The inability to comprehend other cultures: A slight response to Owen Strachen's review of Christopher Nolan's The Odyssey

The Odyssey is an ancient story written by Homer. THE Odessey is a recently released movie directed by Christopher Nolan that is supposed to be an adaptation of the Odyssey. I have not read the primary source of the Odessey, and I have been quite nonchalant about this movie. Nevertheless, it is interesting following the controversy surrounding the movie.

What is interesting about the reaction to the movie is how some conservatives and even Christians think it is movie worth seeing, one example seen in this review by Christian theologian Owen Strachan. Now, I am not going to interact with most of the review per se, and I think if one wants a good review, see this one by nerdrotic, but will focus on one particular aspect of the movie seen in Strachan's review: that of the psychology of Odysseus.

Odysseus is a Greek hero of the Trojan War who however took a long journey back home, the long journey being the premise of the Odyssey. In Nolan's movie, Odysseus is internally conflicted over his role in the Trojan War and especially the deception of the Trojan Horse. This PTSD Odysseus is most certainly relatable to "modern audiences" but far from the ideal of the Greek hero, and is a point of criticism by those who treasure historical accuracy and fidelity to the source material. As opposed to these critics, I would like to focus on the issue of worldview and psychology. Is the Odysseus portrayed by Nolan historically plausible? I would think not.

The main issue here is one of worldview. The modern Western worldview is one heavily influenced by Christianity, in particular a strain of Christianity that is more anabaptist in its view of grace and nature. In that view, grace destroys nature. Thus, the modern Western worldview brings the ethics of the Kingdom of God to bear on secular matters, making kindness and forgiveness supreme virtues in public life. It is not an accident that Western liberals took these principles and distort it into support for mass migrations and leniency on criminals, whereas such nonsense would never come to pass in non-Western countries. Likewise, a typical modern Westerner will feel bad about deception in warfare, but non Westerners will feel nothing about such deception. And where the deception succeeds, it is celebrated and to the winners go the spoils.

It needs not be said that Odysseus is not a Christian, modern or otherwise. The pagan Odysseus would never feel guilt over the deception of the Trojan Horse. This Anabaptist strain of Christian influence, after 200 years of Western dominance, is perceived by Westerns like the air they breathe, what is considered normal. It is no surprise therefore that some Western Christians (and not just Strachen) have no issues with it. But this reveals precisely the major blind spot Westerners have: an inability to comprehend other cultures, even pre-Christian Western cultures. Just because Westerners might have PTSD doing what they think is morally wrong does not mean others will feel the same way. A pre-Christian pagan culture that glorifies victory in war and sees kindness as weakness is not going to feel (not just not think) deception in war is wrong. The idea that any ancient pagan will feel bad over what we call today wartime atrocities is quite frankly, ludicious. Genghis Khan has no qualms about ordering the slaughter of every man, woman, and child in Nishapur when they rebelled against him. PTDSD Odysseus is thus inconceivable, and shows the general inability of Westerners to understand non-modern and/or non-Western cultures.

I mentioned that the Christian influence in modern Western culture here is the Anabaptist view on nature and grace, because from my own person as well as as what I have seen, it is possible for true born-again Christians especially in non-Western contexts to have different views concerning grace and punishment and conduct in warfare. For example, I understand in part but cannot comprehend how Westerners see no issue with treating criminals well, and I do not mean by that the issue of human dignity. It is frankly shocking how prisons in modern Western countries can be considered chalets. The idea of restorative justice as being the important thing when it comes to breaking of the law is ridiculous. Any "restorative justice" should happen only after punitive justice has been established. The more I look, the more I perceive that even though we are all Christians, the worldview of Westerners on many things is just alien to me.

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.

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.

The American Idolatry of "Freedom" and David French's continual defense of rank immorality

'The Conservative Case for Trans-ing The Kids' 🤡🌎 https://t.co/dbcF4qDX6M

— Michael Knowles (@michaeljknowles) October 2, 2022

David French is at it again, defending his so-called "moderate" views in his blog piece "When Culture Wars go too far." Under his so-called moderation, French defended his "classical liberal" view that everyone should have the freedom to sin, stating that he is a "strong believer in classical liberalism, pluralism, and legal equality." Unfortunately for him, French is none of these things. Does anyone seriously think that any of the American Founders would have agreed that anyone should be free to do Drag Queen Story Hour?

The problem with David French and many so-called conservatives is that they have imbibed the Spirit of the Age. French's view of freedom is that of Left Liberatarianism, not Classical Liberalism. It is an idolatry of "freedom" from all forms of law, where all men are to be free to violate laws as long as they are not illegal under the Zeitgeist. In other words, French's view of freedom is what John Calvin calls libertinism, where under the guise of freedom, men are to be free to break any law they want as long as the Zeitgeist does not agree with said law.

