Wokeness Is Neither Justice Nor Love: A Response to Michael Bird

 Michael Bird, a well-known biblical scholar from the Land Down Under, took to the keyboard in response to a video of Jeff Durbin speaking against evangelical wokeness and a series of videos by Owen Strachan on Christianity and wokeness. His article, as the title suggests, makes the claim that a war on wokeness is a war on Christian love. In addition to the outlandish claim, Bird stoops to the level of a subtle ad hominem attack by calling both Strachan and Durbin, and, by extension, anyone in agreement with them, "fundamentalists." This, of course, begs the question whether being against wokeness automatically makes one a fundamentalist or not. I'll leave it to Bird to explain himself, should he ever read this article by little ol' me. 

Rather than quibbling about his use of the word "fundamentalist," however, I'd rather get to the substance of his article. Bird would have us believe that he "knows wokeness." His credentials include living in Melbourne, or "Melbingrad" as he calls it, the articles he wrote against progressive authoritarianism, and his consumption of articles and books from conservative magazines and authors such as Douglas Murray. I'd love to say that this makes me feel better, but it doesn't because, when we get down to it, the fact that he appears to be confused as to what constitutes wokeness and Christian love tells me he really doesn't understand wokeness. 

Let me explain. Bird tries to make the case that anyone involved in working for social justice is simply doing what the Bible tells us to do, that is, love your neighbor. "In my mind," he writes, "acknowledging racism, discrimination, and injustice--whether historical, cultural, institutional--and determining to change it, does not require adherence to a Marxist narrative, or becoming Woke." He explains, 

Churches and Christian leaders who are concerned with racism, police brutality, affordable healthcare, protecting refugees, acting on poverty, ending sex-trafficking, urging sustainable environmental policy, ensuring LGBTI people have the right to work, as well as defending the unborn, promoting end-of-life care as an alternative to euthanasia, safeguarding religious freedom, opposing gambling and pornographic industries, they are not whoring or compromised. They are simply doing what Christians have been doing for 2000 years which is loving their neighbor, remembering the poor, being the Good Samaritan, imitating Jesus, hating evil, loving good, and establishing justice in the gate of the city.

There are some things on Bird's list that I might scratch my head about, but I won't get into it right now. The important thing is that all of this, he claims, is simply an outworking of the "liberal political tradition rooted in a Christian worldview." And to make it sound like he's on the right side of history, he quotes George Washington quoting the Bible, "Everyone will sit under their own fig tree and no-one will make them afraid." 

The problem is wokeness is not a matter of simply acknowledging injustice and working for justice. Wokeness is an ideology. Wokeness is NOT rooted in the liberal political tradition that is based upon a Christian worldview. Wokeness has its roots in philosophies of resentment and discontent from socialism to Marxism to Critical Theory. Bird apparently understands the ideological backdrop, for he writes, "I also know very well that the progressive identity hierarchy divides everyone into either the oppressor or the oppressed, it imputes to ethnicities certain immutable moral characteristics, and (worst of all) it viciously attacks minorities if they do not obediently perform their roles in the identity hierarchy." What Bird doesn't appear to grasp is that the ideological background of wokeness determines for people which issues are worth fighting for and which ones aren't, what injustice and justice look like, and what methods will be involved in bringing about change--it even determines what change should look like. 

The fact of the matter is Christianity and woke ideology do not agree on the definition of justice, injustice, and change. This is most evident in how woke progressives talk about racism, privilege, white guilt, white fragility, etc. I've written about justice here, so I refer you to that to understand better how justice has been defined in the classical and Christian tradition. Anyone who would take the time to study how justice is defined in the classical and Christian tradition will be able to point out the differences in how the ideology behind wokeness defines it. Woke progressivism has a paper trail of calling evil, good and good, evil (go to the BLM website and see what kind of things they stand for) and of fabricating history to make a civilization sound like it was founded upon injustice (The 1619 Project, for example). 

Now, here is the important point. Scripture says that love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 8:8-10; Matthew 22:37-40). According to the prophet Micah, fulfilling the law means that we must do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God (Micah 6:8). Justice, mercy, and love go hand in hand. Since, therefore, woke ideology differs in its concept of justice, it follows that it differs in its concept of love. 

I'm not opposed to Christians calling out injustice and using whatever talents and resources they have to do what is just in the face of evil. I highly doubt Owen Strachan and Jeff Durbin are opposed to it too. What I am opposed to is when people like Michael Bird make outrageous claims that anyone who stands against woke ideology is only serving to "deny ethnic minorities have any grievances and white churches have any responsibility to do anything about it." If Bird truly knows what woke progressivism is capable of, then it is really surprising that he seems to be unaware of how its ideology affects the terminology, methodology, and final outcome of doing justly. And, again, since the woke version of doing justly is not the same as the Christian version, it follows that their version of love is not the same as Christian love. 

 

 

 

Black Lives Matter, But Why?

Black lives matter. I wholeheartedly agree. But why do they matter? Is there any underlying reason why I should desire that they live safe and prosperous lives as my fellow citizens? I can think of two very good reasons why I should desire their safety and prosperity. One is religious and the other is constitutional.

First, black lives matter because they are made in the image of God. The Bible says that God "has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth" (Acts 17:26). The Bible also says that God, "created man in his own image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen. 1:27). Those who are descendants of Adam and Eve have this same image stamped upon them. This means that everyone born from the stock of Adam and Eve have inherent worth and dignity by virtue of their being made in the image of God. Any discussion about natural rights must begin with this presupposition; otherwise, the discussion is meaningless. There is no more dignity and worth for a human being than there is for a sparrow who goes hungry and falls to the ground dead without anybody noticing. But God notices when sparrows fall to the ground, and he tells us that we have more worth than they (Matt. 6:26). Black lives matter because God has implanted his image in them, and they are worth more to him than the sparrows he feeds on a daily basis.

