"Fireproof": a review

Spoiler-free

Last night, my dear wife and I saw the movie Fireproof, starring Kirk Cameron and a lot of people I didn't recognize.

Short review: see it.

Longer review: this is from the people who brought us Facing the Giants. That was a good movie; this is better.
We meet fireman Caleb Holt, whose marriage to Catherine is on the rocks. Sharp, jagged, deadly rocks. The movie looks over both of their shoulders, seeing how they deal (or don't deal) with the issues threatening to end their union.

As the story moves on, we meet Caleb's parents (— his dad physically resembles J. I. Packer with a Southern accent; somehow Caleb and Catherine didn't pick up their parents' accents) as well as Catherine's. Coworkers at the fire station and the hospital are brought in and developed in living color, often to genuinely hilarious effect. Everyone "feels" real, and dialogue matches with performance to populate the movie with believable, three-dimensional characters.

What Fireproof does have is drama, suspense, action, a lot of laughs, emotional resonance, tension, and resolution. What it doesn't have is foul language, gratuitous violence, blasphemy, sex. And it has the Gospel, and the Word of God.

As a movie, the production values are decent, and the acting is professional and heartfelt. Only two parts gave me the feeling that the beloved church secretary had been given a role because everyone adores her — and they weren't all that bad. They just stood out because of the overall quality of the main performances.

As a rule, movies have to work pretty hard to make my wife laugh, and she was rolling, as was I. The humor was fresh and crackling, as many of the emotions were raw and moving. There actually are several sequences that are an absolute panic. One in particular interweaves each spouse talking to friends that is so deftly-handled and so funny, I think it'd make a mannequin laugh.

I think the movie would be lost on young children, but anyone over about 12 will benefit from something in Fireproof.

If that's a reservation, then it's the only one I have in heartily recommending it.

Look, if you complain about language, violence, and other nastiness in movies, put your bucks where your mouth is. Find where this is playing hear you, take your wife or friend(s), and see it.

Spoilery

Some Christian stories have differed little from Chick tracts, with flat characters and cartoonish situations. Not so here. The marriage isn't troubled; it's about over. Both spouses are in the process of putting their arms around the concept of divorce, and actually seeing it as a preferable solution.

But Caleb's dad is a Christian who says he and his wife have worked through major issues in their marriage. He challenges Caleb to give it forty days, each day doing something that his dad will explain to him in a book, as he goes along. Caleb, though not a Christian, goes along.

At first, his efforts are genuine but minimal and half-hearted. His wife reacts badly, or not at all. It doesn't "work." His dad urges him to stick with it, and he does.

At a critical juncture Dad drives out and shares the Gospel with Caleb. It's a very natural-feeling, effectively-done sequence, and it's pivotal to the plot. Caleb's motivations change, as do his efforts.

But his wife doesn't. She's all but in the arms of another man. It's a near thing, and her own heart changes just in the nick of time.

Like Facing the Giants, the movie has a happy ending — almost too happy. There's a little surprise on top of the ending that's nice... close to too nice. In Facing the Giants, they win, he gets a truck, his wife gets a baby, Lassie comes home, all his hair grows back, Reagan returns for a third term. One feels overkill, and folks have accused the movie of Osteenism.

I doubt anyone will lodge that accusation here. The trials are real, and hard. The discipleship that makes a difference is also gruelling and far from simple. I have no doubt that it will touch a lot of hearts and lives, and pray with my wife that God will use the movie broadly.

Of course it leaves unanswered questions. What if a woman is married to a man who dives into a flurry of activity to stem a crisis, then reveals he's not truly repented at all? What if a man is married to a woman who is so in love with self-manufactured misery that she is impossible to woo or win? What if it doesn't "work"?

And (some will ask) what's up with giving these Biblical principles to an unbeliever to work out? Is that legalism, moralism, the-Bible-as-successful-living-manual?

First, I don't think the movie guarantees it will "work." The forty days aren't presented that way. And besides, it actually doesn't "work" in forty days. When her heart finally starts to soften, she asks him what day he's on. "Forty-three," he answers. She points out it was only for forty days, and he replies, "Who says I have to stop?"

Second, I think the forty days' regimen does serve, in the movie, as the Law should. Caleb finds he can't do it. It's in the context of this, when he's brought low, "tenderized" as it were, that Packer — er, sorry, his father — points him to the law of God and shows him his sin. Then he's ready for the Gospel.

In short, and once again: see it.

PS — it's kind of fun to sit through the end-credits.

1. You can tell it was made by a Baptist church: I don't recall ever seeing so many credits for caterers and food-donors!

2. I also don't recall a movie crediting so many babysitters!

UPDATE I:
Now, this is remarkable. The review says, “Fireproof” may not be the most profound movie ever made, but it does have its commendable elements, including that rarest of creatures on the big (or small) screen: characters with a strong, conservative Christian faith who don’t sound crazy.

Source?

New York Times.

I kid you not.

UPDATE II:
We showed the movie to our boys, ages 10 and 14. Given that it is a drama about a relationship, though sprinkled with some terrific humor and a dose or two of action, we weren't sure what they'd think. Bored? Tepid? In and out?

They loved it.

The DVD includes some hysterical out-takes and gags, as well as a series of deleted scenes, and very funny "Fireproof in 60 Seconds."

Silly can be good, too (Laurel and Hardy get down)

I'll just say it: women aren't fit to decide

Neither are men.

I'm referring to the females who are now crying and wailing that Sarah Palin doesn't speak for them, because she would deny them "The Choice."

Aside: isn't it interesting that you immediately know exactly what choice I'm alluding to? Not the choice of college, mate, employment, church, newspaper, life goal. Not that choice. The Choice. The choice that is the unholy sacrament of modern feminism.

But I'll say that Dahlia Lithwick (second link, above) does have a point. GOP pols can be mushy-mouthed, or two-faced about abortion. John McCain definitely was in the 2000 debate when posed the boilerplate "What If Your Daughter...?" question. McCain's answer was gummy garbage, and Alan Keyes (in one of his sane moments) disassembled him like a Lego statue for it.

I'm not running for office. So I'll just say it. I don't trust women to make that choice. I don't trust men, either.

We used to have a fine expression that isn't much in use anymore. It was "Playing God." We used that when a person tried to arrogate to himself powers or rights proper only to God. Doctor Frankenstein was "playing God." People who wanted to micro-manage the lives of others were "playing God."

We don't use the expression much now, because we don't believe in that distinction in any robust or meaningful way.

But the decision to end an innocent life? Definitely "playing God." And I don't trust you to make that decision; nor do I trust myself to make that decision.

It isn't our decision to make!

It's hard for "I-am-too-God!" Americans to swallow, but some decisions just aren't options. Child acting up? Murder isn't an option. You're not to be trusted with that choice. Nor is that your decision to make if you have an unpleasant neighbor, a demanding boss, or a disagreeable mate. You're not trusted with that decision.

Me, I think we should just be up-front about it.

Which is yet another reason why I'll never hold political office.

In Sacramento area? Love doctrines of grace?

This Saturday, the church I attend is hosting a Reformation Society worship service, in which Pastor Greg Stoever will be preaching "True Love: The Beauty of Christ Displayed."
Greg pastors River City Grace Community Church. For directions to the host church, click here.

(BTW, Greg wants everyone to know that the likeness in the flyer/ad isn't his. Greg looks more like this.)

I'm baaaack

Hi gang.

Just returned last night from six days in the Eastern Sierra with my 12yo Josiah. My wife's summary is that it was very much "guy-time": fishing, hiking, barbecuing, shooting, drinking (it's very dry)... other "guy" things.

Not much seems to have changed. Palin Derangement Syndrome is claiming more and more victims, the DNC/MSM (to use a tautology) is working overtime to destroy her and get their messiah anointed, evanjellybean creampuffs are puffing and pouting....

So, I'll try to gear my brainium up, jump back in, and have something worth saying.

So... is it true? Fathers control their children's every choice?

Preface: this is much longer than usual. Sorry, truly. But I think Christian parents — particularly some grief-stricken, falsely guilt-ridden parents — may find it important, given some teaching that is going about.

No human being controls the will, heart, nor affections of any other human being. Only God has that kind of sovereignty (Proverbs 21:1). I thought this, surely, was one truth that all Calvinists accepted.

Boy howdy, turns out I'm wrong. Unless I'm not. It's confusing. Follow this out:

When it first was reported that Governor Sarah Palin's daughter had become pregnant, I saw various blogs instantly blaming — her father! No specific evidence whatever was cited. None. It was simply laid down as a "Duh!" dictum. You know: immoral girl = distant, unengaged, failed father. QED. Duh!

If that surprised me, I was astonished to see the frequently-brilliant though often-opaque Douglas Wilson making this argument. Wilson delivered himself of this stunning chain of indicative-moods:

The basic responsibility for this, however, lies with her father. Clearly [!] in some way she was not getting the love, protection, and accountability that she and her boyfriend needed.

I know nothing about the private life of the Palin family. And clearly neither did Wilson. But it didn't matter, to Wilson. The girl sinned, so clearly the father failed her.

In that meta, I commented

Huh? A daughter sins, and it's her father's fault? Which one are you channeling: Eliphaz, Bildad, or Zophar? Was Adam's sin his father's fault, too?

Wilson was kind enough to respond:

I don't believe fault and responsibility are the same thing. Responsibility is a function of covenant headship. It doesn't mean that the head is guilty.

But is that a distinction with a difference? Pastor Wilson said that clearly Todd Palin had not given "the love, protection, and accountability that she and her boyfriend needed." Were he Palin's pastor, I take it his word to his parishioner would be, "Todd, you are responsible for Bristol's sin. You clearly did not love Bristol as she needed, you did not protect your daughter as she needed, and you did not hold your daughter accountable as she needed."

Pause, just a moment. You're (I assume) heartbroken over your child's sin. You're already doing a Mike Tyson on yourself, and can barely look other people in the eye as it is.

Then your pastor tells you that.

I don't know how you can avoid the conclusion that Wilson is saying this: had Todd not failed to give these things, the girl would not have sinned. "Clearly."

In overall response in that meta, I was referred more than once — not primarily to the Bible, but — to two books by Wilson, and an over seventeen thousand, three hundred and thirty-seven (17,337+)-word article by one Robert Rayburn. (I've often noticed: it takes a lot of words to prove that the Bible teaches something it doesn't, or doesn't teach something it does.)

Well, if arguments are weighed by words, Rayburn certainly wins. One paragraph alone ran 974 words. I don't measure up so well, in my writing. A recent post at Pyromaniacs was only 915 words. This one isn't even 2500 words.

Indeed, one must work his way through over 1300 words before he runs into the first Scriptural citation. In all, it's over 8400 words before we reach a section whose title promises to show the doctrine from Scripture. But to be fair, the title of the whole is, "THE PRESBYTERIAN DOCTRINES OF COVENANT CHILDREN, COVENANT NURTURE AND COVENANT SUCCESSION." Not "the Biblical doctrine" (though the author does emphatically state that Scripture matters more than anything else).

Well, I labored through the article. I had to. After all, the Bible had never taught me that I, a father, could stop my children from sinning, and make them growing Christians. If that was doable, I wanted in on it.

So far from convincing me, I found it to be depressing and appalling, potentially very destructive, and a hopeless jumble of doubletalk. It depresses me to think that Christians believe along these lines.

Many Scriptures are cited, very few are dealt with at any length. Clearly, Rayburn's chief love is the citation of previous writers.

Frankly, the closest analogy that sprang to my mind as I read was Roman Catholicism, and its never-ending game of "Telephone." You know: "The Bible said 123, then A said this about the 123, and B said this about A, and C said this about B, and D said this about C, E said this about D...." Before long, you've built theory on theory on theory, you're far from the pristine revelation itself — and you're saying things like "the Bible teaches ZZ." But no, it really doesn't; the Bible teaches 123, maybe with valid inference A — but that's it.

I'd summarize Rayburn as saying that salvation is inherited by blood. It's absolutely guaranteed by God that all children of believers will themselves be believers — unless they aren't! And if they aren't, it's the parents' fault. "Faithful parenting will result, by covenanted grace, in believing children." There you go. Follow the directions, and this will be the result.

Unless it isn't.

Many readers will wonder whether Rayburn goes in the other direction. If children fall away, is it the parents' fault? Yep. Has to be. "It is no slander to acknowledge that [David] was an inattentive and ineffective father who by his instruction, to the extent he gave it, showed his children the way to heaven, but by his example too often led them by the hand to hell." Indeed, Rayburn speaks of "the accountability of parents for [not just the faithful teaching, but] the salvation of their offspring."

So see, God's grandchildren will be His children for sure... unless they aren't!

I guess he pretty much has to have some kind of escape-clause to cancel out his extended arguments that grace is generational, and children of believers are guaranteed actual salvation. Otherwise, we'd all be saved! Wouldn't we? Wasn't Adam a believer? Then all his children are guaranteed eternal life. Hey presto, universalism.

Or if you're unsure about Adam, then Abraham was surely a believer. Hey presto! all Israelites are saved! And Arabs, too! And Esau! Though God "hated" him!

So this is why so many people instantly blamed Todd Palin for his daughter's sin. She did something wrong, so he must have. If he'd done his job, she'd never have sinned. Again, QED, dust off hands, next conundrum, please?

In all this, I don't see any mention (let alone treatment) of Jeremiah 31:29-30 —

In those days they shall no longer say:

“‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge.’

30 But everyone shall die for his own sin. Each man who eats sour grapes, his teeth shall be set on edge.

Later, Ezekiel targeted this very same notion:

The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? 3 As I live, declares the Lord GOD, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel. 4 Behold, all souls are mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins shall die" (Ezekiel 18:1-4)

Interestingly, Rayburn does mention this passage — but then he says the parents get the rest of "that accountability." I don't think it's that easy. Read on. In verses 5-15, Ezekiel specifically follows with for-instance of a man who does everything Yahweh wants him to do, then has a worthless, reprobate, unbelieving son. Don't rush past this. According to Rayburn and his ilk, a sinning child necessarily means the parents did something wrong. Ezekiel, by contrast, specifically depicts a man who did nothing wrong, who nonetheless clearly has a child not in the family of God.

But Ezekiel isn't done. He then portrays the worthless son doing everything wrong, but having a son who sees his father's sins, and himself repents and lives (vv. 14-18). The first father did nothing wrong, yet had a reprobate son; the second father did nothing right, yet had a saved son.

Now, as a believer in God's sovereignty, I have no conceptual problem with this. I don't raise my children according to God's word because results are guaranteed. And I certainly don't hold to any fantasy that godliness is genetically transmitted, nor membership in God's family inherited.

No, I do my flawed best out of love for God, and love for my children. Then I pray that God will plow the soil and grant root and life to the seed (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:4-9).

But even more significantly, I see no allusion in Rayburn to John 1:12-13 —

But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

"Not of blood," John says. "Of blood," Rayburn says — or so says his argument.

Then (stay with me, here) I see Michael Hyatt's article, "Whatever Happened to Modesty?" It's a good rant. I agree with virtually everything in the article, and it's very well-said. I only had one problem with it.

Hyatt sees seductively-clad, immodest young women on an MTV awards show (imagine that! who knew?), and instantly wonders, "Where are these girls [sic] fathers?"

Now, look. Maybe it's true. Maybe every last one of them had neglectful, absent, passive fathers. Or unsaved fathers. Or idiot fathers. God knows, there's enough of each of these to go around.

But why is it assumed that there's a necessary and direct connection to their fathers? Because we all know that daughters (or sons) always respond perfectly and predictably to paternal guidance and love? And we know that on what authority? Where was I when we had that church council meeting?

"Where are the fathers?" he asks. Well, I don't know, Michael. Maybe they're home, grieved and praying with their wives for their straying daughters. Maybe they've loved, reached out, prayed, modeled, counseled — imperfectly, but to the best of their ability. Maybe the girl just didn't listen. Maybe she thought she was too smart to have to listen to old dad. Maybe she never really swallowed the Fifth Commandment all the way, whole. Maybe she rebelled. Maybe she fell in love with the wrong guy, or with the spotlights, or with the cameras. After all, these girls on MTV aren't 10 years old, they aren't 13 years old.

Look, I'm not trying to run in the other direction and absolve all fathers of all responsibility. Ask anyone who's ever heard me teach or preach on the subject.

But my hackles go up every time I see any facile blame assumed onto any person for another's sin.

Think. We don't blame children for getting molested. We don't blame rape victims for being raped. Do we? No.

But....

We do suspect that all divorced people caused their marital problems. And we do suspect that all parents with straying children must have failed their children.

From a Biblical (to say nothing of Calvinist) perspective, I don't get any of that.

I read that you can be right in line with God's will, dead-center — and still be sinned against (Matthew 5:10-12; 1 Peter 2:20b). I read that you can tell someone (anyone) the Gospel, perfectly straight-up and dead-on — and he can still reject it, flatly and finally (Matthew 10:13-15; John 17:12).

So:

Might Todd Palin be a defective father? Sure. Might the MTV nymphets have absent or neglectful fathers? Sure.

In fact, all children have defective fathers. (You mean yours don't? Oh, dude....) We strive, we try, we knock ourselves out. We mess up. We're heroes now, we're zeroes fifteen minutes later. Either way and any way, when our kids do hear and heed, we know it's by God's grace. Same as it was with us.