A simple thought experiment would be in order. Is there freedom for a person to own and flog another person as a slave today? It was considered legal in the American antebellum South, so one should be free to do so even if one disagrees with slavery, right? Of course not! French would probably claim that the law forbid it, so let me reframe the question. In the antebellum South, would French defend the right of a slaveowner to own slaves and flog his slaves, even if he thinks it is immoral? Let me repeat the question again: In the antebellum South, would French defend the right of a slaveowner to own slaves and flog his slaves, even if he thinks it is immoral? If French utilizes the same reasoning he uses to defend the freedom of Drag Queen Story Hour, he should logically say yes. But if French says no, as he probably would, then that is only proof that what should be awarded freedom depends on the Zeitgeist. What wickedness the current Zeitgeist allows and celebrates, French would defend the "freedom" to sin in that manner. What wickedness the current Zeitgeist demonizes, that he probably would deny the freedom to do so also.

There is a deep sickness in American conservatism, a pathology of immorality in thought even if not in act. The idea that Drag Queen Story Hour should be tolerated because of "classical liberalism" is total nonsense. Some sins have to be tolerated of course in society for a variety of reasons, like private immorality. But every healthy society has always criminalized gross public immorality. From a Christian perspective, this is just the application of the Natural Law, the Second Table of the Ten Commandments. There is nothing contrary to freedom to enforce the Natural Law, just as it is not contrary to the freedom of the rapist to criminalize rape, or against the freedom of the murderer to punish the murderer.

The catastrophe of repealing S377A in Singapore

In his National Day rally speech, Singapore Prime Minister LEE Hsien Long took the step of announcing the decision to repeal S377A of the Singapore penal code. This part of the law has been assaulted by the LGBTQ+++ lobby in Singapore (that take its social cues from the West) for many years, and it seems that the pressure of the pink dollar is getting too hard to bear.

Section 377A of the Penal Code state thus:

Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.

Many people have seen S337A as expressing social disapproval of homosexuality, as well as being the defence against a militant LGBT+ activism. However, many Christians have not thought through the issue clearly, and it shows. S377A did indeed perform those functions for some time, but the reasaon why any society should be against LGBT+ was not well thought through. While certainly, Christianity abominates homosexuality, there is a more systematic reason why homosexuality should not be entertained by any human society secular or religious, and the reason has nothing to do with institutional religion at all.

From a Christian perspective, God is the same God who has created the world. He has set forth His order in creation, and this order is seen in what is known as Natural Law. Natural Law is that part of General Revelation that concerns the creation and moral order of the world that is partly stamped into the Imago Dei. Man always have a sense of Natural Law with him. While ethicists can debate issues of ethics, no professional philosopher has to tell any human that killing and stealing is wrong, even though killing and stealing are found in all societies on earth. Even where killing and stealing are somehow excused, it is excused only in relation to "outsiders," never to those in one's tribe. This proves the reality stated in Scripture, that

For when Gentiles, who do not have the [Mosaic -DHC] law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them. (Rom. 2:14-15)

That LGBT is wrong is found in the Natural Law, encoded into creation that marriage is between a man and a woman. Polygamy, while a violation of the moral law, is not a violation of the creation norm that man and woman together makes a marriage. In the entirety of human history, normal marriage is seen as normative. LGBT+ activists love to point out instances of homosexuality in history, but that's not the issue. The issue is what has always been considered normative versus what was seen as non-normative. Normal marriages are the norm, and homosexuality always as not the norm, even if that particular society did not consider it a sin.

LGBT+ activists love to assert that allowing for LGBTQ+ does not affect the rest of us. That however is a false statement. It affects us by normalizing LGBTQ+ as an alternative. If these are normal, then for those of us who continue to believe in the truth, would we now be considered "hateful" and "intolerant" for speaking what most people in the past had always believed to be true? That is the issue, not whether LGBT+ identified people are present, but whether LGBTQ+ is to be considered normal.

For those of us in Singapore, the sad thing is that many Christians evidently think nothing of the repeal of S377A. Many have bought into the lie that those who are not LGBTQ+ would not be affected in any way by the repeal. But perhaps worse of all is that we have actual theological resources that speak to this situation: the situation of how ethics and morality interact with the State.

When Reformed Christian talk about the moral law of God, which is binding on all humans, most of us focus on the first and third uses of the Law. The first use of the law (the Gospel Use) is that the Law shows us our failure to obey it and thus drives us to Christ. The third use of the Law states that the Law shows us God's standards and therefore show us the way we should live (the Regulative Use). What has been misssing in much of our conversations all this time is the second use of the Law: the Civil use. As its name suggests, it is the use of the Law for civil society, precisely because this use of the Law reflects Natural Law back on to society and call society both to the order of creation and to the moral law they have already in their consciences. The Civil use of the Law is meant to restrain sin, and thus it has a communal aspect. It applies to the entire domain of creation, and therefore has no regard for one's religious affiliation or lack thereof. As the atheists kindly tell us, one does not need Christianity to know murder is wrong, and penalizing murder is not an imposition of religion even though all religions are against murder. Thus, likewise, one does not need Christianity to know LGBTQ+ is wrong, and penalizing LGBTQ+ is likewise not an imposition of religion even though many religions consider it wrong.

Singapore Christians, and even entire churches, who have no regards for S377A show that they have neither thought through what Scripture clearly teaches, nor have they contemplated the Natural Law given to all people everywhere. Now that the decision to repeal has been announced, these Christians and churches are culpable for how they have contributed to the normalization of what Scripture calls an abomination. They will answer to God for their crimes, and it is indeed a crime to call what God calls evil good.

