Should Christians oppose polygamy?

Polygamy is getting increasingly popular in the United States, as I've discussed before. Go here and do a Ctrl F search for "polygamy". Notice that almost a quarter of Americans find it morally acceptable now, and notice that the percentage has more than tripled in about two decades. For an overview of the Biblical and patristic evidence against polygamy, see my thread on the subject (including the comments section, where a lot of further discussion took place) here. And though I cited some patristic sources against polygamy, I wasn't trying to be exhaustive. More could be mentioned. The Octavius of Minucius Felix, for example, refers to how "we [Christians] know either one wife, or none at all" (31).

Freed To A Higher Standard

"Christ hath delivered us, he [Paul] says, from the yoke of bondage, He hath left us free to act as we will, not that we may use our liberty for evil, but that we may have ground for receiving a higher reward, advancing to a higher philosophy. Lest any one should suspect, from his calling the Law over and over again a yoke of bondage, and a bringing on of the curse, that his object in enjoining an abandonment of the Law, was that one might live lawlessly, he corrects this notion, and states his object to be, not that our course of life might be lawless, but that our philosophy might surpass the Law. For the bonds of the Law are broken, and I say this not that our standard may be lowered, but that it may be exalted. For both he who commits fornication, and he who leads a virgin life, pass the bounds of the Law, but not in the same direction; the one is led away to the worse, the other is elevated to the better; the one transgresses the Law, the other transcends it. Thus Paul says that Christ hath removed the yoke from you, not that ye may prance and kick, but that though without the yoke ye may proceed at a well-measured pace." (John Chrysostom, Commentary On Galatians, 5, v. 13)

Why is there such a hurry?

Near the end of my last post, I briefly discussed our culture's recent pattern of rapid changes on a series of moral issues. As the sexual revolution and other cultural developments have unfolded, we've seen major changes on moral issues (and other significant issues) happening with a lot of speed. In other contexts in life, that sort of pattern, or even one event without a pattern, would make us suspicious. Why does this man who wants you to sign some paperwork about a financial transaction keep pressuring you to do it sooner rather than later, insisting that you don't need more time to look into the details? Why is the used car salesman trying so hard to get you to buy the car so soon, and why is he so evasive in response to your questions? We consider it shameful to be misled by efforts to get us to make an overly quick decision in contexts like those. But an overly quick decision is even worse in the sort of moral context I referred to above. Yet, few people in our culture seem to have much of a sense of shame over how rapidly they've changed their positions on so many moral issues (and other significant issues) with so little justification.

It's predictable that the pattern will continue. Polyamory, incest, pedophilia, and other issues will become more prominent, and there will be an ongoing process of trying to get people to rapidly change their views without thinking much about it or doing much research. In the future, we ought to point out to people that they generally consider it shameful to behave that way in other contexts in life and that they ought to be more consistent by applying that sort of reasoning to these moral contexts as well.

For example, let's say somebody is undecided about something like abortion, same-sex marriage, transgenderism, or polyamory. He should take more time to research it rather than giving in to the pressure to change his mind too quickly. Getting people to take more time to think through these issues is good and will have a lot of positive short-term and long-term results. If we want somebody to not support a particular candidate or referendum or piece of legislation, for example, convincing him of our position isn't the only way to accomplish that objective. We can also accomplish it by persuading him to withhold his support until he's looked into the issue more.

I suspect one of the mistakes Republicans and others have made when issues like abortion and same-sex marriage are being evaluated by voters (and in non-voting contexts) is to neglect some of the options on the table. People ought to be pro-life on abortion, for example, but you don't have to convince somebody of a pro-life position in order to convince him to refrain from supporting a pro-choice referendum, piece of legislation, or whatever. Just convince him to withhold his support for either position (pro-life or pro-choice) until he's done more research. Sometimes it's appropriate to pressure people into making a binary choice. But we need to also be open to the possibility of trying to persuade people to refrain from supporting either side until they know more about the issue. To convince people to not support a pro-choice referendum, all you need to do is persuade them to hold off on adopting a pro-choice position. The large majority of people don't know much about subjects like the moral issues I've mentioned in this post. We should take advantage of that ignorance by reminding them of how hesitant they are when they're ignorant about something in other areas of life. And we should point out how the speed with which proponents of these new moral positions are trying to get people to make changes is suspicious, just as we're suspicious when people act that way in other contexts.