But if they don't hear... well look, if you need 17,000 words quoting past writers to be convinced, you've got the wrong guy. But this does come to mind:

“Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me. 18 If I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked person shall die for his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. 19 But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die for his iniquity, but you will have delivered your soul. 20 Again, if a righteous person turns from his righteousness and commits injustice, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die. Because you have not warned him, he shall die for his sin, and his righteous deeds that he has done shall not be remembered, but his blood I will require at your hand. 21 But if you warn the righteous person not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning, and you will have delivered your soul.” (Ezekiel 3:17-21, emphases added — which, ironically, is partly cited by Rayburn)

And that really works for me.

Biblely speaking, that is.

How Governor Palin should answer the sharks - part two

We started considering yesterday how Governor Palin could respond to the out-for-blooders among the MSM. (Hm, that sounds as if I think they're a subset... and I really don't.)

In sum: as a Christian, Palin can't lie, but she needn't answer every question, nor say everything that could be said in answer to every question. She must, however, confess Christ. At the same time, she may need to withhold what is holy from those set on mocking and degrading it.

So, in other words, she's pretty much walking a high-wire made of dental floss, at an elevation of 4000 feet, while carrying fifteen live monkeys — in a gale-force wind.

No sweat!

Here's what I'd recommend, from my safe seat.

Option three: use some verbal karate. A wise man (or woman) knows how to turn the tables on hostile questioners, user their own inertia against them. Our Lord was master of this technique. The opponent would throw a haymaker, the Lord would step aside and give a little nudge — next thing you knew, there was a red-faced, sputtering Pharisee, in a pile, on the floor, wonder what had happened (cf. Matthew 16:1ff.; 19:3ff.; 22:15ff.).

So, asked if I were a Christian, I might just start by asking the questioner to define his terms. "What do you mean by ''Christian'?" If the response were along the lines of, "You tell me," I'd return, "So... you're asking me to explain my religious beliefs? I'll admit, as my critics have said, that I'm new to this. Do you customarily do this with all your guests?"

Having noted the special treatment for which an evangelical Christian is being singled out, I'd eventually give a straight-up answer. If necessary, I'd offer my own definition. ("I believe everything Jesus said was true, including everything He said about Himself, about the world, about His Father, and about me.")

The mouthpiece will then bring out one of the "Gotcha!" questions outlined in previous articles. I think I'd first look at the questioner quizzically for a tick, as if he'd just said, "By the way, I am Gondira, High Queen of Jupiter."

Then I might return any or several of the following eight responses, each of which engages or shifts the discussion to varying degrees. I'll number them, simply to make discussion easier:

1. "You know, Dirk, I keep hearing on your channel that voters are concerned about the war, taxes, jobs, housing, health care, the price of gas, terrorism — now, help me out: which one of those is that question about?" If need, I'd follow up solicitously with, "Can you help me understand how you think John McCain might propose that item [wives submitting to husbands, homosexuals going to Hell] to Congress? What bill you think might come to the President's desk? I'm trying to understand your question." Or (similarly)....
   
2. "How do you see that coming to the President's desk as legislation, Courtney?" Or....
3. "I'm actually not running for pastor, or theologian-in-chief, Hillarie. I'm a Christian. There are tens of thousands of us in every walk of life and branch of government. We've been there since the first settlers landed at Plymouth Rock. If someone wants Biblical answers, I think he should talk to a local pastor — not a politician. Now, what John McCain and I are aiming to do is...." Or....
   
4. "You know, Troy, Christians have been around for about 2000 years. Am I really the first one you've met? [Pause for the answer.] Hm; maybe you should try to broaden your circle. See, I think most of the people watching us right now do know Christians, or they are related to Christians, or they work with Christians, or they live next door to Christians, or they are Christians themselves. They don't need or want a political candidate to tell them about being a Christian. They aren't looking to apply a religious test to their candidates. But they are interested in knowing what John McCain and I would do about ______. So maybe we could talk about that?" Or....
5. "Hm. I'm interested to know where this question is coming from, Brooke. Do you give a religious quiz to every political candidate? Why is that? What did Obama tell you about his stance on infralapsiarianism? Is he a complementarian, an egalitarian, or what? What was his understanding of the hypostatic union? Or was all that above his pay grade?" Or....
6. "What an odd question, Skippy. Do you feel that it is unusual for a practicing evangelical Christian to serve in public office?" Or....
7. "So, Biff, do you ever participate in discussions about why the media are liked less and trusted less than Congress or the President? How do you think practicing Christian viewers perceive you, right now? What message does this question send to young Christians — or other religious people — who are considering public service, and thinking that they may be interviewed by you or one of your peers someday? Do you mean to have a chilling effect on religious people considering public service?" Or....
8. "Sure, I'd be happy to answer that question. I am a Christian: I believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. You know, Brianne, we Christians have been around for about 2000 years. We have served faithfully in every sort of political system, from oppressive tyrannies, to the British monarchy, to this great Republic. Were I to become President, as a Christian, my sacred oath of office will bind me to respect, uphold and defend the Constitution. The Constitution does not clash with the Bible, and the Bible does not give any human the authority to prevent or direct me in discharging that sacred oath, whether that is my husband, my pastor, or the consensus of the mainstream media. I think that answers any question that isn't a silly question, don't you? Now, what I keep hearing from people is that they're concerned about _____. Here's how John McCain and I mean to address that:...."
   

Somewhere in that range of responses is a satisfactory way to stay on the offensive, avoid being put on the defensive, and bypass the deadly deer-in-the-headlights look.

Will these suggestions get anywhere near the campaign? Should they? Who knows?

But I did notice a hit from Anchorage yesterday.

Now, all this was in response specifically to the "gotcha" religious questions. I also think Palin should have some substantive replies ready for abortion "gotcha" questions, beyond "Well, I'm pro-life, and so I...."

But maybe that's a topic for another day.

UPDATE I: I didn't do a good enough job of incorporating ReformedMommy's excellent point that Palin should be motivated by love in how she responds. So... after she skewers the DNC's mouthpiece, she should do this:


There!

How Governor Palin should answer the sharks - part one

We have discussed once, yea twice, the fact that the MSM will be out to destroy, humiliate, and exile Governor Palin for the combined crimes of being an (A) articulate, (B) persuasive, (C) unapologetic (D) pro-life (E) Christian (F) woman (G) in public life.

As I said it would happen, it already has begun. You don't need me to link to articles. Look anywhere. The sharks are circling. You might flatter me by thinking "Dan nailed it" every time you see a new attempted hit piece; but, as I said, it really wasn't rocket science.

The question remains, as posed in the meta: how do I think she should respond?

Well, certainly not like Mike Huckabee, for starters. The former pastor time and again seemed astonished and completely blindsided. Palin mustn't do that. This is, I hope, a given.

But Palin's smart and savvy, they've clearly got some smart people in the campaign. Hopefully someone is preparing for the inevitable.

First, let me just say three things: I don't know how Palin should answer, I don't know what would be the most effective answer, and I don't think there's one right way. I'm no political strategist, thank you very much. But I have read the Bible a few times, and observed our culture for awhile, and do have some thoughts.

So let's just lay out some theoretical options, and deal with them in order.

Option one: lie and dissemble. Not an option for a Christian, who seeks to emulate the God who cannot lie (Matthew 5:48; Titus 1:2).

There. That was easy.

Some make a strong case that lying may be an option when the whole truth would result in a breaking of the Sixth Commandment. Regardless, this isn't such a situation. Palin needs to tell the truth, period.

Option two: get in their faces and tell the whole truth, straight-up. I'd be tempted to do just that — which is one reason why I'll never win elective public office.

I'd be sorely tempted to say something like:

"Let's just lay out the point of disconnect between the Christian position and every other position. By God's grace alone, the Christian has come to see himself to be a sinner by nature and by choice. He also knows God to be perfectly righteous, the mighty Creator, Master, and Ruler over everything. He knows God to be the fountain of truth, which He has inerrantly and sufficiently revealed in the Bible. The Christian has been brought to know that his only hope of salvation is by the death of God the Son Incarnate, Jesus Christ, who took on our sin, absorbed the just wrath of God in the stead of His own, died under that wrath, and rose bodily three days later. The Christian knows that his only hope is faith in Jesus Christ, through which God in mercy clothes him with the perfect righteousness of Christ. So, with Christ as his Lord, the Christian begins the eternal process of unlearning his autonomous, you-shall-be-as-gods viewpoint, and learning to think God's thoughts after Him. So, from that perspective, what I think about marriage is...."

So, I might say that... and then inevitably retire to write my memoirs. Or brush up my skills at smiling when I say, "You want fries with that?"

At least that's how I can see myself handling such situations theoretically, sitting here alone in my study, contemplating a position in which I'll never find myself.

Some of you will think, "Yeah! That's what she should do! It's the Christian way!"

To which I say no, it isn't the Christian way. We read that "The tongue of wise men makes knowledge look good" (Proverbs 15:2). The wise characteristically frames what he says deliberately, while it is the fool whose mouth blurts out everything on his mind, willy-nilly and often destructively (cf. Proverbs 10:14; 15:2, 28; 29:11).

And remember: these are the people who wanted Palin's baby's DNA to prove that he was really hers, and not her daughter's — but show no curiosity whatever about Barak Obama's continuing ties and admitted indebtedness to an unrepentant domestic terrorist (see also here). They will not be asking so that they might understand Christianity better. They will be looking for a way to shame and shun her, and anyone like her who dares to seek a role in the public life of America.

So no, there are not only two options: (1) say nothing truthful; or (2) tell these people, in these situations, all the truth that can be said. Not every setting is the setting to say everything.

Nor, for that matter, is a Christian obliged to answer every question ever posed to him. Jesus didn't (cf. Matthew 27:12, 14; Luke 23:9; John 19:9). We needn't.

Aside: what is a Christian obliged to say? Believers are under an absolute obligation to confess Christ (Mark 8:35-38). That, to my mind, is non-negotiable and universal. A Christian cannot deny Christ; put positively, a Christian must confess Christ.

At the same time, the Christian is also obliged by Christ's command not to throw what is precious and holy to those whose only intent is to mock what is holy and degrade what is precious and good (Matthew 7:6; cf. 10:14-15; Proverbs 9:7-8; 23:9). This is why Proverbs so often stresses the need for discernment, judgment, savvy.

How to put these guidelines together?

Stay tuned tomorrow. But please, feel free to offer your own thoughts in the meanwhile.

Still more Wilson, Palin, politics, religion-in-politics, me, I need a new title-writer....

This is bad. There are likely to be a lot more articles about Palin, etc., before November's out... and even I am getting tired of my own titles. The Borkin' Palin one is my pinnacle thus far. Think, man, think! Anyway....

Doug Wilson is still thinking aloud about the impact of Sarah Palin's addition to the McCain ticket. I need to get him to give me a list of titles; his is John Has Slain His Thousands. He makes a compelling case for the narrative of this candidacy and the impact Palin may well have on Roe. A taste:

Now consider Sarah Palin's position -- both her story and her gifts. Her story demolishes, in a way no syllogism could, the central appeals of the pro-aborts. And they love to play the violin with this question -- remember that Obama was asked the question earlier in this election cycle. This is a staple in our campaigns: "What if your daughter . . ." "What if your wife . . ."

Suppose you were a middle-aged woman with a bright political career ahead of you, perhaps even at the national level. You and your husband are surprised by a pregnancy, and then on top of that you discover that your baby is a Down's child. We live in a culture that has been prepared in countless ways to accept the story that "we had to make a tough choice." And we are then astonished when someone, instead of making the "tough choice," makes a tough choice instead -- in the full confidence that it is the right choice. Sarah Palin is a "no exceptions" pro-lifer and apparently she believes that the law of God includes her.

To evangelical critics of Palin as a professional/wife/mother, Wilson replies "presents an absolutely devastating challenge to the feminist narrative for women, and there are no mights involved." I think Wilson adds a weighty point in her favor in observing that Palin has the Reaganesque "ability to speak over the bobble-heads of the anointed media darlings, and take her business straight to the American people." Bush did not have that ability, and it hurt him. I doubt McCain has it. But Palin does. Even former San Francisco mayor Willie Brown recognizes that she has this quality, and the MSM despise her for it.

As an aside, you've got to love this clip, where Carney of Time says to Wallace of the M/P campaign that Palin has to do interviews. "With who? You?" Wallace replies. "Who cares? Who cares if she can talk to Time magazine?"

And that's just it. I think there are two kinds of people in the world: those who admit that the MSM are heavily biased in favor of liberals, and against (in increasing intensity) conservative, pro-life, practicing-Christians; and those in denial. (For an example of the latter, see this article in — surprise! — Time magazine itself.) But the fact is no longer in serious dispute, at least not among serious, informed people. (Diana West gives a bit of a snapshot of the current situation.)

Liberals might be asked questions intended to elicit information and promote favorable understanding. Conservatives (particularly practicing Christian ones) are generally asked questions designed to destroy, humiliate, get the "gotcha" moment, and render powerless. The MSM shares the DNC's goal: they want Christians to look insane, unhinged, and dangerous. They want them shamed from a public presence as Christians.

Knowing that, what sane person would expose himself to such Matthew 7:6 situations unnecessarily?

Don't forget my earlier article. Mark my words: those questions I listed and other similar questions are already on reporter's laptops, waiting the moment to spring them.

In fact, here are some more:

• Does God talk to you? What does He tell you? Is He talking to you right now?
• Was it God's will for us to murder 146,000,012 innocent Iraqi's and occupy their country?
• Is it God's will for you to win this election and run America?
• Is God a Republican?
  
• Is your pregnant daughter going to Hell?
• Is her boyfriend going to Hell?
• Have you had sex with anyone beside your husband?
  

It really isn't rocket-science. I hope someone's getting her ready for it, or she already has gotten herself ready — because it's coming.

There are some hopeful signs. The WSJ reports that many have caught on to media bias. Plus, they're being watched closely, and not just by Christians. The NYT did an interesting article on Palin's religion. I actually thought it surprisingly balanced, considering the source. But it provoked a very strong negative reaction from non-Christian writer John Podhoretz. Folks are catching on to the MSM's game, and that's good.

Now, briefly, to the ongoing discussion of Palin as a female political leader. We've noted a number of helpful contributions by Doug Wilson to the topic. To those, add the brief piece by Southern Baptist NT professor Denny Burk. The professor pulls a statement from John Piper and Wayne Grudem that presents my own view concisely: "As we move out from the church and the home we move further from what is fairly clear and explicit to what is more ambiguous and inferential."

To this we can add the helpful, candid reflections of Al Mohler.

Finally, David Murrow contributes a revealing personal insight into the character of Sarah Palin, with whom he's worked fairly closely. Turns out that the way she strikes non-moonbats is the way she is.

And on the moonbat note, fits of PDS is now also deemed too boring to allow here. This isn't a democracy. Ankle-biters will just have to content themselves with controlling CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Hollywood, almost anything with "Times" in the title, PBS, NPR, AP, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, and the rest.

(NOTE: this post has been and for a day or two will continue to be updated without notice. Check back from time to time — if it interests you.)

Douglas Wilson thinks aloud (more) about Palin

Pastor Wilson Biblically considers at some length voting Republican (not a big one for me), women ruling, and Palin's care for her children. It's a very good read.

It is as if Wilson heard my very brief, bare-bones response to my daughter's question last night, and filled it out, fleshed it out, chewed it over, and made far more sense of it.

It is to chuckle (— maybe not if you're McCain, though)

I checked conservative news/discussion site FreeRepublic early in the morning after Governor Palin's speech, and the threads were all "Palin this" and "Palin that," exuberant and grateful in tone.

Didn't get to watch McCain's whole speech last night, so I glance at FreeRepublic again this morning, and....

The threads were all "Palin this" and "Palin that." I may have seen one title with "McCain" in it.

I truly hope McCain's ego can take the impact that his choice of Sarah Palin will continue to have.

Ooh, daring prediction, Hugh

On his radio show, at the GOP convention, Hugh Hewitt just delivered the portentous prediction that next week will bring attacks on Palin's Christian faith. His guest obligingly said, "You heard it here, first!"

Uh, except no. You heard it here first, last Saturday, right after her selection.

(I do have to say, though: it isn't rocket science. But let's see how I do on the specific questions that will be asked.)

MSM/DNC failin' at borkin' Palin

Mark Steyn said it well, as usual:

I would like to thank the US media for doing such a grand job this last week of lowering expectations by portraying Governor Palin - whoops, I mean Hick-Burg Mayor Palin - as a hillbilly know-nothing permapregnant ditz, half of whose 27 kids are the spawn of a stump-toothed uncle who hasn't worked since he was an extra in Deliverance.

How's that narrative holding up, geniuses? Almost as good as your "devoted husband John Edwards" routine?

How? Not so great.

Alaska's governor Sarah Palin gave a terrific speech at the GOP convention last night. Fogbound liberal heads are exploding across the map, reduced to sputtering inanities in the face of what seems to be The Genuine Article: a conviction politician, whose natural political instincts and rhetorical skills are brought into the service of pursuing goals and holding to values. They don't know what to make of her, they're far too arrogant to admit error and re-think (let alone reverse course), so they're stuck with making fools of themselves.

Fred Barnes has it exactly right with his opening words:

That was easy. Sarah Palin delivered what may have been the most important speech ever by a vice presidential candidate and made it look like she'd been performing on the national political stage for years. And she made John McCain look good for having picked her as his running mate.

