From The Mailbag – Page 4

Ask the Pastor; “Can postmillennialists be pessimists — even in the short run?”

Dear Pastor,

Can postmillennialists be pessimists? To be more precise can we expect positive change in our time, or is all the “good stuff” still future?

John Hogue

Dear John,

Thanks for writing.

I guess I would start answering by saying it depends on how you are defining pessimistic.

I think some postmillennialists get accused of being pessimistic when in point of fact they are merely connecting the dots on the cultural landscape. If a Postmillennialist sees that one of the sovereign spheres in a culture is operating on a foundation of paganism/humanism then they are obliged to insist that no good is going to come in operating according to idols set apart for destruction. And by doing so they are operating according to a postmillennial motif in that they see that before godly altars can be constructed that will be Christ honoring the previous idols must be destroyed.Also, postmillennialists must be honest with the times they are given. They must not become pollyanna and thus condone wickedness by transmogrifying wickedness into something that is a harbinger that portends blessings. For example, I have seen certain postmillennialists encourage Christian to vote for wicked Republicans and then turn around and call other postmillennialists pessimists because they drew attention to the reality that the Kingdom isn’t advanced by supporting wickedness.

Keith Mathison (author of a couple books on Postmillennialism) once wrote that he was the most pessimistic postmillennialist that anyone would ever meet. By that, I think he meant that while he believed God’s Kingdom would conquer all he wasn’t going to excuse sin by being wrongly optimistic.

As far as your second question goes, I would say I / we can expect positive change in our time as God sovereignly awakens men to their rebellion against Him and grants them repentance and a fleeing to Christ. We must work in terms of that hope and live in the expectation that it will come to pass.

We should be careful though that in our postmillennial that we don’t allow the hope to give birth to a false expectation. I have listened to many postmillennial sermons/lecture from the 70’s and 8o’s that were predicting, for example, the end of public schools by the year 2000, or vast revival among the minority community just around the corner. Today, I’ve heard young millennials forecast the change of everything in their lifetime by means of pursuing just the right political activism. One can only crack up laughing when listening to these postmillennialists of 30 and 40 years ago and of today. You see, John, what happened is that they allowed their high millennial expectations to impinge upon their ability to be realistic about the cultural landscape.We can be optimistic about the future but it is optimism within God’s providence and God’s providence is operative not only in the future but is operative right now. God’s providence right now informs us that any imagined flowering of the already present postmillennial kingdom will require many uphill challenges that will require work.

We would do well, on this subject to remember the words of Gen. Robert E. Lee,

“The march of Providence is so slow and our desires so impatient; the work of progress so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.”

The other side of this equation is that if we are unrealistically optimistic (Pollyanna) then the result will be vast discouragement when that which we so hoped for doesn’t come to pass.

So, what we have noted here is an unrealistic optimism for the future can lead to one of two mistaken reactions,

1.) Because we so desperately hope for the flowering of the already present postmillennial kingdom we begin to interpret that which is opposed to God’s work as part of God’s work in order to sustain our misplaced expectations and hope.

2.) Because we so desperately hope for the flowering of the already present postmillennial kingdom we begin to despair when we begin to realize that our expectations are not going to come to pass in our lifetimes.

As postmillennialists, we must continue to be hopeful in light of God’s sovereignty but we must also continue to accept the fact that God’s timing is His own.

As returning to your original question, I would say that it is not possible for a postmillennialist to be pessimistic, even in the short run. Our God is a great God and with God all things are possible. However, neither is it proper for a postmillennialist to be naive or Pollyanna.

To be honest, I have an easier time with C. S. Lewis’ Puddleglums, then I do with Susie Sunshines.

Ask the Pastor…. Strengths and Weaknesses of Postmodernism?

Dear Pastor,

In your opinion what brings the greatest concern with postmodernism and especially with the new generation Z.

Do you see any strengths of Postmodernism?

Thank you,

Bradley

Dear Bradley,

Good questions.

I.) Pomo’s Strength

1.) It not only deconstructs meta-narratives we know are true, it deconstructs meta-narratives that need to be deconstructed, such as Darwinian Evolutionary pseudo-science. Darwinism has been savaged by the Pomo’s and has really lost its status as the narrative of the West.

2.) Pomo reminds us of our creatureliness and that as creatures we cannot get outside of the universe in order to observe the universe and so know the universe. As such, there is always going to be subjectivity in our knowing. Creatures are subjective by definition and as such it must be admitted that the knowledge that we have of the objective has a tacit quality. Our knowledge is not only subjective as the pomo’s insist but neither is our knowledge only objective. See the works here of Michael Polanyi.

