Decommissioning the Doorway Press store

Over the next week or so I will be decommissioning the Doorway Press store website. Doorway Press is my publishing imprint for C.H. Cobb novels. Visitors to my author website, chcobb.com, will no longer be directed to Doorwaypress.com when they press a ‟Buy Now!” button under one of my books. Instead, they’ll be directed to the appropriate page on Amazon, where they can purchase the book as a normal Amazon transaction.

The Doorway Press website was a means by which folks could buy the books directly from me if they wished (I get a much better financial return when you buy my books from me). For the last year there’s been no traffic on that site, so I am cutting my web hosting expenses and shutting it down, though I will keep the Doorwaypress.com domain name.

The name ‟Doorway Press” (as well as the doorway logo) is significant. I intend my novels to be a ‟doorway” inviting the reader to re-examine some of the modern myths of secular thinking even while being engrossed in an action-packed story. The best representatives of that agenda are The Candidate and the Outlander Chronicles series, particularly Outlander Chronicles: Phoenix. While all my books are written from a thoroughly Christian worldview, the Falcon series (book 1 is Falcon Down) does not display quite as strong of a philosophical apologetic as the others.

As far as ‟works in progress,” at present I am not working on any full-length novels. I’ve been tinkering on and off with several different short stories, but that’s pretty much stalled out for the time being.

You can still get books directly from me by contacting me by text, email, or Facebook. All my books are available at Bread of Life Christian Bookstore in Greenville, and of course, on Amazon. Most of my books are also available in the Greenville Public Library, however, I think some of them might have walked off.

While the Doorway Press store has been shut down, the mission continues:

The Mission of Doorway Press

DOORWAY PRESS IS THE PUBLISHING IMPRINT OF INDEPENDENT AUTHOR C. H. COBB.

FICTION

It is the mission of Doorway Press to publish well-written, exciting tales that captivate the reader on the strength of the story and characters alone. If you find a Doorway Press book hard to put down, we’ve done our job.

Along the way, we also want to provoke questions in the reader’s mind about life, death, meaning, purpose, faith, and postmodern myths of Western society, without bogging the story down in philosophical baggage. If you find yourself taking a second look at your most cherished beliefs after reading a Doorway Press story, we’ve done our job.

NON-FICTION

It is the mission of Doorway Press to publish well-written, interesting books and studies that properly represent the truths of the Bible as they have been understood since the Reformation. If you have gained a greater love and understanding of Jesus Christ, and a greater passion for the glory of God after reading a Doorway Press non-fiction, we’ve done our job.

Review of Surprised by Doubt: How Disillusionment can Invite us to Deeper Faith, by Chatraw and Carson

Surprised by Doubt: How Disillusionment can Invite us to Deeper Faith

This is a really good book. It has several problems, which I’ll discuss last, but if you just skim book reviews, I want to make my point early on: this is indeed a good book and can be used effectively with those wrestling with doubt.

As you might guess, the title is a take-off on C. S. Lewis’s Surprised byJoy. The similarities rise to more than just the title. The authors quote Lewis frequently as they make their case for genuine Christianity. Their writing style is warm and not overly academic—also like Lewis’s. On balance the book is an invitation to carefully rethink the issues that have provoked many moderns toward skepticism, or even outright rejection, of the claims of the Christian faith.

One thing that adds to their credibility is that the authors themselves have struggled with doubts about their own faith. Another is that they honor questions and doubt without dismissing or belittling the skeptic. Instead, they engage with the doubts. Another is their humility: they freely admit they don’t have answers for all of the questions. Carson and Chatraw make a case for mystery—that unanswerable mystery should be expected when investigating a sovereign God.

I’m thankful that they are going after base hits, not home runs—they admit repeatedly that they cannot prove the existence of God or the claims of the faith. Instead they are building a “wager” that the Christian explanation of reality is far more likely than alternative explanations.

The principal metaphor they employ for the Christian faith is that of a great house with many rooms, each representing a different flavor of historic, orthodox Christianity. Chatraw and Carson divide the book into three sections: The Attic, Outside the House, and The Main Floor. The rooms on the main floor all share the same load-bearing walls. The load-bearing walls represent the unifying commonality of the essentials of the orthodox faith. In other words, while each room might differ on peripheral issues, if you’re on the main floor, you are a legitimate, true Christian.

In Part 1, the first five chapters of the book, Chatraw and Carson flesh out the metaphor, saying that some people have moved up to the attic and erected new walls consisting of peripheral issues that the attic dwellers insist are load-bearing. These individuals tend to say, “if you don’t have the same walls I do, you’re not really a Christian.” Like most attics, the ceiling is not high, and these Christians have adopted a stooped posture, unable to stand up straight. That stooped posture skews how they see others and how they read the Bible.

The authors provide several examples of attic dwellers. Evangelicalism on the left, with its nouveau catechisms of social justice and sexual/gender doctrines gets a mention. Fundamentalism on the right, with its dogma specifying the approved positions on culture (politics and political parties, forms of entertainment, use of alcohol and tobacco) or theology (eschatology, position on modern Israel, the ordinances, church governance), occupies a large part of the authors’ concerns. Some churches and fellowships (right and left) become vitriolic in their insistence that all true believers must share their particular distinctives.

The authors’ chief concern in the book is for believers who grew up in an “attic church” and have reached a point of disillusionment in which they are ready to jettison the faith because they see these questionable and peripheral issues being confidently elevated as though they are essentials alongside the actual Gospel.

In Part 2, chapters six through nine, Chatraw and Carson encourage the reader to examine closely the ground outside the house before jumping out of the Attic window (the metaphor is escape, not suicide). Four alternate philosophies are explored: the New Atheism, Optimistic Skepticism, Open Spirituality, and Mythic Truth. Chatraw and Carson drive the presumptions attached to each of these secular philosophies to their logical conclusions, demonstrating that the ground outside the house is not quite as inviting as it might first appear. Jumping out the Attic window simply trades one set of problems for an even worse set.

In Part 3, chapters ten through sixteen, Chatraw and Carson invite the reader to come down to the main floor and have a look around. “Now, as we turn to explore the main floor of the Christian house, we are asking a different question: Does Christianity offer a better foundation, better explanatory power, and a better way to live than the [outside] spaces we explored in part 2” [93]? They employ three perspectives: C. S. Lewis’s device of “Looking at” and “Looking Through,” to which they add “Stepping In.”

“Looking at” is a serious exploration of the historical evidences of the resurrection in chapter ten. What explanation provides the best understanding of the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead: Fraud? Hallucinations? Chatraw and Carson provide multiple reasons why the claims of Jesus’ resurrection are best explained by His actual, historic, physical resurrection.

Next, in chapter eleven, the reader is asked to look at the Person in the Center—Jesus Himself. Are the four gospels credible? Did they misrepresent Jesus? What kind of man was He? The authors point out that the gospels present Jesus as one who challenged and scandalized the orthodoxies of His day, rather than one whose ministry was calculated to win wide approval.

In chapter twelve, we are invited to examine the load-bearing walls that are absolutely essential to the integrity of the house over all. “This brings us to the load-bearing walls of the Christian faith. Attic Christianity mistakenly makes the house appear as though most of its walls are load-bearing or at least integrally attached to the load-bearing walls” [113]. The authors’ answer is to step back and look at the historic creeds which have stood the test of time over the centuries, such as the Apostles’ Creed. The Apostles’ Creed has been accepted by the Church at large as a legitimate statement of faith for at least fifteen hundred years by believers in different faith streams of Christianity. It provides common ground for the Christian faith.

