Feminism Wishlist

I’ve never really identified with feminism for various reasons. This, of course, doesn’t mean that I necessarily oppose all forms of feminism. I simply think that the most common forms which exist today are basically of the same essence as the most radical forms, and therefore any kind of feminism which isn’t fundamentally disordered is too small of a minority to warrant my identification.

But, hypothetically, I could identify with, or at least offer my affirmation to, a feminist subgroup if it abstained from certain key errors which affect the majority forms. Some people will undoubtedly say that any “feminism” which meets my criteria is not feminism at all, and if so I am fine with that. But I’m also sure that there are at least a few people who would say otherwise.

So, for clarification and for the fun of articulating myself, what follows is some criteria, a “wishlist” perhaps, which a form of feminism would have to meet for me to assent. These are in no particular order, except the order in which they came to mind, which probably indiciates some loose association with how important I find them. I will call this kind of feminism which I could hypothetically affirm a “natural feminism,” because I believe the problem at the heart of most forms of feminism is a denial of the natural order of creation.

  • A natural feminism would have no overlap with the LGBT movement. Instead, it would oppose it, recognizing its intrinsic hostility to the feminine, and to the entire order of male and female which makes it possible to speak of the feminine at all.
  • A natural feminism would recognize that not all differences in the behavior, customs, and social positions of men and women are due to artificial inequalities. Many instead emerge naturally and organically from human nature, and they cannot be removed except by the dangerous task of tampering with human nature.
  • A natural feminism would ensure that women are not confined to the home without encouraging them to leave it behind. It would recongize that mothers are the heart and life of home, that the tendencies of women to center life in the home are first rooted in their maternal natures rather than patriarchal oppression, and that the home today suffers from self-inclosure in a way that makes it overly restrictive and even oppressive to women who choose to take it up as their domain. Such a natural feminism would wrestle with the tension between the reality of the home’s limitations/complications in modern life and the pain which the natural dependence of the home on the woman for life and warmth.
  • A natural feminism would detest pornography and all kinds of sex work as degrading. It would understand that the commodification of women’s bodies desacralizes them, objectivizes them, and even consensually exploits them. No room would be made for the hypocrisy of a society that wars against rape and sexual harassment while simultaneously selling to men a lifestyle of viewing women as impersonal sex objects.
  • A natural feminism would not seek to put women into the pastoral office. It would recognize that the pastor’s role as a shepherd, contender for the faith, and most importantly representative of Christ are initmately associated with the masculine virtues and the masculine symbolism of God as Father and Son. Instead, a natural feminism would recognize that feminine virtue and feminine symbolism are most closely associated with the Holy Spirit as life-giver, nurturer, communion-maker, sustainer, and consummator, and with the congregation of God’s people as Daughter of the Father and Bride of the Son. It would therefore seek to enable women in the Church to robustly fulfill these roles using all of their gifts, taking back to the women some of the perrogatives and responsibilities which are often erroneously given to the pastor.
  • A natural feminism would see the contradiction inherent in trying to elevate women by making them more like men of fleshly glory. It would recognize that the action hero, the assertive and aggressive character, and the alpha corporate executive are not true role models for feminine virtue, even if they can somewhat (and imperfectly) function that way for masculinity. While it would protect the right and opportunity of women to fulfill such roles when the situation requires or even permits, it would not hold them up as examples, but instead would prefer role models who exemplify compassion, patience, grace, aethestic sense, nurture, tolerance, etc. (For more on masculine and feminine virtue, I recommend this post. For more on the problem with idealizing masculine women, see this Mere Orthodoxy post from Alastair Roberts.)
  • Finally, a natural feminism would entirely repudiate any project of making humans androgynous. It would allow the natural differences between men and women to function despite their various difficulties and problems. Instead of trying to solve gender problems by artificially elininating gender difference through state and social force, it would focus on mitigating the social and physical factors which turn the goodness of the natural sexual order into a burden and trial.

If anyone finds a feminism along these lines, be sure to let me know, and I’ll cheer it on.

Feminism Wishlist

The Nicene Nerdcast: Against Traditional Marriage

This post is the second epsiode of my new podcast, The Nicene Nerdcast. Again, there’s not much for me to introduce, and if the title has you prepared for outrage, I give you my kind-hearted laughter. This episode is the result of some recent reflections on the nature and purpose of marriage, along with its problems today.


