Month: February 2025

Welcome to the age of the troll

Published by Daniel on February 24, 2025

am officially calling the time we are in the “Age of the Troll.”

Yesterday, I ran across an article from “NottheBee,” which reported from CPAC this week on a small group trying to get traction on a movement called the “Third Term Project,” which, as you might guess, would open the door for President Trump—as well as any future president—to run for a third term.

It turns out it isn’t just the left that needs a Civics or History class after all.

Then again, it kind of smells like something as a satire, or trolling, designed to get what the troll might hope to get a response out of people, usually an opponent.

I am writing this as though either scenario could be the case.

First, if this was a real thing, Notthebee was correct in calling this movement an idea from a bunch of ‘doofuses.” The Third Term Project, according to Notthebee, promoted their idea as introducing a Constitutional amendment that would overturn the 22nd Amendment, which limited the president to two terms.

Prior to that amendment, a president serving only two terms was a tradition set by George Washington, who officially didn’t run for a third term because he simply wanted to retire. However, he also cautioned about the executive branch becoming too powerful and felt two terms was enough.

Though not constitutionally forbidden, most presidents kept that tradition. Only a few actually ran for a third term, and none of them won until FDR.

Shortly after, a constitutional amendment (the 22nd) was proposed and passed, and now is the law of the land.

Now no one can run for a third term unless a new amendment passes overturning the 22nd, which is unlikely if not impossible today.

I am perfectly alright with a two-term presidency—even if I really like the guy. For one obvious reason is this: what if the guy running for a third term was an abject failure? Given how much the media, the bureaucracy, and the academic elitists carried his water for him, imagine allowing Biden a third term (that is if his age and mental decline wasn’t an issue).

Whatever the case, I find the constitution and its prescribed limits on government is a good thing. If we can’t get around within its limits, then it likely will take us in directions we would regret. If it is important enough for a change, then go through the amendment process, which is by design very difficult.

But, if the Third Term Project is a real thing, why would I be against it?

If Caesar is good, then why not let him rule for a life time?

Because of history.

I am a deep proponent of George Santayana’s maxim, “Those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

As far back as ancient Athens, whenever the city-state would fall on severe crisis, there would always be one person who claimed he could fix it with unlimited power.

And often, he would fix it. Sometimes pretty effectively.

The problem with tyrants is that, once they fixed said problem, their only aim became remaining in power.

Therein lies the issue.

History has shown itself to repeat time and time again, and the ones who usually fall for it are the ones ignorant in history.

Now, don’t misunderstand me. I am pretty much in agreement with the current president: closing the border, removing the cancer of DEI, and shrinking a government which has been and is completely out of control. For every good thing it does, there seem a hundred corrupt things. So much money is unaccounted for, and the incessant whining from the bureaucrats about being held accountable seems worthy of an audit and even complete reformation. (It sure is nice to see the national debt clock slowing: currently it’s growing in the ten-thousands-per-second, as opposed to the ten-millions-per-second when I showed it to a class in October.)

Again, a lesson from history is a nation that loses control of its economy will implode from within—no matter the good it does.

So, I am perfectly thrilled with what Trump is doing. So far, at least five courts, have thrown out attempts to stop him, so as of yet, what he is doing is not illegal. This is also why Trump is moving so fast: he knows his time is limited.

But at the suggestion of offering a proposal to remove the 22nd Amendment, I balk. In fact, I oppose it outright.

One criticism I’ve had on the left is the fact that if they fail to get their policies passed, they simply move the goalposts: a recession is well-defined until it’s not; when they thought they would take the Senate, they talked about getting rid of the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court (notice how quiet they are about these now that they are in the minority—hmm.)

I believe our government can exist and function within these boundaries of the Constitution. So, no, I don’t believe it needs to change to give my side an added advantage. That method is short term thinking: eventually my political philosophy will be in the minority and know those advantages will be used against my side.

Which brings me to my other guess that this is nothing more than a troll.

This is why we have reached a point that can only be known as the “Age of the Troll.” We need to have our radar up with everything.

The troll’s objective is simple: get a rise out of what we would call our opposition. The troll ultimately seeks to expose those who are so rabidly caught up in affirming their own confirmation bias that they’ll latch on to anything.

Last week, Trump mentioned a third term and openly asked with tongue planted firmly in cheek, What do you think?