II.) Pomo’s weaknesses

1.) First, some would argue that pomo remains modernism but as on steroids, and there is a good deal of truth in that. Pomo like modernism interprets the world apart from God. As such pomo like modernism creates it’s own truths. The difference is that pomo admits it while modernism refused to admit it, choosing instead to embrace the nonsense of some kind of objective reality that can be posited by some kind of fiat act of the will via one kind of logical positivism or another.

2.) Pomo insists that there is no such thing as capital “T” truth but in doing so they demonstrate that Pomo’s capital “T” Truth is that there is no such thing as capital “T” Truth and that is every bit as much as a capital “T” truth as what modernity or any other meta-narrative ever wanted to offer. As such the broad claims of the pomo’s are myths.

3.) Pomo is irrational. So is modernism but Pomo doesn’t care and so doesn’t hide it like modernism does. Pomo’s today (self-conscious or not) embrace the most egregious and bald contradictions without caring one whit. They are irrational, and they love it so.

4.) Because Pomo’s think that they don’t care about capital “T” truth it is harder to get through to them with the Gospel or any true Truth in my estimation. When witnessing what you typically get is, “Well, if that works for you that’s nice.” As such to reach pomos you really have to understand that making them angry is the only way of doing so. (Angry because you have to really break up their worldview furniture before you catch their attention.) Even then they may not care. I’ve known more than one person I’ve engaged with who has said, “Yeah, I know I am in contradiction but I don’t care.”

5.) Pomo’s have no core in terms of character. If reality is what you make it then you can make up a new character and new reality every day. People who lie to themselves like this are sick people.

Thanks Bradley for the question,

Pastor Bret

On Not Voting For Anyone in the Republican Field

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.Josef Stalin

Dear Pastor,

The lying of past presidential candidates in past elections does not relieve us of our responsibility to do our best to see to it that our country remains in or regains the best environment in which the progress of the Gospel and its implications for all life can flourish. Right now, we are slipping badly. We MUST do what we can. And granted, every candidate has feet of clay; but we as Christians have a duty to assess each candidate; make a judgment about their character, their perspectives, their strategies, and their electability, and then work for their election. I know Bret that you oppose the R2K position but doesn’t a defeatist attitude communicated by your refusal to vote for any major party candidate put you in the same camp?

Dear Dusty,Allow me to answer, as respectfully as I can to someone I deeply respect,

1.) It is not defeatist to not look for victory where only defeat is guaranteed. The two party system has been broken for a very very long time. We see this in spades in DC today. We are presented with only three choices. We can either vote soft Stalinist Democrat. We can vote for Trotskyite neo-cons, or we can vote for what smells like Fascism. I do not have a dog in this fight. My dog died a long time ago.

2.) Therefore it is in my interest to do all that I can to see that each party weakens the other. IF it is the case that voting matters (a very dubious belief) then it is in my interest to create gridlock and chaos with my vote.

3.) Since the Republican party is so corrupt and is merely a Trotskyite expression of leftism then a case could be made that it is in the Christian’s interest to vote in such a way that the Federal Government is always divided with the House and Senate being Republican and the President being Democrat. The reason this is so is that when there is a neo-con Trotskyite Republican President the little remaining conservative strength in the party tends to go to sleep thinking that “there guy is watching the store.” HOWEVER, when there is a Democratic President the Republican party rank and file activists remain watchful and is more inclined to be in an activist mode of resistance.

Of course, even that is premised on the idea that the International Money interests aren’t really doing all the string pulling. Personally, I’m not convinced that they are not.

4.) Actually, I think voting for the best possible Republican candidate for President is where the defeatist attitude lies. In my lifetime Reagan is the model but even with Reagan what we got, when viewing from a macro sense is a guy who,

a.) Gave us two SCOTUS judges who supported abortion

b.) Grew the size of Government significantly

c.) Pursued the agenda that eventually resulted in the NWO GATT and NAFTA

d.) Left us the Bush family legacy that we still suffer with

e.) Gave us the last amnesty bill that has brought us to where we are now

f.) Gave the keys of power to the neo-cons

And this is our hero Republican President?

Can you see why I’ve come to the conclusion that voting Republican is defeatist?

5.) In my estimation victory is won by waking people up to all the above and hoping they begin to realize that they are being played. Victory is had in just one way when it comes to politics and that is by inflicting pain. Pain for a politician means that they do not get your vote. Republicans and neo-cons (but I repeat myself) have to be made to realize that they just cannot assume on getting the Evangelical vote. The only way to make them realize that is by quitting to vote for them. Politicians only understand pain.

6.) Victory, if victory is to be had, has to start at the local level. Mordor on the Potomac is lost until politics changes at the grass roots level. Once the grass roots begins to awaken then we can turn our attention to Mordor on the Potomac again.