What are you doing with the knowledge you have?

"I hold that it is unworthy of any man who possesses knowledge to keep his knowledge to himself, and rejoice in his own enlightenment, without making any effort to bring others to share in his privileges. Justly did the four lepers at the gate of Samaria feel their conscience smite them: 'We do not well; this is a day of good tidings, and we hold our peace.' [2 Kings 7:9] Had those to whom the light of Christianity was first given dealt so with our ancestors, we should still be lying in heathen darkness." (George Salmon, The Infallibility Of The Church [London, England: John Murray, 1914], 7)

You Make Your Burden Heavy By Struggling Under It

"Your own discontent is that which arms your troubles with a sting; you make your burden heavy by struggling under it. Did you but lie quietly under the hand of God, your condition would be much more easy than it is. 'Impatience in the sick occasions severity in the physician.' This makes God afflict the more, as a father a stubborn child that receives not correction. Beside, it unfits the soul to pray over its troubles, or receive the sense of that good which God intends by them. Affliction is a pill, which, being wrapt up in patience and quiet submission, may be easily swallowed; but discontent chews the pill, and so embitters the soul. God throws away some comfort which he saw would hurt you, and you will throw away your peace after it; he shoots an arrow which sticks in your clothes, and was never intended to hurt, but only to drive you from sin, and you will thrust it deeper, to the piercing of your very heart, by despondency and discontent." (John Flavel, Keeping The Heart [Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2019], 46-47)

The Moral Value Of Intellectual And Apologetic Work

"On the one hand, writing the way [the apostle Paul] usually writes - developing precise arguments with cogency and clarity - is not, in my view, morally neutral. It is a sign of honesty. To give reasons for what you believe and to strive for clarity that reveals what you truly think are marks of integrity." (John Piper, Why I Love The Apostle Paul [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2019], 94)

The State Of The Culture

When we're doing work in apologetics, evangelism, politics, or some other context, it's important to be well informed about the state of the culture we're interacting with. I want to recommend some resources. I can't be exhaustive, and I won't be saying much about these sources. But you can search the Triablogue archives or my posts on Facebook, for example, to find further discussion of the significance of these sources and their findings. I won't always link the latest research. Some of these sources are ones I don't consult every year, and there's only so much that I've read from these sites.

The Pew Research Center publishes a lot of material on relevant subjects. Go here for an article on where Americans find meaning in life, for example. Among other results, they reported, "Overall, 20% of Americans say religion is the most meaningful aspect of their lives, second only to the share who say this about family (40%)."

Around this time every year, the Department of Labor publishes their annual research on how Americans spend their time. See here. I've been following their research for several years, and they've consistently found that the average American spends more than five hours a day on what they call leisure and sports and less than ten minutes a day on religious and spiritual activities. Here's one of many posts over the years in which I've discussed the implications of those findings.

Gallup has a lot of useful information. Here's a collection of resources on moral issues. The page here shows you how Americans' views on moral issues have changed over time. And here's an article that discusses why acceptance of polygamy has been growing.

There's been a major reduction in global poverty in recent decades. See here and here. That has major implications for how concerned we should be about poverty, how much attention we should give it, how much Christians should be focused on poverty in the local church and other contexts (e.g., financial giving), the proper size and role of government programs addressing poverty, etc. In my experience, the vast majority of people seem unaware of statistics like these or haven't thought much about the implications of them.

The Annenberg Public Policy Center does a lot of research on how much Americans know about civics issues. See here, for example. C-SPAN has commissioned polling related to the Supreme Court. Their 2018 poll was done at the time of Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court. A majority of Americans couldn't name a single Supreme Court justice.

Some of these sites have a lot of data on religious issues. See, for example, here on Bible reading, here on how Americans view the Bible, and here regarding their views on issues related to Christmas. On global percentages for religious affiliation, see here. One important fact to note from the page I just cited and others at these web sites is that atheists make up such a small percentage of the population. We should keep that in mind when considering issues like how much of our apologetic effort should be directed toward atheism. Barna does a lot of research on Evangelicals in particular. Another site has an article on church attendance numbers.

Was it Suicide?

I have seen a couple of social media posts where some have questioned whether or not Steve’s death was a form of suicide.  After all, the announcement we made included the fact: “He had cancer and heart disease. Both conditions were initially treatable, but he declined treatment.”  So that brings up the moral question: If you decline treatment for something, is that the same thing as committing suicide?

