Going to Take the Cake

by F.X. Turk

While I am still on Permanent Hiatus, I'm not dead.  The events over the last few weeks in the US have pricked my conscience, and so that those who are often intent on asking why this blog has not said anything about the current crisis (which has evidently changed even though the last crisis was never actually resolved -- except by being proven to be more like an episode of "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" than an actual crisis) will have something to slake their curiosity.  The TeamPyro Sock Puppet will be interviewing me this week on the subject of gay weddings, Jesus, and Pizza.

Word to the wise: Prolly not completely safe for Homeschoolers due to the subject.

TeamPyro Sock Puppet (TPSP): You don't think this format is a little ego-centric or vain, do you?  I mean: that's what people are going to say.

F. X. Turk (FXT): Look - this format was just aped by Ross Douthat at the NYT, and there is nobody in the Commercial Department of The Gifted Columnists' cabal who doesn't think Douthat is what we ought to aspire to.  I think we're safe.

TPSP : When you put it that way, it almost sounds reasonable -- but what is up with the name change?

FXT : Well, I'm tired of people asking me if I'm Frank Turek.  I have made the clarification once already, but the only way to really put the fences up it to change my pen name, so I am picking something fantastic.  F. X. Turk it is from this day forth.

TPSP : And the "X" stands for?

FXT : That will be the running joke. Next question.

TPSP : So what about gay weddings is it that makes you want to come off of hiatus to do an interview?

FXT : I really have no interest in gay weddings.  I'm really more interested in the totalitarian politics involved here.  Have you ever heard of a "kulak"?

TPSP : is that a kind of cookie?

FXT : No, it's a kind of property owner.  Back when Stalin was well known as a globally-dangerous villain, under Bolshevik rule in Eastern Europe the peasants were divided into three broad categories: bednyaks, or poor peasants; serednyaks, or mid-income peasants; and kulaks, the higher-income farmers who had larger farms than most Russian peasants. (they also had a category of batraks, or landless seasonal agriculture workers for hire) The Bolsheviks thought the bednyaks were their willing allies, the serednyaks were unreliable but on the side of the revolution, and the kulaks were the enemies of the people.  At first, the kulaks were by definition anyone who owned land -- that's what the definition of rich was back in the 1930's and 1940's: land ownership.  But by the time WWII was over, anyone who owned any livestock was also considered a kulak -- too rich to be anything but an enemy of the workers and too rich to be anything but an enemy of the state.

TPSP : This is a little boring, FX.  It's like Tolkien meets shabby mid-20th century Europe.  I feel like you're going to start a monologue in Elvish if we don't move things along.

FXT : Fair enough.  I bring it up because my Grandfather -- my father's father -- was a kulak in mid-20th century Hungary after WWII.

TPSP : What does this have to do with pizza or gay marriage?

FXT : I am glad you asked.  The first thing I want you to do is consider something: the definition of "kulak" under the Bolsheviks had to remain a sliding definition.  That is, it had to move to owning less and less in order for it to be an effective weapon for the State to keep finding more of what it needed to perpetuate its ideology -- mostly enemies.  So it started with land owners, but then anyone who was a permanent employee of a land owner by means of a lease-to-work agreement was made into a kulak because let's face it: you can only confiscate land once, but you can confiscate what is produced on that land over and over if you can prove that those working the land have no right to the (literal) fruit of their labor.

TPSP : So you think gay weddings are going to confiscate someone's farm?

FXT : No.  Please stay focused.  The plight of my Grandfather and all kulaks like him was that the problem was not that they were actually immoral: the problem for them was that they were actually in possession of everything the Bolsheviks (and the Soviets after them) needed to be prosperous and to gain credibility and acceptance.  The ploy of the State in that case was to villainize those who had everything the State wanted in order to take it all from them by every means necessary.  They were painted as immoral people by redefining morality.

TPSP : So gay weddings are going to take all the pizza?  I honestly can't follow where you're going.

FXT:  Well, take a look at this meme:



It seems like a very clever insight into the sort of hypocrites these so-called Christians are, right?  The problem, of course, is that the vast majority of food banks are fully funded by Christians (for example, in that link which is to the 1100+ food banks in NY, more than half are actually in churches) -- and none where shut down to send money to the people at Memories Pizza after they were forced to shut their business down.

