under the sun’),
I saw the tears of the oppressed – and they have no comforter. Power was on the side of their oppressors… the dead are happier than the living. But better than both is the one who has never been born. (Ec.4.)
You almost acknowledge that in the long term there is no value, saying ‘Please don’t mix up the value of the end state with the value of the now.’ I grant that atheists can live lives with a sense of meaning. But what sort of value is this if we have to keep our thoughts only on the present? Wouldn’t it be wonderful if some force from beyond the sun were to reach into time and lift your head up so that you could look with joy at the horizon as well as your feet?
Why Ought I be Moral?
You neatly respond to my question, ‘Why should I be moral?’ with a double-barrelled reply.
1. Because it makes us feel good – and
2. Because without moral behaviour society would collapse.
Happy
Check before you eatThis response reminds me of soup at a questionable restaurant – best left unstirred. Because if we do, we find that a host of mystery ingredients float to the top.
You say that we ought to be moral because it makes us feel good. Well, yes. Certainly, good deeds can stroke our pride and make us feel like ‘one of the good guys’. Pride is an organ that can be stroked from many directions. But aren’t there many immoral actions that cause a sense of pleasure as well? 
I don't know how it is in Aylett, Virginia, but here in London, many people go out on a Friday night to be happy. And moralism is not the strategy of most to do it. If acting immoral can also make me happy – as I know it can – why ought I to be moral instead of immoral?

Society
And as for the other half of your response, why should I care about the stability of society? If I feel society has screwed me over, I may delight in getting justice on the system by wreaking some havoc.
Things get wild in Aylett 
on the weekendsLet’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say you visit a fellow atheist on his death bed. He has succeeded in life in the sense that he has been surrounded by likeable people, had exciting relationships, made lots of money, etc. But he has done so at the price of oppressing many people. There’s blood on his hands. As you talk to him he chuckles and in good Sinatra fashion says, ‘Well, I did it my way… got away with it too. Life’s been good to me.’
In that circumstance, what could you possibly say to him to convince him he should not have lived the way he did? Some immoral people die happy. Some moral ones die in grief.
You speak of ‘inherent’ morality. But inherent does not mean authoritative. My body has lots of inherent impulses. Not all of them are what most of us would call ‘moral’.
Evolution
This whole argument is based on the questionable sand of atheistic evolution. You write,
Altruism is an evolutionary response to the pressures of competition in the world – we can’t help but find it enjoyable
When we stir this, we have three unsavoury issues rise to the surface.
First, when some of our evolutionary cousins eat their own children or when a male forces sex on a female, is this morally wrong? Can animals be immoral? You argue for a universal moral metric stick. But given the evolutionary process, how? Was there a definite moment in history when the organic motions we call cannibalism and rape became ‘wrong’?
Secondly, if altruism evolves, what does this mean for people who do not share our moral metre stick? What about the Khans? Did they act that way because they lived 900 years ago and evolution had not advanced their altruism enough yet? Are we morally superior because 900 years has biologically advanced us? What about ISIS? They do similar things to the Khans. Are they genetically inferior to you and me? If our species is to advance, should we get rid of these altruistic retards?
But then, if morality comes from our evolution, why berate immoral people? Why do you give the ancient Israelis and their primitive genetics such a hard time? You might as well call salmon to repent for not having legs.
Lastly, if altruism has developed to where it is now just in order to help our species survive, we should expect it to change in the future. What if our hard wiring changes so that we see evil as what we now see as good – and vice versa? Birth rates in the West are low. Perhaps our hardwiring will change in order to increase our offspring. It may have us do things to our women that we now consider unethical so that they will have more babies. What if ISIS and their sex slavery, instead of being backwards, is really the next step in the evolutionary process to replenish the species and make a stronger race?
If morality evolved, then that means morality changes – and your eternal moral metre stick is a concept foreign to the material universe you live in. The current morals of homo sapiens are just a stopover on the road to something else. No use in getting too attached to them.
Unless we live in Universe that is more than just material…
_________________
Please Share
See Round One

A Theology of Broken Hearts

We celebrate relationships that bring us joy on Valentine’s Day. Throughout the 20th Century, this has become almost exclusively focused on romantic relationships, but historically this was not always the case. The very first valentine was sent by a pastor named Valentine to his friend on the eve of his martyrdom.
And Valentine’s is a good day to celebrate relationships that are dear to us – be they romantic, familial, friendly, etc. But what about those of us who are dealing with a broken heart at Valentine’s? 

