The issue of copyright and honesty

In academia in particular, copyright is considered important. Putting one's name before a work one has authored is the norm, alongside the copyright symbol. In the West, all authored works are by default copyrighted. Nevertheless, the issue of copyright is somewhat alien to many "Eastern" cultures, where piracy runs rampent and no credit is given to the original author. Besides the issue of earning praise and perhaps money by copyright, are there more important, even biblical, reasons for having and respecting copyright?

When an item or work is copyrighted, the work as it stands is attributed to the author. The author owns the work as it stands. Thus, anyone can engage with or criticize the work. In other words, the author can be held accountable for what was written. Consider what happens when copyright is not respected. Anyone can falsely appropriate the work of another and get praise for it, or anyone can alter the work and malign the original author. In either case, accountability cannot be done. Intellectual discussion is also stunted because it is impossible to engage with the work of another in light of his other works.

What commands are violated when copyright is not respected? If one appropriates the work of another without attribution, that is intellectual theft and it violates the commandment against stealing. This, and altering the work with the author's name still present, bears false witness against the author. If the author depends on his intellectual output for his living, then that might also be a form of robbery. In a society where intellectual property is not respected, intellectual thought will not progress, for how many scholars are there who will work for free? How will they support themselves and their families if all they produce is stolen by others? Is it any wonder that Eastern societies are not really known for intellectual progress, and mostly depend on the West for such products?

Copyright is therefore important. Putting one's name in one's work is likewise important. Until certain societies will honor and respect intellectual property, their progress will be parasitic on others for growth.

The issue of church and politics

"We shouldn't do politics in church." "Church should not be partisan." In this era of deep political polarization in America and parts of the West, such statements have been made and elevated to the level of truisms. After all, Jesus did indeed say that his kingdom is not of this world (Jn. 17:36), so the Church should not be involved in politics, shouldn't they?

Now, it must be said that reading the Bible and noticing the focus of the Scripture does indeed teach that the Church should not be involved in politics, in the sense that the Church is not a player in the quest for earthly power and authority. States like the Vatican City and the various iterations of the "Holy Roman Empire" are therefore contrary to Scripture. Nevertheless, when people say that we shouldn't do politics in church, that is normally not what they are referring to. The question about Church and politics therefore requires a deeper look into what "doing politics" in this modern era actually mean.

From the late 20th century until now, the idea of "doing politics" focuses on the idea of the cultural war. Specifically, the question is posed as to whether the Church should or should not be involved in social issues like abortion, the defense of (biblical) marriage, illegal immigration, and other issues like these, or the Church should just focus on "spiritual issues." To get involved in social issues normally involves advocacy of these issues in church, which may be followed by some form of social and/or political activism to push on said issue. Pastors may choose one Sunday to preach, for example, on the topic of abortion and advocate for the "Pro-Life" position. They may introduce certain people and promote certain groups in church for their members to join. Funds may also be raised for said causes. All of these are meant to give members a way to translate what they are being taught into action, and such perfectly fits into the "Activism" characterisation of Evangelicalism in the Bebbinngtonian quadrilateral.

Before addressing the major issue with this idea of "doing politics," let it be said that, as a way of translating faith into practice, engaging in social issues in this manner is perfectly in line with the practice of historic Evangelicalism and immensely practical when done right. "Faith without works is dead" (Jas. 2:17). Many critics of "doing politics" rail against what they think are its errors, while they themselves do not lift a finger to deal with these issues. Many of them are pietistic, making Christianity into a purely "spiritual" religion of getting to heaven and sharing the Gospel, while evidently the Gospel has no applications or implications for daily life! Many of them fit the caricature painted of Dispensationalism, where "who cares what happen to this world, since it's all goinng to burn up anyway, so let's just focus on going to heaven." Needless to say, pietistic faith is not the Christian faith. A Christianity that has nothing to say about social issues is a Christianity that has lost its saltiness.

The focus of Christianity is the salvation of sinners. Christ came to die for sinners. Sin deserves judgment, yet God restrains his jugment and instead extends grace to sinners. Now is the time of salvation, meaning that God's judgment is stayed in the time of the New Covenant. It stands therefore that the focus of the Church, as Christ's body on this earth, is to focus on the Gospel message of salvation. Social activism therefore is not part of the mission of the Church.

That does not mean however that social activism (when done on issues the Bible speaks about) is not important. Here, we come to the different paradigms relating Grace and Nature, noting that the Reformation view is that Grace renews Nature. Social activism on issues the Bible speak about are good things. It is good to speak out against abortion; it is good to speak out against the blatant racism in the woke movement. But, and this is the important thing, these things are not the Gospel. Activism done right is a good thing, but the Church must avoid mission creep and substitute what she alone possesses with something good but not essential to the mission of the Church.