But: the argument here is clear.  Not only is one pizza joint the enemy of actually-good people: Christians are also the enemies of good people because they are taking money from the poor and giving it to these property owners.  Morality (and actual facts) have to be completely redefined to gin up the outrage.

TPSP : That is what happened though, right? This Pizza Place refused to let gay weddings have their pizza (in the name of Jesus), and that's just wrong.

FXT : Are you homosexual, TPSP?

TPSP : I'm not sure I like the tone of your question, FX.

FXT : I'm fine with that -- are you personally homosexual?

TPSP : I'm a sock puppet, FX.  Like an Angel, I am neither male nor female, and I am not ever going to be married.  So I have to say "no, I am not gay."  I'm a sock puppet.  But: I don't like your label.  I am sure they prefer "LGBT."

FXT : Good Call - why do you think that is?

TPSP :  What?  How should I know?  Why do you like to be called "white" or "male" or "Christian"?

FXT : For me, that's easy: because those actually describe me.  They don't obscure who I am or what I believe.  But let me suggest to you something: the point of taking on the label "LGBT" is to obscure something about the members of that group which, frankly, would lower their moral high ground if it were made clear.

TPSP : I don't get it.  What about "LGBT" obscures "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender"?

FXT : What does it mean to be "transgender," Sock Puppet?  Is that like getting an MFA in Art History, or becoming a Cubs fan?  Is it an ideological position, or does it describe something else?

TPSP :  This is a family blog, FX.  You better tread softly for the sake of the homeschoolers.

NOTE TO THE READER: really not kidding here.  Under 17 should be under parental supervision from this place forward.

FXT : Why?  What do you mean by that?  I thought that we should all say, "not that there's anything wrong with LGBT," and it's just a label like "Christian."  I can describe a Christian in 25 words or less, without offending anyone.  Why can't I do that with someone who is "transgender"?

TPSP : Well, I guess it's because, um, ... look, you know why, and you can't make me be the bad guy here by saying it.

FXT : That's actually a better answer than I expected from you, Sock Puppet.  Why would you be a "bad guy" by lining out what it means to be "transgender"?  Why would I be a bad guy for lining it out?

TPSP : Because what underlies this status is complicated, and to put it into simple terms will require me to be coarse and un-nuanced.  Describing the afflictions and the remedies here would be insensitive at best.

FXT : You're saying there's not a nice way to describe this, right?  Every approach you would take would, right away, make the "T" in "LGBT" seem utterly tragic and utterly unnatural.  It would evoke the kind of revulsion and sympathy anyone has for babies born without organs or for conjoined twins, yes?

TPSP : That's one way to say it, I guess.  I might add that you gamed the interview to try to make me say something there which would have also made me look a little heartless.

FXT :  We'll get back to the alleged "heartlessness" in a second.

We have approached the "T", what about the "L"?  Can you explain the "L"?

TPSP : I'm thinking you think I can't, but I can: it's when two women love each other.

FXT : So my wife and her sister are "L"?

TPSP : No, not like that.  Maybe like that but with something else.  It's when two women love each other the way ... um ... You're about to spring a trap here, I can see it.

FXT : which trap is that?

TPSP : I almost said, "the way a husband and wife do," which sets hetero marriage as the norm.  That's not at all how they would want to say it, I'll bet.

FXT : For a Sock Puppet, you're pretty clever.  But that was not my point. Let's say for the sake of argument that we can describe "L" as "two women who love each other sexually."

TPSP : Not that there's anything wrong with that.

FXT : You say that, but I'll bet if we surveyed the readers of the internet -- not just the readers of this blog -- and asked them, "if you became a parent to a girl, would your highest hope for her include that she will become a 'L'?" do you think even 25% would say yes?  Nobody has children with the idea that this child would be "L" or "G"as an aspirational part of their lives.

What I want to ask you at this point is, "why?" but: we still have one more initial to unveil: "B".  How would you, in the most family-friendly way possible, describe the "B" in "LGBT"?

