Jared Longshore's Blog, page 39

Joy and Toil

One of the lies we are tempted to believe is that joy and toil can never be packaged in the same box. You can have joy on one day and toil on another. Or you can have gladness of heart at 2pm and dishes to do at 3pm. But you can’t have a jolly spirit while scrubbing potatoes off of a fork, or scrapping ice off your windshield, or clearing out an e-mail inbox.

Man has fogotten what joy is for. And Ezra told us long ago, “The joy of the LORD is your strength” (Neh 8:10). So it is not only that joy and toil come in the same box. But you need joy if you would toil well. Labor without joy is vain pain. It is no wonder so many try to avoid it. In the other direction, joy without work is empty emotionalism masquerading like the real thing and doing absolutely no one any good.

The Christian faith announces not only that you must rejoice. It also announces that the joy you need has come to earth. Joy was wrapped in swadling clothes. It laid in a manger. 

Joy is not far from you. It is not out of your reach. Christ endured the cross for the joy set before him. And Paul is not saying that he had to endure the cross without joy in order to get to joy on the other side. He’s saying that joy was set before him like a Christmas feast is set before you on the table. God prepared a table for him in the presence of his enemies. So it is with us. And we realize this by faith.

Judgment vs. Judgmentalism

Regardless of the common root, there is a world of difference between good judgment and judgmentalism. We must get the former while avoiding the latter.

Jesus addressed judgmentalism when he said, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). Now we all know that this passage is often twisted. The school teacher returns the quiz with four of the ten problems marked through with a red X. And the child says, “But, teacher, did not our Lord say, ‘Judge not.’” This is a perversion of the principle. But the routine twisting of this standard does not exempt us from obeying the untwisted standard. Our Lord said, “Judge not.” Stop condemning your brothers. Stop casting them into the outter darkness.

Jesus warned that the measure you use shall be used upon you. And you don’t have to wait around for this kind of thing to happen. Find a man who is judgmental of others and he will be just as judgmental of himself. He holds up condemnation-yard-stick no matter what he’s measuring. In its softer forms, we call it nitpicking. In its high octane forms, it is downright disdain. And we should put away all forms of it.

“But,” the judicialist responds, “Am I supposed to ignore the problem? They are not what they ought to be. I am not what I ought to be. The world itself is not what it ought to be.” The solution is not to ignore whatever is bent, broken, or out of place. The solution is to observe it and address it in light of the incarnation. Judgmentalism is judgment without the incarnation. And the incarnation is what will turn your judgmentalism into good judgment.

Christ saw what was deformed and he didn’t pick up a megaphone in heaven and shout down, “Shape up!” He came to us. He came to heal us and govern us like a Good Shepherd.

The Mud Is for Your Hands

We have come to the point in the Christian Nationalism conversation where we need a little clarity and a great deal of courage. We don’t need clarity in every nook and cranny. You can’t rush the process on this one. We have a lot to work out when it comes to recovering Christian order in our land and we’re not simply working things out on a white board. We’re repairing this ship while we are on it. Many saints know this vessel is glorious and broken. And there we are standing on the deck of this boat discussing not only the fundamental changes which are in order, but also how to implement those changes such that we won’t be sent straight down to Davy Jones’s Locker. 

So we can’t have clarity on all of the parts. But we do need clarity on who is actually laboring for cultural reformation and who is just dreaming about it. I have a modest proposal that might bring such clarity, but before getting to it, a little background. Into the situation outlined in the previous paragraph, Stephen Wolfe has written the book The Case for Christian Nationalism. There has been quite a stir on deck and we really needed that stir. I was afforded one of those advanced reader copies and kept chuckling to myself that this stir, perhaps ruckus is better suited, was indeed coming and I was quite looking forward to it. I was looking forward to it, but I did start singing Johnny Cash’s If I Had a Hammer even before the book released. I thought things might get a little spicey and found myself going on with: “If I had a hammer, I’d hammer in the morning. I’d hammer in the evening, all over this land. I’d hammer out danger. I’d hammer out warning. I’d hammer out love between my brothers and my sisters all over this land.”

Now the warning I was longing to hammer out was not a warning about Wolfe’s book. It was a warning about Christians staying out of the flesh when they read and responded to some of the arguments in Wolfe’s book, it was a warning about keeping the love between the brothers and the sisters amid a strong and first proposal of how to adjust given the dangerous trajectory our nation is on. I was expecting rigorous engagement and there has been some of that. But there has also been more than a bit of sassy dismissiveness and added to this has been the Thomas Achord affair. These latter events have muddied the waters and they give rise to a particular temptation into which Reformed Evangelicals have been prone to fall. That temptation is the temptation to distance yourself from a good endeavor, one you actually agree with, simply because of what people might think of you. That temptation is to pull back into pure thought world so that you don’t have to deal with the situation on the ground in front of you. 