In Acts 6: 1-6, the Apostles had the church elect its first deacons to deal with the very important and practical issue of food distribution to widows in the church. Is the food distribution important? Most certainly! But the Apostles decided that they had to focus on the Word and prayer. Likewise, social activism is important, but the Church should not be involved in it because she has a higher calling of preaching the Gospel and making disciples. Ought biblical social activism be done? Most certainly, but by individual Christians. Individual Christians are to be salt and light in society, including getting involved in social activism, but not the institutional Church. The problem with many American churches is that they are busybodies — they don't teach their congregations biblical truth, but instead want to focus on external activism, as if an external veneer of Christian morality in society is what the Church should aim for!

The Church should teach what is biblical, including what the Bible says about social issues, then let her members practice those truths. The Church does not have enough time and energy to do both, so she should focus on what is most important, not what seeems most important at this time. Teaching what the Bible says about social issues is the only way the Church should be "doing politics." Such "doing politics" is not being partisan, but rather, if a political tribe decides to take a position contrary to what the Scriptures teach, then it is not the Church doing politics and therefore she is engaging in mission creep, but rather it is the political tribe that sets itself up against the teachings of Scripture and therefore they are doing what is wrong. Christian morality transcends human division between "left" and "right," but it is not therefore partly left and partly right, in some Hegelian fashion! If "right wing" embraces biblical positions, while "left wring" teaches contrary to Scripture, then instead of accusing Christians of being "right-wing" partisans, we should counter that it is the "left-wing" who politicize what is supposed to be a moral nonpartisan issue. For example, both "right-wing" and "left-wing" should be against abortion precisely because it is murder, but it is the American "left wing" who decide to politicize abortion into a right-left point of division!

Thus, there are three ways to understand the phrase "doing politics." First, it is to be a player in the quest for earthly power and authority. Second, it is to be an active participant in social and/or political activism. Third, it is to teach on issues that some may consider political. As it can be seen, Christians are not to be "doing politics" in the first sense, and the institutional Church should not be doing politics in the second sense. The Church must however "do politics" in the third sense, because the Bible deals with such topics. Christians should be clear about the various senses, and not be frightened into silence on what the Bible says just to avoid the impression of "doing politics." Christians should also see through the hypocrisy of many who decry the Church doing politics while they themselves do (left-wing) politics under the guise of religion. Why is "right-wing" activism scandalous, while "left-wing" activism in liberal churches are not denounced? How many of the liberals who denounce "Christian Nationalism" are (mis)using the Christian religion to promote their left-wing positions?

On the issue of "doing politics" therefore, Christians ought to be discerning. Our standard is the Holy Scriptures, and therefore we should not be reactive and stake out positions in reaction to what others have done. Christians ought to take the same position on moral issues regardless of what "right-wing" or "left-wing" partisans do, not react to them. We should transcend the culture war, not that individual Christians cannot be involved in it, but because Christian morality exists before, during, and after the culture war, and is to be taught until Christ comes again.

A short response on the issue of Charlie Kirk and the alleged approach of one Reformed church in Singapore

Recently, a Reformed Baptist Christian in Singapore, Vincent Chia, was handed information on the supposed presentation of a Reformed church in Singapore on the topic of Charlie Kirk. The supposed criticisms by that church can be seen below:

Chia has responded to those criticisms on his Facebook post (which may or may not be private).

On the specific topics of these four criticisms, I agree largely with Chia's criticisms. The leaders of this Reformed church are engaging in misinformation or lying, otherwise known as breaking the ninth commandment. They sinned publicly, and thus the right thing to do is to confess their sin publicly. But years of experience has told me that the chances of that happening is next to zero, but I am willing to be proven wrong anytime.

Like Chia, I have no impressions of Charlie Kirk before his assassination by a far-left lunatic. Certainly, I saw promotions of Kirk and TPUSA (Turning Point USA), but I did not intentionally watch any of them before. I do not also feel the need to defend Kirk from any and every criticism. For example, on the topic of "Christian Nationalism," my position is that he can be called a "Christian Nationalist," depending on the definition of that nebulous term. If "Christian Nationalism" is defined as someone who seeks to push for positions derived from one's Christian faith on a nation, then every self-professed Christian leftist, like Jemar Tisby, is a "Christian Nationalist" as well, so that kind of definition is self-defeating. Kirk is obviously a Christian, and obviously a Nationalist of some sort, but to tar him as a "Christian Nationalist," knowing full well the negative connotations associated with that term, is to malign a Christian brother.