TPSP : That's not fair.

FXT : What's not fair?

TPSP : It's not fair that you have covered three of the 4 initials, made them out to be somehow unsavory, and then turn to the last one as if it is the worst one.  It's all in the drama you have whipped up here to get here and make me feel like I can't win.

FXT : The problem, actually, is that you can't win -- not by anything but cheating.  See: for that "T" initial, we can maybe say that this is a medical tragedy which ought to be somehow be treated to make aid and comport to the person born this way.  For the "L" and the "G" initial, the settled science says that there's no reason to try to treat these people because they are born this way -- even if it is the opposite of what the outward appearance of what nature would say they ought to be and do; even if we would ourselves admit that we would not want them to be born this way.  But when we get the the "B" initial, all these other explanations sort of melt away -- because how do you explain someone who is rather omnivorous in this matter?  Euphemistically, some might try to call them "open minded," but that's just transparently a desperate attempt to call sexual depravity something you can bring home to mother.  There's nobody who has bothered to read this far who is not going to admit (at least to themselves) that they do not want to be partnered with someone like that -- someone who simply wants sex with whoever will provide it, with no regard for any of the constraints of civilized relationships except that from time to time they might feel like putting some clothes on.  There's certainly no one who has read this far who would say that there's a basis for marriage buried in there someplace.

But let's be clear here: it's just the last stop for the morality the "LGBT" has to be looking for.  If it's really true that one person is just the same as another, so that those with matching parts are just as appropriately joined as those with mismatched parts, the real innovators are the ones who are not committed to one sex or the other but any sex, any gender, any pairing for the sake of gratification.

TPSP :  THAT, my friend, is quite a mouthful.  What in the name of deep dish deluxe does that have to do with Christians being accused of taking money from the poor and giving it to bigots?

FXT : Indeed.  When you say that, it assumes that there's bigotry buried in the idea that anyone would refuse to celebrate a LGBT wedding.  And it's hard to argue against that when we leave LGBT packed up and disguised as some sort of optional feature.  But when we unpack it to mean, "someone would refuse to celebrate the sexual union of two men," or "someone would refuse to celebrate the sexual union of two women," or "someone would refuse to celebrate the sexual union of any number of people as a semi-permanent orgy," one starts to wonder what all the fuss is about.

If you are saying otherwise, I want to see how ready you are to affirm this statement: "I am personally ready to participate in any of the unions indicated by LGBT."  Failure to say less than that is, to be blunt, pretty bourgeois hypocrisy.  The idea that's it's OK in theory but it's something I would personally never do out of personal revulsion ought to strike the LGBT people looking for advocates in the straight world as the most insulting sort of condescension.

And when I say that, I want to make sure that I call the reader's attention back to the fact that Sock Puppet is the one who says he is afraid of looking "heartless."  I think it's pretty heartless to tell someone that somehow when they do something which fires up our moral gag reflex, we are perfectly fine with that - as long as they don't mean we also have to do it. If what they are doing would make us sick if we had to do it, telling them it's fine for them but not for us is duplicitous at best.

TPSP : You seriously think they can't just live and let live?  You're serious about that and you don't call yourself a bigot?  Who is asking you to be gay anyway?

FXT : Since you asked - the people phoning death threats into Memories Pizza.  Because look at this situation: no actual LGBT person was refused a pizza.  Nobody was turned away.  No order refused.  No actual commerce was declined.  All that was said was that celebrating a ceremony (which calls holy that which you and I would always refuse to do ourselves) is an immoral act that one ought to refuse, and all that was missing in the response was torches and pitchforks.

The response to this incident is clear: the demand is not merely that we look away and live and let live, but that we must participate, and enjoy it, and be part of the celebration, or else.  If there is anything worse than that here, it is this: not only must we do it, but we should be able to be bought out of our convictions with money.

The response is to be LGBT or else -- with "or else" clearly being made to mean your life is in danger, and you will be branded a bigot for hating that which is being demanded of you.

Let me tell you something: when my grandfather was branded a kulak for share-cropping a plot of land and owning an ox, a pig and a few chickens, at least he knew exactly why it was happening.  At least he knew these people were the enemies of his family, and his livelihood, and life, and his faith in God.  Here today we are supposed to pretend we don't know that there's something afoot here intent to destroy the way we live, the way we work, the way we procreate, and the way we worship.