On an individual level that looks like a guy saying to you, “I am sympathetic to some sort of recovery of theism in public square, but I can’t get on board with the Christian nationalism thing.” The important thing to remember being that the guy saying this to you cannot distinguish between whatever he is for and “the Christian nationalism thing.” He just knows that Christian nationalism has cooties because Wolfe wrote a book with that title and Achord, his friend, had a racist anonymous Twitter account. This rebuke of course does not go for the man who can actually articulate the doctrinal difference he has with Wolfe’s positions.

On an institutional and organizational level, you have the same problem in trickier form. When there is a sociological event like the one we have had in the Achord affair, Christian institutions and organizations often go into “protect and grow our institution” mode rather than “speak the truth and labor for reformation” mode. Mudslinging works like a charm on our Christian institutions. They don’t exactly like to get muddy. That mud would smudge their marketing campaign designed around Nehemiah’s wall building labors. The blisters have to stay in the pictures.

Several Christian leaders and organizations among us simply don’t have a dog in the Christian Nationalism fight, and that’s perfectly fine. But others are very much in this fight. I’m thinking of all the leaders and ministries that speak to culture, politics, public theology, and the like. In the wake of recent events, one of the duties thrust upon you is that of figuring out whether these ministries have a chest or not. God has given us an opportunity to discover who is actually laying bricks in the real world and who is simply laying bricks in their head. The head rules the belly through the chest. It follows that if you do not have a chest, then you do not have the means to put your ideas into action. You are a man alone in a cold dark room with one dry erase marker and a white board, you are nothing but a head, a decapitated head, who will be used by the bad guys eventually to do their bidding. 

Now for that aforementioned modest proposal. This proposal is designed to distinguish between two groups. The first group consists of ministries and institutions engaged in cultural and political reformation who are worthy of support and an ear because, while they may disagree sharply with some of Wolfe’s proposals, they are not simply being played by the “Christian Nationalism has racist cooties game.” This first group is made up of ministries that will actually lay some bricks with Nehemiah, even if they are laboring on a different portion of the wall. The second group consists of ministries, claiming to be in the same work, who talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk. All their talk of the Lordship of Christ over all things sounded very nice in times gone-by. But our situation has deteriorated. And now it appears they meant the Lordship of Christ over all things except for the legislature. These leaders and organizations are merely talking cultural and civil reformation while adhering to the secularist zeitgeist. 

My proposal is this. The leaders and ministries engaged in cultural and political reformation who will say that the United States must have baptized Christians for magistrates are the leaders and ministries who will show up when the day of battle comes. Don’t get me wrong. You don’t need to say this in order to be a good Christian and go to heaven. It is no test of regeneration. But it is a statement that anyone engaged in Christian ministry announcing the Lordship of Christ should be able to say. It is rather mild. But it is the kind of mild statement that would get you in loads of trouble on CNN.

So imagine a leader of the likes of Albert Mohler, who said that he would not back away from the name Christian nationalism, on CNN being interviewed by Anderson Cooper. Cooper asks him about this allegedly racist book that has come out. And Mohler replies with the customary, “You know, I wouldn’t have said it that way, Anderson.” That’s all fine and good with me. But then Cooper asks, “And this Christian Prince thing. Do you really believe in this ridiculous notion that America ought to have a Christian prince?” We need leaders who will respond something like, “Oh, no, Anderson. We don’t insist on a Christian Prince exactly. But the president and his cabinet? Governors, Senators, and Supreme Court Justices? Oh, yes, all baptized Christians. 

(Dis)Respect for Marriage Act and the Case for the Christian Family

As Richard Weaver taught us many years ago, Ideas Have Consequences. We live in a world of cause and effect. We reap what we sow and to deny this is to mock God himself. The (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act is slotted for U.S. House approval this week. And what the prophet Hosea once said lands squarely upon our nation: “They have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind” (Hosea 8:7). 

That text is worthy of meditation. There is not only a similarity between what is sown and what is reaped. Wind is sown and nothing less than wind will be reaped. But there is an escalation. We have sown the wind and reaped a tornado. The underlying truth is that God has woven increase into the fabric of this world. Something is always growing be it weeds or vegetables. 

This point can be applied in two ways to our present situation. First, the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act that will soon codify same-sex mirage in our land is the whirlwind. We sowed the wind years ago and the storm chasers are now headed our way. We are downstream from Obergefell, No-Fault Divorce, and a thorough redefinition of liberty, which used to mean freedom from one’s passions and bondage to sin. The lexical definition now being: I’ll do whatever in tarnation I want to do now get out of my way.