What does repentance and faith look like in a fascist or communist?

The furore over Tim Keller's promotion of third way-ism is just another glipmse into the corruption that is mainstream evangelical Christianity in America. After David Wood wrote a sympathatic critique of Keller, the liberal David French, a political commentator who claims to be conservative while corrupting the faith, has attacked such criticism of Keller's compromise as "moral devolution" of the "new Christian right." Rod Dreher in turn criticized French as misreading American society and for creating a false dichotomy between love of enemies and truth.

As a non-American, I try not to comment much on American social issues. However, insofar as it deals with morality, it is an issue that transcends national borders. On this, there is a larger issue than politics here. The issue is what intellectual sin looks like, and what repentance looks like as it pertains to intellectual sin. That sadly has been missing from the discussion so far.

Sin is any want of conformity to, or transgression of, the law of God (WSC Q14). The human person is a whole person, involving the intellect, the will, emotions, and actions. We are to worship God will all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Lk. 10:27), precisely because we are whole human persons. Sin affects all our faculties, thus affecting the intellect, the will, the emotions, and our actions. Therefore, it stands to reason that repentance ought to affect all our faculties too, including the intellect.

Intellectual sins therefore are sins that ought to be repented as the person turns to Christ. On intellectual sins, there are sins due to ignorance, and sins due to sloth. But there are also grievous sins due to extreme rebellion. Just as in practice, there are sins that would call into question one's profession of faith (e.g. incest e.g. 1 Cor. 5:1), so likewise there are grievous intellectual sins that would call into question one's profession of faith. An example of grievious intellectual sin is belief in any system that denies Jesus is God.

Intellectual sins are present when one holds to systems that expressly rejects biblical standards and supplant biblical morality, regardless of whether one goes all the way into full-fledged conversion to that system of belief. In fact, holding to anti-biblical systems while paying lip service to the true God is the very definition of syncretism. Anti-biblical systems currently in vogue are fascism and communism, or a fusion of the two - corporate wokeism. These systems are so anti-biblical they call good evil and evil good. For example, what God calls abomination, they celebrate as virtuous under the vacuous slogan "love is love."

What does repentance and faith look like therefore for a fascist or communist? Given the extreme anti-biblical nature of theses systems, part of being a Christian is to repent of these anti-Christian sysytems of beliefs. There is no way one can be a repentant Christian and still hold that homosexuality is good or neutral in society. Therefore, a Marxist or woke person who has undergone the new birth will renounce their fomer beliefs as false, and turn in new life in the life-giving truths of Scripture.

The furore over Keller "third way-ism" obscures this most important fact: What currently goes under the label progressivism is sin. The solution is not conservatism (a sociological conversion), but true biblical repentance from all these anti-biblical ideologies. When David French promotes Drag Queen Story Hour, his main sin was not going against the sensibilities of conservatives, but in normalizing wickedness in the eyes of God. The issue is not sociological, but harmatiological. That is why Keller's third-way, and French's "moral winsomeness" fails, because they ultimately rejects what God says as sociological and political, rejecting the final authority of God's Word for their own political positions. Just because one side politicizes biblical morality does not mean God's standards suddenly become political, and attempting a compromise with an anti-biblical position under the guise of "third way" and "not being political," "not being partisan," moral witness," and all other empty slogans, is sin. The key issue is not "Is it political?," but "What does God say."

Confusion over the Kingship of Christ over the nations

Daniel and his friends did the entire pagan program Babylon put them through, astrology and all. Where they drew the line was not in listening to false thinking but in doing wrong things. Paul says noto to be separate from the world but not to tolerate believers teaching heresy.

— Jeremy Pierce (@TheParableMan) May 2, 2022

The "third-way" campaign by those who are seeking to get Christians out of the public square continues. Using elements common to the 2-Kingdom theory, they assert that Christians are currently exiles and they are to live as among a pagan people, not to engage in activism to bring in a "Christian nation." All of this sound very pious, but the problem is that it is just unbiblical nonsense, and 2-Kingdom theory does not even teach that to be the case. 2-Kingdom theory merely asserts that there is the Kingdom of the church and the Kingdom of the world, and God rules both. 2-Kingdom by itself does not say how Christians ought to behave in the public square, unless one ignores the explicit words of its main proponent Dr VanDrunen.

The model for Christian living in the world is indeed the exilic model (c.f. 1 Peter 1:1-2). The Church today is not a theocracy, where Church and State are linked. Old Testament Israel is not our paradigm for living today. As exiles in the world, we are not seeking to dominate the world neither are we seeking to advance God's Kingdom by political means. However, does this imply that Christians are to be quietists and be totally apolitical?