TPSP : well, you have jumped a few sharks in this interview so far, FX, but this one if the most life-like.  You think that Memories Pizza is about the way you worship?

FXT : How can it not be?  How can it not be about whether or not we must celebrate what God wants celebrated and we must mourn or refuse those things God calls unholy?  That is actually what is on the table: being part of a celebration which calls sinful sexual unions holy.  If I refuse, I'm a kulak - part of the hated class who cannot be allowed to own property anymore, who cannot be allowed to buy or sell anymore, and who must be called out as immoral and as enemies of the new way of life.

I am really not that concerned that gay people (at least superficially) say they want to be "married".  I am concerned that anyone who objects to the new moral definitions is clearly being called politically unfit for use.

TPSP : Well, here is one way it might not be: Jesus said to turn the other cheek.  You make this out to be about worship as so on, but here's what Jesus says in Matthew's account:|

You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic,let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

He says it this way in Luke, which is even worse for you:|

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either.  Give to everyone who begs from you, and from one who takes away your goods do not demand them back. And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

If you love those who love you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what benefit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you expect to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to get back the same amount. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.

Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.

All your Calvin-like talk about worship seems to overlook that Jesus said you are held to a higher standard than those who are not believers, so you are expected to do more for them than one might expect.  Now what?

FXT : Before I answer this, I want to make sure you're in for a dollar here and not just trying to nickel-and-dime me.  You're saying that you're ready to admit that the way Christians are being treated in this case looks like what Jesus here describes as "if anyone forces you to go one mile," and "if anyone would sue you," and "anyone who takes away your goods," yes?  You're ready to admit that what is happening here is that the Christians are being treated as poorly as possible?

TPSP : I'm not, but that is your claim -- that's what you are saying.  You're saying that the Christians are getting the worst possible kind of treatment, and I'm saying that lucky for you Jesus has already covered what it is you ought to do in that case.

FXT : There ain't nothing like a clever sock puppet.

TPSP : You're too kind, but you're out of arguments now.

FXT : What you're assuming is that my objection that no one should be treated this way is somehow subverted because Jesus says we should expect martyrdom and in fact bear it as if we were doing it for His sake.  I'm ready to go on the record to say this: all who lead a Godly life will be persecuted.  Unlike some on the political right who are starting to ask if we need to start protecting ourselves from violence (which seems like a good question given the actual events we are discussing), I think Christians ought to expect that when we follow Jesus, we are going to get persecuted.

What that does not mean is that we stop following Jesus.  You can't construe the passages above to mean that Christian should surrender their moral principles when they are challenged by immoral people: it means that we apply all our moral principles with love -- and we, for example, come to the aid of those who have been put out of business by those who hate our moral principles.  We can love people without telling them lies and rejecting what God has told us in his word.

TPSP : Well, let me be honest:  You have said some radically-stupid things in the past which have made people hate this blog, but this one is going to take the cake -- so to speak.  If people start to read this post/interview, you are in for it, bub.

FXT : I'll bet.  God willing, it will be for their eternal good.

---

Triumph in disguise

by Dan Phillips

Our church has an annual Sunrise Service, 6:30a.m. the morning of Resurrection Day. We meet out front under a massive oak tree. We always have a decent turnout, though I'm a bit bewildered each year to see a lot of people who don't usually attend our church turn up for the Sunrise Service, then not return for the full morning service.

At any rate, it features a briefer message, shouted to be heard over the traffic, not recorded. This is a post-ized version of this year's Sunrise Service.

Let's suppose a person who hasn't read the Bible, and doesn't much know what’s in it. That isn't so hard to imagine, these days, is it? (Some of you are saying "Yeah, in fact I know a pastor like that." Behave.)

So let's say this Biblically-untaught person was told that God would send His Son to solve the dilemma of our planet — what kind of scenario might he come up with? What script might he write? It isn't too hard to imagine, I think.