Download this episode

The Nicene Nerdcast: Against Traditional Marriage

Modernity, From Original Sin to the Day of the Lord

The news lately has put me thinking a lot about the origins and destination of the modern world. By “modern world,” I mean the social, political, cultural, institutional, and industrial structures of the post-Enlightenment West and other regions and peoples who have been influenced by it. It is a very peculiar world, with certain developments and features which are simply unprecedented in any other time and place. It is at present a frightening world, undergoing severe turmoil of many kinds. And like all worlds before it, it will someday be destroyed. All things fade. Only the kingdom of God will remain.

In this post, I will attempt to put together a hypothesis about the theological narrative of modernity. For God is always behind history, working in, with, through, and even against the people, institutions, and forces which drive it on the surface. The modern world, like Christendom, the Roman Empire, Babel, and the ante-diluvian world, started and will end with theological significance. The Bible largely consists of theological narratives about people and nations, and it would be strange to assume that such accounts were only truly relevant until Jesus came.

For the purpose of this post, I will stylize my proposed theological narrative of modernity with certain allusions and symbols (and no doubt some admitted hyperbole). This is in order to draw links to biblical themes and accounts as well as to simplify what might otherwise be a rather technical and complex analysis of history and philosophy. I will also note upfront that my narrative is largely informed by C. S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man, Andrew Perriman’s work, and the writings of people like Peter Leithart, Rod Dreher, N. T. Wright, and Alastair Roberts, to name a few of the many sources. So without further ado, I present an account of the modern world.

In the beginning of modernity, God had taken the world order of the Roman Empire and subjected it to the authority of His Son Jesus Christ. This took the form of Christendom, an imperfect but authentic Christian world order. The nations confessed Jesus as Lord and honored God’s will in their law. Christendom was the world for a thousand years, but man was restless and would not so easily submit to God forever.

Internal troubles and tremors began to plague the old order, with guilt on all sides of all conflicts. At the same time, knowledge of the human and nature worlds began to increase, and with this tool Western man began to see his opportunity. By the time the Reformation had done its work, he found excuse and opportunity to rebel. The Church could apparently no longer be trusted, being deeply fragmented from corruption, violence, and strife. So perhaps the Church had been seriously wrong in several ways. No matter! With the Western man’s newest tools of science and philosophy, he could find truth for himself. Maybe he could find it by reinterpreting the Bible, or disposing of the Bible, reinterpreting God, or even disposing of God.

With these new ideas in place, he went to work on reconceptualizing the world in new terms, terms influence by the old world of Christendom but innovative in many ways. Under these new terms, God was either too transcendent or too immanent to give man the rules under which the West had been governed for so long. So he made new rules. These rules put man in charge of himself, enabling him to use his own reason and techniques to reshape the world as he thought it ought to be. To this task he took. Modern man would construct a new world to replace the decaying world of Christendom: a world with a new physical order, a new socio-political order, and a new economic order. This world, he supposed, would be infinitely superior to the old one. Revolutions of science, philosophy, and religion had given him everything he needed to create a new heavens and earth in man’s own preferred image.

The rebuilding project affected three major areas. Man would reconstruct the economic order, the socio-political order, and the natural order. Each of these took polarized forms, two opposite but twin trajectories. The economic rebuilding slowly became the alternative techniques of capitalism and socialism. The socio-political rebuilding led to the parallel projects of liberalism and totalitarianism. The rebuilding of the natural world eventually split into industrial polution with uninhibited scientific manipulation of the elements and radical environmentalism which prizes animals, minerals, and raw “nature” above human flourishing.

While the project had many successes, particularly where it worked by explicitly or implicitly retaining classical assumptions from the old world, and sometimes on its own, it also bore wicked fruit. Wars and rumors of wars, destroying of the earth, neighbor rising against neighbor, rich who sell the poor for a pair of sandals, men who shame themselves with other men, women who think they are men and receive in themselves a due penalty for their anti-transcendant error—all of these began to bleed forth from the new order. These were not so much new phenomena as phenomena with a new historical character and shape. In essence, modern man drove the world a new kind of mad. The new insanity was a profoundly humanistic one. Man artificially constructed a brand new world order in his own depraved and limited image. Yet this image is not only wrong but mortal, produced by radically finite wisdom, ignorant, and subject to corruption. The foundations of modernity were as unstable as man himself, who is but a vapor.

