The Director's Bag: Episode 8

Episode 8 July 05, 2024 00:20:56
The Director's Bag: Episode 8
TruthXchange Podcast
The Director's Bag: Episode 8

Jul 05 2024 | 00:20:56

/

Hosted By

Joshua Gielow

Show Notes

What is a Man?
What About Christian Nationalism?

Welcome to the Truthxchange Podcast: This is a weekly program with Dr Jeffery J Ventrella where he answers questions from subscribers around the globe, addressing issues about worldview, cultural apologetics, and other miscellaneous items. I am your host Joshua Gielow, and this is another edition of the director's bag.


View Full Transcript

Episode Transcript

[00:00:06] Speaker A: Welcome to the Truth Exchange podcast. This is a weekly program with doctor Jeffrey J. Ventrella where he answers questions from subscribers around the globe, answering questions about worldview, cultural apologetics, and other miscellaneous items. I'm your host, Joshua Guillotine, and this is another edition of the director's bag. We're back with the director's bag, and we have a number of questions that mainly have come in from x as well as Facebook. Next, a writer on Facebook, he quotes you, and I'll read the whole quote, and then he asks this question, and this is what you wrote in your dicta. You said, what neomasculinists teach. Real men become defined by cultural stereotypes, not biblical precepts. Accordingly, real men should be patriarchal. They evidently become sanctified by growing beards, shooting guns, pumping iron, and pushing leadership. Podcasts by Jungians, macho ex military, special operators, and MMA fighters. They embrace fighting, feasting, and laughing, often boasting about consumption while deriding or chiding winsomeness, civility, and kindness as being the fruit of feminism instead of the spirit. And they work to disenfranchise women in both church and society and otherwise manifest what many objective observers would deem misogynistic attitudes, if not behaviors. So the writer asked this question, would you be able to describe what a real man does? The apostle Paul talks about being a man, but the text was something read to the whole church at Corinthenne. Were men to, were women to hear this and know this was for men only, or was this more to a broader church? What are women to do? [00:01:59] Speaker B: Yeah, a lot of great questions there, and I appreciate it. So the dicta that I was writing was responding to the infection and invasion of bronze Age pervert, the anonymous blogger and the that has infected a lot of churches. And it's striking to me that a lot of young men have imbibed this stuff. They have a fascination for the supposed golden era of Greece and Rome and all this, and they're adorning the young male body and stuff. So let's just put on our biblical spectacles and think about this a little bit. Whatever we think about, and however we understand what it means to be a man has to apply. And I'm using man in terms of, as someone who's reached somewhat maturity so late teens or early twenties, it must apply to that person all the way until they are taken home, perhaps in their eighties or nineties or beyond. And so we cannot define masculinity in terms of capabilism. In other words, I can lift twice my body weight. Well, there's people that are paraplegics that can't do that. So that is smuggling in an unbiblical category to understand what it means to be a man. So to be a man, first of all, to be a christian man would be the person that manifests the fruit of the spirit in an increasing way. It'd be someone who, if he is married, understands that his role is to be christlike in subordinating himself and in fact, being willing to die on behalf as his wife, as Christ died for the church. It's to be a father who does nothing, exasperate his children is to be one who instead helps nurture and leave them in the Lord. It's also to be someone who is providing for his family, as the scripture says. Paul makes it very clear, look, if someone will not work, they should not eat. How much more the a force Uri is if they're not going to provide for their families, that's even worse. And so over and over again. So those are some of the functionalities, I would say also the christian man ought to be one who is given to fellowship and biblical submission to a local church body. Someone who manifests that they're not the grand poo bah, that there's a person under submission. A man will be someone who is engaged in other authorities as well, like civil authorities, that he understands that there's a public life to live and is going to be informed and engaged in such a way that, as Jesus says, lets his light shine before men, that he see that they may see his works and give glory to his father who is in heaven. Now, that applies to all christians, but it certainly applies to a christian man as well. So there are things that apply to christian maturity. And I would say. I would go on to say, because the incidents insight I can cite to are typically men, though not always men. They go