Christians are in two kingdoms: the kingdom of the church, and the kingdom of the world. That means that we are to be engaged in each. Concerning our current presence in the world, we are to engage in it according to natural law, or the law God has instituted in creation. Concerning issues of morality and law therefore, our engagement is to be strictly creational and moral, not cultic, as in to say not of religion. Therefore, just as God condemns pagan nations for engaging in egregious behavior (Obadiah, c.f. Gen 16:15), and especially extreme perverse behavior (Gen 19:23-29), so likewise Christians even in the exile can speak up against such perversion. We note here the categorical difference between egregious violation of natural law and idolatry. Idolatry is sin, but is a sin against God not as Creator. There is therefore no inconsistency for Christians in exilic living among non-Christians, and addressing the wickedness of rank immorality in the world.

The problem of those promoting a "third way" is that they promote a view of sin that is unbiblical. They hold all sins to be equal in kind, though not in intensity. Therefore, who is to say one sin is worse than another? That is why they end up tolerating gross immorality since they see no difference between gross immorality and sin. In their view, someone who mutilates his body as a "transgender" is just as sinful as a glutton, and if the church can tolerate the latter as a member of the church, why not the former? Such people do not understand sin correctly, and it shows. Turning around to attack others as trying to confuse the Kingdom of God with the Church is a false accusation for the most part. In fact, taking their position implies that Christians must tolerate, even celebrate, all manner of sin and filth in society, with no limits whatsoever, a view that certainly goes against the injunction to sek the welfare of the place we are in (Jer. 29:7)

The fact of the matter is that Christ is king over BOTH kingdoms. Those who use the exile motif as an excuse to attack those of us who engage with society are functionally living in denial of the kingship of Christ over creation. They can ssert all they want that they are biblical, but actions sometimes do speak louder than words.

Satire on "Christian Nationalism"

Jesus isn’t waving a Ukrainian flag. Nations rise and fall. Ukraine is no one’s home. Ukrainian Christians are Christians first. We shouldn’t fight for our rights. The church is stronger in hostility. We’re called to proclaim the Gospel of a higher kingdom, not take earthly power

— Stephen Wolfe (@PerfInjust) March 2, 2022

All of the statements taken from Stephen Wolfe's thread, if you substitute Ukraine with America, were talking points of Evangelicals attacking the bodeyman of "Christian Nationalism." The point is not to belittle the plight of Ukraine, but to show the utter hypocrisy of all who punch right and "respectfully engage" the left. Retreating behind supposed "Two Kingdoms" theology is a cop-out. Two Kingdoms theory, as articulated by Dr. VanDrunen, teaches that God rules both kingdoms differently, thus the Church as an Institution is not to partake in politics. Two Kingdoms does not state that Christians should not be involved in politics, just that the Church as an Institution should not be politicking. Furthermore, if the poitical quietists are right, then there should be equal denunciation of ALL political involvement, including "racial reconciliation," immigrant issues (both legal and illegal), pro-Democrat lobbying, labor issues, anything regarding COVID vaccines and mandates (both for and against) and others. I have yet to see anyone consistently being "non-political" from the regime side.

The dehumanization angle concerning the COVID vaccine mandate

In response to the COVID19 pandemic, many countries are now lining up to promote their version of a vaccine mandate, whereby those who are deemed "unvaccinated," an ever evolving category, are to be disciminated against. Such policies are spun positively as "protecting the unvaccinated," but all that is facade for more nefarious goals. Perhaps one place we can see the mask slip is the interview with French president Emmanuel Macron who, in an interview, dehumanizes, mocks and ridicules the unvacccinated as "non-citizens" whom he wants to "piss off." Note that for France, the "unvaccinated" includes all those who are vaccinated but did not receive the booster. In other words, those who are adequately protected against the COVID19 virus, but do not get the enhanced protection of a booster shot, are to be mocked and ridiculed as being "unvaccinated."

There are many angles that one can address this farce of the vaccine mandate, but the main point I want to focus on here is how dehumanizing ALL vaccine mandates are. I say that as someone who has received two doses of the Pfizer vaccine, and am not necessarily against taking a booster. But Macron's interview clearly show that for many people, the vaccine mandate is all about implementing vaccine apartheid and giving certain people the "moral high ground" to openly mock, ridicule, and trash those who do not agree with them concerning the COVID vaccine, all whiile feeling righteous and thinking that they are on the "right side of history." The correct way of dealing with human beings is one, to treat them as humans. It does not matter what the issue is: If you think that one is justified in dehumanizing the opposition, then your supposedly "moral" side is in the wrong. Vaccine mandates of any kind are licenses to discriminate, mock, and ridicule anyone who does not get the vaccine or the booster. It DOES not matter whether you think someone should or shouldn't get the vaccine. Once you think that you are free to dehumanize the "unvaccinated," to treat them as sub-human scum, you are positively evil.

Part of the dehumanizing aspect of vaccine passports is the idea that living as a human being is not a human right, therefore a government or governments can take away those "rights" in order to "protect the unvaccinated." So governments think that restricting speech on the vaccine, restructing freedom of assembly, blocking the unvaccinated from going to work, is somehow morally justified because of the pandemic. In the name of "protecting the unvaccinated," or other such inane platitudes, the "unvaccinated" (which evidently now include the non-boosted vaccinated, and next time it might include anyone not taking the 5th or 6th or 20th booster shot), the "unvaccinated" are persecuted, blocked from working leading to loss of income, blocked from participating in society, and so on.