Moving to the motif of “looking through,” in chapter thirteen the authors explore Pascal’s critique of Descartes’ skeptical approach to knowledge. In Pascal’s view, the human appreciation of and desire for transcendent truth, beauty, and goodness is itself an argument for God. Pascal’s “wager” is to “take all of the aspects of human behavior into account, and ask this question: Where might true joy be found” [131]?

Chapter fourteen suggests that justice, human dignity, beauty, and meaning are all markers “gesturing toward a profound and mysterious meaning” [140]. In the authors’ words, “Christianity provides a window that makes sense of the world, including human nature and our deepest aspirations” [134]

The third perspective, “Stepping in,” occupies chapters fifteen and sixteen. Chatraw and Carson suggest that the skeptic “try” Christianity. “If you’d like to believe in Christianity, but don’t think you can, you might be going about things the wrong way. It could be that you have been trying to control contingencies in order to achieve a certain kind of certainty, your own two-plus-two approach to the God question” [147]. They provide three reasons for staying on the “main floor” rather than bolting through the window:

• There are good reasons to take the core claims of Christianity seriously [149];

• What other options do you have [149]?

• Since we can’t opt out of formative practices altogether, the question becomes which practices best form us for flourishing [151].

The chapter ends with this hopeful sentence: “But the collective witness of his people and the Scriptures is that those who humbly continue to seek God will eventually find him” [153]. Chapter sixteen suggests the spiritual practices the seeking skeptic should engage in: participate in the sacred by observing birth, death, and marriage; commit to a room on the main floor of the house that is serious about worship; slow down and pray; meditate on Scripture; slow down to appreciate the beauty of creation; and continue to look both at and along the faith.

Though I believe Surprised by Doubt is a helpful book to give someone who is considering “deconverting” from the faith because of disillusionment, I do have several concerns. For one, the authors don’t consider the matter of recent creation to be one of the load-bearing walls of the faith. It is presented as a (losing) argument with science that contributes to the disillusionment of doubting believers. But the doctrine of creation refuses to play nice. Once you give ground on recent creation by accepting some combination of theistic evolution or old-earth theories, you’ve started pulling on a thread integrally connected to nearly every major doctrine of Scripture. Besides, “science” is not speaking with a unified voice on evolution and long ages: genuine empirical science is calling into question major assumptions made by evolutionists. “Received truth” like James Hutton’s principle of uniformitarianism, the bedrock of evolutionary geology, is being seriously challenged (even by secular geologists). Andrew Snelling’s magisterial work Earth's Catastrophic Past Geology, Creation and the Flood (two volumes) documents the modern scientific discoveries that dispute doctrinaire evolutionism. Is the doctrine of recent creation a load-bearing wall of the Gospel? Perhaps not, but the loss of the doctrine throws a great deal of historic orthodoxy into difficulty. Just like the authors were courageous to drive the four secular philosophies to their logical conclusions, it might be wise for them to do the same thing if one jettisons recent creation: the resulting theological problems are daunting.

Like C. S. Lewis, Chatraw and Carson also admit to the possibility of universalism, as though the doctrine of eternal judgment is a non-load-bearing wall. Despite the authors’ loyalty to historic orthodoxy, apparently that’s a historic doctrine they have chosen to overlook.

My final concern has to do with their closing advice—engage in spiritual disciplines. For readers who are genuinely regenerated but are struggling with doubts, that is precisely the right advice. Their re-immersion into spiritual disciplines will eventually have its intended effect. But for readers who are disillusioned because they’ve never truly been regenerated (in other words, to whom 1 John 2:19 applies), Chatraw’s and Carson’s advice sounds like preparationism—a highly disputed practice in orthodox circles. In their own words: “Without claiming a mechanistic and universal demonstration of the truth of Christianity through these practices, in this chapter we’ve been inviting you to wager on Christianity by developing habits that allow you to step into its light. If there is a God and Christianity is true, these practices are some of the means of experiencing his grace” [160].

These problems aside, I think this book can be greatly used of God for people who are wrestling with doubts. The authors’ gentle tone and style, the focus on the essentials, the easily understood metaphor, and the excellent reasoning combine to make this a useful book. Four stars, highly recommended.

Book Review: The Toxic War on Masculinity

Nancy Pearcey is one of the premier Christian thinkers of the modern age. At one time a student of Francis Schaeffer, she has extended and elucidated the thought of Schaeffer into the current cultural morass, particularly Schaeffer’s analysis of the secular idea of upper- versus lower-story truth. Also like Schaeffer, she does an excellent job of tracing the evolution of cultural trends through history, providing numerous footnotes—no less than 775 in The Toxic War on Masculinity. This excellent volume demonstrates that she does not shrink back from confronting both secular and Christian cultures with the sharp edge of her intellect.

Pearcey begins with full disclosure as to why she wrote the book. Her father lived two different lives: in public a respected university professor and in private an angry, abusive father. After initially rejecting Christianity because of her father’s hypocrisy, a sojourn at L’Abri showed her what true Christianity looks like, resulting in her conversion to genuine Christianity. The book serves as her way of tracing the cultural and psychological factors that produced an abusive man like her father and the current broad-brushed societal tendency to attribute such bad behavior to all men.

Chapter one is devoted to exploring where the modern culture is with regard to its view of men. Pearcey brings forward a contrast she’ll use in the rest of the book: “real men” versus “good men.” So-called real men kowtow to twisted cultural expectations of men (such as the expectation and encouragement of bad behavior), whereas good men pursue the best and most noble aspects of masculinity.

Exploding the myths begins in the second chapter, in which she quotes suprising statistics regarding men and abuse and divorce. Pearcey examines the studies more closely and reveals that while nominal Christian men score in the highest category of abuse—which is what is usually reported in the media—committed evangelical Christian men actually score in the lowest (which you will never see in the media).

In the third chapter, Pearcey unfolds what a truly biblical marriage looks like, along with biblical concepts of headship and submission. She demonstrates that it doesn’t look anything like the slanderous stereotypes of the secular culture.

The second part of the book (nine chapters) traces “how the secular script turned toxic.” In these lavishly-documented chapters, Pearcey follows the progression—and destruction—of family life from the original agricultural model of every family member working together at home, through the Industrial Revolution that took men out of the home, thus weakening or eliminating the father’s beneficial influence. The absence of fathers (who were now working long hours in the factories) meant that they were not home to teach their sons skills and moral discipline and to mold them into responsible men. Absence from home and hearth left men open to temptations (particularly illicit sex and alcoholism) that before had been under better control. Men began behaving badly with the result that, comparatively, women were placed on a moral pedestal of righteousness. Men behaving badly, i.e. “real men,” became the expectation and somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Men lost interest in attending church, with the result that most of the attenders in the average church were women.

Pearcey points out that one of the consequences of this terrible trajectory is that Christianity came to be seen as a religion of women. Men wanted nothing to do with it because it seemed feminized. The image of the “real man” became stamped in the culture; the “good man” was something no self-respecting man wanted to be part of.

In chapter ten, Pearcey examines the reaction against feminized Christianity that developed in some quarters. A so-called “muscular Christianity” was promoted in order to redeem “manliness.” Churches began to host events of interest to men (fight clubs, gun giveaways, etc.) in an attempt to draw men back into the sanctuary. Fundamentalism got involved, with macho preachers engaging in violent antics on stage to assert that Christianity was for real men. Just as a pendulum that swings in one direction soon returns to the other, this began a backlash against women. Whereas in the 19th century women were thought of as superior, in the 20th century they began to be thought of as inferior—weak creatures whose primary responsibilities were bearing children and being subservient to their husbands.