Hearts are broken when they lose something they love. Having a ‘broken heart’ is a term most commonly used to describe the pain of losing a romantic relationship - but it can also be the loss of other types of relationships that are dear to us.
What should we do if we find ourselves more wounded by love than inspired by love?
Three things…
Mourn
1. First, it’s ok to mourn. The Bible is full of laments – there’s even a book that’s nothing but lamenting. In Job and the Psalms, we also see righteous people shedding real tears over real losses. You’re not spiritually immature for feeling hurt, so take time to express your pain and not just bury it.
Talk
2. Second, find someone to share your burden with. That’s not always easy. Sometimes we’re embarrassed by how our heart was broken. Or, we may not be in the mood to share our wounded guts to another human – since it was just a human that hurt us. But Scripture says ‘mourn with those who mourn’ and to ‘strengthen the weak’. We need reliable people who will listen – and to be that person to them when others are hurt.
Sharing your grief with someone often helps get it out of our head – where the pain and injustice seem so large. Verbalising it can help put the situation in perspective. Get them to pray with you. ‘Pray with one another and you will be healed.’ (James 5)
Grow
3. Lastly, Jesus said in his first sermon (Luke 4) that he's come to bind up the brokenhearted. This claim of Christ’s means more than just helping with the loss of relationships (or potential relationships) – but it certainly includes that as well. He cares about sparrows that fall to the ground – and he cares about our tears when life has wounded us.
God gives us a faithful, greater love. It's one that surpasses the lesser love we lose. Paul prays that we would ‘have the power to understand, how wide, how long, how high, and how deep Christ’s love is. May you experience the love of Christ, though it is too great to understand fully.’
It’s not quite accurate to say that Jesus fills or removes the void. No, the loss is still real, and we must carry it. But God’s love gives us emotional and spiritual resources to carry that loss in ways we otherwise wouldn’t.
Imagine someone cheated you out of £500 ($700). You’d probably be angry. Next, imagine that someone approaches you with a suitcase full of money: £10,000. He gives it to you. No strings attached. Not only that, he plans to visit you on a regular basis to drop off new suitcases. Not because he’s a smuggler or criminal. For no apparent reason, he just likes you.
The loss of the £500 doesn’t go away. That person really did cheat you. But someone else has given you so much, that coping with – and even forgiving – the other debt becomes a real possibility. The wrong you suffered is no longer so big in light of the great goodness that you’ve been smothered with.
Christ’s love doesn’t fill the loss or wrong that broke your heart. But if you know Christ’s love for you, then you will have a strength to walk throw whatever valleys of sorrow the world may send your way. We need to pray, meditate on Scripture, and do whatever we need to help us grow in our understanding of this love. Theology of the purely intellectual variety cannot do this alone. We need to let the love of Christ get into our broken souls. And that means making time and space to open to him,
He shows us love – not by giving poems, chocolates, flowers, kisses, or encouraging words – but by taking our sin in the form of nails and thorns. On the cross, his heart experienced ultimate brokenness both literally and spiritually. He did this so that our broken hearts might be completely healed and whole. 

And though we may rightfully try, he will be more faithfully loving to us than we will ever be to him. And it’s a love we can never lose. 
_____________(Please Share) 

Need help with a male-female friendship? Check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the  USA  and the UK.

7 Keys for Bloggers (and other Writers)

Tools that help us craft good writing in one genre, can sometimes help us in other genres as well. Here, I share some tips to help bloggers. But I’m confident that other sorts of writers – the love-struck novelist, the broke and angsty poet, etc – may also benefit from some of the points. 
1.Learn to rewrite. Writing is work. The blog that explodes from our fingertips when inspired, should not be uploaded immediately. It should be left to cool till we can read and reread it with fresh eyes the next day. We don’t want the world to see we don’t know how to spell or see that our syntax is lame. Read it out loud as you review it. Really.
The first part of writing may well be the thunderbolt of inspiration that assures us of possessing the greatest idea in the history of blogging. But it’s when we sharpen it against the whetstone of editing and rewriting that our piece develops its edge. Hemingway said we should write drunk and edit sober. He would know. It took more than a bottle of scotch for him to write Old Man and the Sea. The idea may have come in a moment of passion, but the realisation came through long hours of wordsmithery.
2.Avoid clichés like the plague. 
[ See that? Don’t do that. Write, ‘Flee from clichés like an Egyptian mummy with worse than average garlic breathe.’ ]
3.Select verbs that stand out. Most writers imagine that fabulous adjectives will sell their art. But verbs do the work. Invest in them.
4.Read good writers. Don't just read one blogger – then we risk being a clone. Nor just two – then we risk being confused. But read five or more good writers. Observe their style and feel their rhythms. Then we get understanding – and develop our own voice.
5.Embrace brevity. Rookie bloggers tend to ramble. The goal of blogging is not to create a book chapter of Tolkienian majesty. In blogging, we must make every sentence, noun and verb count. People often read our posts on mobile devices. Design it in bite size pieces so that it's digestible for people on the go. Keep paragraphs short to let readers know they're making progress. 
Experiment with haikus or Twitter. In neither of these are we permitted to waste words. If we are good, readers may give us three to five minutes. Not ten. Aim to keep it under 700 words (This post has 480). This is hard when we feel we have something important to say. But we must ruthlessly carve out the unnecessary so that the necessary can shine forth.
6.Ask for feedback. Ask from a variety of qualified sources. Not just our mums or best friends. Ask people who know a thing or two about writing or who are well read.
7.Have fun. Writers who enjoy themselves tend to write with a boldness that is enjoyable to read. We can think of writers whose content we disagree with, but whose style is engaging nonetheless. Make your writing sing in such a way that even your detractors will want to read more._____________(Please Share) 

Need help with a male-female friendship? Check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the  USA  and the UK.

