What Does the Bible Say About International Aid?

What does the bible sat about international aid?

This seems like a really simply question to answer. There have been mass movements driven by leaders in churches and Christian Aid organizations across recent years, at least the last decade or more, that have sought to encourage Christians to lobby governments to increase foreign aid. Act justly and love mercy has been the catch cry of these movements, and it is a wonderful slogan, because those principles underpin the Christian ethos. These highly respectable and well-intentioned Christian leaders believe that governments giving foreign aid is a Christian duty, therefore it must be, mustn’t it?

I once advocated for the Micah challenge and other initiatives to encourage government aid myself. I found it something natural to get behind because caring for the poor has always been something I have thought about and practiced as a Christian. But I never did it from the perspective that, ‘Governments must do this to be considered following their Christian duty.’ I did it because it made sense: Christians donating can only go so far, governments have bigger purses and therefore can do a lot more. Indeed, this was what our aid advocacy trainer taught us, it was a numbers game; by challenging governments to increase their aid we can do a lot of good in the world.

This seems like a noble cause, and personally I am not against international aid. I have strong Christian friends and family who are opposed to it, and strong Christian friends and family who are strong advocates for it. I also understand that there are practical reasons for giving aid to international communities, countries and aid organizations that benefit Australians. For example, giving aid to both government, or non-government organizations, working in refugee camps and war torn countries can lower the mass movement of asylum seekers, making borders safer and more easily managed across the world. This is a double benefit, people in those camps who are in need get the help they require, and governments don’t have to spend as much money on border security and other programs, because less people will be seeking to enter countries illegally. So, I am both open to international aid, I recognize how it can change lives overseas for the better, and I recognize the benefits it can bring to the nation giving it. Indeed, I invite advocates of aid organizations into my church to speak, and will continue to do so. We also should note that a lot of international aid is used in such a way as to increase the interests of the giving nations overseas. Once these multi-faceted reasons for aid are understood, I can very easily see why so many people advocate for it.

And that is fine, advocate for international aid. I can find no reason to condemn people for wanting to do this. But then this isn’t the issue, the issue is that there are those who believe foreign aid is a Christian issue who are condemning those who don’t necessarily agree. For example this article (here) on the Eternity states that:

“…With a Christian Prime Minister at the national helm guiding this year’s budget, along with an election just around the corner, many Christians are today wondering whether the Coalition Government has chosen not to represent Christians priorities.”

It’s one thing to want to advocate for foreign aid, but it is another to accuse a government, and a Christian Prime Minister of not wanting “to represent Christian priorities” for cutting aid. To say such a thing one must have good biblical evidence. Indeed to say it is a shameful thing to cut aid, which is also stated in the article, again one must have good biblical reason.

Does God condemn leaders or nations in scripture who fail to send international aid? 

I raised this question and got some interesting responses from Christians leaders and lay people: it’s irrelevant, your perverting scripture Matthew, I don’t see why that is even a credible observation to say the Bible doesn’t condemn leaders on the issue of foreign aid, you’re on dangerous territory, God will oppose those who don’t call their leaders to account on this issue, etc, etc. But that leaves the question: does God condemn leaders in scripture who fail to send international aid?

Well no, he doesn’t. I carried out several different conversations on this issue over several days, and in each of those conversations I asked people to show me clear passages in Scripture where God condemns national leaders for cutting or not offering aid, and none were given that specifically said that.  

The most common passage cited was the parable of the Good Samaritan. This is a famous and wonderful passage about Jesus teaching us to love our neighbours. When Jesus is asked ‘who is our neighbour?’ by a teacher of the law wanting to justify himself, Jesus responds with a wonderful story about a Samaritan who helps a man he found lying on the road when a priest, and Levite both left him lying there. Samaritans were despised in Israel in Jesus’ day. The point of this parable was quite obvious: bigotry is wrong, love your neighbour whoever they happen to be, no matter their nationality.  

It’s a simple, but powerful little story, but it has nothing to do with foreign aid. It neither condemns it or advocates it. It is simply neutral on the topic. The parable of the Good Samaritan says we should be willing to help anybody, but it does not condemn us for not extending aid to everybody, no one, not even governments have the resources to send aid to everybody.

Indeed our government does love their neighbour already. According to the ABC website (here) $180.12 Billion of a $500.87 Billion budget is allocated for social welfare. That is 35.9% of the current federal budget. This is allocated to people no matter their race, no matter their ethnic origin. It is a generous allotment from collected taxes designed to love our neighbour who is struggling. I have heard many people say that this government is not generous and does not care about the poor. However the single largest segment of the budget is allocated specifically for helping the poorer people of this nation. This to me is a government that literally prioritizes the poor. But it seems to many Christians online that none of this really counts, the cut to foreign aid cancels this massive charity out and allows them to say our government is not generous and doesn’t prioritize the poor, or even say they are ashamed of our country. One Christian commentator actually complains that Australian tax payers are being allowed to keep more of their own money (see here), as if the government has a moral duty to confiscate even more wealth and give it away overseas. But is that the responsibility of a nation’s government, to prioritize the poor of other nations?

Not according to Scripture. Here is a good example, Ezekiel 34:1-10:

“34 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy, and say to them, even to the shepherds, Thus says the Lord God: Ah, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding yourselves! Should not shepherds feed the sheep? 3 You eat the fat, you clothe yourselves with the wool, you slaughter the fat ones, but you do not feed the sheep. 4 The weak you have not strengthened, the sick you have not healed, the injured you have not bound up, the strayed you have not brought back, the lost you have not sought, and with force and harshness you have ruled them. 5 So they were scattered, because there was no shepherd, and they became food for all the wild beasts. My sheep were scattered; 6 they wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. My sheep were scattered over all the face of the earth, with none to search or seek for them.

7 “Therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 8 As I live, declares the Lord God, surely because my sheep have become a prey, and my sheep have become food for all the wild beasts, since there was no shepherd, and because my shepherds have not searched for my sheep, but the shepherds have fed themselves, and have not fed my sheep, 9 therefore, you shepherds, hear the word of the Lord: 10 Thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am against the shepherds, and I will require my sheep at their hand and put a stop to their feeding the sheep. No longer shall the shepherds feed themselves. I will rescue my sheep from their mouths, that they may not be food for them.”

This passage makes very clear what God’s intentions are for the leaders he places over a nation: they are to care for the people of that nation, the leaders are the shepherd and the people are the sheep they are to care for. This is their priority, this is their mandate, and this is what he consistently judges them on in scripture. Indeed in Scripture you will find much of the Old Testament, and certain portions of the New Testament are dedicated to this very issue, leaders are judged by how they treat their own people (cf. the books of Kings and most of the books of the prophets) and you will find that when God condemns nations because of their treatment of other nations, it is because they made unjust war on them, or engaged in corrupting trade (for example: Ez. 25-32; Amos Isa. 10-21; Amos 1-2; the Books of Jonah, Obadiah, Nahum, etc) . The Scriptures are not at all silent on the criteria which God judges national leaders on: he judges them on how they honour him in their lives, how they treat their people, and how they engage in war, whether justly or unjustly, and whether they engage in trade justly or unjustly (cf. biblical references above). He does not condemn them in relation to whether or not they take money from their own citizens and gives it to other nations.

The closest passage I could find advocating for foreign aid was in Deuteronomy 23:3-6 –

“3 “No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the Lord forever, 4 because they did not meet you with bread and with water on the way, when you came out of Egypt, and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Mesopotamia, to curse you. 5 But the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam; instead the Lord your God turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loved you. 6 You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever.  

The Ammonites and Moabites both descended from Abraham’s nephew Lot, and therefore distant relatives of the Israelites, refused them bread or water on their way as they were journeying to the Promise Land, and instead attacked them. This seems to be God judging them for not giving aid in a time of need. But when you read the accounts of these situations in Scripture you see it was more than that. It wasn’t just that they didn’t send aid, it was that they refused them entry to their land, refused them entry and aid on the way through, and instead sought to make war with them. They even went as far as hiring a prophet to curse Israel so as to make the nation vulnerable to attack.

So this was not about aiding those overseas, but about not aiding the foreigner in their midst, which actually coincides with the many passages in Scripture where Israel is commanded to care for the sojourner/foreigner/refugee in their midst. For example, Leviticus 19:10 “And you shall not strip your vineyard bare, neither shall you gather the fallen grapes of your vineyard. You shall leave them for the poor and for the sojourner: I am the Lord your God.” And again in Exodus 23:9 “You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.”

There is a consistent pattern in Scripture that nations are given their proper boundaries, and they are to stay in those boundaries and not make unjust war on other nations or interfere in the affairs of other nations in corrupting ways. God even condemns Israel for seeking military aid from Egypt on several occasions (for example Isa. 31). National leaders are to care for their people, and the people in their national borders, and God judges’ leaders on how well they do this. So, unless someone has some clear passages which say otherwise, I cannot find where God condemns nations for not sending aid to foreign nations. 

Then why do so many Christian leaders condemn government leaders who cut aid?

What happens often in church history is someone offers an idea, in line with general scriptural principles, then they take this idea on board and advocate it as a good idea, and then it becomes tradition, and then those who question the tradition, by coming back to what the Bible actually says, get accused of perverting scripture. I think this has undeniably happened with how many church leaders and Christians judge national leaders on the issue of foreign aid.

I don’t think scripture gives us a mandate for condemning leaders on this issue, and as Christians we should always hold back judgement where scripture does not give us a clear mandate. Indeed, even when it does we should hold back because the measure we use will be measured against us.

Christians Will love The Anti-Christ

“I don’t think facts are necessarily true…And I know that I am gerrymandering the definition of truth, but I’m doing that on purpose.”

Jordan Peterson

“Let your Yes be Yes, and your No, No. For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.”

Jesus Christ of Nazareth

“Truth is that which is, whether we like it or not.”

Anonymous

The current support of Christians for Jordan Peterson has taught me something I kind of already suspected but am now absolutely certain of: many Christians will love the anti-Christ and depending on the political system in play at the time of his coming, they will vote for him in droves. What makes me say this? Well first let’s take a look at the Anti-Christ, then we will take a look at the Christian response to Jordan Peterson, and we’ll see what we can learn from all this.

The Bible tells us some interesting things about the Anti-Christ. He will be a man of lawlessness. What the scriptures mean by a man of lawlessness is one who has no regard or respect for the commands of Christ. He will be a man without proper boundaries, or at least a man who flaunts the boundaries of Jesus. The Anti-Christ is contrasted with the faithful in Thessalonians who are described as those who obey the gospel (2 Thess. 2:3, cf. 1:8, 11). Obeying the gospel is good, rejecting Christ’s commands is bad. He will deceive people with power, false signs and wonders, and very significantly with ‘wicked deception’, those who will be deceived are those who ‘refuse to love the truth’ (2 Thess. 2:9-10). So, he will be crafty, likely reasonably smart, and have some kind of power to do things which impress people, and he will be very, very, good at deception.

The Apostle John tells us that the Anti-Christ is coming, but before he does many lesser Anti-Christs have and will come (1 John 2:18). These are false believers who do not remain in the faith, though they may claim to be in it at one stage, they will move on from it (v. 19). They will be liars, who deny that Jesus is the Christ, that is the actual Messiah of Israel, who suffered, died and rose again. They may even phrase it this way: “it depends what you mean by Christ?” In fact, they will often offer a different definition of Christ than that which Orthodox Christians believe. They will deny the father and son, that is they will deny who they really are and what they really did (vv.22-23). These teachers will try to deceive you because they are people of the lie (v26). The best way to not be fooled by them is to know the truth and know it very well, in other words to be people of the truth. John says abide in what you have been taught, in other words, know the truth so much you live in it and it lives in you (vv. 24-25).  

Jude tells us that these false teachers are like hidden reefs at our love feasts, feasting without fear, shepherds feeding themselves. In other words, they are taking advantage of people to make a profit and look after their own interests, and they are doing it right under everyone’s noses. They are skilled at getting uninformed or unwary Christians to trust them. I love how he describes them as waterless clouds and fruitless trees (vv.12-13). What he is saying here is that they offer teaching but it bears no fruit, is not connected to God’s truth in anyway, and leaves people barren in the true spiritual sense. Peter uses similar harsh language to describe these false teachers, these precursors to the Anti-Christ. He tells us that there will be false teachers amongst us who “secretly bring in destructive heresies”, in other words they are sneaky about it, and they will blaspheme the way of truth (2 Peter 2:1-2). But a key phrase that describes how they work is this: “in their greed they will exploit you with false words” (v.3). Enter here Jordan Peterson.

I understand the attraction of Jordan Peterson, at first I was enamoured with him as well. In a world which increasingly seems to be filled with public figures mocking men, blaming men, particularly white men, for the ills of society, a man who stood up to his university and his government and said: “You can’t compel my speech” seemed like a breath of secular fresh air. Finally, here was a very well-educated and reasonable man whom we could support who was going to speak common sense to the ever-increasing craziness of the Social Justices Warriors. If he had just stuck to his advocacy against crazy extreme left-wing policies then I would really never have had any reason to criticize him. But then Peterson decided he wanted to be a religious guru.

Some people balk at that description of him. They respond: “he’s not trying to be religious guru, he’s just seeking to give us insight into humanity.” But take a step back and ask yourself how else can you really describe someone that seeks to give many hours of lectures on the actual meaning of the scriptures, applies it in spiritual ways, largely through dream and myth interpretation, and then seeks to teach people to apply it to their lives? The only way to describe that person is that he is presenting himself as a religious guru. Jordan Peterson (2019, jordanpeterson.com) himself describes his work in his response to Cambridge: “I don’t think there is another modern religious/psychological phenomenon or happening that is genuinely comparable.” He thinks his ecumenical teaching is the greatest thing on the planet right now religiously/psychologically speaking. Even his book 12 Rules for life is just another way of saying 12 Commandments. Indeed, he is even offering salvation through his teachings:

“Thus, the person who wishes to alleviate suffering—who wishes to rectify the flaws in Being; who wants to bring about the best of all possible futures; who wants to create Heaven on Earth—will make the greatest of sacrifices, of self and child, of everything that is loved, to live a life aimed at the Good. He will forego expediency. He will pursue the path of ultimate meaning. And he will in that manner bring salvation to the ever-desperate world” (Peterson 2018, Rule 7). (Emphasis mine).  

But the best way to tell he is a religious guru is by the responses of his fans. No matter what evidence they are presented with that he is untrustworthy they explain it away. He has them captivated. Point out that he lied about being awake for a month in his discussion with Joe Rogan when the record is around 11 days (Day 2018, Joe Rogan Podcast) they reply he exaggerated. Mention that he walked back that statement in the same conversation to 25 specific days, and they reply, “Come on Matt obviously he was exaggerating. No one would lie like that and think they could get away with it.” But Peterson did, and has. When you walk back an exaggeration the walk back is no longer an exaggeration, it is the position you have retired to after walking back from the exaggeration.

  

Mention that Peterson (2018, Rule 8) defines life as suffering just as the Buddhists and Gnostics do, and that the Bible specifically rejects this idea, and you get really strange responses from people, that this kind of fits with the Biblical worldview. But it doesn’t. The scriptures teach that suffering is part of life, but so is joy, pleasure, fun and more. To say life is suffering is a bleak and un-Christian way to see life. But for some reason people are determined to make this un-Christian perspective fit with the Christian worldview.

Mention the dream he says he had about his grandmother (Peterson in Day, 2018), and people say, “Come on Matt, everyone has dreams like that.” Leaving aside that no, not everyone does, still most reasonable people that did have such a dream would do us the favour of never mentioning it, yet Peterson writes about such dreams publicly. Mention that the Bible says to be wary of people who claim to be dream interpreters, and they will respond and say: come on Matt, he’s a psychologist that’s part what they do, it’s his profession. So? Dream interpretation has been the favoured past time and profession of many charlatans going back at least as far as Daniel’s day and even Nebuchadnezzar knew that dream interpreters were making up their interpretations out of thin air (Daniel 2:1-12). Shouldn’t we be at least as wise as Nebuchadnezzar, if not more so?

Point out to people that in every specialized field Jordan Peterson wanders into the experts in that field say he does not know what he is talking about (for example: here), and people just respond…well actually again I have heard no good responses to this. Likely this is because this is a serious red flag. This does not mean Peterson has nothing to offer. He does have flashes of good insight. For example, his observation that Genesis shows we live in a post-cataclysmic world is a great observation and brilliant way to phrase the fall. His observation that delayed gratification makes for a healthier life is wise (Peterson 2018, Rule 7). But his ramblings about the meaning of God in his Bible lectures are incoherent nonsense, and show he does not really know what he is talking about.

Note the first time Peterson actually carried out a public discussion with a serious intellectual, Sam Harris, he was made to sound rather foolish and incoherent. In an interview with Joe Rogan he literally blamed his incoherence in that discussion on a cider he had consumed prior to that interview which caused himself to not be able to sleep for a month. Listen to that again slowly: he blamed a month’s worth of lack of sleep and inability to think clearly on one apple cider that would have passed completely through his body in hours.

But worst of all, and the greatest indictment on Christians, is their inability to see through Jordan Peterson and his way of approaching truth:

“I don’t think facts are necessarily true. So I don’t think these scientific facts, even if they’re correct from within the domain that they were generated, I don’t think that that necessarily makes them true. And I know that I am gerrymandering the definition of truth, but I’m doing that on purpose. Your truth is something only you can tell, based as it is on the unique circumstances of your life” (Dr. Jordan Peterson, in Day 2018). (Emphasis mine).

“I don’t think facts are necessarily true”???? Facts are by definition true, and Peterson knows this, that is why he tells you that he is gerrymandering, aka twisting, breaking, contorting, bending to suit his will, the definition of truth. And his purpose? “Your truth is something only you can tell, based as it is on the unique circumstances of your life.” For him truth is subjective, and pliable to the situation. Again Peterson:

“See the truth. Tell the truth. Truth will not come in the guise of opinions shared by others, as the truth is neither a collection of slogans nor an ideology. It will instead be personal. Your truth is something only you can tell, based as it is on the unique circumstances of your life. Apprehend your personal truth. Communicate it carefully, in an articulate manner, to yourself and others.” (Peterson 2018, 12 Rules). (Emphasis mine). 

Peterson presents here a subjective definition of truth, in a chapter about telling the truth, or at least not lying. But truth is not personal. Truth is objective and true whether we like it or not. We can personally know truths, there can be truths that apply to us personally, but these truths are still objective facts whether or not we want them to be. Truth is not personal, truth is that which is whether we like it or not.

How did Jesus define truth? “Let your Yes be Yes, and your No, No. For whatever is more than these is from the evil one” (Matt 5:37). Let me ask you this? Is what Jordan Peterson says here in line with what Jesus says about truth, or what the evil one says? I think the answer is obvious.  

I hope by now you can see my issue with Jordan Peterson is not so much with Jordan Peterson himself. There are plenty of secular thinkers out there, many of them famous and influential that I just don’t really care about. My issue is with so many Christians who have been taken in, hoodwinked, and gone utterly gaga over an obvious charlatan who has no regard for the plain teachings of scripture, no regard for actual truth, and is therefore not someone whose teachings should be trusted. I am actually shocked at how so many wonderful Christians have been conned by this guy, and it now gives me an insight in what Jesus said about the elect in the latter days: “For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect” (Matthew 24:24).

I had always wondered how this would even be possible, but now I see. Peterson is not THE Anti-Christ, but, especially when it comes to his approach to truth, he is a clear false teacher, and Christians, otherwise reasonable, wise, and godly Christians, have totally fallen for many of his lies.

My issue with Peterson is not the man himself, when he was just another psychologist seeking to stand against anti-free speech laws I was in the guys corner. But when he started to teach untruths about the Bible and Christians started to lap those untruths up, almost uncritically, then I became really concerned, not about Peterson, but about the state of the Church. We are so easily fooled. Peterson is just one example in a long line of past and current false teachers who draw Christians in in their thousands, or even millions. Tele-evangelists, megachurch pastors, itinerant teachers, we Christians often fall for people who have a less than honourable approach to the truth.

In a sense I can understand why so many people react strongly to criticisms of Peterson, because I have been in their shoes. I remember when people criticised Mark Driscoll. I used to think their criticisms were weird. That guy taught me a lot about being a godly man in Christ, he sought to teach the Bible clearly, he was bold, brash yes, but also very honest. Or so I thought. At first I defended him vociferously, but as his wrongdoings became more clear and piled up and up, I had to eventually admit that he wasn’t the leader I thought he was. That wasn’t easy, but it was the truth. So, I can understand why people who have been mesmerized by Peterson, or who have found his teaching helpful in some way, may be incredibly offended and angry when I criticize Peterson. But this guy has tipped his hand in so many ways that he is not an honest actor.  

Peterson (2018, Rule 8) tells us this: “The Word that produces order from Chaos sacrifices everything, even itself, to God. That single sentence, wise beyond comprehension, sums up Christianity.”

Ah what? Does this sound like he understands Christianity to you? For one his own opinion of his own statement is a little bit haughty; wise beyond all comprehension? But tell me is this not a better summary of the message of Christianity and the cross: Jesus sacrificed himself for the sins of fallen humanity, to pay the penalty we deserve, paving the way for our salvation for all who believe. Or you could put it this way: Jesus gained victory over sin, death, and the devil on the cross, paving the way for our salvation, for all who believe. Which of these lines is more closely representative of the teaching of Christianity?  

Take this quote from Peterson (2018, Rule 8): “Life is suffering. The Buddha stated that, explicitly. Christians portray the same sentiment imagistically, with the divine crucifix.” However, neither the crucifix, or the cross symbolize that life is suffering. The crucifix symbolizes that Jesus suffered for us on the cross, but every Christian knows this is not the full story, suffering is an unavoidable part of life, but life is not suffering. This same Lord died and rose again to achieve for us eternal salvation. This same Lord who suffered on the cross offers us the abundant life of knowing him, an abundant life filled with joy and struggles, but not just struggles. Again this guys does not understand Christianity, or the Bible.

But even worse he insults Christianity and those who believe it:

“But I was truly plagued with doubt. I had outgrown the shallow Christianity of my youth by the time I could understand the fundamentals of Darwinian theory. After that, I could not distinguish the basic elements of Christian belief from wishful thinking” (Peterson 2018, Rule 7). (Emphasis mine). 

The implication here is strong; if you believe the Bible and its teaching to be true, according to Peterson you are engaging in wishful thinking.

Do you really want to lift this guy up as a brilliant Bible teacher?  

If we fall for so many lesser false teachers, what’s it going to be like when the Anti-Christ actually comes?

List of References:

Peterson, Jordan 2019. Cambridge University Rescinds my Fellowship: https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/blog-posts/cambridge-university-rescinds-my-fellowship/

Review of Jordan Peterson’s Stupid Lecture Alexander Douglas, Jun 2, 2018 https://medium.com/@alexanderdouglas/review-of-jordan-petersons-stupid-lecture-1bcb3f277373?fbclid=IwAR1lU2r4vzc4ihiYPo_3xh14ZDIfhcdiB1RfehcAXRLhjVOGIpy46CZhxvQ

Day, Vox, 2018, Jordanetics: A Journey Into the Mind of Humanity's Greatest Thinker. Castalia House. Kindle Edition.

Peterson, Jordan, 2018, 12 Rules for Life. First published in Canada by Random House Canada. Kindle Edition. 

The Elephant in the Room: History Shows Mass Migration Doesn't Work

I have been waiting for other Christian leaders on Facebook and other public platforms to take the bull by the horns and address the elephant in the room. It’s the elephant no one wants to address because it is an elephant that tells us that so much of what we hold dear about western civilisation is a lie. But as these much more experienced and well spoken leaders are refusing to address the elephant, I decided I would have to make my own attempt to not only point out the elephant, but paint it bright pink and make it so unavoidably noticeable that people who refused to address it would themselves look ridiculous. To do this we need to do a little tour through history.

In the mid 1400’s BC something phenomenal happened. A significant portion of a population living in Egypt migrated out of Egypt and made their way to their Promise Land. These people were the Hebrews, and according to the Bible they migrated out of Egypt and took 40 years to travel the wilderness and eventually settle in the Land of Canaan. Now for our purposes here we do not need to discuss why they wandered the wilderness, nor do we need to discuss who told them to leave Egypt, or why they left Egypt. All we need to note is this: what happened when a massive movement of possibly a couple of million people moved into a land already settled by other peoples? War! Clashes of cultures and war. In fact several cities were completely destroyed, other cities were conquered and subjugated, and in other cases Israelites settled next to and among the remaining people of the land of Canaan. What was the result of divergent cultures living in cross proximity because of mass migration? Clashes of cultures and war.

Indeed, for a couple of centuries or more the Israelites experienced a cycle of being subjugated, attacked and then liberated, all this happened on repeat. Divergent cultures living in close proximity did not get along, and though there were periods of peace, there were many more periods of war and cultural clashes. You don’t have to be a believer in God to know this is factually true, because destruction layers in the ruins of Canaanite cities display this pattern of warfare and destruction among warring cultures. Mass migration led to the clash of cultures and to war.

1177 BC: The Year Civilisation Collapsed. This is the title of a brilliant book written by Eric H. Cline. It recounts the fascinating invasion of Egypt by the ‘Sea Peoples’. We don’t know exactly who the sea peoples were. It is believed they were at least partially made up of remnants of Mycenean Greek civilisation, including people from Crete and the civilisation we call Minoan, and perhaps including other people’s as well. After this mass migration Egypt was never the same again, and other cities states fell into ruins. These sea peoples wreaked havoc on the ancient Bronze Age civilisation of the 12th century BC and were at least partially credited with the collapse of this multi-national civilisation that spanned much of the eastern Mediterranean sea. What we know for sure is that wherever these sea peoples found settled lands they clashed with the existing civilizations and war ensued. It’s even possible that some of these sea peoples settled the land of Canaan and founded the Philistine city states. You will not be surprised to find out that these Philistines made war with the Israelites who lived in the land of Canaan. Again, mass migration lead to the clash of cultures and war.

A little bit later in history we see a relatively young Roman Empire expanding across the Mediterranean and up further into Italy and setting its sights in all directions. In the late 2^nd century BC a mass movement of Germans invaded Gaul, Italy and Hispania. This migrating mass of Germans clashed with many people’s in these lands, but particularly with the Roman legions. In fact later on Julius Caesar would use such invasions as a partial justification for annexing Gaul. This mass migration of peoples led to a clash of cultures and to war.

Fast forward to the fall of the Roman Empire and what do we find? We find again a mass migration of people. Between the 4^th and 6^th centuries a terrifying group called the Huns migrated from central Asia into western Europe. These terrifying Huns conquered everyone in their path and terrified the German people’s that were in the way of their migration. Many of the Germans fled from the Huns and were pushed into the borders of the Roman empire. This event is one of the significant moments in the fall of the great Roman empire that had stood for centuries as the dominant power in Europe , North Africa and Asia Minor. The Huns clashed with the Germans, and then forced some of the Germans to seek refuge in Rome, and this mass migration of Germans clashed with the Romans, and this hastened the collapse of a declining empire. Again, the mass migration of peoples led to a clash of cultures and to war.

We could talk about so many other mass migrations. The movements of Scythians, which is likely actually several different, but similar, steppe tribes migrating over different periods of the time. The movements of Medes and Persians into Mesopotamia, the movements of the Aryans into India, the movements of the Parthians into Persia, the migration of Arab armies into Syria, Palestine, Anatolia, Egypt and eventually further up into Spain and other parts of Europe. The movements of the various steppe tribes, the Magyar’s, the Bulgars, the Turks, and eventually the most terrifying steppe tribe of all, the Mongols. We could talk about the mass migration of Zulu African tribes in South Africa, or the mass migration of European settlers into the Americas, and Australia and other parts of the world. All of these mass migrations of people have something in common, and yes you guessed it: the mass migration of peoples led to a clash of cultures and to war. Many, many, many more examples could be given.

Are you noticing a pattern? A very distinct pattern? It appears that throughout history low levels of migration work relatively well. For example, the small amount of Arab traders who lived on the outskirts of the Roman empire actually worked quite well with the peoples of the eastern Roman empire. But a mass migration of Arab armies out of the Arabian peninsula into the Byzantine Roman Empire nearly caused the collapse of the entire empire. When people move to a foreign society in small numbers they tend to integrate to a much higher degree, or at least they tend to function reasonably healthier in that foreign society. But when people move in mass migrations, or continuously increasing migrations, something else happens reliable every time: the clash of cultures and war.

For the last several decades western nations have participated in the mass migration of peoples to their lands. For a while the numbers were quite moderate, but more recently they have been increasing the uptake. Everyone is familiar with the mass immigration of people that the German Chancellor Angela Merkel allowed into her country, and indeed into all of the European Union. But down here in Australia immigration rates have been kept very high for several decades now. Why do they do this? Two main reasons, those of European decent are not having enough children to replace the population (hence why John Howard gave us a baby bonus to encourage more babies), but the reason why our former treasurer and now Prime Minister gives is this: keeping immigration at sustained levels allows us to consistently grow our economy.

In other word’s the primary reason that our leaders are seeking to flood our countries with mass immigration is money. Importing workers means importing tax payers. Importing tax payers means the government can pad its budget and pay for the increasingly large government welfare and government service systems that they promise to increase at every election.

Meanwhile history is looking us in the face telling us what happens every time there is a mass migration of peoples into a settled nation, reliably there is the clash of cultures and war. This is the elephant in the room that most people know intuitively and those of us who know history know it is a consistent trend. But to admit this trend and admit that the beginning rumblings of the clash of cultures we are starting to see is evidence of this trend repeating itself, means that we have to face the biggest lie we tell ourselves about our modern western civilisation: that we are better than those who came before us in history.

It was for this reason that I posted this comment on Facebook:

I've developed a new term: modern supremacist. A modern supremacist is someone who thinks they are better than those who lived before us in history. And they believe we are not prone to the exact same social conditions and pressures as humans of a past era.

It's not a new concept, C.S. Lewis called it chronological snobbery. But I think the term modern supremacist better gets across how foolish and dangerous such thinking is.

A lot of the public response I have seen to the evil terrorist attack in NZ last week can be described as the response of modern supremacists. So many people refuse to learn from human history and the mass movements of people and the social conditions that such mass movements cause.

I for one never want to see something like that happen again. As a historian...well you know the saying, those who do not know history are destined to repeat it. Those who do know it are destined to watch those who do not repeat it.

Currently I see every significant leader on Facebook, in the Church or in politics, avoid discussing this trend, because it makes them uncomfortable. But the elephant is in the room, he is painted pink and is singing loudly and clearly: “Look at me, and learn. Learn from history, or become just another example of a generation of people who thought they were outside of history.”

I never want to see an attack like what happened in New Zealand ever happen again. I never want to see another attack going the other way either. But we need our leaders to look the truth in the face, and realize that we are just as prone to the social pressures of mass migration that every other people group in history were. We need to learn this lesson.  

Why Conservatism Can’t Save Us

As I sat down to write this blog about why Conservatism can’t save us, as with so many other things in my life, and likely in yours, I got momentarily distracted by Facebook. Now low and behold what was the first post I saw, it was a comment on this exact issue. The comment was posted by a right wing (which by the way is not a dirty phrase like some think it is) commentary and blog site called Caldron Pool, and one part of the post said this: “The problem with secular conservatives and libertarians is that essentially they’re all just relativists like the left.” This is spot on and incredibly important for us to remember. But why is this so significant?

Well let me answer that question with another question: what are secular conservative values? Right about now you may be thinking something like: free markets systems, rule of law, and unless you want to import what the extreme left think are conservative values, you will be running out of things to say. I have called myself a political conservative all my life, and I can’t really say what the conservatives actually stand for, other than reacting to the constant push from progressives. In reality everything I ever see them do is generally just a reaction to what the progressives are doing, or a holding of the pass on one issue or another to try and stop the progressive advance, and quite ineptly.

The progressives push for superannuation, the conservatives oppose it, fail to oppose it, and then incorporate it into their values of the free market (which is crazy because superannuation is literally the government paternalistically confiscating your money, not letting you touch it, and allowing organizations to take a chunk of it out in fees, which you can’t avoid and can at best mitigate). Conservatives say they believe in family, but then allow policies through, or even push them through themselves, which pushes more and more of the families responsibility for provision onto the government, which incentivises more and more people to get divorces, because they can get lots of services and financial help from the government. The progressives push for the redefinition of marriage and conservatives oppose it, fail to oppose it, and then many of them find a way to say they stood for it all along, as a conservative value of freedom and liberty. This is just a few examples of how conservatives cuck out on all their principles. As I’ve heard many people say recently, “Conservatives have failed to conserve anything. They didn’t even conserve the ladies room.”

So if conservativism is useless and reactionary and fails to conserve anything than what should we replace it with? Well, the traditional right.

The modern centre right, and really much of the moderate right, is really just the left, having advanced into the spaces where the right once existed. The overtone window has moved so far to the left that we have strong leftists like Dave Rubin, Sargon of Akkad, and even sometimes people like Joe Rogan, either describing themselves as centre right, or being labelled as such by those who are further to the left. Rubin himself has done a video where he states he did not leave the left, the left move so far to the left, they left him behind. But Rubin’s views on the family, sexuality, drugs, and so many other issues fall far outside of a traditional right leaning perspective. And this is just one example. 