The very first injunction against murder in Scripture is found in Genesis 9:6 and comes in the form of lex talionis. "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man." The reason murder was determined to be so heinous as to deserve capital punishment was that man was created in the image of God. This injunction is also reflected in the 6th commandment, "You shall not murder," and in the punishment prescribed for it in the case laws. Listen to what the Protestant confessional document known as the Heidelberg Catechism says about the 6th commandment. "What does God require in the sixth commandment? That I do not revile, hate, insult, or kill my neighbor either in thought, word, or gesture, much less in deed, whether by myself or by another, and that I put aside all desire of revenge; moreover, that I do not harm myself, nor willfully run into any danger. Wherefore also to restrain murder the magistrate is armed with the sword." The commandment is clear: because my neighbor, no matter the shade of his skin, is made in the image of God, I must love him as myself and put aside any thoughts, words, or actions that do not show regard for him as one made in the image of God.

We are accustomed as Americans to think that our rights supersede our duties. But Scripture teaches that our duties to God and to our neighbor must come before our own rights. We cannot, in fact, hope to maintain our rights for long if we do not maintain our duties. We cannot ignore our duty to love our neighbor by showing due regard for his life and well-being as an image-bearer and expect that the Lawgiver and Ruler of all the world will bless us with life, liberty, and happiness. You will find the founders of this country in many places calling for its citizens to be a religious and virtuous people for without this liberty cannot long be upheld. 

This first reason supersedes the second reason which is constitutional. That means that, even if my black neighbor's life and livelihood is not protected constitutionally, I have a duty to do what I can to stand up for him even if the law of the land does not. If the law of the land will not recognize his natural rights as an image-bearer, then I must invoke my religious duty to help preserve and maintain the life and well-being of my image-bearing neighbor.

This brings me to the second reason. They are my fellow citizens. Thankfully, the law of the land does recognize his natural right. The Constitution of the United States of America begins with these words: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Constitution was designed to secure the rights of its citizens. The Declaration of Independence lists three main ones: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. More are listed in the Bill of Rights. 

These Constitutional rights are, in theory, to be granted to all citizens equally. This is stated explicitly in the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This Amendment was designed to guarantee equal legal and civil rights to black people. History shows that it wasn't immediately successful. Jim Crow laws ensured that their civil and legal rights would not be protected equally. Nevertheless, the Amendment legally established their right of citizenship to due process and equal protection of the laws even though it took another hundred years for practices in the states to begin to catch up with what the Constitution granted. And current discontentments and rumblings show that many feel there is still more that needs to be done. 

What is stated in the 14th Amendment is based upon the biblical worldview and can only make sense within that context. Exodus 12:49 states, "One law shall be for the native-born and for the stranger who dwells among you." We need to understand that for the nation of Israel, this would also mean that the stranger who dwelt among them had to be circumcised and practice the same religion, but it also meant that the laws of Israel would also apply to them. It meant, moreover, that Israelites had the duty to love these foreign-born citizens as themselves; they could not show any partiality. The stranger dwelling in their land had the right to due process and the equal protection of the laws of Moses. The history of Israel showed that due process and equal protection of the laws was often violated. The prophets of Israel chastised the people for this, and it was one of the main reasons why Israel and Judah were overthrown and led into captivity. 

In the time of the New Testament, the gospel message came with a clear message that God does not show partiality, nor is he a respecter of men, but every nation who fears him and does what is righteous is accepted by him (Acts 10:34-35). The message of the gospel is a clear signal that due process and equal protection of the laws is a thing that pleases him.

There are many today who want to scrap the Constitution. They claim it to be a document written by white, slave-owning men and therefore irrelevant to a more progressive and liberal society. But this ignores the fact that the Constitution upholds basic principles that were not just true then, but are true for all-time. Human nature is fundamentally the same then as it is now. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists debates reveal how well the founders of this nation understood human propensity to act in self-interested ways and ignore the rights of others. They understood, too, that governments are run by men with the same propensities. Have we really progressed and become so liberal that this is no longer the case? Current events show that this is not the case. All one has to do is read through David Berlinski's book Human Nature to see proof that there has been little in terms of progress. 

If you look at the Black Lives Matter website, you'll find that they make denials of what is fundamentally true of human nature. They deny traditional and biblical definitions of society, family, marriage, and gender, and it is necessary for a well-ordered and free society to have a correct understanding of these things. Furthermore, you will search in vain for any underlying moral reason not only for their denials of these things, but even for why black lives matter. What must we conclude of this organization? We must conclude that the end result of their liberation and justice movement cannot and will not result in liberty and justice. 

I maintain these two propositions that men are created in the image of God and that all the citizens of this land have a right to due process and equal protection of the laws. Insofar as these things are not maintained in our communities, we should view it as a Christian and as an American duty to stand against injustice. Injustice for one person or one people group must be viewed as injustice for all of us. Moreover, we need to understand that injustice is the enemy of liberty. Liberty can only maintained where justice prevails. 

We must also understand that ungodly and immoral ideologies that deny fundamental truths regarding human nature cannot and will not result in liberty and justice. These kinds of ideologies hold out a form of freedom and justice, but ideas of freedom and justice which do not accord with human nature will only end in slavery and misery. 

Black lives matter because they are human beings made in the image of God. God made them to be those who shine forth his glory upon the earth. A black man is, as the ancient philosophers stated, a microcosm and the universe the macrocosm. He ought to be treated as such. Black lives also matter because the Constitution of the United States inherited the worldview of the Bible and granted to them the right of due process and equal protection of the laws. Insofar as you work for good and necessary change in our communities upon these principles, I will be glad to stand with you. Insofar as you work for a version of liberty and justice that contradicts these principles and the fundamental truths of human nature, I will oppose you because I believe black lives matter too much to be destroyed by godless ideologies.   
  

No, Thanksgiving Is Not About Genocide

Thanksgiving is here. Cue the posts about white guilt. While many are prepping their Thanksgiving dinners, others are preparing to have a day of mourning for a bloody history that began with the Pilgrim immigrants coming to North America. To these mourners, the way the history of Thanksgiving is often portrayed overlooks how European settlement in North America led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Native Americans, introduced slavery and a class-system, and took land that belonged to the various tribes who inhabited the area. To them, Thanksgiving is, in short, about genocide, slavery, and land-grabbing.

