40 Comments

An America which is in Romans 1 as you note and also is in what Mark Levin accurately terms its "post-Constitutional" phase is in deep trouble, regardless of what the purely religious authorities say. Never mind the carrying on of various pop culture figures; that we are seriously adding trillions of dollars in liabilities to our national balance sheet, which we are, seems to me that we have quickly and forever abandoned any semblance of the sort of public morality which would otherwise prevent us from ruining the lives of our children, grandchildren, and generations as yet unborn. That also reflects on the fact that our abandoning private morality to the degree we have has caused us to decide that the pursuit of each person's "personal truth" had blinded us to realizing that there is in fact but ONE truth; immutable, absolute, and forever unchanging, based in the moral codes that a sane society abandons at its peril. Future generations will, I believe, curse our personal and public recklessness, with perfect justification in doing so.

Expand full comment

Part of the challenge is selarating out respect for differing opinions from simple pushback by those who rightly don't trust the purveyors of single-minded thinking. I trust vaccines in general, and I think of myself as a scientist. However, while I see why some people are reluctant to get the vaccine, I do not assume it is because they don't think vaccines work. It is because to endorse the vaccine means that one's position on vaccines being voluntary is obscured. If I think the vaccine works, it is assumed that I have no right to respect those who believe they are more vulnerable to side effects, and when I criticize mixed messages, I am accused of "misinformation," even though I am not the naked naked Emperor in the story.

When scientists insist on using contradictory information, they have no moral right to demand obeisance. It's not the caccine that is the mark of the beast, it's the whole package of demanding agreement and praise of evil.

Expand full comment

Sadly, we're facing a similar challenge on the Christian front regarding virology that we faced with the Scopes Monkey Trial about evolution. We tend to have a belief that no one could possibly be correct from outside the church, or perhaps our immediate contacts within the Body, so we reject any argument out of hand without any actual thought or analysis.

Lesson Learned in Scopes Monkey Trial - don't bring a Bible to a legal forum where (pseudo)science is argued, even when opposition's (pseudo)science is considered inadmissible (as was done by Judge John Raulston). Clarence Darrow did a masterful job of dissecting William Jennings Bryan's literal Biblical arguments, not because he had better information, but because we brought a butter knife to a legal-minded gun fight. Assuming that fundamental beliefs would be blindly accepted in a legal trial against clever challenges brought by Darrow was short-sighted, and indeed, desirous in the long run.

Today, we may be facing a similar challenge in our fight with the (pseudo)science of Fauci. It is less a matter of faith and more a matter of critical thinking regarding the context of today's battle. What we must recall is that even our most faithful shepherds are still human, frail beings with presuppositions and proclivities despite the wisdom they dispense on a daily basis.

Some of us want the end times so badly that any other answer is unacceptable, even heretical. Some are willing to hold to specific interpretations of events described in Scripture and willfully reject any other thinking outright. An example: interpretation of the book of Revelation by Preterist vs. partial-Preterist vs. literal proponents. For those who are unfamiliar with these terms, look them up. As Christians, we should be more familiar with one another and our particular thoughts on theological items [BTW, this Revelation issue is really a "minor" rather than a "major" topic - they are different means of reading a difficult piece of Scripture from historical contexts, not something to divide churches over]. For us to be "One Body in Christ", it's important to know what hands, feet, eyes, ears, etc. all add to the the Body (I Cor. 12:12-26).

IMO, we Christians by-and-large refuse to be Berens lately. We cling to our interpretations rather than examining ALL of Scripture to ensure the historical context is not abandoned in the face of desired outcome. Do I WANT Jesus to come today? Absolutely! Does a vaccine usher in the Beast? We have no idea, though a careful examination of Revelation would reveal that the mark of the Beast is a voluntary and purposeful action indicating acceptance of the Ruler of this World and rejection of the LORD Himself. I purposefully follow Jesus, I also purposefully got the J&J vaccine, not because I am afraid of COVID for myself, but because my 82 year old mother-in-law lives in our house - smack dab in the middle of the target demographic. I do not have "faith" it is a cure (clearly it is, at best, a mitigation for known transmission mechanisms virologists identified, I have faith that God in His Sovereignty has provided current medical science an ability to help. It was wise for me to get the shot, examining the pros and cons, while watching for warnings from Scripture. There were none.

While all Believers look forward to that Day when we're with Him in person as well as spirit, hastening that day is not called for. I do not say the vaccine is the right thing for all to take, I do say examining both medical and Biblical rationale is wise for each of us.

