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.
This is a question regarding your dicta on one of economic lies. Yes, even Taylor Swift helps us understand economics. You discuss Tim from in Sacramento, California, writes, is a free market or capitalism really a better christian alternative when it seems like it fosters greed?
I think of christian socialism as having aspects where people can glean and they which can be practiced by the poor and all can benefit. I think of the early church. We're all benefited, like in, in the book of acts.
[00:01:09] Speaker B: Well, thank you, Tim, for that question. It is important to be in exploring it. Let's, let's start out this way. First of all, greed is, is something that is inherent in a fallen human heart. One can be greedy in communist China. People were certainly greedy in the former Soviet Union. Greed comes out of the heart. It is not imposed by a particular system. So I think that's. .1 I think .2 would be something like this, that there are multiple temptations to greed. The beauty of a virtuous market is that it has checks and balances against that kind of greed. If in a virtuous market, someone is not meeting someone else's needs, well, then all the intentional greed in the world is not going to get that satisfied, because the idea of a market is to meet the needs of someone else. So there's a distinction between rational self interest that encompasses serving others versus simply greed. Now, there are certainly greedy people in various forms of economic systems, but the early church, let's recall, was in first century Rome, and the church was not practicing any form of socialism as we understand it, socialism is state directing the means of production. What we saw instead, and we're just after Pentecost when we're recording this, is that they had lots of needs because lots of people were converted to Christ. Those needs were taken care of voluntarily, without state direction. When we see the state, instead of christians doing charity, it becomes entitlement or welfare. It always produces shortages. It always destroys productivity, and it actually works in the opposite way of caring for others and their needs. The church is to be involved in charity, the voluntary, joyful, satisfying of others needs, whether they're in the church or outside of the church. We are to be those who give alms and help the poor and those sorts of things that's required of christians. But that's. The state doesn't do a very good job of it, and it certainly doesn't do a very good job of it. If you look at the. The food lines in places like socialist Venezuela, socialist Cuba, and of course, in Russia, even today.
[00:03:50] Speaker A: Yeah. In acts two, and all who believed were together and had all things in common, and they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all as any had need. And it is almost that there's a parallel, what we see in Exodus, where it's the building up of the temple where people are distributing their gifts for the worship of God. And here in the New Testament church, they're distributing for the foundation of the church. It's totally not a socialistic or communistic type of distribution of wealth, as it were. But I hear that a lot and see that a lot. That kind of, that question on college campuses about socialism and early church was quite in favor of socialism.
[00:04:45] Speaker B: Yeah, that's just a misunderstanding of the text. The text is pretty clear that there's no state requirement in any of those things. They just understood they needed to meet needs, that charity is part of a christian confession and part of a christian form of life. And so we ought to be generous givers, as Paul says in Corinthians.
[00:05:08] Speaker A: Yeah, we have a. Some writer from Facebook asked this question. We've seen various types of government systems rise and fall under the covering of christendom.
You weren't a statism, but couldn't statism be just another type of government that is like all other kinds of government? It's not perfect because namely none are, and they are all outworkings of fallen man trying to govern himself and others.
[00:05:34] Speaker B: Yeah, thank you for that question, Facebook reader. So a couple of thoughts here. I'm reminded of Winston Churchill, the great statesman, who said, democracy is the worst government system of all, except for all the rest, acknowledging that there is flaws in any governmental system. But when we say state ism, we're talking about a comprehensive, totalistic, and absolute control of the public sphere. In other words, there's no separate jurisdictions. There's no room for what Abraham Kuyper called sphere sovereignty, that God, in fact, made multiple kinds of governments, church government, associational governments, oh, family governments. And by the way, self government. Statism collapses those distinctions and simply says, and it really takes on lordship attributes.
It says it's its own law, it says it's absolute, and it's comprehensively total. But only Jesus the Lord actually has those attributes, and then everything in kind is not to do that not to. It's a form of idolatry. So statism at times can be, quote, efficient, quote, but that was, that which is efficient is not necessarily moral or ethical. So we want to be very careful with that. And one final thought, just a little deeper probe here. You mentioned Christendom, and it depends what you mean by that. If we're talking about historical Christendom. The state was very weak during the medieval time. It did not have a lot of power. Instead, we saw, typically, the papal states producing their own armies, their own weapons, raising knights and all that sort of stuff. So we have a very different social dynamic. Whereas today the state is almost omnipotent. It thinks it's omnipotent, and that produces great danger, because, as you've noted, mankind is sinful. And so I would say that where we had a real zenith of understanding of christendomic form of government would be in the founding of the United States, not to deify the founders nor the constitution, but the idea and recognition that mankind has fallen and that mankind focuses toward power and grabbing power. We have a system of government that breaks apart power that multiplies factions, so no one can be tyrannical. And so I think that statism is the exact opposite of what the american experiment was about.
