Carl Trueman gets weird

 If the Gospel Coalition's website is a reliable indicator, Carl Trueman's recent "The Failure of Evangelical Elites" in First Things has garnered thoughtful attention. I'm not sure why.

Trueman's thesis appears in the essay's second paragraph: "accommodation appeals to those who seek a seat at the table among ­society’s elite." "Those" are the university-educated elites of evangelicalism who, as he puts it later on, "[talk] in an outraged voice about racism within the boundaries set by the woke culture." From these statements and from the rest of the essay, Trueman clearly suspects their motives. Is he being fair or reasonable?

Trueman begins his discussion with Friedrich Schleiermacher, who made a great show of challenging liberal protestantism while conceding, upholding and endorsing all its tenets. While "On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers" is a truly awesome polemical title, the actual content was the exact opposite. From Schleiermacher, Trueman moves on to Mark Noll and George Marsden, who in the 1990s made a compelling argument for the recovery of Christian intellectualism in these United States. On the one hand, Trueman affirms the legitimacy and orthodoxy of that project ("And unlike ­Schleiermacher’s, I find their arguments convincing."), but with the other he denies it ("Nevertheless, a sociological comparison of their project with Schleiermacher’s is legitimate.") With this move, evangelical intellectuals "committed to a thoroughgoing supernatural Christian orthodoxy" are nonetheless associated with protestant liberalism, a counterfeit of the Christian faith.

This is guilt by association. Not only is it not nice, it's a logical fallacy.

Trueman makes a valid point when he considers the example of Francis Collins, the evangelical scientist who is head of the National Institutes of Health. Indeed, one might reasonably hope an agency headed by a faithful Christian would not so enthusiastically sponsor the use of genetic material taken from aborted babies in research and development. However, the pointedness drifts when he begins writing about "evangelical elites" and "Christian leaders." He may have specific persons in mind, but by not naming names, one is unable to check whether certain persons are actually the mealy-mouthed compromisers he implies they are.

Rhetorically, we call this a "glittering generality," which also happens to be a logical fallacy.

Trueman seems very annoyed by evangelicals who call for repentance from America's original sin of racism without simultaneously denouncing abortion and gender dysphoria affirmation. The money line in this piece comes toward the close.

Let me put it bluntly: Talking in an outraged voice about racism within the boundaries set by the woke culture is an excellent way of not talking about the pressing moral issues on which ­Christianity and the culture are opposed to each other: LGBTQ+ rights and abortion.

That sounds really good, until one remembers that Carl Trueman is a confessional presbyterian writing for a journal which toes the most Tridentine Roman Catholic line possible without drifting into outright Lefebvrism. To illustrate, I suggest a rewrite.

Let me put it bluntly: Talking in an outraged voice about evangelicals who oppose racism within the boundaries set by an apostate Anglican conservative Roman Catholic editor is an excellent way of not talking about the pressing theological issues on which ­Protestantism and Romanism are opposed to each other: justification by faith alone and the sole authority of Scripture.

In other words, Carl Trueman finds working with papists a rewarding and helpful way to promote ideas near and dear to him; he doesn't need to prosecute the material causes of the Protestant Reformation (i.e. the doctrines on which the faith stands or falls) at every turn. Good for him! Is it not possible that some of his coreligionists find working with secularists a rewarding and helpful way to promote ideas near and dear to them?

If I may point out the obvious, Mr. Trueman's lived experience in these United States is in the suburban outposts of Pennsylvania's two largest cities. His concerns about these United States, gathered from that lived experience, are entirely valid. At the same time, so are the concerns of those of us who have lived in parts of the United States which are not Pennsylvania. In fact, I tend to agree with many "evangelical elites" who think it is possible, and even necessary, to make inroads against systemic racism even if one is not directly addressing abortion on demand.

In sum, Carl Trueman's argument is just plain odd: anti-Trump evangelicals are posers petitioning for worldly acceptance because they argue against racism without, in the exact same breath, denouncing abortion on demand and LGBTQ+ rights. To put it mildly, I am not persuaded.