We are downstream from many more types of wind-seed, but those three alone teach us about the present storm encompassing our fields. We have already determined that marriage is disposable, need not be fruitful, and is subject to our passions. It should not surprise us then the we have the audacity to legislate that sodomy should be held in honor. 

The second application of the sowing and reaping principle is that the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act is just as much more wind in the soil as it is a whirlwind coming up from the soil. All sin is like this. And national sin in which we frame mischief by a law is particularly so, “Righteousness exalteth a nation: But sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34). The implications coming in the wake of the House’s decision this week are nearly endless and they all smell like a three week old lasagna that has been sitting in the back of a fridge that lost power four weeks ago. Why did we put a perfectly cooked lasagna into a broken refrigerator you ask? Well the refrigerator identified as a cold one and its pronouns were Brrrr. 

This destructive act that will soon become law in our land is yet another sign of the dissolving American family. As much as this godless legislation is to be lamented, it affords Christians an opportunity to reconsider just what a family is and how it might be restored. The truth is, Christians do not simply oppose same-sex mirage because it is sexual perversion. We oppose it because we believer north is still north. We are dealing with two entirely different conceptions of reality itself. The restoration project in front of us involves coming to grips with the real world. And that means we need a recovery of the covenant household which involves a recovery of covenant marriage and covenant children. 

I have just published a new book through Canon Press called The Case for the Christian Family: The Covenantal Solution to the Dissolving American Family. One of the foundation stones of that book, which wars against the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act, is that marriage is a covenant, not a contract. In other words, God really does join man and woman together in marriage. Marriage is more Chestertonian than we realize. There’s a good deal of magic in it, if I won’t get into too much trouble for saying it that way. When Jack Thompson and Jill Williams get hitched, the result is one new thing called the Thompsons. Yes, Jack is still Jack and Jill is still Jill. But there now exists this new entity which did not exist before. That entity is known as the Thompsons and there is both a head and a body of the Thompsons (Ephesians 5:23). 

That point is fairly uncontroversial. But it follows that God deals with the Thompsons as the Thompsons. And that point begins to wade into the waters of controversy. But, if God has made the two one, then would it not follow that God deals with the Thompsons as the Thompsons? At the end of a wedding ceremony, the minister traditionally said, “I present to you for the very first time Mr. and Mrs. Jack Thompson.” The minister did not leave out Jill because he was a thoughtless misogynist. In fact, he did not leave out Jill at all. This is one new thing we’re dealing with consisting of a Mr. and a Mrs.

This covenantal understanding of marriage leads to a covenantal understanding of the whole family, children included. The fruit of this one new thing is included in the one new thing. This explains why Joshua could say, “As for me and my house we will serve the Lord” (Joshua 24:15). It explains why Job is commended for sacrificing for his children in case they had sinned (Job 1:5). It explains why God’s covenant promise to Abraham was not only that individuals would be blessed, but all the families of the earth would be blessed (Genesis 12:3).

In a recent White House press release celebrating the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act, Kamala Harris said that starting a family and raising children are fundamental human rights. That is true enough. But the (Dis)Respect for Marriage Act commends putting a knife to the throat of families rather than starting them, and perhaps this is a point that will demystify the battle line. When a man vows to marry another man, and our nation claims that these two men are married, several truths must be asserted. First, these two men are not married. Second, the two men are in a relationship that cannot produce children. And third, the two men are not family. In the same way Christians refuse to say the pronouns, we also refuse to acknowledge a marriage or a family where it does not exist.

We don’t live in a world of our own making. That is what the present culture war is really about. Marriage is more than the product of the will of the parties involved. Families are not created by humans ex nihilo. And children are not personally manufactured commodities. It all comes from above and we are a nation that has forgotten how to look up.—”Lo, children are an heritage from the LORD: And the fruit of the womb is his reward” (Psalm 127:3).

Advent Meditation: Look to the Needs of Others

On the one hand, you cannot blame the man who says that he is going to look out for himself. He has a busy life. A full plate. And only so many hours in the day. Moreover, the Bible does not forbid, but actually requires that a man look to his own needs so there is no problem there. The problem is taking the Biblical truth that every man should shoulder his own load (Gal. 6:5) and falsely deducing from that standard that you only have to worry about your own pack. Philippians 2:4 says that we are not only to look to our own needs, but also the needs of others.

The command is not simply to meet the needs of others as they arise. The command is to pay attention to the needs of others. It is far too easy to develop tunnel vision, particularly when things get busy. I saw Jeff with that flat on the side of the road, I saw him in the snow without a car jack, but it was Black Friday and everything was 30% off. If we’re honest, we don’t need the hustle and bustle of the holidays. We can be inconsiderate of the people around us when the pace is normal.