Dear Left-Wing Friends,

Dear Democrats and Left Wing friends,
We need you. Over the decades, you have accomplished some great things for which all Americans can be grateful. No political party is without its dark stains, but you have accomplished much good. Thank you.
Who am I? An American by birth who immigrated to the EU after high-school. My wife and children are Scandinavian and I've developed a fondness for their welfare state - one that usually works. I'm an indie-voter who couldn’t bring myself to vote for either Hilary or Trump in the last election. I was somehow hoping both would lose. On some causes, I’m more sympathetic to the Left. On others to the Right.
I’m writing to you because – though I am concerned about some of the things happening in the White House – I’m far more concerned about your reaction to them. You used to be champions of Free Speech. When did the Right pick up that baton? On Inauguration Day the world saw violent anti-trump protests. Recently, there were two student riots (one in Berkley and one in NYU) when a conservative student group invited a conservative speaker in to talk to them. Hundreds of Left wing students felt that the natural way to react to right-wing views was to dress in black and destroy stuff. We're not speeking of a one off. This is becoming normal.
Dressing in black, setting things on fire, and smashing windows…in order to ‘protest fascism’? Wait…
I know most of you aren’t violent. But right now the popular image of you is someone who throws violent temper tantrums instead of engaging in intelligent debate. You need to be the first to denounce the violent Alt-Left among you – not Breitbart News. Correct those in your midst who stand in the way of free speech and a free democratic exchange of ideas.
The Republicans have won a majority in the Senate, the House, State Governors, etc. You speak of being ‘The Resistance’. But right now, your ‘resisting’ seems to consist of rude protest signs, dressing up like female genitalia, Facebook memes that call Trump supporters ‘misogyists’ and ‘xenophobes’, and the occasional bit of violence.
Lefties, if you do not engage in thoughtful, listening, civil debate, you will continue to lose elections. And America will be the weaker. It may be a cliché, indie-voter thing to say, but an eagle needs two wings to fly. I would not like to see America trying to fly with nothing but its right wing. And yes, I have concerns about the Right too and I've written about the dangers of nationalism and the Alt-Right elsewhere on this blog. I’m not a fan of executive orders whether they’re done by Obama or Trump. But there’s a reason the Right is winning so many elections.
As an example of this Leftist malaise, simply compare last month’s two DC marches. One was a (largely conservative) pro-life March. Watch on YouTube the main speeches given at each. Vice-President Pence spoke at the one and gave a calm and dignified speech (whether you agreed with his ideas or not). He never once vilified those who disagreed with him. He called Pro-Lifers to be more compassionate and better listeners. By contrast, the ‘Women’s March’ that happened a week before chose as its main speakers Madonna and Ashley Judd. Both demonised their political opponents. One threatened to blow up the White House and the other called women to be more ‘nasty’.
Really? Democrats, you were the party of Jaqueline Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt. What happened?
When a left wing speaker comes on campus, right-wing students don’t violate Starbucks. Please… I’m appealing to the good in you, get your house in order and regain your lost civility so that balance can be returned to the force. Don’t be the movement of rioting, ‘nasty women’, strawmen FB memes, anti-free speech, and burning stuff. We need your intelligent voice again.
Sincerely,
An Indie-Voter

Round Two: Letters to my Atheist Youth Leader

Hey Rich, 
I thought I was being overly enthusiastic when I wrote my original post of 940 words to you. But as you have responded to me with by writing three separate posts (8,051 words in total) it seems that my coyness was a bit premature.
The amount of material you produced highlights your commitment to this discussion. Thank you, I’m honoured for your time. But in constructing that impressive written edifice it seems that you haven’t actually answered my question.
So, I will continue to develop it here. 
Why be Moral?
I’m asking why we should be ethical. You have a strong moral compass. You denounce YHWH and the ancient Israelis with all the passion of a Pentecostal preacher looking for revival. Comparing them to Hitler and ISIS, you decry their evil ways. Your sermon is moving. I just want to know about that pulpit you’re standing behind.
Let’s assume for now that YHWH, and the ancient Israelis really are as bad as you paint them out to be. You say of this God, ‘His morality is situational and he espouses a set of laws no better than that of Himmler or Ghengis’. Ok. My question is, so what? Why is it bad to be situational? What’s wrong with being like Ghengis Khan?
You declare, ‘I believe that we have the moral right and power to judge certain acts regardless of the environment it was committed in.’ Obviously you do. But where does that obligatory faith come from? What book are you preaching from when you call the guilty to account? What exactly is this ‘universal moral yardstick’ you speak of in your post? Where does it come from? And, most importantly, why should any of us care?  
I’m afraid referring to it as ‘innate morality’ doesn’t even begin to answer the question. It simply raises a few more. Let’s just focus on two of them.
Evolutionary Morality: Two Questions
First of all, let’s assume – as you argue – that ‘evolutionary pressures’ have left us humans with some altruistic impulse that may have helped our species survive. The question still remains: Why should we listen to these genes? Why ought we to obey that impulse (which as you’ve pointed out varies a lot from person to person and culture to culture) but deny listening to our other biological impulses that crave sex and power? Why should we scratch our altruistic itch – assuming we all have one – but not our itch to dominate others? If I can deny my altruistic impulse and still die happy – why should I submit to it?
Secondly, we should rightly ask about the future of this evolutionary process. If humans have developed a sense of not wanting to cause innocents to suffer (we’ll leave out who gets to define ‘innocents’ for the moment) could evolution not cause us to discard this later down the line? 
I pointed out above that you mistakenly understood me to be saying that in the Old Testament 'widespread rape was ok' and then you asked, 'When did it stop being ok?' But don't you see how vulnerable you are to your own question? We may equally ask, 'When in the evolutionary process did forced sex stop being ok? When did verbal consent become a moral necessity?
Consent? No thanks! Evolution won't develop
that concept for a few million more yearsAnd more to the point, if evolution made things like verbal consent necessary, can it make it unnecessary again? Since we’re wired to reproduce, it’s easy to imagine that in the near future our evolutionary sex drives might eliminate such an inconvenient concept. But it’s not just about sex. What if we lose our altruistic impulses and develop an ‘evolutionary imperative’ to eliminate the weak? Will that be ok? 
You argued that we need a moral yardstick which is universal, ‘Because if it’s not [universal] we have to face the fact that one day Auschwitz may be accepted as righteous and good.’ And if evolution takes us there… why not? Survival of the fittest, right?
The Original Question
You say that what the Israeli’s did are evil. But why should they care what you think? By your own admission as a philosophical materialist, they are but accidental pieces of stardust shrapnel. You are nothing more than a random collection of protoplasm – more opinionated than most perhaps, but not anymore authoritative. You can argue that if everyone is altruistic it might help the human race as a whole last longer. But why should I care about the future of organic matter here on earth any more than I care about the fate of sulphurous gases on Venus?
It all beautifully adds up - until you subtract the only thing that really matters. 

