From 1990: Second-Hand Values or Can Conservatism Save America?

I wrote this in 1990. It was, I think, published in a local newspaper. See what applying Biblical logic (rather than listening for holy mumbling) can do for anyone. Sure worked for Machen, whose writings from the 20s and 30s are chillingly current.

I post this without editing, overuse of parentheses and all.

---

It is disappointing when a plant dies. It is even more frustrating when a plant blooms, shows apparent health — and then keels over, limp and dead. What happened? Could be shallow soil, could be lack of nourishment, could be hungry bugs…. Regardless, the plant is gone.

Conservative values seem to be "blossoming" in a number of ways. We have a professedly conservative President [George Bush, at the time of writing]. Ads for William F. Buckley's stimulating National Review are hard to miss, on radio and television. Everyone and his brother is a Rush Limbaugh "ditto-head," and can quote the deservedly well-known (and notorious) talk-show host on many given subjects. Surely anyone who holds conservative values (as I do) would be beside himself with glee and optimism.

But I'm not. Not yet. Here's why:

Once upon a time there was a generation of Israelites who were delivered by God from Egypt. They turned out to be a terrible disappointment: whiners, rebels, closet idolaters almost to the last man. So God sentenced them to a few "laps" in the desert: forty years' worth.

The next generation showed more promise. Apparently humbled by their parents' bad example, they pledged and displayed loyalty to God's appointed leader (Joshua 1:16-18). This devotion even surpassed the "inconvenience barrier," as the males all submitted to the at-best painful rite of circumcision (Josh. 5:2ff.). With a few inevitable glitches, that generation basically performed adequately. As the inspired historian tells us, "the people were serving Yahweh all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who prolonged their days after Joshua, who had seen all the great work of Yahweh which He did for Israel" (Josh. 2:7).

So far, so good. Then what? Then Joshua and his generation died, and "a different generation arose after them, which did not know Yahweh, nor even the work which He had done for Israel" (Judges 2:10b) This generation had second-hand divine viewpoint values. And "second-hand" proved to be not good enough, as these folks proceeded to get involved in compromise, spiritual and moral gutlessness, idolatry, and the inescapable consequence: divine judgment (cf. Judges 2:10-15).

Now, none of this was necessary. God never promised to give "command-performances" of His miracles in the desert. These miracles, and what they taught of God's character and ways, were not to be re-produced, as the modern "signs and wonders" crowd mistakenly imagines. No, their lesson was to be transmitted through teaching from parent-to-child, parent-to-child (Exodus 12:26, 27; Deuteronomy 6:4-9; 32:7ff., etc.) Future generations would internalize the same truth of God by the Word of God, and by faith in that Word (Ps. 78:3, 4).

The problem: though God's Word provided the answer, Israel did not accept that answer. The nation did not obey God. The result was that devotion to the truth perished with the first beneficiaries. And so the outward trappings of religion can survive the death of the inward reality, resulting in external religious form without internal power and conviction (cf. 2 Timothy 3:5). In short, we end up with people who hold a few selected religious values, without knowing why, and without an overall, deeply-rooted rationale and game-plan.

I think that this is what we see today. The "plant" appears to be blooming —— and understandably so, given the manifest bankruptcy of liberalism across the board. But modern "conservatives" are rootless, and the prognosis is not particularly good. What symptoms are manifesting themselves? Take a recent issue of National Review (July 9, 1990). It contains a letter from a Mr. Liebman, who counts arch-conservative Buckley as his "best friend" (p. 16). Liebman says that he has been a Roman Catholic for ten years, an active conservative for over three decades, and a homosexual. Buckley's response (p. 18) is vague, tepid, and affectionate. Although he expresses misgivings about homosexuality, Buckley fondly embraces Liebman as a fellow-conservative, calling him his "dear friend" and "brother in combat" (p. 18).

Similarly, Rush Limbaugh has said in effect "I don't care who sleeps with whom," and makes it clear that he is bothered by organized homosexual politics and rowdiness, rather than by homosexual orientation and behavior per se. He has received and welcomed politically conservative "gay" callers. By contrast, Limbaugh angrily dismissed a caller who dared to suggest that "sodomite" would be a more fitting appellative than "gay." It seems that bad taste bothers Limbaugh more than questions of bad morality.

And so, on what basis can either of these public figures, or any others, register complaints about organized "gay" activities? To my knowledge, neither clearly appeals to any objective, unchanging, absolute standard; such an appeal might backfire. Neither clearly says, for instance, "My personal feelings in the matter are irrelevant. I am bound by Biblical revelation, which records God's attitude towards homosexual practices." Accordingly, the publicly "conservative line" concerning homosexuality appears to boil down to personal bias — which plays right into homosexuals' common counter-complaints of "hate" and "homophobia."

Other examples could easily be multiplied. Just think of the ever-waffling Republican party (pro-life...pro-choice...pro-life...pro-choice — "What do the polls say I should be today, honey?"). "Conservative" becomes more and more difficult to define; and "conservatives" in power are desperate to distance themselves from religion or religious people — except so far as to garner their votes. Overlap between "conservative" values and (say) Biblical teachings is fortuitous, but sheerly eclectic and coincidental. Therefore, a "conservative" today ends up being in effect someone with certain ideas about economics, politics, and morality, but no deep diagnosis of the cause of man's problem, no unchanging basis for his own values, and therefore no rationale as to why anybody else should embrace those values.

This is a prescription for long-term failure. It will result in a "plant" which may bloom brilliantly for awhile, but which is doomed to die for want of soil, roots, and nourishment.

The Bible provides what "conservatism" lacks, and what men and women desperately need. It gives an absolute, objective, revelatory basis for thought and life. (The phrase "Thus says the Lord" alone occurs in some 416 verses in the New American Standard Bible). It diagnoses man's problem as being twofold: his legal standing before God ("through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and through sin death, and thus death came through to all men, because all sinned"; Romans 5:12), and his nature ("the mind-set of the flesh is hostility towards God, for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so"; Romans 8:7). Too, the Bible puts man's crisis in its proper perspective: it is not the deficit nor the Dow, but "the wrath of God...against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1:18).