This assessment of Thanksgiving, however, is as far from the truth as the Hallmark-esque images of food, family, and football or the hagiographic portrayal of Pilgrims and Indians eating wild game and succotash in harmony around a table. European immigration to the Americas is a complex tale, and we do everyone a disservice when we leave out certain parts that make us uncomfortable or tell a one-sided story. The story of European settlement in North America, in some ways, could well be a story of the seven deadly sins pouring out of England and Europe and finding their way across the Atlantic. But, at the same time, we must admit that the seven deadly sins would have found friends in North America. In other words, the seven deadly sins didn't come to America only to happen upon unsuspecting innocents. There is plenty of evidence that stealing, pillaging, killing, cannibalism, and subjugation of other people took place in the Americas long before the Pilgrims or even Columbus landed.

But Thanksgiving is not about pointing fingers. It is not about who did what to whom and when. Thanksgiving is about acknowledging God to be good and the overflowing fountain of all good. It is about acknowledging the fact that any good we experience in this life is undeserved. The history of Europeans and Native Americans is sordid because we are all sinners. It would be nice to bury our sins in the past, but our histories cannot hide who we are. History, however, is not all bad. It is filled with instances of good overcoming evil, of people coming together in unexpected ways to work together for good. We find this to be so because God is sovereign in history. In such instances, it is right and good to pause in celebratory thanks to the One who brings light into this dark world.

This the Pilgrims believed. After a harsh winter in which almost half of them perished and after a good harvest later that summer, they paused to give thanks. Here is Edward Winslow's account of it in a letter dated December 11, 1621.

Our corn did prove well, and God be praised, we had a good increase of Indian corn, and our barley indifferent good, but our peas not worth the gathering, for we feared they were too late gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after a more special manner rejoice together, after we had gathered the fruit of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the company almost a week, and among the rest their greatest king Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain, and others. And although it not always be so plentiful, as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want, that we wish you partakers of our plenty.

This was a remarkable occasion. Nearly half of their company had perished. Their corn harvest was good, but their barley was only so-so, and they had lost their peas. I dare say many of us would not look upon this occasion as worthy of several days of rejoicing and feasting. But there they were rejoicing, feasting, and sharing. Rejoicing in the goodness of God, feasting on His plenty, and sharing with their neighbors they might have been at war with had it not been for God's providential care. This is the heart of Thanksgiving.

Puritan theologian William Ames, who was familiar to many of the Pilgrims, wrote, "The right of thanksgiving requires, first, a knowledge of God's blessings; second, an applying them to ourselves through faith and hope; third, a true esteem of them with fitting gratitude." The only finger pointing in thanksgiving is to God in acknowledgment of His underserved grace and blessing. In thanksgiving, Ames wrote, we "honor God for all the things we have received. If we simply accept the good things we have received, resting in them or glorying in ourselves, or ascribing them only to second causes, thanksgiving is spoiled." But that First Thanksgiving was not spoiled because these Pilgrims chose to thank God for what they had and share in His goodness with their Wampanoag neighbors with whom they desired to live in peace. And because it was not spoiled, we have this almost anomalous moment in our American history in which Pilgrims and Indians, who otherwise would have been at war, stood rather in gratitude to God and to one another.

Descendants of European immigrants and Native Americans alike can point to a sordid past of injustice, blood-lust, rape, land-grabbing, slavery, and any other stepchildren of the seven deadly sins, but Thanksgiving has nothing to do with these things. Those who truly have thankful hearts acknowledge all good to come from God who is "the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning" (James 1:17), and they, furthermore, receive that good with the intent of sharing it with others.

The goodness of God is all the more remarkable because of our history. We deserve nothing but evil because of our sin and the miseries our sins have caused. Yet God is still willing to show mercy to us. But we must remember that God sent His Son into our history not to condemn us but that by believing in Him we might be saved. It is because of Christ, especially, that we can rejoice and give thanks, for because of His redemption and His satisfaction for our sins, we can know that all things will work together for our salvation. There is nothing wrong with mourning over a history of violence, but realizing that there is mercy for all offenders gives us all the more reason to rejoice in thankfulness to God.


Note:
There are two books that I think are worth reading to gain a more balanced assessment of Thanksgiving and its origins. The first is James W. Baker, Thanksgiving: A Biography of an American Holiday; the second is Robert Tracy MacKenzie, The First Thanksgiving: What the Real Story Tells Us About Loving God and Learning from History.  

Enkrateia, a Great Need for Our Day

"Whoever has no rule over his own spirit

Is like a city broken down, without walls."

Proverbs 25:28

Abuse, debt, pornography, adultery, homosexuality, obesity, procrastination, alcoholism, drug addiction--if we want to talk about epidemics, these vices are at epidemic levels. American household debt reached $13.21 trillion in 2018. One site shows that about 40 million Americans regularly visit porn sites, and 35% of all internet downloads are pornography related. The World Health Organization states that world obesity has nearly tripled since 1975. One study shows that the average worker spends 2 hours recovering from distractions. These statistics illustrate that people are lacking in a virtue that was considered a necessary one in Classical and Christian thought: enkrateia.

Enkrateia means self-rule or self-control, and I'm convinced it is one the great needs of our day. The opposite of enkrateia is akrasia (weak-willed). Xenophon likened one not educated in enkrateia to an animal caught in a trap because of his own appetites (Memorabilia 2.1.4). The proverb quoted above suggests something even worse: the akrasiatic man is a defenseless city. To Xenophon, enkrateia was more than just a virtue; it was a foundational one. It was that which was necessary to all other virtues. Training began with subduing the appetites, that is, moderating food, drink, and other pleasures, but its goal was for one to be able to "act as one judges best in the face of competing motivation" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, s.v. akrasia). It was necessary to begin this way because a man had to learn to master his desires lest they master him.