against the grain. So we see Abraham going against the laughter of his wife, we see Moses going against Pharaoh, we see David going against Saul, we see Peter, James going against the religious rulers and so on and so forth. We see Paul pushing back against the philosophers. So there's an ability there to dialogue in a civil way, sometimes using very strong arguments, but yet in a civil way they're captured by the manner of the gospel. Now, that's not exclusively probably to me, and I think here of Ruth, for example, and that sort of thing, I think there's evidences of that, of, I think of JL dealing with Cicero, I think of some of the other Deborah, for example. But I think predominantly, I think the aspect is that's how a godly man ought to be and ought to conduct himself. My biggest concern in this area is I'm seeing people, young men, who are restless about this. Again, if you're going to categorize these things as indicia of masculinity, they've got to apply to every man, and obviously they can't. So that's a problem with their thinking, their categorization. But what's worse to me is not that they recognize a problem of irresponsible men or and having people, quote, man up and that sort of thing, whatever that may mean. The bigger issue, in my view, is a worldview issue. The worldview issue is they are seeing the world exactly like the critical theorists see the world. They're throwing everything through the lens of gender ideology. Everything's the problem because of feminism. Everything's the problem because of lack of masculinity. Everything's a problem because there's feminized men. And so they're making that the oppressed and oppressor sort of mantra. And it's like it's, they think they're opposing critical theory and they're actually reinforcing it by the very categories they're using to try to help the church. So what I think's going to happen is there's going to be a greater infection on this, and then ultimately the bottom will fall out, because critical theory is a false theory and it is not a biblical theory. It's incompatible with biblical theory. And I think what's going to have to happen is I think you're going to have to have some grownups in the room call people out and not get all hot and bothered about it and just move on, because these people are a lot of times involved in train wrecks. And so what happens when you're continuing to be angry, cynical, what's going to happen? In my view, this may be too cynical, but I'm going to say it anyway. I think you're going to collect ex wives. I think it's going to lead to mass, massive amounts of divorcement because it's all about them. It's about them being men, and that's just not the case. And so I think we're going to have to watch out for that. And so I think that the adults in the room need to start teaching, writing and preaching upon these issues, not to shame anyone, but to correct them with gentleness and with respect and say, hey. And again, I would point out Brian Matson's done some very good writing on this, and he's a truth exchange scholar as well. We've got to understand that this is nothing more than this atavism, that if we could only go back to the gladiator times, boy, would we be in good stead. Absolutely false. [00:08:41] Speaker A: All right, are you ready to go into the lions den? We got some christian nationalist questions. Okay. Could you talk a bit more about the christian nationalism bug I am seeing on x and facebook? On the face, it doesn't sound like a bad thing to be a Christian that cares for the nation or wants the nation to be ruled by a christian power or christian principles. The alternative would be paganism, it seems. And isn't this the ultimate goal, the christianization of the nations? [00:09:19] Speaker B: Yeah, I believe that is not the ultimate goal. I believe that's going to happen. But let me give a quick caveat with respect to that. What does that mean? It does not mean that each and every person will be a christian, nor does it mean that each and every individual institution will be christian. It simply means that the predominant flow of how we understand our various cultures will be increasingly christian in understanding and in practice. But I think the questioner has answered his own question because he talked about christian nationalism, but then unintentionally pivoted to, shouldn't we have a christian love for our nation? Absolutely. That's called patriotism. God made us, you and I, both, not only Christians, but United States Christians. And there's a particular situation. We've been instantiated in a particular time and place, and that's very important. [00:10:16] Speaker A: You make that distinction between patriotism and nationalism? [00:10:19] Speaker B: Absolutely. Nationalism says that my nation is never wrong, and in fact, it's connected to blood and soil. It very much stems out of the romantic era, which then was appropriated by fascism and Nazism. It's like, hey, we are superior to you. We don't want your kind. Whereas the christian faith is not particularizing, the christian faith is universalizing. God chose one person, then God chose one nation, then God chose people from every kindred tribe and nation. And ultimately he universalizes, through his reign by the power of the Holy Spirit, through grace, these kinds of things not changing us in terms of our cultural backgrounds. I'm so grateful there'll be Italians at the end of the day of the Lord, and we'll have italian. I know for a fact, and I'm not gonna tell you how I know, but there'll be wine from Tuscany in the marriage supper of the land, because it is the best wine, very simply. So all that to simply say, I'm saying in jest, but. So the distinction will be there. But nationalism is essentially a form of worshiping the state, whereas a christian nation says the various sovereignties within a particular geographical area will be increasingly subject to christian criticism and christian transformation. So the family, education, institutions, those sorts of things, that's what it means to have a christian nation, as opposed to saying everything subsumed under the state, and then the state takes over everything to impose some form of so called orthodoxy. That's the problem I have. So I guess, to put it in shorthand form for our listeners, the problem I have with christian nationalism is the same problem I have with Christianity. Pornography, christian child abuse, christian spousal abuse. It's not the christian part of it that's the problem. It's the nationalism that is the problem. [00:12:29] Speaker A: Next up is how should nations rule God's word or by natural law, it seems you have to have some sort of hermeneutical tool to interpret and implement those actions. And what is that tool? Is it theonomy? I don't want to give up shellfish or mixed fabric garments. [00:12:50] Speaker B: You don't have to, because acts ten makes it very clear that all foods are good. And Paul, of course, later, and I think in Thessalonians talks about we ought to receive all these good new things and not forbid, not have abstinence of marriage and, and receive these things with thanksgiving. So how should they. [00:13:07] Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. Could you break down those two, the two views of this writer, the. When he's saying God's word, what do you think he's meaning by that? And then also natural law, what does it for our listeners, who may not be familiar with even that term, what, what is natural law? [00:13:24] Speaker B: Yeah, so I think that the listeners talking about, do we rule? So the nations take their cues, and only their cues, if I'm hearing them correctly, from special revelation, the scripture, natural law has a very robust christian tradition. Now, what that means is that God as the creator has imbued what he has created with certain order and certain aims, that we can not only understand what things are, but what things ought to be both. So, for example, a natural lawyer would say, look, we should not look into the sun directly with our eyes, because eyes are designed to perceive. And if we look into the sun, we can do that. But if we do, we'll destroy the very purpose of that. What's the purpose of the heart? The purpose of the heart is to circulate blood. What's the purpose of the lungs. The purpose of the lungs is to oxygenate the blood that the heart is circulating. And so we have the nervous system, the circulatory system, the pulmonary system, and then the natural lawyer will say, you know what? No person has a reproductive system. No one listening to this podcast has a reproductive system. They have half of a reproductive system. So the natural lawyer would say, that's very interesting. Well, then how does that system, if I've got half and someone else has half? Oh, it's a different sex. And so the natural lawyer says, in creation there's a dimorphic, sexed humanity, male and female. And when they come together, they become one, not only in a spiritual sense, but literally in a physiological sense, and that completes the reproductive system. So a natural lawyer would reason that way. Now, there's, there's some very interesting debates going on with respect to that. And so the question has been asked, okay, well, how should we rule? I think the answer is, actually, we need to understand that natural law will never, if properly apprehended, be inconsistent with God's special revelation. They ought to cohere. And so that's a very important point there. Second of all, we have some admonitions from scripture in the sense of prudence that would be, in a sense, helping us to understand things that we perceive, the natural created order. For example, Solomon says, go to the ant, observe her, see how they work. Oh, so we can learn empirically. Jesus tells the story and says, look, you look out on the horizon, you see the color of the thing. You know the storm is coming. Why can't you? So there's this regularity. Now we know the regularity is there by special