Expand full comment

I don't find what Dr. Fauci does to be "pseudoscience" in any way. I do find what he's doing to be a perversion of and willful abandonment of established scientific principles in the name of a purely political agenda, which is actually far worse and arguably more sinful than mere pseudoscience. The cardinal rule of science is this: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "SETTLED SCIENCE". If that were the case, then we'd still be in a world where Newtonian physics represented the alpha and omega of human thought on the issue. That it isn't, and that Einstein came along to overturn many of the notions that Newton espoused wasn't a rejection of Newton, but merely the work of a great mind, standing upon the shoulders of another great man so that he could look farther into the universe in pursuit of the truth. What Dr. Fauci and his acolytes have done and continue to do is to, despite their protestations to the contrary, flatly declare that their opinion on COVID-19 (its origin, its severity, especially in later strains such as Delta, what actions are required to fight it) represents the final and absolute word on the subject. The sheer arrogance and hubris represented by that attitude is in its own way, IMO, sinful, as it represents the assumption by mere man that he somehow has it all figured out.

As for the vaccine: My wife and I are both in that over 65 group, which based on the facts in evidence, made the decision to get vaccinated a no brainer. Einstein once said, "I do not believe that God plays dice with the Universe". That is unquestionably true, The Lord has given us free will and moral agency precisely for times such as this. He has provided us with the ability to make our own decisions; He has also warned us in Scripture of the very real consequences should we, in our pride and ego, make a decision in contravention of His will and design for the world. We aren't able, after all, to serve and honor Him if we're dead.

Expand full comment

Medical and Biblical rationale……..if on is a Christian believer and has given their life to Christ, then I believe the simplest, prudent and faithful thing to do is to pray to the Father and ask Him to tell you whether or not to take the vaccine. We pray for so many things. It seems totally appropriate to pray for wisdom in the vaccine decision. Ask the Father to please make the answer abundantly clear to you. The answer may be “yes” to one and “no” to another. It worked for me and my wife. Thank you Lord for answered prayers.

Expand full comment

Prayer is correct - no weapon in our rational thinking is a better source of help, protection and guidance.

From my perspective, prayer asked and answered. Our decision as a family was in the form of examining Scriptural responsibilities, weighing medical pros and cons against my responsibility as a son-in-law and husband. I have a responsibility to protect my 82 year old live-in mother-in-law from bringing a bug home from accidental exposure at work. While I have concerns about the unknowns in the long-term, in the short term, I must work to feed my family and use best wisdom available, even from godless atheistic medical professionals as best I can for my mother-in-laws demographic position ;-).

He is Jehovah-Rapha, and His will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.

Expand full comment

More than any of this, I am angry that I missed my chance at Butts and Bourbon. Bummer!

Expand full comment

Erick, I agree with all the scientific facts and conclusions about the left and I agree about most of what you said about Christians, but you are missing something. There is all this hype about the vaccine but hardly any communication about medical treatment. The vaccine works, that is great, but why should I be vaccinated when I already had Covid. Nobody wants to talk about treatment for a disease that is over 99% survivable. Now granted, it was not fun at all being sick, and I probably have long covid, but the vaccine is not treatment, at least not the only treatment nor the best treatment. Why don't you talk about the studies that show how people that have had covid are more resistant to covid of all strains. If it was any other disease, diabetes, Asma, cancer, Crohn's, HIV, Ebola, etc., we would be talking about treatment. We even have treatment for influenza as well as a vaccine. If I want to try the spirits and wait on the Lord, and not jump on the let's all get the vaccine wagon, it does not make me a crazy person. There is plenty of definite facts out there to make anyone skeptical of a vaccine that is not without some issues. Natural immunity should not be ignored and medical treatment for Covid-19 must take a greater place. Inevitably not everyone will be vaccinated, that is a fact, but we will still need a treatment. This will not be over, ever, just like influenza.

Expand full comment

Keep in mind that all the "science" surrounding preventing this disease really is a matter of mitigation/best guess. "We really don't know" is the honest answer from anyone, though is submerged in the rhetoric from Fauci and co.

Over time, medical science may well find more effective mitigations or possibly even a true vaccine such as that for Small Pox or Rubella. In the short term, the "vaccine" approach has yielded a level of success we did not have, say, January 2020 when it all started to blow up.

My family has direct experience with natural immunity for COVID being insufficient as a course of treatment. Our youngest son (26 yrs old, healthy, in good shape) had COVID in Feb 2020, got through it, and recently had it again in Mar 2021. Antibodies were detected from his 2020 illness (showed up in a post-sickness test). Apparently, these were insufficient to prevent his illness this year.

To your point, herd immunity, vaccine research and ongoing virology study may eventually address a true course of treatment. For today, "we don't know" is truly an accurate statement regarding this bug, and best guess mitigation with these shots seems a wise course in the short term.

Expand full comment

I was not advocating that Natural Immunity is a medical treatment, Hydroxychloroquin+zinc+azithromiacin, or Ivermectin. These are some treatments that have shown great promise, but have been too quickly dismissed. What I am saying is that a vaccine alone is not going to save the world. As long as we keep getting all these mixed messages and neglect effective treatment, more dissent will only follow when we are forced to be vaccinated. BTW, sorry for your family's illness. My family of 5 got covid for Christmas.

Expand full comment

Understand your point and agree with you. The problem with anecdotal data is it works for some, may not work for all - how do you determine those factors while trying to rescue a population in ICU who don't have time for the months-long double-blind testing? To your point (and mine), "best guess" mitigations are what we had ... and some we dumped without much actual discussion. The Ivory Tower of the CDC vs. the ER doctors fighting COVID daily was, at best, a political tussle for the ear of the public. MSM "helped" frame the narrative, put their finger of the CDC side of the scale, and, well, TDS reigned supreme in what should have been debated scientifically and statistically rather than "trial by media".

My suspicion is 5 years from now what we're talking about will be part of ongoing studies and mitigations for this nasty bug (looks like it's gonna be not-unlike the flu as a seasonal problem).

All that to say, this is a multi-faceted mess, best guesses have been more or less helpful mitigating transmission and/or symptoms, but bugs have a way of wiggling out of our scientific "boxes".

So sorry for your Christmas present :-(. Son is okay now, stands as an example that our optimistic epidemiologists' herd immunity is really just a poetical herd mentality so far.

Expand full comment

Science on natural immunity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8253687/ sorry it did not work for your son. Getting the vaccine is a crapshoot too for those of us that had covid and it does not help anyone in ICU. My point is everyone wants to talk about the vaccine and not a medical treatment.

Expand full comment

Fair enough. This entire mess has been about risk tolerance (either from the "gonna get it" side or the "cure worse than the disease" side. Everyone must determine what their level of risk tolerance is, on, frankly everything - when one drives, there's a better than average chance one may have an accident. When one does base jumping, there's a powerfully high level of opportunity to become a "splat". For me: drive, do not base jump - risk tolerance is an individual decision to make.

Expand full comment

So what you’re saying is that CRT evangelists who actively preach and try to force Americans into embracing a godless, neo-Marxist belief system should be compared to people who question the long-term safety and effectiveness of a brand new vaccine? A drug still under emergency use authorization that has still not been fully approved by the FDA and which has no long-term studies of any kind because the longest anyone has had this drug in their system is 12 months. Fear, force and shame are the primary marketing techniques that CRT evangelists employ, and funny enough, they seem to be exactly the same ones that the proponents of the vaccine use as well.

Expand full comment

What we have today is two different types of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) battling it out in our minds.

1) FUD that we get COVID and could die from it

2) FUD that these shots contain something that can be worse than COVID long term.

Today's words: "we really don't know"; a measure a faith is required to overcome both types of FUD.

Expand full comment

So when the bureaucrats get done with their diversity seminars and legalistic stalling and ully approve the vaccine for permanent use you will get it?

Expand full comment

When they get done with whatever they’re going to get done with, I will still have a choice about what I put into my body, and it should not be a religious discussion but simply the choice to or to not inject a drug into my body. I am by no means anti-VAX, but I do not like the propaganda that is getting pushed with regards to this as if it is the only way to prevent or treat this virus. if we are going to disagree, hopefully we can disagree in a civil manner.

Expand full comment

Maybe we could have an insurance surcharge like tobacco users for those that impose burdens on the majority. With that amendment I would agree with your position.

Expand full comment

I believe Paul was onto something there . . . that ancient thread of truth that runs back to Sinai, over Calvary and Mars Hill, through the city of seven hills, over the blue ocean into a new world to Plymouth to Costa Mesa and over the bigger ocean to fill the whole world with a path of righteousness that leads us out of darkness, beyond iniquity. . . to salvation and deliverance from this world of destructive behaviors.