Then to springboard off of that, the official White House Instagram account later posted a satire of a Time magazine cover had a smug crowned president wrapped in purple robes, overlooking the New York skyline with the caption “Long live the king.” It had one objective: get a rise out of the media who has become so predictable their overreaction would result in laughter. His opponents took the bait with either “See! See! I told you! He wants to be a dictator.” or “I don’t find that funny at all.”

Whether you like it or not is open to debate. But currently that’s just the way that it is.

Either way, he got the response he was looking for. The objective is to once again expose the hysterical insanity of his opponents.

I am pretty certain the Third Term Project making the rounds at CPAC last week was a troll.

Using the word “Project” in its name seems intentional, alluding perhaps to the mysterious and conspiratorial “Project 2025” that the left tries to tie to the right, even though many on the right have never heard of it before other than on MSNBC.

If the Third Term Project was a troll, it fell flat. It got virtually no traction in CPAC that I am aware of (only Nottthebee commented on it).

If it was a legitimate movement, attendees of CPAC were smart enough to throw cold water on it.

If it was a troll, it fell flat because, contrary to the troll’s hopes, few if any bought it.

Welcome to the “Age of the Troll.”

We can complain or criticize it, but the trend is here for the time being.

We must use caution. We need to be smart enough to think everything through and raise flags if something doesn’t pass the smell test.

If we stupidly fall for a troll, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Leave a Comment

Everyone’s gonna die: crying wolf

Published by Daniel on February 18, 2025

Remember the Aesop story of the boy who cried “wolf!” The fable goes that a bored shepherd boy, anxious for a little action, cried “wolf!” to the villagers.

Concerned for their flocks, the villagers ran to the boy only to realize the shepherd boy’s game.

The boy got a kick out of this, and after a few weeks had passed, he cried out even louder, “Wolf! Wolf!” Once again the villagers came, and once again they realized they had been duped.

Then one night, a wolf actually appeared. The boy cried “wolf,” only the villagers didn’t come. They wouldn’t be duped again. Only this time, their sheep fell prey to the beast.

Anyone with half a brain could find the moral to this story. If you cry wolf too many times, and the wolf doesn’t show, people tend to not bother—even when real danger approaches.

The American political debate has included far too many instances of crying wolf.

Only it looks a little different.

“Nancy Pelosi warns ‘hundreds of thousands of people will die’ if GOP health bill passes,” CBS headline, June 26, 2017

Federal agencies are “banned from making policy recommendations that are inconvenient for Trump…And many Americans will die as a result,” from Paul Krugman essay entitled, “Donald Trump wants you to die,” January 24, 2025

“’People Will Die’ from Trump’s Trans Prisoner Crackdown, Experts Warn,” headline from The Appeal, January 22, 2025 (That one has to be true. After all, it comes from “the experts.”

Trump’s spending freeze will result in “chaos that will kill,” and “a death sentence for millions.” Indivisible website

“Let us be clear and this is not trying to be overly dramatic: Thousands of people will die if the Republican health care bill becomes law,” Senator Bernie Sanders, June 2017 tweet.

“Overturning Roe and outlawing abortions will never make them go away…It only makes them more dangerous, especially for the poor [and] marginalized. People will die because of this decision,” Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Business Insider, June 24, 2022.

“’Women are going to die’: Hillary Clinton on Supreme Court’s overturning Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion rights,” headline, CBS News, June 28, 2022

“It’s estimated that 200 million people will die by the time I finish this talk,” Joe Biden, Sept 20, 2020

Republican Representative Michelle Buchanan once argued that Obamacare “literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens.”

“Biden warns of winter of ‘severe illness and death’ for unvaccinated due to Omicron,” CNN Headline, December 16, 2021

“Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Warns, ‘World Is Going to End in 12 Years,’ Reiterating Claims of Recent U.N. Climate Change Report,” headline, Newsweek, January 22, 2019.

Republican Senator Tom Coburn, on the passage of the Affordable Care Act, “you’re going to die soon.”

“’Millions will die,’ Catholic humanitarian organizations warn, if halt in US aid continues,” RNS headline, Feb 13, 2025

If the left feels the rest of the world isn’t listening to their “People will die” arguments, it’s because we’re not.

In past posts, I argued that throwing around the word “Nazi” to describe someone with whom you don’t agree is actually dangerous because it desensitizes us to the term. God forbid if Nazism resurfaces as a legitimate political movement, the public will be blunted to it: “Nazi? Is that the group of people who refused to get the COVID vaccine? Meh.”

