What’s Up With All the Roaring?

African Lion Roaring Animal Model

Maybe it’s just me, but every so often, it seems like a particular word or phrase becomes “trendy” in contemporary Christian worship music. For instance, 10-15 years ago, it was variations on the phrase “wings like eagles”(see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here for examples of chart topping songs that came out between about 2001 and 2008). Don’t get me wrong… most of those are great songs that I’ve sung and led many times, and there’s nothing wrong with the phrase “wings like eagles”. It’s a biblical phrase, and we should sing it! But by 2008 I was pretty much ready for a break from feeling like I sang it all the time.

Today, I’m getting the same vibe from the words “roar” and “roaring.” It’s everywhere right now! Is it a biblical word? Absolutely.

So I get it… there’s a lot of roaring in the Bible, and there’s nothing at all wrong with using that term in our worship music. But until recently, that wasn’t a word I sang very often. Some notable exceptions being The Lamb is a Lion by Michael Card (1988); Shout to the Lord by Hillsong (1994); Holy Roar by Christy Nockels/Passion (1996); and She Must and Shall Go Free by Derek Webb (2002).

But lately, there’s been a lot more roaring on the radio and in our sanctuaries. It seems the trend began around 2009 with Daniel Bashta’s song Like a Lion:

The song’s popularity really began to take off when David Crowder covered the song during the 2010 Passion Conference (an annual trend-setting event). Two years later, it was covered by the Newsboys, which is the version that hit the radio ad nauseum, especially after the movie God’s Not Dead came out.

In 2012, Hillsong carried the growing “roaring” trend to the other end of the world with their song Glorious Ruins:

Once Hillsong and Passion have both used a phrase with great success, you can bet it starts working its way into more and more new songs! Sure enough, Chris Tomlin began roaring that same year with White Flag (though he also had a preliminary roar back in 2006 with Let God Arise). By 2014, Tomlin was all in with The Roar:

Here’s who else got in on the action in recent years:

I Am Yours, Lauren Daigle (2014)

Praise the King, Corey Voss (2014)

O Praise the Name, Hillsong (2015)

Jesus, Chris Tomlin (2016); see also All Yours from the same album

Lion and the Lamb, Bethel/Leeland (2016); also covered by Big Daddy Weave

What a Beautiful Name, Hillsong (2016); some lesser known roaring songs also by Hillsong: End of Days (2013); Love on the Line (2015); Prince of Peace (2015)

None of this is criticism, by the way, just observation. Again, most of these are good songs (and the blame doesn’t lie with the word “roar” in the ones that aren’t). And since I’m not a song writer, I’m not really in a position to criticize anyway. But as a lover of language and variety, I do sort of hope we’ll be coming out of this “roaring” phase soon…

Book Review: Reflections on the Psalms

015676248x“Reflections on the Psalms” by C.S. Lewis

2017 Reading Challenge — Book 9: A Commentary on a Book of the Bible

Okay, so using this as a “commentary” might be cheating a bit, as it’s not expositional like pretty much every other commentary I’ve ever read. But considering Psalms is a unique genre in Scripture, I thought a different genre of commentary might be appropriate. When factoring in that I wanted a commentary on Psalms (our pastor is preaching from that Book right now), and that this is one of the few books by C.S. Lewis I hadn’t yet read, this seemed an ideal choice!

The book itself was both wonderful and bewildering. As always in Lewis’ writings, I found myself challenged and edified by his words. I particularly enjoyed his insistence on reading the psalms as poetry, rather than attempting to interpret them in the same way one might read other genres.

I also appreciated—for the most part—his “amateurish” commentary. The fact that he was approaching the psalms with genuine questions and an insatiable desire to learn was quite refreshing. Too often I find myself reading the Bible academically, and so Lewis’ book has aided me in approaching the psalms with a renewed sense of wonder. For that alone, the book was worth every penny!

That said, there were quite a few head-scratching moments as well. For all the admiration I have of him as a scholar, and author, and a thinker, there are some major areas in which we simply disagree. A big one is on the approach to Scripture itself. I believe that all Scripture—including the psalms—is “a perfect treasure of divine instruction… totally true and trustworthy”, a conviction held so firmly by Southern Baptists that we place it as the very first point of our convention’s summary of our faith.

Lewis did not share this conviction, though his views on Scripture are far more nuanced than I will get into here; for a charitable reading of Lewis’ hermeneutical approach to the psalms which stresses (unlike theological liberals) his belief the authority of Scripture, check out this essay. I had a difficult time wrestling with Lewis’ description of some of the imprecatory psalms, which contain curses against the enemies of God and His people, as “devilish” or “contemptible.” Yes, they are difficult to read. Yes, they can poignantly reveal our own temptations to anger and hatred (as Lewis points out). But devilish? That’s several steps too far for me.

There are other instances in which Lewis’ view of the psalms as words of men which contain truth rather than the Word of God which is Truth led to questionable interpretations of their meaning. Still, I greatly benefited from his reflections, as I believe most discerning readers will. Pick up a copy here.

That Time My Liberal and Conservative Friends Got Along on Social Media

donkey-elephant

Something interesting happened yesterday. As I was wading through all the media outrage about the confirmation of Betsy Devos as Education Secretary, and the all outrage about the media outrage, I began to notice a pattern. Most of her detractors (which seemed to include the majority of those in my social media circles) and many of her supporters (who, while less vocal, aren’t necessarily less passionate) seemed to have one thing in common. The conversation was being driven primarily by her perceived qualifications.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing. A person’s qualifications—or lack thereof, as the case may be—are important considerations when hiring for any job. But it revealed to me a gap in my own knowledge: What exactly does the Secretary of Education do? And how can we objectively evaluate her job performance?

Those seemed like important questions, particularly given the extreme vitriol of most of the comments I’ve seen from folks who I know beyond a shadow of a doubt are passionate about teaching, and genuinely love students. So while I set off to do a little research of my own, I decided to try something.

As frustrating as social media can be when it comes to political discourse, I consider my friends, colleagues, and acquaintances to be a very valuable resource, particularly in the field of education. And so I wondered, is it possible to frame a discussion in which folks from all across the political spectrum can contribute civilly and rationally toward the common objective of better understanding of a difficult issue? On Facebook, no less?

Thus far I’ve been very pleased with the responses I’ve gotten to my initial question, and to the discussion that has followed. I’ve heard from parents, grandparents, public school teachers & administrators, college professors, and other concerned citizens. They represent a VERY diverse cross-section of political and religious beliefs. Some vehemently oppose DeVos, some welcome her, and others are reserving judgment. But now we’re about 50 comments in, and there’s been nothing but constructive dialogue from all involved.

A lot of this is just because I have awesome friends, but it’s gotten me curious as to whether or not I might be able to consistently cultivate this type of discussion. If so, that would be of tremendous benefit to me, and hopefully to many others. As a pastor, I preach a message that is consistent and necessary for people from all walks of life, all political persuasions, all philosophical worldviews. To be most effective, I need to understand how others think. I genuinely want to know every side to an issue so that I can know how best to speak Truth into every situation.

So. For those who’ve been a part of the discussion on my Facebook wall already, thank you. For others, I welcome your voice, which you can contribute here. And in the future, I hope to be able to continue to proove that social media discussion doesn’t have to be fruitless.

In the meantime… I’m forming some of my own thoughts and conclusions about this particular debate, which I’ll be posting soon.

Book Review: Eugenics and Other Evils

9781504022545-medium“Eugenics and Other Evils” by G.K. Chesterton

2017 Reading Challenge — Book 8: A Book About a Current Issue

Why, you might ask, would you read a book nearly 100 years old to satisfy the requirement of a book about a “current issue”? The answer, in this as well as many other cases, is that to truly understand an issue, we often need to distance ourselves from the myopic view of the current news cycle, and look instead at the historical sources where ideas and philosophies were first developed and critiqued.

But the news cycle certainly did help me to determine a topic for study. I chose a “current issue” which lies at the intersection of the topics which most interest me: theology, politics, education, history, and philosophy. Understanding the eugenics movement of the early 20th century provides context for current discussions about abortion, Socialism vs. Capitalism, creation vs. evolution, and even presidential politics.

Eugenics, though not a word often encountered, has been in the news once again in recent days. During the election season, one of the Left’s frequent accusations against Donald Trump was that he is an advocate of eugenics (see this piece from The Huffington Post as an example), and I’ve seen that same video making the rounds on social media again just in the last week. I’ve written before of the connection between eugenics and Planned Parenthood (whose founder, Margaret Sanger, was a member of the American Eugenics Society). The evolutionary connection is even clearer, as the very word “eugenics” and the first ideas about its implementation were proposed by Francis Galton, who wrote in 1863 that “if talented people only married other talented people, the result would be measurably better offspring,” his proposal based largely upon the theories his cousin Charles Darwin had published in his book  The Descent of Man.

G.K. Chesterton, perhaps alone among the scholars and authors around the turn of the last century, stood firmly against the onrushing tide of the eugenics movement. While the movement had its origins and strongest support in Prussia/Germany (where Nietzsche had proposed the idea of creating a race of supermen), by the first decade of the 20th century it was quickly gaining popularity throughout the West, particularly in Academia. It’s prominent proponents in Britain and America ranged from popular writers such as H.G. Wells and George Bernard Shaw, to influential businessmen like Alexander Graham Bell and John D. Rockefeller, to political leaders including Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt. In 1924, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld (in an 8-1 ruling with Oliver Wendell Holmes penning the majority opinion) a law allowing states to implement forced sterilization for eugenic purposes.

This background is important because—though it is generally looked upon with revulsion today, across the political spectrum—during Chesterton’s day eugenics seemed almost inevitable. It took great courage to speak out when he did.

He began his research for this book in 1910, but then, as he states in the book’s introduction, “the hour came when I felt, not without relief, that I might well fling all my notes into the fire.” Why? Because Prussia, that great paragon of “the scientifically organised State” upon which England and America had gazed with such admiration, was at war with the rest of the West. And as the State which had most fully adopted eugenic ideals began to collapse upon itself and implemented more and more barbaric methods of warfare, Chesterton took solace in the comfort that “no Englishmen would ever again go nosing round the stinks of that low laboratory. So I thought all I had written irrelevant, and put it out of my mind.

Alas, it was not to be. “I am greatly grieved to say that it is not irrelevant. It has gradually grown apparent, to my astounded gaze, that the ruling classes in England are still proceeding on the assumption that Prussia is a pattern for the whole world.” And so this book came to be published in 1922.

It would finally take the work of another German acolyte of Nietzsche and Darwin—whose eugenic experiments and ethnic cleansing awakened the world to the horror of this philosophy put into practice—to finally take eugenics out of the realm of mainstream thought. And though Chesterton did not live to see the start of the second World War, he was one of the few outspoken critics of Adolf Hitler in the early 1930’s, again announcing prophetic warnings about the Nazi leader’s dangerous eugenic fervor. If only the world had listened to him then!

But I do hope we’re listening now, and so I’ll allow Chesterton’s words to speak for themselves for the remainder of this review. Here are a few excerpts that stuck out to me as I read:

He knew his was a needed prophetic voice

The wisest thing in the world is to cry out before you are hurt. It is no good to cry out after you are hurt; especially after you are mortally hurt. People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.

He pointed out the folly of academic double-speak which tends to hide terrible ideas behind technical language

Most Eugenists are Euphemists. I mean merely that short words startle them, while long words soothe them. And they are utterly incapable of translating the one into the other, however obviously they mean the same thing. Say to them “The persuasive and even coercive powers of the citizen should enable him to make sure that the burden of longevity in the previous generation does not become disproportionate and intolerable, especially to the females”; say this to them and they will sway slightly to and fro like babies sent to sleep in cradles. Say to them “Murder your mother,” and they sit up quite suddenly. Yet the two sentences, in cold logic, are exactly the same. Say to them “It is not improbable that a period may arrive when the narrow if once useful distinction between the anthropoid homo and the other animals, which has been modified on so many moral points, may be modified also even in regard to the important question of the extension of human diet”; say this to them, and beauty born of murmuring sound will pass into their face. But say to them, in a simple, manly, hearty way “Let’s eat a man!” and their surprise is quite surprising. Yet the sentences say just the same thing.

As today, churches were seen by the scientific and academic communities as standing in the way of “progress” through the use of political power

All I assert here is that the Churches are not now leaning heavily on their political establishment; they are not using heavily the secular arm… They are not specially using that special tyranny which consists in using the government.

The thing that really is trying to tyrannise through government is Science. The thing that really does use the secular arm is Science. And the creed that really is levying tithes and capturing schools, the creed that really is enforced by fine and imprisonment, the creed that really is proclaimed not in sermons but in statutes, and spread not by pilgrims but by policemen—that creed is the great but disputed system of thought which began with Evolution and has ended in Eugenics. Materialism is really our established Church; for the Government will really help it to persecute its heretics. Vaccination, in its hundred years of experiment, has been disputed almost as much as baptism in its approximate two thousand. But it seems quite natural to our politicians to enforce vaccination; and it would seem to them madness to enforce baptism.

In an era when corrupt Capitalists used the power of the State to prey on the poor and weak, he lamented the growing inequality and loss of freedom

Industrialism and Capitalism and the rage for physical science were English experiments in the sense that the English lent themselves to their encouragement; but there was something else behind them and within them that was not they—its name was liberty, and it was our life. It may be that this delicate and tenacious spirit has at last evaporated. If so, it matters little what becomes of the external experiments of our nation in later time. That at which we look will be a dead thing alive with its own parasites. The English will have destroyed England.

Yet he knew that Socialism was not the solution to inequality; Left and Right both lead to tyranny when ideas are spread through coercion rather than persuasion

It may be said of Socialism, therefore, very briefly, that its friends recommended it as increasing equality, while its foes resisted it as decreasing liberty. On the one hand it was said that the State could provide homes and meals for all; on the other it was answered that this could only be done by State officials who would inspect houses and regulate meals. The compromise eventually made was one of the most interesting and even curious cases in history. It was decided to do everything that had ever been denounced in Socialism, and nothing that had ever been desired in it. Since it was supposed to gain equality at the sacrifice of liberty, we proceeded to prove that it was possible to sacrifice liberty without gaining equality. Indeed, there was not the faintest attempt to gain equality, least of all economic equality. But there was a very spirited and vigorous effort to eliminate liberty, by means of an entirely new crop of crude regulations and interferences. But it was not the Socialist State regulating those whom it fed, like children or even like convicts. It was the Capitalist State raiding those whom it had trampled and deserted in every sort of den, like outlaws or broken men.

In short, people decided that it was impossible to achieve any of the good of Socialism, but they comforted themselves by achieving all the bad. All that official discipline, about which the Socialists themselves were in doubt or at least on the defensive, was taken over bodily by the Capitalists. They have now added all the bureaucratic tyrannies of a Socialist state to the old plutocratic tyrannies of a Capitalist State. For the vital point is that it did not in the smallest degree diminish the inequalities of a Capitalist State. It simply destroyed such individual liberties as remained among its victims.

Closing Thoughts

In Chesterton’s day, the idea of eugenics took off so quickly because it appealed to those on both the political Left and Right. Those on the Right, whom Chesterton often referred to as “plutocrats” (rule of the wealthy), were drawn to eugenics because its implementation favored the powerful at the expense of the weak. Those on the Left were allured by its necessity of central planning.

Since Hitler’s defeat, the eugenics movement has evolved significantly. While abortion is mentioned only once in Chesterton’s book, the author is clearly concerned about what eugenic philosophy could mean for the unborn (“they seek his life to take it away”). Prior to the 1940’s, eugenics was focused more on selective breeding and forced sterilization rather than abortion; in the years that followed, dedicated eugenicists like Margaret Sanger turned their attention to different methods.

Eugenic philosophy is alive and well today, though it masquerades by many other names. I strongly encourage you to study more on this issue, and Chesterton’s book is a great place to start. You can check out the audiobook for free, as I did, from Librivox, read it via pdf at Project Gutenberg, or pick up a print edition here.

For further reading:

  • Read more about the connection/progression from Darwin to Nietszche to Hitler to Planned Parenthood here.
  • Answering the claims that Chesterton was a fascist and/or anti-Semite (allegations which often prevent modern readers from taking his writing seriously), by a G.K. Chesterton fellow at Oxford: here.
  • Transcript of a lecture from the American Chesterton Society on the significance of this book, and on the link between eugenics and abortion: here.

Reading Challenge First Month Summary

blog-bannerAs I mentioned a few weeks ago, I have made a commitment to read and review at least a book a week. The blog serves as good accountability!

To ensure a diverse reading diet, I am loving Tim Challies’ 2017 Reading Challenge book list. While I’m not reading the books in the exact order he lists, I am sticking to his suggested categories as closely as possible.

Thus far, I’m a little ahead of schedule, but I know the end of the year is always crazy so a healthy buffer will help. Here’s where things stand so far:

Technically, this last one was a re-read, and it won’t be the only one this year. There are a handful of books I try to read regularly, and Mohler’s book on leadership is definitely one of them! I read it last week with the Worship Ministry interns, and thoroughly enjoyed having our senior pastor, Phil Jones, come and lead our book discussion. It was my third time through the book, and I gain more from it each time!

As for February… I am currently reading four books (I often have different books to be read at different times). These include:

How about you? What are you reading these days?

Book Review: The Tuttle Twins

tuttle-twins“The Tuttle Twins Series” by Connor Boyack

2017 Reading Challenge — Book 6: A Book for Children or Teens

For those of us who love liberty, and want to preserve the principles of liberty for future generations, there are very few resources to help teach these concepts to young children. This series of five books by Connor Boyack, president of The Libertas Institute, seeks to meet that need.

I read through all five of these the other night, and am very much looking forward to reading them with my children! The books say they are intended for readers aged 5-11, though I don’t know that my 5-year-old is quite ready for them yet… though she often surprises me with her comprehension of concepts, so we’ll see!

The illustrations are nice and colorful, and very detailed. I particularly enjoyed a scene from inside the library of Ethan & Emily Tuttle’s wise older neighbor… he’s got some great titles on his shelves! And Boyack has done an admirable job getting some weighty concepts into an engaging story which kids can easily digest.

His first book, The Tuttle Twins Learn About the Law, is based on Frederic Bastiat’s excellent little book, The Law, which is itself a highly recommended read (it only takes about 90 minutes or so to read it, so definitely check it out if you haven’t already). While Bastiat touches on many subjects, his primary thesis is the idea of “legal plunder”… the concept that if something is wrong for individuals to do, it is wrong for governments to do. Boyack covers this concept very well.

The Tuttle Twins and the Miraculous Pencil is based on Leonard Read’s famous essay, which you can read here, or you can watch this great short video. In The Tuttle Twins and the Creature from Jekyll Island, Ethan and Emily (and young readers of the book) learn about the Federal Reserve and its impact on inflation and prices.

The Tuttle Twins and the Food Truck Fiasco was probably my favorite of the bunch, mostly because I love taking my kids to order food from the food trucks downtown! This book focuses on the dangers which crony capitalism and government regulations impose on small businesses. Last but not least, The Tuttle Twins and the Road to Surfdom is based on F.A. Hayek’s masterpiece, The Road to Serfdom, which has been one of the most formative books in my own understanding of politics and economics. Boyack’s version focuses on unintended consequences, and the proper role of government.

The entire set is available at a discounted package price from the author’s website here. Go grab a set for your kids! Not convinced? Here are Boyack’s own children hoping to persuade you…

The Atheistic Literary Style

87585615_chesterton_161634c

I’m currently about halfway through G.K. Chesterton’s book Eugenics and Other Evils, and as always, am quite enjoying his keen wit and wisdom. Earlier today I came across this passage I found particularly interesting, in which the author observes that atheists write in their own unique and characteristic style:

[T]here is such a thing as an atheistic literary style… materialism may appear in the mere diction of a man, though he be speaking of clocks or cats or anything quite remote from theology. The mark of the atheistic style is that it instinctively chooses the word which suggests that things are dead things; that things have no souls. Thus they will not speak of waging war, which means willing it; they speak of the “outbreak of war,” as if all the guns blew up without the men touching them. Thus those Socialists that are atheist will not call their international sympathy, sympathy; they will call it “solidarity,” as if the poor men of France and Germany were physically stuck together like dates in a grocer’s shop. The same Marxian Socialists are accused of cursing the Capitalists inordinately; but the truth is that they let the Capitalists off much too easily. For instead of saying that employers pay less wages, which might pin the employers to some moral responsibility, they insist on talking about the “rise and fall” of wages; as if a vast silver sea of sixpences and shillings was always going up and down automatically like the real sea at Margate. Thus they will not speak of reform, but of development; and they spoil their one honest and virile phrase, “the class war,” by talking of it as no one in his wits can talk of a war, predicting its finish and final result as one calculates the coming of Christmas Day or the taxes. Thus, lastly (as we shall see touching our special subject-matter here) the atheist style in letters always avoids talking of love or lust, which are things alive, and calls marriage or concubinage “the relations of the sexes”; as if a man and a woman were two wooden objects standing in a certain angle and attitude to each other, like a table and a chair.

Chesterton was writing half a century before Francis Schaeffer and others began writing about worldviews, but he’s talking about the same thing. Our presuppositions about how the world came into existence and how it continues to work really do affect the way we think–and write–about everything “from clocks to cats.”