While I am a natural-born U.S. citizen under color of law, I was not born on American soil and so try to believe that other late-comers to our shores may understand our great country and her citizens, Christian or otherwise. At the present moment, Carl Trueman is not making that easy.

Regarding "The Bible and Black Lives Matter"

  I was extremely disappointed by the article “The Bible and Black Lives Matter” in the September 2020 issue of New Horizons. The author writes to explain BLM to Orthodox Presbyterians, but as he introduces his theme he demonstrates a lack of understanding of the issues and terminology which inform it. In discussing whether the death of George Floyd represents an instance of “systemic racial injustice,” he objects that we cannot know the heart of the police officer who killed Floyd and, therefore, whether that man was racially motivated. At the article’s very beginning, then, there is a confusion between “systemic racism” and “individual racism.” This is unfortunate because the two are very different things: as all the relevant literature notes, systemic racism can exist in institutions and societies even when the individuals in them have no racist beliefs.

This error is distressing because it undermines the reader’s confidence in the author’s ability to explain BLM. If he does not understand a concept central to the movement, can he be relied upon to clearly represent anything else about it? This problem is doubly distressing because the reader looks to New Horizons for pastoral guidance on social, ethical and theological issues. Pastoral guidance founded on ignorance may be well-intentioned, but neither can nor should be trusted.

Your every nightmare is true

Two-headed snakes! Two-headed snakes!

Rare two-headed snake, 'Double Dave', found in US

A denial of the Bible's teaching on sin

Our old friend John MacArthur is again warning one segment of the evangelical world against the inclinations of another segment of the evangelical world. This time, he is very very concerned about interest in "social justice." His is the first name listed amongst the signers of "The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel," a series of affirmations and denials.

As I've noted before, online doctrinal statements rarely reflect the care, wisdom and sanity found in the Reformation-era confessions, and, sadly, this "Statement" is no exception. Like many such statements (and unlike the Canons of Dort), its denials and affirmations engage not with actual positions held and statements made by real people, but with what appear to be straw-man representations. Today, however, I want to deal with a much more specific, and doctrinally troubling, problem. With regard to the doctrine of sin, it states,

WE DENY that, other than the previously stated connection to Adam, any person is morally culpable for another person’s sin. Although families, groups, and nations can sin collectively, and cultures can be predisposed to particular sins, subsequent generations share the collective guilt of their ancestors only if they approve and embrace (or attempt to justify) those sins. Before God each person must repent and confess his or her own sins in order to receive forgiveness. We further deny that one’s ethnicity establishes any necessary connection to any particular sin.

This denial falls short of the whole Bible's teaching on sin when it attempts to distance subsequent generations from the collective guilt of their ancestors. Consider the prayers recorded in Ezra 9, Nehemiah 1 and Nehemiah 9. Ezra-Nehemiah records the history of the Restoration, when the Lord brought the Jews back from Exile into Judea. Those generations (the process took decades) most emphatically did not approve, embrace or attempt to justify the sins of their forebears. Nonetheless, their prayers confessed that they shared the guilt of their ancestors.

From the days of our fathers to this day we have been in great guilt. And for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been given into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as it is today. (Ezra 9:7) 

[L]et your ear be attentive and your eyes open, to hear the prayer of your servant that I now pray before you day and night for the people of Israel your servants, confessing the sins of the people of Israel, which we have sinned against you. Even I and my father’s house have sinned. We have acted very corruptly against you and have not kept the commandments, the statutes, and the rules that you commanded your servant Moses. (Nehemiah 1:6-7) 

Even in their own kingdom, and amid your great goodness that you gave them, and in the large and rich land that you set before them, they did not serve you or turn from their wicked works. Behold, we are slaves this day; in the land that you gave to our fathers to enjoy its fruit and its good gifts, behold, we are slaves. And its rich yield goes to the kings whom you have set over us because of our sins. (Nehemiah 9:35-37)

Clearly, the Restoration generations believed they shared their ancestors' guilt, and that they needed to repent for it. Given that both Ezra and Nehemiah spoke and prayed prophetically as messengers of the Lord, today's Church is obliged to receive the model of the Restoration-era Church as a guide for our own doctrine and practice.