Here in Australia it has long been recognized that we have an extreme left party (The Greens), a far left party (Labor), and a moderately left party (LNP) with a few conservatives thrown into the mix, who spend much of their time trying to appear as moderate as possible. But the so-called conservatives in these parties have been as about as effective as a wet blanket for keeping you warm in the snow. So, what is the traditional right then?

It is the old-fashioned nationalist right. Right about now people freak out because I used those two words together in a positive light (I refer you to my previous post on Nationalism to read why it’s not a scary word here). But the old-fashioned nationalist right is simply a system which has three pillars: God, People or Nation, and Family. This idea can be seen in the American phrase “One nation under God.” Family is implicit in nation, because nation traces back to a Latin word “natio”, which can mean “birth” or “tribe” or “people”, so in other words a nation is made up intrinsically of families. A nation is an extension of the families which are its foundation. Some people phrase it: God, King, and country. But the idea is the same: the traditional right believes we live under the rule of God, and that we should be loyal to that rule, our nations king or government should be in submission to God, and we believe strong families who are taught to honour God make for a strong people.

Notice how straight away this gives us a positive vision for society. It’s not a reactionary posture like conservatism, it’s a vision with which we can evaluate our society and see how close to that vision we stand. At the moment we live in a country that has largely rejected God, that is moving further and further towards abdicating it’s own sovereignty to foreign powers (the UN, Paris Agreement, Trans Pacific Partnership, etc, etc) and even advocating policies which harm its own people, like encouraging high immigration to force wages to stay low. Our nation has so diluted the meaning of family, that it now means anything or really nothing. If we on the right, those who are often called conservatives, want to make a difference we need to stop reacting to the progressive advance and advance against it.

What did progressives do to move society this far? They moved into virtually every institution of society that moves the culture forward. They have advanced through academia, through politics, they virtually have a stranglehold on the media, and they are in the process of completing their advance through the churches. They had their vision, which is a semi-Marxist vision: specifically the restructuring of the family, the denigration of the church, increasing the influence and size of the government, all to move society towards an atheistic, or relativistic, secularism. And their methodology? Identify an oppressed victim class, and identify with and advocate for that victim class, and when there are no victim classes left redefine what a victim is and identify with that newly created victim class and continue to carry forward accordingly, until you have brought every institution to heel.

They have been so successful in their advance that they have even caused much of the church, who should be the greatest opponents to the destruction of things like family, to tow the line and advocate on their behalf. The social gospel’s popularity in the modern evangelical church is a sign of vast capitulation by the church to the Marxist vision for society. If you don’t believe me read the Communist Manifesto and compare the goals outlined in it, with the things achieved and advocated by the modern progressives, or advocates of what is called "liberation theology".

If we want to push back against this effectively we need to stop identifying ourselves with the defeatist posture of just seeking to conserve what we can, we need to take a long-term view of society and begin to advocate for and advance towards the right things. Old fashioned right wing nationalism is really just lifting up God, being loyal to and working for the best for your people, your country, and recognizing that the family is the number one institution in society that gives it it’s strength. So this gives us our vision. What is our methodology?

Well it starts at home: men get a wife and have a family. Raise your kids to believe in God and honour him and take them to a church where you can all be discipled in God’s ways. For those of us who already have families we need to do likewise. The most important thing anyone can do to improve this world is to have a strong family where you build strong Christian values into your children. Right back in Genesis 1 and 2 we were given this mandate. Too many Christians live their lives for themselves today, or for their careers, and put family on the back burner. But focusing on career instead of family goes completely against God’s vision for how we should live. It’s one thing to need to work and have a good job, it’s another thing completely to say, “I don’t want kids because I want to focus on my life goals at this stage.” By living this way Christians have bought into the self-glorifying message of this world, not the self-denying message of the scriptures. In other words structure your life in a way which best achieves this goal of a strong Christian family, rather than trying to fit your family around your life.  

Extend this structure into everything you do: advocate for government policies which strengthen families, rather than weakening them. Go into a career which allows you to provide and build your family up, rather than just achieve your personal career goals. Never give your vote to a politician who has policies which go against strengthening the family. Be open about your vision with society. Progressives have done this for decades. Many have found these progressives insufferable, but over time they have gained many adherents, and achieved their goals, because they believed in something and stuck with it. Do the same. Don’t be apologetic about believing this country should be a country under God, dedicated to protecting its people first and foremost, and based on strong families. Stop hiding your biblical ideas on how society should function, and encourage every Christian, nominal Christian, and Christian influenced westerner, to do the same.

There is much more which could be said, but at the end of the day we need to move away from the reactionary self-description of conservative and move towards a positive self-descriptor which actually tells people what we stand for: God, nation and family, the old fashioned right, before those words became dirty words. Let me just address one more thing before I close.

I hear many Christians thinking: Matt this is not our home. Why would we focus so much energy seeking to influence this world in this way, when our true home is in heaven? Well because Jesus told us to: “And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me. God therefore and make disciples of all NATIONS, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-20). To often we view this as just being about individual evangelism, but Jesus wants us to teach NATIONS that all authority is in him. He’s given us a command, he has his vision for us to achieve, let’s stop playing Aussie goal keeper against Brazilian striker, let’s move forward with a positive goal of what we want this country to be, and work towards it.

In Defence of Nationalism

There is a wide spread antagonism towards nationalism in the modern Western world today. We see this especially present in the mainstream media. Often those who describe themselves as nationalists are spoken about as though they are racists or at the very least xenophobic. To be fair some who call themselves nationalists are also racists and xenophobic, but nationalism and racism are not synonyms. Even in the Church, whether Protestant or non-Protestant, nationalism is often spoken about in suspicious tones. The accepted biblical stance is that nationalistic pride is antithetical to the Christian faith, and therefore many pastors and theologians will steer their people away from thinking in nationalistic terms. But nationalism isn’t antithetical to Christian faith, and it definitely is not in opposition to Biblical teaching.

Biblically, nationalism is something that God gave the world as a gift to protect it from globalism, which is really just imperialism dressed up in modern clothing. Those who know their Bible well will know I am referring to the Tower of Babel. In this biblical account God is concerned about the evil that humanity can fulfil while they are unified as one people. “And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they all have one language, and this is on the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will be impossible for them. Come let us go down and confuse their language, so that they might not understand one another’s speech” (Genesis 11:6-7). In his mercy God dispersed the people into nations, different groups of people, to limit their ability to commit evil.

We tend to think of humanity uniting together to be a base line good thing, a united humanity brings to mind for many the world of Star Trek, a utopian war free almost heaven like existence. But really everything depends on why humanity unites.