The Bible also prescribes the only solution which will abundantly address our fundamental problem: the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ. He takes care of believers' legal standing before God ("being declared righteous as a gift by His own grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus"; Romans 3:24), and He changes believers' hearts ("if one is in Christ, he is a new creation: the old things passed away; see, new things have come into existence"; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

As long as "conservatism" imagines itself as containing within itself the ultimate answers to man's dilemma, it is doomed to die like our "plant." But the man who trusts in Christ, and learns and obeys His word, has hope, has direction, and ultimately has the answers that this tired old world needs: "Jesus Christ...the same yesterday and today and forever" (Hebrews 13:8), and "the living and abiding word of God" (1 Peter 1:23).

If only we would listen.

---

So you see, it was evident in 1990 that the only real solution was the world-tilting Gospel of Christ.

This is all the more evident, today.

Repost from 2009: National Day of Prayer: in which I disagree with Shirley Dobson and everyone

[Originally posted here; reposted by request. Nothing fundamental has improved, to say the least.]

Perhaps you've heard by now that The Obama will not attend the National Day of Prayer service and breakfast. I think that's good. He should not attend, and he should not pray — unless it is a prayer of broken repentance, calling on the Lord to save him through and because of Jesus Christ alone.

Shirley Dobson differs. She is James Dobson's wife, and also is chairwoman of the National Day of Prayer Committee. She says her group is "disappointed in the lack of participation by the Obama administration," and further: "At this time in our country's history, we would hope our president would recognize more fully the importance of prayer."

Yeah, well, about that:

I disagree with most of what she's saying. First, the Obama administration should not be involved in prayer at all. Second, Obama himself should not pray.

Why? Well, I believe the Bible, in short. In long:

If one turns away his ear from hearing the law,
even his prayer is an abomination
(Proverbs 28:9)

"Abomination," it says. Something that — so far from pleasing God and bringing His blessing — repels, disgusts and offends God. Has Obama (and thus his administration) turned away his ear from  hearing the law?  Well, duh. Let's see:

• enthusiastic advocate of torture-killing (of babies), check
• denier of the exclusivity of Christ, check
• promoter of greed and covetousness, check
• rewarder of evil, check
• punisher of good, check

Enough, for starters?

But I'll go further. I oppose the National Day of Prayer, when it comes right down to it. Oh, I understand the argument: we should acknowledge God, and so forth. Okay, but — acknowledge "God," as a proper noun, generic? Like acknowledging "beer," but not naming a label?

Well, what use is that? Is it pleasing to God? Certainly not. When God says "God," He certainly never means "However you define that word." He always means "However I define that word."

Is prayer about making ourselves feel pious? Or is prayer about God?

And should our nation, as a nation, pray? No. Remember, Obama did not take office by coup. He was freely-elected. Abortion could be as easy to access as a Snickers bar, but that wouldn't make anyone have one. Professing Christians' knowledge of (and thus reverent obedience for) God is famously pathetic.

For us as a nation to pray, lifting up our bloody hands and asking God to pile yet more material blessings and protections on our openly defiant heads, is an atrocious insult to God.

So I'd say it's very clear that we, as a nation, have turned our ear away from listening to the law of God.

Now, if anyone wants to propose a National Day of Repentance, featuring coast-to-coast, red-hot Biblical Gospel preaching —

I'm there.

Profiles in cowardice

This may be an occasional series.

We're in a day where heroes have never been more needed, nor more in short supply. Who can blame them? I daresay they'd be pilloried and left hanging, even by the very people on whose shoulders they should be borne. In fact, there may be a thousand, a hundred-thousand heroes now, toiling in anonymity. More's the loss for us.

So today I think of the situation of the sexually perverted basketball player and the sports commentator.

A basketball player named Jason Collins decided to tell everyone that he was subject to unnatural, corrupting sexual desires — and that, so far from seeking help or freedom from them, he yielded to and pursued their indulgence.

But Collins, didn't stop there; he had to add that he was a "Christian."

ESPN reporter Chris Broussard was asked his thoughts and, as a Christian, Huffington Post reports his response thus (bolding added):

"Personally, I don’t believe that you can live an openly homosexual lifestyle or an openly ... like premarital sex between heterosexuals. If you’re openly living that type of lifestyle, then the Bible says 'you know them by their fruits.' It says that, you know, that’s a sin," Broussard said during a segment that also included gay ESPN columnist LZ Granderson. "And if you’re openly living in unrepentant sin, whatever it may be, not just homosexuality -- adultery, fornication, premarital sex between heterosexuals -- whatever it may be, I believe that’s walking in open rebellion to God and to Jesus Christ. So I would not characterize that person as a Christian because I don’t think the Bible would characterize them as a Christian."

(More here.)

That's not at all a bad statement. But of course, Broussard had committed today's unpardonable sin: being a Christian out loud in public.

So Broussard added this:

Today on OTL, as part of a larger, wide-ranging discussion on today's news, I offered my personal opinion as it relates to Christianity, a point of view that I have expressed publicly before. I realize that some people disagree with my opinion and I accept and respect that. As has been the case in the past, my beliefs have not and will not impact my ability to report on the NBA. I believe Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today and I have no objection to him or anyone else playing in the NBA.

To that, ESPN felt compelled to add:

“We regret that a respectful discussion of personal viewpoints became a distraction from today’s news. ESPN is fully committed to diversity and welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement.”

Ah me, so much to comment on.

Who was brave? Of course, only Chris Broussard was to any degree brave, by to any degree indicating that he might agree with God's view of sin. He did it rather timidly, but to do it at all today is potentially to commit career hari-kiri.

Who was cowardly?

Well, I have to say Chris Broussard again, for saying that "Jason Collins displayed bravery with his announcement today." How? In what universe? Surely not in America. In America, this instantly guarantees Broussard protected-martyr status (see below). Further, how is it brave to say "I'm giving in to base desires"? I guess in a perverted way, it's a kind of bravery to dare to associate yourself with a God who so totally condemns such behavior while insisting that you intend to rebel against Him and still count on His approval... but still, I'd chose words like gall and arrogance and lunatic hubris. Not "bravery."

And of course ESPN are cowards. They have to apologize for a Christian answering a question like a Christian. They have to say that "ESPN ...welcomes Jason Collins’ announcement." Why do they? What business of theirs is it to do so?

But worse, in so doing, they throw their own employee under the bus. They welcome Jason Collins' announcement — but do they welcome their employee's enjoyment of his First Amendment rights, and his conscientious practice of his own religious faith, which they have to know will surely expose him (not Collins) to excoriation and abuse?