For this reason the wrath of God is coming upon the modern world. As He did to all of the old world orders, He will judge righteously. The societies which have set aside divine givenness for the artifices of men who deem themselves wise and experts will crumble. The Lord will demonlish the artificial world of modern man in all of its parts, and men will seek relief and mercy, but will not find it.

Economics will fail. God will topple the pretensions of the economists, and the rich and the poor will oppose each other. The self-made man will be unmade, and the man with nothing will have even less. Society and politics will fail. People will be divided brother against brother, race against race, class against class, party against party until the house cannot stand. All self-constructed identities and artificial sexualities will fall apart and leave homes broken in every place. The environment will fail. The radicals who wish to use environmentalism to gather power or restructure society will be resisted and fail. Politically-motivated climate change-deniers will be washed away by hurricanes, incinerated by fires, and poisoned by pollutions. Economic, social, and environmental catastrophe will bring the West to its knees.

The modern world invented by rebellious man will pass away. The kingdom of our God will remain forever.


All of this should be taken with a grain of salt. It is oversimplified, stylized, and the eschatological conclusion is obviously guesswork. But it’s what has been whirling around in my head as a late, so take it and do with it what you will.

Modernity, From Original Sin to the Day of the Lord

Homosexuality Then and Now, in Theological Narrative Perspective

A lot of progressive Christians argue that the historical context of the New Testament restricts the scope of the so-called “clobber texts” about homosexuality. Jesus and the Apostles, they say, had no concept of the modern development of a loving, consensual, monogamous homosexual relationship. Therefore in places like Romans 1 where they seemed to condemn gay or lesbian practices, the condemnations were really only limited to the exploitative and/or idolatrous practices of the day, not all homosexuality. We can all agree that prostitution, pedophilia, and cultic sex are wrong, and those are basically the only kinds of homosexual practices the New Testament actually forbids.

My experiment here is to grant their argument and run with it. Let’s say that the progressives are right, that Paul and Jesus knew nothing of the kind of homosexual relationships which occur today. Let’s grant that their condemnation of homosexual practices was contingent on their historical context. In that case, our question for today can be framed as follows: in our present historical context, are the kinds of homosexuality practiced associated with something idolatrous or destructive? I think the answer to this question is still, “Yes,” so that even if the biblical condemnations of homosexuality were context-specific, applying biblical reasoning to our own historical context indicts today’s forms of homosexuality as well.

How do I arrive at this point? I place homosexuality then (Bible times) and now in narrative perspective. Where does homosexuality fit into the wider theological narrative of God, man, Israel, Christ, the Church, and the world? For all my disagreements with him, I think Andrew Perriman gets the logic of Romans 1 more or less right, so I will build from a foundation roughly corresponding to his his narrative account.

Why did Paul speak so strongly against homosexuality in Romans 1? In context, the kinds of homosexuality practiced in Greek and Roman civilization was part of the deterioration of Gentile civilization produced by idolatry. Since as early as Babel, the Gentiles had exchanged the glory of the immortal God for other gods, images of wood and stone. They served the creation rather than the Creator. By taking the Creator out of the picture in exchange for created gods, they paved the way for disorienting the use of all created things, human bodies included. They used their bodies in shameful ways to satisfy their shameful gods in open rebellion against the true Creator God. All of this became particularly acute in the Romans world as the height of pre-Christian, Gentile civilization. The Roman committment to false gods led to decadence and gross abuse of human bodies, which had been made to serve the true God. Thus they received in themselves the due penalty for their error, and God’s wrath was a-comin’.

The situation since then has changed. The pre-Christian Gentile world, the world of the pagan Roman Empire, has been destroyed. It was replaced by Christendom, a world order in which the nations confessed Christ as Lord (however imperfect and problematic this order turned out to be). The Church did its best to construct fitting new culture, new worldview, and new intellectual concepts for this order from reflection on Scripture and Christian tradition, and these came to dominate Christendom. So for a thousand years Christendom remained and the nations remained mostly submissive (at least nominally) to Christian thought and ethics.

But all this began to change around the time of the Enlightenment. The causes of the change are mostly unimportant here. What matters is that there was a new wave of rebellion. The old world rebellion began with worshipping false gods and idols, but the new rebellion was based on worship of man. It produced humanism, materialism, atheism, naturalism, and rationalism. Man no longer felt the need to serve a god, whether a true or false one. Rather, man decided he was able to accomplish all things by himself and be all things to himself. This has had to take a decidedly neo-Gnostic slant. The old pagans saw creation and nature as run by gods, Christendom saw them as the work of the one God, and modern humanism sees them either as shackles of givnenness to be broken or as raw material to be reshaped in man’s preferred image.