The sun will one day grow large, then fade. There will be no one around to remember that human’s ever existed. We are just a momentary flash in the Universe’s long and meaningless history. Human genocide will be no more consequential than stepping on a collection of ants, bleaching my toilet to wipe out the germs, or even kicking up a pile of sand. Whether we are good or bad to each other here and now will make no difference whatsoever.
So, why ought we to be moral?

My Church now has a Female Pastor - Should I Leave?

Hi Joshua,Hope you're well. I've recently left my congregation after 4 years with them because of their new stance of allowing women into the pastorate/eldership. I did so after much deliberation and prayer. I'm not looking to put the responsibility of that decision on anybody else, but I'm wondering if you consider that reasonable thing to do?-N
The words 'manhood' and 'womanhood'
are now rendered meaninglessThank you for asking. As you may have noticed, our culture is currently somewhere north of insane when it comes to its views on gender and sexuality. For some time, we have been driven more by a sexually pagan ideology than by any objective reflection on actual biology.
The recent marches in DC and other cities underline this point. Now, I am not at all against protests on women's issues. A few years ago I took my daughter to participate in a largely female protest against porn in the media - what we here in England referred to as the 'Page 3 Girls'. Also, there are areas of the world where women are genuinely oppressed: where they cannot hold a driver’s license, property, or vote. We should actively protest on behalf of those women. 
But these marches weren’t for them. This march was made up of educated, financially well off women chanting that no one should question their right to murder their pre-born children. To further add to the insanity, transgender activists protested the protesters for using pu**y hats, saying that such things discriminated against biological men who like to self-identify as women. Given this climate, any talk we have about gender issues in the church of God will seem crazy to outsiders.
My Story
Upon my conversion to Christianity, I was never taught anything about gender issues or gender roles. The subject didn't come up in our youth group. My parents were divorced and my mother had a successful career to provide for us. She was a strong woman. After high-school, I was involved in a gap year/ internship type program working for a well-known and successful woman pastor. It was during this time that I was taught strict social rules about how men and women should interact. I believed a woman could be my pastor – but not a close friend that I hung out with or shared secrets with. During this time I became more familiar with the gender debates and developed a strong egalitarian view of church leadership.
It was my studies that changed me. My undergrad degree is Biblical theology and my post-grad work is in Hermeneutics with an emphasis on feminist interpretation. It was in interacting with others outside of my Egalitarian bubble that I slowly began to see how weak my arguments were. Those few verses that I used to justify female eldership (Isn’t a woman named Junia definitely an apostle?!) began to unravel as I looked at the whole of what Scripture taught.
I had to face the reality that though women are highly active in the early church in regards to using their gifts, governmental authority in the church is overwhelmingly affirmed by New Testament writers as being reserved for qualified men. The hermeneutical gymnastics that I engaged in to get the text to say something other than what it clearly said lacked integrity.
In revisiting all the classic passages on gender, my wife and I both – reluctantly at first – embraced a mild complementarian viewpoint. (See Michael and Debbie Pearl’s book ‘Created to be his Help Meet’ for an extreme complementarian/ hierarchical position. I don’t recommend embracing that view.)
Forbidden Friendships
This move to Complementarianism also made me revisit my view on male-female friendship. I found that a new perspective on mixed friendship naturally flowed from my Complementarian position. The premise is simple: since men and women are essentially different, spiritual sisters will be able to input into your life things that spiritual brothers cannot. I repented of only building friendships with men and sought to cultivate more meaningful relationships with the women who were around me. Then I wrote a book about it.
I do not mean to imply that only Complementarians can endorse heterosociality - though my main critic early on was a staunch Egalitarian clergyman. But as the book has been out for a while now, I can say that it has received both endorsements and criticisms from Complementarians and Egalitarians alike. 