Secular culture rejected the polarizing fundamentalism. In chapter eleven, Pearcey unfolds the path that led to men (dads in particular) being presented by Hollywood as dimwits. Feminists poured gasoline on the fire: “men are unnecessary,” they claimed. Out of the resentment that developed on the male side came the playboy and pornography culture.

It’s easy to critique culture—but advocating solutions is harder. Nancy Pearcey does a great job on the solution side in chapter twelve, entitled “Bringing Fathers Back: Fix the Workplace, Fix Your Family.” She gives many creative ways to bring the unity of the home, father and mother together, back to the fore.

The third section of the book is basic triage: how to fix the problems that develop when “Christian Men Absorb the Secular Script.” Two excellent chapters are devoted to fixing broken marriages and dealing with abuse in Christian homes.

Pearcey is the real deal: a Christian and biblical thinker, a scholar, and one who has suffered under an abusive father. She brings her intellect, her scholarship, her faith, and her experience to the table and shares it with the reader. The book includes a study guide at the end, suitable for individuals or groups. Nancy Pearcey’s The Toxic War on Masculinity is an outstanding book and well worth your time. 

Five stars—highly recommended.

Review of Matthew Barrett's Simply Trinity

Review of Simply Trinity:The Unmanipulated Father, Son, and Spirit, by Matthew Barrett.

This is a hard book to review. The author is attacking the view that Jesus Christ is, functionally, eternally subordinate to the Father even while being ontologically equal with Him. This view is known as eternal functional subordination (EFS). Barrett’s tone at the beginning was so unnecessarily off-putting to me that I had to get over my irritation before I was ready to fairly assess his argument. Eventually he was able to convince me.

As far as the positives go, Barrett is clearly an accomplished expert on the church fathers, both pre- and post- Nicene. His arguments are firmly grounded in logic, philosophy, and the historical development of the theology of the Trinity. The vast bulk of his assertions come from these quarters, less so from Scripture (though he handles the Scripture well). Unfortunately, Barrett dismisses opposing arguments that rise from Scripture by perjoratively labeling his opponents as “biblicist,” as though they were unaware of the context and larger narrative of Scripture.

Barrett’s main argument is that the only distinctions between the persons within the ontological Trinity (ad intra) are “eternal relations of origin:” the Father is unbegotten, the Father eternally begets (generates) the Son (meaning the Father eternally communicates to the Son His own essence and nature), and the Father and the Son spirate, or send forth, the Holy Spirit. Barrett admits to additional distinctions in the outward operations (ad extra) of the economic Trinity.

In chapter three, Barrett does a good job in tracing modern liberalism’s illegitimate reconstruction of the Trinity to fit their own agenda for society. But in my opinion, he wrongly accuses conservative, biblical theologians of doing the same thing: starting with their desired construct of social relations and then imposing that construct on the Trinity. This seems to me to be a grossly uncharitable charge: is it not possible that those theologians derive their view of the Trinity (even though incorrect) from their honest understanding of Scripture and then see analogs in human relationships? Barrett gets in the way of his own message repeatedly with accusations like this. Another example is found on page 36 where he throws out the accusation that sola scriptura has been interpreted as “me and my Bible alone.” This is unfortunate: Barrett’s debate is with theologians, not the average believer in the pew. Does he really think any credible theologian would hold such a silly view?

Occasionally Barrett appears to overstate his point. On page 104 we find this statement:

For the first-century believer, to become a Christian was to embrace the salvation given and accomplished by none other than the triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…. For these early Christians, to believe the gospel was to believe that the one God of Israel was triune. Anything less was simply not Christian. A gospel that was not trinitarian was no gospel at all.

Well, yes. And, no. While belief that Jesus is the divine Son of God was (and is) crucial to salvation, there was still much confusion, even among believers, as to exactly how that truth was to be reconciled with the historic monotheism of the Jews. Barrett’s confident assertion flies in the face of 400 years of church history, in which godly men were seeking to untangle the mystery of the Trinity. Barrett seems to claim that the first century Christians had it all figured out. But does not the early history of the church record their debates, disagreements, and difficulty in fitting the pieces together?

On the other hand, there are places in which Barrett is able to condense his argument to a single, brilliant statement, and this constitutes a large part of the value of his book. For example, on page 123 Barrett states: “[Christ’s] eternal relation to the Father constitutes his redemptive mission to the world, but not vice versa. Get that order right, and we see the gospel in proper trinitarian perspective; get that order wrong, and we misuse the gospel to redefine the Trinity in eternity.”

In my view, Barrett makes his strongest argument against EFS on pages 138-9. He builds a case that to be one in essence but manifested in three persons, means of necessity that there cannot be three different wills. Because the three (persons) are one in essence, there can only be one unified (simple) will. The one shared will of the Trinity rises out of the one shared divine nature of the Trinity. The problem with EFS is this: if Christ is eternally submitted to the Father’s will (rather than sharing the one and same will), it implies that there are two different wills—the Father’s, and Christ’s—which would then argue for two different natures. This creates an untenable division in the ontological Trinity; such a thing cannot be.

Barrett makes another powerful argument on page 239:

But EFS is asking the wrong question. The right question is this: is submission ad intra or ad extra; is it intrinsic to the immanent Trinity, or is it something that occurs in the economy (in the context of salvation history)? Biblical Christian orthodoxy has always acknowledged that the economy of salvation involves the incarnate Son submitting to the mission his Father has given to him for the purpose of salvation.

Barrett goes on to flesh out the thought. I think this is the point in which I finally allowed Barrett to sharpen my understanding, by understanding the Son’s submission to the Father to be connected to his redemptive mission but not to his eternal relation to the Father. Barrett deals with 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 on page 243, stating that it applies not to the Son in the form of God, but to the Son in the form of a servant: “The context is not the immanent Trinity but the economy, the redemptive mission of the incarnate Son.”

Like Barrett’s book, this review has already gone on too long. In conclusion I believe Barrett makes his principal point, demolishing EFS and asserting that the distinctions in the immanent Trinity have to do with eternal relations of origin. It is unfortunate that Barrett occasionally gets in his own way by unnecessary and uncharitable characterizations of people on the other side of the fence. For his excellent command of the early church fathers, Barrett gets five stars. For his at-times-uncharitable tone and the excessive length of the book and the sense of repetition, three stars. For the fact that he did ultimately convince me that my former position (EFS) on the Trinity was wrong, we’ll settle with four stars. Recommended.


If you don’t have the time to read Barrett’s book, read Mike Riccardi’s excellent five-page blog post entitled, “EFS Redux: Aiming for Closure on the Trinity Debate.” Google it. Riccardi gets right to the point (in five short pages), and his logic is unassailable.

Psalm 70: Dialing 911

On many mornings I enjoy having a somewhat extended (for me, anyway) time of reading the Bible. A cup of coffee, solitude, and the Scripture is a great way to start my day. But, sometimes life intrudes, cutting short or eliminating this favorite habit. Whether it’s my own lack of discipline to get up early or some emergency requiring my attention, sometimes there isn’t opportunity for that quiet time of reading, prayer, and meditation.

Or maybe in the course of the day I am suddenly faced with a serious crisis needing immediate action in which there is no time to prepare, only to react. Whether it’s the former situation or the latter, sometimes all I’m able to do is send up a flare: “God, help!”

The warrior-king David had his share of times like that, too. I know he did because he wrote about them in Psalm 70. In five short verses, his prayer begins and ends with a plea: Lord, please hurry and help me! David provides reasons why he needs a 911 immediate response from God: there are enemies trying to kill him, people trying to hurt him, and some who are rejoicing in his troubles, seeking to humiliate him.