The transition from old Christendom worldview to the new humanistic one has been slow, but it has come, like the old pagan system, to express itself in sexual deviance. The Sexual Revolution neatly and naturally followed the rebellious, humanistic spirit of the age to assert human capacity and freedom over and against divine authority. The idea is that humanity is grown-up now: we don’t need old rules supposedly from God to tell us how to handle sexual ethics. We’re now all set to do whatever we please. This led to acceptance of contraception, divorce, sexual activity before marriage, and at this present stage the entire LGBT movement. The modern world’s neo-Gnosticism can be seen here, as well: the natural reproductive order was created before our wills, but for humanity to be all in all we must assert our wills over and against this basic physical component to human existence. Biological sex is unchosen, gifted from God, and if we are to escape God’s dominion we must be able to reconstruct and redefine gender and sex without reference to the realities of the body, or to reshape the body around our conceptions of gender and sex.


I think this narrative makes sense of what has been happening in modern history. The first rebellion put Gentiles under the dominion of false gods, and it led to the degredation of the body in idolatrous rites and decadent sexual arrangements. This new, post-Christendom rebellion puts mankind in the West under no one but himself, and thus leads to the attempt to self-transcend and redefine the body for our own ends and impulses. The old order acknowledged the givenness of reality but refused to honor God for it, and so honored false gods. The new order, in its own attempt to escape God, denies the givenness of reality and seeks to give humanity unlimited power over all things, our own bodies included. It is easy to see how the LGBT movement fits into this narrative.

If the narrative offered above is at all, the progressive argument that biblical prohibitions against homosexuality were only about the context-specific forms of homosexuality which plagued the ancient world does nothing to exonerate homosexuality today. On the contrary, a look at our context reveals how modern homosexuality can also be condemned in a context-specific way, as part of the modern rebellion of humanism, which contrasts with the rebellion condemned in Romans 1 of literal idolatry. Then and now, homosexuality is part of a larger human rebellion against the true God. And this (I think) suggests a deeper link between homosexuality and sin, so that homosexual practices would be likely only to emerge on notable scales in contexts of rebellion. But that would be another post.

Homosexuality Then and Now, in Theological Narrative Perspective

The Nicene Nerdcast: Holy Communion vs. White Supremacy

With this post I officially begin my blog’s companion podcast, The Nicene Nerdcast. I don’t have much in the way of introduction to give you, so here’s the first installment. This is the result of some of my ponderings on race and the Church in recent days.

Download this episode

The Nicene Nerdcast: Holy Communion vs. White Supremacy

The Justification of Ungodly Wealth

Here are the outline and audio recording of a sermon I preached in October.