The scriptures teach that humanity is sinful, and that people want power; no one, atheist, Muslim, Jew, or Buddhist, or whatever, will disagree with these two facts: that humanity is sinful (imperfect) and desires after power. The tower of Babel is an episode where all of humanity united together to seek to lift themselves up as great as the gods. This is what it means when it says they wanted to make a name for themselves. Think of every conquering emperor, or would be emperor, in history, what was his goal? To increase power and to make a name for himself. From Nebuchadnezzar, to Alexander the Great, to Napoleon to Hitler, all of these men and more sought to subject multiple nations into their empires, to extend their power over people, and in doing so they all did great evil.  

So what did God do to limit empire? He confused the language of the peoples and split them up into nations. On our own, humans can achieve evil. Together we can achieve much evil. We can at times achieve some good things, but if you look across the history of empire, you will see many evils committed in its name.  

Let’s look at this another way, what is the opposite of nationalism? Imperialism or globalism, both of these are movements towards centralized power, in the hands of fewer and fewer people. We have been conditioned to see globalism as a good thing in the wake of World War 2, partly because many who called themselves nationalists did evil things. But what is nationalism?

Nationalism is simply identifying yourself with the people of your nation. It can be identifying with the nation state, but this is better described as statism, the idea that the state is supreme and all should bow to it. The people of the nation do not exist to serve their state, the state exists to serve the people of their nation. Too many politicians forget this truth, and look out for their own interests. Nationalism in many ways is just neutral: it’s the idea that you find an affinity with or identify with your given people or nation of people (the Greek word for nation, ethnos, can also mean just mean people group).

This can be stirred up by evil people with evil purposes. For example, when Hitler stirred up hatred for those in Germany and Europe whose nationality was not German. But Hitler was not really a nationalist. He couched some of his arguments in nationalist terms. But he was really an ethnic imperialist. He believed the Germans were the superior race and should rule over all other peoples: this is the definition of imperialism, not nationalism. He was a German supremacist (some people will respond here that he was Austrian, but Austrians are ethnically Germanic, in this broad sense Hitler was German). Obviously, this idea is crazy and dangerous, everyone knows the Japanese build better cars than the Germans. But we should not confuse nationalism with ethnic supremacy. Ethnic supremacy is an evil blight on this world. Nationalism is God’s means of limiting the imperial pretensions of powerful world leaders, like Hitler. Who rose up against Hitler to limit his imperial goals and eventually stop him? Other nations.

  

Nationalism can also be stirred up for good. For example: we are Australians and we believe that no Australian child should grow up in poverty. Bob Hawke used this slogan to try and stir up support for his policies that were presented as seeking to help the Aussie battler. This is positive nationalism. Another example is the National Disability Investment Scheme. This is a scheme which has been implemented because of an Australian value that we don’t want to leave anyone in our society behind, we want every Aussie to be able to have a fair shake at living and functioning in society. A scheme like this, if implemented properly, is in the national interest of Australians.

Notice how in both of these examples you can refer to national pride. In the first instance you have national pride in the sense of haughtiness or arrogance, which will always lead to evil. Whereas in the second instance you have pride in the sense of being pleased with your accomplishments or pleased with what you can accomplish as a nation. Galatians 6:4 (NIV) uses the word pride in this positive sense, which is not sinful: “4 Each one should test their own actions. Then they can take pride in themselves alone, without comparing themselves to someone else…”. I would argue that it if you want to describe yourself as a nationalist, you should be someone who is contributing to the good of your nation, and who is going to leave your country a better place, in your sphere of influence, than it was when you found it. This can be done in many ways.

It is neither wrong, nor sinful to identify with your nation, or your people. Where it becomes wrong is when you exclude others or see yourself as superior to others. This is racism. As nations develop across time, the people you will identify yourself with will change. The English are a mix of Celt, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Danish, but they all identify themselves as English, and in a broader sense, the English, Welsh and Scottish identify as British. Someone may identify themselves as African, but also as Sudanese, others may describe themselves as European and Italian, or Swedish, etc. 

The groups we identify with are not strictly fixed, or even strictly genetically separate. The Anglo-Saxon is not all that different to the Frank. So racial purity is again pointless, and sinful and harmful. In fact you can watch videos of Europeans online who thought they were one ethnicity and when they received their DNA tests it showed their ancestors were not who they thought they were. Being obsessed with racial purity will only ever lead to evil, every human being is created in God’s image. In fact often when God criticizes nations in the Bible it is because they oppressed those who were of a different nationality who were living amongst them. This is wrong and we are right to reject all forms of racial bigotry.

But the most significant reason that nationalism is important for our world is encapsulated in letter written by the Arminian Philippus Van Limborch to the English Philosopher John Locke in 1689. He says, “I hope, however, that all obstacles are eventually to be overcome by the strength of the kingdom of England that so at last the excessive power of the Frenchman, or so to say more truly of his outrageousness, may be restrained by united forces” (pg. 607).  He is referring to the unification of England under William and Mary, the new Monarchs. The English had crowned William as king, and Van Limborch is hoping that the Scot’s and the Irish will do the same (the Scot’s had, but he didn’t know that yet).

Why is he hoping they will be unified? So that “the excessive power of the Frenchman…may be restrained by united forces…” In other words so that the powerful Catholic Kingdom of France, which had been faithfully (in the eyes of the Pope) persecuting French Protestants, and who had their eyes on potentially taking back England, could be opposed in their goals. Protestant England, which was on the verge of allowing toleration for dissenting Christians in a large measure, would better be able to counter the influence and power of France, if the Kingdom was untied. A united British Kingdom stood a better chance of opposing the powerful French imperialist goals. Which would influence a lot of Europe, to move towards tolerance of religion.

In other words nationalism is important for the world, because it protects us from the evils of centralized power, which both globalism and imperialism seek to increase. It’s allows there to be powers to counteract other powers, and it means that the powerful, and the especially the powerful who have evil goals, cannot unite to enforce their evil on the whole world. To put it another way, nationalism, defined as identifying with your nation, and competing with other nations, allows a counterbalance of powers in the world, to prevent one form of evil taking hold everywhere.

So to describe nationalism as intrinsically evil or anti-Christian, is to miss the gift that nationalism is. God has given it to us to protect us from our own human desire for complete power. Given the chance to work together, do you really think our world will only do good?

Yes people can use nationalism, or a corrupted form of it, to do evil. But this is true of many other things. The important point is this: the opposite of nationalism is imperialism, and we see how the centralization of power can lead to the oppression of people throughout history. The globalism we see today which is seeking to usurp the sovereignty of nations and infringe global power on all peoples is the same Imperialism we see condemned at Babel, and in Egypt, and in the Persian empire, and in Rome.

God is not against people identifying with their nation, the nations are there at the end of time in Revelation 22 (look it up, God wants to heal them not destroy them), what he cares about is how the nations treat each other, and how they treat the weak amongst their borders. In fact consistently in the Bible when God condemns nations it is because they have committed a combinations of three sins; 1) rejecting him as God, so idolatry, 2) oppressing the powerless within their realm, and 3) unlawfully or unrighteously seeking to conquer other nations, so imperialism (cf Amos, and Isaiah for example). Nationalism is not wrong. Globalism and by that I mean the centralization of power into the hands of fewer and fewer individuals and the nullification of the sovereignty of nations, is the evil we need to avoid.