I realize I’m in the minority among conservative Christians on this issue. I have thought this through though and I’ve spent a good deal of time studying the matter for whatever it is worth. Please understand that though it might seem that I am a purist I can assure you that I am NOT a purist. I would gladly vote for someone with feet of clay. The problem though is I’m not looking at people with feet of clay when I look at the current Republican field. I’m looking at people who are clay up to their eyeballs.

I must be honest enough to realize that all the action when it comes to National politics is from the left. There is no longer a right, nor is there any longer any semblance of the right strong enough to crack the current leftist Montagnard vs. Girondins French Revolution paradigm. O sure … there are a few cranks here or there remaining of the old right but the right as a movement is as dead as Marley’s door-nail.

However, hope remains as long as the old cranks remain as true as Lewis’ Old Narnians. This is so because God is able to make a way for them in some how and some way. This is where my hope for victory lies.

Ask the Pastor — What of John Donne’s Divine Ravishing?

Dear Pastor,

I wonder what you think of John Donne’s Holy Sonnet 14, “Batter My Heart.” ? It ends with a rape of the soul. But he links it to chastity. The paradox is present.

Jayson Grieser

Jayson,

Donne’s couplet in question,

Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,

Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

I think one has to understand the points of perspective in order to dissolve the paradox. We, as humans, will always be ravished either by God or by the devil. As such, it is never a matter of being “ravished” or “not being ravished,” it is always only a matter of “ravished by whom.”

I think what Donne is getting at is akin to Luther’s prose in his, “On the Bondage of the Will,”

“Man is like a horse. Does God leap into the saddle? The horse is obedient and accommodates itself to every movement of the rider and goes whither he wills it. Does God throw down the reins? Then Satan leaps upon the back of the animal, which bends, goes and submits to the spurs and caprices of its new rider.”

So, man is always a ravished being, just as man is always a rode being. If we are ravished by the devil it is a ravishing unto corruption. If we are ravished by God it is a ravishing unto chasteness and purity. Man, having no free will, will thus only be a ravished being. Either we will be ravished unto purity by God or we will be ravished unto impurity by the Dragon.

Donne uses the “ravished” language but in my estimation he is using the language from Lucifer’s perspective when he uses that language. If he were to speak from God’s perspective he would have written instead something like,

Except you possess me, never shall be free,

Nor ever chaste, except you keep me.

But that doesn’t make for as good poetry. I hope that helps.

Thank you for stopping by Jayson and thanks for a thoughtful question.

The “Push Me,” “Pull You,” of The Donald

Dear Pastor,

Something I am realizing more as I think about the Trump phenomenon is that there is a difference between White Nationalist politics and Christians. I may put together some quotes even from XXX XXXXXX that are interesting. In a lot of his analysis, he was not concerned in the least with the sort of biblical worldview we would want to start our analysis with. As a result, he was willing be aligned with strong executive power, and use the state, in ways that would make us uncomfortable. I don’t necessarily think Trump is this candidate, but what do we do with the candidate who is not really a Christian but brings good sense to issues of nationality? I think we were both on the same page, at least initially, that Wilson’s comments about Coulter and Trump were inaccurate, but you seem to have drifted more toward what Wilson was saying there. Sorry… very quick thoughts as I had a minute. I ought to stop thinking about this BS and go take care of my family.

Best to you and yours,

Opher Byrd

Dear Mr. Byrd,

Thank you for writing.

I am not drifting towards Wilson, in regards to his comments about Coulter and Trump, though I can understand why someone might easily think so. My problem is that I like what I think is Trump’s immigration policy. (Though after listening to the Brimelow interview I’m wondering if there are cracks already in the Trump edifice on immigration.) As I was saying I like Trumps immigration policy as stand alone but I don’t like it as it sits in, what I take to be, his Fascist Corporatist Mercantilist worldview. As such it may sound like I’m drifting but I’m not. I think Wilson is in deep error to suggest that a Trump like immigration policy is to be eschewed because there is no current massive repentance. It is, at least possible, that such a immigration policy could be both a harbinger of future repentance or serve as a space of time as hiatus for eventual heaven sent repentance. If I could have Trump’s putative immigration plan as combined with promises to go after Corporate Welfare, and International aid, with a promise to decentralize power from the Feds to the states, (a historic Constitutional platform) I’d be in hog heaven. However, that is not what we are getting with Trump. Instead we are getting a favorable Trump immigration policy inside the plausibility structure of a Fascist Corporatist Mercantilist worldview?

I’m not sure that works, and so, I’m torn between supporting one slice of the man’s policies while being adamantly against the context in which I see that slice lying.

Make sense?

Thank your for the conversation Mr. Byrd. You know of my abiding respect for your instincts and the knowledge base upon which those instincts are pinioned.