I'm glad the drafters of "The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel" are zealous to preserve the integrity of the Biblical Gospel. Sadly, their sub-Biblical understanding of sin and repentance means they are failing to do so.


[NOTE: If I remember correctly, it was Karl Dortzbach (a long-serving missionary in Africa and, perhaps more importantly, the son of one of my predecessors in my current call) who I first heard point out this theme in Nehemiah 1 during a talk at the 2003 Peacemakers conference. My own subsequent work in Ezra-Nehemiah has confirmed the importance and pervasiveness of cross-generational repentance in this Biblical book.]

Radio & redemption

I know nothing of Ben Kingsley's spiritual formation, but he made a deeply Christian observation about the nature of man while being interviewed on August 29 by Rachel Martin on NPR's Morning Edition regarding his role as Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann in the recently released film Operation Finale: 

But these people — however difficult it might be for us to swallow — were human beings. …For the years of extermination between 1933 and 1945, it was men and women who did this. It was not my duty to humanize anything because tragically, it's already human.

As Kingsley implies, we all have a tendency to distance ourselves from evildoers so that, unconsciously or elsewise, we can categorize them as something other than human. To the extent they are sufficiently distanced, they can be cut off from membership in society. 

The problem, of course, is that evildoers, sinners, are in fact fully human and on occasion try to enter human society. That problem was exposed during a discussion the previous evening on NPR's All Things Considered about the comedian and cinéaste Louis C.K., lately revealed as a serial sexual harasser, who had attempted a return to the stage on August 27. During that discussion, Ailsa Chang asked, "And what makes someone deserving of redemption?"

Unsurprisingly, a clear answer was not forthcoming.

In the May 2011 issue of First Things, Wilfred McClay asked, "But how, in a society that retains its Judeo-Christian moral reflexes but has abandoned the corresponding metaphysics, can a credible means of discharging the weight of sin be found?" In this #MeToo moment, we should be grateful that sexism and sexual harassment are being identified as the sins they are. At the same time, we are slowly beginning to realize that the sinners and evildoers are human beings just like the rest of us. If none of them can do anything to deserve redemption, then none of us, no human being, can deserve redemption.

Of course, that's the thing about redemption. "Redeem," properly understood, is not a reflexive verb but a transitive one. One cannot redeem oneself: one must be redeemed by another. If our society has rediscovered the self-evident truth that humans are sinners and evildoers, then perhaps it's ready to hear about the God who redeems sinners.

Reusable bags mean the terrorists have won

Apparently, al-shabaab has banned plastic bags. You know what to do, America.

I am going to live forever

The more coffee you drink, the longer you live, because science. So there, my tea-sipping enemies.

And please note: black is better.

I am so, so happy.

"Masterpiece Cakeshop" as a harbinger of defeat

First Things posted excellent analyses of the recent Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court decision by R.R. Reno, Hadley Arkes, and Darel E. Paul last week. As Paul notes, the extremely narrow decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, does not represent a victory for religious liberty but instead is a "harbinger of defeat."

Masterpiece Cakeshop is owned by baker Jack Phillips, who declined to make a custom wedding cake for a homosexual couple due to his Christian convictions. The couple complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which held against him. Phillips made his appeal primarily on free speech grounds: namely, were he to be required to design a cake which promoted a point of view to which he objects, that would be a form of state-compelled speech. Curiously, the religious liberty question receded to the background of the case. Yet more curiously, Kennedy's ruling addressed neither of these First Amendment issues, but instead overturned the Commission because one of its commissioners spoke of Phillips' religious convictions in disparaging terms.