Before answering this broadly, we can first look at the specifics as it relates to Steve Hays.  If you read his memoir, A Backward Providence, you will see that when Steve was in his thirties, he was diagnosed with Fibromyalgia (p. 65).  At the bottom of that same page, he notes: “…I was thirty-five, which is a very different time of life. I had far more to live for. I underwent the full course of treatment.”

So Steve had already gone through the treatment he subsequently refused back when, as he pointed out, he had far more to live for.  There are a couple of ways you could parse that phrase, but included in it would definitely be the fact that at thirty-five you are much closer to your prime than when you are sixty years old.  You have more strength and vigor.  You don’t have as many aches and pains.  In addition, Steve was 35 years old in 1994. He still had both parents at that time (his father passed away in 1999, and Steve became the caretaker for his mother until she passed away in 2013).  When he was diagnosed with the recurrence, he had none of that remaining: no youthful strength, no family to take care of, and the long pain of Fibromyalgia, in addition to other health issues.

Knowing this will address a couple of other things raised by other individuals.  Since Steve was a Calvinist, some have questioned whether he had decided to “accept his fate.”  But Calvinism is not fatalism, so that’s already framing the issue incorrectly.  Steve clearly held to the belief that predestination included the means, not just the end, and “means” included the ability to use doctors for treatment of normal diseases.  So it was not due to a belief that God had predestined him to die that he refused treatment, for he would have held that God had predestined him to use doctors to fight against his disease had he wanted to fight the disease.

Somewhat ironically, another person speculated that perhaps Steve was trying to get God to heal him miraculously.  This is due to the fact that Steve was not a full cessationist and had argued against some cessationists in the past.  However, when you read A Backward Providence, it is very clear that Steve was ready to die.  He didn’t want God to heal him, although if God had done so Steve would have accepted it as God’s desire.  But as mentioned above, he had less to live for as he aged.  So, he prepared himself for his death, and he was ready to meet his Savior.

To add a bit of my own speculation (since Steve and I never talked about this point directly), I also think that since Steve went through the full treatment already, he knew what kind of toll it would have on his body.  And he also knew that “treatment” wasn’t the same thing as “cure” and there’s a good chance he would not have wanted to add another couple of years to his life just to have to go through the same painful treatment again and again until it finally killed him.  Add on the reality that treatment can be expensive, so those painfully extended years might have come at the cost of Steve being forced to live on the streets, unable to blog or to do anything he considered useful.

So those are some specifics in dealing with Steve’s death itself.  But while that may perhaps give us understanding for why Steve chose not to get treatment, it does not yet answer the question of whether it was morally licit for Steve to decline treatment.  So let us examine the moral question.

First is the question: what is suicide?  At a simple level, suicide is deliberately taking an action, the result of which will knowingly cause the end of one’s life.  But even this simple definition needs to be examined.  I can immediately think of a counter: if a soldier sees an enemy about to shoot his friend, and he leaps in front of the bullet and subsequently dies, he has deliberately taken an action that ended his own life.  Yet hardly anyone would view such a death to be suicide.  It was instead noble.  Indeed, Jesus Himself would declare such an action to be that of which there is no greater love (John 15:13).

There is also the fact that refusing to do something is not the same thing as deliberately taking an action.  That is, it was not Steve taking an action that resulted in his disease not being treated—it was the absence of an action that resulted in the disease not being treated.  So defining suicide as "deliberately taking an action that will end one's life" clearly would not apply.

So let us amend it slightly.  "Suicide is deliberately taking an action, or refusing to take an action, the result of which will knowingly end one's life." And that brings us to the crux.  If refusing to take an action to save one’s life results in one’s death, is that suicide or not? 

It's perhaps beneficial to look at the conundrum slightly differently.  When Terri Schiavo was being kept alive with a feeding tube, pro-life activists argued that removing the feeding tube would be murder.  Under the same logic, if one chose to remove one’s own feeding tube, would that be suicide?

The Terri Schiavo case helps us examine this philosophically.  Why was it that removing a feeding tube was considered tantamount to murder by the pro-life side?  After all, the opposition to the pro-life crowd pointed out:  “We’re not killing her.  We are just removing the feeding tube and letting nature take its course.”

But of course, if you keep anyone from food, then “nature’s course” is death.

