day no. 16,171: cultural engagement quadrants

Quadrants can be created by asking two binary questions and placing them respectively on an X and Y axis. The responses to each will create the quadrants in charting overlapping and intersecting responses to each with respect to the other.

Let's play.

X: Should Christians engage outside culture? Yes/No?

Y: Should Christians admire outside culture? Yes/No?

Of if you prefer, the Y axis could be posited as, "Should Christians have a High or a Low view of the world outside of the church?"

Q1: Engage: No, Admire: Yes

Q2: Engage: Yes, Admire, Yes

Q3: Engage: No, Admire: No

Q4: Engage: Yes, Admire, No

We are commanded by Christ to be in the world, but not of it. He prayed for us to this end. The intersection of these two questions produces four distinct methods or tactics for being a Christian in the world.

Q1: Alongside the outside. Lives in the secular world, but worship in the sacred one on Sunday.

Q2: Accommodate the outside. Listens to the secular world to gain a voice for the faith in theirs.

Q3: Abandon the outside. Lives in own world, or ghetto, in a cloister outside of worldly sway.

Q4: Attack the outside. Lives in Christ's world and calls the outside to surrender to their King.

In other words, with respect to the world, you can either:

Q1: Work by

Q2: Work with

Q3: Work away from

Q4: Work against

Enmity is inescapable, but these intersections produce differing attitudes towards the enmity between the seed of Eve (Spirit) and the seed of the serpent (flesh):

Q1: Evade the enemy's priorities

Q2: Embrace the enemy's priorities

Q3: Evade the enemy's presence

Q4: Embrace the enemy's presence

Q1 differs in its evasion from Q3 in that it evades the tensions by not having any. It just works alongside the world, letting it do its thing and separating or compartmentalizing life into sacred and secular categories, conceding much of life to the world. Q3 evades the enmity by retreating into its own community. It recognizes the tension by trying to escape it; whereas Q1 evades the enmity by ignoring it altogether. Q1 thinks it can live with the world like a spouse in a loveless marriage living parallel lives. It imagines it can share an address without sharing it's influence or being influenced by the other.

Q2 sends out feelers for what the world likes and then plants a church aimed at meeting their felt needs. It orients its approach around the enemy's desires, hopes, and dreams. It begins and ends with the world and becomes more and more like it with every move it makes.

Q2 differs in its embrace from Q4 in that it embraces the enmity and attempts to empathize with it. It seeks to understand it and learn from it whereas Q4 embraces the fact of enmity by preparing for war. There is a stark contrast between embracing your enemy with hugs and embracing the fact of your enemy by engaging him in battle. Q2 seeks to love its enemies by surrendering to them whereas Q4 seeks to love its enemies by defeating them.

Q3 attempts to evade the world's presence altogether by quarantining itself. It attempts to save the healthy by keeping out the sick. Q4 embraces the fact of the enemy and accepts its presence. It does so by preparing for war. Si vis pacem para bellum. (If you want peace, prepare for war.) Q4 wants peace and expects to achieve it through the surrender of the world.

The four intersections also end with very different eschatological attitudes about the end of the world. In short, is it victory or defeat here that is expected?

Q1: Accept defeat

Q2: Accept defeat

Q3: Expect defeat

Q4: Expect victory

Q1 and Q2 both accept the dominance of the world. The one by simply accepting it's place and seeking to work alongside it, the other by accepting it's place and seeking a place for Christianity in their world.

Q3 expects the church to lose and sequesters itself. It loses the battle by conceding it, placing it's hope in a future when their cave dwelling can be done in broad daylight.

Q4 expects the church to fulfill Christ's commands. Q4 expects to see the leaven work through the loaf and the Kingdom come, not go. Q4 believes that Jesus did not place it on a suicide mission, but accepts the fact the casualties are a part of all wars and that battles are lost on the way to victory and that climbing a mountain sometimes involves going down a slope in order to arrive and ascend the next cliff.

The intersections also result in differing attitudes about "the center." Who gets to determine the agenda? Who gets to define the terms?

Q1: Assumes no center 

Q2: Assumes no periphery

Q3: Assumes the periphery

Q4: Assumes the center

Q1 assumes that there is no center. It is content to let the world have politics. It is content to participate in politics, but only when done outside its Christianity. It votes as a citizen, not as a Christian. It assumes there is no arche that holds everything together: religion is one thing, re-zoning the city, another.

Q2 assumes that there is no periphery. It accommodates itself to unbelief in order to create one new man, but not the one Christ died to reconcile (Eph 2), but one co-existing lovefest of ecumenical meaninglessness.