[00:08:20] Speaker A: Getting into political theory. What do you think is going to be the next evolution that we'll see in maybe 2030 years about government systems? Do you think that the us government as is, is going to continue on? Do you think? There's, we talked about in a previous podcast about christian nationalism, and one Arthur, author of this book on the subject of christian nationalism, he talks about a christian prince. And it makes me wonder, are we going to see a rise of the feudal system and monarchs again?
Do you have any kind of thought about where things might go?
[00:08:54] Speaker B: Yeah, it's an interesting point. I was just reading this morning about this idea of how do you transition between political systems? And what's interesting is when you have a complex, interrelated system, even the best superforecasters can only go out two to three years. The ability to actually forecast beyond that, everyone should acknowledge, is quite, quite limited because there's just a multiplicity of factors. I mean, think about this. We're looking at the news cycle a little bit.
Who would have thought that the president of Iran would be killed in a helicopter crash? He wasn't shot out of the air. It wasn't a casualty of war. It just happened. Well, stuff like that does happen. So it takes a lot to have what we call a regime change. What I do see, however, particularly we're seeing this since 2016 in the United States situation, is an increased desire for any all powerful leader and that sort of thing. And that feeds into what we're seeing in the public square with respect to christian nationalism. What we're seeing now is the rise of the new right that despises constitutionalism, that despises classical liberalism. Frankly, one of the authors of one of these christian nationalism books doesn't quote the Bible at all, yet calls for a christian prince.
That should tell us something, that it's not very christian. And I remember Cornelius Van Till, who really deeply influenced my thinking and a lot of my teachers.
Doctor Van Til was asked the question, and I'm paraphrasing here, Doctor Van Teel, if you could be made ruler of the earth, what's the first thing you would do? You have all the power. It would be legitimate. You'd have all authority to do that. What would you do as a governor if you had all power? He said, oh, well, the first thing I do is resign, because no sinful man should have that much power. And I think that's a very wise response by Doctor Van Til.
[00:11:05] Speaker A: Yeah, the consolidation of power. And I've heard there's a number of lectures that you've given over the years at some of our symposium and our think tanks, and you've talked about the importance of breaking up power versus consolidating power, because that is. That's what the devil does, is he consolidates power. And it's easy to hide wickedness.
[00:11:23] Speaker B: God delegates power. He's delegated power in Eden. That was his very purpose. Very interesting. You're right. Satan consolidates power.
[00:11:31] Speaker A: Next we have Henry from Rhode island, and he writes, Doctor Ventrella, you wrote in your article on the LGBTQ liturgies, let's politely reject that invitation. Instead, worship the creator in spirit and truth, demonstrating by our own faithful liturgies that the light of the truth dispels the darkness of the lie.
That was wonderfully written, but I feel completely inadequate in doing so. As the liturgies and calls to worship from the LGBTQ are everywhere, from commercials to drag queen hour to my kids interactions at sports and school, sometimes it feels like the way forward is the monastery.
What are your thoughts on boycotts, monasteries, and protests? Are there other ways of faithfully engaging?
[00:12:26] Speaker B: Thank you for that question. Thank you for your honesty with respect to it. Because I think all of us at times feel we just want to run and hide. Boy, it's just getting really heated out there. People are not being civil, they are being caustic. I was listening to a friend of mine yesterday, Hugh Hewitt, who's a public intellectual, and he was saying how horrible it's been.
Everyone's rotten if you oppose someone as opposed to just wrong or mistaken. And so we've lost civility. And the Christians, I think, can really stand well in being in contrast to all the people shouting down one another. But let's think about this now a little bit.