(Some who support heterosociality have claimed that is 'Patriarchy' which is the reason men and women don't engage in deep friendship - but that view is outside all of my experience.)
Was Leaving Reasonable?
You asked if leaving your church because of its new position on women elders was reasonable. My reply would ‘yes’. But though it is a reasonable action, it is not one I have always personally followed.
Though we are in a Complementarian church now, the previous two churches our family attended were not. We left one of them - in part - because they went too far down the Egalitarian path and 'Mother God' liturgy was introduced. The second church was only very mildly Egalitarian where women could be pastors but not elders (It's complicated... the church used the title 'pastor' in the way other churches might use the term 'deacon'). Though we didn't fully agree on that issue, there was enough good stuff happening there for us to feel comfortable being a part of that church. Some - on both sides - like to go to war on this issue
In our current church, our female deacons are very active - and outnumber the male deacons - but eldership is only for qualified men. I must admit, it is refreshing. We have other weaknesses and areas that need addressing, but I am glad this is an issue where there is a sturdy theological foundation.
For me, this is not a divisive issue, which is why I don’t blog much on it. But others go to war over it. I cringe when I see a Complementarian dismiss all Egalitarians as ‘liberals’ or'Bible haters'. Similarly, I cringe when an Egalitarian will comment on social media that all Complementarian leaders ‘oppress women’ and how we need to 'fight the Patriarchy'. Really folks?
I can still look back on my early days of working under that female pastor with fondness. I still recognise how God’s grace was at work to redeem sinners and transform lives. Embracing Complementarianism didn't suddenly enhance my prayer life or make me a better soul winner. I still have a lot of respect for my Egalitarian brothers and sisters who are committed to preaching the gospel and following Christ. God is at work there - even if they're wrong on a gender issue. 
I hope you find a good church. Some people make this a defining issue – I would be cautious of doing so. My advice – if you want any - would be to meditate on Scripture and make a list of exactly what you feel a church should be. There are more issues than just gender ones. And simply getting that one issue right – while neglecting other issues like outreach, hospitality, and prayer – will lead to other problems down the road. 
Thanks again for asking,Joshua______________________________
[Please Share]

Need help with a male-female friendship? Check out Forbidden Friendships - available on Amazon in Paperback and Kindle in the  USA  and the UK.

Dear Rich - A Response to my Atheist Youth Leader

You get an 'A' just for participating in this discussionRich is a former pastor and youth leader of mine who has deconverted from Christianity. He is about 9 years my elder and was one of those ‘cool Christian leaders’ I admired as a youth, so it is something of an honour to address the issues he raises in his deconversion blog (Here). I am thankful to God for allowing this meaningful interaction online – addressing an issue that is important to a lot of people. I’m also thankful to Rich for being willing to engage in the public forum like this.
Sacrificing Isaac
Rich, in your first post you recount the role that Genesis 22 – the account of Abraham being tested with Isaac - played in your deconversion. You argue that only a grossly immoral and evil God would ask a man to sacrifice his son. As a father of two boys myself, I could feel the emotional force of your objection and sympathise with the moral dilemma you found yourself in. As you wrote,
At that moment my innate moral sense came into direct conflict with the presumptive authority of the received moral laws that I had learned at the knee of faith.
But my empathy soon gave way to measure of incredulity as I examined your reasoning from that passage – a reasoning you were calling your readers to share.
First of all, you call upon your readers to embrace the historicity of the event. You remind us that this is a supposedly ‘historically accurate account’ and try to get us to imagine what it must have been like to hear God make such a request. Your premise seems to be that if we could only caffeinate our imaginations adequately, we would stand in Abraham’s sandals, our jaws would drop and we would utter, ‘Gee God…. That’s not very nice. I think I’m heading back to Ur.’
But if we’re going to play the history game – and I’m glad you want to – then we need to play it all the way. No semi-historical musings will do. If we’re going to go back to the Ancient Near East (ANE), let’s grab an espresso and go as far as we can.
Taking off Modernist Spectacles
Buckle up boys and girls,
travelling back in time can be a shaky experience.
A man in the ANE would’ve had a very different reaction to hearing this account then the reaction you describe and call us to experience with you. It’s an understandable a priori reaction for a 21st Century Westerner, but not an adequate conclusion for one claiming to present the account in its historical context. For that claim to have integrity, we need to take our cultural lenses off and travel back in time. 
Child sacrifice was normal. Jesus had not yet uttered ‘let the little children come to me’. The Psalmist had not even penned ‘children are a blessing from YHWH’. There was no modern sentimentality towards children and sacrificing a child to one of the various gods of the ANE Parthenon (Marduck, Baal, Tiamat, etc) was normal.
If we don’t attempt to read the text with the ANE worldview in mind, then we are doomed to be ideological imperialists in our interpretation. An ancient reader would have seen nothing unusual in Abraham’s god asking him to sacrifice his son.
Oh, the story was indeed shocking to its audience. But not for the reasons you describe. The unexpected twist in the story comes – not when YHWH makes the request - but when YHWH stops Abe. The original ANE ears would’ve tingled when the heard that it was God – not Abe – that will provide the true sacrifice. Gods don’t provide the sacrifices, people do. Right?
Not Abe’s god. He’s different. Which, of course, if the whole point of the story.
My Question
In addition to your commentary on Genesis 22, you tell your deconversion story on your blog. In it, you recount how after an unfortunate experience in the world of Charismania you made a decision. You wrote ‘that night I became an individual, much to the detriment of my faith.’ But what type of individual? An ANE individual? A 9th Century Mongolia individual? A 21st Century, post-Enlightenment, Western individual? There is no generic, individual with a mind unaffected with cultural presuppositions and values. Your reading of the Genesis text betrays any pretexts to objectivity you may claim in your blog - no matter how sincerely you may believe you have it.
Of course, this story isn’t a standalone. When Moses gives the law, it includes a law forbidding child sacrifice - the only sacred law in the ANE to do so. In the wider canon of Scripture, we understand that God is making a theological point: the slaughtering of our flesh and blood children cannot save our souls. God alone will make that provision. He, himself, will take on flesh - specifically so that it can be slaughtered.
But I’m getting ahead of myself. Before we talk about your redemption and reconversion, we need to address the need for intellectual repentance. ‘Repent, and you shall be saved.’ So first things first. This brings us to our second and main point: short but important.
You condemn YHWH for asking to make this sacrifice – even if you may concede that it was just a test. My question is, on what basis do you condemn Him? You say that your objection to this passage is a moral one. Quite. But what pulpit are you standing behind when you pontificate to YHWH? You say that it’s wrong for YHWH to ask for the sacrifice of a child, but given your atheism, how?
I look forward to your response.