Marcon's coarse and dehumanizing speech reflects perfectly well the misanthropy behind all vaccine mandates. Whilee the COVID19 pandemic is a serious health issue, there is another pandemic at play here, and it is worse because it is not treated as a pandemic: the pandemic of dehumanizing totalitarianism (but I am repeating mysef). From Macron's insult of his fellow citizens to Australia's fascist policies, the virus of totalitarianism is on the rise, and there remains no effective vaccine for this pandemic, for now.

Mika Edmonson: Facts are irrelevant to the narrative

In the wake of today’s verdict in Wisconsin, let’s pray for the families of the victims,for the safety of peaceful protestors, for laws that protect the right to peaceably assemble, the grace to remain peaceful, for an end to racial vigilantism & for gun reform that protects life

— Mika Edmondson (@mika_edmondson) November 19, 2021

Mika Edmonson, a black pastor who was formerly pastoring in the OPC, is the husband to race hustler Christina Edmonson. In this tweet that alludes to the Rittenhouse incident, he prays for "an end to racial vigilantism," parroting one accusation of the left. Nevermind that the three people shot by Kyle Rittenhouse were all white. A white man shooting other white men in self-defence is considered "racial vigilantism."

A major problem with those calling for "racial justice," the supposed moderates who claim to reject CRT (Critical Race Theory) in the Evangelical and Reformed camp, is its aversion to facts. I have shown that in my brief response to Justin Gibony's video over at TGC. The fact of the matter is that these supposed moderates lie about the facts. Just like the American mainstream media, they seem to be pathological liars. Mika Edmonson lies about the Rittenhouse incident, and unfortunately nothing will happen to him. He is supposed to be a minsiter of the Gospel, so that makes his sin all the more egregious. Sad to say, but unrepentant lying and misrepresentation is not the disqualifying sin it once was for the ministry in the United States of America.

Some stuff on CRT in Singapore

Critical Race Theory (CRT) is a racist, divisive ideology that is metastasizing throughout the world. It is appearing in Singapore, creating needless division and dissension. Recently, the rapper Subbhas Nair has been charged with "attempting to promote ill will over religion, race", and he does so by dealing with social issues through the lens of CRT. While one can discuss CRT academically, the toxic fruit of CRT is clear in its promotion of racism and racial division through its "antiracist" praxis.

Regarding CRT in Singapore, here are two articles (from a Singapore perspective) analyzing CRT by Reckless.Sg:

What's the Big Deal with Critical Race Theory (Part 1)
What's the Big Deal with Critical Race Theory (Part 2)

It is hoped that CRT will be rejected as the racist garbage that it is, but the growing (il)liberalism in Singapore is cause for worry.

The issue of "white privilege" and self-condfidence

"Who are you? You are not [e.g. Carl Trueman]" - Someone

The issue of "white privilege" is treated as the original sin of the radical liberal Left. Insofar as it is ideological, it reads the concept into every interaction between individuals of different ethnicities, particular when one or more of the participants are considered "white." Nevertheless, there is some empirical evidence that would seem to support the concept. But just as in dealing with metanarratives, the argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent, in the sense that empirical data that would seem to support Critical Race Theory (CRT) could be legitimately interpreted in another manner to support a different narrative.

What are the empirical evidences that would seem to support "white privilege"? Consider how people of the Caucasian ethnicities are treated differently in places like Singapore. Behavior that are not tolerated if committed by locals are tolerated when whites do it. White theologians like Carl Trueman can criticize other theologians like Bruce Ware and are still treated as godly men, but we know what happens if a Singaporean does the same. White pastors like David Platt promote division in their own church, and yet their books continue to be promoted. Does anyone sincerely think that a Singaporean pastor can get away with what Platt is doing in his own church and also have their books promoted?

These, and many more examples of social interactions that others can provide, seem to show that "white privilege" is alive and well. But I would suggest that the evidences point elsewhere. Specifically, it points to a veneration of whites (a concept most aptly conveyed by the Chinese term 崇洋) by Asians in general coupled with a lack of self-confidence in oneself in comparison to whites. In other words, it is because we do not practice color-blindness but instead make ourselve inferior that "white privilege" comes about. If we have self-confidence, then there is one standard for both whites and non-whites (i.e. color-blindness). If we do not accept such behavior, then it should not matter who commits that behavior. If it is wrong to criticize other Christians, then please go ahead and condemn Carl Trueman et al as schismatics. If you claim that it is wrong for a godly Christian to criticize other Christians, yet exempt these theologians from your judgment, you are a hypocrite!

What is the solution to "white privilege"? Stop treating whites differently from non-whites. Do not treat them as superiors, and do not treat them as inferiors. Treat people with no regard to their skin color and ethnicity, and you would solve the problem immediately. The question is: Will you do it?

Why being "apolitical" does not help in Christian discipleship

Pastors, as those entrusted with the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1) you are ministers of Word and Sacrament. Not political pundits. https://t.co/bwuSXYrIMw

— Brian Onstead (@brianonstead) August 19, 2021

Christianity as a religion focuses on spiritual things. Christianity is also a worldview that seeks to explain all of life. After all, if the God who created the world and ordered it is the same God who redeems sinners from sin, then it follows logically that all of life and the things in this world must be present in the scheme of God. To relegate Christianity to the private realm, unconcerned with the things of this world, is a denial that God is the God of creation.