In other words, as Reno puts it, the Commission failed to be sufficiently nice for Kennedy's tastes. But as Reno argues,

So Kennedy has always been deluded. Every use of anti-discrimination rhetoric necessarily demonizes those who do not join the chorus of affirmation. …The Colorado commissioner who implied that Jack Phillips was “despicable” was simply following through on the cultural logic. Kennedy is kidding himself if he thinks he can use the postwar anti-discrimination tradition to empower the LGBT agenda—while at the same time preventing religious believers and others from being attacked legally, economically, and culturally.

The commentary on Slate's "Amicus" podcast supported Reno's point when Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern described the commissioner's comments as reasonable characterizations. When reading the various opinions from the Supreme Court justices, it appears the majority of the Court differs from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission not on substance, but on style. That offers little hope for those of us who agree with Jack Phillips.

"Churches," not "Church"

I direct your attention to the Washington Post article, "The sin of silence: the epidemic of denial about sexual abuse in the evangelical church," not so we may discuss its subject, but instead so that we may discuss the way in which it discusses its subject. To wit: is there such thing as an "evangelical church" which exists in the manner that headline implies it exists? 

As author Joshua Pease writes, "Without a centralized theological body, evangelical policies and cultures vary radically…." Precisely so. There is no evangelical Church: there are only evangelical Churches.

Evangelicalism is a diverse social, theological and ecclesiological phenomenon: it includes a wide range of types of Church government, from congregational to presbyterian to episcopal. The very fact that it encompasses nearly every sort of Church government imaginable means there is not, nor can ever be, an evangelical "Church" in a manner comparable to the "Roman Catholic Church." While the "Church of Rome" itself contains a surprisingly diverse portfolio of theological views and its governing structures are somewhat more complex and sophisticated than most Protestants grasp, it is nonetheless a defined body with a clear hierarchical authority structure, and therefore one may reasonably ask, "Is there an epidemic of denial about sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church?" Bishops may or may not enforce discipline, cardinals may or may not pressure the pontiff to enact and enforce clear policies, but whatever may occur we know who is in charge and who to hold accountable. We (or at least the media and Roman Catholics) may be able to determine who to call in order both to get answers and to get something done.

Not so amongst evangelical Churches. One congregation has excellent accountability structures, while another has none whatsoever; these contrasts are found even between Churches which are nominally part of the same "network" (ex. Acts 29) or "convention" (ex. the Southern Baptists). As Pease writes, 

Diagnosing the scope of the problem isn’t easy, because there’s no hard data. …The problem in collecting data stems, in part, from the loose or nonexistent hierarchy in evangelicalism.

I'm not picking on Pease because I'm a pedant (or at least, not only because I'm a pedant), but because the headline of his article (which he may not have written himself) is only the latest example of a chronic problem to cross my transom. Particularly when discussing perceived problems within evangelical congregations, writers and speakers will refer broadly to "the evangelical Church" or "the Reformed Church," and ask why "the evangelical Church" or "the Reformed Church" doesn't do something about "x." The answer is not, as seems often to be assumed, that "the evangelical Church" is indifferent; it is that there is no evangelical Church. Accordingly, it is impossible to reform, or even change, the evangelical Church.

Next week the 85th General Assembly of my communion, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, is to meet on the campus of Wheaton College, that famed evangelical redoubt. As a Church, the OPC can make changes (to Church government, for example) which affect every member congregation because the OPC is a Church (singular) which operates under a unified system of government. If the OPC suffers an epidemic of denial about sexual abuse (and it's not my purpose here to suggest it does), then our system of government offers genuine hope that something can be done about it.

I sympathize with those who wish to reform the evangelical Church, with regard to sexual abuse or anything else. As my own professional vocation has been, in part, to play the role of reformer in a small way, I know what the struggle is like. I have had the advantage, however, of working within clearly defined government structures as I have pursued my reform agenda. Those who wish to reform the evangelical Church would do well to recognize there are only evangelical Churches, and to ask whether the absence of a defined hierarchical government is not itself a part of the problem they seek to redress and reform.