In David’s snapshot prayer, he asks that his tormentors be turned back and dishonored, and he prays that those who seek God would rejoice with gladness, and that God would be glorified by his people. His emergency request ends with a humble confession that he needs God’s deliverance, and he needs it now.

Commentators note that Psalm 40:13-17 constitutes an almost word-for-word repetition of Psalm 70, and that Psalm 71 is also very closely related to Psalm 70. Both Psalm 40 and Psalm 71 are longer than the brief cry for help that composes the short, emergency telegram of Psalm 70.

It’s a comforting lesson. In those crisis situations, when all there’s time for is “God, help!”, it’s enough: He hears and answers.

Book Review of Jim Newheiser's Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage

Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage is a terrific book to use as a reference, or to read cover-to-cover.

Newheiser's writing style is very accessible and clear. I'm tempted to use the first part of the book ("Part 1: Marriage") as a tool for pre-marital counseling.

The book is comprehensive. It's hard to imagine situations arising which have not been somehow 
dealt with in this volume. As such it is a go-to reference for Bible-believing pastors and counselors.

Newheiser is also relentlessly biblical, and makes it clear when he's just offering an opinion as opposed to a clear biblical principle. He is very even-handed and gracious to those scholars who disagree with his interpretations of the texts. For instance, when it comes to the exception clause, he very faithfully represents and interacts with the arguments of those who see no exception at all.

The book is organized in two major sections broken into seven segments:

Part 1: Marriage

A. The Foundations of Marriage
B. Entering into Marriage
C. Having a Successful Marriage
D. Challenges in Marriage

Part 2: Divorce and Remarriage

A. The Foundations of Divorce and Remarriage
B. Divorce and Remarriage Controversies
C. Practical Questions

Each of the forty chapters are titled in the form of a question (for example, chapter 12 is entitled, "What are the responsibilities of a husband"). This format enables Newheiser to deal very concisely with the particular issue. In my opinion, the expectations raised by the chapter titles are fulfilled by the content.

Newheiser has made an outstanding and important contribution to the biblical counseling movement with this book. Five stars, highly recommended.

Psalm 44, and a prayer for Afghani believers

On first glance, Psalm 44 seems to have a conflicting message. It begins with praise for God’s work of delivering Canaan into the hand of Israel (vv 1-3) followed by a confession that the psalmist does not trust in himself, but in God for deliverance (vv. 4-8).

But then the psalm takes a difficult twist in verses 9-19, as the psalmist complains that God has nonetheless rejected them (v 9), saying “You sell Your people cheaply” (v 12). God’s actions towards them seem to contrast with their continued faithfulness to Him (vv 17-18).

In the final section (vv 20-26) the psalmist asserts their faithfulness (vv 20-21), even while “for Your sake we are killed all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered” (v 22). The psalm ends with a desperate plea, “Arouse Yourself, why do you sleep, O Lord? Awake, do not reject us forever” (v 23), followed by the petition, “Rise up, be our help, and redeem us for the sake of Your lovingkindness” (v 26).

This is not what we expect to see. Why does God treat His people so, when they are seeking to be faithful? Derek Kidner’s comments on this seemingly conflicted psalm are excellent

“The psalm is exploring the baffling fluctuations that have their counterpart in Christian history: periods of blessings and barrenness, advance and retreat, which may correspond to no apparent changes of men’s loyalty or methods. Although its picture of the sleeping Lord may seem naive to us, it was acted out in the New Testament, to teach a lesson which we still find relevant: cf. verse 23 with Mark 4:38.

But the crux is in verse 22, with the phrase for thy sake. The psalm does not develop it, but it implies the revolutionary thought that suffering may be a battle-scar rather than a punishment: the price of loyalty in a world which is at war with God. If this is so, a reverse as well as a victory may be a sign of fellowship with him, not of alienation.” [Kidner, Psalms 1-72, Intervarsity Press, 2008, p.187. Emphasis mine.]

Paul cites Psalm 44:22 in Romans 8:36 and brings the psalmist’s complaint to its biblical theological conclusion, revealing God’s deeper purposes: “Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? Just as it is written, “For Your sake we are being put to death all day long; We were considered as sheep to be slaughtered.” But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Romans 8:35–39)

God was pleased to crush His own suffering Son on the cross (Isaiah 53:10), despite Jesus’ absolute faithfulness to His Father. Jesus Christ was led like a lamb to the slaughter (Isaiah 53:7), to pay for the sins of His people (Isaiah 53:4-6). But that was not the end of the story. By His death, resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father, Jesus Christ overwhelmingly conquered death and hell in order to save His precious people. And because of His victory, God’s people likewise overwhelmingly conquer, even in the face of death and intense persecution.

May our faithful God grant to the precious Afghani believers protection, shelter, and safety from raging lion who walks about, seeking to devour them. And when God in His wise and faithful providence determines not to grant temporal protection, may He give His people courage, strength, endurance, grace, mercy, and comfort as they faithfully bear their honorable battle-scars for His name’s sake. He will wipe away every tear.

“After you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.” (1 Peter 5:10)

Book Review: Voddie Baucham's Fault Lines

Baucham’s book, Fault Lines, is an indispensable guide to how the modern Social Justice movement is affecting the otherwise orthodox Christian Church in America. Heavily footnoted with plenty of primary sources, Baucham makes the case that America’s preoccupation with “antiracism” is not simply a social movement but an inherently religious movement, and that evangelicals are jumping on the bandwagon without perhaps realizing the origins, goals, and theology of the movement they are supporting.

Frankly, in our current climate this is a book only a black man could write. As it is, Baucham is having to endure much criticism from all points of the compass for standing up and exposing the lies, the fallacies, the media exaggerations, the duplicitous statistics, and the religious nature and hidden agendas of Critical Race Theory and BLM. For example, Baucham walks through the latest examples of the shootings of black people by police, and using documented facts that are beyond dispute, eviscerates the narrative promoted by the media and BLM.

He’s not shy about naming names and organizations of evangelicals who have capitulated to the modern cultural current, and he demonstrates that biblical truth is the real victim. In all cases, Baucham critiques by using the individual’s or organization’s own explicit, public statements. The Southern Baptist Convention in particular takes it right on the nose, as well as a number of popular preachers.

The seduction of the antiracism movement is located in the fact that many of their particular concerns are indeed legitimate. There is a measure of racism in America (as there is everywhere). There are benefits that accrue automatically to the majority culture. Black people in America have suffered historically and have experienced oppression. These statements are true, but the conclusions and solutions which the Social Justice movement elicits from these observations are neither true nor helpful.

The Social Justice Warriors are engaged in an argumentation involving major premise, minor premise, conclusion. A sample of their logic looks something like this: major premise: all white people are racist; minor premise: you are white; conclusion: therefore you are a racist. As constructed it is a logically valid argument. However it is a true argument only if both premises are true. But the major premise is false, and from a biblical perspective, slanderous.

What Baucham shows is that if you accept the assumptions that begin the Social Justice contentions (i.e., the major premise), you will inevitably lose the argument. But in truth, those assumptions are terribly flawed (and unbiblical). There’s also a compression of history in the Social Justice thinking, as though it was only yesterday that slavery existed in America. There’s a willing blindness to the fact that that equality before the law for all races and ethnic groups has long been established in America.

If you’ve been struggling with (a) knowing that there are forms of oppression in our society, but (b) sensing that the Social Justice Warriors have grossly overstated the problem and seem to be following a hidden agenda, then Voddie Baucham’s Fault Lines is the book you need to read. It is irenic in tone, accessible and well-documented. Five stars, highly recommended.