We are called, irrespective of the circumstances, to be salt and light, to not hide our lights under a bushel, nor to have the salt lose its saltiness. When Jesus tells us this in Matthew, chapter five, it's interesting because he goes on to talk about, it's an ethical salt and light. It's not just a metaphor, it's an ethical, and it should be reflected in our good works. And then after he does that, by the time we get to chapter six, he tells us to seek first God's kingdom and his justice or his righteousness. So we really have no option but to engage in these various ways. And I want to stress that it is various ways to do that. And so we are all called to do it, because while the culture war, you may not want the culture war, the culture war wants you. And the idea that we can go to a monastery, like my friend Rod Dreyer, the Benedict option, he's been misquoted. But still, the idea of withdrawal is problematic, because you take the culture with you, you take everything that has nurtured you into that. There's no utopia, whether that's globally or in a little monastery. So be very careful with that. Though I understand the sentiment and the engagement piece is we have to, we must. Satan's not going to stop at the church door if you don't engage the culture, you'll be dealing with this in the pews very, very definitely, because that's the nature of paganism. It has a totalistic claim on reality, and of course, Christ has vanquished it. So I would say this as to particularized boycotts. Very good example. Boycotts typically don't work too well. They are designed, in many cases, to be fundraising mechanisms. Here, sign our protest. Now, we have your contact information and we're going to ask you for funding. And there's nothing wrong with asking for funding. Truth exchange needs your funding, too. I'll just be blunt, for the initiatives we're doing. But the reality is it's in our integrated economy, it's very vast, very complicated. You couldn't possibly separate yourself from anything that's tinged with sin. There are some things you can do and ought to do in terms of refrain, but in terms of overall boycotts, a better way is to engage from the inside. Two of my friends, Jerry Boyer and David Bonson, did this very effectively and they opposed JP Morgan, the huge bank, because JP Morgan was canceling people. They were having litmus tests. If you weren't so called woke, they were going to deplatform you from financial services, that sort of stuff. And they got on the annual meeting and had a resolution, basically to expose all this stuff. And ultimately, JP Morgan blinked this week and Reuters publicized that, and they changed their actual policies. That's the way to engage, not to just run off with our own marbles and that sort of thing. So I think that's really important to think about ways of doing that. And then the last part of the question, I've lost it in my mind. You talked about boycotts. Oh, protests. So I think we have to be understanding there that there are contexts in which nonviolent civil disobedience, which is one step beyond protests, are valuable. And we need to understand that, unlike our brothers and sisters in communist China or in Sudan, we can still do things under the rule of law in our environment to bring attention to these things. The apostle Paul in Ephesians five says, take no part in unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. In other words, protesting. Drawing attention to these things is very much valuable and is part of biblical obedience. But again, I said, let's do it civilly, let's do it within the rule of law, using, using our protected speech rights, our protected assembly rights and that sort of thing, not going crazy and trespassing and breaking things. Now, is there a place ultimately for civil disobedience? In other words, non violent protest? And I just read yesterday the letter from Birmingham jail, which is a long justification for civil disobedience. And the principles are christian principles, citing Augustine, Aquinas and the apostle Paul and even Socrates.
So the point being is, yes, if something is draconian enough and evil, there may be a time to engage in civil disobedience. But what that means is then you are willing to, to joyfully submit to the penalty for disobeying an unjust law. And so these people went to jail to do that. And then there are probably times I'm thinking of Calvin here, the doctrine of a lesser magistrate, where uncivil disobedience may be the godly thing to do. I'm not calling for that. I don't think we're at that place. But from a theological standpoint, there are times when, if they're breaking in and, you know, killing people, then we must resist and that sort of stuff.
[00:18:41] Speaker A: Is there ever a place you had, you began answering the question about or talking about the. How heated some of the discussions are, and there I'm seeing a trend with some of the younger men and ladies who are fighting fire with fire.
In terms of the tone, the language, do you think that has place in christian correspondence or discussion? Kind of a no quarter attitude, or should we tone that back? We need to watch the way we are saying things, even in the face of the ugly nature of the beasts of this kind of liturgy that really is coming from hell.
[00:19:25] Speaker B: Yeah, that's a very important point and a very trendy point. And I think the answer is we are that the manner of the gospel is still mandatory.
It's just as ethically required as the message of the gospel. Or to put it as my friend Brian Matson did, the fruit of the spirit doesn't have a shelf life. In other words, it doesn't expire. It's not like, oh, we can just dispense with, like, one guy on social media said, hey, in this environment, we shouldn't be plying the fruit of the spirit. Really? That's just not true. Yeah. Having said that, we certainly have scriptural examples of very direct and colorful metaphors and very direct admonitions concerning that. But no one on this podcast is a prophet of God in the biblical sense. So I think we need to be careful about how we do apply those. I think that we can be tough minded without being tone deafenheid. In other words, we can bring a gentle word. As proverbs says, the soft answer turns away wrath. That doesn't mean we become wallflowers. That doesn't mean we can't roll up the sleeves of our mind and really make the argument. We ought to make arguments, not just be condescending, name calling and that sort of stuff. I mean, Jesus himself called the king a fox. Oh, he's a fox. You know, and so the. We understand that that's not necessarily out of bounds, but what I see on social media, to the extent I'm on it, is shameful. And I see people basically imbibing a pagan ethos, a, you know, bronze Age mindset or bronze Age perversion that's going on here. And that's just not going to be helpful because it's not Christian in any sense.
[00:21:21] Speaker A: Sandy from Nebraska writes, dear Jeff, I have just finished my first year at college. Let me tell you, it was quite a jarring experience.
What has become increasingly clear to me is that I am the odd duck in the classroom. And much of my christian perspective on history, politics, even literature has come across to my peers and profs as oppressive, old fashioned, and even evil.
It got to the point where I didn't even want to tell anyone I was a Christian or talk about my faith even in my papers, because I would get docked a letter grade for having certain views. I need help. I need encouragement. What would you offer?
[00:22:09] Speaker B: Yes, Annie, well, thank you for writing and thank you for being that kind of a witness. I would say a couple things. One is you're really not alone, that your courage in just putting yourself out there will encourage many people behind you. You might not know it immediately, but they are actually gaining from your display of courage. Second thing I would say to you is, you're blessed. Jesus says, if you're persecuted for my name's sake, you are in a position of being blessed by God himself. And so all the discouragement should be dissipated when you start thinking and meditating upon what Jesus explicitly said.
The third level of thinking on this, if you are in fact docked, and this happened to me in college 45 years ago, in fact, the teacher wrote on one of my papers, you should just go to some little Bible college and transfer and never be a teacher.
Really? Okay, well, guess what? That's called viewpoint discrimination. And if this is a state school, I don't know what school she attends. That's blatantly unconstitutional. They can't penalize you if you did the assignment from a particular viewpoint and incorporated your christian beliefs. So you may want there, there are a number of entities out there that could help you with respect to that. But, but I understand the tension there about, well, maybe I just shouldn't talk. I think that you need to seek the Lord's face on that. He may give you other opportunities, but never hide your light under a bushel. If we can be helpful at truth exchange to give you some of our staff, people are very good at having those kinds of coffee talks. And to help people do that, I mentioned Doctor Van Til earlier. He was always, he said, always be when you engage with people in the position to buy the next cup of coffee. In other words, don't burn the bridge. You have the gospel of life and people need that whether they acknowledge it or not. And so anytime you can pour a little salt on these things, not on a wound but to season the conversation, you are doing the Lord's work. And I'm so glad to hear I that in your question, you have a christian view of history, a christian view of literature and all those sorts of things that is going to serve you quite well. So I would say persevere. We are called to overcome. We are called to be conquerors, and Jesus promises us that in him that shall be the case.
[00:24:49] Speaker A: That was a good word, Jeff. Last up, Kathy from Alberta, Canada. She writes. Doctor Ventrella, I appreciated your dicta on Governor Noam and the alleged murder of her dog.
One of the things I'm trying to understand is a cultural mandate.
Didn't the cultural mandate end at the fall and that Christ as the second Adam gives us a new mandate, namely to preach the gospel, and this is our new stewardship.
Jeff, could, as you answer this, could you, for our listeners that don't are not familiar with the cultural mandate, could you let us know what that is? And then she talks about Christ as a second Adam. Could you talk a little bit more about that and the importance of that in your answer?
[00:25:34] Speaker B: Yeah, sure. I appreciate the question. It's a very sincere one. So the cultural mandate is derived from the very first part of the Bible, Genesis, chapter one, particularly verses 26 to 28, and what it entails. It's very interesting. It's tied to when God says that mankind is his image and likeness to the very creation of humanity. Is the imago dei the image of God? And what's interesting is that in explaining that Moses ties the image of God to the idea of exercising dominion over all the created order, the sky, the land and what's in the seas. So the idea here is that God is making his image the, what's called the vice regent, the overseer. God delegates his sovereign authority to mankind to then continue to develop, exercise dominion, to be, frankly, a culture maker with respect to that, and to engage in the created order to bring it into greater arenas of beauty and productivity and that sort of thing. That is the cultural mandate that was given to Adam and eve jointly.
Okay, now, what's this business about the second Adam? So Adam, of course, as we know, failed. He and his wife both sinned. It created the fall. We now have this transmission of something called original sin. So we're sin not only in our hearts, but in what we do. We have sin and we have corruption, and Christ comes as the second Adam, basically, that Christ fulfills what Adam failed to do. And so though all fell in Adam, all are made alive that God has elected in Christ. So as the second Adam, he fulfills everything and all the promises that Adam failed to do. We see this working out in redemptive history. But then the question is, what about this cultural mandate? Jesus, in fact, gave us another commissioning. He gives it to the church called the great commission. And so the question we have to ask is, did that nullify? Did it abrogate? Did it end the cultural mandate? The answer is no. And how do we know that? Well, we see that following the flood and Noah, what God does is establish his covenant with Noah. And in establishing that covenant with Noah, this is Genesis, chapter nine, he gives him essentially a republication of the cultural mandate. The only difference there is that he allows them to explicitly eat flesh, eat meat with respect to that, but it's still exercising dominion of all that God has made, and that is never subsequently abrogated. So the great commission is an addition to the cultural mandate to which man was called. And so we are to be busy with respect to how we engage our culture, our families and our businesses and our education and all those sorts of things. So they actually go together. We have the gospel now to redeem people with renewed minds, renewed hearts, and that allows us to more fully understand the purpose of that cultural mandate.
[00:29:29] 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 Guillo, and this is the Truth Exchange podcast.