Our Script

The Elements In Our Script.  It's easy to envision three scenarios:

Scenario One: In this version, God the Son assumes a Christophany, a temporary appearance in human form. He rides down to earth in a chariot of fire, conquers all the sinners, and sets up His kingdom. And there we have our happy ending!

Scenario Two: Perhaps our tale-weaver is aware of Christmas, so in the second version, God the Son indeed takes on human flesh, and is born...into the family of a wealthy, influential nobleman. It's one of the leading families in Israel, so He grows, winning partisans from the nation, amassing a huge following made up of Jews and Gentiles alike.

Then, when He reaches manhood, He declares Himself King, smashes Rome, conquers all the sinners and sets up His kingdom. And there we have our happy ending!

Scenario Three: In this telling, God the Son doesn’t go anywhere. Why should He? He’s God the Son! He doesn’t have to leave His throne to get this done!

So, from His throne in Heaven, the Son of God simply exercises His power, conquers all the sinners and sets up His kingdom. And there, once again, we have our happy ending!

The Results Of Our Script. Now that you've read those all over, can you pick out the one recurring phrase in all three scenarios that poses just one itty-bitty problem for us, for you and for me?

It’s where I said, each time, “…conquers all the sinners and sets up His kingdom”

So here's the problem: How many of us are sinners? Correct: 100%.

We know that sin is a big deal to our holy, righteous God. So if we're going to avoid being conquered, we have to do something about our sin. What can we do? Repent? Lovely thought, but it won't do anything about past sin. If I owe you $500000, then say I'm sorry, I still owe you $500000. 

So how about if I become perfectly righteous and never sin again? That won't work, since that is what I was supposed to be all along.

Shall I offer a lamb or an ox? Can the blood of bulls and goats take away sin? No.

What this means, then, is this:

• Who would He have had to “conquer,” to set up His kingdom? Everyone. You. Me. All of us.
• Who would be left to populate His kingdom? No one. Not me. Not you. None of us.

Now we're ready better to appreciate, by contrast...

God’s Script (Philippians 2:5-11)

This script unfolds in two grand movements.

Christ Humbled Himself (vv. 5-8). So far from riding in as conquering King, Christ lowered Himself to a virtually unimaginable degree, and that in two ways:

By incarnation (vv. 5-7).

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, ⁶ who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, ⁷ but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

Incarnation was not a promotion for the Logos. It was a step down of infinite degree. But that isn't the full extent of it.

By crucifixion (v. 8).

And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

He died a death of such obscenity that Roman citizens wouldn't mention it in polite company, a death experienced only by the lowest, most contemptible dregs. A Roman would no more wear a cross around his neck than we would wear an aborted fetus or some other obscenity around ours.

Yet this is what He did, because this was the only way to deal with the sin problem. [I developed this theme much more fully in the morning service, a sermon titled Easter Certainties.]

God Exalted Christ (vv. 9-11). 

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, ¹⁰ so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, ¹¹ and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

As a consequence of His death on the Cross, Jesus Christ won the right to give repentance and saving faith to His people, to give forgiveness of sins, and to grant eternal life. And because of the suffering of death, He will indeed will rule and reign.

And the only reason the God-man can do that is because of the DISASTER of the Cross! It is as Herbert Schlossberg said: “The Bible can be interpreted as a string of God’s triumphs disguised as disasters” (Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, p. 304, quoted by Doug Wilson).

The greatest disaster in all of history was the crucifixion of Jesus. And yet, that greatest disaster is the key and foundation to the ultimate victory! That is God's scenario.

So what happened on Good Friday was God’s plan, what happened on holy Saturday was God’s plan, and what happened on Resurrection Sunday was God’s plan. We serve a crucified, buried, and risen Savior.  And because He is all that, we are citizens of His coming kingdom.

All because of Jesus' triumph in disguise.

---

Risen indeed!

Your weekly Dose of Spurgeon

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from the lifetime of works from the Prince of Preachers, Charles Haddon Spurgeon.  The following excerpt is from The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, volume 19, sermon number 1,106, "The Lord is risen indeed."

"Is it not true that a clearer understanding of the rising again of our Lord is, through the power of the Holy Spirit, the very surest means of bringing our minds into peace?"