Looking to the needs of others requires energy. It requires an enlarged heart. And God supplies both of these requirements in his Son. We have entered into the Advent season so we are reminded that Christ came. Christ paid attention. He saw our need. Even being equal with God, he took upon himself the form of a servant in order to deliver us from our trouble. Trust him and look to the needs of others, knowing that from his fullness we receive grace upon grace.

Joe Rogan, Matt Walsh, and the Duty of Having Kids

I caught some of the recent interview between Matt Walsh and Joe Rogan. The last third of their exchange is where the action picked up. Rogan easily agreed with Walsh about the folly of transgenderism. But when gay marriage and the duty of procreation came up, there was a collision of worldviews. It was particularly gripping to listen to Rogan’s analysis which was as modern as these iced over roads out here in Idaho are slick. My guess is that the majority of Americans in their 60s and under agree with Rogan’s general sentiment that people have a right to play the whole marriage and procreation thing however they’d like. And that sentiment is one of the key reasons that our civilization is in the soup.

Rogan’s take is that gay marriage doesn’t damage straight marriage. He cannot understand how two men getting hitched changes a bond that Walsh has with his wife. He conceives of marriage in subjective terms. It is simply a man-made institution. Gay marriage cannot be wrong because it is a personal choice that doesn’t impact the personal marriages of straight people. Along these lines, he does not believe procreation is a duty of wedlock so the married who want to travel, read, and hit the art scene without the hassle of children are free to do so.

Now in the first place, it must be robustly affirmed that traveling, reading, and looking at art are all wonderful activities. And they are even more fun with children. Yes, children are work. No, life is not better without them. Yes, it is a good idea to go on a date night without the kids so you can look at the art without changing diapers and such. But any married couples who intentionally forgo children entirely in order to travel the world, spending their strength and energy only on themselves, do what is contrary to nature, fruitfulness, and happiness. 

In the second place, the outright self-centeredness of Rogan’s analysis pierces the ear like the furious toddler at Walmart who is sounding off like an off key bagpipe at the dedication of Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image. This young lad’s mother has finally put her foot down and little man will not be getting the full size Power Ranger that he had his heart set on. One wants to ask Rogan (and again he is largely representative of the modern mind), “Are you not at all a fan of the human race?” I know we have our problems. But do you really want to be the proponent of the ethical system that says, “Ah, forget about peopling the earth, we’ve got art to see.” Don’t you know who makes that art? People. Don’t you know who flies the plane so you can take that trip to the Bahamas? People. No people, soon and very soon, no one to open the doors at that downtown coffee shop where you like to do your reading.

In the third position, we must come down to a definition of marriage. Rogan says that it is a subjective, man-made institution. And that is the fundamental error. If we made marriage up, then perhaps we could do whatever we’d like to with it. But we didn’t make it up. Moses tells us, “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18). Our Lord himself said, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6).

The ground level truth is God simply does not join a man and another man in marriage. They can take the vows. They can sign the papers. But there is no marriage because God simply doesn’t do that kind of thing.

Going back to Rogan’s take then. He doesn’t see the problem with two men getting married. He doesn’t think it harms heterosexual marriage. Well, in one sense he is right. The knock-off cannot harm the genuine article. Same-sex marriage is no marriage at all. The only real marriage that exists is the kind that God himself instituted. And the man-made thing won’t outlast the God-ordained thing. Even so, the problems are manifold when a society agrees to pretend that gay marriage is real. Perhaps I can illustrate one of those problems with the following illustration.

Rogan has been heavily involved in the UFC, the world’s leading mixed martial arts organization. Now imagine that we set up that iconic cage, deck out the mat with the UFC logo, arrange the stadium, music, and commentators in UFC fashion, but when the main event comes, the men who take to the ring are ballet dancers dressed in hot pink tutus who proceed to dance one of the best Nutcracker’s you have ever seen. At the conclusion of this performance, we all agree that what we have just witnessed is genuine UFC. Some of the best UFCing we’ve ever seen. If that kind of rhetoric caught on, could we really say that all is well with the UFC? I don’t see how the UFC Swan Lake 2023 harms that big upcoming UFC fight at Madison Square Garden.

It stands to reason that the founders and president of the UFC get to determine the nature of the UFC. And so it is with marriage, a divine institution.