He's not a mere man, Mark 5:21-43

There is an interesting incident recorded in Mark 5:21-43, in which a synagogue official begs Jesus to heal his dying daughter. While He is walking to the man’s house, a woman who was hemorrhaging blood touches His garment, creating a delay—a delay in which the man’s daughter dies. After speaking with the woman, Jesus continues on to the synagogue official’s house, and raises his twelve-year-old daughter from the dead. All three synoptic gospels contain the account (Matthew 9:18-26, Luke 8:41-56).

I’ve always found this account interesting, imagining the agony that father goes through when he sees Jesus delayed by the woman, only to hear that his daughter has died. I have wondered how he responded to that fatal interruption. “If only this woman had not distracted the Teacher, my little girl would still be alive!” Did he then have faith that Jesus could not only heal, but restore life to the dead? The account does not make clear his reaction, other than that Jesus told him, “Do not be afraid any longer, only believe” (Mark 5:36). Jesus then goes on to bring the man’s daughter back to life.

There’s an interesting side story to this, and it revolves around “touching.” There are several references to physical contact in the account. In 5:27, 28, and 30 are references to the fact that the woman touches Jesus. Verse 31 contains the disciples’ exasperated reaction to the affair. Once Jesus arrives at the synagogue official’s home, he takes the little girl’s hand. While Mark 5:41 does not use the verb “touch” it is obviously physical contact with her corpse.

So what’s the big deal? It’s a little subtle, but it is significant. In Leviticus 15:17-27 Moses instructs the people that a woman with a discharge of blood is “unclean,” and anything or anyone who touches her during that time also becomes unclean. In Numbers 19:22 it is clear that ceremonial “uncleanness” is contagious. Anything an unclean person touches becomes unclean, and if someone else touches what the unclean has touched, they, too, become unclean.

Were Jesus a mere man then He would have been made unclean by contact with the woman. As unclean, it is unthinkable that the power of God would have been present with Him to raise the little girl. And by the way, touching the corpse of the little girl would have likewise rendered Jesus unclean (Numbers 19:11).

But Jesus is not a mere man. He is the Glory of God tabernacled among us, as John tells us: “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14, NASB95).

The word “dwelt” in John 1:14 is the verb form of the noun translated “tabernacle” in the LXX, the Greek version of the Old Testament. Jesus Himself is both God’s tabernacle and the final offering made there. And Exodus 30:26-29 tells us that the consecrated articles of the tabernacle are holy—and that anything that touches them becomes holy (Exodus 30:29).

The fact that Jesus did NOT become unclean through His contact with either the woman or the little girl, but rather THEY were “cleansed” through contact with Him demonstrates conclusively that He is no mere man but rather God in the flesh. He is the One who is able to make the unclean, clean, and the broken, whole.

Book Review: Dangerous calling by Paul Tripp

Some writers make a living off cheap shots. It’s pretty easy to create a patina of profundity by manipulating guilt in your readers. It’s been done all too often in Christian circles, especially in books dealing with the modern church or modern ministry. That is not what Paul Tripp does in his terribly convicting book, Dangerous Calling, as he takes the reader on a tour of the lethal dangers associated with the ministry.

None of the hazards he explores come from the outside—they all come from within the minister himself. Pride, anger, hypocrisy, the danger of celebrity, the danger of personal isolation, thinking one has “arrived,” thinking that theological knowledge equals spiritual maturity, are just some of the minefields and pitfalls Tripp covers. It’s a wake-up call, whether you’ve been in ministry for forty years, or have just entered the ministry.

Tripp’s warnings are all the more powerful as he makes it clear that he himself has failed multiple times in multiple ways. He bares his soul—and his sins—to the reader. I think the book gains in two ways from Tripp’s painful self-disclosures. First it encourages those of us who struggle with transparency to become transparent ourselves, knowing that we are safe and forgiven in the grace of Christ. Second, when I see what Tripp struggles with, I know he knows what he is talking about. It’s not pastoral practice according to the ivory tower; it’s blood-and-guts practical.

But the book is not a negative downer. Each chapter contains reminders of the love and grace of Christ for broken sinners like us, and practical steps and suggestions for accountability, transparency, and a renewal of our love for Christ and passion for ministry.

Read this book. It might save both your marriage and your ministry. Five stars. Highly recommended.

Book Review of Ruth Batstone's Moving On: Beyond Forgive and Forget

Ruth Batstone’s writing style is warm and engaging—this book will be very helpful in teaching and encouraging victims to deal biblically with their trauma, particularly when it comes to forgiving the perpetrator. The author does a powerful job of connecting with those who have suffered greatly at the hands of an abuser. Her empathy and understanding of the emotional damage such suffering produces is compelling as she gently nudges the reader toward the imperative to forgive.

Batstone constantly leads the reader back to the Gospel as the landmark and source of forgiveness. She repeatedly reminds us that the grounds on which we are commanded to forgive others is God’s forgiveness of our own sins through the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Moving On is fully Christ-centered and is an excellent tool for presenting the Gospel to a counselee who’s not yet professed faith in Christ but who has suffered at the hands of others.

The strengths of the book include the writer’s sharing of her own suffering. Her personal experience provides Batstone with a deep-level understanding of the complex emotions swirling in the heart of a victim. Each chapter ends with questions for reflection, making the book a great homework tool for biblical counselors. She also does a good job covering the various peripheral topics surrounding the issue of forgiveness, such as anger, desire for revenge, the danger of not forgiving, and the relationship of forgiveness to worship.

There are a few matters that weaken the volume. One of the book’s strengths is also its weakness: Batstone deals mostly with the subjective aspects of forgiveness; there are a few glaring holes when it comes to her treatment of the objective, transactional nature of forgiveness. The best example of this is her failure to deal with the little word “if” in Luke 17:3. Jesus says very clearly, “if he repents, forgive him.” Batstone, on the other hand, claims boldly that “forgiveness is not contingent on another’s repentance” (p. 96). She presents forgiveness as a unilateral, one-sided transaction. I don’t recall her dealing with Psalm 86:5, in which God is said to be “ready to forgive, and abundant in loving kindness to all who call upon You” (NASB). This is the posture a believer is to take with someone who refuses to repent: the heart attitude is that of forgiveness, but without actually making the transaction of forgiveness. This is more than a semantic difference when it comes to restoring relationships broken by sin: restoration is always a two-way interaction. Batstone’s unilateral idea of forgiveness unintentionally weakens that interactive dynamic.

Another weakness is apparent in her treatment of the notion of “forgiving oneself.” Again, she deals with the subjective, emotional matters and never touches on the fact that our sins are not primarily against ourselves to begin with, but against the Lawgiver. We are not the lawgiver, and therefore there is no need to “forgive ourselves” (texts such as 1 Corinthians 6:18 really speak to self-damage we wreak, not to moral transgression against our own law thereby requiring “self-forgiveness”). While she does a excellent job of exploring what issues might be rattling around in the heart of someone who “just can’t forgive themselves,” she does not deal plainly with the fact that sin is against God, not ourselves.

I recommend this book highly, but I would suggest Jay Adam’s From Forgiven to Forgiving as a companion text to anchor the subject in a more thoroughly biblical frame work. Four stars.

More than an adventure story

Imagine what would happen if an extremely contagious and deadly disease (genetically-engineered smallpox) was released in the atmosphere over four major cities in a criminal act of biological warfare? Suppose there was no known cure. What would the world look like eighty years later?