The Church is not to engage in politics, because Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. But that statement is a double-edged sword. It is ridiculous to claim that the church is not to engage in right-wing politics, but then you yourself engage in left-wing politics! If it is wrong to promote Charlie Kirk in church, it is equally wrong to attack him in the church; in fact, it is worse since promotion of Kirk is based on truth while the critique (at least the one here) is based on lies.

This applies especially to churches in Singapore. Last I know, Singapore is not in America, and not near America. Why is there a need for a Reformed church in Singapore to address this particular social issue in America in such detail, and then to lie about a dead Christian? Did this particular church address the issue of S377A in years past and push for its preservation against the perverted lobby? Did they teach against woke-ism, especially after it made landfall in Singapore? If they do not, then their slander of Kirk is even more egregious. If nothing is said about the promotion of rank perversity in Singapore, or destructive social ideologies in Singapore, then their attack on Kirk, who was trying to do what is right in living out what he sees as the truths of Scripture, is blatant left-wing activism!

All this being said, this is not to say that Kirk is faultless and nobody can criticize him. I have heard rumours that he downplays the error of Mormonism. Where Kirk is wrong, by all means criticize him, but criticize only what he actually said and did, not the lies the mainstream media paints of him (and that includes the Straits Times, which I do not trust at all). Any claim that Kirk was a "white nationalist," or "far right," should automatically disquality the person offering such a critique as someone who just mindlessly mouths whatever propaganda the far-left comes out with at best, or a malicious and wicked person at worst.

Why did the Spirit come at Pentecost and not during the ministry of Jesus? The corruption of the biblical narrative by Adonis Vidu

Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. (Jn. 16:7)

Why did the Holy Spirit not come during the ministry of Jesus, but must only come at Pentecost? Why did Jesus say that it is to the disciples' advantage that He do away, so that He can send the Holy Spirit to them? I admit these were questions that I did not really think about when I first saw these questions. After all, Jesus said it, and that is how the ministry of the Gospel is to be done. Jesus came to live and die on the Cross for our sins. Once redemption is accomplished, then it can be applied to us who believe, and that is the "job" of the Holy Spirit, isn't it?

Upon consideration of the biblical narrative and biblical theology, a few more reasons came into focus. First, Jesus' role is that of the suffering servant, and the next time He will be present is when He comes again as King. Since now is the time of salvation, clearly Jesus had to ascend into the heavens, as the Final Judgment is not yet come. The Holy Spirit on the other hand has always been about changing of the heart (c.f. Ezek. 36:27, 37:1-14), and therefore comes at Pentecost. Second, Jesus because of His incarnation is has a body and is therefore local. While Jesus in His divine nature is omnipresent, that is through His Spirit, not His body which remains fixed in a specific space (we deny the Lutheran view of the ubiquity of the human nature). The Holy Spirit, as not having being incarnate, is everywhere without qualification. In the time of grace, the Holy Spirit will "function" better to call the elect from all nations without creating a new geopolitical presence in this world.

Perhaps other Christians can think of other reasons why the Holy Spirit only comes at Pentecost after the conclusion of Jesus' ministry. But I am certain nobody who is not trained in the intricacies of "classical theism" and the "Great Tradition" will ever come up with this reason provided by Adonis Vidu!

The growth of the capacity for the Spirit in Christ's human nature is predicated on the priority of the hypostatic union and therefore on the grace of union over Christ's habitual grace. That is to say, the operations of Christ do not flow from a quasi-independent human nature but specifically from the God to whom the human nature is united in the person of the Son. The hypostatic union is not constituted by the ongiong deification of Christ. Rather, the latter is the consequent of the former. That said, the terminus of this deification is a fully pneumatized life. (Adonus Vidu, The Same God who works all things: Inseparable Operations in Trinitarian Theology, 274)

We seem to be faced with an apparant contradiction in the teaching of the Scriptures. On the one hand Christ explains to the sorrowful disciples that he must leave to go to the Father and that unless he does to the Father the Spirit will not come. On the other hand we are promised the continued presence of Christ ot the end of the age!

The key lies in thinking through the ascension of Jesus Christ along the lines of the transfiguration and penumatization of his human nature.... (Ibid., 275)

As God, Christ could draw the Spirit at any moment; however, God had determined to pour the Spirit precisely through the humanity of Christ, as the "Spirit of His Son" (Gal. 4:6). This takes place through the progressive pneumatization of Christ's human nature. ... (Ibid., 278)

To rephrase it clearly, Vidu's answer to why the Holy Spirit did not come down during the ministry of Jesus is: The Holy Spirit was present already, "incarnate" in Jesus, and working to spirit-filled, to deify, to "pneumatize" Christ's human nature. This process of deification of the human nature begins with the hypostatic union and continues on till ascension, where Christ's human nature is fully fitted and spiritual. Only then can salvation come as the Spirit through Christ's humanity work in us.