Those who establish an institution also determine its purpose. And God has done just that with marriage. He told us in the beginning, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it” (Genesis 1:28). The duty of procreation comes with wedlock. And this is no harm to our liberty. The self-centered spirit of the age insists that children are nothing but a hassle. But the Christian witness runs in the opposite direction. God has not only told us to be fruitful. He has promised us in Christ that great blessing comes with them—

“They shall not build, and another inhabit; They shall not plant, and another eat: For as the days of a tree are the days of my people, And mine elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labour in vain, Nor bring forth for trouble; For they are the seed of the blessed of the Lord, And their offspring with them” (Isaiah 65:22-23).

Worship as Warfare in our Christian Nation

So it is evident that a time of reformation is upon us. I was just down in Twin Falls, Idaho for an Idaho Family Policy Center conference. The folks assembled were what you might call dissatisfied with the current state of affairs. One of the speakers informed us about an LGBTQ event up in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho where a Drag Queen twerked outdoors, on a stage downtown before all of the children, and then his man parts fell out of his undergarments for all eyes to see. Now this is certainly an abomination. But it is the kind of abomination that reminds us that God loves us and wants us to be happy. 

The ungodly have an idea that they would love to realize. That is the idea that boys can be girls, the future is up to us, you can be whatever you want to be, and victory comes through being true to yourself. Then out popped this man’s genitalia and the whole plan was spoiled. Come to find out, boys can’t be girls. And this whole Drag event was nothing but Cosplay.

Here is the lesson for the faithful. We must not separate what God has joined together. We are certainly doing this separating with husband and wife. We are doing this separating with biology and sexual identity. And we have done this kind of thing with heaven and earth. We pretend as if they have nothing whatever to do with one another. But the very mystery of our Father’s will is that “he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him” (Ephesians 1:10). Jesus, of course, has all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). And when the saints turn from their wicked ways, then God will “hear in heaven . . . and heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

Too many evangelicals have the idea that God will hear in heaven and heal them in heaven. That leaves them attempting to fix the earth themselves, far too often with earthly means. Very often it leaves them setting up an earthly god-king, like Saul, who will heal their land. Now, they still swear their allegiance to the God of heaven in theory. But the God of heaven rules in heaven and their little earthly Nebuchadnezzar rules on earth. This faulty arrangement of things has to be thrown on the ash heap.

When God gave Moses particular designs for the tabernacle, these designs were mapped off the true tent not made with hands (Hebrews 8:5; 9:24). God wanted an earthly tabernacle where his glory actually dwelt. Geerhardus Vos has said, “The tabernacle represented not merely symbolically the indwelling of God among Israel, but actually contained it” (Biblical Theology, 154). And, “In the time of Moses, a system of types is established, so that the whole organism of the world of redemption, as it were, finds a typical embodiment on earth” (Biblical Theology, 147). 

When Vos speaks of typical embodiment, he means that this world of redemption was really there on the ground in the Mosaic system. We are prone to think that this world we live in down here is nothing but shadows. But even the Old Testament tabernacle was not the type, but the antitype of the heavenly tabernacle. How much more solid then is the temple of the Lord in the new covenant? We are living stones being built together. We are on earth and we are a dwelling place for God. If the glory filled the Old Testament temple such that the priests could not enter, ow much more palpable in the new (2 Chronicles 5:14)?

Worship

What does all of this have to do with worship? Well, God actually changes things down here when his people worship. He levelled the walls of Jericho in just this fashion. He sent down fire on Mount Carmel in the same manner. But that was the Old Testament you say. In the New Testament, God doesn’t do that kind of stuff anymore, we are a spiritual people. And there lies our problem. We think because we are a spiritual people, we are no longer a physical people. We think because we are a heavenly people, it follows that we are no longer an earthly people. We have relegated God’s acts of power to the soul, the mind, the heavens, and the unseen realm. Of course, God’s acts of power fill all of these domains. And every one of them bear fruit in corresponding domains: the body, the earth, the seen things, the courthouses and governor’s mansions.

There was a reason that the priests were sent out to stand in the Jordan River holding the ark of the covenant before all Israel passed through to conquer Canaan (Joshua 3:17). There is a reason that Jehoshaphat stood before the people of Judah when they were under physical threat and said, “Believe in the LORD your God, so shall ye be established; believe his prophets, so shall ye prosper” (2 Chronicles 20:20). Jehoshaphat followed this up by appointing singers unto the LORD to go out to the battle before the army—”And when they began to sing and to praise, the LORD set ambushments against the children of Ammon, Moab, and mout Seir, which were come against Judah; and they were smitten” (2 Chronicles 20:22).

We live under the new covenant and we worship the same God. He has not changed. He still exalts nations according to their righteousness (Proverbs 13:34) And the new covenant is better than the old, not worse. So we will experience more of the Lord’s potency, not less. For we “are come to mount Sion, and unto the city of the living god, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels” (Hebrews 12:22). That “are come” is in the perfect tense. It was an experience that the recipients of the letter had already encountered. It was an abiding reality for them and for us. 