This is the world of Outlander Chronicles: Phoenix. The year is 2120, and the global population has fallen south of eight million souls, a population inadequate for manufacturing, mining, refining, power generation, or even government. The scattered remnants of humanity have divided into two groups: on the one hand, tiny communities trying to scratch out a living using rudimentary agriculture, and on the other, vicious lawless gangs that survive by raiding the communities. Both scavenge abandoned, decaying cities looking for what few material goods have survived eighty years of rot, neglect and exposure to the elements. The future looks more like the distant past—there’s nothing sci-fi about it.

A young man—Jacen Chester—decides it is time to try to replant civilization. He meets a mysterious stranger, an older man named Hakim. Hakim begins to mentor Jacen, teaching him how to survive in a world of violence and anarchy. The two men could not be more different, however. They must first learn how to survive their own sharp disagreements.

Outlander Chronicles: Phoenix is much more than a fast-paced action-adventure novel. Amid the gunfire and fighting are serious philosophical discussions about God, faith, forgiveness, the source of morality, secularism and more. The story could be characterized as a “parable of forgiveness disguised as a shoot-em-up.”

The tale does contain heart-stopping violence but not any obscenity or skin scenes. Readers ranging in age from early teens to senior citizens have found it to be gripping and hard to put down. The premise of the tale along with the characters, the plot line, the action, and the arguments around the campfire combine to make this novel far more than the average mass-market paperback.

If you’re looking for a great read with a little more meat in it, Outlander Chronicles: Phoenix should be on your list. A sequel has also been released, Outlander Chronicles: Pegasus.

Both books are available from Amazon in print or Kindle formats, or from the Doorway Press store, from Bread of Life bookstore in Greenville, or from your favorite brick-and-mortar bookstore through the Ingram catalog. You can see all my books at chcobb.com.

The Christian and Marijuana

[Disclaimer: this post is NOT intended to disparage the medically helpful use of non-THC cannabinoid products, nor the careful and temporary use of medically-indicated antidepressant or anti-anxiety drugs prescribed by a physician.]

As the recreational and medical use of marijuana is legalized across America, I am concerned that believers are justifying the use of pot because “it is no longer illegal.” Though it remains a controlled substance on federal lists, the feds don’t seem to be on a crusade against states where marijuana use is now legal at the state level.

Between the general cultural lessening of the stigma regarding drug use/abuse, and the change in its legal status, some professing Christians believe that the use of psycho-active substances such as marijuana is a legitimate lifestyle choice. The most common justification I hear is, “it helps me relax,” or “it helps me deal with stress.”

There are, in my opinion, many good reasons Christians should abstain from all psycho-active substances unless specifically prescribed by a physician. There’s a medical case against it (especially regarding teens and marijuana, in terms of the impairment of brain development), there’s a psychological case against it (loss of motivation and ambition, and the development of psychological dependency), and there’s certainly a social case against it (marijuana is a gateway drug and is demonstrably associated with irresponsible behavior). Great caution should be exercised even when a physician does prescribe a drug—the over-prescription of psycho-active drugs is a recognized problem in the typical American practice of medicine.

There is also a likely Scriptural case against such drug use at the lexical level. The Greek term φάρμακον (pharmakon, from which we get the English terms pharmacy and pharmaceuticals), and its related words, is translated with the English term sorcery or sorcerer in Galatians 5:20, Revelation 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, and 22:15. The Dictionary of New Testament Theology indicates this word group was typically associated with the use of substances involved in the practice of magic: medicines, herbs, potions, and poisons. The New Testament consistently associates the word with negative and prohibited practices. Galatians 5:20 includes sorcery in the list of the “deeds of the flesh,” saying that “those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:21).

Modern users of marijuana may not be consciously engaging in classical “magic” practices in their use of the drug, but that neglects to consider the general shift away from superstitions in our post-enlightenment culture. For example, moderns don’t necessarily believe in animistic gods as supernatural beings—but we still practice idolatry by worshiping something other than God (sex, money, etc.). The worship no longer takes on the appearance of the cultic practices of the pre-modern era, but it is worship all the same and therefore idolatry all the same. By the same token, moderns using marijuana are not consciously practicing magic, but they are pursuing the benefits, the highs, the alteration of consciousness that ancient magic practices promised, and as such there is virtually no distinction between modern and ancient usage of drugs.

But none of those arguments are the strongest arguments against the use of marijuana by believers. When a believer uses the drug for the euphoria of the high it is no different from drunkenness, which is roundly condemned by Scripture. When a believer uses the drug to relax or escape the pressures of stress and difficulty, he is endorsing the assumption that stresses, difficulties, and trials are bad, are a moral evil, and therefore should be eliminated or avoided.

But that’s not how the Scripture treats stresses, trials, and troubles. Instead, the Bible presents these dynamics as tools in the hands of God that make us more like Christ. Peter says the trials work the “proof of our faith, being more precious than gold,” and ultimately are found to “result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:7). Somehow I don’t think that dealing with trials by toking on a joint produces the same glory, honor, and praise toward Jesus Christ.

Peter also says that God’s divine power has granted us “everything pertaining to life and godliness through the knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2 Peter 1:3). I don’t think he meant that God’s power plus pot accomplishes the glory of Christ. If we need marijuana to cope with life, then we are obviously demonstrating to the world that God’s divine power is frankly inadequate.

Paul says that he boasts in weakness, distresses, difficulties for Christ’s sake, because in his weakness Christ’s power is perfected in him (2 Corinthians 12:9-10). I don’t think Paul dealt with his troubles with Christ plus pot.

In my opinion this is the greatest argument against the use of marijuana. The stresses, trials, troubles of life are designed to produce the image of Christ in our character. When we can only deal with those things by getting high, we are confessing that what Jesus has done for us is insufficient to deal with “real life.”

Is the inadequacy of Christ really the message you want to proclaim?

When all is said and done, it's time to reboot...

First: full disclosure. I wrote this post for my benefit, to remind me of what is true and to get re-centered on what is important, and what is ultimate. I am a political junkie and sometimes get off-centered. I needed the thought that went into this essay in order to restore my own sense of balance. Perhaps it can help you, too. Take a deep breath, and read on...

Tuesday will come and go and the earth will continue to orbit the sun. No matter who is elected (and no matter how long it takes us to find out who won), you’ll still need to go to work, raise your children, love your spouse.  

Here are a few thoughts to remember:

1. No matter who wins, the outcome is ultimately an act of God’s sovereign control over His creation. “For not from the east, nor from the west, Nor from the desert comes exaltation; but God is the Judge; He puts down one and exalts another.” (Psalm 75:6–7). Nebuchadnezzar’s dream in Daniel 4 is particularly helpful: “This sentence is by the decree of the angelic watchers and the decision is a command of the holy ones, in order that the living may know that the Most High is ruler over the realm of mankind, and bestows it on whom He wishes and sets over it the lowliest of men” (Daniel 4:17).

2. Do not get caught up in conspiracy theories. God’s got this. What if the vote is polluted? What if there is cheating, perhaps organized fraud? The sin of man will never overcome the plan of God. Conspirators may thwart the will of man, but they will never thwart the will of God. Psalm 2 should forever destroy the fear of conspiracies: “Why are the nations in an uproar and the peoples devising a vain thing? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, “Let us tear their fetters apart and cast away their cords from us!” He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord scoffs at them” (Psalm 2:1–4).