That said, Jesus' kingdom is not of this world (Jn. 18:36). The primary focus of Christians should be on the things of God. Thus, while God is the God of creation, our emphasis should be on God as the God of redemption. Herein lies the tension for Christians in this age: On the one hand, we worship the God who is Creator and King. On the other hand, our focus is on God as our redeemer and the one who mandates that in this period of the Gospel Christians ought to be focused on proclaiming the Gospel of salvation from sin. Both are true, and both cannot be denied. Those that focus on the Gospel alone while ignoring creation are inbalanced in their faith, just like those who do not focus on the primacy of the Gospel due to concern over creation. How then should Christians live in this world?

The tension between the Kingdom of God and the kingdom of creation, and between the City of God and the City of Man, has occupied pastors and theologians since the beginning of the church. A recent view attributed to Reformed theologian David VanDrunen, the "Two Kingdoms" view, state that God is ruler over both the kingdom of creation and the kingdom of the church, but He does so separately. One implication of this view is that the Church in her assembly ought to be focused on spiritual things and not the things of this world. Activism of all sorts are to be proscribed by the church in her gathering, a corrective to both right-wing and left-wing activism found within American Evangelicalism. In this general sense, the Two Kingdoms view is biblical. Complications arise however when we look at the specifics.

Recently, Baptist theologian Owen Strachan wrote a tweet stating that pastors ought to teach their congregants how to understand the world, and that failure to do so is a failure in Christian discipleship as the sheep will look elsewhere for guidance on these matters. Strachan of course is thinking in terms of social issues like Critical Race Theory, in light of the shocking abandonment of biblical orthodoxy by former YRR (Young, Restless, Reformed) adherents for the mirage of "social justice." Many Evangelical Christians in turn turn to conservative political analysts and Fox News for their catechesis on socio-political issues. It seems clear that many people in the church learn about society and politics not through the lens of Scripture, but through partisan lenses. Now, if one believes that there is such a thing as a Christian worldview, then this fact should be seen as problematic.

In response to this tweet, Brian Onstead has reminded us that pastors are not political pundits. That of course is true, but I am unsure the relevance that has to the original tweet. The focus in on Christian worldview, and the shocking abandonment of the Reformed faith by many New Calvinists for "social justice" shows that they had lacked a biblical worldview. Somehow "Gospel-centered" has devolved into "Gospel-only," and it seems that they learn their sociology and politics from the culture rather than the Scriptures. On the right, the reaction to the Left has reached fever pitch, and it is not helpful to be trained by them in one's worldview, even though they are correct on many matters. Are these not evidenct that the Church ought to disciple her members in the Christian worldview, instead of allowing the culture to teach us about such matters? After all, Strachan is not asking for political activism or guidance from the pulpit, but Christian instruction on such matters.

It is of coure true that there is a category called "wisdom" as one deals with the things of the world. But as opposed to this ivory-tower theologian, it is a fact that calling for wisdom is insufficient to actually ajudicate on a practical level between a biblical theory and an unbiblical theory. This author has seen first-hand how a pastor can agree with biblical doctrines on many things but consistently promotes left-wing social issues as being merely concerned with "social justice," while simultaneously claiming to be apolitical and not interested in doing politics. What is going on here, you might ask? What is happening is that left-wing views have so permeated society that they became seen as the "default" view; it is considered being moderate and "not political" to hold to that particular left-wing view. In other words, the Overton window has shifted so much leftwards that anyone who has not thought through the issues are by default politically left.

In exegesis, "tradition" is the idea that nobody comes to the Bible "just as they are." We all come with preconceived notions and lenses through which we read our Bibles. The one who is uncritical about that and who claims no tradition is often the one so bound by tradition that he is blind to it. Likewise, the one who does not recognize that they have a default inchoate "sociopolitical theory" are the ones that are most blind to their own political biases. That is why Strachan's call for biblical discipleship in this area resonates with me, not because Christians ought to be political or to be partisan, but because most Christians are not taught how to think through these matters from a biblical perspective. Wisdom is of course necessary, but calling for wisdom without showing how wisdom is seen is like the man who knows he needs food but is unable to recognize food from poison.

It is of course correct to desire to be apolitical, since the kingdom of grace is not of this world. But desiring to be apolitical is not the same as BEING apolitical. Ironically, one has to be educated on socio-political issues from a Christian worldview in order to be apolitical. Just as knowing one's tradition helps one to better interpret the Bible from a more objective standpoint, likewise knowing the Christian worldview on political matters helps one to be properly apolitical. Without such education, one can call for all the "wisdom" one desires, but there is no escaping the forces that have swallowed up people like Christina Edmonson, Jemar Tisby, and the others who have fallen away from biblical Christianity.