Lessons in bias: classic example from the NY Times

Thankfully, the Senate barely rejected another attempted gun-rights grabfest. The margin was not comforting (54 to 46), but it will do for now.

So how does the NY Times begin the story on this vote? Thusly: "A wrenching national search for solutions to the violence that left 20 children dead in Newtown, Conn., in December looked close to collapse..."

Oh, is that what that is? See, here's how I'd write that same lead: "Another transparent attempt to exploit a tragedy as an opportunity to curtail yet more Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties was narrowly defeated when..."

This was no search for solutions to that violence. Well, not from the Democrats, anyway. But:

Senators also turned back Republican proposals to promote concealed weapons permits nationally and focus law enforcement on prosecuting gun crimes.

If this were "A wrenching national search for solutions to" this violence, legislation relaxing current gun controls and enabling law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and others would have been passed.

But as I've often observed, liberals only know two ways to address any crisis:

1. Confiscate more money from the productive, to the enabling of the unproductive
2. Confiscate more liberties from the moral, to the enabling of the immoral

Briefly: on homosexual "marriage" and fat people

Citing the benefits of marriage to explain why two homosexuals should be able to force others to call what they do "marriage" is like citing the benefits of physical fitness to explain why fat people should be able to force others to call them "thin."

You're welcome.

On squaring circles and the loss of liberty

From a very thoughtful essay (h-t Turk):

 It is those who oppose same-sex marriage who are the true champions of liberty. Indeed, if gay “marriage” is ever legalized, it is likely to result in unprecedented restrictions on freedom of speech and even thought.

Look at Canada, for instance. Changing the dictionary meant that the government deprives Christians of the right to say what they believe without official sanction.

That article quotes from another which observes that there is no law against anyone calling any relationship he has "marriage," nor against any religious institution performing a ceremony for such persons/animals/things and calling it a "marriage" ceremony. Here is what is at issue:

What the law in most states currently does not do, however, is force third parties—individuals, businesses, institutions, and so on—to recognize these ‘marriages’ and treat them as if they were exactly the same as traditional marriages. Nor does it forbid anyone to do so.

There you go.

Though I'd not yet read either essay, this is the point I was making yesterday, in what became one of my most-retweeted Tweets:

This isn't about (wo)men being able to marry (wo)men. They never will. It is about *forcing* you and me to *say* they can.

— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 26, 2013

No man will ever be able to marry another man, nor will any woman be able to marry another woman, and they know it. There is no act of Congress nor any despotic tyrant on earth that will square that circle.

What this is really about bringing the power of government to force others to say "Yep, if you say so, that circle is a square," and sanctioning anyone who says and lives and conducts business otherwise.

Here's one other point which I've often made:

The problem with this position is that it again assumes the myth that homosexuals are not allowed to marry. The reality is that no one is stopping homosexuals from getting married, since they are allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. The fact that they do not want to do this is no more relevant to the question than whether the pope wants to marry. Just as it would be absurd to change the definition of marriage to include celibacy so that the Pope can have “equal access” to the institution, so it is absurd to change the definition of marriage so that homosexuals can begin to want access to it.

Finally, at no extra charge, a little exchange between Il Presidente and your faithful correspondent:

Every American should be able to marry the person they love. #LoveIsLove, twitter.com/BarackObama/st…
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) March 25, 2013

.@frank_turk @barackobama Why only one person? Why only a person? #IsLoveLove
— Dan Phillips (@BibChr) March 25, 2013

The dark side of guns

First, let me say what regular readers, Twitter followers and Facebook friends already know: when it comes to Second Amendment rights for Americans, I'm well-nigh libertarian. I think not only is gun ownership a right, it's a darned good idea. I'm often heard to say "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." As a Christian, while I accept the urge to turn my cheek to the insulting blows of enemies, I also accept the Bible's pro-life ethic in affirming the use of whatever force necessary to protect life, including deadly force.

More, I find the gun-control lobby's arguments to be puerile, asinine, superficial, absurd, and often hypocritical. They're easily dismantled, and often have been. Rightly so.

What is more, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is absolutely correct, as stated. People were killing people long before guns were even dreamt of. Ask Abel's grieving parents.

Having said all that...

The one thing all of us Second-Amendment pro-gun types need to deal with is the fact that guns do pose their own unique risk. I have in mind something other than the specter of youngsters getting a hold of a handgun, and killing themselves and others. That nightmare is easily remedied by gun safes or other similar measures.

What I have in mind is the ability of a firearm to deal death (A) in an instant, (B) from a distance, and (C) with no recourse. If the weapon is a fist, a knife, a rock, a brick, it can still be deadly. But not as quickly, and not as irremediably. There are self-defense measures available to give folks a chance in a hand-to-hand encounter. There are no self-defense classes for being shot at, from close range. Only guys in movies can knock bullets aside with swords.

A man cannot stand across a room and strangle a woman. But a woman can stand across a room and murder a man with a single, well-aimed shot.

A gun can turn a momentary rage into murder. Fly into a rage, pick up a gun, pull a trigger, the person's dead, the rage subsides — the person's still dead.

For instance, take two stories I saw the day I wrote this. A man went to his estranged wife's house for a 16th birthday party; the couple argued; he shot her and himself dead. Bang, over.

Elsewhere, a fifteen-year-old boy apparently shot both of his parents and his three siblings dead. Pubescent rage? Maybe. Whatever it was, when it subsided, they were all dead. Any chance he could have beaten them all to death, or knifed them all to death? Not likely.

Now at this point a gun-grabber might be thinking, "You're so close! Give in to the dark side." Yeah, on that: not a chance.

The simple and decisive counter is that there IS no law, and there CAN BE no law, that would have prevented either incident — unless it be a law authorizing the confiscation of every last firearm in possession. And that idea is sheer idiocy. First, it couldn't be done. More, it shouldn't be done. It would leave yet more innocent, law-abiding citizens vulnerable to criminals...and to governmental stormtroopers. So that's a non-starter.

All this brings us back to this: once again, the problem is human nature. And that's a problem that no law can remedy.

What America needs is what Britain needs, which is what Israel needs, which is what Switzerland needs, which is what South Africa needs, which is what every tribe and nation and people needs. We need something that will transform our natures, that will take a violent woman or man who is bent on conquest and theft, and will transform him or her into one who loves and gives.

What we all need is to know God. What we need is the world-tilting good news of Jesus Christ. Only Jesus Christ can redeem a lawless man or woman, make him right with God, and transform his nature (Titus 2:11-15; 3:4-7).

So here's the irony. That is what we need; and that is what is opposed by most American gun-grabbers, and increasingly suppressed by most office-holding gun-grabbers.

Unbelief always is, in the final analysis, suicidal.

But then that's hardly breaking news. Read Genesis 3.

Doc Martin and redemption

As a result of suggestions made by you, Dear Readers, Valerie and I are watching the British TV series Doc Martin on Netflix.  We just finished the third episode of season 4, and don't want spoilers, thank you very much.

The premise of the series is that Dr. Martin Ellingham, accomplished surgeon, is suddenly seized by hematophobia. Accordingly, he leaves surgery (hard to do the slicing without some splashing), and ends up as the GP in a beautiful bayside town called Portwenn. The latter is played by Port Isaac in North Cornwall, England.

The basic format is that of a medical mystery / romantic comedy. Locals persist in calling Ellingham "Doc Martin," against his frequent but now-fading corrections. He is himself a surly, rude man, bereft of the least whiff of tact, and proud of it. He calls tact and sensitivity "rubbish" (which is a modern Britishism for "humbug"), and he'll have none of it.

But Ellingham is medically well-nigh brilliant, and eventually sees through everything sent his way. And while he virtually never shows the least bit of kindness or compassion per se, one of the most recurrent sites is of him running at full speed to some medical emergency.

As you're probably already thinking, it is impossible not to make comparisons to the American series House, MD, which started the same year. Both men are rude and churlish, both men have handicaps that irritate them, both men are medically brilliant, neither man rests until he figures out the medical mystery.

But there are major differences. One dissimilarity is that there's little real malice in Doc Martin. He's guileless. For the most part, Ellingham isn't trying to be mean; he just IS mean because he doesn't care what people think about him or what they make of what he says. Occasionally he effects a puzzled look indicating that doesn't seem to understand what others' problem is — if he even takes note of their reaction.

House, by contrast, was deliberately cruel, setting out to make fools and liars of people and expose their (assumed) hypocrisy. The least flicker of virtue in others constituted a glowing target for House, compelling him to search for a pathology of some sort.

And yet here also is a place where early House was superior to anything we've yet seen in Doc Martin. As I discussed elsewhere, in the early years Dr. House was longing and searching desperately for redemption. He knew he was a broken man, sometimes admitting his need for help; and he hated the horrid place the world was. House longed for something transcendent to cling to, something to give him hope; yet he had the settled conviction that there was no such thing. So House's compulsion to "expose" people who did have hope and transcendent values was driven by a bitter certainty that no real hope existed, a fury at that fact, impelled by a remaining flicker of hope that he'd find something he couldn't deconstruct.

There's nothing of that in Doc Martin. Ellingham's only discomfort is with his hematophobia, and that only because it keeps him in that dreary little village with those dreary little people. He neither longs nor searches for redemption of any sort. When he thinks of it at all, he thinks the rest of the world is off-kilter, addicted as it is to "rubbish" like tact and kindness and compassion. They should all be like him. Or not. He just doesn't care.

One's view of Ellingham is ameliorated a bit by glimpses of his upbringing. He alludes (admiringly) to severe and unloving discipline as a child. More becomes clear when we meet Ellingham's parents. Horrible people, sneering and loveless. Ellingham's father has few or no redeeming traits; and his ice-cold mother tells him, in so many words, that his birth and very existence ruined her life. She was happy before Ellingham as born; then, with his arrival, her life was rubbished. It hurts more to see Ellingham take abuse from both parents with no sign that he thinks them out of line, that he sees what a wretched, inexcusable cruelty it is. This is what has formed him.

Yet the humanist's version of redemption does nibble at Ellingham, in the form of a pretty little teacher named Louisa Glasson. For reasons which baffle and elude any viewer not schooled in abnormal psychology, Louisa is attracted to Ellingham early on, and he to her. Their conversations are really funny, in that every slight encounter turns into an argument. The first time they kiss, he instantly — without a pause — launches into speculation as to the medical causes of her bad breath. The second time they kiss, he speculates that a bad menstrual period explains her being over-emotional. Yes, it's that bad. He's that bad.

SPOILER ALERT ON

Then, in a careening plot line, Louisa finally shows some sense, and breaks up with Ellingham. He is utterly miserable. They happen to encounter each other, and he... proposes marriage. And she accepts! Yes, they literally have not put together two consecutive happy days together, let alone two consecutive happy hours, but they're about to marry.

But even that is doomed. They end up leaving each other at the altar.

In this sequence, both are revealed as selfish people, though Louisa less so. That is, they both primarily want to be made happy by someone. She doesn't want to take Ellingham on as a project, and I daresay anyone who cared a whit for her would agree. He won't make her happy, and she won't make him happy, so they leave each other.

SPOILER ALERT OFF

Valerie and I continued watching because the locations are lovely. The cameraman only seemed to notice that fact with the beginning of the third season, and we started being treated to more artistic views. Also, the people are quaint and quirky, rather like the characters in the All Creatures Great and Small series.

Yet, as my dear wife has observed, it's only rather like. Something keeps the series from being fun. The writers seem to hold all their characters in contempt. The series has a negative attitude towards almost everyone in it. Every last person is unhappy and/or broken in some way. There are no exceptions.

And they're not "quirky-but." Some are insane, most are stupid and self-destructive and mean, none of them really seems to care for anyone other than himself, with the sole exceptions of Ellingham's aunt (who cares for him), a rotund father (who cares for his son), and a "chemist" (who adulterously lusts for Ellingham).

For instance, there's a ranger who's insane and has come close to killing several characters. Funny? Not a lot. Then there was the episode where a 15 year old girl was eager to lose her virginity, and overdosed on drugs because she was stung by her girlfriends' relentless ridicule over the size of her breasts. The happy ending? Ellingham gave her a placebo, and she viciously mocked one of those friends for the shape of her ears. She "won," you see, by getting the last hateful word in.

