I just watched Lin-Manuel Miranda apologize for not speaking about more forcefully about injustice towards Blacks. I am willing to agree with him on this, but his closing statement is stunning.
Miranda closes by saying, “History has its eyes on all of us.” I certainly get his point, but it got me thinking whether history is a big enough motivation.
I think the fear of God is not only the true motivation, but one that has lasting fruit.
Os Guinness told me that he has no respect for self-styled scholars who think they can predict the future. It usually results in more heat than light.
Yes, we are in troubled times. Responsible people are not futurists, but responsible people are aware when upheaval due to competing ideas is afoot. We are definitely at such a time.
People like the Princeton historian, Daniel Rodgers, along with the political theorist, Yuval Levin, use the word fracture to describe what is going on in America. We have fractured, and so split into various tribes that are turning on one another.
There are now very different visions of what it means to be an American. A shared story/idea seems like an impossibility, yet we Christians have hope. And yet, that hope is eschatological, so our country as we’ve known it may be altering in ways we never imagined.
A friend asked about the individual in Christianity. Here is what I dashed off:
It is a big topic of course so here is where I typically begin. We now live on the other side of the Enlightenment. It sought to make the self sovereign.
The “self as individual” idea emerges which is a novel one for understanding personhood.
Westerners now look at the Bible through a lens that over privileges the individual (literally undivided one).
Yes, every single person is precious, a sinner, and in need of redemption, but groups and various associations are talked about a lot in the Bible. Groups of people are talked about both favorably and unfavorably. In those groups when one sins (Achan at Ai) all suffer.
Yes, there is still individual accountability per Ez 18, but nations will also be judged. Americans do not have a great way to understand all this other than those who believe large sections of the Old Testament no longer applies to Christians.
I’m afraid our exegesis is at times more beholden to John Locke than John Calvin!
I find the trinity attractive, compelling, and there are desires we all have for community and individual impact that showcase we are created in the image of a triune God. My next door neighbor who is not a Christian said this made sense to him.
Our culture emphasizes a faux unity that kills true diversity or a faux diversity that kills true unity. The trinity elevates both in glorious splendor. There is much Christians have to offer our chaotic culture. Sadly, I’m not convinced many Christians are that interested in having both diversity and unity.
Sadly, I’ve found many Christians confused in their thinking about the trinity. Here are five errors I’ve heard the most in my conversations with a number of Christians:
Thinking that the incomprehensible nature of the trinity means I can’t say anything meaningful about the trinity.
Thinking the trinity is illogical.
Thinking the trinity is impractical.
Thinking the trinity is something Christians can disagree about like other unimportant matters such as the proper mode of baptism.
Thinking the trinity is simply a river in Texas.(HT: To my friend, Helen Reeves!)
MAKE THE TRINITY GREAT AGAIN! Hey lawyer friends: Can I copyright that?! 🙂
Madison’s political philosophy was greatly influenced by preacher and Princeton president, John Witherspoon. Witherspoon’s influence is apparent in places like the Federalist Papers where you see Madison’s realistic view of man’s fallen nature.
“Democracies allow the greatest number of citizens in ruling, Witherspoon notes, but often, as he learned from Aristotle, they degenerate into mob rule, ‘deceived by demagogues’ and ‘subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage.’”
Do you think that is a word for us today?
“Left” and “right” are thrown around a lot by, well you know, those on the left and right.
Did you know that the terms may be more beholden to the Enlightenment, so fairly recent?
Also, before we glibly designate someone of the left or right, we ought to consider whether we can answer a few questions:
What’s the difference between the left and the radical/progressive left as used today?
What’s the difference between the right and the far right as used today?
What is the irreducible minimum that makes one a “liberal”?
What is the irreducible minimum that makes one a “conservative”?
And I finish by recommending this terrific book:
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites—in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity;—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption;—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there is without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
(Edmund Burke, A Letter From Mr. Burke To A Member Of The National Assembly, 1791.)
Repost from June 3, 2016
Here are three pieces I recommend:
Senator Marco Rubio:
Timothy Dalrymple, President and CEO of Christianity Today:
Shai Linne at the Gospel Coalition: