(This blog was formerly called Matt's Musings).
Reverend Matt's Writings is the place where Matt seeks to address and think through some of the current issues facing the church, society and whatever else comes to mind that might be interesting to process and think about.
Matt's focus is usually historical or scriptural, though he will address current issues from time to time as well.
Some are going to mock Trump for failing at this war. But I
think we should applaud what he is now doing. The American President has recognized that he cannot use the US military to force Iran to do his wishes, and so he has backed down from those efforts. This is a good move.
As we all know Trump is a very successful business man. But
he has also had a lot of business failures. A lot. Apparently, he has filed for bankruptcy six times. He has had several business initiatives fail
and collapse. He has had businesses fail to take off. And yet he still made
billions and ended up incredibly successful. This is true of many people who get to his level of success in life, they take a lot of detours through bad projects and ideas.
In other words, Donald Trump has learnt from bitter experience when to
cut his losses. And he is now working really hard to do this with the Iran War. Earlier presidents refused to do this and bogged down the US
in foolish, endless, destabilising wars. Trump entered a foolish, destabilising
war, but he has wisely been working hard to end it much sooner than these other presidents did.
Kudos to him for that. Praise God for that. Pray the ceasefire holds and becomes a true peace deal.
Some business ventures just can't succeed. The same is true
in politics or war.
I give the man credit for recognizing this. A man who had
not failed at a very high level, and learnt from those failures might have been more
foolish. A lot of people have overestimated America's military might. At least
the US president sees its limits.
One of the last things the western world needs right now is another long term war in the Middle East that drives millions of Islamists out of their nation and into the countries of the West. Something else the West does not need right now is for the greatest of western powers to weaken itself any further in the Middle East.
Trump's efforts to end this war are a great thing. I genuinely celebrate this development.
I found
myself in several discussions with several different Catholic and Orthodox
Christians over the last few days about the topic of praying to saints. The
discussion began with a friend of mine, and I decided to put a post up on
Substack to broaden the discussion and get the perspective of other high Church
believers on this issue:
I generally
don’t spend a lot of time criticizing Catholicism or Orthodoxy on my blog, in
my writings or in my sermons. I only bring it up very occasionally. The reasons
for this is very simple; my own denomination and many Protestant denominations,
have enough error in them for me to be concerned about. I am far more likely to
encounter someone who thinks going to pray at the Wall in Jerusalem is a good
idea than someone who believes it is a good thing to ask St Michael to
intercede for them. So, I focus on where I can make an impact from the outside.
But every now
and then I will get into discussions with those from other traditions.
In a recent
discussion I was told how Psalm 148 necessitates the practice of praying to
angels and saints. Psalm 148 says this,
“148 Praise
the Lord!
Praise
the Lord from the heavens;
Praise Him in the heights! 2 Praise Him, all His angels;
Praise Him, all His hosts! 3 Praise Him, sun and moon;
Praise Him, all you stars of light! 4 Praise Him, you heavens of heavens,
And you waters above the heavens!
5 Let
them praise the name of the Lord,
For He commanded and they were created. 6 He also established them forever and ever;
He made a decree which shall not pass away.
7 Praise
the Lord from the earth,
You great sea creatures and all the depths; 8 Fire and hail, snow and clouds;
Stormy wind, fulfilling His word; 9 Mountains and all hills;
Fruitful trees and all cedars; 10 Beasts and all cattle;
Creeping things and flying fowl; 11 Kings of the earth and all peoples;
Princes and all judges of the earth; 12 Both young men and maidens;
Old men and children.
13 Let
them praise the name of the Lord,
For His name alone is exalted;
His glory is above the earth and heaven. 14 And He has exalted the horn of His people,
The praise of all His saints—
Of the children of Israel,
A people near to Him.
Praise the Lord!”
It is
especially verses 1-2 that are relevant. A Protestant believer will read this
and immediately think incredulously, “Where on earth does that passage say to
pray to saints.” A Catholic believer will immediately read it and say, “Victory
is won, I will accept your surrender on this topic now.” How do they get there
you ask?
Well, the argument goes, the Psalms are liturgical prayers, and therefore when the Psalmist wrote this
prayer he addressed the angels in verse 2, therefore it is legitimate, indeed
biblical, to address the angels, and the saints in our prayers. The saints,
after all, in heaven are among the “hosts” this prayer addresses.” This is a
very simple argument, it has a weight to it, it is seeking to be biblical, and
to every single Protestant hearing it is rather jarring. Not because we find it
persuasive, but precisely because we do not. So, I want to address it today.
The chief
problem with this argument is that it draws a line from a potential reading to then assert a certain conclusion. This is a logical error, and for every Protestant it is
one that stands against all the passages in the Bible that tell us to address
our prayers to God. Firstly, no not all the Psalms are liturgical prayers. Secondly
even if this one is, this is not the only way to read it. The same Psalm also
says that animals are being directed to praise God, therefore it is much better
read as a general exhortation for all creation to worship God, rather than as a
direct address to the angels and saints. It can also be a polemic against
idolators who turn all of God’s created beings and things into objects of worship,
hence it is an address to idolators and believers alike about where true
worship is directed. It is just too long a bow to draw to say that this Psalm
addresses the angels therefore we should too in our prayers.
But I want to
a give a more detailed response, that encapsulates how the Catholic or Orthodox
might read this, and show that even if they are correct in their reading, it
still does not support their conclusion. I think looking at redemption history
really forces us to challenge the idea of addressing the Angels or Saints in
our prayers. So let’s go through my argument, which starts from their premise, the angels are being addressed in a prayer.
Firstly,
angels played a different role in the Old Covenant that they do in the new.
They acted as intermediaries between God and his people. Specifically, the Old
Covenant, or the Mosaic Law given at Sinai, was mediated by angels. Scripture
explicitly states this in multiple places. The law was "ordained through
angels by an intermediary" (Galatians 3:19), it was "delivered by
angels" (Acts 7:53), and the "message declared by angels proved to be
reliable" (Hebrews 2:2).
However, the
New Testament does not merely say angels delivered the law; it explicitly
states that the purpose of this angelic mediation was to establish distance and
unapproachability. In Acts 7:53 and Galatians 3:19, the angelic mediation of
the law signifies that the covenant was indirect, fearful, and kept the people
at arm's length from God. Under that system, human priests and angels stood as
necessary relays because the people could not draw near. Hence, the angels were
in a different active place in the Old covenant than they are in the New. I
still think saying we should pray to them draws a long bow from an uncertain interpretation,
but the angels are explicitly described as playing a different role.
Secondly, you
could argue that under that Old Covenant system, it was entirely appropriate to
revere and recognize these angelic mediators, and the Psalms, including Psalm
148, but also Psalm 29, and some others, reflect this old order by calling on
angels to join in praise. But we cannot stop there, we have to acknowledge the
change.
The heart of
the New Covenant promise is direct access to God. Hebrews 4:16 commands us
to "draw near with confidence to the throne of grace”, not through an
angel, not through a saint, but through our great High Priest. Ephesians
2:18 declares that "through Him [Christ] we both have access in one Spirit
to the Father." The "one mediator" of 1 Timothy 2:5 is not
merely the mediator of salvation, but also the mediator of access. If
Christ is the sole conduit of prayer to the Father, introducing angels or
saints as a required or even recommended way of anpproach implies Christ's
access is insufficient. We have gone from needing priests to being priests
(Rev. 1:6). Our access to Jesus is as real and as direct as anyone in heaven.
This is foundational New Testament teaching.
The New
Testament explicitly declares that the Old Covenant is obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)
and has been replaced by a New Covenant. The order of things has changed. Jesus
said the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than even John who was the
greatest of the old order (Matt. 11:11). We have to be careful in how we read
the Psalms, as the fulfilment of the Old order in Christ has changed much of
how we should approach the Old Testament.
Thirdly, a defining
feature of the New Covenant is a radical
change in mediation. We no longer have a mediated, tiered system requiring
angels or human priests to bridge the gap. Instead, Scripture declares
unequivocally: "There is one God, and one mediator between God and men,
the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5). Christ is the "mediator of a
new covenant" (Hebrews 9:15; 12:24). To take a disputed text and use it to
change this access to requiring or encouraging other intermediaries can be described as
nothing but a backwards step, indeed, almost a Judaizing of the New Covenant.
It is at the very least unnecessary, and that is being charitable.
I understand
that the Catholics and Orthodox believe when they speak to saints in heaven, it
is the equivalent of asking living friends to speak to Jesus on their behalf.
To them these people are as alive as us, and they are correct, the dead in
Christ are alive with him in heaven, they do not face the second death. They
believe they are simply talking to living friends or believers. I get that, and
I will admit I find that argument interesting, but it is also unconvincing. When
Paul commands intercessory prayer for one another in 1 Timothy 2:1-4, he is
commanding living believers on earth to pray for other living
believers on earth. The New Testament never commands, models, or
prescribes a single instance of a living believer directing a prayer or
petition toward a departed saint or an angel. The biblical pattern for
intercession is horizontal believers in fellowship asking other believers in
fellowship to pray for them to God, through Christ, not vertical, that is not
believers asking deceased believers to intercede on their behalf. To invoke the
departed is to cross a jurisdictional line that Scripture never authorizes.
Of course,
the Catholic or Orthodox might just call me a hypocrite here, because I ask living
friends to pray for me all the time. Why then not the living in heaven? They
are as alive, maybe even more alive than we are, of course. The answer to this
is simple: I know when I ask a friend at church to pray for me that he hears me
and I am confident he will pray. I have no such confidence that the dead in
Christ are listening to me. I know they are in heaven praying as Revelation
6:9-10 and Revelation 8:1-5 clearly indicate. But these passages also tell us
what they are praying for, not the requests of believers on earth, but the for
God to wreak his vengeance on those who persecuted them. Revelation 8:1-5 should
be read as the answer to the prayers in Revelation 6:9-10.
When I pray,
I want to pray with confidence, and the only way to do that is to pray to the
best saint, the best mediator, the best man for the job, Jesus,
“13
These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God,
that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to
believe in the name of the Son of God.
14
Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything
according to His will, He hears us. 15 And if we know that He hears us,
whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him”
(1 John 5:13-14).
I fully
accept our need for someone to put a good word in for me with the Lord on his
throne, and we are told that Jesus is the best man for the job,
“1
My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And
if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the
righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours
only but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:1-2).
Fourthly, but
Matthew the Bible explicitly says we are in the congregation with the angels
and the saints in heaven. This is what Hebrews 12:22-24 says,
“22
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly
Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of angels, 23 to the general assembly and
church of the firstborn who are registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all,
to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new
covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of
Abel.”
I love this
passage. And it does teach that.
However, I
would contend that the Catholic appeal to Hebrews 12:22-24 actually proves the
opposite of their point. Because, remember what is one of the points of
Hebrews, our access to Jesus Christ has been made direct. Yes, the New Covenant
brings us to "an innumerable company of angels" and "spirits of
the just men made perfect" but look at what is happening in the passage.
It is not telling us that we gain access to them to ask them to intercede for
us. It is saying that we have joined them in direct access and worship to the
Lord God and his Son. This is what Jesus achieved for us. Our access to God,
through Jesus, is direct. Yes, we come to them, but they are passive
observers, not active recipients of our prayers. The angels and spirits are in
the vicinity, but they are not the object of our address. The text
explicitly reserves the role of "mediator" exclusively for
Jesus in that very same verse (Hebrews 12:24). Therefore, it does the opposite
of saying we should address them.
If the saints
are alive, and they most definitely are, they are in the presence of God,
eternally beholding His glory. Their focus is entirely upon the beatific
vision, not upon monitoring the daily prayer requests of billions of humans on
earth which would require them to almost have omniscience, or a much higher access
to our lives than the Bible confirms. In fact, Revelation 6 and 8 show their
focus is towards God asking him to avenge their blood. Revelation 15 confirms
their focus is on God,
“2 And
I saw something like a sea of glass mingled with
fire, and those who have the victory over the beast, over his image
and over his mark and over the number of his name,
standing on the sea of glass, having harps of God. 3 They
sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb,
saying: “Great and marvelous are Your works, Lord God
Almighty! Just and true are Your ways, O King of the saints!
4 Who shall not fear You, O Lord, and glorify Your name? For You alone are holy.
For all nations shall come and worship before You, For Your judgments have
been manifested.”
The saints
are alive. They are in communion with God. They are indeed praying to God. Yet,
we don’t have any indication of them running messages back from earth to
heaven. Their focus is on God, and they are praying directly to him. Furthermore,
if they are alive in Christ, and they most certainly are, they follow the New
Covenant practice of praying to the Father through the
Son, by the Spirit. There is no biblical evidence that they hear our
verbal petitions; that is an assumption that grants them a divine attribute. It
is an inference in which you can have no confidence in.
Psalm 148 is
a beautiful Old Covenant poem that calls angels to praise God in their own
celestial context. It provides zero instruction for how New
Covenant believers are to direct their prayers. The New Testament explicitly
frames the Sinai angelic mediation as a temporary, inferior, and distant system,
and explicitly replaces it with the singular, sufficient, and direct
mediatorship of Christ. Therefore, even if we were to concede to that Catholic
or Orthodox reading of the Psalm, something that is not required of the text,
and which we are only doing in a spirit of charity, using Psalm 148 to justify
invoking angels or saints is not just a minor exegetical error. It is a
fundamental failure to recognize how access to the heavenlies has changed
because of Christ’s work for us. In the New Covenant the Mediator descended to
us, and through Him, we ascend directly to the Father. To add angelic or
saintly invocation is to demote Christ from "sole" Mediator to
"primary" Mediator, a completely unnecessary step.
I do not
expect this article to immediately cause my Catholic of Orthodox friends to
change their minds. However, it cannot be said that we have no response to
their perspective.
How can we
solve the divorce issue in Australia? Someone asked this or mentioned this in
the comments the other day. Perhaps it is beyond our abilities to solve this.
But while we are discussing the situation our nations are in, things are
changing in the culture for very practical reasons,
“Rising
living costs trap couples in shared homes after separation
Financial
barriers to leaving: Nearly half of Australian women say money pressures
delayed their separation, with many unable to afford rent or legal costs.
Living
with exes: 42% of separated couples who stayed under one roof did so because
they couldn’t afford separate housing.
Emotional
toll: Prolonged cohabitation after separation hinders emotional recovery, with
many reporting stress, lack of privacy, and ongoing conflict.”[1]
The economy
is turning against people. We westerners were rich. Richer than we realized.
Our ability to live far above the historical average was incredible. Not too
long ago an unskilled man working a simple job could afford to have a home, a stay-at-home
wife, a family and would do alright. Leisure opportunities were abundant.
Travel opportunities were taken advantage of in great numbers. But things are
changing, they are changing hard and they are changing quick.
A lot of
divorce culture was and is just a product of people having it so good in our
society that the temptation for people to leave and "find
themselves," or their secretary, or their tennis coach, or Bob from
accounting was just too high. The same with mid-life crises. Have you noticed
that Gen X and Millennial men in their middle age have been much less likely to
get a sports car, drop the wife, and pursue a life of frivolity? The reason
this is so is because these generations cannot afford the midlife crisis to the
same degree as the boomer generation. This is just an economic reality. Wealth
is shrinking in the West, and we are seeing this have all sorts of sociological
effects.
Good times
lead to a morally weaker society. A morally weaker society leads to hard times.
Hard times make people have to work harder to get along. And as hard times multiply,
as they will in coming years, people’s self-interest will move in large numbers
move them towards what we would call traditional values.
There are
upsides of hard times. And make no mistake that our nation is moving into
harder times. Relative to where we were a few decades ago.
There is a
lot of talk about how many leisure activities past generations took for granted
are becoming hobbies for the rich. This is partly true. The fact is they always
were, we are just no longer as prosperous in the West as we used to be.
While some
people seek to openly defy reality and say that the Iran war was an incredible
success, the reality is looking far different. Has Trump Surrendered?
A peace deal
is due to be signed this coming week,
“US
President Donald Trump has announced that the peace deal with Iran is “now
complete,” signaling the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.
“I
hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and,
simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States
Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!”
Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Pakistani
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who mediated the negotiations, said both sides
“have declared the immediate and permanent termination of military operations
on all fronts, including in Lebanon.”
Sharif
added that the agreement would be formally signed on Friday in Switzerland.”[1]
Now, as we
all know, the President has declared several times that this war was over, and
yet it has dragged on for months. However, there are some signs that it might
becoming to a close.
American
politicians are upset and are calling this a loss,
“US
President Donald Trump’s looming Iran peace deal looks like a “surrender
document” and fails to deliver anything America did not have before the war,
Democratic congressman Seth Moulton has said.
The
comments come after Trump announced on Saturday that a peace framework would be
signed the next day and would include reopening the Strait of Hormuz. In an
apparent reference to Iran’s enriched uranium, he said, “at the appropriate
time, when all is calm, we will go in and get the Nuclear Dust” and destroy it.
Media
reports also claimed that the deal includes sanctions relief and the
dismantling of the US blockade of Iran, while the strait will be operated
without a toll regime. Iranian officials said, however, that the signing “will
not be tomorrow,” and that talks on the nuclear program are expected to start
later.”[2]
There is no
doubt that the war has not delivered on what was promised at the start. The
Iranian regime is still in place. The Iranians now have more open influence in
their region. The US has not been able to deal a decisive blow, which some
predicted and others still believe it has and can do at any moment.
But, someone
might simply, “Matt, this is a Democrat speaking, they will not give the Don
any benefit of the doubt.” Sure, granted, that is likely true.
But Israel
are upset as well,
“Israeli
officials feel sidelined by the emerging US-Iran peace deal and are furious
with what they believe amounts to a “catastrophe” that fails the objectives set
prior to the war, according to a report by the Israeli outlet Ynet.
According
to the reported terms, the agreement would reopen the Strait of Hormuz without
a toll regime, lift the American naval blockade on Iranian ports, ease
sanctions on Tehran, and defer nuclear talks to later. While US President
Donald Trump said the agreement would be signed on Sunday, Iranian officials
said it would happen later.
Tehran
has also insisted that the deal end the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah
in Lebanon, where Israeli forces have occupied a significant chunk of
territory. At the same time, whereas US officials seek an agreement that
underlines “broad regional peace” – including in Lebanon – they insist that
Israel reserves its right to self-defense.
However,
Ynet, citing multiple senior Israeli officials, reported on Saturday that West
Jerusalem believes that the agreement taking shape falls short on every major
Israeli redline: nuclear dismantlement, missile limits, and the rollback of
Iran’s regional allies. Tehran has repeatedly said it does not seek nuclear
weapons and uses its atomic capabilities for peaceful purposes only.
“Trump
screwed us,” one Israeli official told Ynet. A second official called the deal
“very bad.” “From our perspective, it is a catastrophe, because it does not
meet any of the principles we spoke about when the war began,” he said.”[3]
There are
also reports of strong arguments between Trump and Netanyahu in private. Israel
is not happy with the outcome, and that is a strong sign that the US has backed
down, and moved away from seeking to achieve its original war goals.
Friends of
mine who were strong supporters of this war feel the same way. They are arguing
that Trump has betrayed America’s allies, and have bowed to radical Islam, and that he is
appeasing the state of Iran, when he should be doubling down. Those who are not calling this a total victory at least.
This does
appear to be the United States backing down. Just to show this sentiment is
reflected in other sources, AP news notes,
“ISLAMABAD
(AP) — Iran and the United States are trumpeting their tentative agreement
aimed at ending their war as a victory. But so far there is no word on what’s
actually in it.
The
memorandum of understanding, brokered mainly by Pakistan, starts with the
simultaneous lifting of Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the U.S.
blockade of Iran’s ports, according to Pakistani officials. The two sides will
then begin 60 days of negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program and the
potential lifting of sanctions, they told the AP, speaking on condition of
anonymity because the text is being kept confidential.
That
would leave the adversaries more or less where they were 3 ½ months ago —
before Israel and the U.S. on Feb. 28 launched their war on Iran, which has
left thousands dead across the region, triggered a global energy crisis and
shaken the American economy with an inflation surge.”[4]
A war ending
in a stalemate and talks like this might be considered by some as a draw. But
this shows that America was not able to force Iran to bow to its will. This is
a defeat.
Reuters has
the same perspective,
“"Ships
of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!" Trump wrote.
Oil
prices fell on the news. Brent crude futures fell 4% in early trading on
Monday, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate slid more than 4.6%. Stock markets
in Asia jumped.
Former
Biden administration State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said Trump
had made important concessions
to Iran to achieve the status quo that existed before he launched the war.
"We
have no assurances the nuclear program will ever be addressed, but Iran has
shown the world it can take the global economy hostage and get something from
the U.S. in return," said Miller.”[5]
One more, the
Indian Express notes this,
“As
one analyst told PBS, Iran has effectively become the “gatekeeper” of the
Strait of Hormuz, the chokepoint that normally carries about a fifth of the
world’s oil and gas. That has handed Tehran a form of durable economic leverage
it did not possess before the war began.”[6]
After all the
media hype settles down, and the Republican mid-term election messaging fades
away, the consensus will settle on the fact that this is a defeat for the United
States. They may have had successes on the battlefield, but they proved they
were not able to ratchet this up enough to achieve total victory. The cost to
the world economy would have been too high, and also the cost to the United
States and its military.
But we should
celebrate the fact that Donald Trump was willing to accept what most analysts
will call a defeat, rather than continue to march on for years and years, like
previous presidents did in Middle Eastern wars. Praise God for this. Praise God
that it looks like this war will not escalate.
Of course,
the deal is not fully struck yet. There are obviously parties probably on every
side who would like this war to continue. Talks might break down, as they have
before. But at this point it does look like Donald Trump has backed down, and
this means the world is likely preserved, for now, from a worse disaster.
*This
picture is from a different article to the one in my piece
I have talked
a fair bit on my blog, on social media, in sermons, and in other contexts about
how many men whose wives work, and especially who work fulltime, are heading
for disaster.
Most of these
men don’t want to hear it.
Many people
just can’t comprehend why you would even challenge people on this issue.
Some of their
wives get angry at it being mentioned.
I don’t care,
it is important that men recognize the importance of Peter’s advice in 1 Peter
3:7, “7 Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way,
showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you
of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.” Most Aussie
men I know think their wife is just a man with a slightly different personality
and body shape.
What do I
mean by that?
Many men
consider their wives to be able to equally carry the financial load, decision
load, and pressure load of life, just like them. But they are wrong,
desperately wrong. Some men go even further and will defer to their wife in
most things, “Let me check with the boss.” These men are even more wrong. Peter
explicitly says to understand that your wife is the weaker vessel and to honour
her by taking that into consideration in how you live in your home. Many men
ignore this because their mums taught them to ignore it, or the T.V. taught them
to ignore it, or the school system, or even their wives themselves. For whatever
reason you ignore this, if you do you are being foolish.
I see these households
end up in two main situations:
1)Women
become masculinized, take control of their husbands, home, and become increasingly
less feminine in their outlook and way of living. This has particular effects
on themselves, their husbands, their sons and their daughters. It particularly breaks
sons. It really breaks their sons, actually.
2)Their wives up and leave. A lifestyle that they told all their friends and family
that worked for them, where the woman is equal breadwinner, or even primary
breadwinner, comes crashing down eventually. It might be because the woman hits
menopause and her view of her husband literally changes at a hormone level. Or
it might because your wife finds a man who will provide for her. Or it might
because your wife’s friends all got divorced and they started going out on the
town more, and she wants to discover herself. Whatever reason eventually not
considering your wife will backfire on you.
Look how this
woman describes it,
“I
hadn’t realised quite how much I was sleepwalking through my life, or my
marriage, until the day I woke up and knew I couldn’t do it any more.
I
had been with my husband for 18 years. To the outside world, we looked like we
had the perfect marriage, the perfect life. We had lived in a wonderful,
rambling, old house on the edge of a creek, a house filled with our blended
family of six children (four mine, two his). We had an open-door policy, all
our friends, all our children’s friends were welcome – there would be food,
wine and fun.
But
right around the time Covid-19 hit, things started to change. My children, the
only ones left in the house, were leaving, and menopause was hitting. My career
seemed to have hit the skids – after years of writing bestselling novels,
suddenly my novels were no longer making much money, and given that I was the
sole provider and breadwinner, I would go to sleep every night with the
albatross of financial fear wrapped tightly around my neck.
My
husband had been made redundant back in 2011, and initially, I loved having him
at home. He became the primary errand-runner, shopper, caretaker of the house,
and of the children’s forgotten homework, driving them around town to
activities and friend’s houses.
But
now those children were grown and leaving, and I was still the only one
working. The only thing that had changed significantly was our relationship.
All of the laughter and levity, the closeness and warmth that had got us
through the past 18 years, seemed to have been gone, replaced with resentment
and sadness.”[1]
I think it is
funny that she says from the outside it would have looked like they had the “perfect
marriage, the perfect life…” Because if I had known this couple in real life,
and they had asked me, I would have told the husband that his marriage was
heading for disaster. I have done that with couples living in a very similar
way, when asked.
Firstly, she
was forced to take the financial load which likely, as she is clearly very feminist
in her outlook, she told herself for years was a success story. But once the
daily grind had overtaken the novelty of being a Germaine Greer model family
experiment would have faded away and resentment and then contempt would have
crept in and built.
When her and
her husband were dealing with the kids together, she would have been more likely
grateful for the help. But once the kids were gone, or nearly gone, she would
have turned around and looked at this man and thought, “I don’t respect this guy,
and I am going to have to put up with him for another 20 or 30 years?” Throw in
menopause and these negative feelings would have been exacerbated. Which is a
connection she makers herself in her own article, “learn how to have a voice
loud enough to have your needs met, and open communication with your partner,
encourage them to hear you, really hear you, rather than dismiss you as having
a menopausal meltdown.”[2] Many men and women note
how much this time can change a woman’s perspective on her marriage. Any
resentments not dealt with can come back to haunt a man in this time. Him not providing
enough is sure to be one of them.
Part of
living with a woman in an understanding way is not simply listening to her and considering
what she says and how she feels. Though it does include that to a degree. It is also
understanding what God created a woman to be, and how much it harms your wife
if you encourage her to work outside of that design too much and for too long. This
can and often does severely backfire for a lot of men.
This woman’s
husband also had no respect for her ability to feel at home in her home,
“I
spent much time in bed. In truth, this had started 10 years prior, when my
stepdaughter moved in with us. It was a difficult relationship, as were my
relationships with the other two primary women in my husband’s life – his
mother and his ex. I might hear that while I had been in town for the day, my
husband’s ex had brought a friend and spent the day by our pool; I might emerge
from my bedroom in the morning and find my mother-in-law helping herself to
breakfast, or showing her friends around our house.”[3]
This guy
obviously lacked both get up and go and any good sense. But so do many men in
this situation. Once a man works out that his wife will let him fall behind her
in providing, or even not have to work at all, he will take all sorts of other
liberties. A man has a right to have people in his home who are part of his
life. But respect is not simply given because you hold a position, you must
also show that you can earn it. Many men do not understand this. This man was
asking for trouble. Having your ex-wife around while your wife is out is
disrespecting her, disrespecting God’s intention for marriage, not understanding
women and not understanding your role as a husband. Being a model of an
egalitarian lifestyle will not prevent your marriage from hitting the brick
wall of reality. There is what modern society says is acceptable, and there is
how God created men and women to be. These often do not line up.
Paul says
this about men and work, “8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives,
and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is
worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim. 5:8). Of course, almost the entirety of the
modern church does not believe, not to mention much of society. Though many
might respond that they have simply re-interpreted this passage as including
the ability for their wife to work, under their authority, to help contribute
to their provision. Fine, if you want to reinterpret it that way, then that is
your decision. But don’t forget this, the Bible speaks from the perspective of
our creator, and he knows men and women better than we do. He did not say this
lightly, and if you think you can flout this teaching too far and it won’t come
back to bite you, I encourage you to look around you and observe how ignoring
this command has ripped our culture apart from the seams.
The only real
way to truly solve this problem is for the government to change the law to make
it much harder for people to get divorced. This will reign in the women who
feel they can blow up their marriage post-menopause so they can find themselves,
and it will reign in the men who feel like they can just exchange their wife
for a bright new shiny model. However, until that point comes, a man can enhance
his chances of having a successful marriage by listening to what the Bible says
about marriage, rather than the voices of our culture. Of course, many men who
do this will still be railroaded by bad women. But some situations are just
unfortunately a part of our fallen world.
I want to
have a bit of a discussion about some of my most controversial opinions and how
they are received by different generations, particularly millennials and
boomers. I think there are some important insights in this discussion.
My most
controversial opinions, according to the responses I get, are, ironically,
things that pretty much every previous generation of Christians agreed on, at
least before the middle of the 19th century:
Men should provide.
Men should lead the home.
Women should keep the home.
All who believe in Jesus are true
Israel.
There is no rapture.
Psychology is more harmful than
good.
I find that
many millennial men and women see the first three as personal attacks, or even
attacks on their mental health and the mental health of others. They
immediately frame the views as unfair, mean, or harmful. Millennials have been
trained to see traditional biblical standards as causes of low self-esteem, sometimes
severe mental breakdown, or other socials ills. Pick the issue, you will find
millennials who will respond this way. I have identified a few here, but the
same will be true of gender issues, and a host of political issues.
The last
three issues usually upset boomers. This generation, generally speaking, hears
those positions as at least severely errant teaching, although some see them as
basically apostasy. If you maintain these positions with determination and
unapologetically, as every pastor should, they really can fly off the handle
about it. Some boomers even see issues 4 and 5 as pillars around which the
church should base its teaching and practice. Especially if Israel happens to
currently be at war, which just happens to be a lot of the time.
The last
point is usually seen as equally insulting to both most millennials and many boomers.
Millennials were raised to see soul health as the sole providence of psychology
(used collectively including all its diverse branches; counselling, psychology,
psychiatry, psychoanalysis, etc.). Many millennials see people who are
sceptical of psychology as people who are in need of deep therapy themselves,
and often as unsafe persons, or simply as people out of touch with modern
developments. They have placed psychology, in its various forms, as an
authority in their lives, and one that people should submit to. I even know of people
who refuse to engage with their own extended family over minor issues, because
those family members have refused to go to therapy. These millennials see this
as a reason to remove these people from their lives. Boomers were the
generation that taught them that, though you will probably find more boomers
who are still sceptical of the profession.
But
theological positions noted above are all really standard Christian positions.
There is nothing historically controversial about them at all. They are all well
established and widely held within Orthodoxy, and really well represented
across the denominations. None of these positions would have even caused much
controversy in the vast majority of the church prior to about 1960. Though the
white-anting of these views all began in the middle of 19th century,
within a few years of each other…how interesting.
This is just
more evidence of the inverted culture we live in. When Christians find orthodox,
moderate, and standard Christian teaching offensive, and often feel like
biblical truth is a personal attack on them, you know the church has come to
place the Baal’s and Asherah’s before the Lord in many areas of their life. But
I’d like to process why this might be happening. Because this can give us
insights into things that went wrong with these generations, that may help us
correct them or help those coming up.
Why is
this Happening?
One reason we
see these kinds of responses is because people rarely evaluate a doctrine in
isolation. They evaluate it through the lens of what they think the doctrine
implies, especially about their identity and their worldview. For instance, "Men
should provide" is often not heard as a statement about responsibility, it
is instead heard as a statement about economic dependence, restricted
opportunities, or unequal value. "Women should keep the home" is
often not heard as a statement about vocation, it is instead heard as a
statement about limiting women or confining them to a role. Keeping the home is
the most important role a woman can fulfil, but many people have been conditioned
by decades of propaganda that has framed home keeping as a lesser role. "There
is no rapture" is often not heard as an exegetical argument, rather it is
heard as an attack on a theological system people have been taught for decades;
an idea many of them have personally placed their hopes in and expect to be
fulfilled in their lifetime. "Psychology is more harmful than good"
is often not heard as a critique of a discipline, it is instead heard as an
attack on people who received help through counselling or therapy. In other
words, controversy often arises because people mentally attach emotional
baggage to the proposition.
Another
reason this happens is that many Christians today are formed by multiple
authorities simultaneously: Scripture, church tradition, family culture, political
ideology, therapeutic culture, and social media. They may say that biblical
truth is their greatest concern, but they are thoroughly unaware of how they
were raised in a form of Christian doctrine that is utterly alien to Church
history and in many ways actually opposes what Christianity historically was.
Some have even been trained to see the Church throughout history as almost
universally suspect, anyway, so appeals to history to evaluate their doctrine
fall on deaf ears. This is a form of modern supremacy, or chronological
snobbery, but those doing it are often unaware that is what they are doing.
So, when one
of those authorities conflicts with another the person often experiences
tension. The doctrine then feels threatening because it threatens a larger
worldview, not just a single belief. It becomes more than a disagreement, it
becomes an attack on their identity. This is especially true today, in a
society where identity is among the chief gods of the modern culture.
Generally
speaking, the different generations get upset about different historically
Orthodox doctrines. There are obviously exceptions in each generation, but
these generational divides provide us with interesting insight, so they are
worth delving into.
Millennials
Millennials
were formed during the triumph of therapy culture. Think about how therap
infused even pop-culture in the 90’s. Star Trek Next Generation put a
psychologist on their bridge. Shows like Fraser and the Sopranos were touch
stones of the millennial generation, and both shows explicitly centred around a
psychological framework. Home Improvement, a prominent comedy of the 90’s, was
presented as a masculine centred family comedy, but if you rewatch it you will
see that it is a clever feminist reframing of men, based around psychology, and
Tim ‘the tool man’ Taylor quits his job at the end of the show so his feminist
wife can pursue her desired psychology career. This message was just dumped on
this generation from every direction.
The dominant
cultural message was not merely, "What is true?" but "What is
healthy?" and often what feels harmful, hurtful or emotionally damaging.
This message became a mantra of the millennial generation. As a result, many
Millennials instinctively evaluate ideas according to psychological impact
before the consider their theological accuracy. In other words, they
immediately think about how the idea makes them feel, and they may never even
get to evaluating its validity. That it makes them feel bad is enough for them
to know it must be wrong. This is their guiding philosophy, at least for many.
This does not
necessarily mean that they reject biblical authority. Rather, many in this
generation have been trained to believe that biblical authority and
psychological flourishing must always align in the way modern psychology
defines flourishing. So, when they hear traditional teachings on family
structure, they often ask questions like, "What effect does this have on
people?" before asking "Is it true?" That is a very different
starting point from previous generations. And it blinds them to their ability
to correctly identify rebellion against God on many issues. But they simultaneously
often feel superior to previous generations while doing this at the same time.
We were
taught about post-modernism and political correctness in schools. But many
millennials did not realize they were being formed to live out these principles
through therapy culture. Therapy culture cares more about “Your truth” rather
than the truth. Therapy culture cares more about not offending someone than
speaking what is true. Boomers pushed these ideas, but millennials were moulded
by them. Many more than others.
Boomers
Boomers on
the other hand were converted, discipled, or matured during the period when dispensationalism
was highly influential, prophecy conferences were common, and evangelical
publishing was dominated by futurist end times views. And you can understand
why. They were born after the biggest, most apocalyptic-like war in history,
then the founding of a country called Israel, the rise of the beast-like
communist states, the invention of the nuclear threat, and more. Their
generation had many reasons to consider that the times and ages were coming to
an end in their day. As a result, positions like a future ethnic-Israel focus
or a pre-tribulation rapture can feel foundational to them rather than
secondary. These ideas were in the air they breathed in many churches. When
someone challenges those views, the challenge can feel larger than it actually
is, it can feel existential.
These are
generalizations of course. Many boomers were strongly grounded in the secure
walls of orthodox bible teaching and not drawn to the novel doctrines of their
age. However, many, many were, and many of these people take criticism of their
views not just personally, but as an attack on the foundations of Christianity
itself. The rapture is not just a biblical possibility it is part of a
framework that places the country called Israel at the centre of world events
and in their eyes confirms the validity of God’s word. This is a big deal for
them, and you can understand why.
So, what is
happening here is that people have been largely reshaped by the cultural
zeitgeist of their days, therefore they see authority quite differently.
Millennials see affirming feelings as an intrinsic responsibility of any truth
teller, and if he can’t do this, then he probably should not speak. Boomers see
Israel as central to both world events, bible teaching and eschatological
timelines, it is a linchpin, not just an idea. Imagine some young guy telling
them they are wrong about fringe beliefs they thought were central and have
held for most of their lives.
But as the
power of millennials is rising in the church and society, I want to talk about
the reasons for their response some more.
Therapyism
Overtook Our Culture
Millennials
were the first Christian generation raised almost entirely after the
therapeutic revolution had become the dominant framework for understanding
human beings. I watched a recent movie with my family on the Holidays called
Anaconda. It is a self-aware remake of an old 90’s movie. And it is the most
explicit exploitation of millennial tropes and ideas I have ever seen, and I
thoroughly enjoyed it as a result. Especially, when one of the films makers
noted they should make sure that “intergenerational trauma” was woven into the
story. The movie is explicitly seeking to make millennials laugh at themselves.
And making them laugh about how many feel hurt by their parents landed in a
particularly savage but clever way, because it is true that many millennials
are obsessed with these ideas.
Historically,
Christians tended to ask questions like, What is true? What is righteous? What
is sinful? What is my duty? What has God commanded? How should I obey? These questions
were answered in a way that created objective boundaries within which people
functioned and could often flourish in society. Even when Christians failed to
obey, those categories generally remained intact.
Therapeutic
culture rearranges the hierarchy of questions and places feelings as supreme: Is
it healthy? Is it harmful? Is it affirming? Is it validating? Is it emotionally
safe? Does it damage self-worth? Notice the very significant shift. The centre
of gravity has moved from moral categories to psychological categories. This
does not mean therapeutic culture abolishes morality. It simply relocates
morality.
Sin is
redefined as harm.
Virtue is
redefined as wellness.
Wisdom is
redefined as self-awareness.
Salvation is
redefined as healing.
The saint
becomes the therapist.
The
confessional becomes the counselling room.
The pastor
increasingly becomes a life coach.
Boomers, and
older Gen X, remember a time when this was not the predominant culture. You see
this in Gen X movies like Lethal Weapon where the therapist is played for
laughs by the damaged but entertaining Martin Riggs. But Millennials were, as
we noted above, forged in this culture.
By the time
Millennials were growing up every institution spoke the language of therapy:
schools, television, movies, universities, HR Departments, and especially
churches. Churches took on board psychology like it was a key to unlocking the New
Testament. The culture’s views on psychology had changed so much that while in
the early Lethal Weapon movies the police psychologist was played as a joke, by
the last movie the best police had degrees in psychology. These themes were all
over our society everywhere. It is remarkable that as many millennials resisted
this as they did, because most did not.
A millennial
could spend twenty years being taught a therapeutic anthropology, at a popular
level of course, before ever reading serious theology, if they even ever did. As
a result, many Christians do not merely believe therapeutic assumptions, they
experience them as self-evident reality. For example, older Christians might
hear, "Take up your cross" and think that sounds difficult. Many millennials
hear, "That sounds psychologically dangerous." Those are not the same
reaction, not at all. Even more relevant to our topic, when a millennial woman
hears “submit to your husband” she often hears this as a dangerous position to
put herself in that questions her self-worth. When a millennial man hears,
“husbands must provide” and thinks about the fact that it hard, he will often
think that it is no wonder that so many men are breaking down, “That is too
hard man, too hard.” Too hard to achieve, and to harshly spoken at the same
time. That is a common millennial response.
Feelings have
become the ultimate authority. Even in young men and women from whom you would
not expect it. Because they were enculturated in a society which made them
think that way.
This is why
when you say, "Men should provide" millennials do not hear that. They
hear you say that women are being limited. Likewise, they do not hear, "Men
should lead the home" as an obligation, they hear, "Someone's
autonomy is being restricted." Why? Because therapy culture places
autonomy, near the top of the moral hierarchy.
In fact,
therapy culture can be defined as “autonomy culture”, because that is really
what it is. The worst thing that can happen to a person is not sin it is loss
of self-expression. The highest good becomes authenticity, not honouring your
obligations. Therefore, any doctrine that introduces hierarchy, authority,
obligation, sacrifice, submission, or duty immediately sounds suspicious. Not
because millennials have carefully refuted the doctrine, but because the
doctrine collides with their deepest held assumptions about human flourishing.
They hear at the same time both the limitation on their desires, and also the
lack of validation of their feelings, and these are the too greatest sins to
this generation.
They would
see this as traumatic and this is why they will discuss these issues in the
language of trauma. Originally, trauma referred to genuinely severe
experiences. Thinks like, combat, or abuse, or violence, or catastrophe. Today
the concept is often expanded to include experiences that previous generations
would have categorized differently. The practical effect is that disagreement
increasingly gets interpreted through therapeutic categories.
A doctrine is
no longer simply wrong, it is harmful, “Your teaching on women in the bible
hurts women!” A sermon is no longer merely mistaken, it is damaging, “I am
afraid of the effect on my family if you don’t affirm my strict interpretation
of this passage.” A command is no longer difficult, it is traumatizing, “You
can’t tell me to obey my husband, what right do you have to do that?”
This creates
a situation where theological disagreement feels like psychological violence. That
is why some reactions seem wildly disproportionate. The person is not
experiencing an intellectual debate, they believe they are experiencing actual harm.
And I mean they believe it. They really do believe that is what is happening to
them.
And, what is
worse, is that churches took this on board probably more than any other
institution. It is important to note that millennials did not create this,
boomers did. Millennials were forged in this changed outlook. Many churches
slowly shifted from centring their teaching around repentance, holiness, obedience,
and self-denial, toward things like healing, wholeness, recovery, or emotional
health. None of those latter things are inherently bad, but they do become bad
when they are made to become primary.
Theological
disagreements are no longer debates over objective reality. They are situations
in which emotional harm and damage can be done. They hamper someone’s healing,
they delay their recovery, they have a negative effect on their emotional
health. Therapy culture has neutered most of an entire generation, who now
wince like vampires when a window is opened at noon, when they hear a long held
Christian belief that disagrees with their identity and affects their emotional
state.
Underneath
the surface of these discussions is often this deeper conflict between two
rival anthropologies:
The biblical view that man's
fundamental problem is sin and his fundamental need is reconciliation to
God.
The therapeutic view that man's
fundamental problem is psychological injury and his fundamental need is
healing of the self.
Once those
two systems are distinguished, many otherwise puzzling reactions begin to make
sense.
I think it is
for this reason that millennials will be easily surpassed by upcoming
generations. Firstly, boomers are holding power for so long that many
millennials will never get the opportunity to wield it. But secondly, many of
the younger generations can see how soft this has made millennial men and how
aggressive it has made millennial women. They recognize the errors of the
boomer and millennial generations and are reacting to them. Just watch younger
people mock millennial feelings-based-writing in movies, or millennial social
justice writing in video games. They despise the therapy generation in many
ways. Though they will have their own floors, it is yet to be seen what they
are - maybe their relentless rejection of the real world in favour or online
spaces?