Like House, there's no redemption for Ellingham thus far. Unlike House, there's no longing for it. You watch a series like this, hoping for some epiphany to hit Ellingham, but so far none has so much as tugged on his sleeve. One religious character had an ongoing presence, yet his religion was shapeless and powerless, and both it and he were ultimately mocked and waved aside dismissively.

Only two even semi-hopes came by. One was a psychologist who immediately diagnosed Ellingham as having Asperger's, which at least would have explained his rudeness pathologically. The other hope of course is Louisa. Ellingham adopts a softer tone around her, and looks rather twitterpated. His voice becomes softer, and he looks like a big puppy, when she's around. Until they start arguing. Which they usually do.

But to date, they've not put themselves together, and in the real world (A) Louisa wouldn't even be available in the first place, and (B) this link-up never would have happened. Barring a sad, sad self-destructive pathology on Louisa's part.

And where does that leave Ellingham? He cared for Louisa as much as he cared for anyone other than himself and, to a lesser degree, his aunt. Nothing else calls to him but a return to his career as a surgeon, if he can just overcome this pesky phobia.

This is where modern screenwriters dip into a dry inkwell. How can they not? They live in a dry inkwell. All mankind is still banished from Eden, still longs for a way back, but still is unwilling to admit either the real cause of the problem or confront the real and only hope for a cure. So we wander on with Cain as strangers in the land of wanderers, complaining about the severity of our punishment but not owning up to our guilt. This is why all long for redemption, and this is why the best storytelling always contains an element of redemption.

But modern Brits, like modern Americans, have no redemption to offer. Amusement, anesthesia, diversion, yes. Mockery and derision of our supposed inferiors, yes.

Redemption, no.

So we watch broken characters like Dr. House and Doc Martin, longing to see them find the redemption we ourselves hope for. But the writers of House ran dry long before the series closed, and gave up all hope of the theme. So they resorted to the formula of House being monstrously cruel and hateful and brilliant. They had nothing more to offer. And so far, while their protagonist isn't the monster House become, neither do the writers of Doc Martin.

Because the only genuine hope for redemption is in the Redeemer... and facing up to that reality would entirely jostle their very world in a way which they are still denying and still fighting with all they've got.

Which is, ultimately, very sad.

ADDENDUM: SPOILERS

Valerie and I have now finished watching the entire series. There is no need to revise anything I wrote above. We enjoyed many things about it. The actors are excellent, the writing is clever, the characters are sad. Bert Large runs his business deep into debt, takes money from a loan-shark, and then won't pay the interest. (Point: the loan-shark didn't specify the interest at the outset; Counterpoint: if Bert is so dim-witted as to think the money was a gift, it's hard to his credit.) His son helps him... by stealing from his aged employer, taking advantage of her trust and affection for him. Nice. All the more so because she's not much more a "people" person than Ellingham, but she likes Al... who takes advantage of her, and barely apologizes. (He had to, you see.)

The poor messed-up constable is fleetingly reconciled to the estranged wife he adores, and loses her, humiliating himself all over again. The poor adulterously love-struck chemist abuses drugs and has a psychotic break. Louisa's long-estranged mother returns, all coos and kisses, only to endanger Louisa's baby and continue the same appalling behavior that shattered her relationship with Louisa in the first place.

Life at Portwenn, in other words, continues as usual.

Meanwhile, Dr. Ellingham and Louisa come to live together, courteously. Martin tries to try to try, Louisa is very patient...in some ways. Ultimately, she has her fill of Ellingham being who he is, and leaves him. Again.

But at the end of the final episode, there's a sweet reunion that does give some horizontal hope to both of them. Ellingham tells Louisa that he loves her, and it looks as if they have a future. More hopefully, Ellingham says he's not going to be a father like his own wretched father, and he doesn't want their son to grow up to be like him. All viewers will cheer both resolutions.

Commenting on this paused story, then, such redemption as we now see serves to glorify God's greater redemption in Christ, by contrast.

Louisa is Martin's only horizontal hope. His aunt Joan, who tried feebly to be an influence, has died. Her death saddened Ellingham, but seemed to provoke no great reflection or introspection. Instead, he used the funeral to blame her for her own death and to lecture everyone about their obesity.

Only Louisa softens him, reaches him, touches him, humanizes him. His voice is always softer in talking to her (until they start arguing, which is usually the case), and his face always takes on a puppylike look.

At the same time, while she shows him a lot of patience, it is limited and aimless — except insofar as it is selfish. Louisa puts up with a lot from Martin... but not so that she can help him grow or change. Nor has he indicated (until the end of the last episode) that he feels the need for any change. Indeed, it is the world that should change. It should become more like him.

Louisa appears to want only to change Martin to make him into someone more suitable for her. And who could blame her? What is more, if he did learn to suit her better, Ellingham would probably become a better person in the bargain.

But Louisa shows no sign of knowing God, so she has no Christ-centered goal for herself or for Martin, and thus doesn't have any idea what either he or she should become. She doesn't have it, so she can't give it.

Christ, by contrast, is hard at work in the lives of His people to conform them to the image of their Creator (Col. 3:10; Titus 2:11-14). To do this, Jesus Christ must be the epitome of long-suffering patience in His dealing with us (1 Tim. 1:16). Unlike Louisa, He will never under any circumstances leave His people (Heb. 13:5-6), and will save us not just part-way, but all the way (Heb. 7:25), and will never, every put us out (Jn. 6:37). His love for His people is unfailing, sovereign, invincible (Rom. 8:35-39).

You see, that's real redemption. That's what it is to know God. It is a redemption that finds us as ruined and with nothing whatever to offer (Eph. 2:1ff.). It finds us not even as "fixer-uppers," but as hopeless wrecks. Yet there is hope for the hopeless, and that only because the Redeemer Himself brings it (Eph. 2:4-10). It is a redemption that begins with us in the very worst condition, and never rests in the good and joy and blessing and recovery that it brings us, not even to the endless ages of eternity.

Now, that is a redemption. Unfortunately, like Louisa, today's authors and screenwriters as a rule do not have that redemption themselves.

And so, like Louisa, they cannot offer what they do not possess.

Why don't I write something about the election?

Because I don't need to.

Tom Chantry did it for me.

Read him. I'm likely to have more to say, but Chantry's the best I've read, and I'm content with: "What he said."

This also works.