Enkrateia was necessary for one destined to rule the state. If a man didn't have self-mastery, how could he rule over a city or country? This concept seems foreign to the political ideology of our day, but the Founding Fathers of the US knew that self-mastery was necessary to the freedom of a republic. John Adams said, "The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now. They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty."

The Apostle Paul listed enkrateia as a fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). It comes last after a list that begins with love, meaning that, though it is an important virtue, there was something even more foundational: the work of the Holy Spirit. The English Reformer William Perkins wrote, "There are no true virtues and good affections without the grace of regeneration" (Works 2:382). It is only by faith and regeneration that the heart is oriented to love God and neighbor and from that flows the virtue of self-control. Thus, we must, as Paul says, "walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16). Scripture teaches, then, that without the grace of regeneration a man will always be subjected to one inordinate desire or another. He will be ruled by the flesh, as the Scriptures call sinful desire, and not rule over it.

David Hume, however, taught that this was just the way things were, and many today seem to side with him. "Reason is, and ought only to be," he wrote, "the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them" (Treatise on Human Nature II.3.3). Hume did not know the power of the Holy Spirit nor the power of a regenerated mind and will, and thus he surrendered reason to flesh. Let's be clear. Christians capitulate the power of the Spirit to the flesh when they allow for things such as "Side A or Side B" Gay Christianity, teach in some way that good works are not necessary for the Christian life, say that the desire itself is not sinful but only the action, give abusers a pass in the church, or claim that a great fall into sin, rather than disqualifying one for ministry, makes them all the more qualified for it. Is this not to be like Proverbs says, "a city broken down, without walls"? Akrasiatic Christianity is a defenseless Christianity that will soon be overrun.

But let us remember that the attack does not come from without but from within. For, as Christ said, "from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man" (Mark 7:21-23). However, we were not called to have our minds ruled by the flesh but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds that we might offer our bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to God, for this is our reasonable service (Rom. 12:1-2). George Lawson wrote in his Exposition of Proverbs, "Let us hold in with a strong and steady hand our disorderly passions, otherwise, they will make us wild beasts, of a more furious kind than wolves and leopards; because our rational powers will be forced into their service, and tend to no other purpose, but to make us more fell and destructive enemies to mankind" (p. 709).

We must reject an akrasiatic or weak-willed Christianity. God calls us to enkrateia. We must become masters over the flesh. While we were unregenerate, sinful passions ruled in our members to our death, but now we have "died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter" (Rom. 7:6). To quote again from George Lawson, "It is a happy thing when the body is subject to the mind, and the mind deeply penetrated with an habitual sense of the authority of God. That we may be placed in this delightful state, we must give up ourselves to the Lord, and pray for the accomplishment of these promises, 'I will put my spirit within you, and I will cause you to walk in my statutes;' 'The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the calf'" (p.709). It is the Spirit who is able to accomplish in us what the mere letter of the law could not do because we were once weak-willed; therefore, let us learn to judge what is good and right according to the Word of God in the face of competing sinful motivations until we come to that day of perfection in Christ Jesus, when akrasia will no longer be a part of us, but we will be able to wholly master ourselves as we have been wholly mastered by the one who loves us and gave his life for us.    

Stay tuned for a follow-up post on how to develop enkrateia.     

Young People, Stop Trying to Change Your World; You Probably Don't Know What You're Doing

This isn't an anti-millennial post. It's a post I wish I had read when I was younger. Like many young people today, I too heard the mantra, "Change your world." I heard it at high school and college graduation ceremonies. I heard it in the classroom. I heard it in pulpits and in Sunday school. I see it all over the internet. I can think of no other commandment of men so burdensome and hard to bear as this one. Not even the scribes and Pharisees of Jesus' day were so cruel as to lay this burden on the backs of the people. And imagine the level of narcissism one has to have in order to think that somehow they're different or smarter than everyone else to be able to change what no one else will. Yet people take it seriously. However, some have at least enough sense to know that changing the world is too arduous a task. Thus they modify it to, "Change the world by changing yourself." "Be the change you want to see," they say. This is a little better than trying to change the world, but it is just as misguided. With this mantra ringing in everyone's ears, is it any wonder that young people have become exhibitionists in their own social justice fake-reality show?

Young people are impatient and impulsive (I remember how impatient and impulsive I was). Armed with the directive to change the world and the belief that they can, they'll easily believe that anything new must be better. Furthermore, they'll be tempted to think that, whenever traditional morals, politics, or religious beliefs and practices are traded for newer ones, the older ones must be the source of social ills and the new ones are the solution. They'll applaud this statement made by Karl Marx, "So far philosophers have merely interpreted the world in various ways; it is necessary to change it."

In this way of thinking, history becomes a series of trivial facts, truth is no longer concerned with that which is and always has been but with that which is feasible, institutions are a barrier to freedom and enjoyment, and ethics cease to be that which is built upon enduring realities but rather upon that which is practical and convenient for the moment. And what an odd thing it is that many of these young people hyped up on change are so concerned with preserving nature but are in denial that there is such a thing as human nature. They'll line up to picket for days when an oil company lays a pipeline, but they'll threaten your life if you try to preserve human dignity by standing up for basic concepts of human nature. Pope Benedict XVI described this way of thinking well when he said, "The truth with which man is concerned is neither the truth of being, nor even in the last resort of his accomplished deeds, but the truth of changing the world, molding the world--a truth centered on future and action."

What will happen in 30, 40, 50 years when newer generations become bored with the changes made today? Will there be any reason to stand in their way of what they will, no doubt, deem to be progress? Will that which is changed today even matter in the long run? Is there even a limit to how much change can or should be enacted? These questions, of course, are irrelevant to the change-mongers, for their main concern is that change needs to happen and that it needs to happen now. They believe older structures to be repressive, stuffy, outmoded, and outdated. Tear them down and make way for the new! But they do not realize how much they are like those in the French revolution described by Alexis de Tocqueville: "Half-way down the stairs, we threw ourselves out of the window in order to get to the ground more quickly."