In this way, she contrasts favorably with President Bush. Although W will be remembered as both an accomplished and visionary president (— pow! pow! more heads explode), he is a terrible speaker. Terrible. I once wrote that a definition of mixed emotions would be (A) having the position of Presidential speech-writer... (B) for George Bush. That man can take a wonderful line and strangle it to merciless, sputtering death.

But not Palin. She made all the lines her own, delivered them with conviction. It was a beautiful thing. If you missed it, you can find the video here (no responsibility for ads there; here is the text). It's all the more impressive considering that the teleprompter reportedly failed her.

So I think we're going to see — arguable have already seen here, in nascent form — the birth of a new pathology: PDR (Palin Derangement Syndrome). Roger Kimball observes:

Sarah Palin has acted like a sort of locoweed on the media and Team Obama. She stunned them, not into silence (alas) but into a frenzy of groundless vituperation.

They're left granting that Palin did a terrific job, granting virtually every single point, and then simply stubbornly insisting that it's not good enough. Not very persuasive. Nor is Keith Olbermann, intoning “People who like this sort of thing will find this the sort of thing they like.” Uh... yeah, I guess they will. Thanks for that. Though the argument's been pretty well dismantled, they'll keep up the "unqualified" line, hoping no one notices how badly that reflects on their #1 candidate. (Also, Janet Daley reminds us that "Lady Thatcher was dismissed as a "grocer's daughter" by people who called themselves egalitarian.")

William Kristol noted that a star is born. He called last night a stunning success, and says that the predictable and increasingly vicious attacks will fail.

Daniel Henninger is one of many who's nailed it:

Sarah's story is the stuff of Erin Brockovich movies and full-page newspaper spreads. Except: She's "pro-life," is a "Christian," and unlike all the white guys who came in second, Sarah looks like she might help get a Republican elected.

It may be possible to pack more downward spin in what is being written about her, but modern media records are being set. Sarah has to be stopped because Sarah looks like trouble.

The Boston Herald is right that she rose above the feeding frenzy, observing that "No lab specimen has ever been put under the microscope that Sarah Palin has been subjected to."

Beyond serious question, Palin is a breath of fresh air on the scene. Daniel Henninger says it well:

Sarah Palin looks like the old model's first real political challenge. They will be gunning for her. Good luck with that.

"Good luck" indeed. One particularly pities Joe Biden.

Last night can't have been a good night's sleep for him. He's in a rough position for any liberal man, particularly one already afflicted with such a bad case of logorrhea.

Seriously, what is he going to do? I think Biden's instinct will be to talk down to "the little lady."

That would really be a bad idea. One whiff of condescension, and he'll be having supper through a straw (politically and in public life) for a long, long time.

Book review: The Last Men's Book You'll Ever Need, by David Moore

The Last Men's Book You'll Ever Need, by David Moore
(2008: B & H Publishing Group; 205pp)

When I first saw a mention of this book on Justin's blog, I was very interested. Shortly after, I got a review copy, which cycled up to the top of my list, and now it's done. Here are my thoughts:

The author. David Moore is founder and president of Two Cities Ministries. The web site doesn't make clear (to me) what that is, so I asked Moore, with whom I've enjoyed a friendly email correspondence. Moore has a ministry of training, guiding, educating, and tutoring executives.

Moore himself has a distinguished educational background including Dallas Theological Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He comes across both in correspondence and in the book as an affable, warm "real" brother.

The good. I was struck right off and often by the deep and broad scope of resources Moore smoothly brings into play. In a painless, unobtrusive way, the reader shakes hands with the likes of Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther, at least four big Johns (Calvin, Bunyan, Owen, and Piper; five, if you count -athan Edwards), Augustine, Blaise Pascal, David Wells, and others. He also branches out into other ideological territories, citing also Dallas Willard, Henri Nouwen/Philip Yancey, Aldous Huxley, Winston Churchill, and more.

One might quibble that Moore doesn't warn readers explicitly enough of the heterodox writers. However, he makes a plain point for the selection of good classics, and for doing solid reading. He says, for instance, that "A book like The Pilgrim's Progress is worth hundreds of lesser books" (62).

More than that, I appreciated how Moore kept bringing what he was saying back to Jesus Christ and God's Word. Nor did he employ either for mere pep talks nor motivation, and he's openly disdainful of cookie-cutter formulas for success.

Moore starts out stressing that all of us are different, unique individuals. And then in short measure Moore exposes the idol-factories of our hearts, and the reality and dire nature of sin. He insists on the importance of study, learning, growth; attacking sin, seeking after Christ. Moore writes:

It concerns me that there is a growing trend toward offering specific "how tos" without an adequate emphasis on the sufficiency of Jesus Christ. Simply giving mental assent to the importance of Jesus, as John Piper reminds us, is not something God takes lightly. Neither, may I add, is it adequate to mature us spiritually (79)

Christ must have central place in, over, above and through everything in our lives, Moore concludes (82-85).

Moore warns against worldliness, materialistic hedonism, self-centeredness, and laziness. He urges his readers to get a passion for God, do something with their lives in view of eternity, get involved with others, and build relationships for accountability.

All this is done in a very conversational, light, flowing style. It is — and I mean this positively — a bit like reading from Reader's Digest, in this way: you read a while, and are surprised to find you just put away several chapters.

The middling. Moore's method of citation took some getting-used-to. He quotes (say) John Piper, with no foot/end-note... but at the end of the chapter, citation is provided. Too often for my liking, he'll say something like "a wise man wrote," and then I have to remember, or turn right to the end, to find out who the wise man was. My view on this is well-known by now: just use footnotes, or in-text citation.

This may be deliberate, but I had trouble following the structure of the book. Chapters end with "Discuss and Apply," but sometimes this section simply seems to continue the content of the chapter. Sometimes not. It was more like listening to a good brother chat, than seeing a structured unfolding or building of a case. That may have been deliberate; if so, it didn't work with me, in that it didn't leave me with a well-structured takeaway.