3. On the other hand, don’t be glib about the sovereignty of God. The fact that Christians have confidence in God’s sovereign control of all things should never lead the believer to become glib or insensitive to suffering that is a result of wicked men and poor governance. Jeremiah knew God was in control of the Babylonian invasion—but he still wept for his nation, nonetheless. Jesus knew His Father was in control of the judgment to come, but He still wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41). Caring deeply about our nation and its fortunes is neither unbiblical or unspiritual—rather, it is an appropriate response to our stewardship in this earthly kingdom.

4. Remember that relationships are far more important than politics. Our politics are certainly formed out of our worldview, but not everyone has thought as deeply about the connections. All of us, including me, live with a degree of cognitive dissonance or intellectual contradiction in our opinions and viewpoints. The Scripture is absolute; our opinions are not absolute. Don’t confuse the two. We are to receive one another: “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” (Romans 14:1–4)

5. Do not buy the argument that concern for the economy and the policies that impact it is a greedy preoccupation with wealth. Many of those who make this charge are precisely the ones whose economic status largely protects them from the vagaries of a faltering economy. For the majority of Americans, the health of the economy translates to whether they can pay their rent or mortgage, keep the electricity and heat on, and put food on the table. The economy matters hugely, because it has a direct and often immediate impact on human suffering. Christians should care about this—not only in terms of mercy ministries, but in terms of laws and policies that add strength to the economy.

6. Do not buy the argument that the church and its mission are largely unaffected by culture in which it lives. Paul intimates in 1 Timothy 2 that domestic tranquility has a positive effect on the ability to share the gospel: “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity. This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:1–4)

7. Don’t be confused: America is neither ultimate nor permanent. The Constitution is neither ultimate nor permanent. Only God, His Word, and His plan are ultimate. “The grass withers, the flower fades, But the word of our God stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8). Someday—maybe soon, who knows—all the works of man will come to an end in the fires of God’s judgment. Washington D.C. will be burned to a crisp. London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing, Seoul, and all the capitals of men will be burned to a crisp. That doesn’t mean the policies and laws of those places are irrelevant, but it does mean that they are at best temporary.

8. Don’t be confused: America has been greatly blessed by God, but Americans are not the people of God; rather, the true church comprises the people of God. While the Constitution embodies many biblical principles, it is not the sixty-seventh book of Scripture—it’s not the Epistle to the Church of Philadelphia, USA.

Here’s what we should remember: we must faithfully exercise our stewardship as citizens of an earthly kingdom, but we must never allow that citizenship to take priority over our heavenly one. On Wednesday morning, God will still be on the throne. His sovereign plan will reign supreme. He will still be good and loving and just and faithful. The blessed hope of the believer will be unchanged by political winds. Fullness of joy is found in the presence of God, not in political victory. Our joy will continue no matter who sits behind the Resolute Desk in the White House.

If your eyes (and my eyes) are fixed on Christ, our joy will be undiminished.

“Therefore if you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory.” (Colossians 3:1–4)

Clashing Worldviews between kingdoms in conflict

 I’ve made several claims in the previous blog posts. Pulling the lever for Trump does not necessarily amount to an endorsement for the man, but could be a legitimate strategic move to block the progressive takeover of the country. By the same token, pulling the lever for Biden does not necessarily amount to an endorsement of abortion, but could be a legitimate strategic move to get rid of Trump, whose character is viewed as a cancer on the body politic.

Genuine Bible-believing Christians can (legitimately) find themselves on opposite sides of this see-saw, and it is important to the unity of the Church that we not slander one another in our disagreements. It boils down to what you consider the more compelling negative factor as you attempt to glorify God in the exercise of your stewardship to vote: the dismal character of Donald Trump, or the dangerous trajectory of the Democratic party. There is inescapable cognitive dissonance no matter which path you take. There is no decision in this election year exempt from critique—including my own. I do consider my argument to be compelling; I do not consider it to be bullet-proof.

From a wisdom perspective, however, in my opinion the choice does not amount to a zero-sum moral equivalence. I don’t see the two options as roughly equal, and this is because of the overt and aggressive hostility the various factions of the progressive movement take toward biblical Christianity. I view it as self-evident that the Democratic leadership is joined at the hip to the progressive movement; the Republicans are not so joined.

When I say that the Democratic party and its closely associated progressive movement are deeply hostile against Christianity, I’m not talking about the average Joe but the cultural and political leaders, the organizers, thinkers and philosophers of the movement. I am not referring to the genuine Christians who feel compelled to pull the Dem lever because of the terrible deficits on the Republican side. I have before stated my belief that Christians following their convictions can be on either side of this binary choice based on which factors seem to them to be more weighty.

So how is the trajectory of the progressive movement and their Democratic enablers deeply hostile against biblical Christianity? Perhaps the most critical is in their view of the nature of truth and reality, but that’s a pretty complex topic, so I won’t deal with it in this post. I’ll identify five critical areas that can be readily understood.

Sanctity of Life

The abortion movement is killing living persons in the womb at a genocidal rate. Think about it: from 2007 to 2016 nearly as many living human beings were slaughtered in the womb as comprised the entire combined populations of Washington DC, Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Montana. The abortions reported to the CDC during that ten-year period were 7,211,569 [CDC figures]; the combined estimated populations of those states in 2019 were 7,388,666 [Wikipedia]. The abortions reported to the CDC in that period are over seven times the high estimate of the Rwandan genocide in 1994 [Wikipedia]. It’s almost impossible to find a federal-level Democratic politician that will even consider the most modest limitations on abortion. And yet, Psalm 139 clearly indicates life begins at conception, and is precious to God.

The burgeoning industry of euthanasia is another evidence of the progressive disregard for the sanctity of life. The states permitting euthanasia are California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, Washington. Every single one is reliably progressive and was controlled by the Democratic party and Democratic governors when they passed bills legalizing euthanasia. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.” (Genesis 9:6)

Human Sexuality

The Bible clearly states that God created mankind “male and female” (Genesis 1:27). The progressives of the Democratic Party have bought into the notion that gender is unrelated to one’s biological sex, that both gender and sex are socially constructed, and that gender is fluid and is a matter of personal choice from a palette of unlimited possibilities. Besides being a stunning disconnect from objective reality, this notion has led to conflict even among progressives: feminists, for instance, insist there is something unique to a woman’s experience, whereas the trans movement insists that anyone (including men) can be women—there is nothing unique about it.

The progressive insistence that gender and sex are not objective realities but mere social constructs has resulted in mind-boggling legislation harmful to women, ranging from permitting biological men in women’s locker rooms to allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports. California’s Governor Newsom signed a bill on September 29^th that permits convicted criminals who claim to be “trans women” (i.e. biological males who identify as females) to be housed in womens’ prisons. This is not going to end well for some women sharing cells with “trans women.”

Some individuals desire help in regaining a normal gender/sexual identity through what is called conversion therapy. The progressive movement has pushed both sides of the aisle to ban conversion therapy in many states and cities across the country. In other words, you are permitted to enter the LGBTQ+ lifestyle, but you are never permitted to leave it. There undoubtedly are some “therapeutic” techniques that should be banned, but a general ban on helping someone reacquire a normal sense of identity simply reveals the intolerance of the progressives. They employ the law to force others to comply with their ideology.

It’s sad enough that the progressives encourage and enable such confusion, but it’s tyrannical when they try to force everyone else to enter into the delusion. Unwilling to tolerate those who disagree, the progressives demand that people use language perpetuating the lie or risk their jobs. People have already lost careers and been mobbed on social media because they refuse to use the “proper pronoun.” While many Republican politicians tolerate gender confusion and don’t legislate to restrict it, the Democratic politicians aggressively promote it and criminalize opposition to it.