How different this way of thinking is from other times when the younger generation was taught instead to understand the world, to gain wisdom and understanding, and to seek out what is true, what is good, and what is beautiful. Solomon the Wise said, "My son, fear the Lord and the king, Do not associate with those given to change; For their calamity will rise suddenly, and who knows the ruin those two can bring?" (Prov. 24:21-22). Matthew Henry comments, "Have nothing to do, he does not say, with those that change, for there may be cause to change for the better, but those that are given to change, that affect change for change-sake, out of a peevish discontent with that which is and a fondness for novelty, or a desire to fish in troubled waters; Meddle not with those given to change either in religion or in a civil government." He goes on to say, "Those that are of restless, factious, turbulent spirits, commonly pull mischief upon their own heads ere they are aware."

Those given to change will be wise in their own eyes, but those who seek wisdom and understanding before all else will realize how much they rely on the wisdom, traditions, and institutions of previous generations. They will realize that some change is necessary but it must come slowly. And, instead of finding it necessary to overturn older structures, they will learn how to use them to make the necessary changes for the better. Here's the important point: You cannot know what to change in the world, or how to change it, without having at least a basic understanding of how the world works. Would you change the oil in your car without knowing what oil is for or where it's supposed to go? Why would you try to change the world without knowing how the world is supposed to work?

Am I against change? Yes and no. First and foremost, I am against binding heavy burdens, too hard to bear, upon the backs of our young people. They should not have to feel like it all depends upon them to change this world into some preconceived, ideological notion of utopia. To place this burden on them is to ask them to become the death of themselves and of their society. They need to know that to be able to be successful in life means standing upon the shoulders of those who have gone before, especially the giant ones. They have the previous generations to help them. They do not have to go it alone.

Secondly, I have enough sense to know that some change is good, some change is indifferent, and some change is destructive. It takes wisdom to know the difference. Russell Kirk said, "All human institutions alter to some extent from age to age, for slow change is the means of conserving society, just as it is the means for renewing the human body. But American conservatives endeavor to reconcile the growth and alteration essential to our life with the strength of our social and moral traditions...They understand that men and women are best content when they can feel that they live in a stable world of enduring values."

I am a Christian and a Protestant, so I understand that some change is necessary. As a Christian, the Scriptures instruct me to "be transformed by the renewing of your mind" (Rom. 12:2). As a Protestant, I understand that it is possible for institutions like the church to become corrupt. But as a Protestant and heir to both the Reformation and Renaissance, I know that the solution is not to tear down the old institution and replace it with something entirely new. No, the solution is found in returning to the sources. "Ad fontes" was as much a Reformation slogan as it was a Renaissance one. But we must be cautious of change. Even good change, if it is done without regard to those who are slow to catch on to the necessity of the change, can be damaging. The wisdom to know when change is either good, indifferent, or destructive also includes the patience to implement the necessary change in a careful and orderly way.

Young people, I urge you to stop your ears to the mantra of "Be the change." Rather, open your ears to the call of wisdom, "Hear instruction and be wise, and do not disdain it" (Prov. 8:33).



   

Russell Kirk on Social Justice

What is social justice? I searched the internet to answer this question and the definition I consistently found was that social justice is justice relating to the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to detect the ideology that is ultimately behind this definition. Many who take up the cause of social justice today understand it in these terms and even operate under this ideology. The ideology, of course, stems from the revolutionary principles of the French Revolution, Communism, Socialism, and Critical Theory. It is the ideology that understands equality to mean "uniformity," and thinks of justice in terms of the radical overturning of oppressive structures and state enforcement of that uniformity. 

Thankfully, this is not the only definition of social justice. In fact, the term has a history dating back to the mid-1700s and was used both in the context of enlightenment philosophy and Catholic social thought. The term is even used in the Federalist Papers. Russell Kirk, one of the foremost American Conservative thinkers of the 20th Century also used the term in a positive way but with a definition that differed from the one above.

Justice Defined
How did he understand social justice? First, he defines justice.  

Justice means that every man and every woman have the right to what is their own--to the things best suited to their own nature, to the rewards of their ability and integrity, to their property and personality. Civilized society requires that all men and women have equal rights before the law, but that equality should not extend to equality of condition: that is, society is a great partnership, in which all have equal rights--but not to equal things. The just society requires sound leadership, different rewards for abilities, and a sense of respect and duty.

What is the basis for his definition of justice; from where does it come? He writes, "It comes to us from two sources: the Judaic and Christian faith in a just God whom we fear and love, and whose commandments are expressed in unmistakable language; and the teachings of classical philosophy, in particular, the principles expressed in Plato's Republic and incorporated into Roman jurisprudence by Cicero and his successors." In other words, his definition is based upon the best sources that have shaped our understanding of justice. We could say this is the classical view of justice.

Compare his definition to the one in Justinian's Digest of Roman Law: "Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuendi" (Justice is a constant and perpetual will to render to each one his right; Digest 1.1.10). Or Aristotle who said, "Justice is that in virtue of which the just man is said to be a doer, by choice, of that which is just" (Ethics V.5). Or Aquinas, "Justice is a habit whereby a man renders to each one his due by a constant and perpetual will" (ST, SS, 58.1). Above all, however, "the concept of Justice on earth which both these traditions inculcate is, in substance, this: the idea of Justice is implanted in our minds by a Power that is more than human, and our mundane Justice is our attempt to copy a perfect Justice that abides in a realm beyond time and space; and the general rule by which we endeavor to determine just conduct and just reward may be expressed as 'To each man, the things that are his own.'" 

Private and Social Justice; Commutative and Distributive Justice

Second, Kirk sees in this classical view of justice several distinctions. The first distinction he finds in Plato, vis., the distinction between justice in private character and justice in society--social justice. Private justice is "attained by that balance and harmony in character" which shines out in the just man. Social justice "is similarly attained by harmony and balance; it is the communal equivalent of that right proportion and government of reason, will, and appetite which the just man displays in his private character." In order to have social justice, we must have private justice. We cannot have a just society without just men. And when we have a society made up of just men, we have a happy society, for, as Kirk notes, "The happy man, Socrates maintains, is the just man; and the happy society is the just society." This understanding of social justice comprehends also the division of labor. Kirk quotes from the Republic, "true justice requires 'the carpenter and the shoemaker and the rest of the citizens to do each his own business, and not another's.'" He continues, "Injustice in society comes when men try to undertake roles for which they are not fitted, and claim rewards to which they are not entitled, and deny other men what really belongs to them."