When he rose he did not bring away the costly aromatics in which his body had been wrapped, but he left them there. Joseph brought about one hundred pounds weight of myrrh and aloes, and the odour remaineth still. In the sweetest spiritual sense, our Lord Jesus has filled the grave with fragrance. It no longer smells of corruption and foul decay, but we can sing with the poet of the sanctuary—

“Why should we tremble to convey 

These bodies to the tomb? 

There the dear flesh of Jesus lay, 

And left a long perfume.” 

Yonder lowly bed in the earth is now perfumed with costly spices and decked with sweet flowers, for on its pillow the truest Friend we have once laid his holy head. We will not start back with horror from the chambers of the dead, for the Lord himself has traversed them, and where he goes, no terror abides.

The Master also left his grave clothes behind him. He did not come from the tomb wrapped about with a winding-sheet; he did not wear the cerements of the tomb as the habiliments of life, but when Peter went into the sepulchre he saw the grave-clothes lying carefully folded by themselves.

What if I say he left them to be the hangings of the royal bed-chamber wherein his saints fall asleep? See how he has curtained our last bed! Our dormitory is no longer bare and drear, like a prison cell, but hung around with fair white linen and comely arras—a chamber fit for the repose of princes of the blood!

We will go to our last bed-chamber in peace, because Christ has furnished it for us. Or if we change the metaphor, I may say that our Lord has left those grave-clothes for us to look upon as pledges of his fellowship with us in our low estate, and reminders that as he has cast aside the death garments, even so shall we.

 He has risen from his couch and left his sleeping robes behind him, in token that at our waking there are other vestures ready for us also. What if I again change the figure, and say that as we have seen old tattered flags hung up in cathedrals and other national buildings, as the memorials of defeated enemies and victories won, so in the crypt where Jesus vanquished death his grave clothes are hung up as the trophies of his victory over death, and as assurances to us that all his people shall be more than conquerors through him that hath loved them.

“O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?”

---

Game of Thorns

by Dan Phillips

Tales of kings and kingdoms, real and fictional, characteristically feature intrigue, factions, strategy, and a lot of fighting. This is what makes for exciting reading and viewing: earnest pledges of fealty, intricate plots, the thrilling flash and clash of swords, and rivers of blood.

Can you imagine instead the tale of a king who wins his kingdom, not buoyed by his supporters' surging numbers, but abandoned by them all? Whose erstwhile subjects do not greet him, but rather scorn, reject, and betray him? Who wins his throne and his kingdom at the cost of death and bloodshed, indeed — but his own death, his own blood, not that of his foes?

A king who wins this sovereignty, marked not by a diadem of gold and jewels, but by a crown of thorns?

It is a story unlike all non-derivative yarns and movies, but it is the tale of our Sovereign. Jesus Christ's path to the sovereign rule of the universe (Eph. 1:10; Phil. 2:9-11; Hebrews 1:2) followed a plan made in eternity past (Eph. 1:9-11; 3:11), a plan leading to the throne directly and necessarily through the Cross (Matt. 26:39; Heb. 12:1-2).

The future of the entire universe, and the issue of who will rule it, will not ultimately involve a game of thrones, but a crown of thorns.

---

The World likes "Jesus"

by Dan Phillips

From 2006 to 2012, PyroManiacs turned out almost-daily updates from the Post-Evangelical wasteland -- usually to the fear and loathing of more-polite and more-irenic bloggers and readers. The results lurk in the archives of this blog in spite of the hope of many that Google will "accidentally" swallow these words and pictures whole.

This feature enters the murky depths of the archives to fish out the classic hits from the golden age of internet drubbings.

The following excerpt was written by Dan back in December 2007. Dan reminded us that the world can't like (much less love) the real Jesus.

As usual, the comments are closed.

Why does the world hate Jesus? Note, Jesus does use the strong word, "Hate." The world itself might not use that word. They might call Jesus "Good Teacher" (Mark 10:17), or flatter Him for His uncompromising stands (Matthew 22:16). But Jesus — perhaps doing the very thing for which the world hates Him — lays open their heart. Underneath all the unctuous language, the poses and the self-delusion, He finds not love nor admiration, but hatred.