Such is the problem with crying wolf. Speaking of COVID, do you remember the panic it instilled in the general public? Policies were mandated by unelected officials that changed at will. Experts were predicting the apocalypse. Social media was shutting down posts from real virologists going against the narrative, who were even threatened with having their medical licenses being taken away. Governments were assigning fines (most of which were overturned). People lost their careers for refusing the shot. Schools were shut down (five years later, we’re still feeling the effects of that in education). People were treated as second class citizens. The concept of the “Karen” was born. For crying out loud, there was a run on toilet paper.

All because of a largely recoverable, raspatory disease.

I remembered then thinking, “What happens when a REAL pandemic hits—one that doesn’t have a 97% recovery rate among the majority of the population, one that has, say, only a 30% recovery rate? Like, say, a new strain of Ebola or even the plague.”

Nobody will listen. They bought in to the narrative once before; they’re going to be skeptical when it happens again. They won’t respond until it is too late.

This is the caution against “crying wolf.” When a real emergency arises in the world, the public will simply brush it off until it becomes too late.

Use that line sparingly and with wisdom.

Leave a Comment

Reaching rock-bottom rhetoric

Published by Daniel on February 15, 2025

“We are at war”; “We will fight them in the streets”; [Elon Musk] is a musky moo-moo”; “Elon Musk is a d—“; “We must f— Trump and Musk.”

Those are some examples coming from the left recently, and what makes this especially bizarre is that all these comments came from Democratic Representatives from the United States Congress.

That’s been the extent of their rhetoric in the first weeks of Donald Trump.

For the those on the right, this is good news. That means if this rhetoric is the best they got, then the Democratic Party has much further to fall.

The definition of “rhetoric,” according to the Cambridge Dictionary, is “speech or writing intended to be effective and influence people.”

In other words, it is the art of persuasion.

I teach speech, debate, and even direct the school plays. These classes are exercises in rhetoric, persuading another toward an objective.

It is not simply reciting a speech or delivering scripted lines. It is about convincing an audience, persuading said audience that your point is valid, or your role is real. It is more than just making a claim—” I believe X is true”—but also being able to defend your premise.

I remind my students not to just state an opinion, but to be ready for the “why?”

Rhetoric is an exercise is persuading another that your point is valid. You might not succeed in actually swaying the opposition (we are too entrenched in our opinions and sacred cows), but you can say it wasn’t about you not successfully delivering your point.

Let me be the first to say that I in no way consider myself a master rhetorician. Not at all.

However, at minimum, one should at least be aware of one’s own rhetoric. It is not a weakness to ask others or even myself if my point made sense.

Americans are notoriously horrible at rhetoric. Once again, I lie the reason for this at our overuse of social media.

It is tempting to simplify our rhetoric to nothing more than what I can a “mic drop,” a moment in which one makes their point with a blunt witticism that they think will leave their opponent in stunned silence as they swagger away.

My all-time favorite Mic-drop came during the 1984 presidential debate when Reagan, responding to claims made by his opponent Walter Mondale and the media that Reagan was too old, masterfully proclaimed, “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

Mondale’s Campaign Manager decades later said that it was at that moment he knew Mondale lost the election.

Mic-drop moments, however, rarely happen.

Some attempts are downright idiotic. During the election campaign, an individual in a Harris rally yelled: “Jesus is Lord.” Without missing a beat, Kamala replied, “I’m sorry. You’re at the wrong rally.”

Um.

In a single attempt at a mic-drop, Harris declared her candidacy to be welcoming only to atheists.

Arguably the most significant example of rhetoric is The Federalist Papers, a series 85 “letters to editor” if you will to be published in a New York newspaper. Published under the pseudonym “Publius,” their authors—John Jay, who would become the first Supreme Court Justice; Alexander Hamilton, who would become the first Secretary of Treasury; and James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution who would become the fourth president—argued in favor of the ratification of the Constitution.

They chose to publish these letters not in a states that supported ratification in a state that was heavily against.

This is risky strategy was the only way to go. The Federalists’ objective was to persuade not rally.

America needs to return to the art of persuasion.

I’ve thought about this over the last several days as I am provided on a daily basis examples of poor, asinine rhetoric.

Each day that Elon Musk and the Doge team finds yet another tens of billions of dollars in government, the shrill gets even higher in the Democrat Party.

The left was caught flat-footed. They frankly weren’t prepared. So, they resorted to their default rhetoric that has been proven in the last election to be ineffective.

One tactic used is to throw manure against the wall to sees what sticks. IL Rep Jan Schakowsky stated in a legitimate House committee meeting that she believes the reason fewer women work in manufacturing is because “the name sounds just like a guy.”

Try to de-legitimatize the election. TX Rep. Jasmine Crockett said Trump “allegedly got elected.”

They attempted to articulate the fact that Elon Musk wasn’t elected. Ok, legitimate argument one might say, except for the fact they had no problem using unelected Anthony Fauci to ruin our lives. Don’t get me started about the FBI, EPA, CIA, DOJ, Department of Education, and yes USAID—which every day seems to have corruption and waste outweighing any good they have done. None of those are elected but operated at the will of the executive—just like Doge (the fact that they are using the courts to slow the process affirms my suspicion bureaucrats with personal agendas are running the asylum.

They say Trump (and Doge) are not transparent. Trump has stood before and took questions from the press more in the last three weeks than Biden had in the previous four years. He has told the press exactly what he was doing and planned to do. Then to make his case, DOGE and the White House produced receipts. Yet still they’re not transparent. The press really seems to have forgotten the previous four years as well as Kamala’s campaign strategy of speaking obvious mistruths if not avoiding the press altogether.

From there, the talking point of the day was “F— Donald Trump. F—Elon Musk.” These were representatives in the United States Congress talking like 8th graders. Do they really think that’s effective?

Then it was a “constitutional crisis.” Even Democrat Senator John Fetterman thought that was nuts: “There isn’t a constitutional crisis, and all of these things ― it’s just a lot of noise. That’s why I’m only gonna swing on the strikes.”

Today’s talking point is to call Musk “president.” You can tell it’s an official talking point because it is parrotted as many times as possible from every media source. Say it enough times and maybe it’ll stick.

Or at least until the release the next one.

Another rhetorical tactic used is the ad hominem attack. This is a Latin term meaning “Attack on the Man.” In other words, it’s a personal insult. All during the 2024 elections, ad hominem attacks were used widely by the left. Anyone who didn’t agree with them was a nazi, racist, misogynist, homophobe, xenophobe, MAGA, Ultra-MAGA, stupid, garbage. etc. People who are conservative are dumb, uneducated redneck Neanderthals who cannot distiguish our facts (which come from “propaganda”) from their facts (which come the media) which are apparently far superior.

Also apparently, this heirarchy of facts never changes.

The ad hominem attack dissipated shortly after the election, but since the inauguration, it seems to have seen the greatest uptick lately, crossing the line toward goofy. Trump (now Elon) have always been called a Nazi, Hitler, a dictator, etc.; however, MA Rep Ayanna Pressley upped the ante recently by calling Musk “a nazi nepo baby.” (Earlier, Pressley stated that she is willing to come along side someone who is serious about “doing the work of censoring the American people and advancing progress.” Did she misspeak or was this just a Freudian slip?)

Not be outdone, MO Rep. Emanuel Cleaver called Musk “A musky moo-moo.”

NY Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—a former bartender—called Musk—founder of SpaceX and Tesla—the most “unintelligent billionaire” she ever met.

Robert Garcia of California called Musk “a d—” during a congressional oversight hearing and then defended himself on CNN: “He is a d—.”

Then there are the outright threats. Imagine if Trump said any of these things:

We will “fight them in the streets,” Rep. Hakeem Jefferies stated.

“We are at war,” Rep. LaMonica McIver

“No one likes violence, but sometime violence is necessary,” Tennessee Pastor Steve Caudle preached.

Sounds like insurrection (by the previous administration’s definition. Perhaps Trump’s DOJ should arrest them and slow walk their court dates while they sit in jail for years.

If you want to persuade someone over to your point of view. Name-calling, belittling and threatening might generate chuckles within one’s own echo chamber but it is not going to be effective. No one is persuaded to rethink their position after being belittled.

It didn’t work in the last election. It’s not working now.

Fetterman agrees, “I think [Democrats’] primary currency was shaming and scolding and talking down to people. Just because someone may have voted for President Trump does not mean they are fascist or support insurrections.”