This brought up the key distinction in the ethical debate.  Terri Schiavo was not on a ventilator or heart bypass machine.  She could breathe on her own, and her heart beat on its own.  What kept her from dying was the nutrition her feeding tube gave her.  Nutrition—the same thing that keeps all of us from dying.  The pro-life argument had been that there was no medical issue with refusing extra-ordinary treatment, but ordinary care that everyone needs for basic survivability could not be turned off without resulting in murder.  In other words, turning off a heart bypass machine resulting in the death of the patient would not constitute murder because hearts beat on their own naturally, but because everyone needs food to survive then depriving her of food was tantamount to murder because everyone needs food to survive.

This moral argument clearly made sense to a lot of pro-life adherents, myself included, and so using that same principal we can ask: is chemotherapy ordinary or extra-ordinary treatment?  Chemotherapy is poisonous.  The hope is that the cancer cells die before all the healthy cells die.  Given that, if you are healthy and you take chemotherapy, only bad things could possibly happen to you.  Clearly chemotherapy is not ordinary care, like food and water are.  This means that under the same principal that it is moral to turn off a heart bypass machine because of it being extra-ordinary care, so too one can refuse chemotherapy without it constituting suicide.

Of course one could still object that this is just a philosophy argument, not Biblical.  The Bible may still forbid one to refrain from doing anything possible to stay alive.  To that, I would respond: “Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?”  These words from Jesus recorded in Matthew 26:53 show that Jesus could have done much to keep Himself from the crucifixion.  Does the fact that He did not act to save Himself, knowing full well that He would die if He did not act, mean that He committed suicide?  Clearly not!

So there is at least one example where not choosing to save one’s own life does not constitute suicide.  Indeed, I would suspect that no one could come up with an example where someone does nothing at all to save their life—while also not doing anything active to endanger it—where that would be classified as a suicide.  Regardless, the onus is on the person who says that refusing treatment for a disease is equivalent to suicide to prove that it is.

At the end of the day, I think it’s clear both from philosophy and theology that there is no rational basis to claim that there is a moral imperative to prolong one’s life using extra-ordinary means.  There’s no admonition against it either.  So when faced with two options, neither of which is sinful, then whichever option is chosen is, by definition, not sinful to take.

The Bad Roots And Fruits Of Polygamy In Scripture And History

Southern Seminary recently put out a brief video by Peter Gentry on polygamy in the Bible. He makes some good points, and his argument is somewhat reminiscent of an article Matthew Schultz wrote on polygamy several years ago. You can also read my thread here that addresses polygamy in the Old and New Testaments and in patristic Christianity.

For a discussion of some of the reasons why it's important to be informed about polygamy in our culture, see this article by Andrew Dugan of Gallup. He not only notes that polygamy has become significantly more accepted by Americans in recent years, but also explains that their change in opinion seems to have been influenced by television (and surely other sources of a similar nature). He notes that acceptance of polygamy is especially high among the non-religious, being accepted by almost a third of those who don't affiliate themselves with any religion.

That article by Dugan was written in 2017. Here's a listing of Gallup's results on moral issues year-by-year. Polygamy went up to 19% acceptance in 2018 and is at 18% this year.

Gott mit uns

I got into an impromptu debate with an apostate Christian who is now an atheist.

[How do you know drowning people is morally wrong?] I know drowning is a very unpleasant sensation and can lead to death. As I wouldn’t what it to happen to me I in turn don’t wish it on others. It’s called empathy.

1. So your morality is ultimately based on your intuition? Your sense or feelings? Such as feeling "a very unpleasant sensation". Such as feeling a sense of "empathy". However, you earlier condemned Hitler and the Holocaust. Yet Hitler felt no empathy for the Jewish people. Hence, by your logic, Hitler did not do anything morally wrong by killing Jews in the Holocaust, did he?

2. A person can also feel "a very unpleasant sensation" when they're undergoing euthanasia. Would you therefore argue euthanasia is morally illicit?

hitler was a Christian so....

1. Hitler came from a Catholic background, just like Stalin came from a Russian Orthodox background (Stalin became an atheist), but Hitler persecuted Christians and hated Christians. Philosophically speaking, one could argue Hitler often promoted the views of Friedrich Nietzsche who was an ardent atheist and nihilist.

2. In fact, Hitler considered Christianity weak. A religion only fit for "slaves". And even Joseph Goebbels, who knew Hitler closely, said: "The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both [Judaism and Christianity] have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed."