Libertarian Theologies: the French & American Revolutions

Recently the West has seen a resurgence in Libertarian politics. We should be happy for this. But we need to be happy in a qualified way. Even the term means different things to different people and while Libertarian principles can be rooted in a godly worldview, it can also be rooted in an ungodly one.
By Libertarianism, we’re meaning a political system focused on the liberty of the individual from the State. People who identify this way aren’t so concerned about the Right/Left political divide as much as the Big/Small government divide. 
Here in the UK we can see a form Libertarianism in the Green party who would make marijuana and brothels legal – a matter of individual conscience. We also see it another form in the Welsh national party that wants to dissolve central powers away from Westminster into more regional zones. While the Tories are mostly NOT Libertarian – certainly not Theresa May who wants the right to read your WhatsApp messages – there are some voices within the party, such as Daniel Hannan, who are. In the USA, Rand Paul would be similar to Hannan – a lone Republican voice calling his party and country to Libertarian principles.
Christian theology and Libertarianism
Christians should rightly be wary of big, intrusive government. We should do so based on our knowledge of human nature as corrupted by sin. Historically they tend to erode religious liberty. Even in the secular world, we are familiar with the phrase “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It’s this understanding of man’s sinful nature that made the difference between the American and the French revolutions, both of which happened around the same time, but which had very different results.
The French Revolution was fuelled by the idea that Monarchy is bad. The American Revolution was fuelled by the idea that Mankind is bad. This is why the American colonies went from revolution to peacefully building the longest lasting republic while the French fell into a Reign of Terror that was somewhere north of a blood bath.
There is a type of Libertarianism that sees man as essentially good, but he is oppressed by some sort of abstract system called "government". But there is another type of Libertarianism that sees man as broken because of sin. Because of this condition, political power should be spread out as widely as possible – hence America’s separation of federal powers, balance between federal and state’s authority, written Bill of Rights, etc.


An unsanctified Libertarianism sees government as bad because it's government. A Christian view sees government as bad because it is human.
The difference between the Revolutionary French vision of Liberty and the Colonial American vision of Liberty was that one didn’t take sin seriously and the other did. Once freed from the Monarchy, the French were shocked to find that sin and evil were still with them. For, to the ungodly, Liberty can simply be code for “I can do whatever I want.”
For those of us who embrace Libertarian ideals, let's remember Satan’s words to the fallen angels in Milton’s Paradise Lost when they finally arrive in hell, "Here at least we shall be free!” 

Why we need [some] Government
This is also why the Christian view is not compatible with the forms of Libertarianism that are akin to anarchy.
Some Libertarians think that mankind needs government like a fish needs a bicycle. If you’d like to read a Christian advocating anarchy, see HERE.  I don’t think this article is entirely wrong – but it’s unbalanced in its exposition of Scripture. He cites some verses but leaves out some others. If we look at the full counsel of what Scripture says on the matter, we see the Bible creates a tension when it comes to its view on government. It’s is neither naïve in embracing it nor is it completely dismissive of it.
God’s Kingdom will ultimately subvert every government that does not confess Jesus as Lord – and Christians, as citizens of heaven, should resist ungodly laws. But until Christ’s Kingdom comes in power, there must be some government because here is still human sin which tends towards lawlessness. The church is called by God to preach the gospel and care for the poor. Civil governments are called by God to wield the sword in order to protect the innocent and punish evildoers. Read what Paul writes carefully…
The one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities.  –Romans 13.4
All leaders will give an account to God for how they governed (Psalm 2). It will be a scary day for many of them as they’ll have to give an account of what they did with the authority entrusted to them. Though this should strike fear in the hearts of leaders – it should also remind us that all authority, including civil authority, comes from God and should not be despised outright.
Nearly ten years ago, a Western coalition of nations took out Saddam Hussein in a cloud of talk about liberating the Iraqi people. And for good reason - he was an oppressive and brutal tyrant. But what happened when he was removed? The anarchy that ensued was worse than the dictator. Honour and revenge killings, looting, rape, etc. No police were around to protect the innocent.
This world's ultimate problem is a not a politico failing, but rather a cardio failing. Bad men in good systems will still create painful living. So though we can't agree that Libertarianism will solve all of the world's ills, we may rightly agree that they will protect us from the abuse of overreaching government.
And we still need some government in place to protect us from the abuse of our overreaching neighbours.