The left need to work on their rhetoric.

The more they reuse the same old drivel, the less relevant they become.

Leave a Comment

The kingdom and the spirit of the age

Published by Daniel on February 9, 2025

When I was in seminary, one of my professors often wove a profound quote throughout his lectures that he attributed to theologian Karl Barth: “When the church weds itself to the spirit of the age, it will find itself a widow in the next.”

Often this quote was raised in the context of contemporary theology and how the body of the American church in the early 20th-century “wedded” itself to western modernism by replacing faith and with rational and scientific explanation. Those churches embraced this philosophy by categorizing Christianity into neat systems and defending complex questions of faith with rational arguments to the point where they were sure people could be argued into the kingdom.

Then in the 90s and 00s, a societal shift took place where rationalism was no longer trusted and the metanarrative of science was completely rejected. Many churches responded by wholeheartedly embraced tearing down old meaningless theological constructs and seeking out different ways of approaching faith. “Let’s take an out-of-the-box approach to Christianity,” those churches would argue

The trendy church movement that came out of the first decade of the 21st century was known as the “Emerging Church.” At first, those churches—of which I was initially saw benefits—had some great new ways of helping Christians break out of from the grip of western culture and speak Jesus into other cultures.

Unfortunately, typical of ministries in the U.S. who have a tendency of overshooting the runway, those churches morphed into today’s progressive church. And this movement is delving into some pretty dangerous theological territory.

I have been increasingly suspicious when emerging church preached love and acceptance while completely ignoring sin. Suddenly, churches—even one I attended in Portland—promoted social justice at the expense of truth.

Fast forward another decade, and now a new, trendy term took hold—“exvangelical”—that was unfortunately embraced by several fairly well-known individuals in evangelical circles.

In this new trend, which thankfully is already started to peter out, the exvangelical proclaims their disillusionment with the millennia of Christianity, deciding that they are somehow more enlightened than 1700 years of Christian theologians and biblical authority.

Then, this trend started to jump the shark.

It started by taking small steps by making strange claims like Mary and Joseph were illegal immigrants, Jesus was a homeless man, and Jesus was a socialist.

Suddenly, naming sin a sin was considered hate. I actually know of a devotional magazine whose editor decreed quoting 1 Corinthians 6:9-11″hate speech.”

The movement began to double down. I recently came across the “Sparkle Creed,” a very bizarre rewrite of the Apostle’s Creed which for centuries had summarized the tenets of Christianity.

In what I assure you does not come from the Babylon Bee, the “Sparkle Creed” in part goes like this:

“I believe in the non-binary God whose pronouns are plural. I believe in Jesus Christ, their child, who wore a fabulous tunic and had two dads and saw everyone as a sibling-child of God. I believe in the rainbow Spirit, who shatters our image of one white light and refracts it into a rainbow of gorgeous diversity.”

Perhaps I am being a bit fussy here, but can someone show me where the Triune Godhead, the physical death, burial and resurrection Jesus, his virgin birth, the blood atonement, among other claims fit in to the faith?

I am having trouble trying to imagine the martyrs of Christianity getting fed to the lions as a great witness to the Sparkle Creed.

Not going to lie, if my faith is based in the Sparkle Creed, I would probably be home for evening supper after getting the option to either renounce it or die.

Of course, the Sparkle Creed is an extreme example.

In fact, in an effort to remain socially relevant, the progressive arm of Christianity continues to wed itself to the spirit of the age thus diluting the authority of scripture. All with the help of the media serving as its mouthpiece.

Episcopalian minister Mariann Budde, in the spirit of telling truth to power, openly chastised the new president about social justice issues during the National Prayer Service while he sat in the audience. Progressive Christians stood and cheered her words. In the days following, Budde became a rock star in the press.

Now, I believe in telling truth to power—truth that is not synonymous with one’s own personal agenda. And it turns out she was not telling truth to power. Budde was protecting the $53 million dollars her organization received from taxpayer funding. It turns out she had skin directly in the game. That doesn’t disqualify anyone from speaking one’s opinions, but it sure lessens his or her credibility.

This weekend, I cringed when Wheaton College, one with a rich history in the U.S. and one of the few remaining colleges that are far more than Christian in name only.

At least for now.