The Hon. Steve Hogan

Steve Hogan, mayor of my hometown of Aurora, Colorado, died yesterday. He went fast; it was only two months ago he announced he had cancer. I didn't know him well, but he struck me as a kind and decent man. 

When my Cub Scout den was required to visit a public official, I found the mayor's e-mail address on the Aurora government website. I was surprised that he personally replied to my request, given that Aurora is the 54th largest city in these United States. He took it upon himself to meet my Cub Scouts on a Monday evening and personally gave us a tour of the city council chambers, the municipal building, and his office. He was patient with my boys, who seemed most interested in a candy dish.

I'm sorry he's gone. We need more of his sort in high office and public life.

Has man been abolished?

Our congregation's reading group recently finished discussing C.S. Lewis's The Abolition of Man, a collection of three lectures he delivered in 1943. In the first ("Men without Chests"), he observes how a presupposition that all values are subjective was being propagated in the British schools of his day. (And now in the American public schools of our day, where children are taught to classify "the sky is blue" as "fact," and "God is good" as "opinion.") In the second ("The Way"), he refutes the theory that values are subjective, and labels as the "Tao" the objectively real virtues which have been discovered, recognized, and taught by all cultures across time and space. In his third lecture (the titular "Abolition of Man"), Lewis explores the consequences for humanity should his society's elites succeed in their project to condition all people to believe values truly are subjective. (Spoiler alert: said consequences are not good.) While the book is a warning against a possible abolition of man, this last lecture strikes a fairly pessimistic note (at least to my ears).

The Abolition of Man is widely praised as a rigorous piece of moral philosophy, and justly so. I've always thought of it as the theoretical background for That Hideous Strength, which is hands-down my favorite of C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy novels. Still, I wondered whether, seventy-some years on, western anglophone culture continues to move in the direction projected by Lewis. If anything, culture seems to be much more atomized and individualistic as the control of elites (in politics, entertainment, education, etc.) has been eroded by the media explosion birthed by the webernet’s arrival. If elites no longer dictate the culture's direction, then they cannot condition our beliefs.

Hence, I am grateful to be reading together with other thoughtful Christians. One of our interlocutors asked whether the transhumanist movement, which seeks to transcend human limitations by genetic tinkering and such, represents a rejection of humanity itself. With that, a penny dropped in the vast and vacant recesses of my mind. 

Over the last few years, I've become accustomed to reading stories in Denver's journal of record which begin with something like "Dylan was assigned as a male at birth." Give heed to that verb, "assigned." One is assigned to a homeroom class at the beginning of high school, and to a cabin at the beginning of summer camp. No one in the history of the entire human race, or of any other mammalian species while we're at it, has ever been "assigned" a gender. Rather, the gender of every single human being has been DISCOVERED by a cursory visual inspection. While gender expression is a subject fraught with tension and subject to cultural variety, in human society gender is universally controlled by one's sex, full stop.

This editorial cartoon gets the matter exactly right. If a girl can be a Boy Scout, there is no meaningful relationship between the thing and the thing's descriptor. There is, then, no way to determine what a thing is; instead, the thing's essence is fluid, undetermined, and defined only by whim. Accordingly, there's no way to determine what a thing is because it has no essence. Instead of a square knot, we have only a tangled mess.

In logic, the argument from the lesser to greater holds that if a statement is true regarding the lesser thing, it is all the more true for the greater thing which encompasses the lesser. It seems to me that in the realm of objectively discovered fact, gender identity is far more obvious, and easily discoverable, than moral truth. If our culture is now at a point of rejecting the objective reality of gender identity, then that of moral truth was long ago abandoned.

As Westminster Shorter Catechism #10 helpfully reminds us, mankind images God precisely in his moral attributes of knowledge, righteousness, and holiness (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10). If morality has no fixed content, and our bodies have no fixed identities, then humanity is not in the image of the eternal and unchanging God.