And why? Because He rejects and exposes its view of itself. The world sees itself as better than God: smarter, wiser, morally and intellectually His superior. Jesus does not. The world sees itself as engaged in a fine and noble endeavor, headed towards a glorious future. Jesus sees it as a flowing sewer headed for irremediable disaster, treacherous and without excuse. The world sees itself as a great place to be, spiritually and in every other way. Jesus sees the only good thing about the world as being rescued from it (John 15:18-19) and kept from its influences while still physically (not spiritually) in it (John 17:14-16).

Jesus makes the world feel really bad about itself qua world, and He makes it look bad. And it hates Him for it.

So why does virtually every worldling speak so highly of Jesus? Jesus says they hate Him; the world says it loves Him.

Simple. They're lying. (Hel-lo? They're the world! Their whole foundation is a lie: "You shall be as God"! Buy into that lie, and everything else is easy.)

Now, worldlings don't think they're lying, and here's how they work that out. You could make it a recipe:

1. Take one "Jesus"
2. Subtract (or ignore) all the nasty bits that you hate
3. Inject all the lovely notions you admire
4. Shake periodically
5. Serve with a sauce of deep (albeit groundless) assurance

In that recipe, the quotation-marks are essential. As with "God," the world simply uses "Jesus" as a verbal unit. They take the Humpty-Dumpty approach to etymology:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

So when the world says "Jesus" in admiring tones, perhaps with a fond tear in its eye, it means "Someone who makes me feel great about being me, just as I am, and empowers me to achieve my own goals."

It means "Jesus." Not the real, un-tame, dangerous, edgy Jesus of the whole Bible.

Before the Lord saved me, I was the same way. I was a cultist, and I liked "Jesus." I just knew that Christians had Him all wrong. He believed that God was in everyone without exception, and that I should have everything I wanted — just like I did! And so does just about every cult, ism, sect, and anti-Christian philosophy. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Moslems, New Agers — they all like "Jesus." It's nice to have "Jesus" on your bandwagon, rooting for you and cheering for you. "Jesus" — who is (or is not) Lucifer's spirit-brother, the archangel Michael, a prophet of Allah, functional second-fiddle to other personages and rituals and institutions, an ascended mystic master.... "Jesus." They like that guy a lot.

Insofar as I am true to my profession to be a Jesus-believer, a student (and subject) of Jesus', I will not be in-step with the world at a number of specific points. Indeed I will be totally out-of-step with it at its very foundation. I should not only consider it possible that it will dislike me and find my core beliefs absurd, I should expect it (John 15:18-19; 1 John 3:13). The world's way of looking at itself and God and things should be totally different than my way, if I am true to Jesus, whom (if He is to believed) it hates.

So there it is.

1. The world likes "Jesus"
2. The world hates Jesus

If I presented a "Jesus" whom the world did like — without its being drawn to Him in genuine repentance and reverent love — I would be deeply concerned that I was presenting "another Jesus." Because it certainly would be "another Jesus" than the Jesus who said, in so many words, that the world hates Him.

When we as Christians lose sight of this, we serve neither it nor Him.

---

Open Letter to Bryan Storkel

by Frank Turk

Greetings all -- I got an e-mail about 2 weeks ago from some folks promoting a movie and the PBS series Independent Lens.  I watched the final product on Vimeo as part of the advance PR for this movie, and I liked it.  Because one of the producers of the movie has taken a beating from me in the past here at TeamPyro, I thought I would take a hiatus from hiatus to post this open letter/review.

Dear Bryan --

I hope this Open Letter finds you well -- long time no see.  The last time you and I crossed paths was when you released your documentary Fight Church, and you were rather put out that I refused to review it.  I was surprised by that because after I reviewed Holy Rollers, I figured that you would not want someone like me talking about your hard work.  However, you have produced a new movie which will debut on PBS next week called Little Hope was Arson, and I wanted to say a few words about it and your trajectory as a producer of indie films.



If we have to choose between the movie about the misguided scammers who thought that Jesus would endorse scamming casinos, the movie about misguided fundamentalists who think fighting is a way to teach men about the Gospel, and Little Hope is Arson, we should invest our 90 minutes of free time in this movie.  This movie is not hardly flawless, but it is at least an honest treatment of the simple faith of common Christians.