But, how could they have come to the heavenly Jerusalem when they were very much still on earth? Well, worship is warfare. 

On the Spanking of Rumps

The bible is unambiguous about the requirement for parents to discipline their children. If we get uncomfortable about such teaching, then our issue really is with God the Father. His teaching is plain:

Proverbs 22:15

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him

Proverbs 23:13

“Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die.”

Proverbs 29:15

The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.”

Proverbs 13:24

“Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.”

There’s no way of getting around the issue. The world will say that if you discipline your son, you hate him. And God says that if you don’t discipline your son, you hate him. It is a good idea to side with the apostles on this one and say, “We must obey God rather than man.”

The underlying disdain for the rod is ultimately an underlying disdain for discipline and correction. Many have bought the lie that independence is freedom. If a child cannot do his own thing in his own way, the he is reckoned a slave. That is a pernicious lie. One that is the exact opposite of the truth. The whole gentle parenting movement is the one producing little slaves. In such a model, the kiddos are taught to say “Sir, yes sir” to their passions every time. The result of this kind of thing is death—Proverbs 5:23 “He dies for lack of discipline, and because of his great folly he is led astray.”Proverbs 19:18 “Discipline your son, for there is hope; do not set your heart on putting him to death.” Along with death, comes stupidity: Proverbs 12:1 “Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but whoever hates reproof is stupid.”

Some Particulars

With the general teaching set before us, there are some particulars to address.

First, the use of the rod is not punishment but training. The picture in your mind (and the child’s) must not be that of a vertical line with good on one side and bad on the other, “You crossed the line little man and now you’re going to suffer the punishment.” That’s not the right sentiment. Fathers are to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, not the nurture and admonition of the soul-sucking legalism. The child whom you discipline is with you, having God as Father, Christ as Sanctifier, and the little man is a partaker of the Holy Spirit as you are. You’re use of the rod must not smell of sulfur and condemnation. It is a model of the Good Shepherd’s rod that leads us down paths of righteousness.

Second, your use of the rod must be calm and measured. If you cannot discipline your emotions, then you have no business disciplining your child. The Bible, of course, tells you to discipline your child so you must get to disciplining your emotions. Circumstances will vary with age, sex, and other factors, but in the main it is wise to ask the child why you pulled them over. Have him acknowledge where he went wrong. Reassure him of love. Say how many swats will be administered to the hind parts. And ensure he is in fellowship with you afterward. 

Third, move on with joy. There is no sulking after discipline. There are no grudges on the part of parent or child. Hebrews tells us that the Father disciplines those whom he loves. If we are left without discipline, we are bastards and not legitimate sons. So we move on thanking the Lord that he turns the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers.

Fourth, keep the discipline private. Love covers a multitude of sins so don’t go storytelling or telegraphing your child’s encounter with the paddle. You may live in an open carry state when it comes to firearms. But I recommend concealed carry if you’re carrying around a wonder wand. 

Fifth, use wisdom and good judgment when determining when to discipline. Parents should expect cheerful obedience right away. So in the main, if there is disrespect instead of cheer or delayed obedience (age appropriate of course), then you’re in the discipline zone. 

Sixth, the rod should be used in the little years and weaned off as the children grow. 

Seventh, there is nothing wrong with regrouping and repenting when the general tenor of the home is grumpy and undisciplined. There are times when dad and mom need to gather up the children and say, “We’ve been raising our voice, repeating ourselves, getting frustrated with you, and the whole thing just hasn’t been what it needs to be. That’s all on us and we ask you to forgive us.” After forgiveness is extended and received, follow up with, “We’re now renewing our commitment to cheerfulness in the home, sacrificial love, and the simple use of the love paddle when needed.” 

Eighth, and this final point is more general and paradigm setting, raise your kids according to an upside down triangle. Many parents raise their children according to a regular old triangle. It is wide at the bottom when the children are young. There is little correction at this time when they are small. Then parents start to tighten down as the child grows. The child receives less and less privileges until the situation is bottlenecking with the teenagers who will abide by your rules as long as their under your roof and what not. We find at this stage that we are the champions of discipline, bringing the hammer down as they say.

My recommendation is to flip that triangle upside down. The little ones need lots of correction. Yes, try to give them a world full of yeses and a few solid nos. This is good advice and maps on to what our Father did with the trees in the Garden of Eden. But this teaching can be misappropriated by some such that their little children are simply hog wild. Don’t be heavy handed of course. But do set clear parameters for small children. They can be trained to sit still. They can be trained to come when you call. They can be trained to sit when you tell them to sit and stay when they tell you to stay. Your child has better stuff going for him than your German Shepherd.