Q3 assumes the periphery. This world is counted altogether forfeit. It belongs to the prince of the power of the air and it always will, so why fight it. It retreats to the corners and is content to carve out a Christian community out there. It lights a candle in a dark corner and hopes a dark wind won't up and blow them out.

Q4 assumes the center. It is Kuyperian and believes that Christ is Lord of every square inch of earth. It assumes that He is King of every molecule and thought and policy and association in existence, in heaven and on earth. He is the arche and to Him all things will be organized as under one Head.

Final Analysis:

Q1: ChristiUNdity

Q2: ChristiANDity

Q3: Benedict option

Q4: Boniface option

Q3 and Q4 are the only permissible Christian approaches. Q1 unseats Christ as King by implying there are two kingdoms: one belonging to the world and one belonging to Jesus.  It puts the UN in Christian.

Q2 seeks to make the throne so large that anyone can fit on it, thus functionally eliminating the rule and reign of Jesus by crowding Him out. It is the classic error of subtraction by addition, i.e. Christ + AND. To add anything to Him is to take away from Him.

Q3 is a way of retaining a world where Christ is Lord by retreating. There is a time where resistance is no longer possible and retreat is recommended, even by Jesus: e.g. pregnant before the siege of Jerusalem. If you see the city surrounded, head for the hills. However, that is under only extreme situations in order to preserve the seed so that it may be sown again to sprout in broad daylight.

Q4 is the approach of Boniface, who chopped down the sacred tree of Thor and used the lumber to build a church. It is aggressive and assumes the center. It expects the kingdom of God to manifest itself more and more as we believe and behave accordingly. You cannot compartmentalize Christianity and retain an orthodox faith. You cannot accommodate the world and retain an orthodox faith. You can attempt to save the treasure by burying it or hiding it in the attic if the Gestapo is on to you... OR you can invest the treasure into expansion efforts in expecting to see compound interest work in your favor for the glory of God. Q3 and Q4 fight for the faith. The one seeks to shelter it from the world, the latter seeks to overwhelm the world. Q3 imagines Christianity as on an Ark escaping from the flood. Q4 imagines Christianity as the flood filling the earth and overwhelming it all (Hab. 2:14, Isaiah 11:9) until even the last enemy, death, will be capsized by the storehouse of Heaven opening up entirely upon it.

day no. 16,170: perfect pens and imperfect men

2 Peter 1:21

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Was the Bible written by God or by men? Yes.

Holy men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible.

One catechism asks and answers it this way:

Q. 14. Where do you learn how to love and obey God?

A. In the Bible alone.

Q. 15. Who wrote the Bible?

A. Holy men who were taught by the Holy Spirit.

How can unreliable, imperfect men write reliable, perfect words?

The same way unreliable, imperfect men do anything which isn't in vain... by relying upon the Lord.

Psalm 127:1

Except the Lord build the house,

they labour in vain that build it.

The point is clearly made: laboring without the Lord is ludicrous, but the inverse is also true -- labor for the Lord will last.

1 Corinthians 15:58

Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

Unreliable men can write reliable words, e.g. two plus two equals four. That is reliable, but typed by yours truly, an unreliable man. I am an imperfect, but that is perfectly true. Even more to the point, saying, "I am an imperfect man," is perfectly true. I have it on good authority. I've looked in a mirror, but I've also seen my reflection in the pool of God's Word. So, you ought to believe me when I say, "I'm imperfect." You shouldn't doubt my imperfection simply because I could be wrong. And if that is to taken as Gospel truth, how much more so the actual Gospel truth. And amen.

day no. 16,169: compound temptations

The following response was written by Doug regarding homosexuality, temptation and sin.

"A repentant homosexual could expect his temptations to come from that direction, and that it was not a sin to be tempted. But then Revoice used that standard understanding as a way to carve out a space to be a celibate gay, which is effeminate, and which is a sin." -- Doug Wilson, Letters of No Little Empathy

What follows was a reply I wrote to Doug requesting some further clarification...

Is it fair to say that some temptations are only experienced by having given in to previous temptations? For example, when the Word says that Jesus was tempted as we are, I take that to mean that He was tempted in the core ways every man, woman and child is, yet to degrees more intense than we ever experience by having never given in to them. So He experienced an intensity of temptation to which we cannot relate, but we, by giving in, experience a diversity of temptations to which He cannot relate. For example, Jesus was never tempted to molest a child. I would argue that this temptation is a product of having given in to other temptations. It is not a front end temptation, but a result of compound temptations stacked and influencing the others. The whole cardboard box gets wet when you set the bottom in a puddle. When some say that Jesus experienced every temptation we did and then go on to say He knows what it's like to want to cheat on your wife or molest a child or desire another man sexually, I don't buy it. Jesus was never tempted to hide the body after a premeditated murder because He never gave in to numerous temptations required to get to that point. Am I wrong? Have you written anywhere about this kind of thing as it relates to temptations and what might be considered the doorway temptations (perhaps lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life) that give way to all other perversions and temptations?