I think it is safe to say that for most Christians who read the Bible, Vidu's explanation is so far out it should not merit consideration. When in the Scriptures is what Vidu is claiming to be true taught? Vidu is imposing a foreign concept on Scripture, and twisting it to fit his philosophical program. What does it mean for a human nature to be "pneumatized"? In what way is that still a human nature?

In pursuit of ressourcement, Vidu is reinterpreting classic evangelical doctrines on Christ and salvation. Christians should take note and reject this ressourcement, and ignore the cries of "biblicism" thrown our way.

Flashback article: The Scourge of Left Racism in American Christianity

I have written in days past about the impact of Critical Race Theory (CRT) in American Christianity, yet there has not been a coherent article looking at it. After so long, I have decided to revisit the issue with, hopefully, clearer sight. In this article, I have decided to relook at the issue of what I am calling 'Left Racism,' to show the infiltration of ideas spawned about in CRT into American Evangelical Christianity. Far from the more 'extreme' versions promoted by Jemar Tisby, 'moderate' forces have co-opted ideas from CRT and have attempted to rebrand their views as being "biblical," a synthesis between the 'extreme' godless CRT on the Left and the racism on the right (as if Leftists in history have never been racist before!).

In this article entitled "The Scourge of Left Racism in American Christianity," I define the term "Left Racism," and lookk at three examples of this insidious form of racism: David French, Mika Edmondson, and Justin Giboney and the AND campaign. All of them teach or act according to Left Racism, which I defined as:

Left Racism: Any view that discriminates against any race or ethnicity in viewing and/or treating them negatively due to perceived structural or systemic factors, under the guise of social justice.

The article can be read here.

Now, I do know there is a current resurgence in right-wing racism, aka fascism. But so far that has been limited to the Internet, and its growth would not be possible without Left Racism breeding racial resentment in the first place. I do not think it needs to be said that Naz-sm is absolutely unbiblical, and the rehabilitation of Hi-ler reprehensible. It should not need saying that one can criticize Winston Churchill, without praising the F-hrer.

The will and personal identity, as pertaining to the philosophy behind classical theism

If will is a personal property, it folllows that personal identity is located in freely willed actions. It means that a person is most fully herself when freely exercising the prerogative to initiate actions and make decisions. (Adonis Vidu, The Same God who works all things, p. 111)

What is a person? What is a person's identity? For one, it can be "tall, smart, black hair, male, Chinese," and for another, "eloquest, short, female, American." Personal identities, subjectively speaking, are intensively personal and pick up the traits that a person portrays as well as other distinguishing things about them. Objectively speaking, personal identities can cover all of the traits of a person, to identify that person against another.

Personal properties are of course the properties of a person, and thus key to their personal identities. So, in humans, if will is a personal property, is will part of their personal identity? For humans, of course not, because all humans have wills. The exercise of that will in action can form part of a person's identity (e.g. successful businessman), but that has nothing to do with the will per se but the will as acted out in the business actions he takes. Will we say that in humans, a person's identity is located in freely willed actions? No, because it is what is willed and what is done that identifies a person.

How then should we respond to Vidu's strange comment on will being a personal property? Vidu I think fails to differentiate being something being present, and something acted out. If will is a personal property, it can be said that a personal identity is that a person is a moral agent. However, the exercise of that will is an act, which the person can and does exercise. Therefore, it is a non sequitur to claim that "will" being a personal property implies that the personal identity is located in freely willed actions. The will is after all distinct from the act, though not separate from it.

There are of course more nuances when it comes to God, but the problem here is how Vidu, as with many of his Roman Catholic ressourcement friends, seem to think that a rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics and Aquinas is the cause of the problems with the world today (Modernism and Postmodernism). There are many problems with modernism and postmodernism, but making will a personal property has nothing to do with self-autonomy and the need for self-expression and self-actualization.

The corruption of Aristotelian metaphysics in classical theism: Exhibit B

Now, and this is the pivotal move in this argument, if the persons are identified with the relations, if these are relations that subsist in the unity of an intellectual substance, and if other relations, contingent and economic, were to obtain between the persons—where there would be a to and fro, a giving and a taking—then the very identity of the persons would also depend in some way upon these contingent and finite realities. (Adonis Vidu, The Same God who Works All Things, p. 100)

In hard classical theism, ressourcement classical theism, the persons are identified with the relations (paternity, begotten, proceeding). Note that we are not denying that the persons are relations in some sense. But in hard classical theism, the only distinction between the persons are the (eternal) relations. These relations are eternal, necessary and pertains to the very nature of the Godhead. To posit any other relation other than these is to make "the very identity of the person" to be dependent "in some way upon these contingent and finite realities."