Kirk sees real meaning in the term "social justice." It is not some abstract concept that cannot be born out in the practical day to day living, but, rather, it merges with the reality of both the unity of and diversity within society.  He writes,

The Christian concepts of charity and obedience are bound up with the Christian idea of a just society; while for the Platonic and Ciceronian philosopher, no government is righteous unless it conforms to the same standards of conduct as those which the just man respects. We all have real obligations toward our fellow-men, for it was ordained by Omniscience that men should live together in charity and brotherhood. A just society, guided by these lights, will endeavor to provide that every man be free to do the work for which he is best suited, and that he receive the rewards which that work deserves, and that no one will meddle with him. Thus cooperation, not strife, will be the governing influence in the state; class will not turn against class, but all men will realize, instead, that a variety of occupations, duties, and rewards is necessary to civilization and the rule of law.

The second distinction is that between commutative and distributive justice. Commutative justice is "that righteous relationship by which one gives his goods or services to another man and receives an equivalent benefit, to the betterment of both. Distributive justice is "that arrangement in society by which each man obtains what his nature and his labor entitle him to, without oppression or evasion."  Distributive justice is concerned with how wealth and opportunity are distributed. But, according to the classical, Christian view, these things are distributed to the one to whom it is due. Both concepts, he says, have been badly misunderstood, especially distributive justice. Recall the definition of social justice as concerned with the distribution of wealth, privileges, and opportunities within society. This is based upon the misunderstanding that distributive justice means an equal distribution, not of justice and order only, but of wealth and conditions. This misunderstanding of distributive justice "consists in treating every man as if he were a cog in a social machine, with precisely the same qualities and hopes as his neighbor." It wants justice to mean "uniformity of existence," and to achieve this uniformity we must "depress the better to help the worse; and thus we will deliberately treat the strong, the energetic, and the intelligent unfairly, that we may make their natural inferiors their equals in condition."

He sees this misrepresentation of distributive justice as "the callous repudiation of the classical and Christian idea of justice." "True justice," Kirk maintains, "secures every man in the possession of what is his own, and provides that he will receive the reward of his talents; but true justice also ensures that no man shall seize the property and the rights that belong to other classes and persons, on the pretext of an abstract equality." True justice respects the diversity found within society and does not seek to suppress it through an artificial and state-enforced equality. "The just man," he writes, "knows that men differ in strength, in intelligence, in energy, in beauty, in dexterity, in discipline, in inheritance, in particular talents; and he sets his face, therefore, against any scheme of pretended 'social justice' which would treat all men alike. There could be no greater injustice to society than to give the good, the industrious, and the frugal the same rewards as the vicious, the indolent, and the spendthrift." Such a view of social justice that demands the goods of others be distributed to all, he says, is "a vice--the vice of covetousness."

Diversity not only applies to labor and conditions, but to rewards as well. Kirk writes,

Different types of character deserve different types of reward. The best reward of the scholar is contemplative leisure; the best reward of the soldier is public honor; the best reward of the quiet man is the secure routine of domestic existence; the best reward of the statesman is just power; the best reward of skilled craftsman is the opportunity to make fine things; the best reward of the farmer is decent rural competence; the best reward of the industrialist is the sight of what his own industry has built; the best reward of the good wife is the goodness of her children. To reduce all these varieties of talent and aspiration, with many more, to the dull nexus of cash payment, is the act of a dull and envious mind; and then to make that cash payment the same for every individual is an act calculated to make society one everlasting frustration for the best men and women.

The classical, Christian idea of rendering to each his due goes beyond the idea of capital. There are intangible rewards as well. But when an artificial equality is forced upon society, these intangible rewards will become scarce.

We must understand that inequality does not necessarily imply injustice. Kirk writes, "There is not injustice in inequality, as such; the only unjust inequality is that in which a man is denied the things for which his nature is suited in favor of a man whose claims to those things is inferior. And precisely this latter sort of inequality is what the radicals would establish, depriving a great many men of the occupations and rewards to which their nature entitles them, for the ridiculous division of all things among all men." This statement ought to be read as a rebuke to many who have taken up the cause of an illegitimate form of social justice.

Diversity Not At the Cost of Unity
Fourth, Kirk is not so concerned with individuality and diversity that he wants to set up a radical political ideology of individualism. He is, by no means, a proponent of the kind of individualism espoused by Ayn Rand. Rather, he sees true social justice as maintaining the proper balance between unity and diversity. If everyone was the same, he says, that would be boring, but those who have greater gifts must not use them to trample on those with lesser gifts. There exists in the world a diversity of people and a diversity of gifts, and justice maintains that we ought to protect that diversity for the good of the whole. He writes,

The wise government, in the conservative's view, tries to insure two great principles relative to human personality. The first of these principles is that the men and women of remarkable minds and abilities ought to be protected in their right to develop and unfold their unusual personalities. The second of these principles is that men and women in the ordinary walks of life, who do not have the ability or the wish to accomplish remarkable things, ought to be protected in their right to proceed in the placid round of their duties and enjoyments, unoppressed by the people with remarkable abilities.

This is a view of individuality that rejects a "devil take the hintermost" mentality. "Society," he writes, "ought to foster true individuality, and that the proper checks upon a ruthless individualism are private conscience and good constitutions, not constant and direct political surveillance of our economy and private lives." It is in this way that we can expect real social justice to take fruit. For, Kirk writes, "Each man should have the right to the fruit of his labors, and the right to freedom from being meddled with; and each man should do the work for which his nature and his inheritance best qualify him."