In other words, there's no point in heeding Lewis's warning that the abolition of man is coming. Man has already been abolished.

Après cela, le déluge

This brief notice from WORLD magazine signals what could very well be the beginning of the end of the way of life assumed by countless evangelical congregations across these United States. The vast majority of Churches are small (under 100 members) and entirely self-supporting; even those which are part of denominations rarely receive regular budget support from broader ecclesial bodies. The clergy housing allowance tax exemption is a little-appreciated mechanism by which they're able to stretch their dollars a little bit further.

The housing tax exemption evolved as a way to level the playing field between Churches which provide parsonages for their pastors, and ones which expect the pastor to provide for his own housing. In the first case, the Church owns the pastor's house, and so the government does not tax it. In the second case, the monies paid to the pastor to enable him to pay rent or a mortgage (and the costs of maintaining a domicile) are not taxed. If this ruling in Wisconsin is upheld on appeal, Protestant clergy could lose their right to the housing tax exemption and congregations would have to have to pay them that much more to compensate for the additional tax burden. Yes, that would be only a few thousand dollars more a year. However, given the extremely thin margins of most Church budgets, that additional tax burden could easily put a full-time pastor out of the reach of many small congregations.

I've written at length on the implications of such a development for the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in my "Manifesto for the OPC." This court case may be the chink in the conservative Churches' dam against the rising flood of legal hostility to the cause of Christ. Remember: Noah built the ark before the rains began.

What happens when you decorate for Halloween too early

'Decapitated man' Halloween display in Tennessee sparks 911 calls

Respect the seasons, people. It's not even the vernal equinox yet.

Insert dope joke here

A couple months ago I participated in a discussion of the impact of marijuana's legalization on Colorado and the Churches here. An edited transcript is the cover story in the most recent Reformed Presbyterian Witness.

I should also note that the RP Witness's editor sent me a copy of The Book of Psalms for Worship as a thank-you gift, so I totally recommend participating in any discussion to which you're invited by your Reformed Presbyterian Church in North America pastor friends.

Another reason I will never leave Colorado

After last week's Bible camp in the bucolic Black Hills of South Dakota, I'm done with all the out-of-state travels planned for this summer, and apparently just in the nick of time. According to this survey, Colorado's are amongst the most polite in these United States. From this, I can only conclude that the rest of the nation has been overtaken by war boys on motorcycles festively bedazzled with human skulls, riding in convoy with mutants playing flame-throwing electric guitars across the apocalyptic landscape in search of potable water and oil refineries.

On the upside, there probably aren't any highways left onto which fellow drivers won't let you merge.

News I can use

My father died of a massive heart attack at the age of 78, and my paternal grandfather of heart disease in his mid-60s. In order to beat my dismal odds, and in line with my policy of following medical advice I like, I will be sure to maintain my daily dose of chocolate, per the counsel of the latest most absolutely reliable medical study.

Also, since I always make sure to eat the red and blue peanut M&Ms for their antioxidants, I will never get cancer.

A word to the historically ignorant

Perhaps you, like I, have heard it asserted that yesterday was the first time ever a Vice-President broke a tie vote in the U.S. Senate to confirm a Cabinet nominee.

To which I can only say, balderdash and folderol! First time ever, my foot!

That is precisely the determinative plot point in Advise and Consent! (The film version, at least. I think the book had somewhat different conclusion.) What are they teaching in high school civics classes these days?

Oh, wait. There are no high school civics classes these days.

A Canticle for Leibowitz

A Canticle for Leibowitz is Walter Miller's 1960 retelling of Western history through the lens of the monastic movement, but set in the American West after an apocalyptic nuclear war in the late 20th century. I read it after my Hindu neighbor insisted on loaning me his copy after we got into a discussion of comic books and science fiction during a Diwali party his family was hosting; such is ordinary life for a conservative presbyterian pastor these days.