This week Wheaton posted their congratulations to nominee and alum Russell Vought for receiving senate approval for Director of Office Management and Budget and calling believers to pray for him. After other Wheaton alumni went apoplectic because the school had the audacity to congratulate and issue a call to prayer for a –gasp—Trump nominee, it retracted the post and assured the world its non-partisan stance.

All the while having no trouble hosting a “non-political” political gathering last September by The After Party, discussing what Christians should do in a Trump administration (loosely speaking). It had no Christian speakers on the right and was funded by Defend Democracy Together which was founded by Bill Kristol who last week echoed the mantra of every villain from “The X-Files” declaring he “preferred the deep state to Trump.”

Meanwhile, the school offered no event addressing Christianity’s response to truth in Biden administration.

After looking this issue up, I found out Wheaton allows an LGTBQ+ Network on campus.

On a personal sidenote to that point. I was an adjunct professor at a Christian college in Portland who allowed a student-led Straight-Queer Alliance group on campus, whose stated objective was to change the thinking of the school about LGBTQ issues. The admin wanted that particular line omitted from the groups bylaws, and the group immediately went to the press who jumped at the chance to ridicule us closed-minded Christians. Now, I want to stress this is not official, but roughly six months later, the Board closed the doors to the 109-year-old institution at the end of the school for unclear reasons. Many on both sides contend that was the issue.

I respected Wheaton. I know graduates and once believed it as a light in the Midwest. It houses the Marian Wade Center focusing on C.S. Lewis as well as the Billy Graham Museum (at least it did). Now I fear its wedding itself to the spirit of the age is going to render the school an empty shell of itself if not close down altogether. Vought, the new OMB Director, expressed his hurt from Wheaton’s retraction. He says he cannot with a good heart recommend that school for his daughters.

I am not sure I could recommend it anymore either. In fact, I am hesitant to recommend one of my alma maters because of a growing concern they’re doing the same thing.

Now, let me clarify something and clarify this as unambiguously as I can. One could easily ask “isn’t the Christian Right also wedding itself to the spirit of the age?” Without reservation, I will answer absolutely: YES.

The danger is there, and the right has crossed that line before.

In the 90s, I read a book “Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?” written by Conservative Commentator Cal Thomas and former Liberty University Vice President Ed Dobson.

This book had a huge impact on me.

I am a Liberty alumni (Class of 90!). I attended the school during the time of Ronald Reagan and the Moral Majority.

Thomas and Dobson argued in their book that the when the Christian Right submitted itself to the Republican Party in the 80s, it became a servant and a mere tool of that party. Instead, we are a kingdom worldview which should never submit to a political party.

Since then I have tried to navigate between being a kingdom individual who has a conservative political philosophy. That is a hard line to tow. It’s a real struggle for me.

I remind myself that revival did not come to America because of the election results.

While I agree with Trump draining the swamp, he is not my savior. Lower taxes and government funding are not a scriptural issues, and closing the Department of Education is not a salvific matter one way or another.

So, yes, Christians on the right make those mistakes—myself included—when it weds itself to the spirit of the age.

However, I will also argue that Christians on the left are making those same mistakes now. The Kingdom of God is not USAID; it is not found in any government programs.

Herein lies the real problem when the church weds itself to the spirit of the age. It lessens our credibility and dampens the church’s prophetic voice.

Our message gets confused and diluted at best, and highly suspect at worse.

It is okay to have a political stance and be relevant in culture. However, it must never, ever reinterpret or deconstruct itself into oblivion (which I would argue is impossible since it is Jesus’s bride). When we find ourselves having to squint at the text as we do rhetorical somersaults to make the Bible read the way we want it to, we throw out our prophetic voice.

The Spirit of the Age fluctuates. It will never stay the same. The Bible on the other hand never changes.

Wedding itself to the spirit of the age must never be our objective. The authority of the Bible must never be sacrificed in the name of relevance.

Or, as Barth warns, we will become a widow when the spirit of the age once again shifts.

Leave a Comment

What is truth?

Published by Daniel on February 3, 2025

What is truth?

It’s an age-old question that’s woven its way throughout human history. It is a question every worldview, belief system, and philosophy.

Thousands of volumes have written over the millennia, and believe me, I am in not going to claim I have the final say in the matter. Nowhere near.

This deep and contemplative question was asked by Pontius Pilate (John 18:38), ironically when he had the very definition of truth standing before him (14:6).

So when Jesus emphatically states that he is “the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father except through me,” what exactly does he mean?