What re-electing Barack Obama would mean

I started a Twitter hash-tag: #WhatReelectingObamaWouldMean.

It's a last-ditch effort to get people to think. If you are working to re-elect Barack Obama, either by voting for him or by not voting for him or by voting for anyone other than Mitt Romney, this is what you are actually saying in the real world. I'll update it later with new additions. If you're on Twitter, join in and retweet.

Ahhh, kids and their dreams (Obamerica edition)

It's all good, but 0:58 is hysterical.

Church size, influence, and significance

I'll be brief:

Remember that none of the churches in the New Testament had their own building.

Remember that most of the churches envisioned in the New Testament could fit into a house.

And yet...

The churches in the New Testament managed to tilt their world.

What does that tell us?

Blond-haired, blue-eyed conservative Palin-loving Christian terrorist?

In PR terms, Christmas has come early for the Left/MSM: they have found a terrorist to whom they can attach "far-right" conservatism, fundamentalist Christianity, and the name of Sarah Palin. It's a propaganda trifecta.

Independent thinkers will quickly recall the groundless media swarm over murderer Jared Loughner, and will wonder if this narrative isn't a bit too convenient. However, I have a simple thought to offer, which I believe I'll never be in any danger of having to withdraw or modify.

Let's say the perpetrator of this appalling act is a Christian. In fact, let's say he's a fundamental, orthodox, Calvinistic Christian of impeccable testimony (before this atrocity). Further, let's say he thinks the American Constitution is the embodiment of political wisdom. Let's say he's donated $55 billion to the Tea Party movement in America, and another $55 billion to Sarah Palin's PAC. And let's finally stipulate that he eats and drinks Madison, Jefferson, and Adams, and is appalled at Obama and the Democratic Party in America.

HSAT:

• There will be no large public celebratory demonstrations of support from fundamental, orthodox, Calvinistic Christians. None. Zero.
• There will be no large public celebratory demonstrations of support from GOP stalwarts, or any other sorts of American conservatives. None. Zero.
• There will be no large public celebratory demonstrations of support from Tea Party members. None. Zero.
• There will be no large public celebratory demonstrations of support from Sarah Palin or her supporters. None. Zero.
• There will be, instead, universal condemnation of any murderous, terroristic acts from all of the above.

In fact, let me be the first. As a card-carrying CalviDispieBaptoGelical who admires the Constitution, thinks generally well of Sarah Palin, thinks Obama is an appalling man-child wholly unequal to holding the office of American President, and recognizes that the Democratic Party sums up everything that's wrong about America, I unconditionally condemn the Oslo terrorist acts, assuming they're being reported accurately. (Sad that one has to add that qualifier, but one must.)

In this, I'll just be one of many.

That's the difference, and it's all-important. Even if this person holds all the opinions detailed above, his action was in spite of them, and not because of them.

Unlike other monsters and their genuinely monstrous worldviews.

UPDATE: as I anticipated, the story may not be so simple, and some questions need answering.

Michele Bachmann and husband "accused"!

Onoes!

Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann and her husband are accused! Of what? Child abuse? No. Theft? No. Murder? No. Adultery, abusing a subordinate, lying under oath? No; though if she were, that would make her a good presidential candidate for the other party. But, regardless, no.

No, it is much much worse. Michele Bachmann and her husband are accused of being genuine, practicing, Bible-believing Christians! In public!  (Audience: gasp!)

Okay, that isn't the exact wording of the headline. As the political commentary item in the Los Angeles Times actually has it — and I am not making this up — here it is: Michele Bachmann's clinic accused of trying to straighten out gays. Breathlessly relating that there are accusations and proof, proof!, that Christian counselors in a Christian clinic gave counsel aimed at helping people find freedom from homosexual obsessions.

The author snidely observes, "It will be curious to see whether the allegations damage the momentum Bachmann has enjoyed over the last few weeks." Right. Because...?

In their reporting, ABC and NBC evidently made use of material deceptively obtained by a homosexuality advocacy group. As usual, they presented only one side in a positive light and, as usual, it was the anti-God side.

The UK's Daily Mail is no less breathless: 'Pray away the gay': Michele Bachmann and her husband accused of using fake treatments to 'cure' gay people.  One wonders many things. First, did they really say this? Second, what makes them "fake treatments"? Third, of course, what would be the "genuine treatments" that would help people find freedom from perverted passions? The Mail is, evidently, the authority on such issues.

However, one reads the extraordinarily biased article for answers in vain. All one receives is shocked, shocked reports of Christians practicing Christianity, unsourced quotations, and howlers like this: the idea that God created us to be heterosexual or that prayer can bring freedom "has been rubbished by psychiatrists who say that it can be incredibly damaging for a gay person to hear." Right! Because psychiatry is monolithic, all psychiatrists have reached final agreement on everything, and psychiatrists purvey sheerly objective truth that is only resisted by knuckle-dragging troglodytes.

Or, in other words, Christians.

So here it is again: sincere Christianity disqualifies from holding public office. Only hypocritical professors such as Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, whose ideology is contrary to Biblical truth, are permitted.

I have no opinion about the Bachmann candidacy. I like who hates her; that's a "plus" for me. In this media-manufactured crisis, she is being depicted as running away from the issue, refusing to answer questions.

I do not know where Bachmann stands on many spiritual issues; however, if the reports are accurate, I think Bachmann is making  a mistake. She should not allow herself to be put on the defensive.  I have offered similar thoughts in the past here and here and here.

In fact, I'll just close with an edited form of what I wrote more than three years ago.

---

Were I a Presidential candidate, I think I simply wouldn't allow myself to be manipulated into doing one thing or another about [the MSM Thing of the Day]. When the MSM asked their stupid "gotcha" questions, I'd just reject the questions and replace them with germane, relevant, worthwhile questions.

First, I'd say something like, "I'm not really running as theologian-in-chief."

Then when they'd pester me — as they surely would — I'd say

So what are you asking? Am I a Christian? Yes. Do I believe the Bible? Yes. Do I support full Constitutional rights for people who are neither Christian nor Bible-believing? Yes. Now, here is my question for you in the mainstream media: is the American public at large really pressing you to pursue this issue? Or are they more concerned about the ruin that President Obama has done to our economy, morale, and international standing? Have you figured out yet why the mainstream media is held in such universal contempt, and do you think maybe this is a classic example? Is it your agenda to make it hard only for Bible-believing Christians allowed to run for public office? Are only hypocritical Christians allowed to hold office? Will you be grilling all the candidates and office-holders of both parties and on all tiers on this issue? On what other similar issues will you be demanding specifics — abortion, adultery, lying, theft, rape? What experts will you rely on? How will you choose them? Or could we perhaps get back to discussing political philosophy and political proposals?