3. However you're missing the actual point. I'm responding to you on your own grounds. This isn't about Hitler, but about your argument. Hitler is simply one example among many. You argued for morality based on feelings like "empathy". Well, if morality is ultimately based on whether or not we have empathy toward another person, then someone who has no empathy toward a group of people - such as Hitler lacking empathy toward Jews, or such as ISIS lacking empathy toward non-Muslims including non-Sunni Muslims - then by your logic how have they wronged the other person?

Euthanasia is a complex issue that requires consent and extenuating circumstances. The right to die for example. Alleviate suffering as such.

1. Again, you missed the point. The point is, by your own logic, euthanasia would be wrong because the person would feel "a very unpleasant sensation and can lead to death".

2. You need to find a better argument if you want to ground objective moral values and duties on atheism. If you can't ground objective moral values and duties, then you have no basis by which to morally judge another person's morality. Such as by calling God a "sadistic jerk" as well as condemning ancient peoples like Israelites and early Christians. At best, it's just your own intuition or feelings or somesuch, but your own personal feelings aren't necessarily a reliable moral compass.

3. Given atheism, what happens to evil people who get away with their evil in this life? Hitler died the way he wanted to die, by suicide, without ever having to answer for his evils. Stalin and Mao got away in the end too. As Dawkins points out: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."

Gott Mit Uns which is emblazoned on the SS emblem translates to God With Us. Strange thing for an atheist to attach to his death squads.

1. By that logic, we put "In God We Trust" on our money. Hence the United States is (or should be) a Christian nation. Is that what you're arguing?

2. Besides, as Goebbels points out, Hitler was "religious" but "anti-Christian" and anti-Jewish. So whatever "god" this was, it wasn't the God of the Bible.

3. Plus, the Nazis often co-opted religious symbols for their own propaganda. After all, the swastika was originally from Hinduism. Hence, by your logic, the Nazis were Hindu.

horrible people throughout history have co-opted religion to strengthen their power. It’s almost like political leaders understand that having a god around helps keep people in line. Any coincidence that ancient cultures often had church and government so closely entwined. Makes you think doesn’t it. Can’t get the peasants to listen, threaten them with a fate worse than death. A savvy political move.

1. Thanks for conceding my point. Yes, Hitler and the Nazis were "horrible people" who co-opted religion. They were not Christians like you've been ignorantly alleging.

2. If anything, Hitler was driven by a Nietzschean vision mixed with various myths and religious symbols. (This included Norse, Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, and related myths, which JRR Tolkien even criticized the Nazis for misunderstanding at the time.) If anything, Hitler was driven by an atheistic and nihilistic vision. God is dead. The will to power. The German and Aryan peoples are Übermensch. That's one reason why Hitler thought Germans could weather the freezing Russian winter wearing lighter and/or less clothing than the Russians since the Germans are Übermensch! That's one reason why Hitler refused to allow his troops to make strategic retreats to fight another day (such as at Stalingrad) since the Übermensch have the will to overcome their enemies and other obstacles. In short, if anything, Hitler was driven by atheistic and nihilistic philosophies.

3. How "kept in line" to Pharoah and the gods of Egypt were Moses and the Israelites? See John Currid's book Against the Gods: The Polemical Theology of the Old Testament for a start.

4. Most importantly, given atheism, why isn't nihilism the logical conclusion to your atheism? That's what many atheist philosophers even argue (e.g. Alex Rosenberg). Hence, the question is, given your atheism, how would you ground moral realism? Given your atheism, how would you ground objective moral values and duties? So far, you haven't been able to.

Edit: I added more of the debate below.

With or without God

So much of #apologetics about the alleged ‘absurdity’ or ‘meaninglessness’ of life without God is nothing more than philosophically elaborate ways of saying ‘I don’t like the idea of life without God.’ #atheism

— Secular Outpost (@SecularOutpost) March 11, 2018

Although this is an example of armchair psychoanalysis, it doesn't refute what I wrote. Now, if I'm wrong, I want to be corrected. Where are the examples of meaning of life apologetics which amount to more than a subjective "I don't like the idea of life without God"? https://t.co/Cx26Y5bJmU

— Secular Outpost (@SecularOutpost) March 22, 2018

Of course, some atheists "don't like the idea of life [with] God". Take Alduous Huxley in Ends and Means:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.