Primarily in the West, we define “facts” as “truth.” Facts indeed can be “true,” but is that necessarily synonymous with “Truth” (capital T)?

No.

Years ago, while researching my master’s thesis, I came across an interesting quote. Honestly, I am having trouble recalling it verbatim, or who said it, but it went something like this: lies can be told with facts; truth can be found in fiction.”
In other words, facts are not all they’ve claimed to be. They can actually be used to deceive.

For example, during the 2024 election, many thought (as I do) that “fact-checkers” were really full of crap. My suspicion as to their agenda first arose when they often fact-checked the Babylon Bee (not The Onion, by the way). During the debates the media couldn’t help themselves to fact-check Trump and Vance while allowing Harris and Walz to utter false claims unchecked.

My problem with the media is they play loose with the facts. They might put forth one fact which is true, while intentionally omitting another fact which negates the truth by not telling the full story. For example, under Biden, both the president and VP traveled to El Paso, Texas, after accusations of ignoring the problem. The press gushed about showing their care and being on top of the problem.

The facts they omitted were: 1) El Paso scrubbed the presidential route through town, scrubbing the sidewalks and clearing out the homeless, and 2) avoiding other towns deeply affected by illegal immigration such as Eagle Pass.

This was only one example.

A new attempt from the left is coming in the claim: “each side has their own facts.”
Which kind of supports my claim: facts are not synonymous with Truth. When two facts contradict the other, one of those facts is wrong.

Now, can each side claim a fact which is true?

Yes.

Take today’s shutdown of USAID, an organization which distributes foreign aid. Can be a fact that some important funds are temporarily cut off? Yes. However, is there a lot of waste and corruption. ($2.5 million for DEI in Serbia? $47,000 to publish a trans book in Columbia? I am going out on a limb here, but I will call that waste.)
It is a fact that there is waste in that organization. It is a fact that there are other means within the government to distribute that money. It is also a fact that if the United States doesn’t get its waste and overspending under control, our economy will collapse and we will be no good to any one.

The left will respond with their set of facts. Either left or right, one has wrong or incomplete facts.

Back to my main point.

If facts are not synonymous with Truth, then what is Truth?

When Jesus stated that he is the Truth, is he merely stating he is a “fact.” The devil even believes that.

But the Greek he use for “truth” is alethia. This word means “true.” However, it also means “authentic, integrity, genuine, faithfulness.”

One analogy explains this.

In ancient times, before the invention of levels, carpenters used the plumb line to measure whether a wall was straight. They would climb to the top, tie a rock to the end of the rope, and drop the rock to let it hang down. If the wall is straight compared to the plumb line, it is said the wall is “true.” If an airline pilot took off from New York to Paris and his direction is directly on course, it is said his course is “true.”

This is Jesus refers to Truth.

Over the course of the 2024 election, I often drew up a comparison between Truth and a fabricated narrative. I will be the first to admit that Trump is not the harbinger of Truth (though admittedly—whether you love him or hate him—the president has done everything he said he would do. One cannot accuse him of being untruthful).

For four years, I was constantly being told things by the highest office in the land things that did not reflect reality: the economy was the fast growing ever; Biden was sharp as a tack; the border is closed; the Inflation Reduction Act worked; gas was $5 per gallon when Biden took office; white supremacy is the biggest problem; January 6 was the darkest day in American history; BLM and Antifa were peaceful protests; Biden would not pardon his son; pre-emptive pardons were suspicious when Trump broached the subject, but ok when Biden did it; Kamala lost because of racism and misogyny (even Democrat strategist James Carville likened her to playing a “7th string quarterback” in the Superbowl).

Holding these claims against a plum line, it became very clear that none of those claims are genuine, authentic, genuine, etc.
In other words, none of those claims are true.

Thus, I concluded I was experiencing a fabricated narrative.

Please don’t get me wrong. Those on the right can also create narratives. We must call them out whenever we see them, not just when it’s our guy.

As Christ-followers, we must always obey and follow the One who is Truth. Those on the right, me included, do not have a monopoly on Truth. We are not immune to fabricate narratives. Christ-followers on the left have the same plumb line: authenticity, genuineness, etc.

It is fair to measure everything against the plumb line, including anything I say or do. One does that by carefully measure it against the wall. However, it is not done by ad hominem (personal insults), whipping up needless fear, nor by trying to silence those with whom one not agree.