Snowflake Christianity is a Leech

This morning I get to look out my window at the charming green, the church, and the pub – all with an inch or two of snowflakes dusting the scenery. It's quaint.
Snow on the church can be cosy. Snow in the church… not so much.
Snowflake Christianity. At times it also goes by the names, ‘progressive’, emergent’, or ‘Red Letter’. They’ll call it anything but what it has been classically called which is ‘liberal theology’. Admittedly, this is also a strange name for it because what it teaches isn’t liberating.
I don’t wish to make a snowman of the snowflake movement. There’s enough misrepresenting going on - and I have friends in the movement with whom I engage with at times. But I want to point out what should be obvious to many: Snowflake Christianity is a leech.


What's Good about Snowflake Christianity?

Snowflake churches are different
from their grandparents' churchesNow I don’t mean to imply that is only a leech. Snowflake Christianity has the capacity to articulate good questions and they can be incredibly gifted zeitgeist sniffers.
And, though much mocked in the media for their supposed need for ‘safe spaces’ every 15 yards, it would be a shame if we were to swing to the other extreme and deny the fact that sometimes we do need safe spaces to ask genuine questions without being suspected of heresy. 

This is opposed to the many ungenuine, questions driven by rebellion that are being asked. Those go back to Genesis 3 where the serpent asked, 'Did God really say?'. We know what he said, we're just asking questions because it makes us comfortable.
Why Snowflake Christianity is a Leech
The other day I was helping a new Christian. He’s a man in his 30’s raising a child on his own. Prior to his conversion, he was a drug addict and an alcoholic with a violent criminal record. His life was dramatically changed when hearing the Gospel: the cross, resurrection, forgiveness of sins, heaven and hell, and the need to repent and believe. He was convicted of having a dark and evil heart when he heard about how the living God became a cursed cadaver and was nailed upon a tree. With many tears, he asked God to come in and change him. Which God did.
I mention this man’s story because it is both remarkable and unremarkable at the same time. It’s remarkable because such radical transformations are rare in the secular world and the change in this man’s life can be rightly labelled ‘miraculous’. But it’s not remarkable in the sense that I have come across countless people just like this. There are millions of similar testimonies throughout the world. Usually, it is in response to a classically evangelical preaching or sharing of the gospel – though on occasion it has happened in a Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox contexts as well.
But in Snowflake Christianity, these stories are somewhere south of rare. The more I listen to the ‘progressive’ Christian community, the more I hear the same story – we once believed the classical evangelical narrative, but now don’t. These are the disgruntled and disillusioned children of Evangelical Christianity.  There aren't many Snowflake churches in Russia
...for some reason.
Now I don’t mean to suggest that some don’t have good reason to feel jaded. I too have suffered spiritual abuse by authoritarian leaders and have sat under sloppy, politically charged teaching. Many have. I sympathise with some of the pain the progressives feel - just not what they do with it. The Evangelical church is all too human and has made plenty of errors – many of which I discuss on this blog. If she preaches the gospel of forgiveness, she must preach it first of all to herself.
But what I don’t see are many testimonies of being born again straight into Snowflake Christianity. Where are the former violent offenders, gang members, adulterers, homosexual activists, porn addicts, and corrupt businessmen who - upon hearing the Snowflake message - responded by shouting out ‘I once was lost but now am found was blind but now I see’?
Snowflake testimonies be like: ‘I was raised Baptist (or Pentecostal). But I found out they were all just xenophobic hypocrites when my parents voted for Brexit (or Trump). Plus I never understood why a gay couple couldn’t marry each other. Isn’t God supposed to be love? I certainly don’t think he would ever send someone to hell. And we can’t really believe everything in the Bible, can we?'
If all Snowflake Christianity can do is criticise and deconstruct the faith of their parents, there’s not really much of a message to bring to a rebellious world. If all a pastor can do is tell his progressive congregation what he used to teach - back in the old days when he believed the black as well as the red letters in his Bible – what revolutionary message is he bringing lost men and women? Encouraging them to recycle? Affirm marriage equality? Be nice people? Get with ‘the Kingdom program’? 

Enter the savvy priestess, the Right Rev. Elgee Beatie. 

It's hard to build a growing, baptising church on a message of deconstruction. It's easier to build up a large, disgruntled following who listens to you rail against the system through a steady stream of turpentine tweets, regularly laced with cyanide slander. 
When I say that Snowflake Christianity is a leech, I mean that if the classical Evangelical church would suddenly disappear, the Snowflake movement would also die – because that is where its members backslide from. But the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and classically Evangelical church would go on as usual if all the Snowflake churches were to melt.____________