Add to this not running in crowded spaces where there are elderly people, looking older people in the eyes and saying hello, firm handshakes, and speaking up. Boys do well to stand behind their chairs at dinner until mom and sisters sit down. 

All of this takes hard work. It is training. And as the children grow, they will have the self-control and discipline required for greater liberties and responsibilities. Take the training wheels off and let them ride. None of this is new. But it is good sound wisdom. Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”

Christian Nationalism: A Reply to Jonathan Leeman

Jonathan Leeman has written a recent article in which he recommends that we reject Christian Nationalism because it misrepresents Jesus. Leeman distinguishes between “influencers” and “identifiers.” He is in favor of Christianity influencing the nation and its laws (these are the influencers). But he is not in favor of the nation and its government identifying as Christian (these are the identifiers). 

I imagine this proposal will make a lot of sense to many American evangelicals. We are well into a conversation about Christian Nationalism. And I see no sign of this conversation letting up. Moreover, there are going to be many roads sprawling off of this discussion and this particular path regarding the legitimacy of “naming” is but one of them. 

Why are we in for a nice long conversation? Well, even the most adamant “wall of separation” folks among us are starting to see that there is always a god of the system. They’re seeing the prophets and priests of the new religion. They’re not on board with celebrating the religious liberty manifesting itself down at the local Drag Queen story hour, where Big Rob is shaking his tail-feather at the town’s 1st graders.

I am grateful that Leeman wants to see Christianity influence the nation. And I want to commend that after Christianity has influenced a nation, acknowledging what that nation has become is not anti-gospel. Put simply, if Christianity does influence a given nation, as Leeman and many want it to, what do you have after that influence? You have one nation under the Triune God. You have a nation that has realized and acknowledged that Christ is Lord.

As we are sorting out some of these particulars, it is worth noting that there are lots of supporting arguments under the water of the various positions. And that is certainly going on when it comes to whether to call a nation Christian or not. With that said, I will give the thrust of Leeman’s concern about calling a nation Christian, and then offer three points arguing that calling a nation Christian really won’t be all that bad.

Leeman’s concern is that if you call a nation Christian, then you will confuse people about who represents Jesus. It is the church’s job to identify Christians. And giving the title of Christian to the nation will have troubling consequences downstream. It will mislead people about what a Christian is, inoculate false professors against true Christianity, and make evangelism and missions harder. According to Leeman, the stakes are high. At the end of the day, the consequences of this naming error, “sends people to hell.” He adds, “No longing for what America once was—and in some ways I do—is worth all that.”

Leeman is right about the significance of naming. Some might say, “We need to be more Christian around here, but I don’t care what you call it.” Leeman is not making that mistake. He knows naming is important. I agree with him. It is also true that the name “Christian” should not be thrown around arbitrarily. If a man calls himself a Muslim and worships Allah, then we have no warrant to go around calling him a Christian. By the same token, if you have a whole nation of men who call themselves Muslim and worship Allah, then you have no right to call that nation a Christian one. 

But the issue at hand is whether you can call a given nation Christian without misrepresenting Christ, confusing unbelievers about the way of salvation, and aiding them on their journey to the outer darkness. I contend that you can for the following three reasons.

First, our nation is led by representatives that God himself has called his ministers (Romans 13:4). If our Lord has no objection to calling our civil authorities his servants, then why should we object? I imagine Jonathan would reply, “I have no problem calling our civil authorities God’s servants.” OK, good. And is this God the Christian God? Yes, he is. It follows that the leaders of our nation, biblically defined, are ministers and servants of the Christian God. And they represent us, the nation. 

Someone may quibble with this first argument. But I don’t see the wiggle room. If someone recommends “Triune God Nationalism” or “Christian God Nationalism,” or “One Nation Whose Leaders Serve Yahweh,” that is quite fine with me. We have still established that we should have no problem naming the nation and its leaders because God has already named them his servants. 

Now, you say, but each of these civil leaders, whom God has called his ministers, have not experienced the new birth. You are exactly right. And that has not stopped the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost from calling them, the leaders of the nation, his ministers. Romans 13. 

Second, the work of the Great Commission and our Christian Public Witness involve this naming. Upon his resurrection, Christ said to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19-20). It is a heavy lift to say that Christ commands us to baptize the nations in the Triune name, but we should not identify such nations with the Triune name. I know there are arguments to support just that proposal. But, to make that case you end up having to say the opposite of the plain reading of the text. And that is the kind of exegesis that makes John MacArthur tap one of his deacons on the shoulder and say, “Hold my Fresca.”