  1. Introduction
    1. All familiar with Francis Chan
    2. Should be, pastor who gives and sends and loves, author of Crazy Love
    3. Ran across an article on him on the Internet
    4. “Francis Chan Runs Out of Things To Give Away”
      Eric Horton, Chief Generosity Officer of the Crazy Love Foundation, a nonprofit started by popular speaker and Bible teacher Francis Chan, confirmed Wednesday that Mr. Chan had finally given away the very last of his earthly possessions.
      The landmark moment reportedly occurred at the Abundant Life Christian Fellowship rummage sale, which was organized to raise funds for an upcoming short term mission trip to an unnamed third-world region.
      “[Chan] just started scratching his head, and throwing his hands up into the air,” reported local man Brandon Reuben, who happened to be at the rummage sale looking for a lightly used Pyrex glass measuring cup. “At one point, he shouted, ‘Are you kidding me?’ and began to weep loudly.”
      A destitute and despondent Chan was seen wandering the streets of San Francisco after the sale, unsure of what to do with himself. Borrowing a stranger’s phone, he sent a text to his good friend David Platt to share the news, who reportedly replied, “It is finished.” At publishing time, Chan was racked with guilt over the shirt and pants he was wearing, praying for God to guide him to someone he could offer them to.
      Babylon Bee
    5. Foolish kid to preach on money from Luke 16:1-15
    6. Parable of the unjust steward, though “unrighteous manager” in my translation
    7. Interpret the difficult parable, examine a theology of money, see just what Christ’s work does to our use of it
  2. Interpreting the Parable
    1. Read the text, Luke 16:1-15
    2. Note basic storyline
      1. Steward squandered resources
      2. Called to account by master
      3. Used remaining time to reduce invoices
      4. Used goodwill to prepare his future
      5. Congratulated by master
    3. Question: what did the steward do in 6-7?
    4. Possible answers
      1. Cooked books
      2. Cut out master’s unlawful interest (note rates)
      3. Cut out commission
      4. Cut out personally added interest, favored, explains response from Jesus and master
    5. To unpack meaning: setup like parable of wicked tenants, talents, and the like
    6. God is master, steward is Israel, especially the elites
    7. Steward was unfaithful to what God had given, as was Israel with their covenant blessings and especially the elites with material wealth
    8. So what does the steward do? Sacrifices wealth in generosity to secure his future before it’s too late
    9. Commended by master for his astute (side note on meaning, “practical intelligence”) plan
    10. Pharisees and elites are ironically (or covenantally) “sons of light”
    11. Jesus warns them to flee their love of money, giving up their dishonest gain like the steward
    12. They claim to serve the master, God, while serving mammon, but they must choose one
    13. Jesus has come to announce their removal unless they repent
    14. Their love of money has kept others in poverty and isolation (cf. rich man and Lazarus)
    15. These poor outcasts are entering the Kingdom with eternal homes before the “godly” Pharisees
    16. Jesus tells them: repent!
    17. Like the rich young ruler, give away your money to the poor (make friends for yourselves)
    18. Then these who are entering the Kingdom first will welcome them as well
  3. Theology of money and its justification
    1. Here Jesus gives a picture of money as a liability (rich man, eye of a needle)
    2. Of money: “For what is highly admired by people is revolting in God’s sight.”
    3. Not poverty-works
    4. Richness implies lack of generosity (cite Francis Chan)
    5. James loaded with critical statements about the rich
    6. There are three possible views on money
      1. Naturally good but dangerous
      2. Naturally neutral but corrupting
      3. Naturally corrupt but useful
    7. Jesus seems to give in general but especially this parable credence to the last or strong middle
    8. Unrighteous mammon, dishonest wealthy, unjust money
    9. Money and wealth are deeply intertwined with injustice
    10. This becomes more true as money is more separated from sustenance
    11. Examples from economy
      1. Corruption in Fed
      2. Businesses that abuse labor in countries like China
      3. Abortion tangles
      4. Financial companies predation
      5. Money can accomplish any evil
    12. James portrays rich unflatteringly
    13. Overall portrayal is something as dangerous as One Ring
    14. Differs from OT
      1. OT showed wealth as blessing
      2. Dangers still evident but less prominent
      3. Flesh and eschatology
      4. Eschatological point ties to parable
      5. Time in OT exposed dangers of money, like Torah
    15. Money gone in age to come
    16. Powerful, corrupting liability in this age
    17. Even benefiting from money is tainted
  4. Justification and Sanctification
    1. Justification by grace through faith applies to money
    2. We can’t disentangle ourselves from the corruption in earthly wealth
    3. We entrust our resources to Christ in faith
    4. Thus He justifies our financial lives
    5. We find wealth justified by faith, but without works faith is dead
    6. James reference multilayered: James treats charity as greatest work
    7. Entrust wealth to Christ by giving it to people He identifies with
      1. “When one has pity on the poor, he lends to God. And he who gives to the least, gives to God. These are spiritual sacrifices to God, an odor of a sweet smell…By almsgiving to the poor, we are lending to God. When it is given to the least, it is given to Christ. Therefore, there are no grounds for anyone preferring earthly things to heavenly—nor for considering human things before divine.” Cyprian
    8. This act of giving is purified in Christ’s self-giving
    9. We become Christ’s hands and feet
    10. In giving ungodly wealth in turned into divine blessing, just as Cross turned to salvation
    11. Connects to early church belief about atoning alms
      1. Clement of Alexandria said, “One purchases immortality for money.”
      2. “When you can do good, do not hesitate. For ‘alms delivers from death.'” Polycarp
    12. Whatever deficiencies, this language highlights the Biblical theme
    13. Justified by faith, faith itself is justified by works, particularly giving
    14. In Christ our ungodly wealth is redeemed and justified by faith, that we may present it to God a holy sacrifice
    15. Therefore we are commanded to give, give, give, as Christ gave, that our wealth might not be a source of corruption but of blessing
    16. Don’t be like greedy Pharisees, but be like wise steward
    17. Don’t hold on to money
    18. God will give grace through our offering
    19. Communion is similar: money bought bread and juice to become a means of grace in receiving Christ through faith
The Justification of Ungodly Wealth

Final Reflections on the Election

I’m done ranting against a Donald Trump vote. I’ve made my voice clear about that, and if anyone can find a way to vote for Trump without violating their conscience, it’s between you and God. Instead, here are a few other reflections on the election today.