The bad. I really wanted to like this book without qualification. I was looking forward to it — because of the title, and because Moore himself impressed me positively.

But honesty compels me to say I was disappointed. I think the choice of title served Moore poorly. Though the title is The Last Men's Book You'll Ever Need, and though the subtitle is "What the Bible says about guy stuff," hear Moore himself from page 1:

Men are odd creatures. That's not to say women aren't, but this is a book for men. Women should feel free to read it. In fact, most of this book easily applies to either sex. I, being of the masculine type, write with men in view. At the very least, women ought to read this book to have more awareness of the sorry excuses we men sometimes give. [Then he says the title is tongue-in-cheek, and he hopes to direct men from faddish books to more solid reading.]

Well now I have to say that, if most of it applies equally to women, it surely isn't what I expected. Regardless of any cheeked tongue, the title really had me hoping to read a Biblical, down-to-earth, earnest man-to-man treatment of issues related to being a man of God in 21st century America. That's what I wanted to read. I was wanting to be able to recommend it to the Men's Fellowship group I lead.

The title gives me that expectation; then page 1 tells me, "Sorry, not so much."

And this page-one statement of Moore's is accurate. Most of the book is sexually non-specific. It's about Christian living. There's some talk of loving your wife... but not much else is specific to men.

That is in no way to say it isn't a book worth reading, nor that I'm sorry I read it. I just think Moore would have been better served if someone had said, "Dave, this really isn't that male-centered. Let's add a chapter to women, re-focus just a little, and then let's call it Straight Talk on Christian Growth."

So who is it for? I think you could give this to a Christian friend who hasn't Hebrews 5:11-14'ed himself up to where he can wade through real heavyweights. Not everyone's ready for Owen or Calvin, or even for Piper. Give it to a guy, or give it to a lady, and just tell her the title's a bit off.

It will point them to Christ, and to substantial and edgy Biblical truths and passages, and to great writers, and it will do it in a winsome, accessible, conversational way. It will be a light read, but may be used by God to move the friend to ask you, "So, who's this Piper guy he talks about? Or that Spurgeon cat? He says Pilgrim's Progress is great — have you ever read that?"

There's no bad in that.

Some Palinian links and thoughts

1. The so-deep-as-to-be-occasionally-opaque Douglas Wilson had announced absolutely that there was no way he'd vote for John McCain. But now the exasperating Senator McCain (R - media) has made the bold, game-changing move of naming Sarah Palin as his VP running mate. To his great credit, Pastor Wilson sees at least some of the significance of this move, and is admitting that it is causing him to reconsider his decision. Read his musing-aloud, and the attendant comments. Here's a taste:

One more thing. An issue that will be discussed among some conservative Christians is the propriety of electing a woman. Evangelical Christians are overwhelmingly hostile to feminism, and so what is with that? I have argued before from Isaiah 3:12 -- "children are their oppressors, and women rule over them" -- that feminism is one of the things Scripture uses as an indicator of God's judgment on a culture. I still believe that, and also believe that we are in fact under this particular judgment in our culture. But as a biblical absolutist, and not a simple traditionalist, I also want to make room for the occasional Deborah. Life is funny, and you should remember that in the Bible Deborah was the dame who upstaged a fellow named Barak. Kinda spooky when you think about it.

2. Wilson has now followed up with Cons and Pros on Palin. In it, these gems:

6. File this next one under the heading of "husbands of accomplished babes." I speak as an expert here. Feminism is not the only heterodox gender-idea we have to deal with. There is a significant stream within conservative Christian circles that is more Muslim than Christian. In my writing on family, I have called this error masculinism, the counterpart to feminism. This selection of Sarah Palin enables us to address that problem. The Bible does not teach that a woman's place is in the home. It teaches that a woman's priority is the home. If a woman accomplishes a great deal outside the home without surrendering the priority of the home, there is nothing whatever unbiblical about it. Many people have assumed that Nancy and I are homers simply because we don't apologize for the apostle Paul's teaching on headship and submission in marriagae [sic]. But while we believe and practice and teach everything the apostle ever wrote on this subject, my wife has taught outside the home, written a textbook, taught at conferences, written other books, and all while managing the home in a spectacular fashion. My daughters are both very accomplished women, as is my daughter-in-law, and I welcome the opportunity for genuine conservatives to reject the ditch on both sides of this gender road.

7. Scripture gives us examples of extraordinary women who are used by God in extraordinary times. The woman's seed was to crush the serpent's head, and we see this prophecy of Christ typified throughout the Old Testament in striking ways (Judges 4:21; Judges 9:53). It seems to me that Sarah Palin, as a walking rejection of the pro-aborts more emotional arguments, will be in a position to give Roe a bowl of motherly milk and then put a stake through his head. If that happens, then the question for Christians will not be "how could a woman do that?" Rather, we will see that no one but a woman could have done that.

3. Here's a side-by-side Palin/Obama comparison chart that, while not inerrant, (A) makes some great points and (B) will make The Usual Suspects' heads spin around and spew pea soup (h-t Hugh "Squish" Hewitt, who has many other good links). And that's always good fun.

Afternote: like nobody has to read this blog, so nobody has to read any of those words nor links. But any commenter who continues dutifully to cough up DNC talking-points which are answered in those links or sublinks will be curtly and peremptorily referred to them.

Oh, and there are many reports of the fact that Palin's 17yod is pregnant. So now I'm waiting for the deafening roar of protest from right and left about how inappropriate it is to pry into candidates' family's lives. After all, remember how outraged the Dalai Bama was when his wife was taken to task for things she said on the campaign trail? Surely, he'll be far more furious at a candidate's child being put under the spotlight, right? So I'm waiting for that unanimous condemnation.

And waiting.

Still waiting.....