So what constitutes an "honest" treatment of a subject in a documentary?  I think some people would say that "honesty" would be when the documentarian lets the subject speak for himself -- so for example, an "honest" documentary about the kid who shot up Sandy Hook Elementary would be a movie which paints the events as that troubled kid saw them.  The problem with that approach I think is obvious: nobody really thinks they are the bad guy in their own story.  Whatever a documentarian might find out about what Adam Lanza and his motives in his crimes, his view of it would somehow paint what he did as justifiable, and that point of view would be so idiosyncratic that it could not be honest.  It would be entirely subjective.

Another approach might be to tell us only what "experts" think about the subject.  So for example, having FBI profilers and mental health professionals talk about whatever the documentarian has uncovered about Lanza might be seen as a way to get an "honest" treatment of what happened.  Some people might actually say that this would be a way to get at truth in this case because those talking about it are in fact kinds of scientists.  Because Science is seen by some as the final arbiter of what is true, they would equate this with honesty.

When I call your movie "an honest treatment," I don't mean either of these things.  What I mean is that (as I see it) this is your best effort to date as you seek to demonstrate your own integrity through the telling of a real-life drama.  Your treatment of those involved in this movie is, without a doubt, an attempt to really tell us who these people are whether or not they are admirable.  That's a big improvement over Holy Rollers, for example, where the story  is so one-sided that (as I wrote back then) it finally looks like a marketing piece for the card-counting school established by the principle people in the story at the end of the movie.  Here there is more than one perspective, more than one approach to the events, which brings the viewer to draw his own conclusions about all of the players rather than to wind up being either played by the documentarian to a staged conclusion or left without enough information to care about any conclusion.

Since this review is coming out before the film will get its national showing, I'm going to be a little coy about the details.  I also despise reviews which are effectively book reports about the thing being reviewed.  But there is one category which I think you handled quite well here: theology.  That may seem a little odd given that I think you would admit that you really didn't approach this film with theology in mind.  But here's what you did do: you presented the individuals in this movie as people who are all engaged in a relationship with God, and you portrayed their relationship in progress in the context of an objectively-evil act.  That, in case no one else will say it about this film, is where the rubber meets the road.

What I would love to do is to walk that off with you now through the parents, the pastors, the siblings, and (as we say in the part of christendom) the magistrates who make sense out of God and evil as the story in this movie unwinds -- but that would spoil the entire movie for those reading this review.  For me it is entirely sufficient to say that this time, because of the fundamentally christian questions you asked in this movie, and because you encountered fundamentally Christian people in the journey to make this movie, your film actually arrives at some fundamentally-Christian conclusions.  And for that, I want to thank you.  The very least that this movie should have done was to somehow unpack the statement made all over in it: "the church is not a building."  This movie does that, and it does so elegantly, seriously, and without the mushy romanticism which is the plague of most "Christian" entertainment in the marketplace.

The only solid complaint I want to register here is in the final caption of the movie before the credits:

Now, if I clever up a bit and offer you a huge portion of grace, I think the point of this quote is to say that the churches which were burned in these real events shed a light on some real people who, for the most part, have a real faith in spite of hardship.  But Durutti was a Spanish Anarchist, and when he said this what he meant was that everything about religion has to be destroyed in order for all its oppressive burdens to be cast off.  His meaning and yours in this movie, I think, are not the same.  By no means do I think that you have endorsed the crimes recorded in the film, but Durutti would.  The dissonance there is jarring and was confusing to me as I think it would be for any viewer who knows anything about Durutti and anarchist thought.  Your movie is not about anarchy but about the ways in which real people make sense out of suffering, and it is better than the philosophy of those associated with the burning of churches in pre-Franco Spain.

All that said, thanks for your offer to view and review this film.  It's good to see people working hard to develop a voice and a body of work which is actually saying something worth saying in a way that is worth listening to.

If this is where you are headed in the future, please keep up the good work.  I look forward to seeing more documentaries like this from you about real Christians in real life.

---