Conservatives Misdiagnosing America's Problems

Kevin Williamson recently wrote an article for National Review that's rightly critical of Donald Trump on some points, but also repeats a common false sentiment. It's an idea that's popular in conservative American political circles and popular in a lot of other contexts, even though it's so false and so destructive:

We have only so much time and only so much available in the way of neural resources to throw back at all the problems life throws at us. Earning a living eats up a bunch of the ordinary person’s time-and-brainpower budget, while seeing to children and family, managing a household, maintaining friendships and social obligations, etc., demands most of what’s left — or, for many busy people, more. I’d like to learn French and, if I dedicated a couple of hours a day to it, I could make some real progress in a year or two, I’m sure. But if I take into consideration all the other things I might do with that one or two hours a day, learning French ends up not making the cut. (So far.) That doesn’t mean that I lack the capacity to learn a Romance language or that I hold the works of François Rabelais in low regard. My ongoing ignorance of the French language is rational — there are other uses of my time and resources that better serve my overall ends in life….

Imagine you are a 35-year-old mother or father: If you had spent two hours a day for the past ten years reading up on the details of federal fiscal policy instead of investing that time in your children, would you or your family be happier or better off? Unlikely….

The fact that most people who don’t make their living thinking about politics tend not to think very much or very carefully about politics does not mean that they are not interested in politics or do not care about it. Far from it.

We know how Americans spend their time. The subject has been studied by a lot of people from a lot of different angles. Take, for instance, the Department of Labor's annual research on the topic. See our posts under the Time Management label for other relevant material.

Given that about three-quarters of Americans can't name the three branches of government, nearly half can't name the current vice president, most can't name the four gospels, etc., how busy would they have to be with their jobs, parenting, and so on to explain that level of ignorance? Are they that busy with activities like the ones Williamson refers to? No. They spend large amounts of time on trivial television programs and movies, sports, unnecessary housework and yardwork, reading trivial books, etc. I frequently hear from people, grown adults, who say that they either don't want to retire or want to leave retirement in order to return to their jobs, because there isn't enough to do in retirement. It bores them. Apparently, activities like studying theology, evangelism, apologetics, missions, serving in the local church, prayer, politics, being involved in moral movements in our culture, etc. aren't interesting enough. If they can't find enough trivial activities to fill their time up with - watching trivial television programs, following sports, playing video games, sewing, knitting, cooking, doing trivial things with friends and relatives, and so on - then they want a trivial career to help fill up the time.

Then there's the issue of multitasking. If Americans are as busy with activities like working a job and parenting as people like Williamson suggest (they're not), then why don't they acquire more knowledge of subjects like religion and politics through listening to the Bible while driving their car, listening to audio files while doing housework, etc.? People frequently have earbuds on while working their job, while doing yardwork, and in other contexts. What are they listening to? More trivialities, for the most part. Trivial and vulgar music. Humor. Sporting events. That kind of thing. They could be spending that time on matters like theology, apologetics, and politics. They don't want to.

We're a nation with desperately false priorities and horrible time management. We need to be more honest about that. If we're not even diagnosing the problem rightly, how likely are we to solve the problem?

Atheism, trust, and friendship

Atheists complain that they are distrusted. Being atheists, they think that's unfair. Sheer prejudice.

But here's the problem: it's not directly about morality. There are atheists who inconsistently believe in morality. So it's not that they can't be trusted because they are immoral or amoral–although some certainly are. And, indeed, atheists are far more likely to deny moral realism than Christians. So the odds are that they are less trustworthy in that respect.

But that's not the main thing. It's less about morality than mortality. If you think this life is all there is, then are you going to do the right thing even if that puts you at personal risk? I'm not saying you don't have brave atheists, but from the standpoint of mortality, isn't that foolhardy? 

To take a cliche example, suppose you're gentile and your best friend is Jewish. But then the Nazis come to power. You still want to be his friend. But there's now a conflict between self-interest and altruism. Are you prepared to risk your life or freedom to remain his friend?

From a secular standpoint, isn't that irrational? So that has an indirect effect on your commitment to morality. In a pinch, can your Jewish friend trust you to watch his back? Or is the price too high? In normal times, your friendship isn't costly. Indeed, your friendship is mutually agreeable. But now that friendship is politically dangerous. If this life is all there is, will you hazard your life or freedom to protect him? Or will you protect yourself? 