The claim that gender and sexuality are social constructs, and that one can freely choose his identity is not a morally neutral position. Instead, it reveals deep hostility and rebellion against the sovereign God who created us as male and female.

Marriage and the Family

Whereas the Bible indicates marriage is between one man and one woman, and uses that model to illustrate the reality of the relationship between Christ and the church, progressives have changed the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships and altered the definition of a family to include polyamory, among other things. They have also been very successful in lobbying for the privilege of adopting children into these distorted relationships, thus creating additional confusion in the minds of children.

This is an attack on the basic social unit of society upon which nations are built. Stable families are essential to a flourishing civilization. But not content to redefine marriage from a legal standpoint, the progressives are attempting through legislative and judicial means to make Christians celebrate the perversion. A classic example of the progressives’ use of the force of law can be seen in the multiple cases brought against Colorado’s Masterpiece Cakeshop, first in trying to compel the baker to create a custom wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage, and then trying to force the baker to create a custom cake celebrating a gender transition. Jack Phillips does not refuse to serve homosexuals or transgenders—he simply refuses to apply his custom artistry in support of that which violates his religious convictions. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which along with the plaintiffs pursued prosecution against Phillips, was found by the US Supreme Court to be overtly hostile to Phillips’ Christian convictions. It is precisely such an atmosphere of open hostility to biblical Christianity that is energized by the progressive movement and their Democratic enablers. It is rapidly gaining the force of law across the land.

Parental Sovereignty

Whereas the Bible gives parents the responsibility for raising children, the progressive movement views children as better served by coming under state supervision and state-mandated education. For example, Elizabeth Bartholet (identified by the Harvard Gazette as a “nationally renowned child welfare expert, and as the faculty director of the Child Advocacy Program at Harvard Law School”) is agitating for a “radical transformation in homeschooling.” She claims that the state should strictly regulate homeschooling to ensure that children are not being abused (by their parents, no less!). She’s concerned that children are not learning basic academic skills, and that they aren’t “getting the kind of exposure to alternative views that enables them to exercise meaningful choices about their future lives.” Referring to families with religious convictions, she claims that children in those families might not be able to choose to “exit these ideological communities” and that “society may not have the chance to teach them values important to the larger community, such as tolerance of other people’s views…” Aside from the fact that the progressive movement is the single most intolerant collection of ideologies to appear in a long time, her concerns would be laughable if they weren’t taken so seriously by progressives.

There are multiple problems with her assertions. For one, the state is not doing a particularly good job at present protecting children from abuse, as anyone who brushes up against the system can see, and Bartholet conveniently does not mention the bullying and abuse (sometimes even sexual) that goes on in the public schools. Secondly, many public schools are doing a decidedly mediocre job teaching basic academic skills. Third, her statement about “alternative views” and “meaningful choices” are fine for her to exercise with her own children, but neither she nor the state has the right to impose her values on families that hold different values. Christians aren’t interested in their children being indoctrinated with “values important to the larger community,” but rather in passing along their own values to the children (which, historically, have included values which make for excellent communities). The progressive movement only goes in one direction: greater government regulation and control, and enforcement of their values by force of law.

Socialism

The progressive movement and their Democratic enablers is pushing socialism as a means of ensuring equal outcomes for all people. On the one hand, I share the desire that every person should be valued and treated fairly and justly in all aspects—it is a proper goal towards which we should all strive. But people are different (i.e., possessing genuine diversity), with different natural abilities, different interests, different motivations, different commitments, and different values—which means the only way to achieve equal outcomes is by government force.

The end-goal of socialism is expressed in a statement employed by Karl Marx: “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The idea was that when socialism finally buds into full flower there will be such a supply of goods and services that there will be enough to provide for everyone. Socialism assumes that each worker will work to maximum efficiency, not because he is individually rewarded for it, but out of a natural altruism. Socialism assumes that no one will cheat, no one will be lazy, no one will hoard or collect more than he needs, and that no official of the state will abuse his position or role in the distribution of goods. Socialism assumes the benevolent redistributive power of the state. And because there is no legitimate creation of wealth in a socialist construct, socialism also assumes that the presence of wealth is prima facie evidence of oppression.

Ideological socialism is both atheistic (God does not exist) and idolatrous (the State is the ultimate reality and ultimate authority). Socialism therefore denies the most fundamental facts of human nature: first, that man is created in the image of God. With the loss of this truth, you lose genuine inalienable rights; instead your rights are whatever the State says they are, and can be changed at the State’s whim. You also have the loss of the inherent dignity of each human life. Old people a drag on your economy or lifestyle? How about a little euthanasia to take care of the problem? Is that pregnancy interfering with your goals? Why not kill the baby? When the dignity, equality, and value of each person is not set by a transcendent, sovereign Creator, the table is set for racism.

The second fundamental fact socialism denies is that man is born a sinner, with a powerful self-interest that trumps all other interests. This denial alone commits socialism to unending failure, as it is a denial of a fundamental human reality. Socialism cannot work because people are not naturally altruistic. A fascinating observtion is that every strongly socialistic economy has a flourishing capitalistic black market running just below the surface. Why? The success of socialist ideology did not create it—rather, the abject failure of socialism necessitated it.

Every society requires some proper level of benevolence on the part of the government in order to help the helpless and protect the disadvantaged. America is no exception—we have a necessary social safety net. But that’s not socialism. The closer a government moves toward controlling the means of production, and the greater the percentage of personal income levied as tax for redistributive purposes, the closer that government edges toward socialism, which will ultimately issue in tyranny and failure.

Having denied the sin nature of man, socialism takes a reductionistic view of man: man is no longer morally responsible, but is a basically good blank slate that can be molded at will through education, indoctrination, and reprogramming. Is Joe a misogynist? Send him to sensitivity training. Is Suzy a racist? Send her to a diversity reeducation camp. Is Bill a criminal? All he needs is education.

Because socialism does not believe in the universal sin nature of man, it is incapable of restraining it through the philosophical structure of the system. Which explains why all socialism—all progressivism—eventually turns brutally repressive. Repression is the only way it can stem the natural inclination of its citizens. It also explains why the lie is such a common thread in the fabric of socialism (North Korea being a prime example): you cannot admit the utopia has failed, so you must obfuscate that fact through deception: “war is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength.”

The Democratic leadership, in lockstep with progressives, is moving in an inevitable trajectory toward full-bore socialism. The Republican party is not. The Democrats have gained virtually all the cultural levers of power in America and are politically ascendant. The party leadership has joined itself to radical progressivism, which now provides both the reigning ideology and the emotional energy of the party. It is a dangerous combination, in my opinion.

In Closing

In both my blog posts and my book The Candidate, I have excoriated the Republican leadership for its failures to hold to the Constitution and the conservative principles of small government and individual responsibility. I’m not so partisan that I cannot openly condemn the failures of either the Republican party or conservatism in general. In both my writing and my preaching I have often said there is nothing stinkier than Christless conservatism.

I do not back off from that opinion in these series of posts. What I am advocating is that the demonstrable and accelerating trajectory of the progressive movement and their Democratic enablers poses a far greater danger than the offensive character of Donald Trump. Trump is an anomaly, not a revolution or a trajectory. Other than Trump himself, you’re not going to be able to cite any movement-wide tendency in the leadership of the Republican party towards racism, white-supremacy, or unconstitutional tyranny.

I don’t hold out much hope for this country. I believe we are now experiencing the righteous judgment of God for our national sins. But when I pull the lever for Trump, I will not be voting for an offensive character, I will be voting against the trend of this present darkness sweeping over our land. Perhaps God will have mercy on our sinful nation.