I simply would not allow the MSM to control the conversation.

And the MSM would hate me.

But I'd be able to look in the mirror every morning and say, "Look! It's still me!"

---

Voting skin-color

It's risky even to talk about this, but it needs to become more and more of an item for open discussion. (Deep breath.) Here we go.

I was pumping gas the other day, and saw a fellow-customer doing the same. She had a more generous helping of melanin than I. On noting the obvious I thought, truly sadly, "Here's the thing: just looking at you, if every poll on the subject is to be trusted, I have a good guess at who you voted for in the last Presidential election, if you voted. But looking at me, you have no idea. What is wrong with that picture?"

To answer my own question, everything is wrong with that picture.


Worse still, we all know that in many cases skin-color trumped Christian conviction. I know of one Christ-loving, Bible-preaching church, some of whose members' cars sported Obama stickers, even though Obama's distinctive values and goals were (and are) at loggerheads with Biblical values and goals.

Now, all my cards are already all over the table for God and everyone to see, so let's say it again: I am happy that a black* man won the Presidency. I am unhappy that this particular black man won the presidency. I have zero issue with his skin-color. I have truckloads of issues with his ideology and worldview.

One last, before I move on: I have never in my life even considered skin-color as a deciding factor in formulating my voting selection. God forbid I ever do. The Christian perspective is that God "made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place" (Acts 17:26). We all share the same Creator, and the same great-great-great grampa.

What is more (and, if possible, more important) God fundamentally only sees two humanities. They have nothing whatever to do with skin-color or place of origin. They have everything to do with representative heads (Romans 5:12-21).

So here's Henry Alford, who is president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, blasting Obama's policies as Marxist, admitting that he voted for Obama because he was black, and saying it was the worst decision he ever made in his life. Alford is not an across-the-board conservative, but his eyes appear to have opened, and the aroma of coffee has brushed across his olfactory senses.

(My focus starts about 3:50, ends about 6:16)

May Alford's tribe increase exponentially and rapidly. Our nation depends on it.

Content of character and, in this case, ideology, folks. Not color of skin.

---

*To remind you: Obama is as white as he is black. He decided to throw his white mother under the bus for political expediency. Nice. Me, I wish he'd trashed the skin-color issue, and made it a non-issue. Could have done America a great favor. But Barack Obama has never really been about doing America any favors. As a liberal it worked better for Obama to make a lot of it, because liberals tend to be racists.

You can be a Christian. Just not, you know, out loud. Or in public.

Atheists (and other similars) have the muzzy idea that "tolerance" is good, and "diversity" is good. So they say they believe in both. After all, they certainly wish to be tolerated, to say the least.

But then — as we've seen in metas right here in BibChr City — those same people turn around and tell Christians they shouldn't actually say what they believe, right out loud, in public. They surely shouldn't vote it, do it, live it, let it be heard in the public square. And as the dialogue continues, one gains the impression that they're really not comfortable even with allowing the thinking of such contrarian thoughts as the Biblical worldview creates.

So, as I've said: go be a Christian in church, in specially-marked neighborhoods, at low decibels.

Just not in public — as Robert Knight further documents.

Phil Johnson's experience: absolutely infuriating

I assume you know Phil Johnson. If not, welcome to Earth, we hope you enjoy your stay and please don't annihilate us.

I know Phil, and count him a dear friend. So when I step back and look at this bad and dangerous world, and then focus back in on the treatment Phil received at the hands of TSA thugs — not in Saudi Arabia or North Korea, but here, on American soil — I am very angry.

Then when you add in this CNN report on how the TSA doubles-down to punish free citizens' dissent... the needle goes well up into the "red" zone.

Bryan Preston is right. That isn't about terrorists. It doesn't target our enemies. It is about punishing dissent.

I know it's been said, I know it's cliché, I know it no longer deserves the status of deep insight — but it's true:

The terrorists have scored limitless victories on our freedoms post-9/11 without firing one shot or spending one dime.

And we state-indoctrinated sheeple just roll over and take it. What do we do? Some of us occasionally have to travel by air. We haven't the time or money to drive or sail or bus or use the trains.

Or go back to Phil, or Lig Duncan, or Don Carson, or John Piper, or John MacArthur. Should those brothers and mentors just stop attending conferences more than 100 miles from their homes, because they don't want to be — or don't want their wives to be — felt up by blue-gloved goons? Is that where we're heading? "Sorry to decline your invitation to speak, but I've decided to keep my privates private."

Who could blame them?

I project myself forward to the coming trip to England (DV). My dear wife already had a totally gratuitous, infuriating experience in an airport a few years back in my absence. It may be a blessing of sorts that I wasn't there. Dead-serious: I might have an arrest-record today, if I had been there. I will tolerate things done (or said) to me that I will not tolerate said or done to my wife or children or, for that matter, my friends. So, as God is my witness, when I consider the prospect of some smug operative beginning to invade, harass, and handle her... I'm afraid I wouldn't make my appointment.

What can we do?

So we stand by and watch the state-sanctioned sexual abuse of our friends, our wives, our children, ourselves. What can we do?

These gropebots have the sanction of the State. Plus, if we tick them off, they can fine us up to $10,000.

Or arrest us.

Let me put it to you: Phil is not a private, unknown quantity. There is zero percent chance that he poses a threat to national security or anything the TSA is supposed to care about. Yet he is singled out for this sort of punishing sexual molestation. Do you feel safer now? As you tuck your children in tonight, are you comforted by the thought that folks like Phil (and housewives and children and your wife and grandmother) are being felt-up for no rational reason, with the State's smiling approval?

Something has got to change. You'd think one of our prominent political leaders would stand up and do something.

But that would require a clue and a spine. Which may be asking too much.