Kirk finds in the concept of Christian charity the answer to those who proclaim that an artificial equality is the only way to benefit the poor. "Now the Christian concept of charity," he writes, "enjoins constant endeavor to improve the lot of the poor; but the Christian faith...does not command the sacrifice of the welfare of one class to that of another class; instead, Christian teaching looks upon the rich and powerful as the elder brothers of the poor and weak, given their privileges that they may help to improve the character and the condition of all humanity." The Christian view of justice does not prescribe the abolition of class and private rights in the name of an artifical equality. "Christian thinkers," he says, "hope to employ commutative and distributive justice for the realization of the peculiar talents and hopes of each individual, not the confounding of all personality in one collective monotony."

Conclusion
No doubt, one can nit-pick their way through Russell Kirk's view of social justice. There is nothing stated about racial injustice or the plight of Native Americans. Nothing about the alleged systemic oppression or discrimination caused by the overlap of various social identities. I could add, too, that, from my own perspective, I think he lacks a fulsome discussion of the source of injustice in original sin, how everyone has fallen short of the glorious standard of God's justice, or how through the power of the gospel a person can become truly just, though I don't think he is entirely neglectful of these things. Is his view of social justice, then, too simplistic, too naive? I don't believe Kirk to be beyond criticism, and his proposal of the classical, Christian view of social justice can, admittedly, be applied in a simplistic and naive way to social injustices, but I would maintain that it, nevertheless, is still based upon the best undestanding of social justice. It understands that everyone has an equal right to order and justice, but that not everyone is equal in ability, condition, inheritance, ambition, etc. There is no need to force an artificial equality upon everyone for the sake of emancipation from some imagined oppression of inequality. The idea of rendering to each his due means that the unjust man will be punished and the just man will be rewarded. Those who seek to live peaceable lives in this world will be allowed to continue their lives and livelihoods without fear of repression. Those who have granted much have the duty to have compassion on those with little. Those who have been dealt with unjustly can expect to see punishment meted out to the one who has acted unjustly. The government is not in power to micromanage us under a forced and artificial equality. It exists to make sure that each one is rendered his due. In this way, we have the makings, I believe, of a happier society.

Sources:
Russell Kirk, Russell Kirk's Concise Guide to Conservativism. Washington DC, Regnery Gateway, 2019.
Russell Kirk, A Program for Conservatives. Chicago: Regnery, 1954.

What I Learned from Purity Culture

I begin with this caveat: everything I say here is purely anecdotal. I understand there are a large number of people who feel cheated, harmed, or somehow violated by the so-called "purity culture." I'm not here as one with his head in the sand thinking there was never anything wrong, or that those who feel that way just have a chip on their shoulder. I'm aware of the problems associated with the purity culture because I have witnessed first-hand how some of the extremes, to which some of the leaders were bent, had negatively affected relationships. However, it seems to me that those who level criticisms against purity culture have neglected to provide us with anything positive in its place. Furthermore, they neglect to point out that there was, in fact, a lot that we can say positively about purity culture. Famed purity culture leader and now apostate Joshua Harris illustrates this quite well in an interview published in February. He says,

What I think was hard for me as I was re-evaluating my book [I Kissed Dating Goodbye] is I was starting to get all this criticism for purity culture, and I was kind of like, well, what's the alternative? Like I really didn't know, and the only thing that I can come to is — and again, not that I'm necessarily here, but if a person is saying, OK, we're Christians, we want the Bible to inform us, and so on — the only thing that I can come to is to say these standards are still good and they're for human flourishing, but we're not going to fixate on them and make such a big deal of them. We're going to be more accepting of the fact that shit's going to happen, people are going to screw each other. Like, let's just move on. Let's move forward and love each other.

"Let's just move on." Move on to what? Let's take a moment to remember against what the purity culture was reacting. It was reacting against the sexual revolution and its fallout. It was reacting against promiscuity, teen pregnancy, high divorce rates, normalization of all kinds of sexual immorality, and all the problems and diseases associated with these things. It was a call to live pure lives in an impure world. Did some within the purity culture take things too far? Yes. Has there been negative fallout from their extreme ideas? Without a doubt. Does the church need to re-evaluate her policies in light of its fallen leaders, sexual abuse allegations, and broken lives that came as a result of these extremes? Definitely.

But when it comes to re-evaluation, the church needs to practice wisdom. It's popular now to bash purity culture, but we need to remember the underlying sexual ethic that was the driving force of the movement. It is this sexual ethic that I remember most, and I still believe it is the best way for us to move forward. This is what I learned:

1. Sex is a good gift from God.
Sex was always presented as God's gift. God made all things good, and when finished his creative work, he said it was "very good." God made man male and female, and sex is part of his design. It is therefore good. Our loving heavenly Father gave us this gift for our joy and satisfaction. Husbands and wives were to rejoice and delight in this good gift (Proverbs 5:18-19).

2. God's design for sex is the best way.
Like all good things, sex can be abused. When it is not used according to God's intention, sex can cause great harm. It causes harm when it becomes an idol, when it is done outside of the marriage relationship, or when it is not between a man and woman in that committed relationship. The illustration I always heard was that sex is like a fire. When a fire is in a fireplace, it provides warmth, comfort, and delight to those enjoying it. But take it out of the fireplace and put in the middle of the living room, now you have a situation that could end in the destruction of the whole house. Sex outside the context of marriage between a man and a woman is destructive. But sex according to God's design will bring the most joy.

I understand that this can be misconstrued to teach a kind of  "sexual prosperity gospel", i.e., if I just keep myself pure, then everything will be rosy, and I will have the best marriage ever. But I never learned it that way. I don't deny that it was sometimes portrayed in that way, but I was never taught to think that things like infertility, dysfunction, and other sex-related medical and psychological issues would never take place. We live in a fallen world, and disease and dysfunction are realities of this fallen world. We ought not to conclude that such things happen because those affected by them are somehow guilty. We incur God's displeasure when we treat such sufferers as Job's friends treated him. But this does not negate the basic premise that sex done in God's way brings the most joy. It is joy amidst the hardships of a fallen world, but a joy that can be obtained nonetheless. God does bless those who walk according to his ways.