revelation. The Noah Covenant talks about seasons and all that sort of stuff. So I think we have to be, we have to be careful not to poo poo that, but I would also say that if you put too much weight on unaided reason, that's a real problem. And a lot of people are talking in that way. Oh, they'll say something like, well, most people can use their reason to understand what we ought to do. Well, most people's not everybody. So that's, that's somewhat of a problem. Be very careful with respect to the idea of unaided reason. And I will quote a theologian that Doctor Jones had met and spent some good times with, Cardinal Ratzinger, who later became Pope Benedict XVI, who's actually a very good theologian. I know some people might think that's not to be said, but he is a very good theologian. We may disagree on some points, obviously, but when it comes to this notion of what we call the noetic effect of sin, does sin affect our reasoning? He sounds like Cornelius van till on this point. Most of my catholic friends don't, don't, don't agree with him, but I think Ratzinger is 100% right on that particular point. He says, you cannot have unaided reason and expect to arrive at how we're supposed to live. You have to have a revelational context, general revelation and special revelation. So that's kind of how it goes. So I think the answer is we actually need both. We actually need to appreciate what God has given us, not to take a resource God has given us and sidelined it as well. Now, it gets a little dicey because there are people out there that simply say, well, the Bible says and have this kind of wooden literalism, and they think that if the legislature just photocopies some part of the Bible, they can enact it. The Bible was never intended to be that way. But we can learn. The Westminster divines were quite good about this. When we talk about the general equity of the casuistic or the casuistic case laws, because there are principles that we can derive from them, it takes hard exegetical work. It takes humility to do that. Well. But frankly, I just wish we have Congress that could do something. They don't do anything. [00:18:34] Speaker A: Yeah. So, because if you look at, like, Romans 13, when the apostle Paul is talking about the role of government and he says that the government wields the sword, I'm assuming that that's mostly in a. At least at that time, he was stating that the government should be operating in a natural law, because at that point, the government didn't have special revelation. The blossoming and the leavening of the kingdom of God hadn't taken place in the nations, particularly. And then post Constantine, then you have that special revelation being applied. Am I kind of, like, on the right track here with that? [00:19:13] Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. There's the productive thing there. It's really important. Romans 13 tells us the state is legitimate and that it's limited. It's not totalistic, it's not absolute. How do we know that? Paul says that the state, Caesar is legitimate because he's God's minister for justice, punishing certain conduct, not regulating the entirety of our lives. It's to keep the peace and making sure that certain conduct is proscribed. And if it occurs, it is to be dealt with. So it doesn't deal with our thoughts, it doesn't deal with our convictions. It doesn't deal with our religious convictions, that sort of stuff. [00:20:03] Speaker A: Again, right there, that's a good thing. I don't want a christian prince telling me which psalter I could use or when I should go to worship or where I should go to worship. [00:20:14] Speaker B: Yeah. Those who are arguing that there's probably only two or three people, I know you look at the blogosphere, but they're very loud and they're very mistaken, utterly mistaken with respect to that. They're christian nationalists, and they're dead wrong. [00:20:28] Speaker A: This concludes the recording of the director's bag. For more resources from Truth exchange, please visit us online at www.truthexchange.com. you can follow us on x as well as Facebook for more updates and content related to Truth exchange. Be sure to join us next week for more questions from the director's bag. I'm your host, Joshua Gulo, and this is the Truth Exchange podcast.

Other Episodes

Episode

October 18, 2024 00:13:25
Episode Cover

Managing Technological Liturgies

Welcome to the Truthxchange Podcast: This is a weekly program with Dr Jeffery J Ventrella where he answers questions from subscribers around the globe,...

Listen

Episode 6

December 03, 2021 00:47:03
Episode Cover

The Importance of the Home

This week we wrap our discussion of patriarchy and gender. We focus in on noisy quiet times, the single life, and the so called...

Listen

Episode 4

October 15, 2021 00:19:23
Episode Cover

Paganism: All Religions Are One?

Join us today for part 4 of this classic teaching series from Dr. Peter Jones. The Pagan Agenda is wrapped up in obliteration of...

Listen