Government schools and the erosion of the American vision

I open with several Pre-Rant Disclaimers:

1. My entire pre-Christian education was in government schools, and most of my educational deficiencies are wholly my fault, not on my teachers'.
2. My parents were terrific people who did the very best by me that they knew to do, and I am grateful to them. I trusted my kids to state schools, too... at first. This has nothing to do with finding fault with my parents.
3. I am not about to argue that there are no fine educators in the state education camp system. In fact, probably my best teacher anywhere ever was Earl Livingood at Glendale Community College.
4. I am not about to argue that Christian parents sin if they send their children to government education schools; that is their decision — though it is my opinion that it should be the distant-last choice, if ever.

So the adults have finally arrived. Democrats have been in charge of legislation and budgetary matters for years, and they have ruined us. Bush, though far better than the current occupant of the WH, was no principled conservative, and the GOP under his leadership was no model of fiscal constraint or constitutional principles.

But the adults are here. Representative Paul Ryan has proposed a budget that would head America in the general direction of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers' vision of a limited government. Calling our current dilemma the "most predictable crisis in the history of our country," Ryan does what the Dem leaders have failed even to attempt: map a path forward that does not depend wholly on confiscatory taxation and deficit spending.

But that isn't really my point.

Dems responded predictably with the usual slanders of the GOP killing people and throwing seniors and The Children^TM into the streets to die slow deaths of starvation and disease. Particularly at the present moment, in the wake of President Obama and the Dems' unwillingness to engage seriously and the looming possibility of a (temporary!) Federal government "shutdown," apocalyptic nightmare visions are being invoked.

Now we're near my point. Just stop and think of that. It is the Dem/liberal premise that the government must confiscate the earnings of productive people and control the lives of all citizens. It has that right, and it has that responsibility. If the government does not do those things for us — control, decide, and provide — death and chaos and destruction are inevitable and invariable results.

In a healthier day, the nation would have rebelled in horror at such a suggestion. This is exactly what our forefathers fought and died to prevent. The role outlined above is a proper role — for God primarily, and for our parents in our childhoods secondarily. However, the innate urge of fallen man is not for freedom, as Bush² imagined, but for power and control and godhood. It started in Genesis 3, and it is still our main problem.

So why don't people rebel today? I have no confidence that the Ryan plan will prevail, or that the principled leaders in Wisconsin will retain their offices, or that tomorrow in America will be any brighter than today. Why not?

Because citizens have been conditioned from childhood to accept statist paternalism.

I see the remnants in my own heart. You will sometimes read that this or that supplement, medicine or technology is "used by the government," or that it is "government-tested and approved." A dwindling part of my consciousness responds positively, as if government-approved means everything. It means that this item/procedure has gone through the most rigorous and omnicompetent testing in gleaming labs run by the very topmost minds in the world. And now it is being offered to my trembling, grateful hands.

Now I know that the precise opposite is likelier the case. But where did I ever get this notion?

I got it where most Americans get it. I started getting it when my mother first left me off (crying, scared) at some government-run institution, trusting me to their care. I started getting it in the kind, benevolent, caring faces of Miss This and Mrs. That and Mr. TheOtherThing, to whom my parents entrusted me for the greater part of every weekday. They told me what and how to think, and how to act. They watched out for me, They cared about my health and nutrition. They were my benevolent caretakers from my early single-digits to my seventeenth year.

So after all: our parents left us there. Our parents loved us. If our parents trusted them to care for us and tell us how and what to think, shouldn't we trust them too?

And so for most Americans, the first face of the State is not a power-mad bureaucrat crushing out all freedom and initiative and individuality. Well, it is, but they don't recognize it, because it is represented by the friendly, caring face of a teacher, assuring them (as state education bureaucrats assured my dear wife and me, in our last meeting with them) that theirs is a "holistic" approach, and that "everything that concerns the child, concerns Us."

That is why there is not an instant national revolution when an Obama or a Reid or a Pelosi rises up and intones dire warnings that, without the government's absolute iron-fisted control of everything, all will be lost, and outlines plans for more and more state control and dictation in yet more and more of our lives, including not only our actions but our thoughts and words.

We have been conditioned, from childhood, to think of the state as our friend and caretaker... basically, not to put too fine a point on it, as our god.

This serves the Dems well. We expect The State to care for us, provide for us, guide us, control us. They're happy to oblige. When conservatives speak of freedom, liberty, and responsibility, those concepts are lost on us. It feels like they are simply abdicating their responsibility. If they don't care for us, people will die. If they don't tell us what to do and how to live, there will be chaos.

And here's the real irony: liberals utterly fail at the more Biblically-rational, Constitutionally/Declaration-defined responsibilities, laid out by men whose worldview was at least framed by a broadly Biblical understanding of man and society. They don't protect the borders, and they don't assure rule-of-law justice in the courts; they don't stand for life, liberty, or the pursuit of (not state-defined-and-provided) happiness.

That's why I'm hopeful and determined, but not entirely optimistic. When I hear leaders and talkers say, as they must, that the American people are smart and all that, I can't agree. If they were that smart, there would have been no Clinton 1, and certainly no Clinton 2, and certainly no Obama; let alone Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Shumer, Snowe, Chaffee, and the like. The fleebaggers in Wisconsin would be on their way out of office. And on and on.

But I don't see signs that Americans at large really get it.

And for that, in part, I blame the state-government conditioning we underwent for the most formative years of our lives. Machen saw it with crystal-clarity, more than 80 years ago:

Place the lives of children in their formative years, despite convictions of their parents, under the intimate control of experts appointed by the state, force them to attend schools where the higher aspirations of humanity are crushed out, and where the mind is filled with the materialism of the day, and it is difficult to see how even the remnants of liberty can subsist. Such a tyrrany, supported as it is by a perverse technique used as the instrument in destroying human souls, is certainly far more dangerous than the crude tyrannies of the past....

Do offer your thoughts, but do me a favor and review the Disclaimers at the top, just one more time.

Sproul throws down on the cult of pluralism

"If all religions are equally good, then one stands out as terribly bad, and that is Christianity, because Christianity has no time for pluralism. It sees one way only. Now that is downright un-American. Sometimes you have to make a decision where your allegiance is going to be—with the secular culture or with the One whom God sent into the world as your Redeemer" (R. C. Sproul, Acts [Crossway: 2010], 318)

Andrew Klavan: the road to Hell

His point is largely secular and political... but isn't there a legit bank-shot for similar spiritual wrongheadedness?