3. Sex is only for marriage.
Note that I didn't say sex is only for procreation. I never learned that in any of the talks I attended. I was taught that men and women were not like the animals. They were created in God's image, so to confine sex to only the use of procreation was to ignore the fact that they were created also to enjoy what God created. I did, however, learn that sex is only for marriage. This point naturally flows out of point number two above. God created man male and female and blessed them and told them to be fruitful and multiply (Genesis 1:28). Furthermore, when Eve was presented to Adam, he said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man" (Genesis 2:23). This statement underscores for us that only marriage can provide the special bond between a man and a woman in which sex functions best as a means of the propagation of the human race and as an act of love and joy between two people committed to a life together.

4. Sex is only for a man and a woman.
Homosexuality didn't have quite the press that it does today when I was learning about purity. We were probably naive to think that the subversive culture of sexual deviancy would not become so mainstream as it has today. Nevertheless, we did learn that marriage and sex were to be between men and women. Homosexuality was not God's design. I hasten to add, however, that I  was never taught to hate people who practice such things. I never learned from any talks about purity that Christians can mock, belittle, or dehumanize anyone who was gay or lesbian. If I had learned that, it would've been from classmates at my public high school. I know of two men who came out as gay after high school was over, but they never admitted it during high school because they were ruthlessly teased and bullied. I was friends with both of them in high school because I was taught to be kind and stand up for those who are bullied.

5. Boys and girls need to dress modestly.
People have made the claim several times now that purity culture taught boys to objectify girls, and that girls are to cover-up because it's their fault if a boy lusts after them. This claim has always baffled me. I can't recall a time when I was taught to objectify women. I can specifically recall being taught NOT to objectify women but to treat them with respect. Boys were to stay away from pornography and to not follow Hollywood and our culture in objectifying women. We were also taught that lust was a two-way street and that boys ought to have regard for their sisters in Christ and girls were to have regard for their brothers in Christ and to not purposefully make themselves objects of lust no matter how good it might make them feel. Never once did I learn that modesty meant that girls had to wear denim jumpers or cover up so much as to be uncomfortable because, well, boys are lust machines and you don't want them to lust, do you? I was taught that lust came from my own heart and that I needed to commit myself to pure ways of thinking and seeing. We were never given an absolute standard as to what modest dress looked like, but I think we had a pretty good idea as to what it did NOT look like (and, to be honest, I think most of you do too).

6. Boys and girls need to guard their hearts before they're ready to commit to marriage.
This is just common sense. One thing that I don't miss about high school was the drama of hooking up and breaking up. Guys and girls got together for a time, some even messed around, and when the inevitable break-up came, we all knew of it because the emotional whirlwind of the fallout was felt throughout the corridors of Hinckley/Finlayson High. But those who proclaimed the purity culture to us spoke to us of the biblical wisdom of not stirring up or awakening love until it so pleases (Song of Solomon 3:5). Even Elvis knew the truth of this when he sang, "Wise men say only fools rush in." I can also remember specific times, too, when boys were taught that they shouldn't be womanizers but rather to be respectful of girls and treat them as fellow image-bearers.

7. Dating ought to be done for the purpose of finding a suitable partner in marriage.
Again, this is just common sense. I was taught to be purposeful in dating. Let me add here that I was an adult before I even heard of Joshua Harris, so I was never taught that dating was evil and that courtship was the only way. But we were taught that there was no such thing as casual sex or that dating was an excuse to be young and to have all the good times you can before you settle down and become serious. Dating was about meeting your potential wife or husband, and there were certain rules we had to abide by such as not having sex and not putting ourselves in situations where we would not be able to overcome temptation. I was also taught to respect my own and the girl's parents. If either of them had certain boundaries in place, it was best to stay within those boundaries. I was also taught that the boy ought to be the one to do the pursuing, and I was even given practical advice on how to do that in a tactful, respectful manner.

8. There is grace and forgiveness for those who disobey God and commit sexual immorality.
This last point shows just how much the purity culture I was immersed in was not a system of legalism. Sexual immorality of any kind was not the unforgivable sin. I heard talks from a number of people who had committed sexual immorality about how they had found forgiveness in Christ and were able to still have a marriage blessed by God. We were taught that, if we fell into sin, we were not condemned to a life of guilt an shame. There was no sin that Jesus was not able to forgive. His atoning death was enough to cover all our sins and that, by his grace, we could be restored to a right fellowship with him. We were taught, too, that those who committed sexual sin could still be welcome in church, so long as they had repented and sought forgiveness. To be sure, we were taught that there could still be temporal consequences to our sins. Girls could get pregnant, boys might have to man up and get married and raise a kid, someone might get AIDS or any other venereal disease, but the temporal consequences would not be indicative of how God actually viewed them in Christ. They were forgiven. They were renewed. They would receive eternal life.

I understand that this was not everyone's experience in the purity culture. I am truly sorry to hear that there are those so jaded by purity culture that they felt the need to escape and not look back. But I write of my own experience in it to show why I can't join with those who feel the need to trash it.

Well, you might object, you grew up in the Reformed faith, so you didn't experience the purity culture of the fundamentalists. It is true, I did grow up in the Reformed faith, but the purity culture I was immersed in came from a variety of backgrounds. I learned it from an evangelical Bible camp, I learned it from youth group functions at Evangelical Free and non-denominational churches, and I learned it from people like Josh McDowell and other evangelical leaders--I had even attended several Promise Keeper rallies. I never read any of Joshua Harris's books nor did I read or attend conferences by Bill Gothard. I was never immersed in the patriarchy movement and it wasn't until I was an adult that I read anything about the patriarchy movement. All of this is to say that, though I am willing to say that there are those who turned a good thing into a system of legalism and oppression, this does not mean we have to put purity culture behind us for good and move on to whatever's next. It is quite clear that for some people whatever's next is just plain old apostacy. Let's practice wisdom and remember not all purity culture was bad. It was based upon a biblical sexual ethic we must all maintain as Christians lest we end up denying the faith altogether.