  • I believe the election this year plays a critical role in God’s judgment upon our nation. In Scripture where God’s dealings with the nations are most clearly explained, there is a regular pattern of moral decay, violence, then wicked rulers, and divine judgment through foreign powers. This happened to Israel, Judah, Egypt, Edom, the Roman Empire, and many other nations as recorded in the prophets. In more recent history, it seems to have also happened to 20th century Germany.  Now it seems it is our turn, handed over (by our own hands!) to wicked rulers that they might lead us into military devastation. Whoever wins this election, it will mean that God has let us take ourselves into ruin. In most cases, God’s judgments seem to arise organically out of the nation’s sins, and this is most evident in this election, when we will literally be choosing for ourselves which person God will use to desolate our country. If Clinton wins, our history of foreign intervention and hawkishness will likely reach a climax against Russia, and if Trump wins, well, he could spark a conflict with almost anyone else. It will not end well, and it pains me to see how many people on both sides of the aisle are embracing this coming execution with welcoming arms. (I’m also not the only one to think this right now.) We must now pray that God will have at least some mercy on us, and that whatever military destruction comes of this Presidency is not too horrendously deep.
  • Whoever wins the election, social conservatism is in for a really hard time. If Hillary Clinton wins this election, we are almost guaranteed freer abortion laws and a Supreme Court hostile to any attempts any states might make to regulate the practice. While she may or may not actively pursue the displacement of religious liberty by supposed transgender rights, she will certainly always pick the latter when she does get involved. This Babylon Bee post is probably spot on, really.

    On the other hand, if Donald Trump wins, it is impossible to guess what he will actually do about these issues, but it seems doubtful given their relative (lack of) prominence in his campaign that he will avoid them. More importantly, social conservatism will lose all of its moral credibility. If social conservatives claim that abortion, family, and religious liberty are fundamentally moral issues, but elect a man who has no character and awful moral status at all, whose sexual conduct among other things opposes everything social conservatives believe, then people will certainly stop taking social conservatism seriously and see it as fundamentally hypocritical. As well, the Republican establishment is funded by big business donors for whom social conservatism is a liability now. People are less likely to do business with you if you oppose abortion and LGBTQ rights now, so many of these donors are becoming less and less okay with socially conservative positions. This means there is more reason than ever for the Republican Party to stop trying on social issues, and since Trump has proved they can get a pretty strong (in terms of polls) nominee who only gives lip service to these issues, we may well find that the GOP gives up all interest in working on important social issues (you know, even more than they already have). Thus while social conservatives will still have their issues checked on the GOP box, they will no longer have any active support in either party.

  • All of this will pass away. One day Trump, Clinton, and (if Christ delays that long, which could easily happen) even the United States will only be a footnote in history. Nothing that is happening in the ballot booths today is ultimate. The election and its political consequences are primarily temporary and pertain only to this age, not the age to come. As Christians, we are members first and foremost of the age to come. We are citizens of the Kingdom of God before we are citizens of the United States. In 10,000 years, we will still be citizens of Christ’s Kingdom but we will rarely think back to our citizenship here. Our first duty is to Christ, with all civic duties being second. So we should not worry. We should not stress. If anything in this election concerns us, it should be the way it affects Christian life and witness. Our wrath need not be focused on Trump or Clinton: God’s wrath will take care of them unless they repent. But we should direct our focus and fightings against the spiritual forces at work right now, dividing the Church and inspiring partisan hate, blindness, delusion, and judgments. We should fight the forces which drive people to act the way they do, the power of sin that made Trump and Clinton our major choices in the election. In these areas the Gospel has power, in these areas souls are in danger from greed, pride, deceit, and dissension, and in these areas there will be eternal consequences. But our country? All things shall end, including it. If God has chosen to put the American kingdom down this year (which I believe is true no matter who wins), we must still focus on the Kingdom that endures.
Final Reflections on the Election