Expand full comment

So few realize that "all people" were once apart from God--even though they are part of the elect. Until one has a relationship with the person of truth, they are unable to measure what truth "is." While Chesterton wasn't exactly a paragon of virtue, he spoke clearly when he said (and I paraphrase here), "Rejecting the truth doesn't mean you can't say truthful things, it just means you believe untruthful ones." COVID was the shaking of our Christian culture, separating wheat from chaff. Only "those who endure"--remain, trust, have faith, hold to truth--will be saved.

Expand full comment

Interesting mixed metaphors here. Which do you see as the "faithful" in the vaccine vs. COVID discussion? Sounds like your definition of the elect crosses into medical as well as spiritual realms?

Expand full comment

Forgive my incoherence. I wasn't actually intending to mix metaphors--but I am certainly guilty of using overly theological language when I most likely should not have.

Romans 1, by well-meaning people in the church--has always been applied to "those people" (people who are apart from God) and according to Scripture, are not then saved. In that passage, it begins in v.18 to describe those "who suppress the truth." In the New testament, Jesus clearly identifies Himself as "the Way, the Truth and the Life" in John 14. This is the truth to which I referred.

While the acknowledgement of truth, what is right, what is reality, is given by God to all humanity as a common grace for us to be able to understand reality, that which "is." Yet the ability to be able to measure truth consistently as an absolute, humanity must have a real and abiding, life-changing relationship with Jesus Christ who is the unchanging truth.

The "faithful" you very astutely mention, have allowed their desires and things other than Christ and Scripture to cause them to define truth inaccurately. By removing one's eyes from the person of truth revealed in Scripture, we find ourselves "ploughing crooked furrows all over the field" just as the farmer who continues to take his eyes off the one fence post which would enable him to plough in a straight line.

Your other observation is also spot on: "your definition of the elect crosses into medical as well as spiritual realms." I would refine it somewhat more by staying "it applies across medical and spiritual realms. Everything we do--every thought, every action, every decisions--comes from "inside" us, from the human spirit. As is obvious, I believe Scripture is truth. While the Bible is not a history book, a science book or a book on psychology; yet where it speaks on these things and where its truth applies to these areas, it does so truthfully.

The reason people--let's be specific, professing Christian people--become "anti-vaxers," is due to their inappropriate reaction to that which is false or even what is perceived as false. While I have no scientific statistical data, I would almost bet these people mistrust the media, the government and overwhelmingly are pro-Trump in most cases. What they are doing and how they are reacting is just that--a reaction.

Which brings us back to the necessity to have the ability to measure what we see and experience against the unmoving truth found in God's Word.

I've got to be more concise! My attachment to verbiage bordering on infinitude is going to kill me! Thanks for taking the time to read and respond!

Expand full comment

:-) Good to see another tome-writer out here ;-). Busy minds have lots of words :-).

My challenge with your analogy has more to do with the ultimate purpose of a serious theological term. Election doesn't have any "kinda" to it; it is, or it isn't. We don't get "kinda" saved ; I might "kinda" have some inkling of truth or get it wrong altogether and my salvation is not at stake. My salvation is held in His hand, despite my proclivity to be like a handful of "Slime" that tries to squeeze out between His finger and through His hand :-).

You are correct that we take our eyes off the path/target and end up in ditches - this is a regular occurrence for this respondent :-(. The great news is election doesn't call on my straight shooting to remain - it is imputed to me by the Blood of Christ. The bad news is I still find myself way off track all too often.

Your point regarding truth also has merit, but, IMO, in more of a "minor" rather than "major" sense. We face falsehood from outside the church...and from within the church. We're honestly a pretty 'lumpy" people as my father likes to say; everything stated by humans must be weighed as the Bereans sifted and weighed Paul's and the Apostles' words. We are deluged with conspiracy theories from outside the church, and we also encounter conspiracy theorists within the Body. This is our quandary until That Day when all will be revealed - some of this stuff just won't cease until then, even (especially?) within the Body.

We are mostly ignorant of our universe, I think you'll agree. We have some sharp scientists that have ferreted out some things about COVID. We are also dreadfully ignorant, not even knowing that we don't know. Honest thinking is, "this is the best we know today". Tomorrow can bring a whole new facet (such as the delta variant) that turns what we know on its side. We are taking best guesses here, with the best we understand, inadequate as it is.