The social liberalism of David French

David French, once a conservative, has shifted ever leftward. That is less of an issue if the leftward movement was on issues that Scripture does not explicitly address. However, in his attack piece on the "new right" over their "embrace" of Hungary, he took positions contrary to Scripture, and thus showed that he has shifted towards being more theologically liberal. Hungary of course is not immune to criticism, and this piece should not be construed to taking any position on Hungary. The focus here rather is on French and the values he shows in his attack piece.

The key passaage from French's attack piece lies here:

The regime doesn’t recognize gay marriage. Only heterosexual couples may adopt. And the regime just passed a law sharply limiting any promotion of homosexuality or gender transition to children. He has banned gender studies programs at Hungarian universities

Besides the banning of gender studies programs (a conntroversial issue), all the other policies would be uncontroversial in America in the 1990s. Notice how French thinks that all these are normal for what he holds to be his "conservative" viewpoint. Nevermind that all these are considered abominations by Scripture; evidently having biblical morality is considered to be merely engaged in the "culture wars" which of course is reprehensible. So French evidently thinks that having biblical morality is part of the "new right" and to partake of the taint of authoritarianism.

This is of course part of the problem with the so-called "culture wars." The Overton Window has shifted so much that what was considered normal and acceptable in social discourse is now considered to be part of the "far-right" or "new right" or whatever nonsense the real culture warriors of the left have come up with. French's liberalism is as much a fact as well as a sad indictment over the state of spirituality in America. In any society where biblical morality is taken as a norm, French would be considered a left liberal for his abandonment of biblical morality, and treated as such by society.

David French and the fiction of systemic racism

David French, once a conservative, has drifted towards a more liberal position due to TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrone). In an article on The Dispatch, French sought to argue that "systemic racism" is reality and not wokeness. French of course charge the critics of systemic racism with being "biblically and historically wrong." On the part of history, what French says is nothing more than the liberal idea of "racism without actual racists." There is nothing new under the sun that French brings to the table, and what he says is no different from critical race theory. No doubt racial disparities do exist, but to claim that it is always due to racism is ridiculous. Again, racism without actual racists. It is thus French who is historically wrong, since to prove the charge of racism as defined historically, there must be actual racists involved.

More egregious is French's eisegesis of Scripture, distorting what it says in order to prop up the lie of systemic racism. French appeals to the episode of the Gideonites whom King Saul had persecuted, thus resulting in famine in the land. In 2 Samuel 21, the restitution for Saul's murder of the Gibeonites was to hand seven sons of King Saul over to be killed by the Gibeonites. On the surface, French's reading seems plausible. The Gibeonites were systematically annihilated, and even after one generation, God demanded restitution for the crime. Surely that proves that one can have systemic sin, does it not, where the "innocent" sons of Saul have to pay for their father's sin?

The problem with this reading of Scripture is that it ignores what the real crime of King Saul was. Why was the account of the Gibeonites included in the Scriptures in 2 Samuel 21 but not the other peoples Saul had probably killed? The reason why is seen in the relation the Gibeonites had with Israel, as narrated to us in Joshua 9. Gibeon had tricked Israel into forming a covenant between the two peoples. The covenant was made with God as a witness, thus Israel was unable to put them to the sword. The covenant made between Israel and Gibeon had a binding effect all the way down through the centuries. Saul's massacre of the Gibeonites was a violation of the covenant made with God as the witness. Therefore, Saul and his descendents have to pay for their violation of that covenant.

When one actually reads Scripture properly in context, it can be seen that the issue with the Gibeonites was not systemic sin, but rather covenant violation. The covenant curse inflicted by God through the famine has nothing to do with "systemic sin," or "sin without sinners" (since Saul was already dead), but rather the enforcing of treaty violations by God. The right analogy of the Gibeonites is not to "systemic racism," but rather present treaty violations between countries. The right lesson is that God will punish the breaking of covenants, not that God teaches systemic sin of any kind. This applies to all the other examples of confessing "ancestral sin," which was not confessing that one is culpable for the father's sins, but rather that one assumes the covenant responsibilities and guilt of the Mosaic Covenant.

In his hatred of Trump, David French has jetissoned his credability and join in the distortion of Scripture by the woke crowd. Contrary to what David French says, Structural Racism is unbiblical and unhistorical. French's tarring of this as "right-wing" is slander. His distortion of Scripture is sad, and may God lead him to repentance for distorting His Word.

[ADD: French doubled down on his defense of systemic racism here. He does this by (1) ignoring Scripture, and (2) retreating to the more defensive position that institutions do sin and institutions that sin must make restitutions. Note however that French is engaging in bait-and-switch, or the motte-and-bailey fallacy. NOBODY denies that institutions do sin and institutions that sin must make restitutions. "Systemic racism" is not the same as saying there are racist systems and institutions. "Systemic racism" states that racism is so prevalent that all institutions are involved in racism (even if they do not seem racist) unless they are actively "anti-racist." French thinks his audience are morons that have zero critical thinking skills, and sadly, he might be right.]

British Equalities Minister on the term "white privilege"

When it comes to secular matters, God has given humanity wisdom, expresed in common sense for those who still have their rational faculties working intact. Critical Race Theory, with its Gnostic idea of "critically" seeing things that nobody has ever seen before, is contrary to common sense. Thus, in the British Telegraph newspaper, we see an article about why the term "white privilege" is careless and divisive. It is obvious to anyone with common sense that the worst way to deal with racism is to make people focus on race and what each race is either entitled to or guilty of. From the article by Kemi Badenoch:

The phrase “white privilege” is unnecessarily antagonistic. Much as some theorists think it is essential for tackling racism, there is an active and fairly toxic political debate around it.