day no. 16,168: postmillennial, partial preterist

Partial preterist. Full preterism is heresy as confirmed by the Apostles’ Creed (“from thence He will come to judge the living and the dead”.) Most of Revelation is in our past, but was in their immediate future. That said, the devil isn’t so creative as to avoid repeating himself. History doesn’t always repeat, but it often rhymes. So it wouldn’t shock me to see similar tactics or strategies employed now which were previously employed against the saints. And just like them, the faithful will prevail.

Revelation 12:10-11

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God. And they have conquered him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, for they loved not their lives even unto death.”

day no. 16,167: before the throne of God... or man

“He (the Puritan) prostrated himself in the dust before his Maker, but set his foot on the neck of his king.”  — Benjamin F.  Morris, The Christian and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States

No earthly authority is absolute and the only heavenly authority that exists is. That is why the Puritan bowed before the throne of heaven without reservation and approached the thrones of men with determination. He knew enough to lower himself before the former and to raise himself up against the latter when it raised itself beyond its permitted jurisdiction. The Puritan's faith in God through Christ provided confidence before the throne of God and man.

Acts 5:29

Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, "We ought to obey God rather than men."

Christ is the King of kings and Lord of lords. When kings defy their King, citizens are obligated to defy them in order to honor Him. To defy a tyrant in his tyranny is to obey God. To obey a tyrant's defiance of God is to disobey God. To go along to get along only makes you an accomplice. To accommodate evil is to approve of it. You are what you tolerate.

Hebrews 4:16

Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

If you are permitted to stand before the throne of God, you can stand anywhere. If God grants you to rise in His presence, you can rise up anywhere. If we are emboldened by Christ to have confidence before His Father's throne, we can be emboldened by Him to have confidence before any other. If we are accepted by God on His throne, we can face rejected by a man behind his desk. If by grace through faith we can stand before God Almighty, we can stand before any man. If in Christ we need not fear our Father, we need not fear our brother.

Psalms 118:6-7

The LORD is on my side; I will not fear. What can man do to me? The LORD is for me among those who help me; Therefore I shall see my desire on those who hate me.

day no. 16,166: the sins of others do not cleanse us of our own

1 Peter 2:1-3

So put away all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up into salvation—if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good.

Slander assumes salvation is possible through the condemnation of others. We should not look to manipulation to save us. We cannot run others down enough to elevate ourselves and we cannot talk ourselves up enough to chase down righteousness. But salvation is not a matter of being less bad, but of being forgiven for being worse than we imagined. The sins of others do not cleanse us of our own.

"Be careful not to measure your holiness by other people's sins." -- Martin Luther

1 John 1:8-10

If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

We are cleansed by confessing that we are dirty. Pointing out the dirt around you does not make you cleaner. Creating a higher contrast does not provide an excuse. 

Only Jesus saves.

Only Jesus cleanses.

day no. 16,165: alternate authorities

"If children see that their teachers despise what their parents desire, there is and must be a conflict of authorities. And there is, and must be, in the modern State, a monstrous discovery; that it is the more new and unnatural authority that has the power." -- G.K. Chesterton (New Witness, Dec. 27. 1918)

When the State has access to your children 8 hours a day, they have more sway than you do. God has hard-wired children to want to please their parents. Godly parents leverage this to point their children to God and His grace and see their children grow to follow Him in step along side them. However, this blessing of persuasion can be forfeited. Unconfessed sin can obliterate the bond, of course, as we have certainly seen in some families, but so can abdication. Sending your children to alternate authorities can undermine the authority of the home.

This does not have to be the case per se, if the alternate authorities respect the place of parents and/or if they share the same values and vision of life and livelihood as the parents. But when the alternate authorities hate the home and see themselves and their 8 hours a day as an opportunity to evangelize and catechize their students, the home can't keep up. Not, mind you, because it doesn't have the ability or authority to do so, but because it surrenders its authority to do so by failing to fight for its own.

All that to say... Christian, get your children out of the government schools. Educate and nourish them at home. Send them to a Christian school which you have vetted perhaps. But whatever you do, don't send them to Caesar unless you want a world full of Romans -- that is to say, a world that is antagonistic to the Christian faith of our fathers.

“We cannot continue to send our children to Caesar for their education and be surprised when they come home as Romans.” -- Voddie Baucham