The acid test of friendship is taking a risk–even a grave risk–for your friends. That's a gamble. And if you can't afford to lose the bet, you can't be a real friend, you can't be a friend when it matters most. When the stakes are high, that's why he needs a friend–and that's when the stakes are too high for you to be his friend. It isn't safe to be around him. 

Atheism, Amoralism, and Arationalism

"Atheism, Amoralism, and Arationalism" by Prof. James Anderson.

Olympic Flip-Flopper

Nobody's better at flip-flopping than I am. I have the best flips. The best flops. The best. Believe me. I promise. It's going to be terrific.

The Shallowness Of The Trump Movement

Something I recently sent in an email:

It's not just Trump, but the Trump movement in general. They don't think in much depth, which includes a failure to plan ahead much. As some commentators have noted lately, Trump's supporters have shown little interest in defeating incumbents or making other changes in political contexts other than the current presidential campaign. What have Trump supporters been doing to change Congress, to change governors and state legislatures, etc.? Not much. I spent months last year trying to reason with Trump supporters in National Review's comment threads, and one of the questions I asked them was how Trump was going to work with Congress. They had no good answer, and most seemed uninterested in even addressing the subject. We can also look at this in terms of what happened before Trump entered the race. How many of Trump's supporters were calling for him to run before he got in? Only a tiny percentage of them. How many were even calling for somebody like Trump, regardless of whether they mentioned Trump by name? Few.

Here's something Ramesh Ponnuru wrote on this subject yesterday:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/434328/trumpisms-missing-middle

Trump Talks About His "Bravery" As A "Soldier" Who Avoids STDs From The Women He Has Sex With

See here. If Trump becomes the nominee, we can expect a lot more of that sort of material to come out and get widespread media attention.

One of the commenters in the thread linked above writes:

"Living in the tri-state area, I've listened to Stern on commutes for years. And I can attest that there is a treasure trove of Trump interviews to be mined for this type of revelatory material. And the sooner it's unearthed, the sooner we can hold a mirror up to evangelicals still supporting Trump and ask them if this is what they want to be part and parcel to when they deliver their vote"

Vote For Yourself

I was listening to Sean Hannity's radio program yesterday. I heard him say that the Republicans in Congress should have done the right thing, regardless of the political consequences. I got the impression that what he meant was that they should have put forward various policy proposals, voted for particular pieces of legislation, etc., regardless of how the media, voters, and other people would have responded. It's a common sentiment. Do the right thing, regardless of the cost.

The problem is, it's not always the right thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with something like voting for a piece of legislation that only gives you half of what you want while giving you other things you don't want. There's nothing inherently wrong with voting for a less conservative candidate who's more electable than a more conservative one. Sometimes, short-term setbacks prepare the way for better victories over the long run. You gain something more valuable by giving up something less valuable. We all apply such standards in many contexts in our lives, but some people act as though we can never do that in politics.

So, why don't they vote for themselves? Who do they agree with more? Sure, you aren't running for office. And your electability would be poor even if you were running. But so what? Do the right thing. Stand on principle. Vote for yourself. Don't settle for voting for somebody like Trump or Cruz. That's an unethical compromise. You don't agree with them as much as you agree with yourself. And that's the only thing that matters.

John Chrysostom Condemns Neglect Of Apologetics

In a culture like the United States, in which people have such significant advantages and responsibilities that Chrysostom's audience didn't have, every pastor should be speaking this way. So should other people in positions of influence. Notice that Chrysostom includes the poor in his criticism. Even they should be involved in apologetics and should be criticized when they neglect it. In societies like the United States, we often classify people as poor when they aren't poor by historical and global standards. But even when Chrysostom was addressing people poorer than the average allegedly poor person in America, he held those individuals accountable for being involved in apologetics. If pastors, parents, teachers, and other people in positions of influence would speak this way, we'd have a much better culture. Read through to the end, as the focus moves more and more to apologetics. Notice how the faults and excuses Chrysostom demolishes are so similar to the ones we see in our day:

Mature Anger

We can be angry without sinning (Ephesians 4:26). The anger needs to be kept under control and be rightly directed.

One of the many problems with the current movement in support of Donald Trump as a presidential candidate is that it seems to be motivated largely by immature anger. I've given some examples in previous threads. What I want to focus on here is how misdirected the anger is.