And in this case, not sure Scripture is going to give us a clear "yep, true" vs. "nope, false" on epidemiology and virology. For today, we live with risk, either to accept the shots or refuse the shots. AFAIK, while God has weighed in on this one, He hasn't let us know what He knows about it :-).

God Bless, my brother.

Expand full comment

Again, my typing skills usually do not reflect my theology as accurately as I would prefer! We are both, quite obviously reform. The "kinda" is an allowance among those you do not usually discuss such topics--"with maturity comes understanding"--or as Mark Twain said of his younger years, he thought his father was dumb. As he grew older, he was amazed at how much smarter his father had become. So it is with us all in Christ! Blessings!

Expand full comment

Heh, living that out personally right now - my 26 year old son thinks I'm getting smarter all the time....now ;-).

Expand full comment

Bwahahahaaaaaaa!

Expand full comment

The thing is that both the so-called "progressive church", in the form of most Mainline denominations, the cultural Evangelical church, and elements of the RCC spend so much time arguing over Romans 1:27-28 and Romans 1:22-23 in light of it, that they fail to take heed to the more practical application of Romans 1:22-23. Meaning, they have made such an idol of political activism and secularism, including opposition to secularism, that they do not realize that "professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools". While I direct this primarily towards the "progressive church", which I honestly believes is nothing more than old fashioned theological liberalism in the latest garb and as J. Gresham Machen said is an entirely different religion, most certainly cultural evangelicalism and cultural conservative Catholicism are not immune. Even historically orthodox Evangelicalism, including the Reformed Tradition, and historically orthodox Catholicism can, under the correct circumstances, exhibit such behavior, because of sin, something which all but the most orthodox (on core theological issues) of the progressives wish to deny the lingering corrupting power and influence of.

Expand full comment

And by core theological issues, I mean the plain old basics of salvation through faith in the perfectly, sinless God-man, Jesus Christ, who's paid the penalty for our sins with his death on the cross.

Expand full comment

Thanks for the sermon this morning. I attempted to explain that very chapter of Romans to a family member recently. You did a much better job. Continue preaching, brother.

Expand full comment

The whole of the US has gone insane

Expand full comment

Depends on your reference point. From Founding Fathers' perspective, yes, we are far down the path to destruction. OTOH, from Genesis 3 perspective, we're just returning to our roots ;-)

Expand full comment

So good to read this. You probably have in mind conservative protestant anti vaccers but the trad catholic anti vax people are just as crazy.

Expand full comment

Dale Ahlquist wrote a great essay recently about our times. Since AD33, Christians have thought Christ’s triumphant return would occur any minute now due to the wickedness of the world. How is is that we are confident in our being right in the face of our mothers & fathers being wrong about this for 2,000 years?

Yes, we think things are getting worse; but we fail to acknowledge that many things are getting better! Modern economic models technology, medicine have have ended quite a bit of suffering for “the poor, the oppressed, and the sick.”

The world has its false idols, but Christians have created false devils.

Thins are always getting better and always getting worse. And it has always been that way. Ahlquist notes, “[i]f the world is falling apart at its very foundation, take advantage of the earthquake and convert the guards.”

My response to all the hyperbole in news: pass the mustard, please.

Expand full comment

Excellent - biblical world view provides great truth for all

Expand full comment

I can see why people that are not of the gospel faith get caught up in conspiracy theories, but when “believers” get caught up in those things and push those things as truth, it gets me upset. How are we to preach the word of truth if we are caught up in “myths and endless genealogies?

Come on guys, get vaccinated and chill out.

Expand full comment

There are a whole lot of us in between the two extremes you mentioned. I choose not to get the vaccine. I don't believe it is a vaccine for the sole purpose of some nefarious reason. I simply don't believe that it is proven safe enough for everyone and the lack of transparency is disturbing. The inventor of this type of vaccine finds it disturbing that the government is telling everyone to get it in spite of some serious side effects when the virus is not a threat to people under the age of 18 who do not have other serious health problems. For maybe even most people who are healthy, the virus is treatable and some doctors are treating it successfully. My 92 year old neighbor was treated and never spent a day in the hospital. This same expert says anyone with natural antibodies should not need the vaccine. Why are people being told to take the vaccine even if they have had covid. It is the rabid insistence from the government to vaccinate every human walking that makes people suspicious.

Expand full comment

My wife and I are totally there with you. Wonderfully articulated. It's really not too complicated.

Expand full comment