As the Wikipedia notes, Canticle is widely recognized as a literary masterpiece, even being the stuff of dissertations and such. It's categorized as science fiction (since it spans the 27th to the 38th centuries), but as I note above, it's not really science fiction so much as an attempt to dramatize the role of the Church and persons religious in the development of the West during the first two millennia of Christendom. Much of the plot, such as it is, of Canticle's three sections focuses on the preservation of books and, later, development of the learning contained therein. But if that were all Canticle is, it would be little more than a presaging of Thomas Cahill's lamentably oversimplified How the Irish Saved Civilization.

Instead, Miller shows how the Church laid the foundation for Western civilization by insisting on the doctrine of the imago dei, man made in the image of God. In Canticle's first section, "Fiat Homo," the Church insists that those grotesquely mutated by nuclear fallout nonetheless are fully human and must be treated as such. In its second section, "Fiat Lux," an all-too unpleasantly human abbot boldly declares abominable a secular philosopher's suggestion that the men of their day are some kind of lesser, man-created beings precisely because that would make them something other than a reflection of God himself. While the third section, "Fiat Voluntas Lux," builds to another nuclear war, its centerpiece conflict is a debate between an abbot and a government official over euthanasia for the those in horrible suffering. According to Miller, mankind perennially and perversely denies his own humanity by refusing to value actual human beings and their lives; the Church and her members must bear witness against this dehumanization and insist that learning be founded on a Christian humanism.

As Miller tells the tale, it seems the Church is always on the losing side of the argument, but nonetheless her humanistic values work their way into civilization's warp and woof. I think he's right, and it's a fact worth remembering in these dark days for the citizens of the former American Republic. The Great State of Colorado, in which I consider it a privilege to live, just ratified a measure allowing for "assisted suicide" (one of the currently favored euphemisms for "euthanasia"). Our nation's misbegotten electoral college has permitted election to the office of President a man who aggressively dehumanizes all, individually and collectively, with the temerity to displease him. Humanism itself has fallen upon such hard times that the very notion is associated primarily with aggressive secularity, not the imago dei, and Christians shut down at its very mention. From my vantage point, all signs are that we have lost the argument.

In these dark days, A Canticle for Leibowitz helpfully reminds us that the Church's simple duty is to bear witness to the truth of God's Word, which against all common sense teaches us that man is made in the image of God to such an extent that God himself could become a man. Church history teaches us that we will lose many, many arguments, but because of God's grace and Spirit the Church will continue to bear humanity through the ashes of the destruction mankind repetitively and continually wreaks upon himself.

Regarding the clownpocalypse

So yesterday there was this news story regarding Ronald McDonald's decision to forego public appearances for a while lest he inadvertently traumatize youngsters sensitized to the ongoing "creepy clown" epidemic. Then I read in this morning's paper how several Colorado school districts are banning clown costumes this Halloween. 

Brighton 27J has also decided to ban clown costumes. “We believe it is the best way to avoid perpetuating any clown fear or paranoia in our schools,” superintendent Dr. Chris Fielder wrote in a letter to parents in the district.

Right. Because how better to tamp down paranoia over creepy clowns than by FORBIDDING SMALL  CHILDREN TO WEAR CLOWN COSTUMES FOR HALLOWEEN?

Good call, educators.

duh

According to the latest entry in the category "studies made necessary by the profound conviction that anything which makes people happy must be bad," coffee probably doesn't cause cancer. I've long know this. In fact, because colorful fruits are antioxidants, and because coffee is made from colorful beans, it's full of antioxidants. I can science too, people.

While we're on the subject, I love, love, love my pod coffeemaker, the most useful office supply in my study. Don't give anyone else this tip, but if you go to Starbucks the day after Christmas, you can get the Christmas blend coffee pods for half-price. Whilst doing this back in December, a store manager gave me, for free, a couple boxes of Thanksgiving blend pods. According to my daily afternoon coffee consumption rate, I calculate I'm set until August.

Coffee. Life is good.