The problem with this view is precisely at this fixation on "relations." Even if we were to hold to the identity thesis, who is to say that one kind of relations (the eternal kind) precludes other types of relations (the contingent kind)? Vidu is positing a univocity of the term "relation" in order to deny that God can form any type of non-ontic and/or non-eternal relations either within the Godhead or with anything in creation. It is the amphiboly fallacy. And why must a relation make "the very identity of the person" dependent on contingent and finity realities? All of us know that God is the Creator of the universe, so does this relation of "being a Creator" make God dependent upon the contingent and finite reality of the universe, or we are going to make inane arguments about what constitues a "real relation" or not?

While the doctrine of God is certainly hard and mysterious, as pertaining to the mysteries of the Almighty God, sometimes it seems that it is theologians who are busy making God more mysterious than He is. This is the kind of argument that creates all kinds of gnots for theologians to twist and turn in order to make themselves look smart and God more mysterious, as if God needs the help of Man to make Himmself beyond full comprehension! The persons of the Godhead are indeed defined by their personal relations (paternity, begotten, proceeding), but to therefore claim that they cannot have any other types of relations is an assertion not a proof.

The corruption of Aristotelian metaphysics in classical theism: Exhibit A

"A thing acts in so far as it is in act," Aquinas wrote. By no means an esoteric principle of the Common Doctor, this axiom merely expresses the simple idea that the activity of a particular thing is determined in its nature by the kind of thing it is. A rock can't speak, but it can break; water can flow, but it can't break; and so on. [Adonis Vidu, The Same God who works all things, 92]

The so-called "ressourcement" of classical theism has been treating Aristotelian metaphysics, as modified by Thomas Aquinas, as axiomatic. As I read through this book by Adonis Vidu, I would like to point out places where this has been done, to the detriment of common sense and biblical theism.

An action of a thing is determined by its nature? Now, if we are merely saying that actions cannot contradict the nature of a thing, then of course that is true. A human cannot naturally fly, because a human does not have the apparatus for flying (e.g. wings, hollow wing bones etc). But where Aristotle goes with it is a form of hard determinism, where a nature determines actions. Or, in the case of God, nature wills actions. "...the nature of the action is determined by the nature of the agent." (Ibid.) In other words, God Himself does not have libertarian free will. But this is nonsense. A human being can do good, but a good Calvinist will say that humans have a fallen nature incapable of doing good. A human being can and have invented lots of things, but is the nature of inventing an airplane (as opposed to being inventive) determined by the nature of human beings?

The natural sciences have in large part rejected this principle for the simple reason that it restricts scientific research. Science cannot be done if scientists are constantly being told what they can or cannot do according to metaphysical considerations. For Aristotle and Aquinas to say is before the scientific revolution is understandable. For people in the 21st century to say that is to be a Luddite.

A free being such as God can do anything not contrary to His nature. He is not restricted to what philosophers think He can or cannot do. Therefore, to claim something about the nature of God from His actions is not a good argument. Of course, God's actions may reflect on His nature, but that is an argument to be made, not assumed.

USAID and the corruption of new liberalism

USAID (United States Agency for International Development) has recently been exposed by the (second) Trump adminstration as funding sexual perversion (among other things) around the world. The spotlight on the immoral left shows that much of the new liberal talking points about "democracy" and so on are actually subversive of democracy. On the issue of sexual pervsion (i.e. LGBT+), it is easily seen that the push for so-called "inclusion" on these issues has never been organic.

Part of the rhetoric pushed by those advocating for so-called "sexual minorities" is that it is a small minority of religious people pushing their religion into the public sphere. In light of the exposure of USAID, it is clear that this is not the case. The push for LGBT+ is a well-financed operation by a small group of extremely powerful and wealthy immoral Leftists to impose their wickedness on the rest of the world. Just because religious citizens are the most vocal in pushing back against these wicked people, that does not mean that they are the small minority seeking to impose religous values. Rather, because the natural law is clear, all peoples everywhere naturally know that LGBT+ is wrong, and it takes "education" or indoctrination into Leftist ideologies to suppress the conscience and to regard evil as good.

Whatever one wants to think about the person of Donald Trump, we should all thank God at least for this one blessing: the exposure of Leftism as an imperialist agenda. The next time someone raised this idea of religious imposition, we have a very good counter to it.