Ditto for the term "Chinese privilege," or any "X privilege" anyone can think of. You may read the article here.

The main lies Justin Gibony of TGC tells us about Racism and Critical Race Theory

Over at TGC (The Gospel Corporation), Justin Gibony did a video on the lies that serve American Christians. While he is right in pointing out that racism was a terrible blight in American Christianity, and he is right that we should not have a knee jerk reaction against any call for "racial justice," the problem is that his presentation itself has two major lies within it.

4 minutes into the video, Gibony states that it is false that "[racism] existed so long ago that it couldn't possibly still linger in our system and institutions" (04:30-7), and later he says that "Today many are using the threat of Marxism as pretext to avoid reckoning with the church's race problem. They are conflating biblical sound pleas for justice with clear distortion" (08:06-20). Taken on a superficial level, it is true that the effects of racism can still linger in America, and that it is also true that many could be using the threat of Marxism to avoid the issue of racism. However, that is not exactly what he had said. The claim is not that the effects of racism is present in America. The claim is that racism (not just its effects) is still present today in the American system and institutions. This is where Gibony embraced the falsehood of "systemic racism," where any actions that negatively affects someone of a minority race is taken as prima facie evidence of such "systemic racism." To be fair, Gibony lists down some racist events in America history, but note they last until the 1960s or at worst 70s. Guess what year is it today? 2021. If we take the year 1970, that is a time gap of 51 years, and 51 years is 2 generations. In other words, what Gibony is saying is that racism is still present BECAUSE racism was present TWO generations ago. Does that even sound rational to anyone not in the woke movement? So the sins of the father are to be visited on the grandson? Someone needs to read up Ezekiel 18 to see what God thinks about this kind of "justice"!

Next, the claim that many are using Marxism as pretext to avoid talking about race might be true. However, how does anyone know that? Absent reading the heart, that is impossible to know. What is possible to know is that Gibony sees that the church has a "race problem." Now, it is not to be denied that people in churches can and do struggle with racism. But to state that there is truly a "race problem" in the church implies that this "race problem" is pervasive throughout the churches, and especially "white churches." In other words, it is the issue of "systemic racism" again. So if there is this pervasive "race problem" in the church, where is the proof? Where is the smoking gun? Instead, what is happening is that reactions against calls for "racial reconciliation" by black racists like Jemar Tisby are rejected, and such rejections are taken as proof that the church has a "race problem"?! Why not think that the rejection of such calls is because we actually reject racists even when they have black skin? Now, I do not know whether such is the case, but Gibony has not given us any example of the church's "race problem" so I will just speculate as to what it is.

Speaking of the church's "race problem," if the fact that historically white churches are not diverse enough, then what are we to make of all ethnic churches? Is someone going to condemn black churces for not being diverse enough and include more whites and Asian and others? Who is going to condemn Korean churches for not being inclusive of non-Koreans, or Chinese churches of not being inclusive of non-Chinese? While I do agree that historically white churches should be welcoming to all ethnicities, the hypocrisy regarding TGC stands. Gibony states that we must reject lies, so perhaps he will give some of his air time to condemn all mono-ethnic churches including the black church for not being diverse enough?

In conclusion, I agree with Gibony that Christians can tell lies that serve their own interests. I happen to think however that Gibony needs to heed his own advice. Stop lying about systemic racism and be a truthful Christian. True racial reconciliation is done through actual reconciliation, not lies about racism and fellow Christians.

Book Review: Cynical Theories, by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay

What is "critical theory(ies)"? The most recent book by Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, entitled Cynical Theories, is an attempt by the two academics to describe critical theories and their evolution from a secular liberal ("old left") perspective. I have read it and here is my review of the book. An excerpt:

Cynical Theories, a play on “critical theory,” is a book that addresses the issue of critical theories, from a critical, liberal perspective. The authors Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay identify as liberals, and support what they believe to be LGBT equality (p. 19), but are against critical theories and thus the addition of “Q” to the gender alphabet group acronym. In their view, critical theories have hijacked the liberal project and are destructive of both it and society. Of concern to them is the fact that critical theories are provoking the rise of an equally identitarian right (p. 259), and the attack of the two extremes on society will eviscerate liberal society as it currently stands.

[more]

Of their solution to Critical Theories with a return to secular liberalism, let me offer these two sentences from the review:

Secular liberalism therefore fails to be the proper solution to Critical Theory as it cannot justify itself against other systems. It cannot justify any of its preferences, and as such, is unable to stop the emergence and progression of Critical Theories, which all happened under the watch of the liberal intelligentsia.

Just thinking podcast on Black Lives Matter

Over at the Just Thinking podcast, hosts Virgil Walker and Darrel Harrison, both black men, have recently addressed the issue of Black Lives Matter here. Please do listen to their highly informative and biblically-minded discussion there.