The Cross and the Frog: reaching out to the Alt-Right

Pepe the Frog is an Alt-Right symbolThe Alt-Right is a Xenophobic movement filled with deplorables that are beyond redemption. 
Or so I'm hearing.
The idea behind the term 'Alt-Right' is that it is an alternative to mainstream conservative parties – the Tories here in the UK and the Republicans in the USA. The term has been used by some to refer to those who enthusiastically supported Brexit and Trump in the 2016 elections. Many in this group perceive Western-Civilisation to be in decline due to internal weaknesses and want to revive what was classically good.
When I write about the Alt-Right, I write as an outsider - but not as one trying to arrogantly dismiss them or their concerns. As Christians, we should seek to understand and sympathise with people wherever possible, so that more may be won for Christ. How can we do this with the Alt-RIght?
Avoid Broad Brushing
James writes ‘Be slow to speak, quick to listen, and slow to anger.’ That’s rare in politics. One thing that will close up anyone quickly is to misrepresent them. If words like ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, ‘xenophobic’ are the first things that come out of our mouths when dealing with the Alt-Right you may need to check your heart.
When you care enough to look closer, you realise just how incredibly diverse the various groups are that get put under this umbrella: Libertarians to gun owners to white supremacists. They don't all fit the stereotype. 
For example, one of the major Alt-Right players is Milo Yiannopoulos. He is an immigrant to the UK from Eastern Europe, he’s part Jewish, and he’s openly homosexual. He’s also one of the pioneers and chief editors of Breitbart News – the main Alt-Right news website that is often dismissed as being homophobic, neo-Nazi, and anti-immigrant. 
Confused?
If you paint the Alt-Right movement with too broad a brush – in word or on social media – your chances for sharing the good news about the resurrected Jew from Nazareth will be slim. This is true of any group, but particularly here.
Example
Yesterday four young black people kidnapped and tortured a special-needs, white man in Chicago. They videoed themselves abusing him while mocking his ‘privilege’ as a white person and making jokes at Donald Trump. 
I assume most of my readers – regardless of their politics – find such behaviour somewhere north of deplorable. These incidents open up old social wounds like complicated flowers in the night.

But if you’re going to reach those in the Alt-Right community, you also need to know how they see might see this event. Let's put on some Alt-RIght glasses and see how might this event fit into the larger narrative that makes up their worldview? 
Imagine
Imagine growing up as many white, working class males do – in poverty. The term ‘white trash’ gets used to describe you and your family regularly. You see affirmative action and scholarships sometimes offered to the ethnic minority youth in your neighbourhood - but you’re white and not eligible for those. You’d never consider yourself a white supremacist, you simply feel treated unfairly. 
Imagine that you hear of protests happening when a black person gets shot by police. But when your white friend gets shot by police - no one seems to care. You don't disagree that 'Black Lives Matter', you're just wondering why your friend's life didn't.
Imagine that you don’t get to see or care for your two-year-old child very often - even though you know the mother is on drugs and lives with her new boyfriend. The law - which favours a mother's custody right's over a father's - makes you pay lots in child care (even though her new boyfriend makes more than you). 
You try to complain about these issues, but you're dismissed and told to 'check your privilege' or to 'fight the Patriarchy'.
Imagine that neither Republican nor Democrat (or Tory & Labour) seem to be doing anything to help your situation I life. You feel that you get no breaks. And because you’re a white male, you grow up hearing that most world problems are your fault – and no one with a platform seems to argue back.
Then a situation like last night in Chicago happens.
Imagine…what are your first thoughts? Your first thoughts are: ‘If it had been four white guys that kidnapped a black man and tortured him while making fun of Obama, it would be world news! It would be labelled a hate crime instantly! But because the victim was white, it hardly gets a mention! No one cares about us!’
Imagine that you are angry and feel forgotten by the world.
Then a powerful movement like the Alt-Right comes along… what do you begin to feel when you hear other voices crying out about an injustice you can relate to?
Hope.
Listen
Please take the glasses back off. As Missionaries we are not called to adopt the worldview of those we are reaching. It is simply to understand it and sympathise with people where possible. Christians are called to be a people who listen - even if we perceive a person's political talk to be a torrent of turpentine. This is hard for those who find their identity in political movements - but as Christians we appeal to a higher altar. 

Feeling not listened to runs deep among many in the Alt-Right community. We may disagree, but if we are seen to be dismissive of them, we will not be given a hearing. If we judge a person more through a political lens than we do through a gospel lens, we will fail to be the kind neighbour and faithful witness that Christ calls us to be.

This does not mean we should never express disagreement with certain Alt-RIght ideologies. We should stand firm against idolatrous forms of Nationalism and racial exaltation. Patriotism can be a false religion. But we listen first - and speak with both courage and humility later.

Remember your own massive sins - and resolve to love your crooked neighbour, with all your crooked heart. 
Good News for the Alt-Right
In the case of the imagined young man, he experiences the Alt-Right movement in a messianic way. But the trouble with movements that make messianic promises of justice or righteousness – LGBT, Islam, Nationalist movements, etc – is that they are not the Messiah and can never deliver the type of justice and righteousness our souls really need.

Only Christ can give this young man the value and affirmation that his heart has never experienced and that he longs for. Alt-Right politics – whether we sympathise with some of their views or not – will not reconcile us to God. And if we build our identity on it – it will one day break our hearts.
Many people in the Alt-Right feel betrayed, unfairly treated, and misrepresented. They are looking for a renewed civilisation that will not be destroyed. The Gospel speaks to these hearts. There was someone else who was also betrayed. He was also unfairly treated. He was misrepresented and lied about in the trial that determined his execution. 
And why did he do this? So that he could give us faithful love from God himself. So that he could build a new home and new civilisation for us – one that will be around long after the nations and civilisations of this world have faded.
When someone from the Alt-Right, or any other group, finds that love and that new home – it transforms. And that is something we all desperately need.