List of References:

The Correspondance of John Locke, edited by ES de Beer, The Clarendon Edition of the Works of John Locke, Volume 3, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978.

The Best A Man Can Get

By now most of you will have seen the Gillette ad. If you follow me on Facebook you will know that I am not a fan of the ad. Although I will say that I appreciate that part of their goal was to inspire more men to treat women and each other well, and to call out bad man. You can’t really disagree with this goal. There are too many men who treat too many women very poorly and this needs to stop. But someone should tell Gillette that this is a message that most men already understand. Most men treat the women in their lives with the utmost of respect. However, I have said enough on my Facebook page, and the page of a couple of friends, about the ad itself. Here I want to talk about the goal of the ad: inspiring men to be the best they can be.

This has been the goal of many organizations throughout history. Indeed for twenty years the American Army's recruiting slogan was “Be all you can be”, though this was partially directed at women as well, the largest proportion of their recruits were, and likely still are, men. These men were not offended by being challenged to improve themselves, they took up the challenge and enlisted, because they believed they could improve themselves in the Army. Calling men to be better, calling men, to step up, not only isn’t a bad message, it is a message that I have done myself on many occasions. In fact, if I am being truly honest it is a message I preach to myself often. I don’t want to plateau, I don’t want to be content with who I am today, I want to push on to be the best man I can be, the best husband I can be, and the best father and friend I can be. To plateau is to give up and this negatively effects yourself, and those around you.

So why did this ad rub so many people the wrong way then? Because of how they framed the message, because of their emphasis, and their lack of nuance. At least this is how a lot of men felt, including myself. But let’s ask a better question: what is the best a man can get? Or to put it another way: what does a good man look like? I could use many examples of men for this, but I really think the best man we can look to, to learn how we can be the best we can be, is King David, the Great King of Israel.

Our first introduction to David comes in the Old Testament book of 1 Samuel 13:14. David is not named in this passage. The corrupt king Saul is told that he is about to lose his kingship because he did not follow the commands of God. He is told that God has found someone who is a man after his own heart to replace him. Our first description of David is someone whose heart is moved by the things which move God's own heart. The next time he is mentioned is in 1 Samuel 15:28, where Samuel simply tells Saul that the one who is going to replace him is a better man than him; again he is not named. But this guy sounds pretty awesome, and he was.

Where Saul was a proud, arrogant man, who cared too much about what people thought about him, and not enough about what God told him to do, David was a simple, humble shepherd, who loved to worship God and honoured him. The first mention of him where we learn his name, also tells us that he is simply tending sheep. But as we get to know David we realize this says a lot about him, and a lot about being a good man. 

As a shepherd he spent lots of time with the sheep in his care, he made sure they were provided with food and with drink, with cool shade in the heat and warmth when it was cold. As a shepherd he defended his sheep from the wolf, the bear and the lion, and this was in a day when you had either your bare hands, or simple weapons like sticks and slings to do this with. In other words he was a brave man, who was willing to risk his life for those under his care. He did everything he could to care for the needs of those he was responsible for. He was a servant leader. These are the traits of a good man.

David was a man who was incredibly sensitive. He was a musician who wrote many Psalms where he often poured out his genuine emotions and struggles. But he was also a man who was incredibly strong, in fact he was genuinely mighty. He slew the giant, Goliath, when he was still a young man, and he was successful whenever he led an army in battle. He was simultaneously more masculine and more in touch with his emotions than most modern men. To really display him well in a modern movie you would need to get someone who is the cross between The Rock, Ryan Gosling, and Jon Bon Jovi of the Young Guns era. He was the handsome warrior, crossed with the handsome lover, who could dazzle many with his musical ability. In many ways he typifies the best a man can get.

But David was no perfect man, indeed in one pitiful exhibition of toxic masculinity he displayed how bad he really could be. In the period of a few short days David seduced the wife of one of his best friends, while this friend was faithfully at war fighting for his king. He then brought his friend home and got him drunk, to get him to have sex with his wife to cover up his shameful act. When his friend refused to have sex with his wife because all the other men were still at war, David had him carry orders to the army's field commander that would seal his friend's death. “Put him at the front of the line and attack the cities walls,” were the orders. David proved himself to be more depraved than most of us think we are. In fact what he did was downright evil. 

It’s at this point that many of you are thinking: why on earth would you use David as an example of the best a man can get Matt? Surely Jesus is really the best a man can get? Well it depends what you mean by the best a man can get. If by that phrase you mean perfect in every conceivable way, then yes Jesus, and Jesus, alone is your man. He is compassionate, loving, caring, strong, forgiving, honourable, angry at sin, and merciful to sinners. He is everything good you can think of, to a level of goodness we really can’t fully fathom as human beings. His life and deeds are so compelling even unbelievers find it hard to say a bad word about him. So yes, Jesus definitely is the best a man can get in the sense of perfect. 

But if you mean the best a man can get in this fallen world, then David teaches us something about ourselves which should drive us to Jesus in an instant: if a man as good as David, described as a better man than Saul, and called a man after God’s own heart, can fall into despicable sin, then how much more can any of us, man or woman, do the same? David was the best a man can get, without being the God-Man, and he committed such heinous crimes late in his life, that if he was the character in a movie, we would most certainly all cry for his downfall, and be satisfied when it happened. He started off alright, but a little way into the story he turns out to be as bad as Fernand Mondego, who takes everything away from the admirable Edmond Dantes, in The Count of Monte Cristo. He is the villain who steals from the hero his wife, his family and everything else. 

David teaches us that for us human men the best we can get is never really good enough, because we are always one sin guided episode away from being the worst a man can get. David teaches us men something incredibly important: we must watch ourselves, let we fall.

You see the Gillette ad got a couple of things right, and the most important thing it got right is that there is bad in every man. A lot get this, and seek to have it dealt with, and a lot don’t get this. But something Gillette will never tell you is that this is true of all people, whether men or women, we are all effected by a toxic problem; it is called sin. And in Jesus is the only way this toxin can truly be dealt with. In Jesus he offers those of us who recognize we are not the best we can be, a chance to know the one who is the best you can get, and to have the forgiveness that comes with knowing him. This is what salvation is: to recognize who Jesus is and to trust him to make a way for us to be with him and his father in the next life. To recognize that only he can do this for us, because none of us are really the best we can be.

So, the best any of us can get is Jesus. Yes we should call out bad behaviour in men, and I think in women too, really everyone one has moments where we should be called out for our behaviour. But at the end of the day, no matter how good we think we are, Jesus is the one we need, and the offer of salvation in him is the best offer we will ever get.