Likewise, we hear our public witness in Psalm 2 where the faithful say to the kings, “Kiss the Son, lest ye perish in the way.” Again, what do you do when the kings heed your preaching? What do you call such civil authorities and their jurisdictions after they kiss the Son? Can you not call that nation a Christian Nation? Would it be better to call it “A Nation Whose Leaders Have Kissed the Christ, the Son of the Living God?” This too is fine with me. But I don’t think Russell Moore will be any happier with it.

Third, now is the perfect time to come to grips with the fact that the United States of America is and has already been called a Christian nation. We’re not evangelizing a pagan land. We are ministering in a nation that long ago identified as Christian. Now someone is going to say, “And it didn’t work back then so why do you want to do it now?” But this question misses the point. The point is not that naming a nation Christian is the silver bullet that will keep it faithful. The point is that back when people had no issue with calling ourselves a Christian nation, back in the days of our forefathers when Christian catechisms were employed in the public schools, Brutus wasn’t posted up in the stall next to your 7 year old daughter. That nonsense is going on now while we speak of the terrible evils that will come upon us if we say that we are one nation under Christ. 

Look at our money, “One nation under God.” Say our pledge, “One nation under God.” Sing our songs, “God bless America.” Examine the religion of our presidents. Take a look at the 55 men at the Constitutional Convention. 50 of them were Christians. Then there is the 1892 Supreme Court case where the court itself wrote, “this is a religious people . . . [T]his is a Christian nation.” Walk into the legislative halls all across this land, you will find the name of our Lord there again, carved in stone.

We are not having a debate about whether to place the name of our Lord on the nation. He has already seen fit to do so. We are having a debate about whether to stride in our pride down to the court house like a rebellious son and renounce the name of our Father, the name he has given us.

What Happens if You Curse God and Repent?

One of the lovely things about the kingdom of God is that we didn’t all come in the same way. Some of us, like Timothy, grew up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, never knowing a day when God was not our God. Others of us, like Rahab, came in after years of rebellion. No one deserves the mercy we find in Christ. And some among us were high-handed blasphemers before the Lord caused us to bow the knee. 

God displays just this kind of mercy in 2 Samuel 19.

The Text – A Summary

 David had turned a day of victory into a day of mourning given the death of his son, Absalom (v. 2). Confronted by Joab, David gathered himself and spoke encouraging words to his victorious army (v. 8). Panic struck Israel (v. 9). Would they have David back after anointing Absalom as their ruler (v. 10). They agree to bring David back as their king. But what does that mean for some of the leading character involved in Absalom’s rebellion? What does it mean for Shimei? A few chapters back, we saw Shimei throwing stones at David as he departed Jerusalem. David would not strike him down then. But perhaps he was willing to upon his return across the Jordan and back into Jerusalem. 

Shimei went quickly to meet David, crossing over the Jordan River to meet the advancing king. Shimei fell down before the king (v. 17), and repented, asking for mercy (v. 19). Abishai wanted to put him to death. But David said, “Shall there any man be put to death this day in Israel? for do not I know that I am this day king over Israel?” Then King David swore to Shimei that he would not die (v. 23). 

Mephibosheth the son of Saul too came to see David, testifying his allegiance to the king. And Barzillai the Gileadite, who had supplied David when he fled Absalom, saw David across the Jordan. David welcomed him to come live in Jerusalem. But Barzillai was 80 years old, and he asked David to take his servant Chimham in his place. 

David’s return to Jerusalem resulted in tensions between Israel in the north and Judah in the south (v. 41).

Repentance and Mercy

Shimei was in the soup. He was a big man when the king was leaving Jerusalem. But now the chickens were coming home, as they say. Shimei may have cursed the king. But he was not beyond asking for mercy. And because he bent his neck, he got to keep his head.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the kind of King who good and kind to the undeserving. There are many Shimei’s in his kingdom. And this is encouragement to every God-curser out there to turn while you still can and find mercy bowing before the King. 

The plain truth is that there is no time to wait. Today is the day of salvation. Shimei went to King David in haste (v. 16). He got to David before he crossed the Jordan and came back into the Promised Land. The fact that the Bible tells us that piece of the story is not without significance. The king was coming back to his land. We hear in Matthew 21:40 that the Lord of the vineyard will come to his vineyard and destroy the ungodly. 

When that day comes, and Christ splits not the Jordan River but the heavens and returns, once he is through those heavens it will be too late. By the same token, once you return to the dust, it will be too late just the same. Psalm 95 says, “Today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart.” You are promised no tomorrow.

But the King whom you have cursed is merciful. Bow before him like Shimei, and you to will not die.