We must all be seekers of Truth.

Leave a Comment

Is writing still worth it?

Published by Daniel on February 1, 2025

I’ve really run into a conundrum over the last couple of days that was triggered by a particular headline from, of all places, the Babylon Bee (which, by the way, is my favorite fake news source): “Report: Nobody Cares About Your 17-Paragraph Political Facebook Rant.”

From my earliest days since picking up a pencil, I loved the exercise of communicating through the written word.

I loved writing short stories, essays, and even research. In the 7th grade, I wrote 26-page short story when others struggled to eke out three to four-pages. In the ninth grade, I finished my first novel about 400 pages. In college, I rewrote it to over 800 pages on an electric typewriter that definitely annoyed my dorm mates. Frankly, the novel was garbage, but I sure enjoyed doing it.

It was nothing to turn out essays twenty to 30 pages. Whether it was the standard semester research paper, my master’s thesis, and even my doctoral thesis (of which the latter was determined by my examiners also to be garbage), I have always loved the writing process.

Out of that last experience in a post-graduate program came my book “Losers Like Us” published by David C. Cook. Hopefully, soon, my second manuscript will be ready.

Fortunately, I live in a time that provides me a chance to continue to write: the internet. For the last decade, I have maintained a webpage wherein I was able to post an occasional blog.

Unfortunately, I live in a time wherein blog posts are so “last year.” Users just don’t read blogs anymore. We live in the age of “TL/DR” which stands for “Too Long/Didn’t Read” (or as I see it: “Too long, [I’m a] Dumb Reader.”

If you can’t write it in a tweet, don’t bother writing it at all. Or, better yet, create a “reel” which consists of giving bad spiritual advice, lip-syncing songs or comedic snippets, filming a ten-second mic drop moment, or recreating humorous–I use that term loosely–skit from other influencers–I use that term at an even higher level of, um…loosely-ness.

That is the intelligence of the world we live in.

Still, I feel compelled to write.

I tended to avoid writing about politics during this last decade. The political clown show just wasn’t something I wanted to be a part of. If someone’s comment interpreted anything I posted as political, I would delete the entire post.

That changed last July shortly after the first assassination attempt of Donald Trump. With the bizarre response from the media and many on the left, I just felt that rhetoric could not be ignored.

Instead of blogging about this near-tragic event, which tends to not be read, I clumsily posted my thoughts for my tiny world on Facebook with my fat fingers on my mobile phone.

A lot more people responded positively and negatively this way–all more than when I announced a new blog post, so I just continued using that method. It kind of turned into a habit. I actually began to enjoy the more instant comments telling me either how stupid or encouraging I am. I thought maybe I had found a different outlet for my writing.

Now, seven months later, the Babylon Bee posts a satirical article, which joked, “A new survey concluded that there was not a single soul who would be interested in reading any further political rants, finding that even the mothers of those writing and posting them would not care to read them.”

That hit a little close to home.

Now, I know that it was the Babylon Bee, which, for those NYT, CNN, and Politico “fact-checkers,” is what “normal people” call a “satirical site.” However, given the laughing stock the media has become, one can argue that more truth is found in satire than in media generated facts.

Satire often ridicules something that is overdone. It shines a spotlight on the absurdity of its topic often using the topic’s own logic.

When the Bee satirizes the type Facebook post mentioned above in which I myself am a participant, it forces me to reconsider whether I am once again behind the curve.

Actually, it makes me wonder if the act of writing itself has become obsolete. Why learn to write if we can get AI to do the work for us?

For that matter, why should I bother to keep writing—about anything, political, spiritual, or otherwise? I know there are some who would really wish I’d shut up.

But isn’t that what writing is all about—defending a point, putting something out there to contemplate, discuss or debate? Isn’t it to contribute to the public arena?

I am not so sure. America has gone from critical thinking about anything to creating “mic drop” rhetoric on the right to using emotionally-charged sob stories ad nauseum on the left. That is all Americans have to offer.

I have been wondering the last 24-hours why the Babylon Bee’s post stopped me in my tracks. It caused me to wonder: Am I just wasting my time writing stuff—any topic not just political—that no one will ever read? Is there any avenue for written expression?

Really, though, the main thrust of my question is: Is writing a thing of the past?

Will the act of writing ever become relevant again? Or should I just quit wasting my time?

Leave a Comment